Rajavel Olhiveeran Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 hi all just finished a film on super 35 with DI.....scheduled for release in april... planning my next feature film. the script requires a rustic look...which ofcourse can be created in various ways. wat would be ur idea on..to go with 35mm or....shoot it on 16mm and DI the same.....ofcourse no budget for 35mm and DI! would shooting on 16mm and DI the same....will it save any money...or more orelse hit the same cost as 35mm.....which one would anyone suggest...... if the cost is the same....is it a gamble to go the 16mm - DI way? this will be for theatrical projection on scope ...finally thanks! rajavel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted January 29, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted January 29, 2009 CinemaScope is nothing for no budget. But what do you mean by rustic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajavel Olhiveeran Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 CinemaScope is nothing for no budget. But what do you mean by rustic? well rustic.....rural..village subject.... budget!? in comparison to with or without DI.......DI is still expensive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 hi alljust finished a film on super 35 with DI.....scheduled for release in april... planning my next feature film. the script requires a rustic look...which ofcourse can be created in various ways. wat would be ur idea on..to go with 35mm or....shoot it on 16mm and DI the same.....ofcourse no budget for 35mm and DI! would shooting on 16mm and DI the same....will it save any money...or more orelse hit the same cost as 35mm.....which one would anyone suggest...... if the cost is the same....is it a gamble to go the 16mm - DI way? this will be for theatrical projection on scope ...finally thanks! rajavel shooting 35 with a photochemical finish may be the cheapest. Super 16 > HDCAM SR 4:4:4 > film, may be an option also as it can be affordable. But the scanning and film out really does add up. Why do you want to do a DI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Rosenbloom Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Shooting 35mm is a much more straightforward process. Also, 35mm will let you work at faster film speeds, so you might get away with smaller lights, and thus smaller generators. (Though I work on plenty of 35mm shows where everything is as big as possible.) On the other hand, super-16mm is easier on your camera department as far as handling/ storing the gear, and holding focus. It's quicker and nimbler. If you're not worried about underexposing, you could shoot super-16, but then you have to worry about how the DI or the blow-up to 35mm is going to affect the look of the film. Also, you're liable to burn hours and hours splitting hairs with the producers about the endless workflow possibilities. That alone is reason to stick with 35mm. 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