Getting 35mm Camera

[Guest JoshuaNitschke]

...but I'm not finding topics that address all the things I'm trying to figure out.

 

First of all, I'm 17 years old; I live in CA.

 

My crew (*cough*friends*cough*) and I have been preproducing a film for almost a year now; mainly working on the script, finding props, etc.

 

We are getting close to our hopeful film date (summer), so we are looking into buying a camera.

 

At first, we were thinking we'd go the Mini-DV route; but I'm not too impressed with what I've been hearing. If you'd be so kind, som Mini-DV vs. Film pros and cons would be nice (I've already read a lot, but I like to get as much input as I can possibly get. (Sidenote, how did 28 Days Later get theater quality out of the XL-1s if anybody knows)?

 

But like I said, it seems as if shooting on 35mm film is best. Which leads me to my questions:

 

1) Is the Konvas 2M 35mm really that loud?

2) Is Arri 35BL (?) any better in the noise department?

4) Is there another camera (<10K preferred) I should be aware of?

3) Can either of these be used as handhelds?

4) I know good lenses are important, but is there a point of "diminishing return," meaning when is the quality difference so low that it is not worth getting a better lense? (hope that made sense).

5) I remember reading something about the film getting off sync or something with the Konvas; what exactly is this? Is it easily prevented?

6) Where the heck can I get these cameras (I've only found a Konvas on Ebay)

7) Is the difference between 35mm and super-35mm all that big?

8) Anything else I should know?

 

I think that covers everything I wanted to ask. Looking forward to responses!

[Kevin Zanit]

When most people produce a film to be shot over consecutive days for several weeks they do not purchase the camera, especially for 35mm.

 

They rent. You will find renting a camera to be a much more financially viable solution, not to mention that you will be working with a far better quality/ properly maintained piece of equipment than if you were to buy.

 

All you need is production insurance, and you can rent a complete camera package (from a rental house such as Panavision) for only a few thousand dollars compared to like 10 thousand for a semi decent old non sync 35mm camera.

 

The difference between 35 and S35 is the aspect ratio. Super 35 yields a widescreen image (after an expensive optical step in the lab). It is an alternative to anamorphic photography.

 

Have you priced out the cost of film and processing, etc? It is vastly more expensive than a camera. Making a first time feature is hard; making one with the extremely limited shooting ratio you will undoubtedly be working with is much harder.

 

You will also need to find yourself someone who is experienced shooting film.

 

There have been many posts explaining what reasons to shoot one format over another. I think you will find 35 is not necessarily viable for you, possibly 16 though.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

[Guest JoshuaNitschke]

Wow, fast response.

 

When most people produce a film to be shot over consecutive days for several weeks they do not purchase the camera, especially for 35mm.

 

They rent.  You will find renting a camera to be a much more financially viable solution, not to mention that you will be working with a far better quality/ properly maintained piece of equipment than if you were to buy.

 

All you need is production insurance, and you can rent a complete camera package (from a rental house such as Panavision) for only a few thousand dollars compared to like 10 thousand for a semi decent old non sync 35mm camera.

 

I had been looking into renting, but from what google had turned up, it had looked like that renting was also very expensive:

 

http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1679

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/lo....php?t1813.html

 

How much does production insurance generally run?

 

The difference between 35 and S35 is the aspect ratio.  Super 35 yields a widescreen image (after an expensive optical step in the lab).  It is an alternative to anamorphic photography.

 

Have you priced out the cost of film and processing, etc?  It is vastly more expensive than a camera.  Making a first time feature is hard; making one with the extremely limited shooting ratio you will undoubtedly be working with is much harder.

 

Ummm, I hadn't got there yet. :( >.< So much money. Thanks for the reminder.

 

You will also need to find yourself someone who is experienced shooting film.

 

I can see why this would be so if I was renting; one reason I wanted to buy.

 

There have been many posts explaining what reasons to shoot one format over another.  I think you will find 35 is not necessarily viable for you, possibly 16 though.

 

Kevin Zanit

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok, thanks for all the help. It sounds as though I'd probably be better off going with the xl2 for my first film. :( I'm a quality-whore, so that's painful for me...

 

I guess I can always remake it when I'm big in Hollywood. ;)

 

Thanks for all the help, I appreciate it.

[Rob Belics]

28 Day Later did not use "off the shelf" lenses and spent hundreds of thousands of dollar to post-process the image to get it to the level it was.

[David Mullen ASC]

The other difference is more obvious: LIGHTING. By the nature of the story, "Open Water" is somewhat limited in use of lighting while "28 Days Later" has many scenes lit with strong sources of light for an atmospheric effect, which helps mitigate the low-rez nature of DV somewhat.

 

I remember once Allen Daviau quoting Spielberg as saying that the more dramatic the lighting effect, the more it survives being shot or shown in less resolution, whereas very subtle and soft lighting tends to fall apart more quickly if shot or shown with not enough resolution or sharpness. The lower the resolution, the bolder the images need to be.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

1) Is the Konvas 2M 35mm really that loud?

2) Is Arri 35BL (?) any better in the noise department?

4) Is there another camera (<10K preferred) I should be aware of?

3) Can either of these be used as handhelds?

4) I know good lenses are important, but is there a point of "diminishing return," meaning when is the quality difference so low that it is not worth getting a better lense? (hope that made sense).

5) I remember reading something about the film getting off sync or something with the Konvas; what exactly is this?  Is it easily prevented?

6) Where the heck can I get these cameras (I've only found a Konvas on Ebay)

7) Is the difference between 35mm and super-35mm all that big?

8) Anything else I should know?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1) Yes, it is :) Forget about using it to record sync. You can, however, try post dubbing, read my article at http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky/nonsync.html

 

2) Yes.

 

3) Yes.

 

4 (the second 4)) A lens that is 2 times better usually costs 5 times more. That's the way it usually works. You decide whether its worth it or not.

 

5) The Konvas runs on a sync motor (I think most of them do, maybe the 1 doesn't, there are different motors for them).

 

6) Konvasses and other cameras abide on ebay in large quantities. Be careful, some dodgy dealers out there - check their records. Make sure the camera isn't stolen, there is a database of serial numbers of stolen equipment. Ask for serial numbers.

 

7) 35mm 1.85 (standard widescreen) is a different beast from Super 35 (which compares to 2.35 anamorphic). Honestly, for a first time feature forget about anything but standard 35mm 1.85 or 1.66. Super 35 and Anamorphic are out of your league.

 

35mm film isn't cheap. You can probably get a good deal on short ends and film processing in Los Angeles (I'm paying the near equivalent of 16mm prices here in NY). But ask yourself if you want to bother with such an expense anyway: are you really out there to do an exercise at this point, or do you really have pretenses of making money on this? I'd advise strongly sticking to the first option, especially at your age (no offense). You won't regret it I'm sure.

 

- G.

[John Sprung]

Will anything that happens in front of your camera be extremely difficult or expensive to come back later and do again? If not, maybe the way to go is to do a few scenes from your movie in DV, cut them together, and do a temp mix. That way you and your crew get a learning experience for not much money, and you can decide later whether to spend the big bucks. If you do go back and spend the big bucks, you'll come to the process with a better idea of what you really do and don't need to put your time and money into on the shoot. And save that DV stuff. You'll want it for the DVD extras when your movie's a big hit.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Guest JoshuaNitschke]

Ok guys, thanks SO much for the info.

 

I think my dreams of grandeur got a bit big; I'll go with miniDV for now and once I make it big I'll do a remake. ;)

 

Thanks for taking all the time to give such good answers and bringing me back to reality before I wasted all my money on something so expensive. ;)

[Allen Achterberg]

ballsy. it would cost way too much to buy what you need. renting is the way to go, you should start pricing all this out and DONT FORGET PROCESSING AND TELECINE then add a budget, see if you can get donations from local busineses, figure out if you can afford to shoot it. I'm shooting my first 35mm short in 2 weeks, and most the crew members tossed in money and that helped. to have several people throw in some cash.

 

Good Luck Bro. And forever live the Highschool dream whatever that means

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> First of all, I'm 17 years old

 

You can't afford to shoot film, then!

 

> If you'd be so kind, som Mini-DV vs. Film pros and cons would be nice

 

Absolutely the cheapest way, unless you are shooting a lot of material, to get HD resolution is the cheapest super-16 camera you can find because you buy the clever technology as part of the film stock not as part of the camera. The clever bit of a video camera is the CCD that's bolted on the front. I am not convinced that one intrinsically looks better than the other, depending on a lot of things, but the cheapest way to get to a 35mm film print is undoubtedly to shoot 16 and blow up optically.

 

> (Sidenote, how did 28 Days Later get theater quality out of the XL-1s if anybody

> knows)?

 

They didn't. But whatever they did get out of it was a combination of postproduction technology and skill.

 

> it seems as if shooting on 35mm film is best

 

No, shooting on 65mm film is "best" - you're already tempering the idea of "best" with the reality of "practical." Practical for you is probably miniDV.

 

> lense

 

The singular of "lenses" is "lens."

 

Phil

[Guest JoshuaNitschke]

Thank you all. :)

 

I'll be going with miniDV since even super16 seems a bit impractical for me.

[Guest jeremy edge]

Thank you all. :)

 

I'll be going with miniDV since even super16 seems a bit impractical for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, for the price of a good one ($3000-$5000) you could definetly get an awesome konvas or 16mm setup ....lets say you find a $1000 konvas 1m on ebay you send it off for servicing to get it running right(maybe $1000) you still have 2 grand left over !

 

BUT , it seems you're talking about a feature(80 mins plus?) and that kinda blows the whole film thing out of the water.You're talking thousands of dollars in film costs. if you're talking shorts or music vid - film is affordable ...for a full - length movie forget it.

 

look in general discussion under "sample clips" i posted some links of some stuff some guys shot with an xl2.i dont think you'll get too depressed after looking at that.

 

If you're dead set on film ...you could always use cheap super 8 cameras and do your own transfers.Check out sleep always...http://www.friendlyfirefilms.ca

Its pretty awesome for super 8 and they can modify cameras for you.

 

Also check out filmshooting.com a lot of super 8 users there.

[Nate Downes]

I'm with Mr. Edge there, look into Super8 as well. You can get film and processing for relatively cheap, and you could even do the telecine yourself using a Moviestuff Workprinter. A complete setup for Super8, including enough film for a feature, would run you about the same as for the XL2, and if you opt for a quality S8 camera you'd get a better image. A Canon 814XL or 1014XL, Nikon R10, Chinon 200/8 or 200/12, Beaulieu 6008, or, best of all, a Leicina Special, would be my recommendation. I have a Chinon 200/12 and find it excellent to work with.

 

If you'd like, I could post the budget I worked up for my feature to be shot on S8, to give you reference.

[Guest JoshuaNitschke]

Well, for the price of a good one ($3000-$5000) you could definetly get an awesome konvas or 16mm setup ....lets say you find a $1000 konvas 1m on ebay you send it off for servicing to get it running right(maybe $1000) you still have 2 grand left over !

 

Right, that's why I had been thinking 35mm film would be a good option for me. :)

 

BUT , it seems you're talking about a feature(80 mins plus?) and that kinda blows the whole film thing out of the water.You're talking thousands of dollars in film costs. if you're talking shorts or music vid - film is affordable ...for a full - length movie forget it.

 

And this is what made me realize that it isn't. ;) You are correct; the film will be about about 80-100 minutes in length. I don't think I'll be able to afford film. (I'm guessing film is unreusable as well, like still cameras).

 

look in general discussion under "sample clips" i posted some links of some stuff some guys shot with an xl2.i dont think you'll get too depressed after looking at that.

 

I'm blind; I can't find the thread. :( Link please?

 

If you're dead set on film ...you could always use cheap super 8 cameras and do your own transfers.Check out sleep always...http://www.friendlyfirefilms.ca

Its pretty awesome for super 8 and they can modify cameras for you.

 

Also check out filmshooting.com  a lot of super 8 users there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not dead set on film, but I've heard that video is very recognizable as video. I'd also like a higher resolution for working in post since I'll be doing a lot of detail rotoscoping for some shots. The higher the resolution, the easier it is to do that.

 

I'm also interested in showing my film at festivals; will the Xl2 cut it for that?

--------

 

I'm with Mr. Edge there, look into Super8 as well.  You can get film and processing for relatively cheap, and you could even do the telecine yourself using a Moviestuff Workprinter.  A complete setup for Super8, including enough film for a feature, would run you about the same as for the XL2, and if you opt for a quality S8 camera you'd get a better image.  A Canon 814XL or 1014XL, Nikon R10, Chinon 200/8 or 200/12, Beaulieu 6008, or, best of all, a Leicina Special, would be my recommendation.  I have a Chinon 200/12 and find it excellent to work with.

 

If you'd like, I could post the budget I worked up for my feature to be shot on S8, to give you reference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How much of a better image are we talking about? Do any of these cameras have XLR ports? (I'll google it of course, but if I can get it I'd like an answer). How easy is it to hook these cameras up to a monitor (TV)?

 

Basically, what would be the pros and cons of going Super8 or Canon Xl2 mini-dv? What pixel resolution would the Super8 be about equal to? Will film festivals take it, or is too low? (I know they take 16mm).

 

If it helps, here's some more info. I want to film in a widescreen aspect ratio (anamorphic? I'm still learning all the terms). Also, it is imperative that the picture is very crisp and clear (I think this depends on my lens though). Also, this is our first feature; we'd like to get the camera early to practice with the actual equipment we'll be using. None of us have had any previous professional experience. The only experience I've had is in post production because I'm a computer geek. ;)

 

Yes, I'm very interested in seeing your budget. :)

 

Another question; if I'm to buy a good quality lens for the Super8, would it be cheaper to go with the Canon Xl2 and buy one (or two if I can afford to get the wide angle one as well) of their good manual lenses?

 

You guys are such nice people here, thanks for all the help. :)

Edited February 20, 2005 by JoshuaNitschke

[Nate Downes]

How much of a better image are we talking about?  Do any of these cameras have XLR ports? (I'll google it of course, but if I can get it I'd like an answer).  How easy is it to hook these cameras up to a monitor (TV)?

No film camera has an XLR port, you don't record sound on the film. You record on a second machine, typically a Nagra, DAT, or even a Minidisc recorder would do in a pinch. As for a video synch, I've seen it done, shoot, I've done it myself.

Basically, what would be the pros and cons of going Super8 or Canon Xl2 mini-dv?  What pixel resolution would the Super8 be about equal to?  Will film festivals take it, or is too low? (I know they take 16mm).

Well, the biggest pro is that it is film. You get films dynamic, feeling, and texture. As for pixel resolution, depends on what film stock you use as well as what lens you have. I actually recorded a 4k image off of Kodachrome once and pulled out enough detail to make it worth it. And most festivals will take it, worst case transfer it to 16mm.

If it helps, here's some more info. I want to film in a widescreen aspect ratio (anamorphic?  I'm still learning all the terms).  Also, it is imperative that the picture is very crisp and clear (I think this depends on my lens though).  Also, this is our first feature; we'd like to get the camera early to practice with the actual equipment we'll be using.  None of us have had any previous professional experience.  The only experience I've had is in post production because I'm a computer geek. ;)

Well, then may I recommend asking one of the guys on here if you could apprentice with them? Great hands-on experience.

 

Widescreen is just that, wider screen. You can get this via a few methods. 1, you cut off the top and bottom of the frame. 2, you widen the film gate, to expose a wider segment of film, a la Super16 or Super-Duper 8. 3, you use Anamorphic, whereby a special lens is placed in front of the normal camera lens which squeezes the picture.

Yes, I'm very interested in seeing your budget. :)

I'll dig it out and post it on my next day off then.

Another question; if I'm to buy a good quality lens for the Super8, would it be cheaper to go with the Canon Xl2 and buy one (or two if I can afford to get the wide angle one as well) of their good manual lenses?

Most Super8 cameras have built-in lenses, not modular. That is why I recommended those models above, they come with high-quality lenses. Only the Leica and Beaulieu have interchangeable lenses, and lenses can be had for both of them for reasonable.

You guys are such nice people here, thanks for all the help. :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you.

[Guest jeremy edge]

the xl2 footage i believe is in the video only forum under xl2?

 

I cant remember....click on my username and searh for my posts...

[Guest JoshuaNitschke]

the xl2 footage i believe is in the video only forum under xl2?

 

I cant remember....click on my username and searh for my posts...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, I am impressed. I can live with that. :D Loved the little bottle shot you did with the dolly, very nice. In fact...we have a similar shot in our movie. :) Nice to know it'll turn out that nice.

 

Thanks for all the info Downix.

 

I think I'm going to minidv still for a number of reasons.

 

1) Some of the actors are inexperienced with acting in front of a camera (different from stage acting :P), so we'll probably have to have multiple takes.

 

2) The movie is kind of an action movie (3-4 action scenes, I forget ATM), this will also require a lot of footage for full coverage, plus we have to take into account choreography mistakes.

 

I'd rather save a film venture for a time when I have more money (I have no rich daddy :( ) and more experience. It's like what Rodriquez said, "You don't want anything too fancy, remember this is your first movie - you're not Spielberg yet." I tend to get carried away with what I want. ;)

 

However, I'm still interested in seeing the budget. :)

Edited February 22, 2005 by JoshuaNitschke

[Nate Downes]

Ok, Super8 budget time:

 

$100: Chinon 200/12XL

$1144: 108 rolls K-40, enough to shoot a 90 minute movie at 3:1

$755: Processing for those K-40 rolls

$5: hand-wind movie editor, to do the rough-cut edit

$1200: Workprinter-JR

$600: low-end 3CCD MiniDV camera for transfer

$60: Microphone

$120: MD recorder

 

total: $3984

[Nguyen D. Nguyen]

...but I'm not finding topics that address all the things I'm trying to figure out.

 

First of all, I'm 17 years old; I live in CA.

 

My crew (*cough*friends*cough*) and I have been preproducing a film for almost a year now; mainly working on the script, finding props, etc.

 

We are getting close to our hopeful film date (summer), so we are looking into buying a camera.

 

At first, we were thinking we'd go the Mini-DV route; but I'm not too impressed with what I've been hearing.  If you'd be so kind, som Mini-DV vs. Film pros and cons would be nice (I've already read a lot, but I like to get as much input as I can possibly get.  (Sidenote, how did 28 Days Later get theater quality out of the XL-1s if anybody knows)?

 

But like I said, it seems as if shooting on 35mm film is best.  Which leads me to my questions:

 

1) Is the Konvas 2M 35mm really that loud?

2) Is Arri 35BL (?) any better in the noise department?

4) Is there another camera (<10K preferred) I should be aware of?

3) Can either of these be used as handhelds?

4) I know good lenses are important, but is there a point of "diminishing return," meaning when is the quality difference so low that it is not worth getting a better lense? (hope that made sense).

5) I remember reading something about the film getting off sync or something with the Konvas; what exactly is this?  Is it easily prevented?

6) Where the heck can I get these cameras (I've only found a Konvas on Ebay)

7) Is the difference between 35mm and super-35mm all that big?

8) Anything else I should know?

 

I think that covers everything I wanted to ask.  Looking forward to responses!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Josh,

 

I don't mean to be callous, but regardless of your format, 35mm, 16mm, or even dv, shooting a feature at your age is a very bad idea unless you have some pretty extensive experience in planning, shooting, directing and most of all, WRITING for a feature. I'm seriously not joking and am speaking from experience.

 

Making a quality short film, even a five minute one, can be a tremendously daunting task. I definitely encourage you to explore though, and for your current situtation, I'd strongly recommend doing a 16mm (or if you want to take it up a step, super-16) short under 10 minutes. One, it gives you the discipline in a film production that's essential to every beginning film maker. You can get 16mm cameras for as low as 200 on ebay, or even now, eclair nprs with coaxial magazines sell for around 2000. And two, you begin to learn the "language" of film, the flow of control and direction between different members in your "crew". And three, you get the "look" of film, without it totally bankrupting you the way 35mm would (though it is still expensive).

 

Although it's more financially feasible to shoot with dv, i'd have to suggest against it. It's not so much the format (though since film is an art and aesthetics do count), it's more the mentality that usually comes with film. I often find that people involved in productions using film (even short films) have a completely different mindset (because you have more at stake, perhaps) than with digital where you rest on a safety net of contingency, but that may be just me. Also, film cameras are almost completely manual and mechanical, meaning that there's total control over the image (again, if you know what you're doing). What I'm getting at is to get the process down until it becomes second nature until you feel you can mentally (and financially) tackle down with 35mm.

 

Good luck.

[Stephen Williams]

The difference between 35 and S35 is the aspect ratio.  Super 35 yields a widescreen image (after an expensive optical step in the lab).  It is an alternative to anamorphic photography.

 

Kevin Zanit

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Kevin,

 

Not totallv correct. The difference between 35 and S35 it that in S35 the soundtrack area is used for filming, yeilding a larger negative giving less grain and less depth of field. You can crop either image as required. 3 perf also super 35

 

Stephen Williams DoP

Zurich

 

www.stephenw.com