Jump to content

Good God- 16mm Camera value plummets in the last year...


Kirk Anderson

Recommended Posts

  • Site Sponsor

HA HA HA AHAAA HAHA HAH!

 

They have been to the US! "I am completely bored with (blank) I need to go do something different now" should be a motto of sorts!

 

I only have 5 16mm cameras not 2000 though. However I have fired the Barrett .50 and it's bigger brother the browning .50 belt fed machine gun, I have a friend in the DOD :ph34r: . The guns I have are pretty much props for two films one finished and one not. Us 'Mericanz like our things that go boom.

 

Here is a 16mm film with a French 7.5mm gun used in a unusual way:

 

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Decide if you are and indie filmmaker, or a YouTuber, or a wedding videographer, or a corporate videomaker, or whatever. Nothing is wrong with any of those things, but they are different. YouTubers and corporate video makers shouldn't call themselves filmmakers, just like a filmmaker shoulden't call themselves a wedding videographer (I wouldn't know the first thing about shooting a wedding).

 

Who says one can't do all of the above and more? One can do tests and practice stuff on youtube and partially or even completely fund a small film by doing weddings, commercials, corporate videos, industrials, news, sports, infomercials and basically anything that makes a buck. I've seen it done.

Edited by Marty Hamrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says one can't do all of the above and more? One can do tests and practice stuff on youtube and partially or even completely fund a small film by doing weddings, commercials, corporate videos, industrials, news, sports, infomercials and basically anything that makes a buck. I've seen it done.

 

I've seen it done too. But never ever well. That's why you should pick one. Weddings and corporate videos are not even remotely the same thing as filmmaking. They require a completely different skill set. And yet some people get confused because they both use cameras.

 

What I was objecting to was people who do wedding videos or corporate videos and have no experience with narrative film, yet refer to themselves as filmmakers, and misguidedly think that they understand the needs of actual filmmakers and can preach to them about what camera and format is best when it is a completely different field that approaches shooting in a completely different way.

 

There is nothing wrong with being a wedding videographer or a corporate video maker. But don't call yourself a filmmaker or pretend you understand the needs of filmmakers. It's just a completely different world.

 

As to YouTube: there is a difference between a filmmaker who posts work on YouTube (in addition to other places) and somebody who makes YouTube videos specifically for YouTube. Again, they are two completely different things.

Edited by Adam Hunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think it's easier if you own the gear, because you can then at least work all of the bugs out of it and have a fairly reasonable idea that it's in good working order.

 

Also, an Aaton LTR is a considerably better, more modern camera than what's available round here, at least for any money less than a really very good video camera will cost you.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

I think it's easier if you own the gear, because you can then at least work all of the bugs out of it and have a fairly reasonable idea that it's in good working order.

 

Also, an Aaton LTR is a considerably better, more modern camera than what's available round here, at least for any money less than a really very good video camera will cost you.

 

P

 

 

Well what is a really good video camera Phil? a Red or a F900 or even an EX3 is $8-30K at minimum a DSLR is $2k to $10k a Bolex is $200-300 but that is not the point. I don't care about the cost of equipment, really. I care about buying films and I want to make the films I make the way I want to make them, so the camera is really immaterial and I have rented plenty of video and film cameras.

 

IMO video cameras are a bad investment they are quickly obsoleted and delicate, I rent them, film cameras are much more robust and can be useful for hundreds of years.

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's easier if you own the gear, because you can then at least work all of the bugs out of it and have a fairly reasonable idea that it's in good working order.

 

I would say the opposite. These are the exact reasons renting is better. There is somebody with the technical knowhow to maintain those cameras and worrying about that stuff so you don't have to.

 

Also, an Aaton LTR is a considerably better, more modern camera than what's available round here, at least for any money less than a really very good video camera will cost you.

 

Well I can't speak for your area, but how much have you looked? It sounds like you dismissed film very early on so how do you know what sources and options are available for film cameras?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen it done too. But never ever well. That's why you should pick one.

 

 

I hear you. Yet in today's world, the word "filmmaker" can stretch beyond the Hollywood scene. This is, of course, due to the fact that distribution needs have changed radically since the days when movies had to be released on celluloid. While I hate to compare the small group with low cost HDV gear with a full fledged production facility, that doesn't necessarily mean the guy who makes his bread and butter on weddings or industrials doesn't have something to say artistically or even commercially. "Good" can be relative. A small production can have it's merits artistically, placing in film festivals and the guy who starts out shooting corporate IMAGS can branch out to feature films. Back in the 70's I interned for several 16mm production companies in Jacksonville, Florida. One was a company called Joyous Lakes that was light years ahead of it's time, making industrials that did well in film festivals, but unfortunately were misunderstood by their clients and eventually they folded. The guys who ran the small company eventually went separate ways and each found their niche in features in Hollywood because they were good at what they did. Another company, Barton Films who cranked out industrials and commercials from the late 40's to the 80's (they still exist today, a small family run group mainly doing work for a local hospital)made a campy,low budget monster film called "Zaat" that developed a kind of cult following and runs on Turner's Underground feature from time to time. Yeah, Zaat was no epic, but it did feature a few actors that developed careers in show business afterward and the DP, Jack McGowan ( "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" among many other credits)had a bit of noteriety of his own.

 

My point is that there is too much myopia in show business and it stifles creativity and progress in my opinion. Yeah, I understand business, but how many actors,musicians, cinematographers, editors, whatever have been pigeon holed by what they did for a living, only later to prove their worth after years of beating their heads against the wall while the biz types screatched their heads and wondered,why the hell didn't we know about this person before? Myopia is never a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This past spring I found an Eclair 16 NPR, 2 mags, Angenieux 12-120 zoom, crystal sync-motor and matte-box for $713.00 on eBay-UK. I had it serviced, converted to Ultra16 and had the GG laser brightened. I also have a K3 that I paid $140.00 and had it converted to Ultra16 and laser brightened. So yes, the prices are coming down.

 

Been having so much fun with them. I think Kubrick said, "Get a camera and some film and shoot anything at all". No one really cares what it was shot on if the content is strong. I remember that shot from the Vietnam War where a South Vietnamese officer shoots a Vietcong in the head and kills him. I think most of us know the shot. Does it matter what camera/format shot that?

 

I have DSLR and HDV cams and have fun with them too. I recommend having fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old rattly camera = NO! Technically old maybe, but rattly no. Purrs like a kitten. Runs like new.

Junk lenses = NO! Better lenses than your DSLR in most cases.

Old stock = NO! Brand new Vision3 stock.

Bad transfer = NO! This may be the most expensive part but it's not as expensive as you make it out to be. Not at all.

 

 

Adam, where are you from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, where are you from?

 

I'm from Toronto.

 

 

 

He's from the magic world of cupcakes and fairies where every 16mm camera you can rent for $10 a day is a fully loaded SR3, as far as I can tell.

Yeah, he's not from the real world that we (I think?) all live in. That's for sure.

 

Your nonsense and misinformation got shot down by common sense and facts (by several others as well, not just me) so you are resorting to personal attacks. All it serves to do is show you are immature and have nothing to contribute here but insults. Grow up. Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talk about me living in a fantasy world, but you guys live in a world where DSLRs are not the single most problematic camera system ever invented. You live in a fantasy world where film is an unnecessary expense pushed on us by elitists who want to oppress indie filmmakers. Do you hear yourselves? Seriously.

 

What I have said has been corroborated by many others who have experience shooting film. And the fact is you can go out and investigate the options yourself if you don't believe me. It's not a matter of fantasy, connections, location, or any of the things you are using as excuses. The fact is 16mm (or even 35mm) production can be done cheaply and effectively, and the payoff in image quality is enormous. All it takes is some basic know-how and a little bit of digging to see what options are available to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's from the magic world of cupcakes and fairies where every 16mm camera you can rent for $10 a day is a fully loaded SR3

 

When did I ever say anything like this? I do however recall somebody saying that if you shoot your film on DSLR the entire film would cost $4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you. Yet in today's world, the word "filmmaker" can stretch beyond the Hollywood scene. This is, of course, due to the fact that distribution needs have changed radically since the days when movies had to be released on celluloid.

 

How have distribution needs changed? Films are still distributed the same way they have been for decades. Theatrical distribution is still the primary goal for most films. And even though digital projection has become more popular it has failed to reduce the cost of theatrical distribution for indie filmmakers.

 

The internet is an enticing frontier as far as distribution, but nobody has actually succeeded at using it as the primary distribution medium for a feature film.

 

 

 

And how has the word filmmaker stretched any further beyond the "Hollywood scene" than it was already? It has always been used far beyond Hollywood. In fact, more so outside of Hollywood. These days I see a lot more people claiming to be filmmakers based on the misguided notion that simply being able to buy a camera somehow makes you a filmmaker, but I don't see anymore people who can legitimately claim to be a filmmaker then there ever were. And this is not based on some kind of Hollywood elitism as to who is a filmmaker, but rather that people with the passion and drive to be a filmmaker have always existed and will continue to exist. And because there are many more hurtles to making a film than just the camera package, it is only those people who will succeed and can truly call themselves filmmakers. They found ways to make films before digital cameras, they find ways to make films now, and they will continue to find ways in the future.

 

 

 

My point is that there is too much myopia in show business and it stifles creativity and progress in my opinion. Yeah, I understand business, but how many actors,musicians, cinematographers, editors, whatever have been pigeon holed by what they did for a living, only later to prove their worth after years of beating their heads against the wall while the biz types screatched their heads and wondered,why the hell didn't we know about this person before? Myopia is never a good thing.

 

Lots of people have hidden talents. I don't see how this is any different than a doctor, lawyer or construction worker who later changes careers and shows themselves to be a talented filmmaker. My point is that shooting wedding videos contributes no more to being a filmmaker than being a lawyer does. And you are talking here about people who changed careers, not people who straddled both careers. Everyone takes odd jobs to pay the bills, but anybody who wants to be successful has to focus on what they want to be successful at. Filmmaking is a full-time job, not a hobby. If you want a hobby go make cat videos for YouTube. Just don't call yourself a filmmaker.

 

Sure, a wedding videographer can become a filmmaker. But it's ridiculous to accuse people of being myopic for not seeing that until they actually make films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talk about me living in a fantasy world, but you guys live in a world where DSLRs are not the single most problematic camera system ever invented. You live in a fantasy world where film is an unnecessary expense pushed on us by elitists who want to oppress indie filmmakers. Do you hear yourselves? Seriously.

 

 

No. I love film.

It's just I live in London. And I will give you my soul if you manage to find a good 16mm package with some new Vision 3 and HD transfer without dust on it for under $1000/day here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did I ever say anything like this? I do however recall somebody saying that if you shoot your film on DSLR the entire film would cost $4.

 

 

How many times do I have to tell you I was joking?????

 

Here is my original post:

or you could shoot on 7D, that'd bring your costs to like $4. :P

 

 

Here is your asinine comment responding to me more than a month later trying to start poop:

Yeah, and it will look like it cost $4.

 

 

Here is me telling you I was joking:

Not really. Honestly I was joking, hence the smiley.

 

Any questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I love film.

It's just I live in London. And I will give you my soul if you manage to find a good 16mm package with some new Vision 3 and HD transfer without dust on it for under $1000/day here.

 

Ok, well first off you weren't the one who accused me of living in a fantasy world, so I wasent reacting to you. You raise a valid, rational point.

 

I can't speak for London because I have never obviously priced things there, but what I will say is that I thought things were that pricy here too. It can be hard at first to find good deals but once you know where to look it gets much, much easier.

 

Having connections and working with places often can get you favoured deals, but even long before that you can usually get much better than book rates if you haggle or just make it clear you are a cash-strapped indie filmmaker.

 

I don't know how much you have investigated or haggled, but I'd assume you have somewhat. It may be that prices are just not as flexible there as they are here, or maybe there are better prices just around the corner. It's unfortunately not an industry where prices are just listed somewhere, and when they are they are almost always inflated.

Edited by Adam Hunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy has got to be the angriest canadian ever. relax dude. have a molson and some tim horton's.

 

At no time while posting on this forum have I ever been angry. It's just not serious enough to get angry over. Yes I do have a habit of posting very direct responses to stuff I see as ridiculous, but at no point has anger been a factor.

 

Oh, and if I drank Molson all the time I might actually be angry. Gross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times do I have to tell you I was joking?????

 

Here is my original post:

 

 

Here is your asinine comment responding to me more than a month later trying to start poop:

 

 

Here is me telling you I was joking:

 

Any questions?

 

You don't think "And it will look like is cost $4" was a joke too? Or that bringing that up again here wasn't either?

 

I'm not trying to start anything with you. It's a forum. Relax, debate, don't take any of it too seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How have distribution needs changed? Films are still distributed the same way they have been for decades. Theatrical distribution is still the primary goal for most films. And even though digital projection has become more popular it has failed to reduce the cost of theatrical distribution for indie filmmakers.

 

All I'm saying is that electronic distribution has opened up and has the potential to open up more avenues of exhibition for filmmakers that stretch beyond the theatrical. Is the guy who makes avant garde films on super 8 not a "filmmaker"? Look at the number of documentaries that pop up from folks who just want to make a statement. Brian Fleming's "The God Who Wasn't There" comes to mind as well as "Zeitgeist" and a host of others. Granted there's a lot of crap out there, Hip Hop Gangsta comedies and such, but quality is a subjective on many of these venues as I mentioned before.

 

The internet is an enticing frontier as far as distribution, but nobody has actually succeeded at using it as the primary distribution medium for a feature film.

Not yet, but who says to be defined as a "filmmaker", the person has to make feature narrative films? You got folks out there who just want to make a statement, grind an axe or preach a sermon and they use film (OK video) as a delivery medium. Yeah, much is crap, but some have won awards for their work such as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. While I'm not saying I buy into his stuff, he has won film festival awards for his docs.

 

 

These days I see a lot more people claiming to be filmmakers based on the misguided notion that simply being able to buy a camera somehow makes you a filmmaker, but I don't see anymore people who can legitimately claim to be a filmmaker then there ever were. And this is not based on some kind of Hollywood elitism as to who is a filmmaker, but rather that people with the passion and drive to be a filmmaker have always existed and will continue to exist. And because there are many more hurtles to making a film than just the camera package, it is only those people who will succeed and can truly call themselves filmmakers. They found ways to make films before digital cameras, they find ways to make films now, and they will continue to find ways in the future.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you at all here. In fact I'll even go you one further and say there are alot of filmmakers out there who shouldn't call themselves filmmakers. Having worked on the distribution/exhibition end I've seen some junk hit the screen that should've never made as whoever did them were clearly unqualified. "Open Water" comes to mind, which wouldn't even have qualified as a student film in my opinion. I'll also agree with you that the technology revolution has given many an unrealistic view of the requirements of making a film. This has been going on since 16mm and small handheld 35mm cameras have existed. It's a glamorous business and it attracts more people than who are qualified to work in it or will have enough positions to satisfy those that want to work in it. That's just the reality. I'm just a little confused as to just where you draw the line on what constitutes a "filmmaker".

 

Lots of people have hidden talents. I don't see how this is any different than a doctor, lawyer or construction worker who later changes careers and shows themselves to be a talented filmmaker. My point is that shooting wedding videos contributes no more to being a filmmaker than being a lawyer does. And you are talking here about people who changed careers, not people who straddled both careers. Everyone takes odd jobs to pay the bills, but anybody who wants to be successful has to focus on what they want to be successful at. Filmmaking is a full-time job, not a hobby. If you want a hobby go make cat videos for YouTube. Just don't call yourself a filmmaker.

 

Sure, a wedding videographer can become a filmmaker. But it's ridiculous to accuse people of being myopic for not seeing that until they actually make films.

Here again, we don't really disagree on that much and I wasn't accusing you of being myopic. Yet myopia is a part of the business, it's a part of every business because every business's main concern is the bottom line which makes it difficult for anyone to branch into it. I suppose the best analogy I can use here is the difference between a fiddler and a violinist. They are two entirely different discipines that stem from different roots and backgrounds, yet they both utilise exactly the same instrument. Both artists are equally talented and equally satisfy the demands of their customers and patrons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...