Super 16 vs HD...... Opinions HEHEHE I know you want to!!!

MarkG said:
Yes, and I've also worked on films shot by other people. Which is why I know it's a huge pain in the ass.
Claiming that people don't want to use film because they're 'afraid' of it is just film snob talk with no basis in reality. Film gives a small increase in picture quality over HD at a high cost both financially and in complexity.... only weird art movies and the occasional blockbuster by directors who are afraid of video will be shot on film in twenty years.
Click to expand...
Hey Bro... slow down... I didn't meant to snob talk to you ... Ididn't meant that
you where afraid..... but I have to telll you I've seen so many people prefering digital because it avoid learning so much stuff that you need to know.... but since you have a faster delivery and you can see it on a monitor.... they avoid to know

Financially I'm with you I love digital.... like the Varicam or the cinealta.... but even the big like the genesis or the Viper.... those are great cams but .... you don't have the money for those either....
Anyways .... my films go for other people I don't care about Joe Sixpack... at all
but people are different .... good luck with your films

Best
 
5 years since the last post?


Those who find this old thread and assume that after a half decade, it's moot, and film is dead,


....WRONG!






Film, it does a body good.
 
Its expensive and and poor compared to proper HD video thats why the BBC wont allow it they only show 35mm cinema films,every thing else is HD video and its BRILL.
 
gabriel1475 said:
5 years since the last post?


Those who find this old thread and assume that after a half decade, it's moot, and film is dead,


....WRONG!






Film, it does a body good.
Click to expand...

Well, it all depends. If you are a well funded production and can take your Super 16 footage to a 2k DI, then there are aesthetic and economic reasons to use it. If you are an independent filmmaker, with very limited funds, then modern HD cameras are really the only way to go. That is especially true now with the current crop of large sensor HD cameras available. At this point in time I would advise any producer to use a Sony F3 over Super 16 any day, and twice on Sunday! If you think that I am talking out my behind, I want you to know that I came up from film and have shot a feature on 16mm film. Ever since the whole DV revolution took hold in 1994, I have been hoping and wishing for a video equivalent to Super 16. It has been long in coming, but I think we are there now. With the F3, the AF100 and the soon to be released FS-100 independent filmmakers of modest means have access to image acquisition tools of a quality that has never been seen before. I recently speced out a feature for a producer who wanted to do a low budget feature on Super 16, and the lowest I could get the cost, with camera rental, and lab and transfer costs down to, with a 10:1 shooting ratio, was right about $50,000.00. The producer took my advice and just FINISHED shooting his feature on a F3. If he had stuck with shooting on Super 16, he would still be trying to raise funds.

I think that you need to realize that you can sit around making the argument that "Film is better" or you can embrace the recent advances in image acquisition technology and go out and make movies.
 
Last edited:
So David, are you saying that unless you have a means of making the 16mm look good in post (2k DI), HD video will look better? As in, film straight from the can (processed, obviously, but not digitally color-corrected) is "worse-looking" than HD? Or are you saying something else? (This isn't a leading question, I'm very curious about how to properly use 16mm) Was a 2k DI included in the $50k budget you estimated for the producer?

I know there are a s..t-ton of differences between the cameras, but would you make the same case with a T2i/5D/7D in place of the F3, AF100 or FS-100?
 
Dont forget that people still shoot (and probably will continue to shoot) super 16 + DI and have great success. The Wrestler and Black Swan come to mind as of more recent. If you read American Cinematographer magazine, youll often see films shot on super 16 too (arri 416 is very popular).

Anyway, Its just about having another "brushstroke" and "choice of paint" for the dp and director- not worth looking into it too much. I would love to shoot more super16, still one of my favorite fun formats to shoot- and doing a proper data scan can make it look amazing (especially with a bit of grain reduction).

At the end of the day though, it doesnt matter- just what ever is best for the production and the story.

btw- BBC engineers can eat s**t : )
 
Michael Traven said:
So David, are you saying that unless you have a means of making the 16mm look good in post (2k DI), HD video will look better? As in, film straight from the can (processed, obviously, but not digitally color-corrected) is "worse-looking" than HD? Or are you saying something else? (This isn't a leading question, I'm very curious about how to properly use 16mm) Was a 2k DI included in the $50k budget you estimated for the producer?

I know there are a s..t-ton of differences between the cameras, but would you make the same case with a T2i/5D/7D in place of the F3, AF100 or FS-100?
Click to expand...

I don't think that using the works, "Better", or "Worse", looking when comparing Super 16 and HD are really that applicable. I do agree with hunter richards in that Super 16 can be another "color in the pallet" for filmmaking and there are folks using Super 16 to make some great projects. "The Black Swan","The Hurt Locker", "Hustle & Flow" and "The Wrestler" come to mind. It is just that those projects could have chosen to shoot on any format, including 35mm flim, but choose Super 16 for specific reasons, mostly aesthetic. If you are putting together a feature and you are looking at Super 16 because you can afford to shoot 35mm, then I think you are in a place were I think that the modern HD cameras would probably be more suited, and that is mostly financial. If you are really independent and every penny matters, then there is no contest. HD wins. ...

No, the $50,000.00 we speced out did not include a 2k DI. That was for camera and support package, raw stock, processing and telecine to HD. A 2K DI to 35mm film out would set you back another $50, 000.00 to over $100,000.00. Now there are folks that will say that that is BS and they can get it cheaper. The thing is with a film project, if you, "Have to get it cheaper" with your film fixed costs, you are in a tight spot. If you get any of your cost projection wrong, especially your shooting ratio, then you may face the prospect of having a project that does not get finished by needing much more money to complete than is available. Now for short projects, music videos and that type of film, then Super 16 is another one of the tools available.

As for the HD-DSLRs, well, their limitations are well discussed elsewhere, but there seems to be a lot of folks shooting great stuff with them. I have one and am shooting with it, but I am also buying one of the newer cameras, so I don't know really if I would put them in the same category.
 
Awesome, thanks for all the info guys! I'd really like to shoot on Super 16 or 35mm someday, but until I can afford it, I'll stick with what I know.
 
There is also another format called Ultra-16 that can be shot and converted telecined to prores-422 or prores-444 and put into FCP if you have a mac. Cinelicious in Hollywood has developed a cool way to convert ultra-16 footage into a quicktime file for editing.

http://vimeo.com/2294025
 
Very nice...It really shows how much more detail there is in film vs the alexa and red camera. Nice pictures overall but if you really want to see detail, In the first video there is a exhaust tube on the right side of the frame that exits the projector. Check out the Alex at 2:00, then the Red at 2:25 and then the fllm at 2:45. You could see how much more information is picked up with film since it is the highest capturing medium. All this with the girl is in focus on each shot.
 
That's like asking "do you prefer slow roast or instant coffee?".

If you are a diligent, patient, painstaking crafter of movies and have the time and emotional energy to work with film and the personalities that come with it crew wise, then roast that coffee and permeate the room with it's smell baby!

If you are like me, someone who shoots from the hip, shoots a lot and shoots some more till you get what you want (with the Af100, I'm even shooting while unit one is setting up lights for the bigger cams) then you need HD for sure! I want immediate playback like IMMEDIATELY in HD!

No chance that one looks better than the other, we are far beyond that stage. The Director/DP/Gaffer combo determine what the final picture looks like, not so much the camera anymore.

Now it's simply instant coffee vs slow roast and although I like the smell of slow roast, I still like my coffee within two minutes of ordering it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top