Am I nuts for shooting on Standard 16mm?

[Guest Kathleen Lawler]

We finished shooting last night. All in all, I think it went very well, although I'll reserve judgement until I see the footage....

I got a fair bit of respect amongst cast and crew for working with film rather than video - that, plus my catering efforts helped keep people on board. Much thanks to my family and best friend for the food.

I'm really pleased with the actors - the lead actress in particular was great for the part, and put in 110% effort and dedication to the project. My gaffer also was great, he knew more than me about lighting, which was a real help.

 

Can't wait to see the footage!!!

[Matthew W. Phillips]

...and rent some primes.

My primes are bigger than yours. :P

Seriously though, congrats on your 16mm project.

[Tim Carroll]

We finished shooting last night. All in all, I think it went very well, although I'll reserve judgement until I see the footage....

I got a fair bit of respect amongst cast and crew for working with film rather than video - that, plus my catering efforts helped keep people on board. Much thanks to my family and best friend for the food.

I'm really pleased with the actors - the lead actress in particular was great for the part, and put in 110% effort and dedication to the project. My gaffer also was great, he knew more than me about lighting, which was a real help.

 

Can't wait to see the footage!!!

 

Kathleen,

 

That's fantastic. Congratulations!

[Saul Rodgar]

I think the best argument for shooting regular 16 is exactly this - you can make workprints and project your footage on a big screen (shooting Super 16 would force you to get a telecine just to watch your footage, since there are no Super 16 projectors).

 

One can order prints of S16 originated material "letterboxed" to fit R16. While not as desirable as a native S16 prints, projectors for which I get confusing reports as to their availability, this method will let one project a 16x9 (letterboxed) image using a good ol' 16 mm projector.

 

Also, like cameras, R16 projectors can be turned to S16 if the gate is widened and a lens that will cover the entire image is found, re-centering of the lens port and the scratch tests needed are performed. The only catch is that no sound stripe could be put on the print, as the part of the print where the sound stripe would go in R16, in S16 mode now would contain picture.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

[David Leugers]

It may have something to do with the way they can write off and depreciate the video equipment quicker, as it becomes obsolete in just a few years, then is thrown away and there is no cost for routine service.

 

My experience would suggest that those controlling the money prefer the purchase of new equipment. It may be different in the academic world, but what I have seen is that the real graft in the business world is through purchasing. Kick backs seem to be the norm. Budget wise, my experience has been that once an asset is purchased, money for its upkeep should be much easier to justify than the purchase of new equipment. It is a real shame the "educators" are depriving the students by eliminating the film experience.

 

I whole heartedly agree that R-16mm can look great 16:9. No need to toss those great old cameras...

[Guest Kathleen Lawler]

Hello everyone

 

I supervised the telecine session yesterday. The footage shot on the Arri BL looks really good; I am well pleased with my gaffer for his lighting efforts. The telecine operator remarked that the lighting was very good for a student film, and that it was well exposed.

 

However there was an unexpected light leak with the Bolex stop motion footage. 2/3 of it is badly light damaged, with red and orange streaking and fogging going on. Because it's an experimental film, we might get away with it without a reshoot. But I am disappointed. We worked so hard on those 2 rainy cold nights.

 

We transferred 16:9 to Digibeta; framing wasn't too bad at all, actually. I am pleasantly surprised with that. Next week we transfer the digibeta footage to Final Cut Pro for editing, and I'll try to share some stills with you then.

 

Thanks all for your help so far!

Kathleen

[Tim O'Connor]

Hello everyone

 

I supervised the telecine session yesterday. The footage shot on the Arri BL looks really good; I am well pleased with my gaffer for his lighting efforts. The telecine operator remarked that the lighting was very good for a student film, and that it was well exposed.

 

However there was an unexpected light leak with the Bolex stop motion footage. 2/3 of it is badly light damaged, with red and orange streaking and fogging going on. Because it's an experimental film, we might get away with it without a reshoot. But I am disappointed. We worked so hard on those 2 rainy cold nights.

 

We transferred 16:9 to Digibeta; framing wasn't too bad at all, actually. I am pleasantly surprised with that. Next week we transfer the digibeta footage to Final Cut Pro for editing, and I'll try to share some stills with you then.

 

Thanks all for your help so far!

Kathleen

 

 

Congratulations on getting it shot!

 

Way back I used a 16BL and would do pick-ups with a Bolex. The Arri had an Angenieux 12-120 and the Bolex had three lenses on a turret,

forgot their exact focal lengths but certainly a basic difference between any one of them and the Angenieux. I found that using the Bolex for the

pick ups generally worked okay, mostly say quick establishing shots of buildings but if I attempted to take some Bolex footage and intercut it

into the same scene with Arri footage that it was too conspicuously different to match acceptably. I always wondered if other people ran into this.

Have you?

 

By the way, I was so excited when I first saw and then shot with the 16BL. While it may be unwieldy compared to newer Arri models, it sure is cool

looking.