If I wanted to screw around with film cheaply

[Josh Bass]

So sometimes I get these ideas.

 

"Would anyone really miss that homeless guy if he ended up in my trunk?"

"What's so bad about arson?"

"If I wanted to screw around with film, and not pay out the colon, is it possible?"

 

Regarding number three, sometimes I think it would fun to do, just to see. I'm wondering how it could be done. I find many 8mm cameras on ebay for dirt ass cheap (I'm talkin' under $15 here), though I don't know anything about them or if there's anything wrong with them. Also some fairly cheap 16mm cams.

 

Though I need camera suggestions and info, I'm interested in cheap ways to buy and develop (or transfer to miniDV tape) stock. On B&H's website, they're selling 3-packs of 8mm film in 400 ft rolls for about $10-15. I don't know what that translates to in terms of minutes of raw footage, or that's a good price or not. The 16mm I found on the same site goes for about $30-40 for a single 100 ft roll. Again, I don't know how that translates to minutes of footage or if that's a good price. So, black and white, short ends, whatever, hit me with it.

 

The 8mm sounds cheap all around. Why don't I hear much about anyone using it? 'Cause it's not viable for making actual movies?

 

Now, I know some of you are fanatical film nazis, and would, if you could, defecate profusely upon all that is video. You know who you are, and they have pills for that. One of you *cough cough* Rhodes *cough cough* had a bad time and would now defecate profusely upon all that is film. Let's all be reasonable here.

[Dominik Muench]

*lol , dude, if you found a way. please post it here ant let us know. cause we would all ove to know how to shoot cheap on film for fun :)

 

sorry but i dont think that there is a middleway, either you want to shoot seriously onf film, and that means you have to get stock, development, telecine. or you dont, and in this case grab a video cam and go nuts, cause film is too expensive and precious :) to "screw" around.

 

of course there are some variables that lower the costs a bit, such as buying recanned stock or film that ran over date.

[Riku Naskali]

K40 and workprinter. That's cheap, but that's also reversal so it's almost like shooting video ;) Well, not really...But you know what I mean.

[Nate Downes]

That 3-pack is for cans, not film. It's the reel you load film onto.

 

Here's B&H's page for K40 Super8:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...ku=79931&is=USA

 

Pretty reasonable.

 

Super8 is actually a more viable solution than plain 8mm in many cases. For info on Super8, including cheap ways to get it onto MiniDV, check out http://www.filmshooting.com. Some K40 and a workprinter can be a cost effective way to do color shooting.

[Josh Bass]

My bad on the cans.

 

So what does 50 feet get you?

 

As I said, it doesn't have to be color. . .b&w is fine.

 

I was hoping there was some way to at least experiment with it (not doing stills) for some reasonable amount of money. Not even looking to go out and make a short at this point, just to shoot a little and see if I hate it.

[Josh Bass]

Sorry, it won't let me edit my previous post to add more stuff, so I have to talk to myself.

 

 

Checked out that site. That workprinter thing is not too cheap, is it? Perhaps the "taping the projection from the wall" method is for me.

 

How much does it cost to get a roll of this stuff developed?

[jon w]

i have my own little solution that i'll share, it is far from perfect, but is a viable option where applicable, most of you will laugh at me...

 

 

i have an old EKKI 16mm 5 blade projector that i installed i peice of hevily diffused glass in front of the bulb. what this means is that i can transfer film to DV withought flicker because of the 5 blades (you can also use a variable speed projector if you dont care about speed / synch). and because of the frosted glass, i can shoot the actuall film through the projector lens instead of transfering off the wall or some transfer box.

 

heres where you start laughing, i transfer the negative, i do this with black and white or color. black and white is far easier, just shoot a grey scale, or even a grey card on your roll of film, that makes judging the exposure of your negative easier. with color, i put an 80a blue filter, and a quarter green over the video camera lense, this brings the negative as close to neutral as i can get it, then white balance on your projected grey card.

 

once digitized, you just invert your footage making it normal.

 

to make things worse but cheaper, i process my own b&w negative.

 

this is obviously not "the best" way to shoot film, but i think its fun, and turns out decent, compared to dv, and compared to proper telecine to dv. b&w seriously looks good, color looks good but harder to get consistent results.

 

i have shot a couple shorts for people on B&W using this process, and they were very happy (visually and financially) with the results.

 

basically your just paying for the raw stock...

[Ilmari Reitmaa]

How much does it cost to get a roll of this stuff developed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Depending on where you're located, you can try these:

 

http://www.pro8mm.com/index.html

http://www.andecfilm.de/html/start_english.htm

 

They've got package deals for transfers as well.

[Louis]

Let me preface everything I say here with the following disclaimer: My experience with this stuff is extremely limited.

 

That being said, the cheapest way that I have found to shoot on 16mm, which can look pretty great if done right, is to get a Krasnogorsk-3 camera. They're really popular in film schools apparantly and you can find them on eBay for pretty cheap (under $200). The only drawback is the motor: it runs on a hand crank motor that you have to hand crank before every shot and it runs for 30 seconds before you have to wind it again. If you're just screwing around though, and you want your own camera, that's a good way to go. I've never had experience with it myself, but a friend of mine has, and he says that, besides the motor, they're pretty good cameras. As far as film, if you shoot reversal, it doesn't cost all that much. B&W reversal film from Kodak costs under $20 per 100ft roll (about 3 minutes) if you have a student ID, and developing it costs about that much as well. I don't imagine color reversal film could be much more. Negative costs about $30 per 100ft roll as well, but then you have to make negatives and a work print, and the cheapest I've found for doing that sort of thing is 10 cents/foot for negative and 18 cents/foot for prints. Not too bad. My favorite thing about 16mm as a learning tool is that Kodak makes a lot of the same stocks in both 35mm and 16mm, so once you get familiar with a certain 16mm stock, you will already be familiar with it's 35mm equivalent as well. Anyway, I hope I've been helpful and I haven't given you any information you already have.

[Josh Bass]

Thanks, guys.

 

No, no one's given me any info I already have; it's all new.

 

I think I might go with super 8 for now. I'll see.

[Mark Allen]

i have my own little solution that i'll share, it is far from perfect, but is a viable option where applicable, most of you will laugh at me...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm giving you the thumbs up and suggesting that when websters puts a definition up for indie filmmaker they have a picture of you with your set up.

[Robert Hughes]

You can buy 16mm and 35mm short ends and recans through various film houses. I buy expired film off eBay with interesting results, some good and cheap, others just cheap.

 

Right now I'm buying 400' of 5248 35mm negative for $0.05 / foot, and will run it thru my old Eyemo, also gotten off an auction. Shooting with this is comparable in price to shooting new 16mm, including processing. Almost as cheap as Super 8, with potentially better picture quality than HDCAM; that is what you might call a bargain.

 

And if the color's bad, so what? I'll transfer it to video in b&w.

 

Keep in mind that you're shooting for your own amusement; if the film is totally bad you're out a few bucks and a wounded pride. Don't use old recans or auction junk on a real shoot unless you can afford to cover a potential disaster.

[Josh Bass]

Thanks. My idea was basically to learn to use film, in the most basic sense. Learn to light with a meter/my eye instead of a monitor, all that stuff, and if I don't display a Rhodes-like anipathy toward the medium, move up from there. Yes, thank you, I will not take expired film on a paid gig.

[Josh Bass]

Why can't I edit my posts? Again, I talk to myself.

 

So I found this place in Houston that does super8 to video transfers for $6.50 a roll, with $35 minimum. That's pretty good, isn't it? Makes it less than $20 a roll for everything if I use the K40 (Ok fine, 20 a roll if I have to buy the tapes to transfer to, Jeez). Almost seems viable.

Edited April 14, 2005 by Josh Bass

[Riku Naskali]

I didn't suggest buying workprinter, many of the current owners offer reasonably priced transfers :)

[Matt Pacini]

The cheapest way you can play with film, and get footage that looks decent enough to be worth your efforts, is to:

 

1. NOT get a $15.00 camera.

Budget about $300-$500 for a decent camera.

If you're going to pay for film & processing, you might as well get the best quality possible, and you can get excellent Super 8 cameras in that price range from Nikon, Nizo, Bauer, Canon & Beaulieu.

The notable exception, is the very nice Nikon Super Zoom 8, which you CAN get for around $20-$50, and it has a really nice lens on it. Not the best, but pretty stinkin' good!

That's the all-around best deal for a S8 camera, IMO.

 

2. Shoot Kodachrome 40.

 

You can buy your film & the PK-59 mailers from Kodak or B&H camera in New York, so you'll be paying around $16.00 for film & processing of each 50 foot roll, which is 2.5 minutes of footage.

 

Matt Pacini

[Josh Bass]

Thanks. Will chew.

[Jason Maeda]

get a fifty dollar super 8 camera.

 

buy a cheap super 8 projector.

 

shoot kodachrome.

 

jk :ph34r:

[Josh Bass]

I'm looking at rocommended models from you guys and that "filmshooting.com" site on ebay.

 

Here's a few possibly dumb questions:

 

How much of the "super8-ness" is retained if transferred to miniDV tape, vs. a higher format? What I mean is, is that format adequate for that purpose? I know the tapes can hold a lot more information (color blah blah, lattitude blah blah) than what the prosumer cameras actually record, but is it enough?

 

When your stuff is transferred, do you actually get the developed negatives back? Or just tapes?

 

I seem to remember something in "Rebel without a Crew" where he mentions it being cheaper to have it transferred straight to tape than developed, or something weird like that. I may be completely insane, so if so, never mind. Thanks.

[Robert Hughes]

You can get a decent Super 8 camera off eBay for $40 and a very nice one for $100, and a pro-level Beaulieu, Canon or Nizo for several hundred.

 

The Super 8 "look" is, in a way, the ultimate motion picture film medium, in that it shows both the beauty and the failings of film. No one will mistake material shot on S8 for DVCAM originated work, even if you watch your program on television. The characteristics of S8 show through more clearly on the better digital video formats, just like a $10 guitar sounds more like itself when recorded with a thousand dollar microphone. Some productions are transferring S8 to HDCAM.

 

Film development and video transfer are two different steps in the process. You always get the camera original film developed and returned to you, whether negative or reversal. Traditional 16 and 35mm film productions include transferring the image from camera original onto a workprint for quality control checking and editing. What Rodriguez et al were saying is that the cost of video transfer (of which telecine is the favored process) is approximately the same, sometimes cheaper, than creating the workprint. The decision on making a workprint versus telecine mainly depends on how you are editing the film; in a computer running a Non Linear Editing (NLE) program, or on a flatbed or Moviola film editing machine. Generally, people don't make Super 8 workprints nowadays, they edit on a computer or cut the camera original.

[Josh Bass]

Thank you so much.

 

What cams are you referring to that around $100?

 

I'm looking at right now, a Canon Super Zoom 8, and a Canon 814 something or other.

 

Are the ones you're talking about crystal sync, by the way?

[Dan Salzmann]

You can learn alot about lighting, filtration and exposure by doing stills with a fully manual camera. That's a really inexpensive to hone those skills without using expired film stock that often requires over-exposure as well as filtration testing is completely unreliable due to colour shifts.

[Josh Bass]

Well, I've given up on cheaply and accepted "not terribly horribly costly", so there's that. What's this about expired film? Who's using expired film?

[Robert Hughes]

Crystal sync is not viable in Super 8, unless you're willing to spend thousands for a Beaulieu 7008 or better. Keep it cheap - that's the Super 8 way. Shoot MOS for starters. If you must get sync sound, bring along a DV camcorder and shoot with it simultaneously, then sync in post - you'll find the S8 will probably wander off sync after a few seconds, so readjust on the computer.

 

Don't bother with expired film. Shoot a bunch of Tri-X, Plus-X and Kodachrome to get the feel, then expand to negative from there.

[Josh Bass]

Ok, a few things:

 

How do I know if I'm using expired film? Do you mean the K40?

 

Also, those tri x and plus x, they're reversal films? Which means they have less lattitude, more like what video has, yes?

 

Are there lattitude issues in general with super 8 compared to 16 and 35, and if so, how so? How do the two compare? thanks.

 

And what do you mean by "neg". Isn't all raw film stock neg?

Edited April 18, 2005 by Josh Bass