Film or Video

[Sandy Thomson]

I've been out of the film business for a a long time. Used to shoot and produce 16mm corporate films. I'm planning to retire from my present job and would like to do historical mechanical stuff like the restoration of an old aircraft, railroad, ship topics etc. T-V or distribution to historical buffs. Have researched the DV options from pov of cameras and editing but I would prefer super 16 if there are advantages and a quality/economic argument to support. Was a member of CSC and did all camera work and editing at the time. loved the medium. Is there a future in film? (I mean the medium, not my capabilites).

sandy

[John Pytlak RIP]

I think there is a future for film. :) Here's what's happening in Super-16:

 

http://www.kodak.com/go/16mm

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, Super-16 is still pretty popular for TV production, even features.

 

The ONLY real downside in your case is cost -- can you afford it? Quality-wise, it beats DV hands down. It's real competitor is HD and there you also have a lot of costs of different sort.

 

Another option is the Panasonic SDX900, which shoots 24P/480 (like it's cheaper DV cousin, the DVX100) but can record to DVCPRO-50. The image quality is very high for standard def video and the camera is much cheaper than a Digital Betacam.

 

But as a long term investment, shooting on Super-16 sort of guarantees you'll be able to transfer it to HD and any other upcoming formats. Again, IF you can afford to shoot it, it's probably the most flexible in the number of ways you can post it.

 

There are some lower-cost consumer HD cameras coming onto the market, but the quality is problematic, sort of all the color and compression problems of consumer DV but with more resolution. All the shooting problems of working with consumer gear as well.

 

I will say that quite a number of the cheaper shows on the History Channel, TLC, etc. are shot on old betacams and consumer DV together, or the lowest-end professional DV gear. Some of those will have some resell problems should there be a demand for an HD version. But certainly there's a healthy market for DV material if it is competently shot and posted.

 

You've certainly picked an uncertain time to invest in gear though. You might want to wait for the Kinetta to be finished!

[Mitch Gross]

It's really about what clients want. There are still plenty of productions shot in Super-16. Just as some programs on The History Channel, Discovery and the like will accept some product in DV or other small video formats (ever see one of those motorcycle shows?), they are now also requiring another level of content in film or HD only. Discovery has an HD content channel and I believe they require all content to be something like 90% HD-level originated. So even film material must be posted through an HD route.

 

There are still plenty of productions that shoot in Super-16, even for the types of projects that you describe. But the game has changed quite a bit over the years and you'll need to find out how clients wish to work, post and budget.

[Sandy Thomson]

Many thanks to Mitch, David and John for the very useful feedback. It helps me in the decision I'm leaning towards of shooting in Super 16 with the option to post thru HD when needed for T-V or other markets with this requirement.

I have a basic love of mechanical things and the physical attraction of the film camera is meaningful. Changes in editing techniques that have evolved over the time I've been out of the business are intriguing, and it's clear there's a lot to learn. Just the concept of digitizing the workprint and then doing the editing by computer is a whole new process for me. Right now, I know I have to resist the urge to go shopping for gear, and spend time exporing the potential markets, talk to people in the business and make sure I know a whole lot more about it than I do now. Fortunately for me, the cost of entry is not an issue. But on the other hand, I don't want to waste my money buying something that I realize a year later was a mistake.

Sandy

[Nate Downes]

An option if you want to "get your feet wet" without a heavy capital investment might be to purchase a second-hand Super8 camera on ebay and a few rolls of film. Would get you the know-how in the basic differences in lighting, makeup, and framing when you switch from video to film, and would not cost as much so that after your crash-course you will know better what you will need for going to 16/S16.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I can't see someone being taken seriously with a Super-8 camera, or even a low-end 16mm camera. Sorry, I know it's not right, but that's how it is.

 

This is exactly the sort of work I do, and I don't think any of them have ever had the slightest chance of financing film. This is one area where video rules the roost.

 

Phil

[DanStewart]

Just the concept of digitizing the workprint

 

You probably mean the neg..?

[Mitch Gross]

Super-8? You must be joking. Read back to the original post. This is an experienced cinematographer who is returning to shooting after years away. There is no way that anyone in such a position should be considering S-8. What he does have to learn a lot about is the current state of post-production, which has obviously completely transformed since his experience. I would argue that either S-16 or a professional video format would be suitable for him, along with a home editing system that he could either completely post with or use for offline editing before conforming in an online suite.

 

It's really more important to see how others are working in the professional arena that try to make something up from scratch. This is also the problem I have with certain film schools and a lot of wannabes on the internet; they'll advise on how one COULD make movies instead of how movies are ACTUALLY made. This isn't meant as an attack on anyone here or elsewhere in particular, but this is an example of someone who worked on a professional level being advised to drop to a consumer format. Even DV can be considered a "prosumer" format, but Super-8? Seriously?

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Well said Mitch. I completely agree, especially about the film school part.

 

I would add that now getting started it is probaly better to go DV as opposed to 16 only because by the time they're working, there will be more HD stuff, unfortunately, and it will be an easier transition than from film.

[David Mullen ASC]

On the other hand, I think if you master 16mm and do some really high-end stuff with it, it will get you work in almost any format. The same could be said for 24P HD, but with consumer interlaced-scan DV, it's harder to get the work up to a really "slick" professional level. But I suppose that if someone could, they certainly would have some valuable skills!

 

I'm one of those people who actually think the higher-end formats -- 35mm, HD, 65mm, Super-16, etc. -- are EASIER to work with than consumer DV and Super-8. 35mm may be bigger and heavier, but otherwise, it's actually easier to shoot with in terms of creating good images than a consumer DV camcorder. Of course, I have trained camera assistants to actually deal with the camera itself...

 

But in terms of a beginner, I certainly recommend DV because any learning format must be cheap enough to shoot often with it.

 

From a merely technical angle, the best way to learn to shoot HD is to shoot with professional standard def video gear, since pro HD camcorders are so similar in design. But from a broader perspective, it's almost irrelevant. Any decent DP should be able to handle almost any format because his BASE skill levels are in lighting, composition, visual design and storytelling, working with directors, crews, budgets, time constraints, and basic photographic concepts. The details of using the actual format or camera technology, whether film or digital, is a fairly superficial level over that core knowledge.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

35mm may be bigger and heavier, but otherwise, it's actually easier to shoot with in terms of creating good images than a consumer DV camcorder.

Please take out advertizements all over the internet with this important piece of knowlege.

 

Yeah, it's expensive, it's not as easy to thread a magazine as it is to pop in a tape, there are other inconveniences like critical focus that we're all well aware of. But damn, I certainly spend less time lighting 35mm than any other format, even 16mm when you consider that you're almost always using a slower filmstock in 16. That is really a relief to me and the way I like to work.

 

I have an interesting situation where I have a consumer DV camera running side by side with my 35mm footage (I use the video camera to get the reference sound for dubbing). Given the same lighting the DV totally looks way too contrasty, the 35mm looks just the way I want it to. To bring down that contrast I'd have to either fly in fill cards, or diffuse the source, and find JUST the right amount of diffusion so that I still have definable shadows, or play with both. That's like 2 to 3 times the work for a DV image. Granted the professional DV cameras have a better range and a better lens, but it's not THAT a big of a difference.

 

If anyone wants to save TIME on the set with the choice of format, 35mm is the best way to do it I think. I think even when you add the reloads, the increased weight of the camera, and the focus rehearsals, it's still faster.

 

- G.

[Sandy Thomson]

35mm may be bigger and heavier, but otherwise, it's actually easier to shoot with in terms of creating good images than a consumer DV camcorder.

Please take out advertizements all over the internet with this important piece of knowlege.

 

Yeah, it's expensive, it's not as easy to thread a magazine as it is to pop in a tape, there are other inconveniences like critical focus that we're all well aware of. But damn, I certainly spend less time lighting 35mm than any other format, even 16mm when you consider that you're almost always using a slower filmstock in 16. That is really a relief to me and the way I like to work.

 

I have an interesting situation where I have a consumer DV camera running side by side with my 35mm footage (I use the video camera to get the reference sound for dubbing). Given the same lighting the DV totally looks way too contrasty, the 35mm looks just the way I want it to. To bring down that contrast I'd have to either fly in fill cards, or diffuse the source, and find JUST the right amount of diffusion so that I still have definable shadows, or play with both. That's like 2 to 3 times the work for a DV image. Granted the professional DV cameras have a better range and a better lens, but it's not THAT a big of a difference.

 

 

- G.

If anyone wants to save TIME on the set with the choice of format, 35mm is the best way to do it I think. I think even when you add the reloads, the increased weight of the camera, and the focus rehearsals, it's still faster.

 

G: Well now, why not 35? That opens a whole new door. In whatever I do, I want to be different/better than the next guy and most viewers can tell quality when they see it. As for time, that's not a luxury I expect to have in abundance. There will be occasions when I'll be able to light the scene and there'll be others when I have to grab what I can when I can get it. Frankly, I had not considered 35 because I had the idea that the equipment was too heavy and bulky. Nothing I do is ever going to be shown on a big screen, but if it's transferred to video the better the quality going in, the better the end result even if it ends up a VHS tape. I know you're biased, but it's worth looking into.

 

sandy

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Actually, for straight to tape and TV stuff I'd be more likely to go with Super 16. The new Vision2 500 is so terrific, I just saw a film shot in Super 16 with that filmstock blown up to 35 and I have to say it's really impressive. I'd still probably use the 200 speed in most cases, so you'd need about a stop more's worth of light, but the portability in gear and less frequent reloads would be a plus you might find beneficial for certain kinds of work.

 

I should also add that I'm using non-sync, noisy cameras to film. If you want blimped 35mm cameras that's going to be an expensive investment if you want to buy the gear. For the same price I paid for my MOS 35mm camera you can get a blimped sync CP 16 or an Eclair NPR (I don't know if you can get them in modified Super 16 format at that price, though). I'm also shooting on short ends, which is not exactly standard procedure but it saves a hell of a lot of $$$ versus buying the stuff new.

 

It seems now that Super 16 has a bit of a future ahead of it still, despite what I thought a while back. The new generation of filmstocks coupled with good glass is definitely a terrific combo.

 

- G.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

I shot a feature last year in Super 16 which is finishing post now. I did the whole thing with 7218 and nobody can believe it's 16, especially 500asa 16. My rep at Kodak really came through and wanted the project to go film more than I did so she was able to get the production a great deal that would have been a shame to pass up.

 

The alternative was an SDX900 the producers had put on hold, of which there were going to be none in LA until 4 days before production. I have since been using an SDX900 alongside 35 and 16 for a documentary and think it's an amazing camera, definitely the best there is in standard def.

 

With the new Vision 2 sticks available, super 16 is an incredible and affordable option for low budget productions and looks great when posted in HD.

[Mitch Gross]

With the new Vision 2 sticks available, super 16 is an incredible and affordable option for low budget productions and looks great when posted in HD.

I absolutely agree. The 100 spped 7212 is a sight to behold. As a test we zoomed in to the center of the frame until we were using about 25% of the negative to fill the frame on the Spirit. And it still looked better than Super-16 stocks I was using just a few years ago. Lovely stuff.

[Sandy Thomson]

Folks;

Some great comments for experienced pros which I really appreciate. What a great vehicle!

On the video side I was looking at the SDX 900 as my preferred camera after reviewing most options, so I see I'm not alone.

If I go with Super 16, I believe my choice would be a new Aaton. If I could find a good used package I might wind up with a well matched lens/camera combination that's worked well together rather than building a package from scratch. But how can you know the condition of the gear?

There does seem to be an abundant opinion that S16 with good lenses and the new film can meet my needs.

After the primary medium choice, then comes the editing part which I also would want to do myself. It seems like what's makes the most sense is to produce a digitized copy of the original neg or a work print and then do everything on the desktop including all soundtracks. From there to the point of cutting for conforming, it seems like it's mostly a video editing operation.

I'm a passive owner of a company which is in the business of internet delivered technical training. The basic medium is and has always been video for live action and I've watched these guys patch together a never ending range of camera and editing gear. Money's always been tight. Every year there's something new. They work in Betacam SP now. But it seems they can never remain state of the art for long.

Anyway, what I want to avoid is getting all hooked up with S16 and then have to change to video in 2 years because film just can't keep up or demand for the former at the distribution or TV level forces the issue.

I know an air to air still photographer who's shooting with an 11 mp Cannon and he says it's better than 120, but franky, I like the look of the film better. It may not be quite as sharp but there's a feel to it that to my eye is more pleasing. Will it always be that way? Or are we romantics trying to shovel sand against the tide?

 

s

[John Pytlak RIP]

Or are we romantics trying to shovel sand against the tide?

 

I'm a romantic, but my practical engineering side sees the many advantages of film too. B)

[Matt Wells]

The basic medium is and has always been video for live action and I've watched these guys patch together a never ending range of camera and editing gear. Money's always been tight. Every year there's something new. They work in Betacam SP now. But it seems they can never remain state of the art for long.

This is the big advantage with film. The film improves all the time and will, I am sure, continue to do so, but you can keep on using your gear for years.

 

Video will continue to improve - but film will also keep improving.

 

I recently bought the DVD of the recent BBC series "The Blue Planet". This had the most beautiful cinematography - If you watch the making of the series on the DVD you see the cameramen using some really old S16 gear, but the pictures are awesome.

 

I like the photography so much on this series.

 

I used to own a wind up Russian Kinoflex super8 camera. I shot a load of K40 with it, and projected it 6 feet wide for some friends - then I showed them the camera and they really could not believe I had shot the footage they had just watched with such a basic piece of gear :P . This is one of the things I love about film.

Matt

[Tim Carroll]

I am no where near the level of experience as most of the folks on this forum, but for me, I have a Canon XL1S that I use for my clients to create the video for thier web sites and for a few local television stations. It is what makes me money.

 

I also have a recently acquired ARRI SR1 that I use for narrative storytelling. It is for my own personal work, and to learn and grow with. I will keep the ARRI and eventually have it converted to Super 16, while the XL1S will become obsolete and need to be replaced in a few years. I have tried numerous times to shoot narrative work on the Canon, and although it does not look horrible, it does not inspire like the look and feel of film.

 

The DV is great for communicating visual information. The 16mm is great for communicating feeling, emotion, mood, and everything else I am trying to communicate with my art.

 

Just an opinion.

-Tim Carroll

[Mitch Gross]

If you wish to buy ANY gear that will hold its value for more than a couple of years, then film is the only way to go. The speed of change is simply too fast in the video world. Your internet company is seriously behind the curve: Beta SP is no longer even manufactured, although it is still the most common professional production format. For internet use a higher end DVCam camera such as the Sony DSR570 or the Ikegami HL-DV7WA would be ideal.

 

You can certainly find excellent used Aaton camera packages out there. There is a large trade of used equipment. When buying anything used, the first step I take is to send the gear to a reputable camera rental & service house to have it fully evaluated. I'm in New York so that means Abel Cine Tech for me, but for Toronto you could go to CineAsst or a few others.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

If you wish to buy ANY gear that will hold its value for more than a couple of years, then film is the only way to go.

Agreed. I didn't flinch when I bought my Arri made in the 70's that it would still be of productive use not only for the next two years but quite a while afterwards. The Canon L-2 that I got back new in 1995 with such excitement is now pretty much useless.

 

- G.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The problem with buying film gear is that while it's possible to buy equipment that will technically outresolve even the best video quite cheaply, it's very expensive indeed to get into film equipment you can use professionally. Even something like an SR2, with lenses, will set you back way more than a DSR-570 - probably several times more. Video is cheaper to start with.

 

Phil

[Mitch Gross]

Even something like an SR2, with lenses, will set you back way more than a DSR-570 - probably several times more. Video is cheaper to start with.

Not true. You can get a an SR-2 package with a nice zoom, batteries & charger, 2 mags, handgrip and case for $12-$15K. A DSR570 will cost $15K and then you still have to buy the lens, batteries & charger and case.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Well, it depends very much on the specifics of the SR-2 package - I'm not sure you would want to try and rent it out with no primes. Different requirements, sure, but we're talking practicality here.

 

Phil