Kevith Mitchell

Kev,

Maybe I didn't read close enough, but what is your output for your feature? Are you going to try for a theatrical release?

I going the STV (Straight to Video)route. This movie does not have theatrical legs. I will do a couple theatrical bookings for promotion and marketing. But its pretty much targeted for a video release.

I would have the same concerns to. I would ask several HD houses and see what they say. Because chances are high they will charge you in some way for the format change. and it won't be cheap. Your best and least expesive route is to shoot on one format. This will eliminate the problem before it starts. Hope this helps

As for editing REG16, if you are doing a short, editing on video and tranfering to HD is probably best. Just remember, the conform and coloring time are the things that kill you in HD. And expect whatever will go wrong, can wrong.

With a feature, its totally different. Its 10x more footage, more edits, more conforming, more coloring and that equals more money. As the other reviewer said, edit on a flatbed then give it to a neg cutter. I can't agree more from a low budget stance. A ton of your headaches will be eliminated. Just make sure you can still get 16mm fullcoat, which I hear you still can.

Last Sunday I spoke with a filmmaker (he actually makes living making feature films). He told me he respected what I was doing and gave me good advice. He said eventually get a HD transfer because the broadcast buyers right now have two channels. One for SD and the other for HD. If you can fullfill both channels, this raises your bargaining power. He also said don't use your orginal cut neg of the finished film to go to HD. Use an inter-positive. This saves wear and tear on your original cut neg.

I just got footage back yesterday from several REG16mm shoots for this feature. And I'm proud to say this stuff is looks like the most sexiest woman you've set your eyes on. You just keep looking: ) I used 7212 and 7217 stocks, did basic two point lighting. But my god, the lens and the stock pickup everything in detail. The colors, the contrast, the deep blacks, the separation of colored light from . And I mainly used Schnieder lens. In my opinion its a lot easier to get stuff like this on film than video. And since it is 1:66...it fills the whole monitor so you see more.

I couldn't agree more. I too have tons of standard 16MM gear - three Arris, a Beaulieu 16R, and even a K3. Don't wnat to bother getting them modified for Super 16. Still shoot with them. Yes, film is expensive, but so what?

 

You mention standard lenses are cheap now. I'd love to get some primes for my Arri 16M. Any suggestions on a cheap source?

Try Du-All Camera in New York City. That is where I get my stuff from. They know there stuff and will give you a deal. http://www.duallcamera.com/

For the last 4 months straight I've been shooting REG 16 for a feature I'm doing. Through out this time I've been dealing with labs, pro filmakers, rental houses, HD houses, and traditional neg cutters. What I've learned is that making a film comes down to economics. The more $$ you have, the more you can do. Also, REG 16 (the aspect format) is slowly fading into the past. The format is not used as much and is being kept alive by mainly the education world (film schools). Do worry... 16mm film will always be around.

The advantage of REG 16 I've learned is econonics. REG 16 lens and cameras rent out for almost nothing because everyone is interested in shooting on Super 16 or using Super 16 lens for their video camera. Nothing against Super, I love it, but if I can get a REG16 SR2 with a Ziess zoom for a week for only $900.00, I'll shoot on REG16. In the end the audience is not going to jump out of their seats because of the aspect ratio.

Yes... REG16 may be going away, but now is the time to shoot on it. Its cheaper than ever. The rental house I go to for R16 lens, the guy practically gives them away. He's glad someone is useing these lens that are just sitting on his shelf.

The one thing that still sucks is buying film. New is expensive as hell $125.00 for a 400ft can? OOOOuch!!!!

I think whats killed Indie film are the stories. They are the same stories from twenty years ago. Filmmakers now a days have smaller equipment, can edit at home on laptops, yet with all the newest technology, nothing new is coming out story wise or visually.

Can you really say that these people would not be making films without the internet or digital video? The guy who makes avant garde films on super-8 was making avant garde films on super-8 before the internet, and digital video is irrelevant in that case. Indie docs were being made long before digital video. These technologies may have changed the look of filmmaking a bit, but at it's core people who make good films make good films regardless of what it takes. How have these technological advances increased the number of people making good films? Do we really think that people who are able to make good films were somehow prevented from doing it before digital video? I know your not the one who said that indie film didn't exist before digital video, but this is the core of my argument and why I think we may actually agree here.

 

 

 

 

 

First of all I don't consider people just making a statement, grinding an axe or preaching a sermon to be filmmakers. That's just not film. That's more in the realm of commercials or PSAs. Yes, the internet has opened up avenues for that, but that is something different.

 

You mention film festivals here. Once again something that existed long before the internet and digital video. But the sad truth is that everybody and their uncle has a film festival these days. I know plenty of terrible films that have won awards at film festivals. The director goes around telling everyone it is an "award winning film" but what he is hiding is that it won an award at a little fly by night film festival that has no real standards and his competition was other terrible films. If "award winning" is going to entice you to see a film you need to check where it won awards before taking that seriously.

 

Seriously if you want to have an "award winning" film I can show you how to win some random award. The problem is it may impress John Q. Public (sometimes) but most people in "the biz" see through it and it can in fact backfire and make your film look bad.

 

 

 

 

 

No, no, you didn't accuse me of being myopic. You accused studios and producers of being myopic. I think they should be myopic quite frankly. I don't blame them for not hiring a corporate video maker to direct a feature film, nor do I blame them for not hiring a grip to direct either. Only certain people have the talent, drive and creativity to be a director, and I don't see why it's unreasonable for them to have to prove that they can actually direct.

 

To continue the analogy here: You are correct, both use the same instrument and both satisfy their intended audiences. But both also require different skills, talent, and experience applied to that same instrument. You would not call a fiddler a violinist, and you would not hire her to play violin unless she could demonstrate to you that she could play violin.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you here.

 

Where I draw the line? Purpose. Filmmakers have a specific purpose. And that is to create something with artistic value for an audience. So this excludes commercials, corporate videos, PSAs, etc. And in order to call themselves a 'filmmaker' it should be their chosen career, not just a hobby. I'm not saying that there is no value to making films as a hobby, but I wouldn't really consider that person to be a 'filmmaker'. Given the nature of the work involved in making films I have never seen a film hobbiest make a good film.

 

We've gotten a little confused between the internet as distribution and digital video. I would agree that the internet has opened up some avenues for promotion of a film, and has promise as a distribution medium, and that digital video has created some more shooting options to choose from, but my original point was this: Not digital video, nor the internet has increased the amount of "filmmakers" out there. People who legitimately care about the medium, who focus on it as a career, and care about creating a high-end product. Yes, many of these filmmakers may use digital video or the internet but that same slice of the population was finding ways to make films long before digital video and the internet.

 

Most good scripts in the hands of a good director can find the money to get made. Look at "Thank You For Smoking". Jason Reitman took 7 years to find the funding for that film. He could have just gone out, shot it on digital video, with an underpaid crew, on a low budget that meant cutting corners, and been shooting in within the year. But it would not have been the same film. It would not have been a good film. If anything digital video has harmed indie film by encouraging filmmakers to jump the gun and make the film on a low budget that hurts it in much more severe ways than shooting format. There are films out there that had a good screenplay or at least a good idea, but instead of waiting and putting in the time and energy to find the funding to make it well, they jumped the gun and made it on little or no money. And their film suffers for it. The terrible production values and poorly cast actors turn the audience off long before they have a chance to get absorbed in the story.

 

I challenge anyone to point to a single film that is good, not "ok", actually good that could not have been made before digital video. Yes, maybe it would have taken longer to make, and the number they brag as a budget would not be so low, but it would have been made. Indie film existed long before digital video. And in fact the majority of really good indie films these days are still shot on film with a budget of at least a couple million. Because the real truth is that if your budget is so low that you cant afford film or something higher quality than "prosumer" digital video your film is going to suffer in much, much worse ways than image quality.

I have to agree with the original post. Prices for 16mm cameras are dropping quickly and i dought prices for film to HD tranfers are going to drop. I'm shooting a 16mm feature (mos) and started the post production prep. To go to HD it will cost me $62,000.00. The thing that gets you is the color correction and the conforming. And if your edge numbers are fogged or something...forget it. You are automatically paying more cash to fix the issue. I'm going to a traditionaly neg cutter because its cheaper.

I learned mixing film and video is a bad idea, because outside of final cut, you need to decide what the end master will be. Film or video. Then you have to do conversions.

As much as I hate to say, in 10 years, 16mm film is going to be a expensive medium to shoot on with limited post resources (labs and cutters have dissappeared). Digital has taken 16s place and after a while people arent going to know what a "film look" is. They'll accept the look HD has.

If you cut your negative, be sure to tell the video facility about it when you book telecine time. Most telecine these days is from dailies or IP, and the machines that do it often lose focus for a frame or two at splices. That's for 35, it might be worse in 16. They may have to put you on the one machine that's set up to pass splices, or send you to another company.

 

Or, do it Tim's way -- selects with handles, then online.

 

Thanks John...

 

That is very good advice in this "padora's box" of going from film to video.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Hi Kev,

 

Transferring film to most digital formats is expensive, no getting around that. But you might try this method, which can probably bring your costs to less than $25,000 to $30,000.

 

The way we've done it is to have all the film processed, and then do a one-light or best-light SD transfer of all your footage to something like mini-DV tape, "with a window burn". A window burn puts the timecode and the film key code right on the video tape. This is much cheaper than an HD transfer.

 

You then take that video tape, ingest it into your computer's NLE and edit your film to make it look the way you envisioned. Once you have it the way you want it, then you record the key code for each section of film used in your final edit.

 

Take that information to the transfer house and have them do a color corrected transfer of only that footage (plus handles) to HD. Many houses will put that HD material either on a hard drive or on disc, so you don't have to deal with any tape issues with the final color corrected transfer.

 

Then you take that HD transferred material and make your final movie.

 

If you shot your film with a five to one ratio, you end up only transferring one fifth of the total footage to HD, which saves you a ton of money.

 

Make sense?

 

Best,

-Tim

Tim,

Sounds like a lot of tranfering. When all is said and done, I have to assume the master of the film is on tape.

Also I shoot this whole feature on an Arri S. Love those Schnider lens. Absolutly crisp image. So I guess you can understand why I want to master from the negative.

So far what I'm learning is: For economics/saving money sake, make a traditional A-B roll negative cut. That way I have a negative master that can be transferred to any format now and in the future.

Take that A-B roll and transfer it to beta and create units/copies from the beta.

The part that cost most with HD is the color correction, man-hours, and the conforming.

But one thing is for sure...the mastering process from a film negative is a fast dying art.

It has gone to video which is not cheap at all as people make it to be it and has a million hidden cost. Labs, negative cutters and title makers have been telling me the only people who go from film to video are huge budget productions. I can get titles made for $300.00 on film. On video, basic titles cost $2,500.00!!!

The footage looks great!!! As for the dust, Its mainly the environment you are. The place needs to be beyond spotless and no fiberous materials around (rugs, clothes, curtains, etc.)

Another than that...I like it!!!!!!!

Hi

I'm editing a 16mm feature(shot in 1:33) and I'm talking to labs about transfering the neg to HD. One thing I've found out is that it is going to HD is not an affordable process. Just for mounting, conforming to selects, color correction, number of edits, man-hours, etc can easily cost $25,000 to $30,000. Just to get a "tape copy".

Plus HD does not accept the 1:33 aspect ratio. I will have pillars on the side of my image. No full screen.

To save money, my plan is to go to negative cutter, create a neg, and scan the neg to high res standard video. In the end I have a neg and a video copy.

Has anyone done this route before???? And where can I see a reg 16mm image tranferd to HD (with pillars) on the net???

WOW...Are 16mm shorts ends so hard to to find that you have to go to Canada??? Times have definetly changed. :)

Having trouble finding 16mm short ends. I've tried Raw Stock (out of business), Media Distributors(they have none, Film Emporium (they rip you off). Any other suggestions????

That looks great!!!!! Picks all the colors and is crisp as hell.

can some suggest some recent films that use digital cinematography innovativly. The only ones I can think of are Crank 1 and 2.

Thanks

I have to agree with the second reply. I give these filmmakers credit because they know how to make a product using cheap cameras and pull it off. I read a interview with them and they are complete digital tech-heads and make their own rigs, etc. The stories are not deep, just crazy camera work that works.

As for out of focus shots, I see ALOT of those on these big Hollywood movies. But a hey, nothing is perfect.

Pretty cool set up. Who says you can't modernize an old film camera.

Is the monitor image accurate with the lens image?

Saw the Martin Scorsese released film GOMORRAH. Not a bad film. Tells the inter-workings of a crime family in modern day Naples. Not much action, but the movie definetly takes you into another world.

Camera-wise, I found the camera work annoying. The camera never stop moving, so you had to read sub-titles and hope the steadi-cam shoot stop on something interesting. Usally it did'nt. In my opinion it was amatuerish. When I think of good camera work/movement, I think of Dario Argento's camera work.

But the movie is quite good.

Du-all Camera

Just Google it. Its a good rental house

Thats interesting, because I shot a ton stuff with my Arri S and I have Arri lens from the fifties. When get it telecined I think it looks like HD video. Especally my interiors. Exteriors look like film.

The saturation is there and everything. But I would not be surprised if it is the Angenieux lens. My last film I shot I used an old beat up Angenieux on a CP-16 and my Arri S. I watched the finished product on the big screen and could see the differences between the lens. The Angenieux was'nt as sharp and crisp as the Arri. Maybe it was the age of the lens. I dont know. No one else could see the differnece, but I could. So there a high chance it is the lens.

If you are going to get a new lens go all the way. 3 optic.

I wouldn't mind shooting for NFL Films. Nice operation. I've shoot practice video for college teams and that was boring as all hell. Stand in a row with four other cameras, point the camera in one direction and don't it no matter what. Even if its a nice play.

The fun part came during a big college game series, had to basically pull cable for the live tv cameras. That was fun. Right on the field (not sidelines) in the middle of the action. Plus it was easy as hell and the pay was GREAT.

Anybody know if a rig like this can be created for an Arri S with a 400ft mag? The camera is way to heavy with the mag to do handheld with a pistol grip.

This rig look looks like you can get some smooth movement.

Thanks

Ok this what I'm trying to make for an Arri S. As for shooting upside down...what were you smoking when you wrote that reply B)

Hi,

I've been wanting to create a shoulder rig for my ARRI S. A rig that is simular to the DVRIGPRO but can handle a Arri S with a 400 ft mag.

Any suggestions on starting up something like this?