blowups

J.M. O'Malley · February 26, 2005

I am shooting a short film in 16, and if it meets my expectations when finished, there's a possiblility I might submit it to a couple of shorts festivals. Should I plan to get a blowup to 35? Should I just print to 16? What are the advantages of each? What format do most of these people expect? And what will look best? I'm not made of money, so the cost will also figure into this.

Theo Lipfert · February 26, 2005

Most festivals (with some notable exceptions) will only project BetaSP video for shorts. Super 16 tansfered the cheapest way --to miniDV or DVCam -- edited in FCP or Premiere then dubbed to BetaSP and projected STILL looks better (or at least more film-like) than projects originating in video. Especially if done widescreen (16 x 9).

Since there is no money in shorts (but, hey, who needs money?) my thinking is to go this route, then if you get into a big festival that actually will project a short in 35mm, you can scramble to do a blow up directly or from a fresh HD conversion.

The money you save by not transferring might pay for an entire new short!

Almost all festivals want you to submit a VHS for consideration. Check out www.withoutabox.com to make your festival life a ton easier.

Just my opinion, for what its worth.

Theo

Bozeman, MT

J.M. O'Malley · February 27, 2005

I see. I guess I got the idea somewhere that a print is expected. This is certainly refreshing news- if I add the cost of the negative conforming and the printing, it probably will pay for my next project. I don't even know if I will submit anywhere yet. Maybe I will wait until I have a few completed projects.

By widescreen (16x9) do you mean 1.85:1? I am not very knowledgeable about the terms.

Phil Rhodes · February 27, 2005

Hi,

> By widescreen (16x9) do you mean 1.85:1?

16:9, which if you do the division is 1.78:1, is slightly less wide than 1.85:1, but anythnig that's wider than 4:3 (1.33:1) tends to be referred to as widescreen. The confusion comes from the video world's tendency to express things as a ratio of integers. The conversion is simple enough: 16 divided by 9 is nearly 1.78.

The difference between them is so small as to be nearly negligible. Clearly, 4:3 TV ratio and 2.39:1 cinemascope are significantly different.

Phil

Dominic Case · February 28, 2005

What format do most of these people expect? And what will look best? I'm not made of money, so the cost will also figure into this.

Decide which festivals you think you'd like to submit the film to, and get a copy of their rules. Some will take a DVD, some want digibeta, some will insist on a 35mm print etc. As you aren't made of money (who is?), it pays to do the research first.