To Buy or not, to shoot FILM or not

[Guest Y.M.Poursohi]

TO BUY or NOT TO BUY

 

Hello folks, this is a first posting for me here and it is a bit long, but your thoughts and inputs are appreciated if you have the time.

 

It's 3:30 am here in NYC and I'm still debating: Whether to spend 5-6 grand on a super 16 camera, on a nice Eclair pkg without a usable s16 lens, or don't bother.

 

Now this is not just a question of technical matters as I have been reading alot about these cameras and Aatons/Arris and their conversions/prices, AND the cost of shooting film. It is also a question of Wisdom/Aesthetic, and that tempting voice who keeps calling "video"and that "you won't spend your hard earned money being a P.A on stock/processing/transfer/audio etc etc.

 

Me: I want to make a few shorts and music videos. Why? I want to know if I have the talent and the energy to do so. I have been a P.A/part time student taking night classes here for a couple of years and have a particular interest in photography, I shoot slides for practice and hobby. So that part of me is saying "yes buy it". But the other side is that this will be a big investment and that shooting ones film is at least $500 a minute, for a 10 min short. Like most people I live on a budget so a short film might be feasible once a year or even less.

 

So this 2 sided debate opens a bigger question: that is in order to make a leap into more creative positions, thus the satisfaction: Does one need to approach the process and tackle it head on by shooting a few 16mm shorts/spots to get a taste of success but more important experience. I ask this taking into account the 1000s of film grads and the current job/film market situation.

 

Or just keep working on commercials (PA) and wait-out those years to get a spot in the camera dept or production dept and then move on. My only fear of the latter is that I might have many more responsibilities in 10 years, then I might not be able to take a risk and shoot a film on my own money. My interest in shooting is not just the photographic aspect but also the narrative. In the past I have shot a few other students films and super8 once a while, but never a complete narrative short of my own. I started in experimental videos and found them limited after a while.

 

So this opportunity to buy a camera has just reopened an old question, but this time I am a lot more restless and think age 25 is a good time to make decisions that directly influence my future, instead of just floating freelance and getting by.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

I posted in the 16mm part since it started with a 16mm camera, sorry if this is the wrong forum.

[Kristoffer Newsom]

Yousef,

 

WOW, what a question. I'm afraid there's no simple answer, and of course, what you do is ultimately your sole decision. What I can do is give you some of my thoughts on the matter:

 

Directing a film (or even just SHOOTING films) is one of the most challenging things you can do, artistically, logistically, physically, mentally, etc. When you're trying to actualize a vision of yours, especially an ambitious one, mistakes are difficult enough to bear without being out thousands of dollars. I think it's important to learn the process of shooting on film, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, to learn the process of assembling a narrative structure, and working with actors.

 

Just the other day I was thanking my lucky stars that I went to Humboldt State University for film school instead of AFI or Academy of Arts, or NYU, or any of the big schools, because, having seen a lot of their films (and just recently working on one), I realized that these folks are learning some EXPENSIVE LESSONS. Shoot 16mm black and white reversal (and then negative) 100' at a time until you get a real grip on pacing, movement, composition, lighting, contrast ratios, etc. before you go to sync sound, color, S16, and all the other expense eating methods of film making. If you're on a budget, don't blow 10 grand on your first film! Buy a Bolex, or a K3, or an Arri-S; have some fun, make 1 and 2 minute films. Edit by hand and project with grandpa's old projector. It's FUN, and it'll open the world up to you one piece at a time, helping you avoid being overwhelmed. Also, keep workin on video - that'll help you get a grip on longer projects, as well as dialogue. After a year or two and 15 or 20 short films, you'll want to move on, and I'm sure you will - but by that time, you'll have the confidence and the skills to do so. ...cross the bridge of whether or not to buy an Arri SR2 then.

 

ON THE OTHER HAND: Film cameras have very stable values. They're not like video cameras, which drop unbelievably fast. A super16 camera will tend to maintain value, and it may be possible to sell it for nearly as much as you paid for it. (and if you've modified it, probably more).

 

So that's the other end of it, but I say that until you're ready to drop bux like that on an investment of that caliber, take some more baby steps.

 

-Kris

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

If you're a complete beginner, I'd certainly say it's worth shooting some video first. Two reasons: first, it's cheaper to find out if you've got any prospects with it or not, and second, you'll actually be able to afford to shoot a lot, as opposed to twice a year.

 

Phil

[Chris Keth]

Hi,

 

If you're a complete beginner, I'd certainly say it's worth shooting some video first. Two reasons: first, it's cheaper to find out if you've got any prospects with it or not, and second, you'll actually be able to afford to shoot a lot, as opposed to twice a year.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You could always hit a happy middle ground by finding a less expensive camera, still shoot film, but shoot silent shorts. They are actually a really good way to teach yourself to SHOW the story, not tell it. Something like a k3 or some bolexes can be found for a couple hundred dollars.

[Randy Havens]

Buy it!!!

 

When you buy a film camera it forces you to shoot,

and shooting 16 will make you want to do more and get better.

A lot of people are alwalys looking for DPs with their gear that

would shoot their stuff for free. I think thats a great place to start.

 

and whats wrong with shooting or making one or two short a year??

I think if you can keep that up, you'll improve your skills substantially.

 

I was making one music video or short a year with my own money

(I threw my whole credit card in there every time), and it really helped me get better.

I did that for 3 years and I am finally getting some jobs.

 

Doing things on dv is good as well, but I think shooting on film puts good

pressure on you. I always think that I'm shooting 35mm so I better do a good job!!

because if you dont, your wasting LOTS of money and other peoples time.

 

good luck!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I still hesitate. No matter how cheap a little 16mm camera you get - and you can get them very cheaply - you'll spend more than the best video camera is worth on your first production just to get an image on tape.

 

Phil

[Rob Belics]

I think a lot about this buying a camera thing and I may have changed my thoughts recently.

 

If he owns this camera and needs to shoot an interior scene he can't do it. If the sun goes down he can't shoot. Why? He needs lights! In fact, you can't shoot most scenes without lights, reflectors, flags, etc. Maybe he should collect light gear and get good at that. Then you can take stills for practice. Rent ANY camera for practice or for real. It's all cheaper that way.

 

If you can't light well then the camera won't do you much good anyway.

[dangertree]

It's true he needs lights, but that goes for video as well.

 

I came/come from a similar story. I've always been a keen photographer, but I work as an AD (a good position to know/ask everything), but I love cine cameras and cinematography.

 

I love cinema because I find it is the perfect art form, that balance of performance, and applied technical knowledge.

 

I first shot some video, and still own a little DV camera, very handy for training yourself in composition, (and holidays) etc. I then bought a S8 camera to learn lighting for film (cheap and very satisfying). Probably shot ~100 cartridges on that. Learned _a lot_ from the experience, and still enjoy watching the movies on my projector. Later, I bought a 16mm camera, and never looked back. I currently own an S16 Eclair rig, and my business partner owns an Aaton S16 LTR, which I have at my disposal.

 

I own because the odd thing I do shoot for money, is almost never in town, and besides, I like having my own rig. I buy short ends from shows I work on, so always have stock in the fridge. If me or my friends come up with a fun idea, we can go out and shoot it, the camera is already paid for. I love that possibility, and besides, cameras aren't _that_ expensive.

 

For lighting, I picked up an old 5-piece Colortran light kit. Two 2000w soft lights, Two 1000w fixed spots and One 1000W adjustible spot. All open face, but with barn doors. Wish I had the cash for some fresnels, but didn't. This all cost me less than $400. A perfect kit? No, but does the job.

 

Is it more expensive than video, yes. Plus personally, anything I put $ or effort into, I want to look good, and though video can look good, I'm always amazed with 16mm (and now S16mm). The delayed satifaction of film is so worth it for me.

 

Another plus, film is so much more forgiving than video. I know it is my lack of talent/knowledge with video, but almost everytime I have shot video, it comes out looking flat (to me). I shoot film and it is almost always looks great (IMO). Big smiles everytime. I was never taught to light for video, but have been taught to light for film, plus I'm probably the only AD I know who (quietly) carries a lightmeter and jots down notes on lighting/camera setups and watches the dailies (some say I'm in the wrong department, but I'm not).

 

If I find myself short on funds, I sell bits or all of my kit, and replace it when I can. It is much easier to lose money selling your video camera than it is your film camera.

 

You say you work on commercials, I don't know how similar it is to features and series, which I do, but if you are friendly with the crew, you can sometimes get a lot of equiptment for the price of a sincere thankyou to the gaffer/key grip and some beer. I shoot my shorts on weekends, and often leave work on friday night with car load of lights, flags, scrims, stands, gels, even the odd doorway doorway dolly. Just make sure you take care of it all and have it all back and loaded in the trucks before the crew gets in on Monday morning.

 

 

The last thing I'll say, if you want to enter those shorts in festivals; whether it is deserved or not you'll get much more interest/respect for your film (at least initially) when you tick the 16mm box, rather than the DV box, same goes for the audience interest (I know what I see when I have an either/or choice to make).

 

Buy a film camera, don't bankrupt yourself, you'll love it.

 

Ta.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I don't find it's having the stock in the fridge, it's having the money to shoot it. I've never shot anything which I thought was worth spending the equivalent of US$5-6k to do on film. Some of it has probably long gone off, it's a shame, but it's just too expensive to use!

 

Phil

[dangertree]

Hi Phil,

 

Some things aren't worth spending the money for film, I agree video definitely has it's place. But, some things are worth it, and the time I put in is worth more than the film or video costs anyway. If I'm putting in the time/effort, I want it on film. And when I do, it doesn't always cost $5000-$6000.

 

For me, a 10 minute short, at a 3:1 ratio.

Stock: Between $0 and $120 ( .10/foot)

Processing: $180 ( .15/foot)

One hour of best-light transfer: $275-$325. (worst case)

Total: $625. (About 270 pounds sterling).

 

That's do-able. And, that's Canadian $!

 

We are shooting a low-budget feature in the spring, for that video isn't even a consideration.

 

Just drove through a car wash with a camera running inside the car, my friend wanted it for some art collage film he's doing. I used the video camera.

 

Cheers,

 

Walt

 

PS: I know you are in London, I don't know if film/post prices are comparable, but I can't afford a sandwich in London. :-)

 

 

 

Hi,

 

I don't find it's having the stock in the fridge, it's having the money to shoot it. I've never shot anything which I thought was worth spending the equivalent of US$5-6k to do on film. Some of it has probably long gone off, it's a shame, but it's just too expensive to use!

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

No, prices aren't comparable. Part of the problem in London is that there's no mid-level transfer places - it's either Framestore CFC, or point a camera at a screen in someone's garage. There is no middle option and therefore getting a video image costs thousands - quite literally. Prices here are at least three times what you quoted, and that's per hour with a three-hour minimum or whatever. It is actually cheaper to fly to New York, stay at a very nice hotel, get the transfer done, have a weekend in the BIg Apple and fly home, and you're still hundreds better off. I have no idea how any telecine transfer house in London stays in business.

 

I'd have to rent a camera as well, and it isn't like you can actually rent a Bolex or whatever. I can get an SR2 or SR3 with all the trimmings, which is obviously lovely, but that's 300/day without lenses! I think your 3:1 ratio is probably a bit optimistic too!

 

So really, unless you're connected in postproduction, happen to have stock, own a camera - the absolute minimum spend to shoot any film in London is probably three or four grand - the equivalent of US$6000-8000. Per day. See why we don't?

 

Phil

[Sam Wells]

There are many many things you can do on film without "lights"

 

Why not learn how you can really expose the negative first, lighting isn't gonna come to you overnight film OR DV.

 

The sun is free, even if it goes back to the rental house at the end of the day you don't need a truck and the teamsters bring it back the following morning :D

 

Or shoot a fast film, 7218 etc in available light, see what you can do.

I would guarantee this would be helpful in learning to light.

 

-Sam

[dangertree]

- the absolute minimum spend to shoot any film in London is probably three or four grand - the equivalent of US$6000-8000. Per day. See why we don't?

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yup, I see! That hurts.

 

A thought, take a holiday to Montreal or Toronto. That transfer price isn't a mid-range transfer house, I don't think we have those here either. 3 hour minimums? Ja-zuz.

 

For camera rentals, for indy shoots I can rent a co-op owned S16 XTR, Zeiss 12-120 _and_ an Optar prime set for $200CDN (86pounds), after paying a $120 yearly membership.

 

I didn't mean to come down hard on video. For my situation, film for drama, video for most everything else.

 

And Sam, existing light is king of course. :-)

 

Ta.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

To add to what the others have said,

 

I think with an expensive piece of gear you should buy it only when the job calls for it. I'm against "investing" in equipment, it's a risky thing to do unless you have business lined up ready to go.

 

I bought myself a 35mm movie camera because I knew I had to make a feature film with it, and rental was not efficient because of the way we shoot (over weekends, at a last minute notice, etc).

 

But I also think that God told film camera manufacturers to make MOS cameras for beginning cinematographers and filmmakers who want to learn how to shoot on film. There's no good reason not to spend the money on one of these.

 

There are plenty of used Bolexes, Arri's, Konvas's, and goodness knows what else out there that is fine enough for that purpose. Even in a working situation there are plenty of uses for these cameras, there is a ton of footage you can film without sound. You can even use these cameras to shoot a sound film if you want http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky/nonsync.html

 

- G.

Edited December 3, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Anthony Schilling]

If your just testing the waters with film, you can shoot tons of Super 8 for less than $500. really perfect your skills working with film. it looks good too. Or, regular 16mm is not too expensive. you can still shoot reversals to practice and see your results without paying for telecine. I personally would not invest in a S16 package unless i was getting paid.. and if i'm getting paid than I have to be good too.

[Rob Belics]

Naaah, Sam. You can't do anything without light(s). And you can't always count on the sun to be in the right position or around at all. Most of your time is lighting anyway.

[Sam Wells]

" And you can't always count on the sun to be in the right position or around at all."

 

"And Sam, existing light is king of course. :-)"

 

Plus, you can take an example from Alexander Sukurov, build a house set on a turntable.

 

Hey it worked for Thomas Edison too B)

 

-Sam (sometimes Existential light is king)

[Thomas Worth]

You may want to consider a Canon Scoopic as a first film camera. It's a 16mm MOS camera (not S16) with a built in zoom lens and onboard battery. I bought a 16M model on eBay for $500. It's in nearly mint condition with flawless glass. It also is capable of shooting up to 64 frames/sec. Although the camera has a built-in light meter, you will want a handheld meter to take incident readings. You can get a Sekonic or a Minolta used for around $150.

 

Although the camera is MOS, it is not very noisy. I have shot sound material with mine and although it's a pain to match up the dialogue, it is possible. If you want, you could have the camera upgraded to crystal sync.

[Guest Y.M.Poursohi]

Vow I am truly humbled so many people posted their thoughts, it feels good to know there are people with different experinces replying.

 

What I wanted to add to the original posting is that I have shot a bit of regular 16mm for other people and some existing-light set ups for myself (made a student spec add). In fact I do have an MOS Beaulieu 16mm and super8. However I never got the courage or the resources to shoot a synce sound short with it. You know the camera is not quiet, and the loads not long and efficient. It also had to do with my state of mind, not taking an MOS camera seriuos (which is wrong ofcourse).

 

But after I shot one student's silent short on 16mm, I knew it was something I wanted to follow but didn't have a chance to get serious about it. I thought that maybe a nice Arri S was about 2500, limiting me to silent shoots and and a super16 eclair around or under $5000. I am still not sure if the price difference is worth the biger investment. Moreover, I calculated that the post cost of reg and super 16 would be more or less the same ( a reduction print of super16 to reg 16 being close to 16mm final print) as well as processing and telecine costs.

 

The above have been the technical issues buging me, but the big question which is not an easy one remains: In what ways to make that leap into league of the more seriuos guys, creativly and economicly?

 

Please continue sharing your thoughts

Many Thanks

[Tim Tyler]

Me: I want to make a few shorts and music videos.  Why? I want to know if I have the talent and the energy to do so.  I have been a P.A/part time student taking

 

If you think you've got a bit of talent, and you're interested in shooting professionally, you're in a good position now, and you'll be in a better position if you buy a quiet crystal film camera.

 

You're 25, in NYC, and you're working among industry professionals. If you stick with it, you'll move up the ladder, and your fellow PA's will someday be producing and the electrics will be gaffing. Stay in touch with these people.

 

If you have a camera then you can rent yourself out as a DP on no-budgets and student films. You won't make any real money, but you'll be able to afford to buy some lights from time to time. You'll also gain valuable experience shooting and you'll make friends.

 

Unless you suck. Or you decide it's not for you. In that case you can sell the camera for probably 90% of what you paid for it.

 

If you can find the $$ for a camera, buy one.

 

Note: In my opinion, buying a DVX or XL2 is not the same as buying an Eclair or SR1. A film camera will demonstrate to your peers that you are interested in shooting 'film'. If you want to shoot video, or practice being a director then by all means buy a video camera, but if you want to DP other people's films, buy a quiet film camera and learn how to use it well.

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

You might also look at used CP16R. Very quiet and dependable, also repairable. The NPR is a truly great camera but will become harder to repair over time.

 

You might also find on ebay a used aaton LTR in the 5K range. A lovely camera which is Super 16 capable.

 

Also an Arri-16BL a super Sound Camera but with a difficult and expensive Super 16 conversion.

 

If you are just starting I would say go digital, you will have more opportunity to do projects and then move toward film.

 

It really gets down to having something to show and talk about with a prospective client.

Edited December 4, 2004 by Andy Sparaco

[Nate Downes]

And never overlook Super8 as an entry-level point to Film either. I began using a cheap $5 Vivitar Super8, and now have worked my way up to 16mm, yet still use Super8 for some commercial work.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

If you have a camera then you can rent yourself out as a DP on no-budgets and student films. You won't make any real money, but you'll be able to afford to buy some lights from time to time. You'll also gain valuable experience shooting and you'll make friends.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We've discussed the merits of owning and being hired out with a camera versus renting lots of times in the past.

 

My take is that I would actually offer the converse advice, if you are a director who wants to shoot your own feature film, and you're going to be shooting over a long and irregular period of time (and perhaps you want to try other projects too), getting a sync camera makes sense perfectly. Also, if you live far from a rental house and have some good paid work lined up for you and you really want to have it, then go for it.

 

But if you want to be a working DP on other people's films, I tend to lean away from that. Why not get the best camera package the budget can afford for the specific job? The rental house is responsible for the camera's upkeep, not you. Most repairs are going to cost in the hundreds of dollars. I've had my Arri's gate filed down because it had a bump, and a tachometer replaced - $700. Not cheap by any means, and anytime you buy used (which is all the time, practically) you're taking a chance that something like this can go wrong. Face it, many of these machines are at least 30 - 40 years old and they've been used.

 

MOS cameras will produce a picture as good as a sync camera can. Your job is to build a reel which looks good, so people hire you without thinking of what's in your tool kit. You want to be attached to good projects, projects that might move you along if you're good (sure, you gotta do a few not so great ones to start, just to get your feet wet).

 

Don't be afraid of that Beaulieu, so long as the camera works and the lens is calibrated and clean you can do pretty damn good work with it, work that will hopefully get you more work.

 

- G.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

About eighteen months ago, I became disillusioned with doing student and other low budget shoots. They were often disorganised, poorly-written, acted and directed, had no production design to speak of and used low-end equipment. This was not helping me to put together a demo reel and I wasn't making even enough money to cover not working those days on other things, even low-paying jobs such as my occasional projectionist gig.

 

I appreciate that there's an issue here about learning to work with other people, but I find it more useful to put together personal projects. It's more time-consuming, but at least you can guarantee it'll offer the opportunity to create better stuff. At least, the two best dramatic pieces I've ever shot (which were still pretty horrible, but still) were self-organised.

 

Phil

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I appreciate that there's an issue here about learning to work with other people, but I find it more useful to put together personal projects. It's more time-consuming, but at least you can guarantee it'll offer the opportunity to create better stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, in the beginning any opportunity to shoot film and have someone else cover the stock and lab tab is a good thing. It's an equal exchange, they're learning how to direct, you're learning how to shoot.

 

As you develop a basic competency and feel more self confident, then building a good showcase of material is important. You can do it yourself if you wish, and you don't have to make an entire narrative piece - just doing something minimalistic is all you need to do, and certainly the safest thing to do. So long as it's not done with poor taste. You can use an MOS camera for this, as a matter of fact doing something with sync sound might even distract from what you want to focus the viewer's attention on.

 

The better you make your reel, the more inviting of a choice you'll be, the greater will be your choice of projects. So long as you work well with other people and build a good rep, you'll have good options open.

 

- G.

Edited December 4, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky