The short film appreciation thread - 8mm, 16mm, 35mm

Karim D. Ghantous · March 7

This thread is for short films shot on either 8mm, 16mm, or 35mm film stocks. They can be narratives, documentaries, spec commercials, or just travelogues. Basic rules: one video per post, and you must wait until someone else posts before you post again.

(3:23)

Tyler Purcell · March 7

Back in the before times, I started a series of documentaries about people shooting on film. The first of this series was from the Cinematography class I taught at LACHSA, which was heavily film bias. The second stars Skinner Myers, who is a professional filmmaker and educator, now working in Boulder Colorado. The third I was in production of when covid hit and I never got to finish it because the filmmaker who it was about, never finished his project due to covid. Anyway, these two are supposed to be put together with a 3rd and an intro/outtro. So I edited these as individual pieces for the time being until I can get around to shooting a 3rd or 4th!. Enjoy!

The first one is shot with my LTR, XTR Prod and Bolex EBM
The second one is shot with my Aaton 35-3 3 perf camera mostly, with some EBM BTS material.

Edited March 7 by Tyler Purcell

Karim D. Ghantous · March 9

Thanks for posting those. They're very well done and concise.

I have one criticism, but it's not unique to your films: there is too much music in too many online videos and it's very annoying. Why? Why do creators think they need music over everything? And not only that, but it's too loud and not that good. It's a disease. Having said that, you didn't commit the worse atrocity.

For expressionist films, like the one I posted, it works well if done well. But for other types of film, no.

Tyler Purcell · March 9

26 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I have one criticism, but it's not unique to your films: there is too much music in too many online videos and it's very annoying. Why? Why do creators think they need music over everything? And not only that, but it's too loud and not that good. It's a disease. Having said that, you didn't commit the worse atrocity.

Yea, it's a good question.

I think in any project, when there is dialog and plot movement, you want to focus on that, so music tends to be left out unless there is an emotional reaction. With documentary work, I feel music helps retain the audience, especially if it's just generic b-roll stuff, like most of my projects. If there is someone on camera talking, you can back off the music generally, unless there is an emotional point the filmmaker is trying to get across.

One of my favorite short documentary pieces is a black and white short about the Griswald Splicer company. They didn't use music because the atmosphere of the facility was PURE GOLD. The recordist, must have spent a lot of time recording the different machines and they had such amazing b-roll of them. Nobody talks on screen once, it's for sure an MOS camera doing the shooting. It's a brilliant way of making something and it withstands the test of time. If I were to make something similarly, I too probably would not use music, because the emotion in the machines and the people are too precious to cover up with music. On my train films, I always give moments of no music, just so you can hear the sounds of the area, but non-train people would get bored without it, I know, I asked.

Uli Meyer · March 9

I've posted this one before. I'm still quite fond of it. It is the first film Emma Laird appeared in, before her stellar ascent as an actress.

David Szasz · March 9

I shot this little short with my mum about a month ago. Used a rex 1 Bolex, 250D and an assortment of c mount and adapted nikon glass. Enjoy!

Don Cunningham · March 10

My second piece but my first short shot on film. 99.5% is 16mm and 0.5% is double 8mm. The main camera was a Bolex H16 Reflex with the secondary camera being Bell & Howell Filmo 70 HR. Film stock was a mix of fresh and outdated 7222, expired 7248, and some cross processed 7266. This took me 4 years to complete once shooting officially commenced (shoot, process, scan, edit, save up for the next round).

Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper · March 11

Sentimental Journey, taken with my Beaulieu 4008 ZM 4 on Fomapan R100, home processed and scanned with my homemade S8-scanner based on an old Noris projector. Hommage to the old steam locomotives and their still working simple technique. Have fun!

Edited March 11 by Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper

Tyler Purcell · March 11

9 hours ago, Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper said:

Sentimental Journey, taken with my Beaulieu 4008 ZM 4 on Fomapan R100, home processed and scanned with my homemade S8-scanner based on an old Noris projector. Hommage to the old steam locomotives and their still working simple technique. Have fun!

Dang a fellow Dampfbahn fan!

I do find a lot of people who like steam trains, also like film. We sure do!

This was actually our first. (Good excuse to share more stuff lol)

Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper · March 11

8 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Dang a fellow Dampfbahn fan!

I do find a lot of people who like steam trains, also like film. We sure do!

This was actually our first. (Good excuse to share more stuff lol)

This is absolutely perfect! I like the tele shots with the somehow bent rails and the locomotives shaking!

And I have some more stuff, taken with the Panasonic NV GS 400 in Eastern Germany, Saxonia, the Zittauer Schmalspurbahn, look here:

Uli Meyer · March 12

23 hours ago, Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper said:

Panasonic NV GS 400 i

Wonderful train but not shot on 8mm, 16mm or 35mm. 😉

Tyler Purcell · March 12

3 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Wonderful train but not shot on 8mm, 16mm or 35mm. 😉

I will fix that.

Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper · March 13

13 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Wonderful train but not shot on 8mm, 16mm or 35mm. 😉

That is right. But a nice movie finally does not depend on the camera, but on the mind behind.

This one is taken with my Bolex H16 Rex4 on Kodachrome 25 in Normandy, France and was home scanned with my DIY Scanner based on a Siemens 2000.

Edited March 13 by Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper

Uli Meyer · March 13

4 hours ago, Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper said:

That is right. But a nice movie finally does not depend on the camera, but on the mind behind.

Maybe so. Except that this thread is calling for shorts on 8mm, 16mm and 35mm.

Aristeidis Tyropolis · March 13

7 hours ago, Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper said:

That is right. But a nice movie finally does not depend on the camera, but on the mind behind.

I've been reading and hearing that "truism" for decades - my sincerest apologies, but that statement lacks any context and doesn't really mean anything inherently.

One could say an actor is an empty "vessel" as they only need the script the director and the make up artist and so on, a gaffer doesn't mean anything without their cinematographer, a cinematographer doesn't mean...this can take a while.

Yes you need the mind to drive anything, but you need the right context of persons, machines, timing, luck, to make your work BE what it is at that specific moment in time, so do call me when you repeat exactly "The Name of the Rose" for example with a "similar" actor a "similar" camera, crew, art department a "similar" film stock or an Alexa, Blackmagic, FX3, whatever, but then it would be something else altogether wouldn't it?

In short, any piece does absolutely depend on everything that was used AT that time, within the context of people, ideas and machines it was made, whatever that was.

My short 16mm submission is a simple fun project I saw some time ago, it's nothing super deep or anything - I just had fun watching it.

Uli Meyer · March 13

Here’s one from a couple of years ago. Shot on 35mm one weekend at home for fun.

Edited March 13 by Uli Meyer

Marc Roessler · March 16

Documentary style video clip shot on an ARRI 16s, filmed on about 60 meters of short ends of 5219 and 8647 left over from another project. I had it pushed one and a half stops, if I remember right. This was a live event, so I worked mostly with available light and had to blend in with the atmosphere for the rest. For the interiors, I added three or four 75W PAR16 cans for some splashes of light, and two 1kW NSP PARs in the exterior door area. In addition, for two shots I used a portable flat soft box (a flat, silk covered cardboard box with an array of 10W quartz bulbs inside).

Edited March 16 by Marc Roessler

Karim D. Ghantous · April 21

(1:42)

Jon O'Brien · April 21

On 3/13/2026 at 5:52 PM, Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper said:

.. a nice movie finally does not depend on the camera, but on the mind behind.

Tools and medium are super important in any creative field. The specifics of it, down to very fine details.

The digital crowd has been saying for years, "the camera doesn't matter."

For those to whom digital is totally fine and cool, well, they just don't get it. Of course they don't get it, because they love video.

I can clearly remember back in the 70s and 80s, if you were some kind of camera operator you were either a film person or a video person. Sure, some did both, some BBC shows (like Doctor Who) had interior scenes filmed on video and the exterior scenes were shot on film, but many people were strongly for either one or the other. I was always strongly for film and was determined not to work with video. The rise of digital is largely why I steered clear of the 'film' industry for years. It just wasn't what I wanted to give my life to. I gave it a good go, finally, in 2022, but left it totally behind when I realised I hated working with video.

Camera and medium matters a lot to many people. I wish the people who love digital would get that into their mind. The "mind behind" should do some clearer thinking on this. Many people want to work just with film, and they are not of the view that camera doesn't matter.

That argument should be dropped: that camera doesn't matter, and that only the "mind behind" matters. The argument only works if you love video. Which means the argument doesn't work.

It is quite simple if thought of in these terms: imagine a classical or romantic era violin concerto, played on a modern amplified fiddle which is just like a stick, with no body on it. It may appeal to some, but for most it will not do the job well at all, because it is really a different thing entirely. It is turning a traditional acoustic and handmade instrument into a modern digital gadget. Some may love it but many will not be moved by it. Those who don't understand or care about the difference will not see a problem of course. But for those who do care, there is most certainly a material and also 'spiritual' difference in the actual result. Yes, art is as important as that.

Edited April 21 by Jon O'Brien

Ross Yeandle · April 21

Wow, just found this thread and watched 'In thin air' really lovely, this look for me totally represents what film is all about. Looks like I've got quite a few to get through, can't wait...

Incidently there's a really fun film on YouTube definitely worth a watch shot on 16mm and it's really brilliant...it's basically a silent movie but don't let this put you off as actions speak loader than words...and the acting is so good and it's very well cast. It's called 'the big take' and it's total unpretentious fun. I'll try and find a link for it and post it here.

Jon O'Brien · April 21

Further to my post above, I would just add one thing more (in the spirit of Columbo, perhaps).

I would go so far as to say that the widespread dominance of digital 'cine'matography may have done material harm to the entertainment value of the world 'film' industry. The audience can't quite tell why movies are not so 'moving' anymore. Something just isn't as good any more, but they can't put their finger on it. Only a few technicians and artists are aware of a potential cause, however.

Edited April 21 by Jon O'Brien

Karim D. Ghantous · April 21

5 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

The audience can't quite tell why movies are not so 'moving' anymore. Something just isn't as good any more, but they can't put their finger on it. Only a few technicians and artists are aware of a potential cause, however.

Possibly. Although perhaps the problem is indirect - IOW, digital cameras are just as good as film cameras, but they encourage sub-optimal thought and behaviour and sensibility. IMHO only. I like both.

Jon O'Brien · April 22

4 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Possibly. Although perhaps the problem is indirect - IOW, digital cameras are just as good as film cameras, but they encourage sub-optimal thought and behaviour and sensibility. IMHO only. I like both.

I seriously don't want to hijack your thread Karim, and so will only make one more comment. I don't have any films to show just yet for this thread, but hope to soon.

But what I wanted to say is that this "the camera doesn't matter" idea is actually the root problem. It reveals the true nature of the problem. It's like saying "the instrument doesn't matter" in a concerto. Like, the Mozart clarinet concerto played on a digital pipe, that yes the musician blows into but fake digital notes made by a computer come out of a speaker.

That so many digital people cannot even see this basic and powerful truth reveals a lack of artistic understanding. My wife plays the piano. She uses both acoustic (traditional) pianos and digital. Often, playing Mozart, Beethoven, or whatever on a digital piano, she will say to me, "No, this piano can't give me enough." She needs the acoustic to help make music that can 'move' people.

Digital is meant to be more powerful.

Actually, in practice, digital is weaker than the real thing. And by that I mean the power to convey emotion and spirit.

Thanks. Over and out. I will post here again on this thread with a film clip, or not post here again at all.

Edited April 22 by Jon O'Brien

Mark Dunn · April 22

5 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I seriously don't want to hijack your thread Karim, and so will only make one more comment. I don't have any films to show just yet for this thread, but hope to soon.

But what I wanted to say is that this "the camera doesn't matter" idea is actually the root problem. It reveals the true nature of the problem. It's like saying "the instrument doesn't matter" in a concerto. Like, the Mozart clarinet concerto played on a digital pipe, that yes the musician blows into but fake digital notes made by a computer come out of a speaker.

That so many digital people cannot even see this basic and powerful truth reveals a lack of artistic understanding. My wife plays the piano. She uses both acoustic (traditional) pianos and digital. Often, playing Mozart, Beethoven, or whatever on a digital piano, she will say to me, "No, this piano can't give me enough." She needs the acoustic to help make music that can 'move' people.

Digital is meant to be more powerful.

Actually, in practice, digital is weaker than the real thing. And by that I mean the power to convey emotion and spirit.

Thanks. Over and out. I will post here again on this thread with a film clip, or not post here again at all.

I tend to agree, but the argument was lost a long time ago. Film is a very expensive niche now. When I make a vid, whether an instructional one on use of the Steenbeck or a clip of the grandtwins on the phone, I'm doing something that would have cost tens or hundreds on film so simply wouldn't have happened. But I'm not making art nor trying to.

I would love to have something that I could cut properly on the pic-sync or Steenbeck. But it's not going to happen.

Uli Meyer with his 35mm. home movies (that's a compliment btw, as he knows) is very much the exception.