Shooting a short in 16MM...

Gary the Llama

Gary the Llama

Well-known member
I realize this is a board about the DVX camera and DIGITAL filmmaking but I figured I’d throw this question out anyway. I’m looking to shoot a short film over a weekend or two. I only know of one place that rents out equipment and I figured I’d give 16mm film a try.

They have a 16mm Bolex H16 SB camera available but I’ve never heard of it so I was hoping someone on this board was familiar with this camera. Is this 16mm camera any good? It’s about $20/day to rent, I can easily afford that, but is it worth it? Also, what’s the best way to go about handling the recording of sound?

Since this isn’t a forum about 16mm film, I will understand if the mods find this post inappropriate and remove it.

Thanks!
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

I'm assuming $20/day makes film and this camera sound appealing to over say the day rate on a DVX100 or SDX900, so my post is based on that...

I come from a video background, as I'm sure many on this board do...so I'm really not an expert shooting film. I shot a project on 16 not too long ago and I can share a little about the experience.

I don't know film cameras, but I shot with an Arri SRII which is a solid offering (but not *really* high end). I think it typically rents for $400-$500/day. So if you are comparing to what you get for $20/day (assuming this house is renting competitively)...I think you'd be better off shooting on the DVX or SDX900. I shot with a really good crew who knew the SRII well and honestly, I think I would have gotten the same look and production value going with the DVX100 (using this great crew of course), probably even better than 16mm using the SDX900. I shot a project recently with a DVX and great DP and when looking at the dailies I was thinking wow this looks a lot what I got from the SRII and Kodak stock.

As far as sound goes... For budget reasons I think sound is a real strong reason to go with one of Panasonic's 24p cams over 16mm. I spent loads of money on renting an Intellislate and DAT recorder when shooting on 16, then even more to pay a post house to sync up my audio. You skip all of this with the DVX, SDX and Varicam if you have a good sound person manning the gear.

Now, any film has this special look that cannot be achieved with 24p, its just different...and I can understand why 16mm is appealing for some over 24p.

I've seen rental houses renting the DVX100 for $175/day, you can buy tape for $3.50/tape...yeah $20/day sounds cheap, but when you add in film stock, developing, telecine and sound it really might not be as appealing.

Good luck!
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

Actually the SRII is quite high-end, as far as 16mm cameras go.

The Bolex is on the low end of the spectrum, a spring-wound 100' camera. You won't be doing sound with a Bolex! It's noisier than a coffee grinder and doesn't have a sync motor. You can shoot MOS style stuff with it, but for using it to record sound, it's going to be extremely difficult.

Bolexes are great cameras for what they are: they run like a Swiss watch (they are Swiss cameras, after all). But it's not a camera to shoot sound with.
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

ARRI 2 non HS cameras can be found in a package for anywhere between 200 and 400 a day depending on the location and package contents, but my experience pegs them at an average of $250 a day with 2 mags, 2 batteries, a charger and a zoom.

the ARRI II HS and ARRI 2.5 tend to be anywhere from 275 to 375 on average and ARRI SRIII with all the bangs and whistles tend to come in at 350 and up.

See, here's the thing with film cameras: To a limited degree, it doesn't matter at all what camera you rent because what's important is the glass you put in front of it. Some cameras are more reliable, more field serviceable, more loader friendly, quieter, or equipped...but what you're really renting when you get a film package is the compliment of lenses.

Using primes is one of the biggest advantages in film, and I dare say that the choice of lenses is a MAJOR factor in what defines a cinematographer and their associated style.

A $20 bolex is fun to play around with and learn how to load film into a camera, but it's not a tool thats going to get you the beautiful images that we associate with film.

Also, a camera that rents for $20 a day tends to be not very well maintained. You might learn something by shooting around with it, but it's probably not worth the cost in stock, development and printing.
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

The Bolex is a fun little camera and a great way to learn about shooting film. Unless you've got 400 ft. mag, you're stuck with 100 foot loads. Also, it's noisy so shooting sound will be difficult.

Scott
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

How much do you think it would cost to do a 5 minute film with one of these cameras? I wanted to add some 8mm to a short using my Bell and Howell camera...but I might as well rent and shoot 16. It should be cheaper developing going film to digital to edit right?
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

It costs about $20 per minute to shoot, process, and transfer 16mm.

So, assuming you're doing a 5-minute film, and you intend to shoot at a fairly conservative 6:1 ratio, then you'll be shooting about 30 minutes of stock, at about $20 per minute, which puts your stock, processing and transfer costs at somewhere around $600. Less if you're a student or can work a deal somewhere.
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

Thanks for the info Barry...I might have to change that ratio to 1:1...
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

I thought that in most areas the going rate was closer to $30 a minute for footage.

Aren't 400' loads of kodak vision in the $170 range right now? If you were averaging $20 a foot with stock cost, your processing and transfer would be about $50 for a 400' load. That just seems way low to me.

I'd expect closer to $300-350 for stock, processing and a good one-light for each roll...making your rate closer to $30/minute.

Am I way off?
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

I'm talking Fuji stock, bought with the Film Arts foundation discount, so it's $97 per roll for a 400' roll. Then processing at 10c plus 2c for prep, at FilmWorks lab. Then transfer at $175/hr, assuming 1/2 hour per 400' roll for scene-to-scene color correction. Obviously a one-light would be less time.

So that's $97 + $48 + $85 = $230 for 11 minutes, or $20.90 per minute. Sure you can spend a lot more, and Vision 2 is one way to do it, but I was talking about the cheap way to go. You can go a little cheaper if you shoot short ends, but they don't save you much in 16mm. 35mm is where you start saving bucks by using short ends.
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

Kodak has offers for students that gives up to 60% off filmstock, it's usually old or expired stock, but I shot with it and its great!

With that rate, I shot 11 x 400' rolls for a total of $1450 including telecine. (I was also able to trim off some money from the transfer from FotoKem).

Kodak is suffering right now. It's a buyers market for film!
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

When I was a student, we never got old or expired filmstock from kodak...even with the discount. That's kinda surprising to hear.

With all this miniDV production, I'm really starting to miss the tiny little slivers of stock I used to find in my bags.
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Offtopic;num=1095691696;start=0#12 date=09/21/04 at 15:03:35]That's 121 minutes for $1450, or less than $12 per minute.  Awesome![/quote]

You guys are always a huge help! Just a random question...would you ever want to transfer DV to 16mm? If I could save up that much, it would be easier to enter into film festivals...
 
Re: Shooting a short in 16MM...

There's really no point. There aren't practically any festivals around that won't accept a DV (or at least BetaSP) tape. Ann Arbor might be one of the few holdouts that still requires 16mm, but I'm sure they've probably moved on too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top