What are some more reasons people don't shoot 16mm for indie features?
- Thread starter beilstein
- Start date
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Beilstein, welcome to DVXuser.
Different films call for different looks, so sometimes 35mm is best, sometimes 4k is best, sometimes 1080 is best, and sometimes 16mm is best.
16mm is a very affordable alternative to 35mm, and works very well when the look of film or the aesthetics it may offer are called for. Some films may work best using digital, while some could be better with film. Just like anything in film-making, there are no rules, certainties or best anything. I've only had two projects in the past where the look of film was highly desired and called for purposefully. All other times was just to use it.
Reasons to NOT use film:
1) Despite cameras costing less to rent versus higher end digital systems, the cost of film will eventually add up and overpower those savings on the package... and it will do so rather fast.
2) Long takes or improvisational takes: If shooting long takes or long scenes with improv, don't waste that film if you don't have the money or resources. Shooting digital helps... unless you can get those 1000' magazines from panavision... and I don't think they even make those for 16mm.
3) If shooting 3D, film is a no-go.
4) Young DP's might not be comfortable using it. "Wait, I exposed my image using the eye-piece... what do you mean the film is all black?!"
5) The aesthetic of the film calls for a look better given by a digital body.
6) Your roommate owns a RedOne.
7) You're a Robot.
8) You live in a place where there isn't a good film-lab, and you can't afford, risk, or trust to send your film out of state or country to a film lab.
Reasons to use film:
1) Best quality in many regards
2) You're doing a photo-chemical processing workflow.
3) You desire the aesthetics a film camera can offer over digital.
4) You are shooting lots of solar timelapses, lasers hitting the camera, super bright exposures, and etc. Protect a CMOS and use 24 frames every second instead.
5) Many more, but I'm tired.
Different films call for different looks, so sometimes 35mm is best, sometimes 4k is best, sometimes 1080 is best, and sometimes 16mm is best.
16mm is a very affordable alternative to 35mm, and works very well when the look of film or the aesthetics it may offer are called for. Some films may work best using digital, while some could be better with film. Just like anything in film-making, there are no rules, certainties or best anything. I've only had two projects in the past where the look of film was highly desired and called for purposefully. All other times was just to use it.
Reasons to NOT use film:
1) Despite cameras costing less to rent versus higher end digital systems, the cost of film will eventually add up and overpower those savings on the package... and it will do so rather fast.
2) Long takes or improvisational takes: If shooting long takes or long scenes with improv, don't waste that film if you don't have the money or resources. Shooting digital helps... unless you can get those 1000' magazines from panavision... and I don't think they even make those for 16mm.
3) If shooting 3D, film is a no-go.
4) Young DP's might not be comfortable using it. "Wait, I exposed my image using the eye-piece... what do you mean the film is all black?!"
5) The aesthetic of the film calls for a look better given by a digital body.
6) Your roommate owns a RedOne.
7) You're a Robot.
8) You live in a place where there isn't a good film-lab, and you can't afford, risk, or trust to send your film out of state or country to a film lab.
Reasons to use film:
1) Best quality in many regards
2) You're doing a photo-chemical processing workflow.
3) You desire the aesthetics a film camera can offer over digital.
4) You are shooting lots of solar timelapses, lasers hitting the camera, super bright exposures, and etc. Protect a CMOS and use 24 frames every second instead.
5) Many more, but I'm tired.
Last edited:
kevinottawa
Well-known member
Jaws, Star Wars, Debby does dallas.. would all be the same if they were shot on digital. Story and content is what matters, even more so in the digital age, why do you think a crappy 9x16 (sideways) iphone clip gets more views on youtube than most indy stuff? And yes fluff is a type of story that fills a need.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Probably why he asked about aesthetics. Story is the basics, but as a cinematographer, it is our duty to create images to make people feel the emotion desired by the story/director. I believe it was Gordon Willis, ASC who once said, "A cinematographer is a visual psychiatrist - moving an audience through a movie ... making them think the way you want them to think, painting pictures in the dark."
As Gordon knows, story is first and foremost... but that does not make everything else unimportant. The visual qualities of a medium does influence emotion while the monetary qualities of the medium can also dictate workflow and production. It is a very important question. Would Jaws feel the same if it were shot on an HVX200, RedOne, Iphone4 or 5DmII?... I'm willing to bet it wouldn't.
neither Jaws, nor Debbie DD, would have been the same experience.
And we all saw what happened when star wars was done in Digital.....
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
That was for many many many reasons. *cough* George Lucas sucks *cough*
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
Go see Black Swan. 16mm can look wonderful. On our last indie feature we used digital for scenes where we could control the lighting. We used film (16mm) for outdoors. They cut nicely and the 16 allowed us a wide latitude berth, allowing us to focus on the story and acting. But the cost of film... man, every time you roll the camera, dollar bills go flying away!
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Depends on the story. People-in-a-room-talking might not require a true film "look", while possibly a "Days of Heaven" type story might.
I think it's safe to say that if you showed someone a film shot on a Canon 5DMKII - 10 or 15 years ago, they'd assume it was shot on 35mm film. I saw a feature film projected in a theater recently that was shot on an EX3 with a lens adapter and it looked like film. The "aesthetics" of film compared to certain digital formats isn't what it used to be.