Jump to content

How hard is it to work with 16mm?


Rob Goldstein

Recommended Posts

I was sitting outside the film and video building today and overheard a student talking about how, "I hate film, I'd rather shoot on mini-DV. With film, you never know what it's gonna look like until you get it back."

 

I couldn't help it. I turned around and gave him my patent-pending "look of utter disbelief" which includes a slightly arched eyebrow, a smirk, and a shake of the head. Then a sigh. Then I turned back around. I'm such a b*tch.

 

What can I say, it just struck me as a very naive thing to say. I found myself wondering how far he would get in the program. I got a mental picture of the senior project professors telling him, "No, you can't shoot your senior project on mini-DV..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With film, you never know what it's gonna look like until you get it back
I got a mental picture of the senior project professors

 

That's exactly it. An experienced or competent cinematographer knows exactly "what it's gonna look like" because they can see it in their mind's eye. - A mental picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

It's not the way it looks, that's just taste and practice, it's the uncertainty that you've got it at all. I have no idea how people insure it - the possibility of a moment's carelessness destroying the whole thing at a stroke is more than I can put up with, certainly.

 

The viewfinding arrangements are ridiculously primitive. Apart from the tiny issue that you've no guarantee that it'll see what you see, even down to little things like focus and framing, it doesn't tell you anything. I think part of the phobia film people have about video camera settings is that they're expecting it to be like a film camera, which is so secretive about the way it's set up. Head's up guys - if I stick my camera into 6dB of gain (that's a one-stop push to you) it says "! +6dB" in the viewfinder, making it very obvious what's going on. You just have to.... remember, and ensure that about six other people remember too. If anyone forgets, your footage is ruined. Marvellous! And I don't have to give myself a screaming migrane shoving my face into the viewfinder, either, because if I leave the eyepiece open on my camera it doesn't insert ghostly flashing lights into the scene! Yes, I tried loosening it, and it... well, it fell off, to put it bluntly. And it still didn't show me the whole frame. And really, need I point out that all that resolution is kind of pointless if it's so impossibly difficult to keep in focus?

 

My camera doesn't go "Skrink.... skrink.... skrink.... " and "trrrr" when it's running, causing consternation to the sound department. Camera noise is clearly audible, on all my audio, and even on the DVD-extra-features of huge productions - Goldeneye springs to mind as an apposite example. Haven't we advanced beyond this?!

 

The handholding arrangements are user-hostile. It's hopelessly unbalanced, and the handle on the one I had wasn't even long enough to wrap your whole hand around. After a three-minute take I was in serious pain. How is it possible to advocate a system where it's uncomfortable just to grasp the thing?

 

Stopping every take and a half to reload. The prosecution rests. I have no idea how you guys shooting 35mm deal with four minute rolls.

 

In short, shooting film is like pulling teeth, and to be avoided at all costs.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeremy edge

I think the reason that people deal with film,loading,processing and all the pains associated is that it has a magical "surreal" look that cannot just be pinned down to a certain gamma ,framerate or any other characteristic.It reacts in a way that i think that were a long way away from replicating digitally.

 

I do think that we will see film start to phase out before video is fully there because of guys like Phil who find the whole process and guesswork (or calculting for those more experienced.)and the pains of shooting film...well,Painful.I think that hd will be seen more and more on the big screen even before the proper advances are made.Why? Because the public will come to accept it just like they have with cgi. i mean ,you can sell americans anything ..especially with hd being all the rage you can just say"shot on hd" they think "oh hd,just like my new tv....hd is better right?"

 

The whole thing reminds me of the digital audio age....now we have sacd and dvd-audio which gets us closer to analog but years after cd is the standard which is 16 bit and not near enough resolution.People dont care...they are willing to listen to mp3s!!! thats crap!

 

i just finished my band's project on 24 tracks done on 20 bit aleses adat.just when I think our stuff sounds pretty good...I hear an old song from the 70s on the radio and i think "Man how did they get that fat lower midrange warmth?" Analog baby. Something magical about it.

 

If we ever get a "Big" record deal (not holding breath)and I get the choice of how we record I want to track on 2 24 track analog studer machines on 2 inch tape,mix on pro tools then dump our mixes on 1/2 inch stereo analog. Yeah, I'm only 33 but i just don't trust modern advances when they're in the early stages. sometimes you cant beat old school.

Edited by jeremy edge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi,

 

I have no idea how people insure it - the possibility of a moment's carelessness destroying the whole thing at a stroke is more than I can put up with, certainly.

 

The viewfinding arrangements are ridiculously primitive. Apart from the tiny issue that you've no guarantee that it'll see what you see, even down to little things like focus and framing, it doesn't tell you anything.

 

My camera doesn't go "Skrink.... skrink.... skrink.... " and "trrrr" when it's running, causing consternation to the sound department.

 

The handholding arrangements are user-hostile. It's hopelessly unbalanced, and the handle on the one I had wasn't even long enough to wrap your whole hand around. After a three-minute take I was in serious pain. How is it possible to advocate a system where it's uncomfortable just to grasp the thing?

 

Phil

 

Phil,

 

Before shooting, an insurance company will insist that the camera, all magazines, and lenses are film tested. The film is printed and projected. After testing the insurance co. is sure that the ground glass, focus marks , registration etc. are correct and the film does not get scratched.

 

If we find a hair in the gate, the loader or focus puller makes a mistake, we can shoot again very quickly, at minimal cost. The crew has to admit their mistakes!

 

I own a 25 year old Ultracam 35, recently the soundman said " Its much quieter than the Digibeta DVW 700 you used yesterday!"

 

Some cameras are designed to hand hold, the Aaton XTR is far better than the Arri SR2 you used. Choose the camera best suited to the job your shooting.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Stephen Williams DP

Zurich

 

www.stephenw.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, shooting film is like pulling teeth, and to be avoided at all costs.

Are you saying you can't skrew up with video? You can skrew up everything if you are stupid enough.

 

Just learned how to load a SR, took about ten minutes, just pop it in and you are good to go. I remember you shot also with a modified SR, why didn't you trust the viewfinder? One thing I agree, it's not made for hand-holding ;) But you can get hand-holding rigs for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

It's not the way it looks, that's just taste and practice, it's the uncertainty that you've got it at all. I have no idea how people insure it - the possibility of a moment's carelessness destroying the whole thing at a stroke is more than I can put up with, certainly.

 

In short, shooting film is like pulling teeth, and to be avoided at all costs.

 

Phil

 

Well uncertainty is common in many profession...

But most experienced professionals

Are usually sure they'll be able to do their job well

 

Do you think a surgeon has any certainty he will complete a successful operation?

Do you think a skilled commando has any certainty he will complete his mission?

Do you think a skilled DP has any certainty he'll get good footage from the lab?

 

You bet your ass off they all are certain they'll succeed!

Because they're skilled professionals and have experience.

 

Film made be rough on newcomers but anyone with experience knows...

It ain't that difficult it's pretty much routine...

You do this and you do that and PAY ATTENTION and things will go fine.

 

"If you wash your hands before an operation you'll assure there are no infections."

 

Ergo in film

"If you check the camera before renting it you'll assure that there are no scratches

You'll assure there are no focus problems, and that it rounds quietly enough."

 

 

It's all about practice an experience.

You'll have to work a little harder sometimes but it's worth it.

 

You really should practice a bit more with film before you bash it.

Maybe next time you should work with an Aaton S16 camera

Aatons are easier to handhold...they are quieter than Arri SR2

And their viewfinder systems are slightly brighter.

 

In it a perfect world DPs can work on both formats without complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

It's not the way it looks, that's just taste and practice, it's the uncertainty that you've got it at all. I have no idea how people insure it - the possibility of a moment's carelessness destroying the whole thing at a stroke is more than I can put up with, certainly.

 

The viewfinding arrangements are ridiculously primitive. Apart from the tiny issue that you've no guarantee that it'll see what you see, even down to little things like focus and framing, it doesn't tell you anything. I think part of the phobia film people have about video camera settings is that they're expecting it to be like a film camera, which is so secretive about the way it's set up. Head's up guys - if I stick my camera into 6dB of gain (that's a one-stop push to you) it says "! +6dB" in the viewfinder, making it very obvious what's going on. You just have to.... remember, and ensure that about six other people remember too. If anyone forgets, your footage is ruined. Marvellous! And I don't have to give myself a screaming migrane shoving my face into the viewfinder, either, because if I leave the eyepiece open on my camera it doesn't insert ghostly flashing lights into the scene! Yes, I tried loosening it, and it... well, it fell off, to put it bluntly. And it still didn't show me the whole frame. And really, need I point out that all that resolution is kind of pointless if it's so impossibly difficult to keep in focus?

 

My camera doesn't go "Skrink.... skrink.... skrink.... " and "trrrr" when it's running, causing consternation to the sound department. Camera noise is clearly audible, on all my audio, and even on the DVD-extra-features of huge productions - Goldeneye springs to mind as an apposite example. Haven't we advanced beyond this?!

 

The handholding arrangements are user-hostile. It's hopelessly unbalanced, and the handle on the one I had wasn't even long enough to wrap your whole hand around. After a three-minute take I was in serious pain. How is it possible to advocate a system where it's uncomfortable just to grasp the thing?

 

Stopping every take and a half to reload. The prosecution rests. I have no idea how you guys shooting 35mm deal with four minute rolls.

 

In short, shooting film is like pulling teeth, and to be avoided at all costs.

 

Phil

 

There's no more uncertainty shooting film than there is shooting video. Film cameras fail. Video cameras fail. It's not taste and practice. It's talent, competence and patience. Those are the prerequisites for quality assurance in any endeavor.

 

I see the wreckless manner in which some drivers operate their automobiles and wonder how people insure them. Such drivers are likely to kill themselves, someone else, or both, yet they manage to get insurance.

 

Personally, I love the little 'trrrr-ing' sound my cameras make. I can tell when they're well lubricated and functioning properly because I know my equipment and if the occasion should arise that the cameras aren't 'trrrr-ing' the way they should, then I know something's awry. I don't own one that makes the "Skrink, skrink skrink" sound to which you refer, so I can't comment on that. We manage to deal quite nicely with the sound our cameras make. It's something we have to live with to obtain quality imagery and so we live with it. It's part of the job.

 

I have a friend who shot several important scenes on video, played them back on a monitor and all was good, so she broke down the set and sent everyone home. Upon attempting to firewire the video to her NLE system, all she got was a blue screen. She replayed the video in the cam and a deck- blue screen. Those who point and shoot can't necessarily state "I shoot video, therefore, I have instant proof of what I've shot." Video cams can be quite fickle when not regularly serviced or improperly operated or they can simply fail. Film travels at a predetermined speed past the film plane and light hits the film at a predetermined shutter speed. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

I still believe filmshooters are of the majority. Rarely, if ever, have I seen a post entitled "How can I video-look my film?". Having stated that, if video is the answer, why are so many trying to give it the 'filmlook' (which by the way is atrocious)?

 

It wasn't my intent to hijack this post and turn it into a film vs video war and for that I apologize. If video gives you the results you want, by all means, shoot it. As someone has already posted, those who know how to shoot film will know how it's going to look before the magazine is unloaded.

 

Good luck.

 

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard a good saying by a wise old man long ago (OK, he was the wacky dad of my bass player in high school, but it sounds so much profound to say "wise old man".)

 

- What is easy is seldom excellent.

 

 

If video could do what film does, then NOBODY would be still using film.

And personally, I find film easier to shoot, much more enjoyable.

Perhaps it's not as predictable (under some circumstances) but I'd rather have that margin of "error" than take a predictably WORSE image.

Even somewhat badly shot film usually looks better than video, and there's no question it's more salvageable than badly shot video.

 

And Phil, I thought you were referring to film cameras when you were ranting about "seeing what you're actually shooting", because with the viewfinder of a film camera, there's just glass & a mirror between your eyeball and the object you're shooting.

With a video camera, you're looking at a crappy (usually B&W) teeny tiny substandard quality monitor after the image has been electronically interpreted.

 

Matt Pacini

And it does smell better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, well didn't expect to come back with the topic like this.

 

Anywho, I got the camera, ordered some Kodak 200t / 7274 film to use as a test stock and shot some random shots with my friends. I'm pretty sure I loaded it correctly, I had one problem though. After a certain ammount of film was shot, the film wouldn't fit around the spool anymore. I had a 100 foot roll, and used the spool that came with the camera. So what ahppend was, I had to cut a bit off. I'm not sure how much exactly, maybe 5-10 feet. I sent it to the transfer place the other day to get it transfered to MiniDV (I used Digital Transfer Systems ). Once I get the tape I'll be sure to post the footage to show you how it came out. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> With a video camera, you're looking at a crappy

 

Not as crappy as most film cameras I've used!

 

> (usually B&W)

 

Unfortunate, but you do have the option of looking at a colour monitor externally, which you don't with film. I consider the exposure information much more valuable.

 

> teeny tiny

 

Most film groundglasses are not 1.5" across.

 

> substandard quality

 

No, really good quality; what on earth do you mean by this?

 

> monitor after the image has been electronically interpreted.

 

I'd rather see it after it's been "electronically interpreted" if that's what I'm going to get on tape; that's the whole point! Film cameras "interpret" the image photochemically and don't even tell you about it, which of course is the problem!

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi,

 

> With a video camera, you're looking at a crappy

 

Not as crappy as most film cameras I've used!

 

> (usually B&W)

 

Unfortunate, but you do have the option of looking at a colour monitor externally, which you don't with film. I consider the exposure information much more valuable.

 

> teeny tiny

 

Most film groundglasses are not 1.5" across.

 

> substandard quality

 

No, really good quality; what on earth do you mean by this?

 

> monitor after the image has been electronically interpreted.

 

I'd rather see it after it's been "electronically interpreted" if that's what I'm going to get on tape; that's the whole point! Film cameras "interpret" the image photochemically and don't even tell you about it, which of course is the problem!

 

Phil

 

Phil,

 

Go to a rental company and check out the viewfinder of an Arri 435 with Cooke S4 lenses. The built in video assist is fantastic too! (I know its 35mm and off topic!)

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi,

 

Riiight, I get it, you have to spend £1200/day on the camera package to get a usable viewfinder! Wonderful. Can I have £500,000, please?

 

Phil

 

 

Phil,

 

As with Panavision modified HD cameras, the best cost more. You don't need expensive viewing systems but as a cameraman if you want one its available! A 1920's unmodified Mitchell has quite a bright "Viewfinder" arrangement. However if you want to look through the lens, use high speed stock, video tap and T8 on a 20+ year old camera it may look dark!

 

Why 500,000 gbp? A 435 costs less than 1/5 of that !

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

Yes, I'm sure I would. I'd probably be pleasantly surprised by a lot of things, including winning the lottery and being hired to shoot the next three instalments of Star Wars, and they're all just as likely as affording an SR3. Of course you can cite equipment that works better, of course there's always a solution, but as is so tiresomely common with film equipment it seems that the only way to get to a professionally usable system is to spend very, very large amounts of money. Low end video cameras have competent viewfinders; a PD-150 has a better viewfinder than that SR.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi,

 

but as is so tiresomely common with film equipment it seems that the only way to get to a professionally usable system is to spend very, very large amounts of money. Low end video cameras have competent viewfinders; a PD-150 has a better viewfinder than that SR.

 

Phil

 

Phil,

 

Most of the 35mm I shoot is with Mitchell's designed in the 1920's. They are totally usable and professional. The latest video assist or eyepiece doesen't have any effect on the film! I can see how the scene is lit with my own eyes, I don't need a monitor for that!

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeremy edge
Heh, well didn't expect to come back with the topic like this.

 

Anywho, I got the camera, ordered some Kodak 200t / 7274 film to use as a test stock and shot some random shots with my friends. I'm pretty sure I loaded it correctly, I had one problem though. After a certain ammount of film was shot, the film wouldn't fit around the spool anymore. I had a 100 foot roll, and used the spool that came with the camera. So what ahppend was, I had to cut a bit off. I'm not sure how much exactly, maybe 5-10 feet. I sent it to the transfer place the other day to get it transfered to MiniDV (I used Digital Transfer Systems ). Once I get the tape I'll be sure to post the footage to show you how it came out.  :D

 

Looking at the website it looks as though that place is using a canon xl1 for video transfer instead of a true telecine like a rank or spirit. If you are unhappy with your results, I would try sending your negative's to a professional telecine lab.

you may still get good results...I've seen a lot of "homemade"transfers that looked pretty darn good. just be aware that this is not a professional method for transfer that this place uses and might not be the best your film can look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is hurting my head. I guess I don't understand why somehow, for some people, film is "hard" to work with. There are plenty of things that were "hard" when you first started doing them. Like walking. I mean come on.

 

If I wanted an "easy" job, I'd work at a crappy fast-food restaurant. I don't understand this mindset of, "Well okayyyy, but it's a LOT OF WORK!" No poop it's a lot of work. What do you think I am here for, to sit on my ass and not do anything? Give me a break. Am I the only one here who expects to screw up once in a while, and doesn't have a problem with learning from my mistakes? I don't get it. If I wanted to shoot crap on a crap camera, I would have gone to Best Buy and gotten a $300 p.o.s. camcorder and then I would have shot my little brother's intramural basketball games and put them up on the intarweb, instead of deciding to invest my money in actually learning things so that I can get better at what I do. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

You said "intarweb", I'm impressed. :)

 

But seriously. What I object to is not the fact that film's a pain in the arse, after all I don't have to use it (well, I do, but that's another problem.) it's that people who are patently unqualified - big ASC member DPs who don't actually lay hands on the camera from one week to the next - like to go on about how easy it is!

 

Phil

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...