Super 16mm vs. DVX?

I completely understand your want of film. I am the same way. I have 17000 feet of short ends in my refrigerator of super 16mm I am dying to use! But, as has been pointed out, many people point to El Mariachi as the rule and not the exception. First a little secret: it cost him more than that. Second, when you read his book, you can see the extra work load he had to go through to make up for that. Thirdly, it was timing. That film was a fluke that had great timing. Today, it would not get much of a second look.

I shot a film about a year and a half ago with a cast of about 15, 9 locations and a couple fairly simple action scenes. We barely got the movie done for $80,000 on super 16mm. And this was our third feature. You have to have your bare budget, and your contingency, maybe about about 5%. You will dip into it. Somehwre along the way, even in post, you will need more money.

I start shooting a film in March. I have exactly 100K. I wanted to shoot Super 16mm but knew considering the extra cost of processing, lights, film, etc. that I would be cutting it down pretty bare. I figure after my last two shoots with HD 24P and how impressed I was with the beauty and look of the image, that I will shoot once again with that. And this is coming from someone who is really in love with film and always hesitant to jump on the video band wagon. But, I am starting to feel happier about it.

The whole film out thing by percentage is something you will probably not do. EVERYONE hopes to get so successful with their project they are going to a film print. Of my projects, NONE have had a film print cut. Even the 35mm features went to video and stayed there. If you have, or are, a good DP, you can make the video work. If you can afford to go HD, do it. If not, you can find creative ways to make the DVX work for you.

There are those on here who feel an HD project that ends up on standard TVs will be no different that a SD shot project. I have done both and disagree. HD, 24P and some film lenses will give you great results if you know how to light and set for it, even on just a regular TV.

Anyway, best of luck on the project. Just make the content awesome and use the money on something that will not strangle you in the end.
 
If you are just out of film school, I can understand your desire for film. But If you are using your own money go digital. Get the camera and the editing system so you have the power to complete what is started without begging favours. El Mariachi was not Rogrigues' first film, he made shorts on vhs for years. I suspect if it was made now it would be on dvx or hvx, for a cost of about $500, not including gear. Tarantino's first 16mm feature was never finished, and what was made totally sucked, so potential talent is not a factor.

Reality check $8000 on an unfinished 16mm production, you may never make another film.

$8000 on digital equipment, if the first production sucks, chaulk it up as a learning experience and go make another one. When you have a true gem, send it out to the world and see what happens.
 
Hey, sorry to ask these questions as well:

November looks great, was it shot with a 35mm adapter or regular DVX?

I thought 28 days later used the 15minute trick? That is, they used 35mm for the first 15 minutes of the film and the last, and in between were your XL1 shots? Is this correct? Or was I mislead?
 
Regular DVX.

And for 28 days. It looks all the way till the end XL1. Just the last scene with zombies dying and them happy camping in the house and the airplane was 35mm. I recall.
 
SquidLips said:
... many people point to El Mariachi as the rule and not the exception. .... That film was a fluke that had great timing. Today, it would not get much of a second look.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I'm a big fan and I love his attitude but truth is it was pure luck that flick made his career. There are tens of thousands of films made today on film and DV that are better done and go completely unnoticed...

Not pointed at any particular posts here, but format will make zero effect on success. "open Water" looked like absolute total crap and made over $40 mil. "George Lucas in Love" was shot on 35, brilliantly done and has pretty much done nothing for the filmmaker career wise.

There are so many posts on here about "film-out" and truth is... Wont happen! And not needed. There are only two festivals in the world that have to be film and that may not even be the case anymore.

The thinking that it has to be film to be taken seriously is just not the case anymore. The problem today is that making films is so easy [equipment wise] that your project needs to stand out on top of 10,000 pieces of crap...
 
Well, that may be the case over there Dakota, but SP is different. People should care about blowing up their films (it means more care about what they do, that in any case is great for the feature), but not by themselves.

It would be better spend the time marketing their project and trying to get somebody to wach it, get good reviews and a nice article to where to download it or buy a nice copy, or even in wich festivals will be shown.

I completely agree. To be considered seriously is better to have something like BROKEN in DVX than 35/16mm rolls of unwachable hell.
 
dakotapod said:
I completely agree. I'm a big fan and I love his attitude but truth is it was pure luck that flick made his career. There are tens of thousands of films made today on film and DV that are better done and go completely unnoticed...

Not pointed at any particular posts here, but format will make zero effect on success. "open Water" looked like absolute total crap and made over $40 mil. "George Lucas in Love" was shot on 35, brilliantly done and has pretty much done nothing for the filmmaker career wise.

There are so many posts on here about "film-out" and truth is... Wont happen! And not needed. There are only two festivals in the world that have to be film and that may not even be the case anymore.

The thinking that it has to be film to be taken seriously is just not the case anymore. The problem today is that making films is so easy [equipment wise] that your project needs to stand out on top of 10,000 pieces of crap...
Click to expand...

GET R DONE!

I believe in this, and not only that, I've been told by people whom get million dollar budgets to shoot films that this is the case as well.

With low budget comes lower attention span. Amateur filmmakers aren't taking care to the detrimental aspects of film. One of which is SCRIPT. If your story sucks, who CARES if it's 35mm, it's still going to get garbage ratings even if it gets distributed.

Should be focusing more on the script itself and finding top talent, not the camera; it won't make the picture any better, if you know what I mean.
 
dakotapod said:
I completely agree. I'm a big fan and I love his attitude but truth is it was pure luck that flick made his career. There are tens of thousands of films made today on film and DV that are better done and go completely unnoticed...
Click to expand...

Well, I think it also has to do with the fact of what he went through to make the film.
 
The movie Primer was previously mentioned in this thread. Although the production budget on that was around $7k, to put things in perspective, the filmmaker did it with friends in their spare time. No one had to be paid. Food was provided by his parents. All of the film stock was short ends and expired stuff. For the most part, no special lighting except for one or two fluorescent banks ($30). The only mic he had was one bad shotgun, resulting in his having to re-do almost 80% of the location dialogue. He only shot ONE TAKE of everything. I remember reading him saying that if he'd only put in another $5,000, it would have cut post production time in half.

Also, the blow-up to 35 was something like $35-$40,000.
 
Primer was a decent movie, also. What contributes to this is it's writing.

So, you have to keep in account both aspects.

But back on the real subject:

I haven't even filmed MY short yet, and I'm skipping the offer on free Super-16mm to spend money on a 35mm adapter to add to the DVX.

Spend the money wisely, and like someone else said earlier on: Don't get stuck sitting on a heap of 16mm garbage.
 
"The thinking that it has to be film to be taken seriously is just not the case anymore. The problem today is that making films is so easy [equipment wise] that your project needs to stand out on top of 10,000 pieces of crap..."

This is a key point. I am at almost every market selling films (mostly not my own) and can tell you that in the end, the best product will win. BUT....Many buyers will not get through a project no matter how well written or acted if it looks "cheap". Even if they buy it, they will pay well under what you want. Video is becoming more common, and as a result more distibutors are able to detect it and unfortunately (unless you are Michael Mann) pay you less as a result.

Also, more and more buyers are starting to avoid "no name" actors/directors films because there are just so MANY for sale because of the wave of independant filmmakers. We all knew it would get to this point: The blessing of cheaper production equipment equals the overload of more bad films. Having some "name" actor in a film will at least make buyers go "hey, can't be all that bad". Almost all "independant" films these days star HUGE names. It's a sad trend that makes it more difficult for people to get a film out there without any established industry people. Even the festivals are more about star driven or big name director backed films.

But, this stuff is in our blood...so we have to do it.

But on the subject again, with the amount of money you have I would recommend put as much of it into the quality "production" and not blow it all on film when you can't afford it. Just make a damn good movie using these great video cameras that are really pretty impressive when in the right hands!
 
I'm no professional, but I am in a similar position-about to shoot my first feature. I decided on the DVX100a for many reasons. The main one being price-there are too many hidden pitfalls for film that don't make it into the budget. The pressure to shoot at your assumed 3:1 ratio is a huge concern to me, especially when you can't immediately look over the footage as you can with DV. If I mess up a shot on DV, it's not a big deal at all. If I think I may have messed up on film, I might feel suicidal. I figure I can make a really kickass dv feature for less than 10,000. That's including everything involved in production. Shooting S16, I would have a hard time bringing it under 20K, all told. Clerks cost 27k, Slacker cost over 20K as well.

It can be done. But is it worth the stress and gut punches you're going to incur on a film shoot? (And believe me, you will)
 
It all depends on your expirence and your ability to get a break on film. Go to www.thedrgroup.com and call Justin in the film department. Tell him what you plan on doing and how much you have to spend. Also try Kodak and talk to your sales rep. If you are a film student the better for you. Shooting on film is still for me about the cinematographer, the transfer and color correction. If you shoot super16mm and it's your first time you could wind up making some bad footage. If you know what your doing, you have a film camera, and your a budget minded tight wad shoot on film. Everyone is too uptight about the blowup. If your film gets bought for distr-o-bution they don't expect you to have a 35mm print of the film anyway. Rhino can make 720/480 off a dvx100b look great. Also considder using an HVX200 at 1080 24p.
 
I agree with all of that (and thanks for the link) but even if you know what you are doing, chances are the HD or DV will end up being cheaper. I think my whole point is, if you budget bare minimum for film, you will probably find yourself pulling up more money. Almsot always happens. But if you must...go for it. I have 100K for my next film and I still debate about super 16mm and HD. And this is new for me as I usually always go film but my last two F900 features looked amazing! And I like seeing what I will get exactly on the monitors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top