Super 16mm vs. DVX?

korimickster said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nobody was knocking you guys. Everyone was reffering to the fact that you only have 8-10k. Seems that everyone but you guys think that might be cutting it close. When deciding whether to shoot film or dv, the FIRST thing I'd think about is COST. With your comments above it doesn't sound like you're really in a limbo here. It sounds like you know what you want to do. What I think happened is your dp is a "film student" and thinks that people here are "knocking" him. That's a common side effect to those who attend film school. Get offended whenever anybody makes a suggestion. ugh...
 
ok. I'm sorry i came off that i got offended. I was just looking for other points than cost when thinking about this. I own a DVX as well as a videography company that only uses DVX cameras so i'm in no way knocking the power of the DVX.
Let me rephrase my question maybe. Can somebody give me a few movies that were shot on something comparable in price to the hvx or the dvx. I know a lot of films that were shot on the kodak vision2 stock and i couldn't tell they weren't 35mm. If somebody can show me a movie shot on the dvx or cheap HD camera that they think looks as close to 35mm as possible post it.

or maybe state the best argument towards the dvx with mini35 as opposed to super16mm that doesn't souly rest on money. perhaps having a better shooting ratio combined with the added money for other production costs. thats one big one that is being tossed around in our heads.

but mainly i'd like to know some dvx movies that had succesful festival runs or just the best looking ones you can find.
 
Thank's i've watched the trailers for nov. and jim. I've heard of murderball and thats a documentary and i don't think it counts. However november and lonesome jim prove a very very convincing point. one other thing that we've considered, although i know it sounds silly, is that people take you much more seriously when shooting on film no matter how good the story is. I did see that 47 digital video movies made it into sundance so it is garnering more respect. I'm amazed that so many dvx100a movies survived the blow up to HD without looking like shite. I think i'm going to have to bite the bullet and do some screen tests with the actual actors and see what will look the best. we could possibley do a hybrid which is apparently more and more common these days.

by the by if anyone lives in michigan (we'll mainly shoot in saginaw/midland/bay city but who knows after scouting) or chicago we're shooting in july probably....(sounds real professional to not have a shoot date...) if your interested in helping let us know.
 
I don't know which one garners more respect. Nowadays anybody can shoot digital, so I imagine film would have an advantage as far as edification goes. I have seen some really great digital films, so I wouldn't say it garners more respect "no matter how good the story is". Matter of fact, I think it is quite the opposite. More people care LESS about what it is shot on, and more that they are entertained. I can't speak for festival judges and maybe that's what you're talking about, but if i were you I'd put story first and foremost.

So are you doing this strictly for festival release right? Also, how long will this film be?
 
I think that with that kind of budget its better to go with the DVX. Concentrate on the script and production values (amongst other important things) and people wont SEE that you DIDN'T shoot 16mm. You'll also have more room to shot 25 takes of that one really interesting but hard to shoot super-mega-cool shot.

Ofcourse s16 would prob be way better (in terms of the actual picture) but with that budget its just not enough... I think.

Quick question for the people who know a little more than me about DVX to 35mm;

For a film thats gonna end up in theaters... but that will be shot on a DVX100b, - do you guys think its better to shoot with the 16:9 adapter or a Mini35 or both? I'm a bit confused... I hear Barry say that the Mini35 on the bigscreen is soft... actually im not sure.. scratch that... DOF good with mini35 but AR good with 16:9 adapter.

what do you guys think? (sorry to steer the thread onto a diff direction)
 
korimickster said:
I am pretty sure what he was getting at was everyone was immediately knocking the concept of shooting on film mainly because of cost. 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.
Click to expand...

Well, in that spirit, I'll jump back in.

Sure, super 16 looks awesome and projecting it will look much better. No question, I don't think anyone will dispute that.

The big cost debate (for me anyway) is that for what it's costing to do a one off film, you will spend what it will cost to get a really good setup to film future projects. I don't know where you got your money or if you have connections to raise more for future projects so I have to assume this could be a one time thing.

If that's the case:

What you really have to ask yourself is if you think your film will be sold and cover its costs. Will you make your money back on it? Or will it just do the film festivals, hopefully win an award or two and then disappear like most do? If the answer is the latter, then your better choice would be to go with purchasing the DVX so you can save money on your future projects. (I say DVX because based on your budget, I don't think you'll be able to afford a full HVX package with P2 cards a 35 adapter <which isn't available for the HVX yet> and hard drives for storage and post costs). Or am I wrong about those numbers? Anyone?

Do you want to think about the moment or the future? If it's the moment, shoot that sucker on film! If you have future projects planned, spend your money on owning the equipment to do them. It might mean the difference between making another film or not.

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.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's not a huge amount of money really. You could get the M2 for $850.00 and then you own it for life. It would pay for itself on the very next shoot.
 
I'm curious why the extreme nature of the choices you've given yourself?

Have you considered any other options? Renting a Varicam for example? Or even DVCPro50 with the SDX900?
 
Luis Caffesse said:
I'm curious why the extreme nature of the choices you've given yourself?

Have you considered any other options? Renting a Varicam for example? Or even DVCPro50 with the SDX900?
Click to expand...


Another 2 points for Luis! :thumbup:
 
I don't know how you've budgetted your project but it is completely beyond me how you can do it on film for $8-10K. Do you have actors and crew? They need to be fed at the very least. Even on a relatively short shoot that can add up in a hurry.

Film costs, camera, processing... Any equipment you don't have and need to rent i.e. lighting, sound... (sorry I see you have lighting taken care of.)

Obviously, it's not impossible, think "El Mariachi", but...

Then after it's shot, it needs all the fun things done to it. Editing, CC, sound. It's mind boggling. I don't know why I ever got involved :grin: in the whole movie making process...I can't wait to start another one, as soon as this is out of post.

Follow your dream but PLEASE make sure you've got a budget laid out and know where the money's going so you don't get any nasty surprises. I don't know how many actors you've got, and it sounds like everyone's working free so scheduling becomes an issue. Working around everyone's schedule (if they have a day job). It seems like I was rescheduling shot every third day as something unforeseen would crop up.

Keep your eye on the prize (and bottom line) :thumbsup:
 
By the way, a quick note on the "El Mariachi" reference everyone keeps throwing around (not picking on anyone here).

But that movie was shot nearly 15 years ago. We're getting to the point that inflation should definitely be taken into account. Rodriguez shot that movie on $7,000 - adjusted for inflation according to the consumer price index that's the equivalent of $9877.96 today.

That may not seem like a big difference, but it's a bit over 40% increase of his original budget. So, I thought it was worth pointing out. And, as someone else mentioned, nearly his entire budget was spent on filmstock,processing, and telecine. He had the film telecined to BetaSP, and cut his film from that. In the end he didn't have anything more than a BetaSP version to shop around - and it cost him $7000 to get there in 1991.

Also, he shot on 16mm - not S16, which would be a bit more expensive.

I'm not here to tell you it can't be done on S16 - but I do think you're making things incredibly difficult on yourself to do it for 8K on the high end. Making a film is nearly impossible enough already - why make it more difficult than it has to be? You may want to consider 16 instead of S16 - but all in all from the sounds of it I would urge you to look into other HD rental options.

By the way, what genre is this? What is the tone/mood of the piece?
That, along with your budget, is what should probably dictate your choice.

I don't think November would have been any better if shot on S16 - but by the same token City of God wouldn't have been anywhere near as good if shot on the DVX.

It's hard for anyone here to give you serious advice without knowing more about what you're going for artistically.
 
Good point on "El Mariachi" and inflation, Luis. And yes, genre (special effects/visual effects/models) makes a difference. Crew size? Cast size? Shooting schedule (how many days/nights)? It adds up quickly.
 
also it was shot in mexico. ( right?) feeding the crew and stuff is cheaper. Im sure he brought the cam and film from the states though.
 
stephenmckinney said:
HVX costs $5849 plus some HD miniDV tapes
I still don't have faith enough in HDV.
Click to expand...

HVX is not HDV by any means, if you shoot on the MINI DV tape with that camera, you get regular DV. You'd be shooting DVCPRO HD on the cards with the HVX , therefore making it a much more viable option. Instead of having to buy several MINI DV tapes, you could stick with 2-4 cards, and have someone on set with a laptop to offload each card. It definately would save a lot of money in regards to purchasing tape stock/film stock considering P2 cards, although expensive as they are, arent a one time shot. It's a purchase I've been considering heavily.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
By the way, a quick note on the "El Mariachi" reference everyone keeps throwing around (not picking on anyone here).

But that movie was shot nearly 15 years ago. We're getting to the point that inflation should definitely be taken into account. Rodriguez shot that movie on $7,000 - adjusted for inflation according to the consumer price index that's the equivalent of $9877.96 today.

That may not seem like a big difference, but it's a bit over 40% increase of his original budget. So, I thought it was worth pointing out. And, as someone else mentioned, nearly his entire budget was spent on filmstock,processing, and telecine. He had the film telecined to BetaSP, and cut his film from that. In the end he didn't have anything more than a BetaSP version to shop around - and it cost him $7000 to get there in 1991.

Also, he shot on 16mm - not S16, which would be a bit more expensive.

I'm not here to tell you it can't be done on S16 - but I do think you're making things incredibly difficult on yourself to do it for 8K on the high end. Making a film is nearly impossible enough already - why make it more difficult than it has to be? You may want to consider 16 instead of S16 - but all in all from the sounds of it I would urge you to look into other HD rental options.

By the way, what genre is this? What is the tone/mood of the piece?
That, along with your budget, is what should probably dictate your choice.

I don't think November would have been any better if shot on S16 - but by the same token City of God wouldn't have been anywhere near as good if shot on the DVX.

It's hard for anyone here to give you serious advice without knowing more about what you're going for artistically.
Click to expand...


Hasn't the cost of film and processing gone done a bit since then? Not saying he should take that into account, I still think he'd be better off w/ the HVX or like you said, some HD rental. Also, by the time you guys shoot there will be an adapter for the HVX.
 
Slimothy said:
Hasn't the cost of film and processing gone done a bit since then? Not saying he should take that into account, I still think he'd be better off w/ the HVX or like you said, some HD rental. Also, by the time you guys shoot there will be an adapter for the HVX.
Click to expand...

Please also consider that he finished on 3/4" tape, not film. The camera was borrowed from a friend of his & he recorded the audio wild to a walkman.

Rumor has it that Columbia put more than 150K into it before it was in shape to have release prints struck.

Which is not to say that I don't admire the guy, or that I haven't read 'Rebel without a Crew.' But we *DO* have to keep things in perspective.

David Kuznicki
Production Manager, WGTE-TV30
 
well one valid point that someone brought up was renting a varicam or something and from what i see in the rental houses the varicam is like twice the cost of a good aaton xtr package.

and while getting a mini35 adapter is cheaper once you buy a wide angle, standard, and telephoto lense for it you're getting back up there in price.

also the budget i presented is pretty much just whats going towards the neccesary film equipment and processing and such. All sound and editing is stuff we already have.

right now i'm leaning towards video but i'm not sure about the dvx handling HD output. However if there is a good adapter for the HVX by the time we shoot we may just rent that one unless the dvx is actually capable of some solid HD output.

one interview with the DP from lonesome jim states...

DMN: What editing system was used to put the film together and why was that editing system used?
PP: I am not sure what system was used to edit the film, but we did the final color correction with Final Cut Pro HD and After Effects in NTSC then the film was rendered out in Hi-Def for Sundance.

not saying we're going to make it into sundance, just that i'm sure it'll have to be HD at somepoint.
 
My two cents guys:

I have produced 7 films and have ranged from 355, HD 24P and super 16mm (one shot regular 16mm). These were all films sold to the DVD and cable market.

Big thing is you NEED Contingency. It is absolutely impossible to cut a film that tight budget wise and not go over. If you are trying to shoot a feature on super 16mm for under 10K you will go over. This coming from a producer/director who has made a living at this for five years now.

I would definately shoot video so you don't hate yourself later. I just shot two 100K films on the F900 because the cost of film with processing, telecine, transfers, etc. was just too much. You have to cover your bases. And I LOVE film. But have to admit, the two HD 24P films look more like 35mm than 16mm does. The DVX film I shot was under 10K and looks good too. Not 35mm and not quite super 16mm but it would have cost 3 times that with film.

Trust me, the film will go over cutting your budget to the penny like that. Have to get to the office but I could write a novel on this.....
 
thanks a lot squidlips. that gives me more confidence in my choice as of now. I've really started looking at all my options here and it looks like the hvx is our best bet. Especially due the nature of the movie. Its very dialogue heavy which means acting performance is key. I don't want to over rehearse them until its dry just to save on film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top