I'm so tempted....

Paul Nordin said:
The Hurt Locker which was shot on 16, and its a great way to learn the craft.
Click to expand...

Yeah, loading any 16mm camera with 16mm film will make it look like hollywood... just like the HDSLR's!

Seriously. Film is a whole other craft. There are so many aspects that will require a level of knowledge and skill about the actual craft that I would personally never attempt 16/35 without attending film school. Otherwise it's most likely a waste of your time and MONEY, if you have film ambitions buy an 8mm and start there.
 
Unless you have experience or education in film cameras it is probably not something you would want to jump right into. That and the cost to purchase, process and transfer the negative is the real expense.

Basically there is no such thing as a free puppy or shooting film cheap.
 
Shoot on film. It's simpler. Better quality. More expensive. And in that regard, it will push you to think harder, clearer, craftier and become better with the limitation it brings you.
 
Super 16 is amazingggggg

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
 
All the award winning short films and cinema spec commercials I've seen are shot on 35mm at a cost of roughly £7,000. Usually from the director's own saving's. It's because they believed the project was good enough that it only deserved the best.

Potential as a great calling card for representation and further projects. Especially if the rewards are, say, earning £80,000 per anum on commercial/TV directing. You'll have more than recuperated your investments.

Aim big, gain big. Risk.

Go for it. Unless you're rubbish. Then don't, because you'll be wasting alot of money, LOL.
 
Here's a question. Are you aiming to be a DP? Then sure shoot film but rent or borrow good equipment to shoot on first. Try different cameras and see if owning is worth it. Trust me I know because I own a 35mm film camera. If your want to be a director/story teller then it doesn't matter. Just shoot on what you have. I know there is some kind right of passage with shooting on film but with what's going on today shooting film doesn't make much economic sense unless someone is flipping the bill. I was fortunately to work at a post house where they was Telecine and junior colorist so I could shoot some 35 and throw it on the rank and see what happens free of charge. It was a different time and a great one. But in the end if the only way to truly express yourself is on film then knock yourself out. Good Luck.
 
What folks seem to forget about RR is that he shot a lot of projects on video before he shot "El Mariachi" super cheap. He had his chops down. Selling your digital camera and getting a 16mm camera as your only filmmaking gear is crazy. I love film and started on it; shooting Super 8 then 16mm. If i had my druthers, I would shoot everything on film, but, as pointed out above, the economics of 16mm production just rule that out.
The thing is that yes, you may be able to get A project done on film and not have to mortgage the farm and live on PB&J and Ramon noodles for a couple of years, but then what? What are you going to do for your next project?, and the next. The way to learn filmmaking is to shoot and shoot and shoot, learning as you go. Digital lets you do that. The basics of filmmaking, framing, composition, lighting, continuity, blocking, pacing, editing, creative audio, and the most important thing, story telling, can be learned with digital cameras and equipment. The more you do, the more you will learn. Limiting yourself to the economics of 16mm filmmaking, is limiting yourself. If you think that is what you want to do, then go for it.

I suggest you keep your digital gear, shoot some paying gigs (or put away some cash from a day job, what ever) and save up and get a 16mm camera. You are right they are relatively cheap right now. Then you will have both, and can use each to their advantages. In the interim, I would suggest getting a good Super 8mm camera, and shooting some stuff on that. That is a great way to get a taste of film, without breaking the bank.
 
That summer video is gorgeous! Love the way film deals with the highlights, like the sun in the sky, etc.
 
Heed the advice of not selling your digital gear to finance your dreams of shooting real film. Film is great and is certainly an option for a fully financed projects. I was in film school the time that Rodrigues broke out with El Mariachi. At that time the only way to achieve a professional look on a relatively modest budget was 16mm. Hi-8 cameras were good practice but the video died quickly in tape to tape editing and the best things was to finish black and white. RR has not touched film since digital became viable. I have a beautiful Eclair NPR that is over 40 years old that works like new, it gets a sensor upgrade every time a new stock comes out, but it is too expensive for personal projects and mostly sits on the shelf. Also it is standard 16mm so gets zero demand even though after transfer it is almost impossible to tell the difference from super16, the size isn't much different. I regularly use 2 hv20's and in final cut process the look to achieve nearly anything I've ever accomplished on film. Don't go super8, even with the new neg stocks, the quality isn't there and it isn't enough cheaper than 16mm. Get yourself an old spring wound non rx bolex. I've seen these going for as little $100 on ebay. I have one that is over 60 years old, been to the arctic and back and runs like a swiss watch( it basically is a swiss clock) Shoot a couple of rolls for a music video or something to get the experience of shooting film, add some texture to your digital A-roll.

I think 16mm will come back as the new super8, in commercial and music video work, to add some texture and artistic flair, for a different look, used correctly a look can be achieved in camera for less time than creating it in post with digital, when time is money it can make sense.

If I were to have a fully funded project with enough money to pay a full cast and crew, the cost of film and lab isn't that big a deal. I would chose 16mm over digital any day. With the new stocks the latitude will save you in most situations, especially full daylight, if you blow-out digital the image is gone no bringing it back. 500 asa film can handle lowlight better than any digital camera, no matter what artificial lowlight levels it claims, and can work with affordable tungsten light, no need to be blue. And if you make something really good, 30 years from now the negative will still be viable, where will your digital files be.

All that said their is little argument for funding film dreams on your own dime. I haven't even gone dslr yet, as I'm more than happy with what I get from the lowly hv20. I crave the full manual control and vintage lenses, and may get one soon, am hoping the major limitations are solved in the next year or so.
 
David G. Smith said:
What folks seem to forget about RR is that he shot a lot of projects on video before he shot "El Mariachi" super cheap. He had his chops down. Selling your digital camera and getting a 16mm camera as your only filmmaking gear is crazy.
Click to expand...

Also want to point out that "super cheap" has changed throughout the years. Mariachi had a $10,000 budget, which is more like $16,000 today...and that was doing everything in Mexico with volunteers, free locations, etc. Your T2i cost you $1k. Before you go off and shoot 16mm film maybe consider a higher end digital camera or something.
 
Yes I would suggest you keep your camera to practice and have fun on. Think like RR had with his VHS camcorder.

Then on bigger projects, rent/borrow better equipment like RR did with 16mm. Although 35mm or Alexa or Red is a fine reality now too.

Don't *pay* your cast or crew except expenses if you have to - personal projects are meant to be fun and where the dreams start etc.
 
JAWflyer3 said:
to sell my t2i and accessories and buy a 16mm film camera. Am I crazy?

Found a couple arriflex for $1000, damn
Click to expand...

Be careful about old camera gear, it may be good and may be worn out.
If you decide to go 35mm I have an Arri 2C rebuilt by Axel Broda for sale.
 
JAWflyer3 said:
to sell my t2i and accessories and buy a 16mm film camera. Am I crazy?

Found a couple arriflex for $1000, damn
Click to expand...

If your are rich, then maybe not crazy - but close. I'm a bit older then most of the folks here, and was trained exclusively on 16mm film.

I made the transition to video 10 years ago and I haven't second guessed it yet. Some many positives about video - very few negatives.

Also, remember that Rodriguez borrowed his Arris S to make El Mariachi. I owned an S - I sold it for an XL-1.
 
All these people quoting directors getting processing etc. for free, that's great an all but is that going to happen for EVERY film you shoot in the future? Nope.
 
Lammy said:
Shoot on film. It's simpler. Better quality. More expensive. And in that regard, it will push you to think harder, clearer, craftier and become better with the limitation it brings you.
Click to expand...

Wow. Exactly. It forces discipline. Still why I have my S8.
 
My car is a Renault 18 GTX, I love it.

I can't turn tight, the mirrors suck, I don't have air conditioning, if I crash I will probably be folded like an accordion! When I get out of it I have to wait for the fan to shut down because if not the alarm goes off. One of the door's won't close, I have to do it myself. From time to time a lightbulb explodes and I have a great time having my hands full of grease and learning about cars. There's a hole on the floor on the backseats, like the flintstones. It's great because compared to driving an Honda Fit, it forces discipline. Is so much better. What's the deal with just getting in the car and going where I need? What's that?

And I love it when I can push it and accelerate really fast while pumping 2.000 gallons of gasoline per second into it! Specially because oil is so cheap, right? The Honda Fit consumes around 3 times less, but nothing beats my good old money-sucker Renault!
 
Iudex said:
My car is a Renault 18 GTX, I love it.

I can't turn tight, the mirrors suck, I don't have air conditioning, if I crash I will probably be folded like an accordion! When I get out of it I have to wait for the fan to shut down because if not the alarm goes off. One of the door's won't close, I have to do it myself. From time to time a lightbulb explodes and I have a great time having my hands full of grease and learning about cars. There's a hole on the floor on the backseats, like the flintstones. It's great because compared to driving an Honda Fit, it forces discipline. Is so much better. What's the deal with just getting in the car and going where I need? What's that?

And I love it when I can push it and accelerate really fast while pumping 2.000 gallons of gasoline per second into it! Specially because oil is so cheap, right? The Honda Fit consumes around 3 times less, but nothing beats my good old money-sucker Renault!
Click to expand...

Is your analogy like comparing a polaroid to a mobile phone?

I don't get it. Surely Film should be a BMW and the 550D be a Toyota or something.
 
I just cant see it

own a canon, rent a red

surely a red is cheaper, how much would you roll in one day - I dont know, do the maths
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top