moving on from digital

[jeff striker]

I have sold my DVX100 and plan to purchase a film camera.

 

"you're going to end up using film, so you might as well start with it". i've heard that one too many times on this board, so i'm taking your advice!

 

what do you guys recommend to start with? im not looking for superior image quality, just something to learn with. i don't think i can spend more than 3,000.

 

also, i suppose i would need to get some sort of sound-synching equipment, so if anyone could provide some tips on that, it would be appreciated.

[Laurent Andrieux]

Super 8 seems to be what you need... 16 mm may be a bit expensive for personal tests...

 

Did you have a look in the dedicated forums ?

[Guest]

If you buy a Konvas 1M or 2M you can jump right into 35mm for well under $3000.00.

 

You can buy short ends to use as stock and save quite a bit of money.

 

The hourly transfer rate at any post house I've been to is the same for 16 as it is 35, so you really might as well shoot 35mm.

 

The extra cost of 35mm will certainly disipline you real quick because every time you pull that trigger you're going to be spending money and there's no way to rewind and shoot over the film if you make a mistake.

 

Failing the 35mm route I notice there are some super 16 adapted Krasnogorsk cameras on ebay that even have sync motors built onto them. That may be a good route.

 

Or type "arri" into the ebay search engine and a lot of other 16 options will pop up.

 

Welcome to the incredibly frustrating and wonderful world of film :D

 

Richard

[Laurent Andrieux]

... and the lab neg process is not included in the transfer...

 

35 mm is worth if you finally go on the big screen. If it's only for watching on a small screen (tv set, monitor) 16 mm is good enough and super 8 is still ok (better than dv anyway)!

 

Also mind that if you want some sync sound, the cheap 16 mm and 35 mm cameras (16 mm K3, 35 mm Konvas, arri 2c ...) are not silent ones...

 

Also, if you want to make sync sound, you need a sound recorder. This is why I would say super 8 is the good choice for an under 3000 $ budget.

[Josh Hill]

My suggestion would be to get a good Sync sound 16mm camera (Eclair or Cinema Products), both of which you could purchase for the cost of your DVX. This way you have the ability to play around at your leisure (with 400 foot mags, instead of being stuck with 100 foot mags), you'd be able to shoot for sound, and you could get some professional jobs with the cameras if you're going that route.

 

If you're going to invest money into 16mm you might as well put it somewhere that you aren't pigeonholed by not being able to shoot longer lengths, or not being able to shoot sync sound (either because the camera isn't synced, or it sounds like a lawnmower).

 

Eclairs, CP16s, or even older Aaton LTRs are some good "midranged" (to use the term from a video standpoint) 16mm cameras that can produce professional results, can be modified to be S16, or can be modified to accepted newer and better lens mounts (like the PL mount).

[David Mullen ASC]

I'd probably look into a 16mm Arri-S (MOS) or an Eclair 16mm NPR (sound), but I'm not sure about getting an OK zoom plus tripod, etc. for under $3000. But I have to admit that I am somewhat partial to those cameras, being mainly what I used in film school. I've always liked the Arri-S -- seems built like an iron tank. Solid and small, not delicate.

 

The trouble is the cost of decent lenses, plus of course, the cost of film.

 

I learned by shooting Super-8 film and by the time I was shooting in 16mm, someone else was always paying for the experience...

[Rik Andino]

If you are considering 16mm

You definitely should research some of these cameras

I'm listing them in the order from good to best

With their aproximate price range although the price may vary

You can get them for much more or much less

 

Synch Sound:

CP16R ($2000 - $3000 US)

Arriflex 16BL ($3000 - $5000 US)

Eclair NPR ($3000 - $5000 US)

Eclair ACL ($4000 - $6000 US)

Aaton LTR ($4000 - $8000 US)

Arriflex SR ($5000 - $10,000 US)

 

All of the above cameras shoot crytal synch

And are quiet enough to allow for sound recording.

And all (cept for the Arri 16BL) are S16 convertible.

 

If you're thinking of an MOS camera for nondialogue work

Research these.

 

MOS

K3 ($200 - $1000 US)

Beaulieu R16 ($500 - $2000 US)

Bolex ($500 - $2000 US)

Arri S ($1000 - $3000 US)

 

Anyways I recommend you look them up on the internet

And check them out.

 

I also recommend you figure out what feature you would need...

Most important features I figure are:

Able to use the newst and best lenses

And being able to shoot S16

And being able to use a videoassist.

 

But you might need a camera for other specific reasons

That might require other special features besides that.

 

For sound you might be able to find an older model Nagra for around $500US

But that recording format is considered outdated.

A DAT system will probably also run you a few grand...

You might consider recording sound to certain digital recorders

Like MP3 players that allow for mic inputs and can record 16bit sound.

 

But when it comes to filmmaking a cameraman shoot film

And a sound mixer records sound...

So my best advice to pair up with a good sound mixer

So that when you get a job you can rely on him and maybe viceversa.

 

 

Eitherways

Good Luck

[Guest robtags]

If you are considering 16mm

You definitely should research some of these cameras

I'm listing them in the order from good to best

With their aproximate price range although the price may vary

You can get them for much more or much less

 

Synch Sound:

CP16R ($2000 - $3000 US)

Arriflex 16BL ($3000 - $5000 US)

Eclair NPR ($3000 - $5000 US)

Eclair ACL ($4000 - $6000 US)

Aaton LTR ($4000 - $8000 US)

Arriflex SR ($5000 - $10,000 US)

 

All of the above cameras shoot crytal synch

And are quiet enough to allow for sound recording.

And all (cept for the Arri 16BL) are S16 convertible.

 

If you're thinking of an MOS camera for nondialogue work

Research these.

 

MOS

K3 ($200 - $1000 US)

Beaulieu R16 ($500 - $2000 US)

Bolex ($500 - $2000 US)

Arri S ($1000 - $3000 US)

 

Wow, that's a great list. I'm just curious as to why you rated the K3 so low in the MOS category? I personally have not used one but am considering buying one, so I've read alot into them. They seem to be comparable to the Bolex H16 (though not as popular), and they are cheaper, have a mirror viewfinder, convert to s16 for $150, and have a great reputation. Why is the Bolex better?

[Sam Wells]

35mm is wonderful of course, but if you're only going to video maybe it's better to shoot 16/S16, shoot more film. You learn to shoot film by -- shooting film. Transfer from 16 are quite good these days. I understand the "discipline" issue to an extent, but I think it's better to take some risks at first.

 

Also, I've noticed for a long time, those who begin with big, cumbersome rigs tend to use them much less than with something smaller. Grab it, shoot it. Ask questions later (and then you'll know what questions to ask).

 

-Sam

[Mark Sasahara]

My suggestion would be for a Super 16mm, or 16 mm camera. I'm not that enthused about S8, even 100 ISO film looks pretty grainy. Not sure about the Konvas 35mm. Don't know what you can get for $3000.

 

I think S16 is still cheaper than 35mm. Dang, it's been so long since I've shot film I don't have current price info.

 

I personally would have held on to the DVX and, squeezed every last dollar out of that sucker.

 

An Arri SR, Aaton, Bolex? Rik's list looks pretty good. My first feature was shot on an old Eclair NPR. It's still a decent camera. Get good glass.

 

I don't recommend buying your own sound equipment. See if you can hook up with a few good sound people in your area.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

I have sold my DVX100 and plan to purchase a film camera.

 

"you're going to end up using film, so you might as well start with it". i've heard that one too many times on this board, so i'm taking your advice!

 

what do you guys recommend to start with? im not looking for superior image quality, just something to learn with. i don't think i can spend more than 3,000.

 

also, i suppose i would need to get some sort of sound-synching equipment, so if anyone could provide some tips on that, it would be appreciated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't listen to any of that "if it's only going to video 16mm is plenty good enough" crap. I fully understand that 16mm might be all you can afford, and at least initially, 35mm cameras may cost more, but if and when you decide to go pro, you're not competing with as many other operators as you would be on 16mm.

 

Resolution isn't the only issue, anyway. The ability to control depth of field is far more important than many people seem to realize. If you're only releasing on SD video, it's true razor-sharp focus isn't necessarily required, but control over depth of field is. Of course, shooting on 35mm means that your product is also "future proofed", which may or may not be an issue for you.

 

So the rule here is: Get the best you can afford.

 

You can learn about exposure with 16mm or even Super-8 Negative, but if you want to learn about composition, artistic control of focus and so on, you can only do that with a 35mm camera.

 

Some guys I know have snuck into the industry more or less via the "back door" by hiring themselves out as an extra MOS "angle" for "when all the dynamite goes off" type scenes. If you can afford it, and you can find one, an old ARRI 2C can still bring in a surprising amount of work, and you'd probably be able to sell it for pretty much what you bought it for if it doesn't work out.

[Josh Hill]

Jim, you couldn't be further from the truth. Composition and focus can be learned on a 16mm camere just as well on a 35mm camera. You can learn composition from shooting video, and never touching a frame of film (or from taking enough art classes, or just looking at painting and getting a feel for what is right).

 

Focus, I will agree, is easier to learn on film but you could learn from a 35mm still camera and not have to deal with the extra expense of a 35mm motion picture camera. Even a 16mm camera has a great deal of focus to deal with, but I don't think focus is that hard of a thing to learn.

 

A sync sound 16mm camera can be had for cheaper than most MOS 35mm cameras. That opens you up to more projects, because you have the ability to shoot sound should you desire it.

 

16mm will also take someone new through the film process much more cheaply than 35mm. Taking 400 feet of film through shooting, editing and to printing for projection will run someone far less than taking the same running time (1000 feet or so) of 35mm film through the process. This allows for him to shoot greater amounts of footage, or shoot more often and gain experience with film than if he were shooting the costlier 35mm.

 

Plus, 16mm is a medium all its own with its own aesthetic which I happen to think can be just as beautiful as 35mm, if not more so sometimes.

 

By your logic, why shouldn't he try to get himself a 65mm camera? That would really future proof himself, and he would be competing with virtually no one. And in the larger format he should learn about composition and focus much better than 35mm, right?

[Robert Hughes]

But the 35mm shot with a MOS camera will cut into a 35mm feature better than 16. Interestingly, I've found that 35mm short end and recan stock is cheaper per foot than that of 16mm, I'd guess because 35mm productions are less likely to bother with the hassle of short ends than indie 16 productions.

 

I appreciate Jim's observation of the possibilities in shooting 35mm MOS B-unit cameras for the "dynamite goes off" scenes; my Eyemo came from a gent who used it for just those shots during the battle scenes of "Cold Mountain".

[Michael Most]

You can learn about exposure with 16mm or even Super-8 Negative, but if you want to learn about composition, artistic control of focus and so on, you can only do that with a 35mm camera.

Maybe you should point that out to all the non-artistic, unprofessional, untalented hacks that currently shoot about 90% of European television dramas on 16mm, as well as the equally unprofessional and untalented hacks that are shooting at least 8 US network dramas on 16mm - all of whom seem to find a way to use rack focus techniques when they need to.

 

Composition is not a function of format, it is a function of how you frame given whatever format you happen to be using. Control of depth of field is not the sole province of 35mm film, it is a function of lens choice and stop. The larger the image plane the shallower the depth of field given the same lens and stop, but this doesn't mean that one must have a large format to creatively control depth of field. Learning to shoot film has to do with learning how to artistically conceive of a lighting scheme, camera position and movement, framing, and an understanding of the characteristics of film, specifically the emulsion you happen to be using, and how all of those things relate to it to produce a desired result. It is training oneself to see what the film will see. Composition is based on the shape of the frame you're shooting, which is based on the particular aspect ratio you choose as your shooting format. None of that has anything to do with what the width of the film is.

[Max Jacoby]

Composition is not a function of format, it is a function of how you frame given whatever format you happen to be using. Control of depth of field is not the sole province of 35mm film, it is a function of lens choice and stop.

 

In my experience depth of field influences composition as well. Since Super16 has inherently more depth of field than 35mm anamorphic for instance (about 4 times as much based on the same shooting stop), I would take a different approach in composing shots in each of these 2 formats.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> an old ARRI 2C can still bring in a surprising amount of work

 

Equipment does not buy you work. I could buy an Arricam tomorrow and it would sit in the case in the cupboard. Buying an Arri 2C might bring you work, but that's a lot more to do with your circumstances than the 2C.

 

As for shooting film, be aware that stock is not the only cost. Telecine is blisteringly expensive, and you'll generally (generally, not absolutely always, but more or less always) need considerably more light and crew, and it'll make your productions take about twice as long to shoot unless you're working at the "who cares about the last two hundred feet" level. These are all massive additional costs which are much greater than the cost of stock.

 

It has long been my opinion that if you try to self-finance film shoots, the medium will come to financially dominate the production to such an extent that practically everything else suffers. I have long lost count of the film frames I have seen filled with poor acting, production design, locations and costume in the neverending pursuit of celluloid. You really do have to be a huge corporation, or the financial load will destroy your production.

 

Phil

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

> an old ARRI 2C can still bring in a surprising amount of work

 

Equipment does not buy you work. I could buy an Arricam tomorrow and it would sit in the case in the cupboard. Buying an Arri 2C might bring you work, but that's a lot more to do with your circumstances than the 2C.

 

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Phil,

 

It won't buy you work. I have clients who call me to get cut away shots on 35mm very cheaply, without delay. I just have to load a mag an shoot! Almost as easy as having your own video camera.

 

Stephen Williams DP

 

www.stephenw.com

[Sam Wells]

You can learn about exposure with 16mm or even Super-8 Negative, but if you want to learn about composition, artistic control of focus and so on, you can only do that with a 35mm camera.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My first reply was Oh BS. I deleted, thinking I'd post something more considered and thoughtful.

 

Here it is: Oh BS

 

-Sam

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I just have to load a mag an shoot!

 

Then take it to the lab, then take it to the telecine place, hand over gigantic quantities of money and end up with the same VT you'd have got straight out of the camera.

 

> Almost as easy as having your own video camera.

 

Not really, eh?

 

Phil

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

>  I just have to load a mag an shoot!

 

Then take it to the lab, then take it to the telecine place, hand over gigantic quantities of money and end up with the same VT you'd have got straight out of the camera.

 

> Almost as easy as having your own video camera.

 

Not really, eh?

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Phil,

 

I have a car, so going to the lab is easy.

1/2 hour telecine or 1 light pass graded to a grey chart won't break the bank!

The video tape from TK will have a far better picture than straight from any video camera.

 

The Pitch I made 3 weeks ago was on 35mm. Suprise Suprise it looked better than every other pitch and I got the commercial! Big joke is the client wants to shoot on video as the budget is tight!

 

Cheers,

 

Stephen

 

www.stephenw.com

[Michael Most]

In my experience depth of field influences composition as well. Since Super16 has inherently more depth of field than 35mm anamorphic for instance (about 4 times as much based on the same shooting stop), I would take a different approach in composing shots in each of these 2 formats.

 

While what you're saying is certainly true, I don't think anyone here was comparing 16mm to 35mm anamorphic in terms of depth of field. In "normal" shooting (i.e., non-anamorphic) the differences are certainly significant, but not impossible to overcome. You wouldn't necessarily shoot at the same stop, and you wouldn't use the same lens. If you want to achieve a fairly shallow depth of field shooting 16mm, you usually can, provided you're not shooting in a very tight, enclosed environment.

 

At any rate, I still believe a statement implying that one can only control depth of field and thus achieve professional results by using 35mm is a foolish statement.

[Max Jacoby]

At any rate, I still believe a statement implying that one can only control depth of field and thus achieve professional results by using 35mm is a foolish statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I completely agree with that.