Format suggestions for low indie budget feature

[Phil Rhodes]

Shoot it on 16.

 

Without the opportunity to go for dramatic, moody, action-movie lighting, any sort of video format will start to look very much like a soap opera if you're not very careful (and well funded). I fear particularly for Red because I get the impression it has very little to offer except resolution, and by the time you've blown it down to DVD you will end up with what looks like a very cheap HDV camera with nasty highlight rendering.

 

Comedy needs film; decent distribution prospects need film, exteriors in sharp sunlight need film.

 

Phil

[Adamo P Cultraro]

If you guys think you can shoot super 16 cheaper than something like HD on an HVX or EX1 you are dreaming. Absolutely dreaming.

 

I think it's time to ask what the budget is for this production - I've heard the F23 bantered about in this thread - that's a helluva rental charge - you must have some dough to spend.

[Freya Black]

If you guys think you can shoot super 16 cheaper than something like HD on an HVX or EX1 you are dreaming. Absolutely dreaming.

 

I think it's time to ask what the budget is for this production - I've heard the F23 bantered about in this thread - that's a helluva rental charge - you must have some dough to spend.

 

Adamo, check back in the thread. He does have some dough to spend! ;)

I made the same mistake as you at first in thinking this was an ultra low budget production but it's clear that it isn't.

 

Yes you can shoot on a HVX or DV camera or something very cheaply, and I too am really enjoying this fact right now. It's really wonderful for those of us outside the system, and it gives you so much freedom, but this really isn't one of those shoots, and the fact there is a lot of exteriors alone means that it might be possible to shoot faster and hence cheaper on film, with much nicer results to boot.

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

If you guys think you can shoot super 16 cheaper than something like HD on an HVX or EX1 you are dreaming. Absolutely dreaming.

 

I think it's time to ask what the budget is for this production - I've heard the F23 bantered about in this thread - that's a helluva rental charge - you must have some dough to spend.

 

I think one of the problems in this thread has been the phrase "low budget" which is a confusing term which can mean different things to different people. Most of the films that are genuinely native to this country would typically be said to be low budget or very low budget. I remember the day a film shoot came to the area where I live some years ago. I was blown away by the size of the production. They had taken over a whole house. They were blasting huge HMI's through the windows, there were generators in the street, a big truck full of equipment. People in the street were being given free ice creams. I was told the budget was about £1 million! Probably about 1.5million dollars at the time. They told me how it was really low budget and a lot of low budget films in the u.k. would be shot for £3 million. I hung around a little watching. I was just blown away by it all, this was a full on film production I thought! :) *giggle*

 

A much shorter time ago I was walking down a street in East London when I glanced down a side road and saw a huge truck with the words Arri all over it. I wondered down the little street to see what was going on as I couldn't believe the size of the truck and it said Arri on it and there was a truck of similar size next to it. These trucks were massive. I can't really express to you. Most film productions I've worked on have used a van. If you were moving house you might use a really big van, or even a small truck if it was a big house you were moving from. These things were trucks. Thats all I can say really. Really, really big. I got talking to the on set nurse who was really nice and it turned out to be a shoot for the new Guy Ritchie film "RockNRolla". I didn't really see anything of the shoot, just the grip trucks but I could tell this was a massive shoot. A really really huge thing...

 

Only it wasn't. The new guy Richie film has a budget of about 10 million pounds. I've already seen it described as a low budget film! Guy Ritchie is of course one of the super stars of the "british film industry" and I'm sure it will be the biggest film shoots I will ever come across but some still consider his films to be low budget.

 

It's all relative I guess, and this is why someone coined the term no budget, to mean a film that literally has no budget beyond the film/video costs and what bits and pieces someone can scrummage together. Obviously the film we are talking about in this thread is not "no budget".

 

The terms can be confusing tho.

 

love

 

Freya

[Adamo P Cultraro]

Well then I think if you've committed to a film workflow, and I know I have in the past, then shoot on 35.

 

To me there are only two choices - 35 or some form of HD. I think 16mm, while cute, gritty, and artsy, has fallen by the wayside a bit. Besides, it will need a blow up to 35 for theatrical release so if that's your goal, do it that way first.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Also take a cue from Rodger Corman, he shot The Little Shop of Horrors in 3 days and it's now a cult hit and was made into a major musical and a musical film ( I THINK it was shot on 16 originally though STILL it was VERY CHEAP to do!) B)

I don't think Corman ever shot 16mm.

 

It was 35mm with two cameras on a couple of sets.

It was shot like a sitcom.

But also there was also nearly a week of improves and rehearsals prior to the actual shooting.

 

Jesus Franco directed 187 movies from 1958-2005.

Most of them horror and soft core. & unwatchable.

[Thomas James]

I think the choice should either be 35mm film or high definition. The fact of the matter is that 16mm film may have good resolution but it is too grainy to make a good transfer to Blu-Ray Disc because of the compression issues. The BBC does not consider 16mm film to be an acceptable high definition aquisition format and they require either 35mm film or high definition cameras with half inch or bigger chips.

[Stuart Brereton]

The BBC does not consider 16mm film to be an acceptable high definition aquisition format and they require either 35mm film or high definition cameras with half inch or bigger chips.

 

 

The BBC's delivery specs are unfortunately written by a bunch of bearded engineers without a creative bone in their bodies. Their refusal to accept 16mm originated material has more to do with the inadequacies of their mpeg compressors than any inherent flaw in 16mm film.

 

They are, however, very willing to accept DV originated material, no matter how badly shot by an untrained researcher.

[Phil Rhodes]

I think the problem with this is-16-HD issue is that yes, OK, the very, very best 16 shot on the best gear with the best crews is probably good enough for HD.

 

Unfortunately most people shoot 16 because they don't have enough money for the best gear or the best crews.

 

I have seen "Silent Witness" on BBC HD and it is unpleasantly grainy, unpleasant because yes it does kick off the MPEG compressors - and BBC HD is a very high bandwidth channel.

 

During the launch of a minor satellite TV channel, with which I was involved, we went from five to four to three and a half, and they were even talking about two and a half megabits per channel, whereas a DVD is usually six to seven with much more careful encoding. Bandwidth is as much a money-oriented producer decision as anything else and the beardies who are recommending people stay away from 16 on this basis probably also told the producers "... but it'll cost you in the long run as you'll have to shoot everything on 35." Producers are, of course, rarely good at taking the long view.

 

But frankly 16 all too often looks like some grubby 70s cop show in any case and we really shouldn't be doing things like Silent Witness and Spooks on anything other than 35. Never underestimate the hale devotion to utter mediocrity that exists in this country.

 

Phil

[Adamo P Cultraro]

I can't believe it. I almost poop myself. Phil, I finally agree with you on something. Took the words right outta my mouth.

[Phil Rhodes]

Fantastic, Adamo, my life is now complete.

[Adamo P Cultraro]

:D

[Paul Bruening]

I've supported the use of 35mm 2-perf here for years. Likely, just because I spent all my money on 2-perf and little better reason. However, I've come to see 2-perf as a very good format for eventual output to 1080 HD. It provides a high quality image with a frame size well fitting in HD. A kind-of "all the quality of real 35mm but at half the costs" kind of thinking. I say that and soon enough, someone will come on and remind me of just how wrong I am. I still think that film looks better than video even when shown on a TV. 2-perf would be a way to get around this peculiar dislike of 16mm that has arisen in some parts of the industry.

[Lav Bodnaruk]

Hi Paul,

 

you have me intrigued with 2 perf.

I think I'd have to shoot 2.35 tho, right? That is rarely the ration for romantic comedies, but say I manage that and decide to go with that factor, what else comes out of 2perf? What could be all the downfalls of that? Any more info would be greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks!

 

PS. Sorry for confusing some with what type of budget this film has. It is not a $50k film... To me, a low budget is anything under $3m, and NO BUDGET is when it is under $1m - AUD. Although I am unable to let anyone know what budget we are working with, because that would be bad producing at this stage, all I can say is that this film is definitely NO BUDGET and definitely dependent on 'back end deals'.

[James Steven Beverly]

I don't think Corman ever shot 16mm.

 

It was 35mm with two cameras on a couple of sets.

It was shot like a sitcom.

But also there was also nearly a week of improves and rehearsals prior to the actual shooting.

 

 

All the MORE reason to shoot 35, but I've said my piece. It's not my movie, Lav will have to make his own decisions.

[Matthew Parnell]

2-Perf might be a hard to do in Australia because i'm not sure how many post houses support 2perf, let alone how many cameras there are in the country with 2 perf movements.

 

Would be interested to see who in Australia does do 2 perf.

[Freya Black]

2-Perf might be a hard to do in Australia because i'm not sure how many post houses support 2perf, let alone how many cameras there are in the country with 2 perf movements.

 

Would be interested to see who in Australia does do 2 perf.

 

 

I keep hearing about people sending their cameras to Australia to be converted to 2 perf! It would be ironic if there are none over there! :) 2 perf is rare generally tho.

 

Telecine of 2 perf isn't neccesarily that difficult. I bet anwhere that can do 3 perf can do 2 perf as well.

Getting a film print tho could be harder, I don't know, in fact that could even be the case with 3 perf. I guess you would have to reasearch that somehow.

 

It's a really good point about the aspect ratio of romantic comedies. I've never really thought about that before but you are right I can't think of one that was shot in scope.

 

love

 

Freya

[Leo Anthony Vale]

It's a really good point about the aspect ratio of romantic comedies. I've never really thought about that before but you are right I can't think of one that was shot in scope.

 

'Seven Year Itch'

 

'The Apartment'

 

'One, Two Three'

 

'Kiss Me Stupid'

 

'Irma la Douce'

 

'An Affair to Remember'

 

'How to Marry a Millionaire', the second CinemaScope movie.

 

Most Doris Day/ Rock Hudson movies.

 

Do AIP bech party movies count?

 

'Rally Round the Flag Boys'

 

I tire.

 

PS: 'The Grass is Greener' was Technirama, so was 'The Pink Panther'.

[Thomas James]

I'm sure 16mm will hold up just fine for a DVD release but can anyone honestly say that 16mm will hold up once transfered to a Blu-Ray disc ?

[Saul Pincus]

It's a really good point about the aspect ratio of romantic comedies. I've never really thought about that before but you are right I can't think of one that was shot in scope.

 

"Crocodile Dundee" (I and II) were Panavision anamorphic ? and Australian (though they sometimes don't want the credit!)

 

'Scope is actually quite an asset with comedy ? it allows for two-shots, which are essential to make most comedy tick well.

 

And there's a great legacy of stunning, low-budget 'scope Australian films, dating back to the early 70's at least.

[Lav Bodnaruk]

2-Perf might be a hard to do in Australia because i'm not sure how many post houses support 2perf, let alone how many cameras there are in the country with 2 perf movements.

 

Would be interested to see who in Australia does do 2 perf.

 

Hey Matt,

 

Ive shot 3 perf number of times, using Lemac's AATON 35-III, great camera for HH work. Panavision also have 3perf, BL4 I believe.

Cutting Edge Post worked with 3pref and I am sure they can work on 2 perf too - not that I did it, but am pretty sure... (would check to be sure tho). IF not in Brisbane, Cutting Edge post in Sydney would definitely handle it.

 

A place in Sydney has a 2 perf camera that I know they ship to Brisbane every now and then for odd jobs, but most of the time it is for jobs that are longer then a 'weekend' causing paying for freight from Sydney (as apposed to using a 3perf from Brisbane) ends up about the same... at least in my case, on short films.

 

I don't know of any companies that have 2 perf in Brisbane.

 

Cheers,

[Matthew Parnell]

Lav,

 

I was aware of 3 perf being pretty widespread over here, was just not so sure about 2 perf. Thanks for the details.

Cutting Edge Brisbane just upgraded to a spirit. (got a postcard of the Vialta at a bowls club 'in retirement' with this months ACS shortends)

 

Cheers,

Matt.

[Freya Black]

'Seven Year Itch'

 

'The Apartment'

 

'One, Two Three'

 

'Kiss Me Stupid'

 

'Irma la Douce'

 

'An Affair to Remember'

 

'How to Marry a Millionaire', the second CinemaScope movie.

 

Most Doris Day/ Rock Hudson movies.

 

Do AIP bech party movies count?

 

'Rally Round the Flag Boys'

 

I tire.

 

PS: 'The Grass is Greener' was Technirama, so was 'The Pink Panther'.

 

Yay! I knew someone would come up with some! I'm a bit suprised to see the pink panther mentioned. I always remember it as being more of a heist type film! I've not seen it in a loooooooong tome tho.

I notice that most of these times are from a different time when there may have been a rush of scope productions. However I'm sure these would be good examples of what could be done. Thanks for you help Leo!

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

"Crocodile Dundee" (I and II) were Panavision anamorphic ? and Australian (though they sometimes don't want the credit!)

 

'Scope is actually quite an asset with comedy ? it allows for two-shots, which are essential to make most comedy tick well.

 

And there's a great legacy of stunning, low-budget 'scope Australian films, dating back to the early 70's at least.

 

This discussion is intrestinng because I would certainly consider romantic comedy to be a different genre to just comedy without much hesitation. I wouldn't think of crocodile dundee as a romantic comedy really, which you don't describe it as, but I think that Romantic Comedy is something with it's own history and rules and perhaps a very different audience to just comedy.

 

love

 

Freya

[Paul Bruening]

Any more info would be greatly appreciated!

 

Hello Lav,

 

I delayed a response assuming a volume of people would appear to explain to you just how useless 2-perf is to anyone. I don't know where they are. Maybe, they are actually working on an anamorphic or super 35 production and aren't available to comment.

 

The principle difficulty in 2-perf is finding a silent camera. I can't recall the threads, yet I do remember a few guys from both Australia and Europe commenting that they have been shooting 2-perf for features for some time and can't understand what all the fuss is about. Therefore, there must be usable 2-perf cameras in your country. If all else fails, try Bruce at www.arandafilm.com.au. There are a couple of guys here that have quiet 2-perf commie-cams and seem keen to rent and get a little money back on the conversion costs they have paid. I don't know if they'll ship their babies to Australia. I'm sure they'll give it a thought, though. The camera you end up with will affect your lens choices. Keep that in mind when you shop around. As well, many of the converted cams will have unusual accessories. Some of which you may find of dubious use. Aaton may have it's Penelope out in time for your production. It can convert from 2, 3 and 4-perf by design and will be of the usual high quality that comes from Aaton. A search under "Penelope" will yield you references to who knows the most about it and who will eventually rent it.

 

Much of the modern scan and datacine gear goes from 2, 3 and 4-perf by a flick of a switch. So, transfer to digital is no big deal. The costs are usually the same since they are calculated by time or frame count. If you have an all optical post in mind then avoid 2-perf. The additional costs of knocking it up to 4-perf reduce the savings encountered during shoot.

 

Here are some of the big reasons why 2-perf can be useful:

 

1. It's cheap! The cameras are in lower demand and rent for less than 4 and 3-perf gear.

 

2. It's cheap! It eats half as much film. You use 2-perfs per frame instead of 4 so the film goes through the cam half as fast. In the end you'll have exactly half as many cans of film shot compared to 4-perf. You'll have 2/3s as much as 3-perf. What's the current cost of film? Last quote I got from the Yellow God a year ago was $0.65 per foot.

 

3. It's cheap! Not only are you saving money on film, you're saving money on processing and handling at the lab. 35mm neg., ECNII processing falls anywhere between $0.12 to $0.22 per foot. Multiply that by how many feet you'll shoot at whatever taking ratio by the number of pages in the script... you know how that works. Just divide it in half for 2-perf.

 

4. It's cheap! You can reasonably shoot short ends. A 200 foot roll lasts only a couple minutes in a 4-perf cam which is barely worth using. Actually, your waste-to-usefulness ratio in a 4-perf camera makes short ends pretty much worthless. HOWEVER, in a 2-perf cam that short end can last 4.5 to 5 minutes in shooting time. Yup, it shoots like a 400 foot roll in a 4-perf cam. Last quote I got on short ends was $0.12 per foot. I missed a chance to get a monumental pile of Vision I for $0.05 per foot and have kicked myself ever since. The point is, if you shop aggressively and frequently, you can get short ends for as low as $0.08 per foot if there happens to be a glut of it on the market.

 

5. It's cheap! Recans sell for around $0.25 to $0.35 per foot. Think about how long you can shoot on a 1,000 foot roll in 2-perf. 22 min, 12 sec.

 

6. It's cheap! You get the same frame size as scope- 2.35:1. That's the same prestige that automatically comes with scope framing. Sure, folks will tell you "What's the point in anamorphic framing when you'll get only half the film real estate?" You know what? They're right. But, frankly, with the high resolving power of modern negative stocks and transfer to 2K and especially 4K digital, their arguments don't hold as much water as they used to. Well shot 2-perf knocked over to 2K and 4K looks farging awesome. Certainly, a hell of a lot better than 16mm and almost indescernably close to Super 35 when it has been cropped for scope output.

 

7. It's cheap! With only a little compensating during shooting to keep the subjects a little closer to center, you have a very high quality frame that fits that wide, 1080 HD frame with the least waste of film real estate.

 

8. It's cheap! You shoot with spherical lenses. See, you get anamorphic framing without all the considerable hassle that comes like a freight-ship anchor everyday onto your shoot. Lenses can be faster; they can be cheaper to rent; you can shoot better images at larger iris openings with fewer distortion hassles; pulling focus is easier so you don't have as many retakes from bad pulls; you don't need as much light to get a good exposure so that's less guys lugging stuff around and eating up your food, less heat on the shoot, less cans on poles, and less wires running all over the place. Just plain-old less pain in the ass. Of course, that doesn't count if you're comparing to 3-perf.

 

The point is, if you've got money in heaps then there's no point to 2-perf. Which is why Hollywood doesn't ever use it anymore. If, however, you could really, really, really, put the money into another department, then 2-perf becomes a miracle from heaven.

 

 

Just an opinion,

Paul