Freya Black Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Well a lot of the reason all films are shot on Fuji now is that Fuji no longer makes film stocks, so anything you'd get from them now, well any fuji film, won't be fresh. It may well still be in date because Fuji didn't discontinue making film that long ago. Even Kodak make stuff in batches and then use it up slowly. Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Kodak has been very good to me in the past-- but I have personally found they seem to be nicest on the east coast of the US. Kodak UK have a history of being downright awful. I was so amazed at how helpful and nice the Fuji people were in contrast so I was very, very sad when Fuji shut down recently. Freya 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Spiger Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Manu, I have an Aaton Penelope and I'm based in Paris. I'm also fluent in French. If you're still interested in shooting 35mm 2 perf or 3 perf, send me a message. I think I can help point you in the most cost effective direction. cheers, Zack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted April 26, 2014 Author Share Posted April 26, 2014 Hey Zack, Thx for the proposal, but I got out of a meeting with the producer and it seems 35 mm 2 perf might not happen after all. He told me he was okay with it, but then at the end, he tells me basically that there's not enough time (not sure why) as we need to be fully ready by september for shooting in november, but also mainly that it will cost more (obviously), not necessarily equipment wise, but crew wise, that for example, we'll need 3 trucks instead of 1 truck to transport the equipment, that there will be 3 ADs (really?), more people working on lights. Basically, more everything. He told me to still think about it, he's not flat out against it, but wary. I justified my choice, but he's going to reread the script and tell me "this can be shot on digital, or film". Also told me to list the pros & cons basically. I'm kind of annoyed right now, because it's really important to me, but then again, the thinking here is that it's my first pro short movie, I'm shooting in English (in France), have very USy locations in mind (so I'm gonna have to get creative), so 35 mm on top of that is another added difficulty. Anyway, he has in mind a 55 K budget right now, it kind of pains me how expensive it's gonna be considering that this is a 20 min short movie and Jeff Nichols did Shotgun Stories in anamorphic 35 on a 50 K budget. Yeah, seems like it's an entirely different ballgame in my country, sigh......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted April 26, 2014 Author Share Posted April 26, 2014 Overall, I think it's all too expensive, and there are crew members who won't be paid considering it's an association. He's been a producer for many many years but I'm convinced there is a way to cut costs, somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oron Cohen Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Hey Zack, Thx for the proposal, but I got out of a meeting with the producer and it seems 35 mm 2 perf might not happen after all. He told me he was okay with it, but then at the end, he tells me basically that there's not enough time (not sure why) as we need to be fully ready by september for shooting in november, but also mainly that it will cost more (obviously), not necessarily equipment wise, but crew wise, that for example, we'll need 3 trucks instead of 1 truck to transport the equipment, that there will be 3 ADs (really?), more people working on lights. Basically, more everything. He told me to still think about it, he's not flat out against it, but wary. I justified my choice, but he's going to reread the script and tell me "this can be shot on digital, or film". Also told me to list the pros & cons basically. I'm kind of annoyed right now, because it's really important to me, but then again, the thinking here is that it's my first pro short movie, I'm shooting in English (in France), have very USy locations in mind (so I'm gonna have to get creative), so 35 mm on top of that is another added difficulty. Anyway, he has in mind a 55 K budget right now, it kind of pains me how expensive it's gonna be considering that this is a 20 min short movie and Jeff Nichols did Shotgun Stories in anamorphic 35 on a 50 K budget. Yeah, seems like it's an entirely different ballgame in my country, sigh......... That's sounds like producers crap talk (no disrespect). A good friend of mine shot a 35mm feature film (90min) that got accepted to Cannes a few years ago and the budget was 200K US including post. The crew consisted of 9-10 people. Camera crew was DP, AC, Gaffer, thats it! The film looks beautiful, all is good. The key point was that the director had vast experience in filmmaking and already shot on film many times and no producer could bullshit him with "you need more equipment when you shoot on film"... it really depends of course on your project, but many times film could save you money, as you might decide to use less lighting, less monitors, less everything...Also, the DP is a big part of what you will might need on set, different DOP's different styles. While one DP would use 5 big lights to light a scene, another one would prefer using more natural light and maybe 2 smaller lights etc. It's very complex to explain the craft over an internet forum, but from what you wrote either your producer never worked on a film shot on 35mm or he worked only on big budgets and learned from them how to inflate production when you shoot on film. I honestly don't see any difference in equipment while choosing Alexa over 35mm, they need the same people and the same equipment more or less. Actually Penelope is a much lighter camera and easier to carry, and you don't need a DIT and hugh amount of space to store all your RAW files. If you want to shoot on film the job of the producer is to make it happen within budget, and for a 30K budget it should be no problem to shoot 2-Perf 35mm, it should actually be a bit cheaper if you get the camera for cheap of even for free with a DOP that owns it. Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted April 26, 2014 Author Share Posted April 26, 2014 Well, the producer has 30 years + experience and worked on some big projects (that I'm not gonna name obviously), but I don't know, I know it doesn't feel right. I know for one thing that I'm going for a natural look and I need a DP obviously who understands my sensibilities and I just know that this isn't the type of movie that's going to need that much infrastructure, it's a character-driven short movie, around 20 min, thing is, I got a lot of locations for a short movie, but the only bit of action is just a fight in a school cafeteria, the rest is quite atmospheric, on sticks or dolly, tracking shots with a bit of handheld for like 10 % of the movie. There are 2 main actors, one kid, the rest are extras. For the costs, it goes fast here, basically food & housing for the crew, some crew members will be paid (not all of them otherwise the budget would just explode), renting the equipment (around 14000 $ worth according to my estimation, and basically what he thinks as well), the post production part, then there are permits, insurance it seems. I kind of want to lower the costs as much as possible because I just know it's doable, and having 25 people on set (what he said) just seems way too much to me, but then again, things may be different financially here and I may be out of my depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oron Cohen Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 As I said, producers that worked on big budget have this automatic way of saying anything on film is much more expensive, again, I don't see much difference between 35mm and Alexa, if you can get a great deal on a film camera and maybe use cheaper lenses. One question is, how do you know the equipment cost before you consulted a DP? I can't tell you how many times I saved production money and some times I made production pay more. Also, bare in mind sometimes a DP could bring some of his equipment for free or get you better deals on cameras and lights as he got relationships with rental companies. Also, you could work with the DP and discover that you actually could should the film in less time then you initially thought what could save you big $$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted April 26, 2014 Author Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) Well, you're right, I kind of calculated overall what it would cost, although of course, for the lighting package, I'm not a DP, so I'm trying to get as close as I can, but that's obviously as you say a discussion I'll be having with the DP. The producer can have great deals all around it seems, but for sure, a DP like Zack for example with his own camera would be a godsend. Right away, I'm thinking a lot of the discussion on costs, etc, which is logical since my producer is making a temp budget shall we say, is kind of very hypothetical because as you're saying it, maybe the DP will agree with me on the fact that this can be done for less, but it should be 10 days shooting minimum I think. I think the main cost will be all the logistics, moving the equipment around, paying some salaries, food, housing, etc, etc. But then again, I have a lot of daytime action, some exterior (I mean, a skeleton crew, some bounce and we're good to go, at least, that's what I can observe on many behind the scenes videos and on American Cinematographer for example), some interior, a bit of night exterior, interior (more logistics here, but still, 25 people?). Anyway, I like having advice from you guys because it gives me a different perspective, I just hope to find a really good DP, experienced with 35 mm, who I can totally trust and prove that at least that part of the budget is not set in stone. I'm just kind of careful not to protest or contradict the producer too much because I want it to go well, and I'm still young & inexperienced, but at the same time, I have this clear vision that I want to achieve the best way possible. What was also difficult was justifying shooting film rather than digital, I think I did it to the best of my abilities, I just think he's kind of wary because I'm trying a lot of things here, and it's kind of on a bigger scale than what they are used to do. Edited April 26, 2014 by Manu Delpech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oron Cohen Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 but it should be 10 days shooting minimum I think. Glad to help a fellow filmmaker. 10 days for a 20min film is 2min screen time a day, which is very generous for a mid-budget short film. I mean, 3-4 min screen time a day make more sense to me, as a low budget 90min feature is usually about 20-30 days at most and averaging 25 and could be sometimes much less (10-15 days). I just shot a 20min short film in 3 days...but it was 2-3 locations which was easier. but it was also well organised on the director and producer side. Get a DP, share with him your ideas, try and check with him if you can make this film for say 7 days, which should be plenty of time for a 20min film, then try to check how you go about lights and how many people the DP needs. I recommend you reading Nestor Almendros "Man With A Camera", he is talking there about small French productions (Eric Rohmer, Moshe Mizrhai) then on big Hollywood productions (Robert Benton, Terrence Malick) and the differences between working on them. Both shot on 35mm, small Art house film got 6-7 crew members and turn a Master piece another big budget got 50 or more crew members and turn a master piece. it's all depends on many factors and the situation, but there is no reason why you can't make this happen on 35mm if YOU decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted April 26, 2014 Author Share Posted April 26, 2014 Thanks a lot for all this advice, will check all of that, and I know I'm the director and ultimately, I make the decision, and with the right DP, it can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted May 4, 2014 Author Share Posted May 4, 2014 (edited) Hey, I've got a question here. Still want to shoot on film but I was wondering, it seems obvious to me but, how fast is it to work on 35 mm instead of digital like say the Alexa for example? It'd seem to me that digital would be much faster. I'm wondering because I might have a lot of setups even though it's a 20 min short movie, a lot of shots in there, and a lot of locations for a short movie. I was surprised to read sometimes that film can actually be faster to shoot with & more forgiving. Edited May 4, 2014 by Manu Delpech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 the later is correct. film will be much faster than digital. Much more forgiving. Two perf is very affordable. I completely trust 5219. If I didn't have a meter, I could eyeball a scene and feel very confident in the results. Not that I would do that, but that is how much latitude it has. I have shot many shorts on Fuji S16 and was always amazed at how much detail was captured. I would NOT hesitate to shoot Fuji 35mm in 2 perf. You being in Europe, you can take advantage of Frame24. With their pricing, why not 2 perf? How large of a shooting ratio are you intending? I have no idea what sort of look you want, but check out Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, 3 perf Fuji. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted May 4, 2014 Premium Member Share Posted May 4, 2014 Film is certainly faster from a shooting standpoint. No video vilage to worry about, no DIT to move around with, no where are we going to charge our batteries or people gathered around a monitor making choices and comments. Also when you hear the money being spent, you tend to limit your takes ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) Thx for the answers ! If I'm shooting film, it's definitely 35 mm 2 perf, plus I just love the look of 2 perf on The Place Beyond The Pines or Silver Linings Playbook, you can feel the texture so much. And it's perfect since I want the 2:35 aspect ratio. For Frame24, I've contacted them a few times, they're very interesting, I felt more like shooting Kodak, but Fuji would be fine. Thx Adrian & Chris, comforts me with my choice. For the look of the movie, I'm very influenced by Mud by Jeff Nichols (and shot by Adam Stone), but that's 4 perf anamorphic 35 mm if I'm not mistaken, so the grain is tighter and the overall image sharper (and you got the aberrations of anamorphic as well), otherwise, my two references considering that I'm probably going to shoot 35 mm 2 perf would be The Place Beyond The Pines & Silver Linings Playbook, something naturalistic but slick at the same time, contrasty image as well. I had The Spectacular Now like main visual reference at first but that's shot anamorphic like Mud, so it can give me a reference for the overall look, but probably not something I can really replicate. Edited May 5, 2014 by Manu Delpech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted June 21, 2014 Author Share Posted June 21, 2014 Okay, this is probably going to sound really stupid but. I always assumed that there was no playback on 35 mm cameras (don't know, don't see how that works in this situation) compared to digital, and yet, I see from time to time in BTS features some of the actors checking out some of the takes on movies shot on film. I assumed you have to pre-visualize everything but is there some form of playback or does it depend on the film camera? Once again, sorry if I look like an idiot here, I just thought I should know that for sure ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Its just a feed from the film camera to video assist recorder and monitor , that it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Martin Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Manu I am not far from Stansted airport, I have a 35mm camera and although it is not 4-perf, I have a regular video assist, etc... and you would be welcome to pop over and see it James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now