Vincent Sweeney

You might have seen a post from me recently where we looked into doing a feature on Super8 and found serious issues to applying it to a feature. With a feature, you are getting into seriously sensitive schedules and a need for high reliability in your equipment. Super 8 doesn't allow for that, no matter what model camera. You also have massive sound quality issues that, to deal with, affect the practical manner of shooting all day long. There are monitoring problems that can affect the types of shots you want to do and limit some desired shooting styles such as when a director wants to see the frame. You also have hair, dust and light leaks where you may not want them (or maybe you do). Using a S8 camera for this kind of thing can be a very counter-productive move. This can all be argued endlessly but what can not be argued is what is needed in a final product. Delivery to just about media company will be almost impossible if you present them with 90 minutes of S8 footage. I love Super8 more than probably most guys here but there is such a thing as being too attached to something that blinds you to the practical reality of what it is. And if you never shot with S16 before, try that and you will see the light I bet! Oh and after doing endless research on budgeting for that feature, I found 16mm to be very close in price when you take it to the feature level, while offering something more useful in all ways. We ended up having to go with an F3 however because the labs doing HD scans are still not competing with the real world anymore.

I just assumed the DSLR thing had died already. I'd not allow them on anything I was producing, but have had to use one before when someone else was stamping their name on something. They just aren't practical to compare to something that actually functions as a movie camera (low budget or not) like an F3, Arri, red, etc.. These tests always seem to ignore the real world issues that kill the toy cameras off in the first hour of a paid shoot, and focus on all the chart and controlled scene scenarios that bore me to death. Again, it's really just Zacuto being clever in finding a way to promote themselves I think. I hope the crew was paid decently.

I guess these kinds of tests were more relevant in the recent past to some people, but I couldn't be more bored by them. They are also outdated by the time they get edited. Testing DSLR's among real, practical cinema cameras is a joke and mostly done to keep the accessories selling to the 100,000+ weekend video-makers that keep buying it all up.

Hey Alec, I've shot under similar conditions with 16mm and I'd suggest testing some 7213, unless you were looking for the grain that's in the 500. I found the 13 to be amazing at dealing with mixed colors, as well as with lighting that seems inadequate for a 200 stock, especially if you are using T1.4 or T2 primes. The 500D Fuji is really not a good 16mm stock unless you are trying for a specific, very grainy look of some kind.

Feature film, shot on film, needs an artist for title design. Organic, hand crafted, subtle, grain, fades in and out; not 'in your face', 5 seconds, no action, nothing faked. Send an email to: socket46880(at)mypacks.net or PM here.

Post some samples on Vimeo.

Thanks Phil, we are talking now.

http://geektyrant.com/news/2011/7/21/sdcc-2011-in-time-footage-and-posters-timberlake-and-seyfrie.html

How on earth are you getting $74K for S16?? What does that include? I just budgeted a feature not long ago for 16mm, scanned out to HD, for $20k and that included camera rental.

1080p file, 93 minutes. Need a DCP done for fest/screening. Preferably done with a lab who is used to low budget (ULB) features.

An actual colorist can work wonders.

Which is funny considering the TV shows like: Monk, Friday Night Lights, Walking Dead, Lincoln Heights, Men of a Certain Age, (and Falling Skies?) are all S16mm and all shown in HD. Monk really is a great example of how clean it can be if that is what's wanted. Poor compression can/is killing the experience though, often even on 35mm.

Curious why it matters which one? It's digital so the raw look will be pretty close across a few brands/models. Hard to tell much from an internet video but it's probably a red, Alexa or an F3 since the water didn't seem to have the lower-end sensor artifacts you find with DSLR's and the like. Looks more like 60p was used a few times (but I'm no overcrank specialist) so that opens it up to a few cameras. The color grading is strong and well done; this is where a lot of the "look" is coming from, more so than what you'd find between cameras anyway.

Since reg. 16mm has no real value anymore, other than being a collector's piece, I don't know how much discussion there can be about it. At this point you'd be lucky to sell at all. There are full Aaton prod's in perfect shooting condition that would have been worth $20-30,000 a few years back that now can't even sell for $6000. Thank the lack of affordable HD telecine for this one.

No it's time to let film projection die for the majority commercial theater market, and quickly. In my view less than 40% of theaters can even show a print properly, or even acceptably, so it's time to get rid of the lost-cause 16 year old projectionists in the chain who apparently text their friends instead of checking audio/focus/light levels, registration, etc.. It is so bad that I now fully expect, at the least, that the surround sound will not be on. This was confirmed just yesterday when I went to one of the smaller chains (Laemmle's in LA). I started to laugh as I complained since it was so routine. The surround was off and the high's in the audio track were warbling like crazy so of course any music was awful. The guy working there looked at me with a blank stare, like usual, and never said anything back, not even a "sorry". I probably interrupted his pot/smoke break. This problem has become an epidemic and I bet is a major factor in keeping people out of the theaters, along with rude, self-centered viewers who talk and let phones ring/text. My plasma fed with a bluray is a ten-times better viewing experience than all but the best theaters at this point. Too bad for me, them, the few real projectionists left, Kodak and Fuji.

Jaron's almost humorous post is why I don't bother talking to people about films like this. Too many small minds out there.

Thanks for the post Peter. Im curious how you guys are handling post since I assume those are not 1.3 lenses? Doesn't the new Arri Studio Alexa have a 4:3 sensor that is ideal for anamorphic lenses? That should be interesting as well.

Wow Guy, now that's a reply. The width of the graphics makes for a frustrating read however, having to pan my screen back and forth. I had a feeling that even the newest LED's still don't hold up when trying to get a pleasing skin tone. I was asking because I'm doing some rough budgeting of a high-end doc project that I may be producing later this year. There are certain interview pieces that I want shot on S16mm and tungsten sources seem to be the only choice to get what I feel is acceptable. Im trying to design a very small/efficient lighting and camera package as this shoot goes to extremely remote areas at times, with a two man crew: Aaton prod, a RED Epic (or Canon's new 4K cam?) and two small lights. The non-interview stuff is outdoors and natural light only, and is 80% of it. I was also considering a Kino or Mole Biax but maybe a 1K Arri soft box set-up as a key will still be the most reliable in terms of color/quality of light.

The few times I have been around LED's, the green spike or blue leaning color issues were unacceptable. Two weeks ago I was on a doc/interview shoot that was using some (from China probably) and the skin tones on the RED's monitor were very green. Has Litepanels or anyone else managed to get this under control in your experience?

Now this technology I'd pay extra for, assuming a 4K projector is used or IMAX. Definitely preferable to 3D so far.

Oddly enough I saw it there last week (my 2nd viewing) but it was on 35mm. Do they normally keep a DCP and a film copy of movies to fit different theaters within their building? That seems odd. The Arclight had a slightly better projection/theater experience but I am finding so many faults in 35mm projectors these days that I am going out of my way to look for theaters that can play DCP's instead, especially when it's a high-end film like this. The Muvico's 4K theaters are almost perfect but all they get is the typical multiplex "studio stuff".

What machine are you using? Why are you charging more for Prores? This is a standard these days and not something people want to pay more for. You might want to post some samples somewhere.

I'd seriously consider spending money on a different camera altogether (rental). Every festival's short or student film is now shot on a Canon DSLR with shallow DoF and it's boring as hell.

It isn't as simple as owning a few tools. You may want to try to find a colorist to work with. It's what they do.