Everyone wants to get that film look from their shots. I am wondering why more people don't shoot on film cameras? You can buy a 16MM camera for not much more than you would on a high-end DV camera. Is it from all the other costs associated with shooting on film and post-production or is it cause of ease of editing DV footage on a computer?
If you want that film look, why don't you do film?
- Thread starter TRIPxCORE
- Start date
Jared Meyer
Veteran
Yes.
phd
Well-known member
btownproductions
Well-known member
Exactly... I'd love to shoot in 16mm, you can get a pretty common S16 camera for under $400, but the costs of film stock and developing film far outweighs the cost of shooting video. Plus, I've never tried shooting film, but I'd imagine there is a much higher learning curve as far as getting the proper exposure, etc. It would probably take a fair bit of trial and error to get your shots right if you are unfamilliar with film, since you can't just rewind your tape or format your card when shooting on film.
I believe it's between $50-100 for a 100 foot roll of film, which translates into about 3 minutes of footage at 24fps, take into account that your talent probably won't get every shot perfect on the first take, and most films are longer than 3 minutes long, that price could add up pretty quickly. And that's not even including developing costs.
A while back I thought about shooting some 16mm, but I decided since I don't know much about film other than some photography classes in high school, it wouldn't be worth it to me. For now digital is good enough for me.
I believe it's between $50-100 for a 100 foot roll of film, which translates into about 3 minutes of footage at 24fps, take into account that your talent probably won't get every shot perfect on the first take, and most films are longer than 3 minutes long, that price could add up pretty quickly. And that's not even including developing costs.
A while back I thought about shooting some 16mm, but I decided since I don't know much about film other than some photography classes in high school, it wouldn't be worth it to me. For now digital is good enough for me.
Exposure isn't too hard to learn if you have a decent light meter. It tells you anyway. But, as the OP and following posts already discovered, the higher cost and higher difficulty in workflow makes digital a more common choice. I'm also fine with the video look in a lot of situations, personally.
dory_breaux
Todd Wannabe
Yeah, um, 50bucks for 2.3 minutes of footage? no. If i were rich, maybe.
I've done it once, a 100 foot cost $40 and it will run for 2:30 minutes.
I bought 200 foot and shoot 5 minutes worth of film and it ended just like that!!!
developing and transfering cost like $200 but we all gathered our film together and turned it in so it cost me like $70.
so over all I spend about $150 for just 5 minutes worth of footage.
That's with all Student discount so it will cost more for most people, plust the hard part is that you won't be able to see your footage until 2 or 3 weeks later after you shoot....
I know I won't do that again...
I bought 200 foot and shoot 5 minutes worth of film and it ended just like that!!!
developing and transfering cost like $200 but we all gathered our film together and turned it in so it cost me like $70.
so over all I spend about $150 for just 5 minutes worth of footage.
That's with all Student discount so it will cost more for most people, plust the hard part is that you won't be able to see your footage until 2 or 3 weeks later after you shoot....
I know I won't do that again...
mburgh
Active member
Film is lovely, film smells better than most people, film looks great, but even Super 8 can run you into bankruptcy. Digital Video, especially the DVX and its brother cameras looks better than most film and with careful use, rivals 35mm. But the one thing that makes DV better than film, cheaper than film, and less maddening than film is not the WYSIWYG of the capture, but the ease of getting sound and picture together. I gather you haven't try to sync up film to sound stock on a Steenbeck, or worse a Moviola. Sound transfer costs alone for a feature film would buy a HVX and give you hours of picture and sound in perfect sync.
The issue of edit on NLE's is also a strong argument for DV, but most films shot today, including 16mm and Super 8 are telecined down to MiniDV or other media to be cut off-line. Believe me, if you've edited film, sound, and efx on a Steenbeck, or worse, a moviela, you would never consider going back.
I shoot film still - Super 8, and I love the look.
Look, I just finished shooting a documentary. 32 hours of sound and image. What did it cost me? about 500 dollars. Same shoot on film? 25,000 or more, considering all I'd have is a cheap work print to cut, let alone syncing, an answer print, negative cutting and matching, another answer print. This is giving me a migraine.
If you have infinite resources, go ahead and shoot film. But I can get more done better with my old DVX than I ever could with the Bolexs and Arries I used.
Mister Stocks
Well-known member
Post is so expensive, and if your smart, you'll edit on video anyway, so why pay the money to have it transferred to video when you can capture it on video? I do think that eventually digital will overtake film but film will always remain as an option. It will be a style thing. I think the real trick isn't to make video look like film, but to make video aesthetically pleasing.
dory_breaux
Todd Wannabe
Actually I'm right where I want to be.
The "dv camera trying to emulate film" is exactly the look I'm after.
thats why you shoot 30p isnt it.
kidwoo
Well-known member
Capt Quirk
Veteran
Film may cost more than tape in the initial purchase, but when you figure in the cost of the 35mm adapters, rods, and a few hundred dollars in the precious P2 cards, the gap narrows. Plus, you never read post after post after post from a film user asking "How do I get the film look?".
dory_breaux
Todd Wannabe
Those days are over.
24pA fo life!!
Good, cause I wouldda jacked a Hummer and come up there and run you over if you were still using 30p.
Speaking of coming up there, I'll be up on the Saturday before I start work in emegrent gap, lets go ride N* or film some ****.
kidwoo
Well-known member
Okay, now for my two cents worth: I've done some 16mm work in the past and I personally prefer the look of film. Film just has a more natural, organic look to it. Unfortunately, as everyone else has said, shooting on film costs way too much for my budget. A 100 ft. roll lasts a little over 2 1/2 minutes, but you don't actually get that much usable footage, what with the time needed for the slate at either end of a shot. Further, if you are using a spring wound camera, about 35 seconds per wind is all you're going to get, minus ten to fifteen seconds for the slate. So, you might get 1 1/2 minutes of useful footage out of a $44.00, 100ft. roll.
Then there are other costs:
Developing the negative----------$0.12 per foot
Printing the work print..................0.15 per foot
Film editing.................................90.00 per hour (unless you have an editing table of your own ($1000.00, used)
Answer print.................................0.20 per foot
After the above, you still have the internegative and release prints to pay for.
Then, of course, there are more equipment expenses such as an editing table if you want to edit your film yourself; a projector for viewing the work and answer prints; sound equipment for capturing your production sound (unless you shoot everything MOS for silent films) and the list goes on.
I used to shoot a lot of 16mm stuff years ago when film was all that was available (nothing professional, just "home movie" type of stuff). Eventually, the costs and the hassles of shooting on film just got to be too much and I quit. Last year, my son started taking a filmmaking course, so I dusted off all my old stuff for him to use. However, I soon learned that the course is all digital. But the genie was out of the bottle and I got the old bug again. I decided that I would get back into filmmaking again. That is, until I rediscovered just how expensive it is to shoot on film. The total cost of a 10 to 15 minute 16mm film would be in the neighborhood of $2500 to $3000!
And that is for JUST ONE FILM!
My son pointed out that, for that amount of money, I could get a new Panasonic DVX100B and an editing program for my computer that, together, could do practically everything a 16mm camera and all of its attendant accessories and lab services could do.
So, I started selling off all my old 16mm equipment and got enough to buy a DVX100B and an older version of Adobe Premier Elements (1.0). Now, I can shoot as many movies as I want, of whatever length I want, for not much more than the price of the tapes used. I use Fujifilm tapes, primarily because I've always gotten excellent performance from Fujifilm products. They've never let me down.
I don't use anything like a 35mm adapter or anamorphic lens or such. I use just use the basic DVX100B, a tripod and a couple of filters. With this simple setup, I get exactly what I want as far as "the film look" goes. With the DVX100B, you don't really have to have a lot of fancy gear to go with it to make good movies. That camera is capable of doing a lot more than I am, let me tell you! Now, all I have to do is learn how to use it to its full potential.
Now, if any of you die-hard filmmakers out there still want to do your work on film, my hat is off to you. I wish you fair winds and good luck. By the way, I still have a Bell & Howell Filmo DR70 in great condition I will sell you. It has three viewfinder lenses, a Pan Cinor 17.5mm-70mm zoom lens and an adapter to allow the use of K-mount 35mm lenses.
As for me, I have all I need is my DVX100B!
Then there are other costs:
Developing the negative----------$0.12 per foot
Printing the work print..................0.15 per foot
Film editing.................................90.00 per hour (unless you have an editing table of your own ($1000.00, used)
Answer print.................................0.20 per foot
After the above, you still have the internegative and release prints to pay for.
Then, of course, there are more equipment expenses such as an editing table if you want to edit your film yourself; a projector for viewing the work and answer prints; sound equipment for capturing your production sound (unless you shoot everything MOS for silent films) and the list goes on.
I used to shoot a lot of 16mm stuff years ago when film was all that was available (nothing professional, just "home movie" type of stuff). Eventually, the costs and the hassles of shooting on film just got to be too much and I quit. Last year, my son started taking a filmmaking course, so I dusted off all my old stuff for him to use. However, I soon learned that the course is all digital. But the genie was out of the bottle and I got the old bug again. I decided that I would get back into filmmaking again. That is, until I rediscovered just how expensive it is to shoot on film. The total cost of a 10 to 15 minute 16mm film would be in the neighborhood of $2500 to $3000!
And that is for JUST ONE FILM!
My son pointed out that, for that amount of money, I could get a new Panasonic DVX100B and an editing program for my computer that, together, could do practically everything a 16mm camera and all of its attendant accessories and lab services could do.
So, I started selling off all my old 16mm equipment and got enough to buy a DVX100B and an older version of Adobe Premier Elements (1.0). Now, I can shoot as many movies as I want, of whatever length I want, for not much more than the price of the tapes used. I use Fujifilm tapes, primarily because I've always gotten excellent performance from Fujifilm products. They've never let me down.
I don't use anything like a 35mm adapter or anamorphic lens or such. I use just use the basic DVX100B, a tripod and a couple of filters. With this simple setup, I get exactly what I want as far as "the film look" goes. With the DVX100B, you don't really have to have a lot of fancy gear to go with it to make good movies. That camera is capable of doing a lot more than I am, let me tell you! Now, all I have to do is learn how to use it to its full potential.
Now, if any of you die-hard filmmakers out there still want to do your work on film, my hat is off to you. I wish you fair winds and good luck. By the way, I still have a Bell & Howell Filmo DR70 in great condition I will sell you. It has three viewfinder lenses, a Pan Cinor 17.5mm-70mm zoom lens and an adapter to allow the use of K-mount 35mm lenses.
As for me, I have all I need is my DVX100B!
Last edited:
Capt Quirk
Veteran
I used to develop film in School, granted it was film for a still camera, but wouldn't it be pretty much the same developing 40' as it would a strip of 24 still pics?
Capt., the shortest length of motion picture film is the 100ft. daylight spool. Yes, if you are going to develop black and white film only, there are kits for home developing of the negative. But then, all you have is a developed negative, not a finished, viewable film. For that , you still need to have a work print done and that has to be done on a machine designed for that purpose.
Color negative film is a completely different matter and I don't think it would be feasible to do it in a home darkroom setup. Especially the work print, which still has to be done on a special machine.
Using reversal film (like that used for slides and old-fashioned home movies) is simpler and cheaper, but it can't be done at home and all you get is one print, no negative. If you want any copies, it has to be sent to a lab where they make an internegative from which copies can be printed.
There is a reason that motion picture film is not said to be "developed." It is "processed."
While it might be argued that, for the production of one film, the cost difference between film and DV might be small, that is only when you are considering just one film. One might spend a comparable amount on DV camera, lens adapters and other accessories, at the outset, as another might spend on a production using film, the big difference is that, once the project is in the can, the DV filmmaker can go on to make another film for just the price of tapes. The "film" filmaker has to start all over again, with all same film and processing expenses, for each and every project he wants to do.
Besides, the DVX100B can be set up to so closely match the output of a S16mm camera that the difference is scarcely noticeable, even without the use of add-ons.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-film. I love film and would love to be able to use it for my projects. It's just not economically feasible, especially with the DVX100B available to give me results that are very, very close to that "film look."
Color negative film is a completely different matter and I don't think it would be feasible to do it in a home darkroom setup. Especially the work print, which still has to be done on a special machine.
Using reversal film (like that used for slides and old-fashioned home movies) is simpler and cheaper, but it can't be done at home and all you get is one print, no negative. If you want any copies, it has to be sent to a lab where they make an internegative from which copies can be printed.
There is a reason that motion picture film is not said to be "developed." It is "processed."
While it might be argued that, for the production of one film, the cost difference between film and DV might be small, that is only when you are considering just one film. One might spend a comparable amount on DV camera, lens adapters and other accessories, at the outset, as another might spend on a production using film, the big difference is that, once the project is in the can, the DV filmmaker can go on to make another film for just the price of tapes. The "film" filmaker has to start all over again, with all same film and processing expenses, for each and every project he wants to do.
Besides, the DVX100B can be set up to so closely match the output of a S16mm camera that the difference is scarcely noticeable, even without the use of add-ons.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-film. I love film and would love to be able to use it for my projects. It's just not economically feasible, especially with the DVX100B available to give me results that are very, very close to that "film look."