Straight to Video Feature

Korhan20 · May 18, 2004

I am planning on a shooting a straight to video feature and I am still debating on using film or digital video. I was wondering what differences there would be between footage shot on 16mm and footage shot on some sony 3ccd camera. I know that it would be more cost efficient to go with the video, but if the film is going to give it a better look, I think i would like to go with that. Any comments?

David Mullen ASC · May 18, 2004

What can you afford to shoot?

Straight to video distributers as well as cable TV and international broadcasters prefer 35mm for feature films. So starting from that base level, you have to ask yourself what comes close to 35mm so that the distributers will not be turned off. I mean, they'll buy almost anything on any format IF they think they can make money off of it, but for a straight to video feature, you are trying to convince them to buy it, so you want to avoid any negative qualities that will give them an excuse to pass on it.

Super-16 and 24P HD are the two closest formats to a 35mm look and quality level. 24P/25P progressive scan standard def video would be below that and interlaced-scan 60i/50i below that.

So my recommendation is to shoot in Super-16 or 24P/720 (Panasonic Varicam) or 24P/1080 HD (Sony F900). Below that, I'd look into shooting 24P-to-60i on the NTSC Panasonic SDX900 DVCPRO-50, or 25P-to-50i on the Sony MSW900 IMX PAL camcorder.

I've shot over a dozen straight to video features and most were in 35mm, one in 24P HD.

John Pytlak RIP · May 18, 2004

There are plenty of examples of shows on television shot with each of the formats. Which best suits your production? Super-16 has been capable of high production values for years, and now with the Kodak VISION2 color negative films, even more so.

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

Super-16 was used for "Dawson's Creek", "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman". "Scrubs", etc.

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...003/hardP.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...dragonfly.shtml

http://www.bermanfilms.com/faq.html

http://www.salon.com/ent/col/srag/1999/08/26/return/

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PCS:Super%2016

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?OFM:16%20mm

Korhan20 · May 18, 2004

First of all i would like to thank you guys for taking time to reply. I do not have that much to spend so if i were to go with film, i would probably just use 16mm with a small shooting ratio. I was also considering digital video, but i am unsure as to what these companies are looking for. Would most of them choose 16mm over high end consumer dv?

Mitch Gross · May 18, 2004

Would most of them choose 16mm over high end consumer dv?

Yes.

David Mullen ASC · May 19, 2004

Isn't "high end consumer DV" a bit of an oxymoron? Sounds like "gourmet junk food."

Eric Steelberg ASC · May 19, 2004

There's a big difference. After wanting to shoot a straight to video feature on the SDX900, I convinced the director and producer to go super 16 and post in HD and it looks fantastic. Shot the whole thing on the 500 Vision 2 and they are happy they spent a little extra money doing it.

Peter deWit · June 3, 2004

Another issue to consider aside from quality is latitude. The Vision2 stocks give you a huge amount of leeway in exposure while still being a high speed film. Digital on the other hand tends to have alot of trouble handling extremes of light and dark. This can make doing things like shooting a night much more difficult. If your production looks to have many night or low key lighting scenes I would be careful about choosing digital. You can still acheive a good image with digital in these situations but be sure to always use a properly calibrated monitor to be sure. I have personally never shot on an HD camera so I can't say if they handle low light better

Christian Appelt · June 3, 2004

Go for 16mm, even standard 16. In telecine, I am always stunned about the quality and the high value look that even stuff shot with a simple Krasnojarsk can give you. And it is a much better investment from an archival point of view, because you can be sure that film can be transferred to any new medium, even when DV is gone the way of Lowband U-Matic...

GeorgeSelinsky · June 4, 2004

with a simple Krasnojarsk

Krasnojarsk is a region in Russia, Krasnogorsk is a town. 16mm movie cameras are only made in the latter :)

- G.

Bob Hayes · June 11, 2004

I?m currently shooting a supper 16mm feature on KODAK 7274 Vision 2 Stock. My very discerning producer just saw the first dailies and loved them. He said it had no grain and looked like 35mm. I?m not surprised. I still chose Kodak Vision 2 over any digital format.

John Pytlak RIP · June 11, 2004

Bob: Did you mean VISION2 7217? But even the older 7274 is great for Super-16.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/pro...0.1.4.5.4&lc=en

Phil Rhodes · June 11, 2004

Hi,

> they are happy they spent a little extra money doing it.

Going from SDX-900 to super 16 with HD post is a hell of a lot more than "a little" extra money. At least several times more, up to several tens of times more depending on specifics.

Phil

Matt Wells · June 15, 2004

Hi,

> they are happy they spent a little extra money doing it.

Going from SDX-900 to super 16 with HD post is a hell of a lot more than "a little" extra money. At least several times more, up to several tens of times more depending on specifics.

Phil

I think what was meant that in the big scheme of things, taking into account all production costs, it is only a little extra.

Matt