Shooting B&W - 16mm or HD?

Z

Zhyron

Member
We plan on filming a feature in Black and White, but we can't settle on whether we should film with HD or 16mm and I was hoping some of you here could help us out.

The obvious advantage to HD is the lack of film, developing film etc etc because as far as I know HD uses tapes like DV
...They do right?

But of course we want it as good and "filmlike" as possible since it's such a big project and that usually seems to come down to one or two things:
Color & Movement (when it comes to filming). Atleast those are the ones I seem to remember hearing/reading about, feel free to tell me if there's others.

The color doesn't matter since it's Black & White, unless there's much diffrence between film and HD in that department as well. But the movement is important since the home-movie look is often said to be because of this. Is there anyway to combat this and do it well either while filming or in post-production?
Since it's suppossed to be like a 40's film the home-movie look might be that more distracting because of it.

Hope that wasn't too confusing and I hope you might be able to give some advice
 
Zhyron said:
But of course we want it as good and "filmlike" as possible
Click to expand...

Film is your obvious choice given your stated desire.

Zhyron said:
The obvious advantage to HD is the lack of film, developing film etc etc because as far as I know HD uses tapes like DV
...They do right?
Click to expand...

HD camera's record to three general mediums. Tape, Hard drives, and solid state memory.
-Tape HD cameras include (not including the waves of HDV camera's in the past) Canon XL-H1, CineAlta, Varicam, etc. (Although I believe the new Cinealta is going with Sony XD, and the Varicam has been unofficially replaced by some nice P2 cameras.
-Hard drive based cameras would be the Thompson Viper, RED one, Sony XD cam (disc recording, so it's not 'hard drives' technically), etc. The Genesis goes to a sony SRW-1 VTR for recording.
-Solid state memory camera's include all of Panasonic's P2 products and Sony's XD EX camera.

So HD is captured onto many different media, not just tape.

Zhyron said:
The color doesn't matter since it's Black & White, unless there's much diffrence between film and HD in that department as well.
Click to expand...

I'll get back to you about the color deal.

Zhyron said:
But the movement is important since the home-movie look is often said to be because of this. Is there anyway to combat this and do it well either while filming or in post-production?
Since it's suppossed to be like a 40's film the home-movie look might be that more distracting because of it.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by movement? Do you mean camera movement, like handheld? That might influence whether your film looks like it was shot as a home movie or not, but it won't influence whether it looks like film or not.
 
Last edited:
Yea I agree film is the obvious choice since we want it filmlike but after hearing from so many that HD is just as good in quality and the subtraction of the color in what we'll be filming maybe it was possible to use HD.
By movement I meant what is moved infront of the camera, I seem to recall reading that when people moved there was a tell-tale diffrence between DV and film, I know it's not HD but it's still digital.
 
If you shoot in 24p with a camera that has a 2/3 inch size chip I doubt many viewers will be able to tell the difference. A 2/3 inch sensor has the same DOF as a 16mm camera and 24p will emulate the look of 24fps just fine. You mentioned that the way the footage moves is a telltale sign of video. But that's only if you are shooting in 60i (60 interlaced frames per second). If you shoot in 24p (24 progressive frames per second) your footage will move just like film.

As for texture you can always dirty up the footage to make it look more like a film from the 1940s. I'm guessing your going to want your movie to be IN THE STYLE OF an older movie--not look EXACTLY LIKE something from the 1940s. If that's the case then I see little reason to shoot on 16mm when you can get the job done by doing HD and stylizing it to look like old film. Besides, even if you shot 16mm you wouldn't have access to the really slow ASA film that was used to make movies back then. Kodak doesn't make it anymore. So it'd be impossible to capture the look entirely.

Don't forget that 16mm has a 4:3 aspect ratio whereas HD has a 16:9 aspect ratio. So if you want your film to look more like a widescreen film then HD would be better.
 
Last edited:
If you have the budget and all the support for film. It is great, but we use to shoot a fair amount of 16mm and HD has completely replaced 16 for us. 35mm vs HD is a different story, but 16 vs. HD I would go Varicam or any other HD medium that will let you over/under crank. Also what is your post solution if you go 16mm. Will you use a DI. Do you have that kind of budget?
 
I haven't studied my chip inches, Is there such a thing as 3/3? And would that be better?
Guess that would be 1...

And yes I want the style of noir films.

Budget wise I'd prefer HD but if it's going to ruin the experience we might have to stretch our money some. But if it was possible to make it look the way we want but filmed with HD that would be great.

There's alot of talk about filming DV and then fixing it in post and getting it to look like film. Haven't really tried it so I don't know if it's possible or just empty dreams. The idea of filming all of it only to discover I can't get what I want in post is frightening.
 
I understand. Why don't you check out some of the movies people here have made on digital. I'd start with anything done by MacGregor. If you think those look realistic enough then go rent a good HD camera for a day (like the HPX500) and see if you can get the look you want.

The cool thing about today's cameras is that they do most of the film look (24p, gamma curve) in camera. So you don't have to worry about doing that stuff in post.

I haven't heard of any 1inch sized sensors. They seem to go 1/3inch (HVX200), 1/2 inch (Sony EX), 2/3 (HPX 500, Thompson Viper) and 35mm (Genesis, Red Camera). The bigger the sensor the more dynamic range and lower noise. both of these will help in making your project look more filmic.

davide
 
Alright,

Well there are two fundamental differences here that we are talking about.

Firstly, it sounds as if you are pretty new to this. Forgive me if I am wrong, just making an assumption. So heres the deal. Film is great. But is ungodly expensive. Especially for a feature.

Essentially Tri-x reversal, your standard, entry level b&w film by kodak will run you almost 20 dollars for 100 feet. Do the math, at 24FPS, we are talking near 2.5 minutes, give or take a little. However, Tri-X Reversal is your entry level b&w film. It is very contrasty. There are very few midtones. It will make a kick-ass look for a noir though. (I've shot on it before, actually a few months ago). I would upload my footage, but on the current computer, that's not a possibility, slow internet.

Then you need to get said film processed, which will run you a bit too. This almost always needs to be done at a professional film lab. Unless you want to go it yourself, I've only developed 8mm myself, and it was a disaster, but it was for an experimental film, so I didn't mind. It worked.

Then you need to get that film telecined. Which is turning the physical film into a digital mini-dv tape. Basically digitizing what you shot. This ranges from $1.60 a second to 3.00 a second. Its not a cheap process to do at a professional lab. Now you see why film shoots cost so much.

Now, you have a workable product. And things are good to go.

That's your monetary view on it.

As for ascetics, you will NEVER get the same look digitally as you would with film. Especially with B&W. You can't recreate the film grain, Depth of Field, etc. etc.
You can mimic it, but you can't ever get it.

Also, never say "we will get it in post". Unless you have purchased the required plugins, or can easily navigate through color correction and such, you won't get it to look exactly like film.

HOWEVER, with the onset of the RED camera, The Panavision F900 and such, HD can and does look like film. But we are talking the newer colour film stocks. There is a huge difference between black and white and colour film stock. Honestly I would rather shoot DV or HD than film, cheaper...The F900 is an amazing camera and produces great picture...but with a 115,000 price tag, you should go with renting a RED camera.

And one further note to make with film. To use film you need to understand the dynamics of film. Since it isn't as easy as white balancing and going to shoot like one would with a simple handycam.

You need to purchase a cinema light meter, know the ASA of your film, understand Fstops (a lot of people don't, and thus mess up their film pretty good...been there, done that) and the use of lenses and their tolerances to light. It is a much more complex process than you would think.

Note: I haven't personally used or seen RED in action yet, so I can only say what I have seen thus far about it.

Davide, you can use Super 16 which is 16:9. 16mm is 4:3. So super 16 is a good alternative for 35mm.

Best - and if you have any other questions, I can give you a go at it,

Matt
 
Oops,

Sorry for double posting, I was further reading your post (and mine) and forgot something....

You mentioned, the home movie setup makes it look bad. Well yes, yes it does. Think Blair Witch Project. It is hard to move a camera without camera support. Which I suggest on doing. There are many alternatives, from a stedi-cam to a wheel chair....or my personal favorite a freight dolly.

Any of those will help move the camera steadier. Basically you can spend between 15 dollars to 150,000 for a motion control rig. It's basically up to your budget and DP. I think I can safely say that mostly everyone here uses some sort of camera support, you can give the forum a search to come across that.

Also, shoulder mounted cameras also help out in this field as well. As do tripods (surprise, surprise) and monopods.
 
Mattykins said:
Davide, you can use Super 16 which is 16:9. 16mm is 4:3. So super 16 is a good alternative for 35mm.


Matt
Click to expand...

I was thinking of adding that but decided against it. That's the last time I ever get lazy and not make an addenda to a post.
 
Also davide, if you didn't know, Super16mm and 16mm is the same film stock. So it won't cost you extra, except the super 16mm camera package might cost a little more. (The film gate has to be different, and sometimes the lenses (I think the mount) as well.)
 
That's true, they take the same film. I assumed that since Zhyron mentioned 16mm that that was the format he was thinking of using, not Super 16mm.

I've found that you can get away with using normal and telephoto 16mm lenses on a super16 cam. It's when you get wide that things start to look bad. I don't believe you have to change the lens mount though. Whenever I've worked with converted cameras (K-3, Bolex, Aaton, Arri) they all had the same lens mount, it has just been realligned.

Speaking of alignment: I was best boy on a shoot with a converted Aaton XTR where the optical viewfinder had not been centered properly for the new gate. I got a call from the director a month later telling me that they were planning to reshoot about 80% of the footage.
 
Last edited:
Personally I'd rather shoot HD then 16mm any day. No hairs in the gate, what you see is what you get. Most 24fps HD cameras will do a nice emulation of film movement, so I wouldn't worry about that. The film grain depends on what speed film you we're going to shoot, but I perfer not adding noise to the picture just to have that film look. If you really want it just boost your gain a little and you'll have plenty of noise to emmulate film (I wouldn't recommend that). Look at Sin City, it was shot HD if I'm not mistaken and I doubt anyone in the audience stood up and walked out because of it. Quite frankly no one will stand up and walk out on your film if it is HD instead of 16mm. So save yourself a lot of headaches, get more shots on set and save yourself a lot of money, shoot HD. If you we're talking 35mm, that would be a different story, but 16mm naw just go HD.
 
I know the expenses of shooting would film would skyrocket the production and also add alot more complications while filming it, wouldn't want to see the money fly out the window everytime an actor messes up a line. And don't worry I'm very cautious about "fixing it in post" which is partly why I asked the question, I didn't want to go HD only to find I should have gone with film, but all your comments have made me feel alot better about HD, it would also be alot easier since I'm used to DV and I assume that the step between the two in terms of the actual filming of scenes aren't that far apart.

There won't be much problem with moving the camera itself (I hope) it was as mentioned before when movement that's infront of the camera, I don't know why the 24p option slipped my mind, we used that with DV.

Is there any other advice any of you could give me to make sure we make it as good as possible and as close to what we want as possible?
The black and white noir look
What camera we should use, it's best if you can give advice on the good+cheap ones but also the great one, the one we should get if we could afford any of them. Nice to have options.
Any plugins we should look into like for example Magic Bullet? Any others?
Anything we should think of while filming? I'd rather start out with a crisp black and white that we can alter (if possible) to get what we want then to attempt to get it right only to find in post that it doesn't work but we have no options...although that would constitute "fixing it in post" I guess

Of course in the end there's alot of other things which makes it feel noir both in the story line, dialogue, costumes, sets and lighting so that just straight black and white probably wouldn't offend to many noir fans - more of a chance that the script would.
 
I would say pay very close attention to your lighting. If you screw that part up there is no chance that you will be able to pull of a Noir look.

If you are renting, you might be able to find a good deal on a Panasonic Varicam or Sony F900/950 kit with a nice lens. if you are looking at the low end of the spectrum, a rented HVX or Canon A1 would suffice. It all really depends on your post work flow and how familiar your DP is with the equipment.

*Just a general note to all as it was refered to earlier in this thread* CineAlta is not a camera. It is a line of professional cameras and decks made by Sony and includes (but is not limited to) the XDcam-EX, F330, F350, F900, F950, and the F-23.
 
William_Robinette said:
*Just a general note to all as it was refered to earlier in this thread* CineAlta is not a camera. It is a line of professional cameras and decks made by Sony and includes (but is not limited to) the XDcam-EX, F330, F350, F900, F950, and the F-23.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have a bad habit of calling the F900/F950 'Cinealta'. :lipsrseal
 
Red isn't an HD video camera and doesn't shoot HD. It shoots RedCode Raw (r3d) which is its own D-Cinema format. However, you can take r3d files and totally convert them over and down to HD.
 
Make sure you're getting adequate exposure on every shot. If you're going for a filmic look you won't want your noirish shadows to fill up with noise (ala Miami Vice).
 
Yep, RED is a thing unto its own. I just put it down with the F900 because it does have filmic capabilities at 4K and with its 35mm sensor. Wrong context I suppose.

But anyways, I digress....

Yea, as Davide and William stated, with Noir, lighting is key. Invest in some good lighting packages and a DoP that can light well.

With Black and White, you need to think in terms of contrast. Contrasting colors and such. What you need to be careful about is the fact that different shades of color can and do look the exact same in black and white. AKA. If you get two different colors that are similar in lightness/darkness....then they will blend together in the same grey tone.

Also, do a lot of testing on footage before you go and shoot. See if you can mess around with what you have in your tool kit to perfect the look before you shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top