Going back to film

V

vegasdigitalfilms

Active member
Well guys, I've spent the last 24 years shooting video, with the last decade shooting digital.

It really has been an exciting time, especially with the new 24p cameras coming out, but I have decided to go back to shooting film when clients want the "film look" or I work on a movie.

I recently worked with the Konvas 2M 35mm camera and the images are just stunning. There still is no comparison.

I've shot two features with the DVX100 and it was a blast, but when you compare the footage to real film, there still is a difference.

For the last year or so, I've been trying to save up for either the XLH1 or the HD250, but it's quite a nut, especially when I can get a nice Arriflex BL, or Konvas 35mm for a fraction of the cost.

I know film cost can outweigh 24p, but for what I do, believe it or not, it's still more economical to originate on film, especially when it's Super16. The last feature I worked on is going to cost about $50K to transfer to 35mm. We should've just shot it on 35 to begin with.

This post is in no way trying to start a debate or argument against 24pHD as I will still like to work within the medium as projects call for it, but for feature production, it's going to be film.
 
I agree, I still love film. But unfortunately most of my clients cannot afford to shoot it.

To me, my HVX with the Letus, good lighting and composition, combined with Magic Bullet comes pretty darned close to S16. I used to shoot a lot of S16 but I actually am digging the 35mm depth of field I am getting with the Letus and MB Looks completes the look.

I sometimes do miss the thrill of shooting film though, there is something magical about it that digital video doesn't compare to.

Dan
 
Cameras like a Konvas or BL are so loud as to have to be moved to the next zip code, though.

My next feature will be on film almost certainly, and I do like film. Video has a great place in under 500K movies.


Some directors even like high end video - how about Collateral or Miami Vice for some examples.
 
It all boils down to the end use.

It seems since I've used the DVX or other 24p camera on movies, I just can't be taken seriously unless of course I used the F-900, or the one of the new 100K + cinema cameras.

I still like 24p for smaller projects and most commercial work, but again, for movies it's film for me.
 
vegasdigitalfilms said:
For the last year or so, I've been trying to save up for either the XLH1 or the HD250, but it's quite a nut, especially when I can get a nice Arriflex BL, or Konvas 35mm for a fraction of the cost.

.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about a 16mm arriflex BL....off ebay or something because I don't think you are going to be able to pick up a 35mm BL with lenses for less than $20,000. You might be able to get a BL-1 body for about $10,000
 
vegasdigitalfilms said:
I know film cost can outweigh 24p, but for what I do, believe it or not, it's still more economical to originate on film, especially when it's Super16. The last feature I worked on is going to cost about $50K to transfer to 35mm. We should've just shot it on 35 to begin with.
Click to expand...


I'd question the necessity of a 35mm print. In a LOT of cases in Indieland it's a longshot that a feature ever will have a theatrical release, so usually the question of what format to originate on is answered by the budget and the low likelihood that a print would ever be needed. Is a film print generally considered a deliverable?

.
 
vegasdigitalfilms said:
It all boils down to the end use.

It seems since I've used the DVX or other 24p camera on movies, I just can't be taken seriously unless of course I used the F-900, or the one of the new 100K + cinema cameras.

I still like 24p for smaller projects and most commercial work, but again, for movies it's film for me.
Click to expand...

I get all of your arguments on film except for the one about you being taken seriously. That's your own personal problem, my friend.

I don't know if you've seen my thread on my feature Corrado under user films, but let me tell you I am taken PLENTY seriously by people, and no one has even asked me the format we're shooting on. It's all how you carry yourself.

People have one Oscars and had theatrical distrib on DVX / HVX cameras.

Now if you like film (like I llike film), then you have your reasons for wanting to shoot it, but please don't say no one takes you seriously. It's a bad reflection on you.
 
vegasdigitalfilms said:
I've shot two features with the DVX100 and it was a blast, but when you compare the footage to real film, there still is a difference.
Click to expand...

This is true, and I doubt video will ever look like film, and if you want the 'film look' the best way is to use film. I also, however, think the film look is overrated. Very nice looks can come from digital, if people are willing to accept that different mediums have different qualities. It's a choice in looks people want, but I think that digital seems like a much better format when one looks at it for what it is.

Does this mean you'll be retiring your account for a new forum user name?
 
Get an Eclair NPR or ACL (or an SR if you can swing it) and dont ever look back. Soon I will be doing the same thing.
 
taormina said:
I get all of your arguments on film except for the one about you being taken seriously. That's your own personal problem, my friend.

I don't know if you've seen my thread on my feature Corrado under user films, but let me tell you I am taken PLENTY seriously by people, and no one has even asked me the format we're shooting on. It's all how you carry yourself.

People have one Oscars and had theatrical distrib on DVX / HVX cameras.

Now if you like film (like I llike film), then you have your reasons for wanting to shoot it, but please don't say no one takes you seriously. It's a bad reflection on you.
Click to expand...

Um, sorry...not quite.

I've logged 30 years behind a camera, back when you shot 3/4 inch, attached to a deck. I've been stuck in jungles with a 15 pound camera teathered to a ten pound deck and another 20 pounds of batteries for months at a time.

I've shot for ALL of the networks, I've shot more footage than I can even possibly remember. I've DP'd with cameras where the lense cost more than a small home (At least here in the midwest).

I spent 25 years in Hawaii as one of the most called DP's/camera ops in the Islands, working on average five to six days a week.

I can carry myself very well thank you very much.

I'll tell you right now that with my experience and the people I know, if I showed up to make a movie with a DVX, they would tell me to go home and get my real camera.

But that statement is not a slam on the camera or those that use it. I love the DVX and the other smaller 24p cameras and I shot two features on it, that look DAMN good, but it just doesn't quite do it for me since I am used to the higher end stuff, to include 16/35mm.

I think for local commericals and very low budget movies, the DVX and other 24p cameras in that price range are awesome cameras for the job and I would use them myself.

I know people have made some outstanding movies on the DVX (myself included) and some have won major awards, but there is still a novelty factor. Remember NOVEMBER? Not a bad movie, but not a good one either. One of the marketing tools was it was shot on the new 3K 24p camera. People went to see it just to see what it really looked liked. I did. I do remember how awful it looked transfered to film. Thank God it had a halfway decent story.

Anyway, I've made my point and then some. Take it for what it's worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top