Super 16mm vs. DVX?

korimickster

korimickster

Well-known member
Hey guys.

I am going to be shooting a feature later this year and wanted to ask you guys for your honest opinion...

Save a few thousand dollars and shoot on DVX (with mini35 adapter)

or

Shoot on Super 16mm (Aaton XTR rental)?

Do any of you guys know when the Guerilla35 will be out? I thought it was supposed to be ready for sale two months ago...
 
if u have money shoot on 16mm, if u have no money shoot on dvx... whats your final output, theater release or DVd?
 
The budget will be about $8-10k, so shooting on film is very realistic (as long as we aren't idiots with the money).

Final output will depend on what festivals we will submit it to. It will be edited digitally, so a digital transfer from film is going to happen eventually. I just don't know if it will need to be blown up to 35 at this point.
 
Unless you know for a fact you'll only distribute on DVD, I'd shoot super 16. You will not get a satisfactory blow up with a dvx and a mini35 and there are some cheap 2k telecine places, although you'll need a few terrabytes of space to edit, or you can just edit in high def instead of uncompressed--probably cheaper. Of course, you'll also need a much larger crew to shoot super 16 and probably another $15,000-$20,000 added to the budget at the very minimum, plus a more experienced dp. But it will probably be worth it. Kodak's new vision stocks are incredible. See City of God or Constant Gardner if you're wondering what a Super 16 with HD telecine looks like.
 
Ah, I just saw your last post.

Shoot on a dvx or rent an hvx. You won't be able to shoot film for $10,000 and get what you're looking for. A 35mm blow up will also be tens of thousands of dollars, so maybe dvd distribution is your best bet.
 
I am REALLY leaning towards Super 16 still... it is more expensive, but the new stock that is out nowadays is better than most 35 stock ten years ago.

You guys should check out the movie PRIMER and pay close attention to the director's commentary. Shooting under $8k is definitly possible (PRIMER took 1st Grand Jury at '04 Sundance and was made under $7k), but you are right about the blow up. That would be something to worry about at a later time... we still have no idea where the film will take us.
 
you gotta pinch your pennies, but S16 is possible. I watched a student short recently and they shot on S16 and it looked incredible, I couldnt tell it wasnt 35mm (but he definately paid for it).

Shooting on film also makes you rehearse much more, go into a 3rd take for any shot and you will loose money fast.

S16 will def look better, but remember that your story is what will sell the film, not what it was shot on. The audience doesnt care- if the story sucks they wont make allowances for how great the image looked.

Consider the money saved from film/telecine and putting it into production design (booms-dollies-costumes-sets-lights etc).
 
How much experience do you have?
Do you have a cinematographer? If so, what is his/her opinion?

What's the story about and how would it be affected by each medium?


While you might be able to pull it off on S16 for 8-10K, I think that saying it's "very realistic" is a bit of a stretch. It all depends on your crew, your prep, and your experience. Not much room for error at that budget level.
 
Right now, a good S16 with DI to 35 mm looks really good, and with much better colors than any video camera.
Money is a problem for sure, but still film will look better to me.
 
At that budget level, you're really cutting it close.

Unless you're really thinking this film has a strong chance of getting picked up for theatrical distribution by some studio, I'd go with the DVX and a 35 adapater. Getting theatrical distribution is highly improbable without name talent involved in your film. But DVD is possible.

Reshoots will be an issue with this kind of budget. It will be cheaper to go through reshoots with a DVX. Especially since you'll likely start thinking about reshoots while in the editing process on the flik. That means you'll have already spent money on the telecine for film.

Don't know where your money is budgetted on this, but if you can afford it, I would suggestion purchasing the DVX and a 35 adapter. This will likely not be your only film and the costs for the next one will drop tremendously if you own the camera.

Bottom line is how much do you believe in your chances of this film being distributed theatrically?
 
yah exactly..were not trying to bust your buble or anything..but if u think that youre screenplay is gold....do it...shoot on film....if youre just doing it because u were given a budget of 8k and u want to play around with filmstock...DONT!!!

the thing is...if u shoot yoru film on DV....if its a good film..etc...if u get it into festivals and if someone decideds to pick it up for wider distro, they will pay for all the transfers and other ****. Dont be fooled that u have to do it all yourslef, because u dont.
You just have to concentrate on bringing the best possbile screenplay to the screen with your budget. Worry about the transfers and everything else after, thats what i'm thinking., i could be wrong..
 
im not saying that 16mm will not give you a superior blow up. You just can't argue that fact. I think to say that the dvx and a mini35 won't give you satisfactory results is not entirely true either. You have films like 28 days later, that are resolving a whole lot less res, than what the dvx and a mini 35 are. That film got a huge release. You just need to make sure that you take care to keep things as crisp as possible with the mini.

Just thought I should throw that out there.

(r)yan
 
I think the DVX is the best bet for you as well. Look at Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi. He shot it on 16mm with a $8K, but all in all, $7500 was spent on film and processing. I would save the cash and put it towards good lighting, prod design, and other things that make the story count.

What we filmmakers got to remember is that we are the only ones that see the flaws of the format. If it's a good story then the general population looks past all that. Look at Blair Witch...the proof is in the pudding.
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
What we filmmakers got to remember is that we are the only ones that see the flaws of the format.
Click to expand...

Ironic - because we also are the only ones who don't see the flaws in our stories and scripts.
:)
 
korimickster said:
Hey guys.

I am going to be shooting a feature later this year and wanted to ask you guys for your honest opinion...

Save a few thousand dollars and shoot on DVX (with mini35 adapter)

or

Shoot on Super 16mm (Aaton XTR rental)?

Do any of you guys know when the Guerilla35 will be out? I thought it was supposed to be ready for sale two months ago...
Click to expand...
You wouldn't be saving just a FEW thousand dollars. After everything, I think you'll see that you'll be saving more than that. Also, have you looked into the HVX?
 
Hi I'm the writer/DP/director/ kinda co-director because corey is definitely going to help out tons.

film recan with a 3:1 shooting ratio on vision2 stock 1,700
processing 952
transfer to tape 1224
camera rental 4365

Total Neccesary Budget.
$8241

if i shoot with short ends it'll be
$7833

HVX costs $5849 plus some HD miniDV tapes
I still don't have faith enough in HDV. We'd still have to buy a mini35 adapter so we can use some good lenses which are another couple thousand. so it'll come out even after the miniDV adapter and lenses.

I'm currently majoring in cinematography at columbia college chicago and i'm confident that i can shoot the super 16mm format i've already shot plenty with it.

we could shoot on tape and use the rest of the budget on lighting and production design, but we already have the means neccesary for the lighting equipment and the script is written to need little money in production design, our biggest kicker will be a small section of the interior of an airplane, but we might change it to bus.

If we do decide to shoot on the DVX with a mini35 adapter my biggest worry was the blow up to 35 which, if i'm being realistic, won't happen because it'll take a distribution deal or a festival like sundance to force us to cough up the dough. The second worry i had was just how good the dvx witht he adapter was. i've seen some small .mov's on the web and they all look pretty good, but i haven't seen anything of good size to compare it. However today i saw some good examples like the station agent that i didn't even know were shot on super 16mm. I though they were 35mm. So i'm hoping by posting these numbers, our experience, and our lighting situation, i could get some better points in the discussion rather than the money option or our skill level.
 
You might want to consider buying equipment and selling when done. The net difference would be far less to a rental rate. Depending on your current shooting schedule plans, you could take longer to shoot and remove any rush scenarios. Remove concern for expensive pick-ups. If cast and crew are flexible with their time the extra time can mean lots of setup. Film could be much more doable. You seem to prefer the look to the 16 so with this route you only need to fret stock/processing costs.
 
stephenmckinney said:
Hi I'm the writer/DP/director/ kinda co-director because corey is definitely going to help out tons.

film recan with a 3:1 shooting ratio on vision2 stock 1,700
processing 952
transfer to tape 1224
camera rental 4365

Total Neccesary Budget.
$8241

if i shoot with short ends it'll be
$7833

HVX costs $5849 plus some HD miniDV tapes
I still don't have faith enough in HDV. We'd still have to buy a mini35 adapter so we can use some good lenses which are another couple thousand. so it'll come out even after the miniDV adapter and lenses.

I'm currently majoring in cinematography at columbia college chicago and i'm confident that i can shoot the super 16mm format i've already shot plenty with it.

we could shoot on tape and use the rest of the budget on lighting and production design, but we already have the means neccesary for the lighting equipment and the script is written to need little money in production design, our biggest kicker will be a small section of the interior of an airplane, but we might change it to bus.

If we do decide to shoot on the DVX with a mini35 adapter my biggest worry was the blow up to 35 which, if i'm being realistic, won't happen because it'll take a distribution deal or a festival like sundance to force us to cough up the dough. The second worry i had was just how good the dvx witht he adapter was. i've seen some small .mov's on the web and they all look pretty good, but i haven't seen anything of good size to compare it. However today i saw some good examples like the station agent that i didn't even know were shot on super 16mm. I though they were 35mm. So i'm hoping by posting these numbers, our experience, and our lighting situation, i could get some better points in the discussion rather than the money option or our skill level.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow:
-You're CONFIDENT you can shoot the Super16.
-You don't even need the extra money that you might save shooting dv, as you already have the means neccesary for the lighting equipment etc.
-You Want to blow up to 35, but are convinced you WONT if you shoot dv.
-You are not satisfied with what you've seen as of yet from the dvx/mini35 blowup.
-You LOVE the super 16mm look.

"So i'm hoping by posting these numbers, our experience, and our lighting situation, i could get some better points in the discussion rather than the money option or our skill level."

I don't think you're interested in discussing anything. Sounds like you have your mind made up. So what was the point of this thread??
 
Slimothy said:
I don't think you're interested in discussing anything. Sounds like you have your mind made up. So what was the point of this thread??
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure what he was getting at was everyone was immediately knocking the concept of shooting on film mainly because of cost.

But in reality, shooting on what we truly want (Super 16mm) will only be a little bit more and I am sure we will be a lot happier knowing we went with better image quality. As he stated, we still need a 35 adapter if we shoot DV and that is a huge amount of money that shortens the gap between money saved shooting digital.

I love my DVX to death, but if I am shooting a feature I really really think film will pull everything together. This is a pretty serious debate, so if anyone has any other input it would be very much appreciated. We need to see all possible sides and scenarios before we drop several thousand dollars on either DV equipment and adapters or film stock and rentals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top