Is the A-Minima now Dead? (Is 16mm Dead too?)

[Tenolian Bell]

"Pi" is the kind of entry film that no one would complain about on their CV as a first Indy movie.

 

"28 Days Later" looked better than "Pi".

If you can do a "Pi" that looks like "28 Days Later" then I am sure no one is going to compain.....

It's a bit unfair to pick on Pi for its photography. For one it was shot on 16mm black and white reversal which is an extremely difficult film to shoot. Some scenes were obviously shot run and gun with a very harsh, contrasty, and unforgiving film stock.

 

Two the way Pi was shot was an artistic choice. Many of the daylight scenes I thought were quite beautiful. Like the scene in the cafe where the sunlight was spilling in. To shoot reversal may not be the same choice others of us would make, but it was what they decided to do.

 

In this case you are mistaking artistic style for bad 16mm photography.

[Shiloh Arts]

I agree that it's a good idea to practice on a less expensive medium. I played around with video quite a bit; it's good for learning things like setups, camera moves, and so on. But I hate the lighting aspect, it's absolutely a horror to look at that monitor and see just what a bitch of a job it is to make it look good (not to mention trusting the monitor, unless it's an expensive one).

Of course you?re going to run into problems with a poor DV camera as far as lighting goes. So it all depends on the quality of the DV you use. For instance, when it comes to lighting, the SDX900 is great for just this reason. Also, the depth of field issue can be greatly improved with the SDX900 by simply adding the P+S Technik Pro35 lens adapter to this camera.

 

So to IBL, keep the faith even if the purists tell you it's not going to last, because DV is here to stay and only improving, not being replaced. Sony has already incorporated blue ray technology into their new line of DV cameras. <-- Millions of dollars in R&D on a soon to be extinct format? Sony is smart so I think not.

 

If I were you I would go DV. However, I would truly consider DVX's bigger Brother SDX900. I have seen both cameras perform side by side, and my thoughts were:

"Hmm...I can see why people say that the DVXA can look like film synthesized," but it still had some reminisces of video and practically all DVX shots do in some way. Nevertheless when I saw the SDX900 performance I was like "Someone pass the popcorn please." If you haven't already, check out this article:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/articles/sdx900.asp.

 

If you have the money, you should consider the SDX and rent the P+S Technik Pro35 lens.

 

I also wouldn't be concerned with distribution because the whole purpose isn't to sell you short (financially); it?s to be an innovator by making good films. I believe that the DP?s, who looking down upon DV filmmakers, are just speaking out of arrogance and obstinacy. IBL remember, be a leader not a follower. So for this reason as you humble yourself and use a medium that others may laugh at, you'll learn new things that they are to scared to learn.

 

As a documentary film director, I've learned quickly that this format is ideal for both distribution and financial prudence.

 

So be wise.

 

Good Luck to all!!

[Jeremy Russell]

I was forced to fill in one scene with DVX-100 on a short that I shot with the A-Minima this summer. My DP and I were very skeptical about doing it, but after cutting the footage, it was evident that it would suffice.

 

It looked really good, and as a matter of fact, we mounted the Matte Box for the A-minima on the DVX (with the help of some gaff tape) and put in a Pro Mist 1 filter. It Cut with the 16mm and looked spectacular. If anyone is interested in seeing the comparison or the film email me.

 

 

 

 

 

jcarlrussell@gmail.com

[Chris Keth]

Blair Witch Project was not shot with a DV camera, it was shot on Hi-8.

The only 16mm stuff, was the tiny bit of B&W footage at the end shot at night with a camera top light.

 

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that the B&W footage was 16mm shot on a CP-16.

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

Wow what a long thread! A lot of good stuff. Here are my 2 cents.

 

Maybe this thread should be named the personal vs the commercial.

 

If you are pursuing your own vision (also known as a hobby) the DVX and all of the video flavors really have killed 16mm. (plus the corporate and industrial markets and cable and no budget TV Spots) You can expect to get good results which look very film-like over the internet or off of a DVD-Rom. Taking that material thru a post production process for a blow-up or commercial DVD is another matter. Check out the commentary tracks on the 28 Days Later DVD. Pounds large where spent in post.

 

If you are inexperienced filmaker then this technology delivers results you don't deserve to claim as your own :blink: ; sort of a leg up fast and is really fun.

 

For the experienced filmshooter using todays Super 16 emulsions/Aaton and Arriflex Cameras/Cooke and Zeiss lenses plus Spirit and Cintel Transfer technology, the sky is the limit! There are countless Super 16 features that demonstrate the S16 is a realistic, practical replacement for 35mm.

 

What do I mean by that? I mean a high quality aqusition format that is invisible to the audience at viewing. A medium which does not intrude into the story.

If you are creating a product you intend to sell for real money, then Super 16 (at the moment) is viable, cost effective and the tool for the job.

 

Folks who buy programing have a expectation that the product looks good on the big screen or on a commercially produced DVD not just streamed over the internet.

 

My associate producer who attends all of the IFP and Film Market activities tells me that DV and even most HD features don't even get "looked". The bias is because there is to much crap turned out on video.

 

Bottom line is if you are new to filmaking you will find it harder and harder to get the opportuity to learn the skill set that makes Super 16 kick as

 

As to whether the A-Minima is dead was it ever alive? Not really much of a production camera.

 

Sorry more like 10 cents

Edited December 13, 2004 by Andy Sparaco

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

I was forced to fill in one scene with DVX-100 on a short that I shot with the A-Minima this summer. My DP and I were very skeptical about doing it, but after cutting the footage, it was evident that it would suffice.

 

It looked really good, and as a matter of fact, we mounted the Matte Box for the A-minima on the DVX (with the help of some gaff tape) and put in a Pro Mist 1 filter. It Cut with the 16mm and looked spectacular. If anyone is interested in seeing the comparison or the film email me.

jcarlrussell@gmail.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've been cutting 7246 in regular 16 format with the DVX-100 and it's a fairly close match for SDTV viewing. They seem to have similar 'grain.' What I notice in the 16mm is the grain is sharp and the 'grain' (noise) in the DVX is soft.

[Mark Lyon IMPOSTOR]

As to whether the A-Minima is  dead was it ever alive? Not really much of a production camera.

 

I agree with most of your post, but would like to offer a different perspective. First, there's nothing wrong with doing personal work in Super16---it's all about what you're trying to achieve. For me, the A-minima is a good choice because it's small and light, like a DVX, so it suits the spontaneous shooting style that I prefer. In keeping with that style, I've found it much easier to get good results in film. The DVX is certainly capable of making good SD images, but it takes tremendous care in lighting and contrast control to get there. Shooting from the hip with the A-minima results in some beautiful images out in the real, high-contrast world. It's easier and, yes, it feels more soulful in some way.

 

Finally, a funny thing happens on "real" sets with the A-minima. It starts out as the b-camera, but we've found that people gravitate to it, so some of the best shots end up being made on it. We recently shot an industrial for an HD finish. The a-camera shots were in super35 on 200ASA and 500ASA Vision2 stock. My A-minima filled in crucial b-camera shots on 100ASA V2 film. They cut together perfectly. A bigger, more "production worthy" super16 camera wouldn't have made it out of its case with our tiny crew. On another recent commercial job, I got priceless "real people" interview footage on the A-minima. The people were comfortable around the little camera--they didn't freeze up like they would've in front of a big 35 or HD rig, and the timecode capabilities were a big asset.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark Lyon

[Matt Wells]

Remember if someone can pull off "28 Days Later" on DV they have nothing to complain about except that they could have done it on a better format.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I get so bored with people talking about 28 days later.

 

They didn't just shoot the footage and blow it straight up to 35mm. A lot of cash was spent doctoring and improving the images.

 

The end result suited the movie

 

Super16 would have suited it much better.

 

Standard 16 would have suited it better.

 

16mm would have been easier to light

 

16mm would have blown up better.

 

16mm cameras are cooler B)

 

Matt

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

A bigger, more "production worthy" super16 camera wouldn't have made it out of its case with our tiny crew. On another recent commercial job, I got priceless "real people" interview footage on the A-minima. The people were comfortable around the little camera--they didn't freeze up like they would've in front of a big 35 or HD rig, and the timecode capabilities were a big asset.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark Lyon

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Point well taken, the A -Minima seems like a capable B-Camera. But for an A-Camera it seems a little lite-weight, the "short" 200ft loads which I'm told take longer to load then a Arri-SR are a problem for me. It is a lovely camera and if forced I would use it. :D To fill the B- Camera application had an Arri-S converted to Super 16 and PL mount with a Tobin motor and Fiber Optic viewing screen. With a pistol grip it is very A-minima like although not "Silent". Runs in reverse and takes 400ft mags though.

[Mark Lyon IMPOSTOR]

Point well taken, the A -Minima seems like a capable B-Camera. But for an A-Camera it seems a little lite-weight, the "short" 200ft loads which I'm told take longer to load then a Arri-SR are a problem for me. It is a lovely camera and if forced I would use it.  :D  To fill the B- Camera application  had an Arri-S converted to Super 16 and PL mount with a Tobin motor and Fiber Optic viewing screen. With a pistol grip it is very A-minima like although not "Silent".  Runs in reverse and takes 400ft mags though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Arri-S is also a great camera. One quick note on A-minima loading: the mags are incredibly easy to load (it takes about a minute, on average), but the threading is a bit tricky. So it takes a lot less time to load the mag than an Arri, but more time to thread. I'm not sure if overall film-change time is faster or slower. When we have to reload our A-minima and our Aaton LTR at the same time (including loading the LTR mag), the A-minima takes about half the time.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark Lyon

[David Mullen ASC]

I think people are missing the point when they say that "28 Days Later" would have looked better if shot in Super-16. Of course it would have -- THEY HAD THE BUDGET TO SHOOT THE MOVIE IN 35MM IF THEY WANTED A GOOD-LOOKING IMAGE!

[Matthew McDermott]

It's amazing how many lives this thread has had...

 

In a class I taught last semester we set up a side by side test of the DVX v. 16mm. Most of the students had not shot color neg. before (only BW reversal), but most had some experience with the DVX. I just wanted to demonstrate the differences between the two in a controlled studio setting. We shot 7277 so that the exposures would be close to the same stop. We then screened them back to back. The DVX went first and everyone was quite impressed. As they should be, the DVX looks very good for what it is. Then we screened the 16mm and everyone's opinion changed. The 16mm was clearly superior in all the ways that people have mentioned: color was better, depth of field was less and judged to be a good thing, highlights were less harsh with more detail, overall the image was somehow rounder, more organic feeling while at the same time appearing to be sharper in terms of resolution. For economic reasons most of them are choosing to shoot with the DVX on their personal projects, but none denies that 16mm looks better.

 

We also did the experiment outside in less controllable circumstances, but the film somehow disappeared between the school and the lab so we never saw the results...

[andrewbuchanan]

It was the DVX mafia... they've got people EVERYWHERE.

[Matthew McDermott]

Curses! Foiled by video. I knew it; they must have people inside FedEx.

[Annie Wengenroth]

Ha ha! So if I buy a DVX-100, am I one of Them? :P

[Phil Rhodes]

Welcome to The Organisation...

[sammi_torontofilm]

A math genius made a feature on 35mm only cost 7.000 U.S. dollar ,lots dolly shots and location shooting ,no idea how its possible .

[Jonas]

A math genius made a feature on 35mm only cost 7.000 U.S. dollar ,lots dolly shots and location shooting ,no idea how its possible .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:huh:

[GeorgeSelinsky]

no idea how its possible .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Free filmstock, heavily discounted or deferred lab work, no print made, free camera, no salaries, no final video transfer. The only way it's possible.

 

- G.

[Guest Sammi&torontofilm]

i am saying about PRIMER,a film buget under 7000 dollar on 35mm.they got 2 awards from Sundance film festival .

 

http://www.primermovie.com

Edited December 20, 2004 by Sammi&torontofilm

[GeorgeSelinsky]

i am saying about PRIMER,a film buget under 7000 dollar on 35mm.[/url]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It says they shot on Super 16. You can bet anything that the blowup wasn't included in that figure, and like I said, free film (or discounted heavily), heavily discounted or deferred lab, no salaries, etc.

 

- G.

[Mike Williamson]

There's an article in the most recent issue of ICG magazine with director Shane Carruth that talks about the production. If I recall correctly, he says that they had a 2 to 1 shooting ratio (which is ridiculously low) and they shot it over two or three weeks. And George is correct, they got some free stock.

[andrewbuchanan]

Ahhh... such a long thread, so little point. Why are there always DV vultures hovering above waiting for the death of 16mm? I just got hired to DP a high-end(ish) music video. Lots of extras, two cameras, lots of fun rental stuff. Guess which format they wanted - nay, insisted upon - that's right, Super 16. I think this format is seeing more use now than it ever was before.

[Mike Williamson]

Ahhh... such a long thread, so little point. Why are there always DV vultures hovering above waiting for the death of 16mm?  I just got hired to DP a high-end(ish) music video.  Lots of extras, two cameras, lots of fun rental stuff.  Guess which format they wanted - nay, insisted upon - that's right, Super 16.  I think this format is seeing more use now than it ever was before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please don't misinterpret my intentions, I think that "Primer" is an excellent example of the viability of shooting very low-budget movies on film. It's in general release and is winning major awards, what more can you ask of a movie shot for $7,000?

 

Nonetheless, I don't think there's any point in glossing over the realities of what it means to shoot a movie (in any format) on that kind of budget. I've DP'd two feature films myself on 16mm, both with budgets under $10k, so I have an idea of what it takes to shoot film with a small amount of money. And yes, a 2 to 1 shooting ratio IS extremely tight.

 

The article I mentioned above is great, I'd recommend it to anyone trying to shoot a microbudget film (or a giant epic with Oliver Stone). It's in the October 2004 issue of ICG magazine and features interviews with Rodrigo Prieto and Shane Carruth.

[Riku Naskali]

Most of the features here in Finland are shot in s-16mm, only some are 35mm. And I don't mean the low budget stuff, mainly movies with budgets between 1-3 million euros. Oh well, maybe that's low budget in Hollywood ;)