Red Ruination Blue - a production blog

that sounds a little too easy. the last few years i been debating on shooting film but i can't stand not having dallies, i always go home when shooting to look at all the footage. living in the east coast there's nothing out here. i know it isn't that big of a deal but this film stuff is really turning me on ahhh
 
ah man, I saw him hold up the scalpel and thought "uh oh, he's got that look on his face like something crazy's about to go down"

looked pretty good to me, wouldn't mind seeing the whole thing.
 
taormina said:
All this talk of 35mm makes me nostalgic. Here is a clip of my first short - the 35mm "The Ensnaring". We shot this over four days back in early '06 in a little cabin type house in Laguna Beach. The short is 15 minutes long...what's posted here is the final scene in the bathroom.

It was supposed to be a little horror / thriller deal. We shot it on an Arri BL3 (that belongs to my DP) on Kodak 5279 stock.

The short kinda sucks, It has it's moments but it's too slow for my liking. I don't like many of the shots, I've learned so much.....the ending really is the best.

In any case, here's the ending in all it's glory.

Warning: If you cut it up too bad I'm going to ask to see your first short!!!:)

http://www.vimeo.com/3033966

Yes, it's very weird!
Click to expand...

was that somebody's tongue he stuck in his stomach wound??? lol, that cat looked like he had some issues. my first short got picked to pieces so i don't cut up nobody's work.

how much did it cost you to do that 15 min short on film? i'd been toying with the idea of doing a 5 or 10 min short on film just to get the experience, but i havent done enough research on it yet to know what it all entails. all i know is HD at this point.
 
FilmBoy77 said:
was that somebody's tongue he stuck in his stomach wound??? lol, that cat looked like he had some issues. my first short got picked to pieces so i don't cut up nobody's work.

how much did it cost you to do that 15 min short on film? i'd been toying with the idea of doing a 5 or 10 min short on film just to get the experience, but i havent done enough research on it yet to know what it all entails. all i know is HD at this point.
Click to expand...


It was somebody's body part. Yeah, weird.

That short cost me 35K. There is no real low budget way to do film when you look at the processing, the post house and sound work, and crew. It actually had every bit of the same stuff that went into Corrado. Mucho bigo budgeto. Was a mistake I will never repeat, but I got a great tax writeoff and learned a ton.
 
Very spooky video Adam, I like it.


I was just wondering.. how costly is it to buy your own 35mm camera + say a "short" reel?

I hate trying to replicate 35mm or 16mm in post with footage from digital camcorders.

Is it hard to come by without some hefty connections?
 
you can find 35mm cameras on eBay for a few thousand dollars (cheaper than digital cameras LOL).

I shoot with an Arri 2c. There are Russian cameras and old Eyemos for a $1000.

Short ends for 10 to 15 cents per foot. For a few hundred dollars you can shoot a short movie and telecine it. There are people who spend thousands of dollars on digital production, what with 35mm adapters and a myriad of plugins.

Put all that money into film and hold a film strip in your hand the way Hollywood moguls did in the 50s. LOL

check out my website: http://www.releasing.net/filmmaker/

and read all about 35mm filmmaking.
 
Vic's 100% right.

I listed by short ends on this forum for sale - 1200' of 5297 for $150 - no takers, if that gives you an idea.

That's 12 minutes of film.
 
You always reach the right conclusions. Your focus is nearly perfect.
35mm filmmaking requires a little discipline, but it pays off big time.
First time movie makers shooting on digital are fascinated by the fact they can try all kinds of shots; but they end up with so many editorial possibilities that they can't decide what they want anymore. Everyday they change the sequence of shots. Someone comes in and looks at what they're doing and makes a suggestion, "oh, yeah!" Then they re-cut and re-cut.

But if they went by their gut feel or if they had prepared the way they would shoot the movie, they could have noted down the exact shot they were looking for and when directing, they would have said, "cut, print," or "let's do it again."

Then in the editing room, they would have cut the scene according to the continuity notes -- so much simpler, so much more effective, and faster results.

In a few years cinematic art will be dead. Already most movie makers don't know what a director does. A director's main job is to direct the actors. The DP directs the photography; that's why he's called the director of photography -- believe it or not, people.LOL

Anyway, Adam, I'm happy to hear that you're shooting 35mm. Let me recommend academy aperture 35mm anamorphic -- you fabulous quality and you have all the options for output and projection.
 
My DP's last two features he shot were 3 perf Super 35 - at this point that's the way I'm leaning, but I really love the look of anamorphic.

Within the next couple days the script will be locked and the budgeting will begin, so we'll see where we stand on the costs and decide what to do from there.
 
3 perf if efficient use of the negative -- you can frame it as 1.85:1 or even 1.77:1 but the problem with it is that you're locked into doing a DI.

And DI is not the way to go unless you have a lot of CGI and/or special effects, which I don't think your film has.

With the anamorphic 35mm you can strike a print and project the movie on a 70 ft screen. That will impress the hell out of distributors. Just think if you had Corrado on 35mm anamorphic. You'd be in theaters right now. Sorry, don't mean to rub it in, Adam, but don't go by the technology only; look at it from a producer's perspective.

You want to put on your movie, "FILMED IN PANAVISION" don't you?

3 perf isn't Panavision.

Let me know when you get funded. I'll get you 1000 footers for half price :-)
 
filmman said:
I shoot with an Arri 2c. There are Russian cameras and old Eyemos for a $1000.
Click to expand...

We learned on Bolex's in my day - the kind you wind up. LOL. Everyone wanted a "Crystal Sync" Bolex. They were like the cheapest 35mm camera's you could buy at the time. The people with cash got the Arri camera. Now seeing those camera's sold so cheap is like "Wow I could get one of these." But I really love digital. I have friend who has a 35, and an old hand cranker from back in the day (think silent era). He was working with an XL but is probably doing HD now.

-Nate
 
I like digital for the web.

A Bolex is a pretty good camera for shorts and music videos. And if you're shooting a feature even if you're going to a DI anyway.

For that matter even Super-8 is a great way to get the film look. There are really a lot of better options if you're going for the film look.

Personally, when I shoot with my Sony Z1, I want the video look. LOL So I'm not going to put a five pound lens adapter on my camera. What do those things way? !!! They look bigger than the 25-250mm Angenieux Zoom lens even.

Besides shooting video for the web, the digital cameras are great for night shooting without lights. If I have to use even one 100 W light, I'm shooting 35mm, thank you :-)
 
Filmman, I agree with you.

Film forces discipline on the filmmaker. Look at Hitchcock or the Coen Brothers. Lots of pre-planning and very little waste.

I'm putting together a budget for a feature. What are the equipment costs for shooting academy aperture 35mm anamorphic? Do you have to rent the camera and lenses from Panavision?
 
filmman said:
You want to put on your movie, "FILMED IN PANAVISION" don't you?

3 perf isn't Panavision.

Let me know when you get funded. I'll get you 1000 footers for half price :-)
Click to expand...

Yes but ironically Panavision is probably the biggest supplier of 3 perf Super 35 cameras - it's a format widely used in episodic TV.

I love anamorphic. I even suggested it first. My DP has shot it. What we're looking at is all the considerations: Anamorphic requires anamorphic lenses, for starters, which cost more to rent and require more light, being slower than spherical lenses.

Plus they're larger so it makes some moves a little harder, but yes, still int he running.
 
Steven2885 said:
Filmman, I agree with you.

Film forces discipline on the filmmaker. Look at Hitchcock or the Coen Brothers. Lots of pre-planning and very little waste.

I'm putting together a budget for a feature. What are the equipment costs for shooting academy aperture 35mm anamorphic? Do you have to rent the camera and lenses from Panavision?
Click to expand...

No, for anamorphic you don't have to rent from Panavision. Rent any 35mm camera and throw some anamorphic lenses on it. Then buy film. It's impossible to know your equipment costs without knowing how many days, how many cameras, and how much film you're planning on shooting.
 
I'll say this. I wouldn't do TV with film. What I love about 24p DV/HD is the pick up and go quality. You can get in and out of places you just couldn't with a film crew. Like when I did the scene on the train. It was just me and the actress. No one stopped us or cared. If I had went in there, busted out the tripod and had to set up the film and ect, I'm sure someone would've said something. I'm looking at the HF100 now for even more ability to get in and out without problems, plus the light weight cameras can be stuck onto a Stickypod and placed onto an automobile or something like that.

-Nate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top