16mm today, worth it?

City of God looked great on S16 and I always push for it on my projects. Film will always have a life to it that digital will not beable to mimic. But if I had a choice of shooting S16 without a DI, than to shoot HD with a DI... you bet I'm going with the HD.
 
Dean Bull said:
Super 16 is still better than HD for features that can afford it -- the reasons, I have no doubt, have been discussed here countless times.
Click to expand...

Ah... :huh: that's become subjective over recent times.
 
Super 16mm still has a much better aesthetic than Varicam. You've got to go to Genesis levels to beat it.

Still, if you are doing a video game kind of flick, HD, even low-end like the hvx, might work as well.

Rent the film equipment though. In fact, unless you are pro DP, better to rent ANYTHING that costs more than 10k.
 
DV and low end HD is a great learning tool. I think that film as a primary capture format has a decade left, so you really need to know both film and video if you plan on working, especially as a shooter, for the next ten years, you better know both. Shooting film teaches discipline because it's hard and expensive. Shooting high end HD takes a lot of skill also. The "what you see, what you get" aspect makes it a bit easier than film, but matching film's look with HD is a tall order.

All that said, if you want to learn how to shoot film, either get a K3 or a inexpensive Bolex (under $600) and start playing around telling stories with pictures only or limited sound. If you want to shoot fullblown movies with lots of dialogue, hunt down a CP-16.

I am saddened by the demise of Standard 16 as a capture medium. I think if you're going to a standard TV image, it's still very good, but everybody is stuck on dreaming of the big screen even when there's no chance. My Arri SRI has been sitting in my closet for over a year.

I just shot a feature on Super-16 and was blown away by how great it looks with the new Kodak 7218 (500T). It looks as good as 35mm I shot several years ago.

I still love the aesthetic of film over HD, but realize that HD is becoming a viable tool.

Scott
 
would I? If I? what if? Hell, my ass is poor! I'm sticking with digital!





film is always great but damn it I can't afford it! Shooting Star Wars on film wouldn't even made a difference! Content!
 
has anyone seen Paradox? A new film from Standard Films? It's a snowboarding film. I believe it's shot on 16mm as most of the snowboard films are. Check out a trailer here: www.standardfilms.com. If you can get that look on video I'll be astonished. Another good reason to shoot on film is for the overcranked look. That's the big reason for film.
 
cellulararrest said:
has anyone seen Paradox? A new film from Standard Films? It's a snowboarding film. I believe it's shot on 16mm as most of the snowboard films are. Check out a trailer here: www.standardfilms.com. If you can get that look on video I'll be astonished. Another good reason to shoot on film is for the overcranked look. That's the big reason for film.
Click to expand...

"The big reason for film".

Yeah, overcranking is cool, but I think that resolution, lattitude, color rendition, the gamma curve and texture of film count for a lot also.

The bottom line is that film is more expensive and we have modern video cameras that have more than acceptable image making capabilities for most users. If you took a poll of the individuals on this board, I would bet MOST would want to be shooting film.

16MM today, worth it. You bet!!
 
I definitely agree with you. There's just no comparison to the latitude negative film gives you. It's just one of those things you can tell. Whether something has been shot on film or video. There's no comparison. I just wish it wasn't so expensive!
 
Take a look at "Hustle & Flow", shot on S16 with a DI to 35mm film.
Take a look at "November" shot on DVX with a DI to 35mm.

Both shot by great cinematographers, they each told the story with their own palette, but they do not look the same on the big screen.

Michael
 
Its been a long time since I have posted on this board, not much has changed. If you can afford it shoot on film. Shooting film teaches you so many things, too many to go into. Even super8. Learn on film, the skills are tranferable to video, but not the other way round. This is going to piss off a lot of people here but the only thing that the digital revolution has brought is the ability for a lot more people to make a lot more crap. It is sad to here people talk about the death of film. On another note anyone want a used DVX100? You could be the next Lucas.
 
MDKfilms said:
Learn on film, the skills are tranferable to video, but not the other way round. This is going to piss off a lot of people here but the only thing that the digital revolution has brought is the ability for a lot more people to make a lot more crap. It is sad to here people talk about the death of film. On another note anyone want a used DVX100? You could be the next Lucas.
Click to expand...

Ah… no hard feelings there chap, it’s alright. People will make crap with what ever medium they choose to use. In the music industry it's digital versus analog, whereas in movie making you have the digital vs. film. In all they carry some weight of their own power to production. Nevertheless, with this said MDK, no one here seems to be talking about whether or not they believe that 24P video is going to make them a Lucas. However, keep in mind that because of 24P video you at least can know if you are a George Lucas quicker and cheaper, instead of knowing you’re not while bankrupt. :thumbsup: :laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top