patrick Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I need some help doing this I already brought up the shallow dof, and the tighter grain structure, I need some more though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Marschall Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Maybe you have a few extra thousand dollars you could give him/her? Sometimes shooting 35mm just isn't an option. Besides, we don't know anything about your production so it's hard to help you out. Feature? Short? What's the budget?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 If all the production needs is a single contact print off the original negative (as opposed to going through IP/IN stages), the difference in cost between S-16 and 35mm is reduced. There is still a significant difference, but you should discuss with your producer all the costs from start to finish so that there is a complete understanding of the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeSelinsky Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I already brought up the shallow dof, and the tighter grain structure, I need some more though As opposed to 16mm or video? This is one of the most debated topics on film/cinematography websites and usegroups. Searching the Google archives will reveal plenty of arguments in favor of or against. For video versus 35, check out the topic "Is the A-Minima now Dead? (Is 16mm Dead too?)" under the "16mm only" category in this forum - I outlaid my arguments for 35mm there, as did others. It's probably the most up to date discussion. The most important attitude here has to be that if you're making a movie you're going to have to spend anyway, so it's really a question of spend now or spend later. Spend now brings better results than spend later in this area, hands down. Of course, then there's the question "can you" and "will you get a return on the increased image quality" for your specific situation, as others have already suggested. - G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 17, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2004 First, it depends on if 35mm is even an option, budget-wise. And second, it depends on if the end goal is a 35mm print. If the answer to both questions is "yes", then the real question is what are the reasons the producer has for NOT shooting in 35mm. If he simply thinks it will save him a lot of money, then you can show him how you can make 35mm competitive cost-wise with other formats that require a blow-up to 35mm. However, it's hard to win those arguments if the producer says he "might want to blow it up to 35mm in the future." In other words, he doesn't have the money for the blow-up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hayes Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Tell the producer originating on 35mm will make the film more sellable. It gives the appearance of a more professional project. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeSelinsky Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 To add to what Bob said, say it is easier to get your film picked up by a distributor if its on 35, and that you'll probably make more on the sale. - G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now