A Director who NEEDS your help and knowledge

Korhan20 · April 27, 2004

Alright guys, I need a LOT of information here.....

I am 19 and i already shot a feature film on video, edited on premiere. Audio was recorded using a portable Tascam DAT recorder, and i synched it to video in post production. I have a lot of experience with digital cameras and video editing, but i have NEVER worked with film before. I am reading a lot of posts and there is so much to learn it is a little overwhelming. From what i gather, 16mm is the way to go and i am looking at around $6000 to spend on film. And that is only for a couple of hours of footage. This is a problem because on my last 90 min feature i shot around 12 hours of footage. I also think there will be a problem synching the film with my DAT recorder. Also, i would like to get the film transferred to video so i can edit it. I guess these are my main concerns:

-After the film is transferred to video, will it look that much different than digital video? in other words is the move to film really worth it?

-I need to find some kind of book or site that gives me basics of working with film and what i need to know. I know a lot about filmmaking, but the technical aspects of film i need to learn soon.

Any one out there have some good advice for me with regard to working with 16mm and if it is worth the money and hassle.

thank you very much,

Korhan

GeorgeSelinsky · April 27, 2004

i am looking at around $6000 to spend on film. And that is only for a couple of hours of footage.

Is that six grand for just filmstock or film, processing, and transfer? If the latter, that's not going to work out well for you at all. If just for filmstock, that is still very, very tight. We're talking not even a 4:1 ratio. I've tried shooting very low and unless you are working with the greatest talent in the world and don't have any heavy action choreography, it's not going to work well at all.

After the film is transferred to video, will it look that much different than digital video? in other words is the move to film really worth it?

It's worth it if you want to sell it to a distributor, at least I think it is. Depends on what your story is. Film originated images always increase the value of your final product. But if you're just going to shoot at a 3.5:1 ratio, I'd think about getting more $$$ or simply going to tape. To me a feature film is a lot of work and time, and to have it all on tape feels very "blah". But you have to also justify the cost of film.

Let's be honest here, if you're going to make something that is not going to end up very sellable either due to story, or due to inexperience and bad decisions, or both, then shoot it on tape. You say you did a feature before (that is, a film around 80 minutes or more in running time). Did you manage to do anything with it? If this is your second one you've probably learned some lessons, but be sure you get someone with some knowlege in this business to give you a good solid critique of your work (not just the "that's awesome, you made a movie" type of critique, which all of your friends are likely to give you).

I need to find some kind of book or site that gives me basics of working with film and what i need to know. I know a lot about filmmaking, but the technical aspects of film i need to learn soon.

Barnes and Noble or Amazon.com has tons of stuff. I learned using less popular textbooks that are out of print. There is the Malkiewic book that everyone praises a lot. Rick Schmidt's book Feature filmmaking at used car prices is also good for some moviemaking basics. Just discard some of his (probably not succesfully tested) advice like shooting on a 1.5 : 1 ratio - advertizing such ideas is just a good way to get someone hyper at the stacks of the book store and say "gotta try that". At least it might motivate you to start shooting :)

You won't learn this stuff overnight. If you want to be the cinematographer, you gotta get yourself a cheap MOS camera like a Bolex, or a Krasnogorsk 3, get a few rolls of black and white reversal film like Tri-X, get a cheap Sekonic lightmeter, find an old Bell and Howell or Kodak 16mm projector, and do some shooting with a few friends maybe. Project your images on a large screen, so you can check your focus and see how shaky images can be w/o a tripod.

Good luck and as always, be very careful.

- G.

Korhan20 · April 27, 2004

Thanks for the reply George. My last film was 90 minutes and i did learn a lot of things. But i think iam going to have to go through another learning process due to the fact that i have never worked with film before. TO be honest my last film sucked, it got rejected from some major festivals that i entered it into, and i was a little rushed. I am working on the screenplay for this next one and i feel it will turn out great because i will not make the same mistakes i made with the last one. But i have a feeling that i will make some costly mistakes because of my ignorance when it comes to using film. I hope to enter this film into a number of festivals, and somehow get some recognition.

GeorgeSelinsky · April 27, 2004

Honestly, without trying to sound pompous, at 19 it's a bit early to enter the world of making independent feature films. I can't actually recall ever hearing of someone that young making a succesful feature film. This doesn't mean you can't do it, of course, but you might want to think about taking some smaller steps so your next feature film works out not just marginally but much better. Then you'll get the recognition you desire.

I remember back in film school we had a kid who was from a well to do family in our advanced production class (they were well connected in the film buiz, too). Before that class he got a cast and crew together (when he was about 21) and shot some comedy in Super 16, a la American Pie. He showed us a bit of his edit. I understood immediately why he was in our class - he realized how much he still needed to learn, which he openly admitted (something everyone respected him for). Needless to say his film got no laughs and was shelved permanently.

I'm both a director and a DP, and I can confidently tell you that the technical side, as important as it is, isn't really as critical as the meat of what you're doing. Everyone (myself included by habit) always says "I'm making a feature film. IN 16MM!" (or nowadays "SSSUPER 16!"). Like the format is supposed to say it all. As a matter of fact few filmmakers ever ask each other what the heck their movie is about, they are far more interested in what format you're shooting in, plus stuff like "SAG or non-SAG". A bit ridiculous when you consider the audience's priorities!

Your first mistake would be to try to be a director and DP at once (if this is what you're trying to do). I did that for my recent feature and I can tell you firsthand, it's almost like trying to be cameraman and soundman at the same time. Both are serious disciplines and they need full attention. You really end up sacrificing something when you juggle such serious jobs, and especially in the beginning that's a bad idea. Better be the boom op if you want to save hands.

With film you can screw up things like focus very easily (probably the most frequent screw up next to exposure and bad camera threading). But other than that, it's actually a bit easier to light the scenes which I find liberating. With a video camera, as soon as I step into the great outdoors (esp. on a sunny day) I feel almost helpless. Sky becomes white as paper, or talent becomes black as coal. You really gotta fight that contrast range, and when it comes to big shadowed objects you either have to bring out lights or live with it. With film you can actually film outside without fill light in many cases (not that it wouldn't hurt to have anyway).

Either way, if I were in your position I'd do some smaller exercises on film, the famous "short film". It will 1) teach you to shoot film and not make mistakes on your bigger project, and 2) let you refine your skills. At the first year in NYU we did 5 short black and white 16mm films that were only a few minutes long. First three without sound, last two with no on screen dialog - although yes, we always tried doing sync anyway. Only then did we move up to "color" and "sync", and make the running time a bit longer. But even the "advanced production" class at the senior level made films no longer than 30 minutes.

If you learn to walk before you try to run, you will be a happier and more succesful filmmaker in the end, with less costly mistakes.

- G.

Phil Rhodes · April 27, 2004

Hi,

> Honestly, without trying to sound pompous, at 19 it's a bit early to enter the

> world of making independent feature films. I can't actually recall ever hearing of

> someone that young making a succesful feature film.

There are a couple of people - Chris Jones and Genevieve Jolliffe - in the UK who made a 16mm feature at that kind of age, and as far as I know are now still dining out on the experience, despite the fact that having written books about it made them way more money than the film ever did or will.

Phil

GeorgeSelinsky · April 27, 2004

I think the key question is - do you want to watch something short and good, or something long and bad/boring/mediocre? There's no reason to rush, I think, and there's no reason to try and break records (as you can see from Phil's post, it's been done already!).

Face it, even if you do make a good feature film at 19 or 20 or even 22 I think that financers and studios will still be apprehensive about funding your future projects and giving you work respectively. Usually they'll stick you in development somewhere (and a paying gig is good of course) and that's that. Call it age discrimination, call it whatever you want, but that is how people think.

There is no reason not to use your time to practice at this stage of the game - it's time very well spent and an investment for your future. There are a few people (I should say idiots) out there who run workshops that suggest that people make feature films right away - to me that's just a way of getting someone hyped up and eager to sign up for their workshops (i.e. I'll show you how to make a feature film in 35mm for under $10 grand!).

Even if you have money burning a hole in your pocket, and you didn't care if you lost it all (plus your time and other people's time), I wouldn't suggest another serious undertaking before you've made something smaller that satisfies you. I remember I made a short film and it was really a nice experience to not only have something finished but something everyone else could appreciate - including the people who worked on it. One idea you might try is turning a feature script into a short film and testing it that way, first.

Anyway, I know I'm throwing a lot down here, I just want to save people a problem later on!

- G.

Dominic Case · May 24, 2004

I need to find some kind of book or site that gives me basics of working with film and what i need to know. I know a lot about filmmaking, but the technical aspects of film i need to learn soon.

My own book Film Technology in Post Production (2nd ed 2001, Focal Press, ISBN 0240516508 seems to fit your description exactly.

It doesn't presume to discuss how to make a film on any medium. Nothing about script, finance, actors, or how old you are. Not much about why you would want to shoot on film.

(But I'll add now that if you go with film and then cut too many corners to pay for it, you will probably finish up with a worse result than if you shot tape: but if you go with film and find the very best way to take advantage of the benefits that brings, you won't regret your decision.)

Matt Wells · May 24, 2004

I have found "Cinematography" by Kris Malkewicz (available Amazon) very helpful indeed.

It deals primarily with 16mm and is written in a very straight forward language, starting right from the very begining.

The only thing it does not cover is non-linear editing (computer) because of the age of the book, but everything else is very useful.

The other book you could try is the Gurella film makers Handbook (check spelling), written by the two people mentioned by Phil Rhodes above. This book is excellent, written as a series of interviews with different professionals involved in pre-production, production, post production, sales, etc etc. They are asked all the questions a new filmaker has to these industry people. Although it is an English book, and I assume you are based in the US, I would still highly reccomend it. It has an immense amount of information, and only really deals with films being originated on film.

Prepare to be bitten by the film bug. There is something very addictive about the whole art.

Matt