Jump to content

How hard is it to work with 16mm?


Rob Goldstein

Recommended Posts

I agree that film is expensive... very expensive, and that is why the #1 rule of filmmaking is this; USE SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY.

 

"How hard is it to work with 16mm?" Hmmm, it's next to impossible. I'd quit right now.

 

Order some short ends from film emporium, get a camera and meter and shoot them, that will teach more than posting in this forum.

 

If you use B&W shortends and send them to a cheap lab the pricing isn't that bad. Consider it an investment in your own knowledge. It may cost a few hundred bucks, but it is a lot cheaper than film school... which some of us were dumb enough to pay for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi,

 

You end up throwing away the extra dynamic range in the transfer just to give it a bit of snap, or it looks so flat and milky it's completely horrible

 

Huh ? Nowadays I can get more in the transfer than I can on print. I can have deep shadows, and get the pretty white clouds in the blue skies, ("hey where's that music coming from")

 

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

> Phil is right about the work & trouble involved, but once you see the end product, it's all worth it.

 

I used to agree. I just don't think it offers enough of a bonus, if you're finishing to video. You end up throwing away the extra dynamic range in the transfer just to give it a bit of snap, or it looks so flat and milky it's completely horrible. Okay, so it's that I'm inexperienced in the medium, but if that's the case then it's just a matter of knowledge and frankly it's somewhat easier, hugely cheaper, and at least factor-two faster to get better results out of electronic imaging. I would contend that anyone who disputed that simply didn't know what they were doing with video.

 

I'm not going to turn into a PD-150 nut; the sooner we can get rid of the over-DSP'd, compressed and subsampled systems currently in vogue the better. Even now, though, as far as I'm concerned film is an overpriced, capricious pain in the neck which doesn't offer nearly enough advantages to make it worth my while to put up with it.

 

Phil

 

 

Phil I think it just depends on the project you're working on.I used to shoot promos for a TV station.Glamour shots of TV news anchors for the show open,smiling and turning to the camera as well as spots that try to convince you that these people are your best friends who are working hard to bring you the news..yeah right.The majority of the stuff was beta SP.I think I stretched video to it's aesthetic ends for some of these spots.On the production and lighting end as well as the posting end.The few we shot on film were a breeze in post because once it came from the colorist,it was perfect.No image manipulation necessary and it was waaaaayyyy easier to light.Highlights could go off scale and be brought down in the telecine end,although that was seldom necessary.I even remember in my main field,TV news,in talking to some reporters and anchors who were with me during the film days still say they "looked prettier on film".And this is Ektachrome we're talking about shot in news conditions and aired on crappy old RCA telecines, as oposed to today's digital formats(of course these same people have aged 25 to 30 years since then so their memories may be a bit skewed).

I agree it's overpriced and doomed forever to be the elitist medium while they're still making celluloid,but for the poetic narrative stuff I still say if you can get the budget,shoot film.Video,no matter what you do to it,still looks like hard edge reality whereas film still has that dreamlike quality.HD,from what little I've seen (will definitely do more in the future)is the best alternative imo.

I haven't shot film in ages,but I still hold onto my film connections and some equipment for my experimental projects.I hope to do more but I'm just not sure there will be a paying market for me in film in the future.

One of the biggest differences between production techniques is very simple but you have to keep in mind if you're accustomed to video.You can't keep rolling through when you alter shots and such like with tape.400 foot mags hold ten minutes so you make the most of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, I guess you can argue specs, cost, etc., as a basis for deciding if it's worth the extra effort and cost, but in the end, it comes down to what an individual thinks looks best, or at least 'good enough for what I'm doing" (or as I call it, a person's tolerance for crap! Sorry, couldn't resist!).

But Phil, to be fair, I think you should shoot more film before you make conclusions about what it looks like.

I'm sure the first time you shot video, the results weren't that great, right? You had to learn the medium first.

 

Personally, after shooting film, I just could not possibly put up with the look of video. I just hate it, and I can't understand why anyone likes it.

If you can shoot video, and say "wow, that looks great" then you will think I'm crazy, I guess.

 

So the two camps will forever remain on their sides of the argument.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

This reminds me of a quote in a Sting interview a long time ago.

The guy asked him why the Police broke up, and Sting said they fought a lot about the quality of songs the other guys wrote, (they got tired of all the songs being Sting's, apparently) and he said:

"telling someone their song isn't good, is like telling someone their girlfriend is ugly."

 

Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

It's not about "look of film" or "look of video", it's about "right look for the production", and it's got to be easier to get there when you can see what you're doing. Case in point: I wanted that sunlight to be steaming hot, bright yellowish beams, but it comes out looking like a pocket flashlight. What am I supposed to do, tow the sun down on a rope and mount it in a reflector? The equipment demands are insane, not particularly to get exposure, but to make it do anything. I'm forced back to Tony Brown's excellent choice of words - it's gutless, it's got no life or snap. And this was a notoriously contrasty stock! What exactly does it take to get it to render something that's actually white? Or black? Where are the rich shadows I was promised? Sorry, I can underexpose video and get all of that out of the camera, no thousand-dollar-an-hour transfer suite required. How is that possibly not an advantage?

 

The simplest way I can describe my dissatisfaction is to point out that "high dynamic range" also means "low contrast", also "flat".

 

I think people's problem with video is that the techniques that are required for good results are currently considered to be unusual and rakish, and people avoid them.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi,

 

I wanted that sunlight to be steaming hot, bright yellowish beams, but it comes out looking like a pocket flashlight. .......

 

The simplest way I can describe my dissatisfaction is to point out that "high dynamic range" also means "low contrast", also "flat".

 

 

Phil

 

Phil,

 

To make sunlight look like the sun you need a big light from as far away as possible. I would think 4K par or bigger from outside the window, with no fill whatsoever would have given you more the look and contrast you wanted.

 

Stephen Williams DoP

Zurich Switzerland

 

www.stephenw.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi,

 

> This is one 1200 par

 

Yes, but that's just all clipped. I spend time trying to make video -not- look like that; what's the point?

 

Phil

 

 

Phil ,

 

The film can handle very high highlights and by using soft clips in the telecine much of the range can be transfered to tape. The sun highlights on the walls measured with a spot meter could well be 4 + stops over and if you can get some shadow area 4 under you will have a contrasty look. The white walls and ceiling in a small room will fill like hell.

 

Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman

 

www.stephenw.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil, I really think this is just that you haven't figured out how to "massage" the image of film yet.

You are criticizing film for things that are happening just in YOUR footage.

Would you say that all the feature films shot on film that you've seen are flat and boring?

See what I'm saying.

It just takes a certain amount of experience before you can "expertly guess" what a particular lighting setup is going to look like after it's done.

I'm still learning every time I shoot film, (gotta long way to go too), but I've gotten past that point where I'm thinking "hmmm, what's the big deal, this looks like crap!"

 

To use an analogy:

I've been learning a new instrument for the last 3 years or so; the viola.

I suck on the instrument. I mean, it's painful to listen to myself, let alone anyone else who's unlucky enough to be within earshot. That bad.

If someone handed me a Stradivarius and I played it, with my torturously bad technique, and said "Geez, why does this thing cost $1.5 million dollars? It sounds no better than my $1,600 viola! What a ripoff!".

You would say "duuuuhhhh!" And rightly so!

 

So keep on working at it, watch great movies shot on film, and find out how they were lit.

(You could always commit to memory the last 30 years of American Cinematography issues like David Mullen!!!)

 

Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also started out with film in skateboarding, good place to start, considering the level of acceptability in a skateboard video is nowhere near the level of acceptability anywhere else. sad but true, 99% of skateboard footage is dependant on the person or the trick. for the most part you dont have to worry about matching, lighting, crew, scedules or anything else really besides composition, exposure, and the subject. most people that shoot film for skate videos dont even use correction filters shooting tungsten film outside bucause "duh... the transfer dude makes the color right". yes its sad, but the good thing for me was shooting random short ends, learning, testing, screwing up lots of film, but it was all still useable because of the way video parts are cut (random shots from the previous year or so cut to some music) so it didnt really matter.

 

it will give you a good base understanding of working with film, which is good.

enjoy the k3!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't add much except to say it's crucial to have experience with film before you make a decision on whether or not you want to use it.I shot film years ago and shoot video now simply because that's what my market demands.If/when I get the opportunity to shoot film again,I would definitely want something budgeted for a test to see what I needed to get the look I wanted.Back in the 90's though we never had the budget or time to test,but I can say that every time I shot film,I duplicated the lighting scheme I would have for video except for the amount of fill I used.Often I found that using less fill and higher lighting ratios than was possible for the same shot in video I got a wonderful contrast range in the shot.I found also the daylight stocks,particularly Fuji handled mixed lighting sources (most of them uncorrected)much better than video.But then my experience is dated somewhat.Video cameras have improved since 1993.

Phil I think the other posters are right.You need to shoot more and experiment more before you make a decision on which is best for which project.

Marty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi guys, I was wondering if you could tell me what are some of the books on operating 16mm cameras and understanding its full technical aspect, i.e. exposure, shutter, color, lenses, film, basically all the fundamental stuff.

 

thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I was wondering if you could tell me what are some of the books on operating 16mm cameras and understanding its full technical aspect, i.e. exposure, shutter, color, lenses, film, basically all the fundamental stuff.

 

thank you.

I think Paul Wheeler's book "Practical Cinematography" is a good, simple, very clearly explained book on exactly what you want. It's Focal Press, ISBN 0 240 51555 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeremy edge

I wanted to pass on that another great forum is at yahoo dedicated soley to the k3:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/k-3/

Check out David Ryan and Jeff Lynch's work with the k3.its pretty amazing for that camera.

 

I'm trying to figure why Phil is so disatisfied with film.If someone more experienced could help me out....

He wants deep blacks and rich colors and bright whites, maybe theres a communication issue with the colorist? Shouldnt he give the colorist an idea of what he wants or else he'll get a pretty stock transfer right?

 

Could he be underexposing a tad? Isnt it common to overexpose negative film as much as 1 stop to get richer colors and deeper blacks?

 

The big hollywood features shoot on the same stocks available to anyone.there is no "magic" film they are using to get the beautiful images we love to see on screen.

 

Film has the look that video manufaturers ae desperately trying to replicate.

I dont see panavision trying to replicate interlaced video. i would imagine if you could find the right stock ,expose it properly and get the right colorist to give you the contrast you desire Phil, I dont believe you would be dissapointed with film at all.

Edited by jeremy edge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great topic.

 

I abhore the look of low-end video, which is what many videographers shoot. The higher end video cams are wonderful and I do believe in using the medium that best fits the mood. All things considered, however, the compression, dynamic range and DOF of video provide too many restrictions when compared to negative filmstock. And I believe film is easier to shoot than video. Yes, you have to learn to loop the film and yes, it's a good idea to have someone pull focus. But in the end, what are we striving for if not good imagery? Plainly spoken, video can only compete with film in a limited number of situations.

 

One can visit Kodak's website and get the EI for any of their filmstocks by clicking on the technical data link for a given stock. Those EIs are what's considered ideal exposure, but the latitude film provides enables us to create the look we want. Try that with video, even broadcast quality cams and creativity is very limited because of the never-ending DOF and lack of dynamic range. If one is shooting an interview in perfectly controlled conditions, fine, shoot DV.

 

One point that was made about metering I would respectfully disagree with was to point the light meter at the sky to get your exposure. That would be great if the sky was the subject. It's going to show up in frame, but the subject is what we're shooting, not the sky. I'd get a reading in the areas where the subject will be, based upon the light hitting the subject and expose accordingly. If the proper filmstock is used, the subject will appear as it should and the sky becomes incidental. The gentleman that began this post was going to be shooting skateboarders, so if the sky's a little bright but the subjects properly exposed, so be it. I realize there are so many scenarios, a metering discussion could go on forever, but I want my subjects properly exposed and if I'm in a controlled situation, I can block or add light to create the look I want. If shooting in ambient light and the shots aren't critical, I still want the subject properly exposed, will meter for the subject and ignore the rest. If the shots are critical, either put the subject under a tent or shoot early or late when the sun is low, making it less of a factor.

 

Tom

Edited by Tom Ballard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> And I believe film is easier to shoot than video.

 

Drivel! How is it possible for a seemingly-intelligent person to make this preposterous contention?

 

I'm not going to go over the reasons this is insane again, but really, honestly...

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> And I believe film is easier to shoot than video.

Drivel! How is it possible for a seemingly-intelligent person to make this preposterous contention?

I find my digital still camera easier to use to take snapshots.

And my 35mm SLR is MUCH easier to use to take carefully composed and lit photographs.

Part of that is the relative designs of the two cameras, but in general, and extending my experience to film/video, there is no simple comparison. It depends what you want to do, and what your equipment is designed for.

 

Like getting a cab versus driving your own car. If you simply want to get from A to B, it's dead easy to get in a cab. Much easier than having to drive, navigate, park, avoid the traffic yourself. If you want to take the scenic route, pick up some groceries on the way, and choose your own music on the radio, you can do that in a cab - but you have a lot more control in your own car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I love the convenience and flexibility of my digital still camera (a Kodak DX-6490). But for anything important that I really want to have more than just snapshots, I have my 35mm Minolta X-370 film camera along too.

 

My trusty 30 year old Minolta SRT-101 finally met its end when it was knocked off a shelf onto a cement floor a few years ago. I had taken it on many trips, including to China for an ISO/TC36 Cinematography meeting in 1987. It's fully manual features saved the day on that two-week trip. While others with more automatic /motorized cameras had difficulty finding their specialized batteries in China at the time and eventually had "dead" cameras, my SRT-101 brought home all the photos I wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

> And I believe film is easier to shoot than video.

 

Drivel! How is it possible for a seemingly-intelligent person to make this preposterous contention?

 

I'm not going to go over the reasons this is insane again, but really, honestly...

 

Phil

 

 

Yeah you're right it's easier to shoot with a video camera

Just put it on auto and press record--if you're looking for the easiest way out.

 

But I give you this:

It's easier to shoot film and get great looking results.

 

& it takes alot more hard work than shooting film...

To shoot video and get any results comparable to film (especially 35mm).

So there.

 

Although knowing you Phil--you'll find a snappy response to this...

Just like a fighter never beaten till you're dead :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi,

 

> And I believe film is easier to shoot than video.

 

Drivel! How is it possible for a seemingly-intelligent person to make this preposterous contention?

 

I'm not going to go over the reasons this is insane again, but really, honestly...

 

Phil

 

Phil,

 

Who are you quoting?

 

I said "I think shooting on film can be easier than video! mabe even quicker if you don`t have a video tap! "

 

Stephen Williams DoP

Zurich

 

www.stephenw.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I was wondering if you could tell me what are some of the books on operating 16mm cameras and understanding its full technical aspect, i.e. exposure, shutter, color, lenses, film, basically all the fundamental stuff.

 

thank you.

 

"Cinematography" by Kris Malkewictz (sorry I don't think this is the correct spelling of his name)

 

Available from Amazon

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

> And I believe film is easier to shoot than video.

 

Drivel! How is it possible for a seemingly-intelligent person to make this preposterous contention?

 

I'm not going to go over the reasons this is insane again, but really, honestly...

 

Phil

 

It is miles easier to shoot film......I mean I've snowboarded miles and miles with a super8 camera hanging from my neck and obtained superb ski footage after minimially graded transfer - its just so easy!

 

The latitude of modern negative allows, if you need it, for point and shoot and you dont have to worry about burned out highlights and crappy flat look and colour.

 

Matt

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

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...