Possible to economically shoot on 16mm? What are today's options?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

You're hanging 'round the wrong people!

Good luck though Matt

[Matt Stevens]

Well, not really. The DP has shot film before. But everybody else has worked mostly digital. It is what it is.

[Pavan Deep]

It is difficult when only a few people in a production has experience of working with film and know what it can do, whilst the majority of the crew have digital experience only. In such a situation it's quite a bit of pressure on the few who advocate film.

 

P

[Matt Stevens]

Very true. The primary issue here is people with money are obsessed with shooting digitally and nothing you tell them will dissuade them in the least. "Film is dead." "Film is too expensive." That's what they believe and so they don't want to be seen an uncool, unhip dinosaurs.

[Brian Rose]

For what it's worth, I'm shooting one of my new documentaries on 16m B/W, largely for aesthetic reasons, but also because of future resilience. I was driving myself mad trying to choose a camera, and it seems every 3 or 6 months some new "gamechanger" comes out that everyone jumps on board to buy. I got worried that whatever camera I shot on, by the time the film was done it might be on an obsolete or inferior format. So I threw my hands up in the air and said, 'Film!" I had all the gear already, and the filmstock has the native resolution, that no matter what trend comes along, I can just scan it at 2K or 4K and keep up with the Jones. And my film will look more distinctive than all the slick, shallow DoF pieces being churned out these days by everyone with a DSLR, a Macbook and a Vimeo account. Digital has a great many blessings, but what film has over it, is that it is NOT for the dilletante. It takes planning, precision, knowledge and care. It is a stern muse, rewarding those who respect it with a beautiful image, while punishing those who don't with an unwatacheable mess for which they paid absurd amounts of cash. It is the ground where the true skilled artisans prove their mettle, where the craftsmen are separated from the point-and-shooters.

[Chris Burke]

very well said, I am also about to embark on shooting a documentary on super 16.

[Will Montgomery]

I do love the fact that I can go back to 16mm projects 15 years old and rescan in HD...and any 35mm shot well with good lenses should have new life in 4k even. Not quite future proof as the upcoming 24k direct to brain interface may find film lacking, but it beats the socks off the DV footage I shot at the same time as film.

[Dustin Supencheck]

A little late to this forum and a little off topic. Has anyone had any experience with scanning super 16 at 4k? Is this overkill?

[Dirk DeJonghe]

Is this overkill?

 

if you take the MTF chain: lens + filmstock + scanner lens, you will find that 2K is a good match for S16. Renting extremely good quality lenses and scan at 2K will do more good than to scan 4K from S16 shot with medium quality lenses.

Also resolution isn't everything, you have contrast, flare, etc, both in the camera and scanner lenses. Not to mention the grading and image processing in post-production.

I personally have done 2K scans from S16, cropped to 2.35 format and recorded back to 35mm anamorphic. This film was shown as closing film at the Berlinale.

[David Cunningham]

A little late to this forum and a little off topic. Has anyone had any experience with scanning super 16 at 4k? Is this overkill?

 

Definitely not overkill. You won't necessarily get any more "detail" from the negative. But, you will better resolve the grain... especially if it's a fine grained film such as 50D. This will result in a cleaner looking down-res to HD. Again, technically not more detail, but just a cleaner looking image.

Edited May 17, 2013 by David Cunningham

[Will Montgomery]

I have been amazed recently with Vision 3 50D in 16mm. When it's shot with good lenses it is beautiful and crazy sharp.

 

I would contact these guys for stock:

 

http://www.comtelpm.com/products/motion-picture-film/

 

They have factory fresh stock at discount prices. Richard Kaufman is sometimes on this board and is a rep there. Talk to him about your project and he'll work a deal for you on stock. Then Tommy at video film solutions or Robert at Colorlab could do the processing and dailies for you. These days SD transfer rarely saves you money vs. HD (what a difference a few years make!) Then cut it digitally, get approvals then rescan & grade just those parts you need at 2K. You could then have Tommy make a film-out for you (work a deal for the whole package & get money guys to sign off) and you're ready for festivals anywhere.

 

The trailer show potential and maybe you could do a minor Kickstarter campaign to drum up a few extra dollars to pay for extra film costs.

[Matt Stevens]

Well it won't be possible to shoot the project on film. I had wanted act 1 to be film and act 2 digital (shot overseas) but that just cannot happen with the current climate. I won't be given a dime if I choose film.

 

This is so sad. Yes, it's exciting that the 5DMIII has been hacked to shoot RAW. But it's just another push away from film.

[Will Montgomery]

So I wanted to ask two questions: does this attitude of recording and recording because digital is 'free' force up post costs because there is far more material the editor has to sort through and manage and does the constant recording result in the people involved not concentrating on what's being shot, image wise, what is happening in shot, etc where as before if you only had 100 ft of film left you really had to concentrate lest you lose your chance.

Yes.

 

Having to sort through tons of unusable footage is a constant pain for editors these days and the resources needed for keeping all that useless data and managing it is certainly a problem. However, shooting more film isn't the answer (as much as I love film), but going back to a similar shooting discipline would certainly help.