IBL

I have worked on 16mm and 35mm and most video formats including old tube cameras and U-Matic tape. I even worked on a Konvas 2M for low-budget 35mm work. I have used early Aaton 16mm packages, Noisey Bolex too, but not the new Aaton models or the new Aaton 35mm camera. I have used nearly every video format bar HD and the cine camcorders. I also work projection 35mm platter systems in cinemas and am fluent with non-linear editing systems. I have been wanting to do a feature on some work I wrote. I considered the cost of rental and shooting on film but to actually see how this would work out in the field I decided to buy a Canon Super 8mm camera and some Super 8mm film to see how realistic my figures where. Basically I must have shot about 60 minutes worth of Super 8mm to get about 10 minutes of what I wanted. So the ratio there was 1:6 and could even be a lot more. When I broke that down into the cost of a 16mm production I just went WTF??? No way. I then broke that down into the cost of a 35mm production using a Konvas and the difference was not exactly great and the 35mm Konvas 2M looked like the option for me but the cost of the production was too much for me to still feed the kids :D Then I watched "28 Days Later" after being a devout film-based shooter. I came away thinking - Why bother with 16mm or even 35mm (because they both worked out almost the same as per above) for a first feature? The more research I did on this the more I am seeing people saying 16mm - No way. Go for the DVX and save yourself a lot of time and money for a project that could end up looking better than 16mm. I have seen some of the web based digital DVX video files and I am stunned. So I came here to see how many people would really consider making that switch from 16mm to DVX and as far as I can see a lot of people would do it just because it is so much easier and cost effective but there are pro camera people also saying - look give me a 16mm camera and I can make it look better than the DVX. I am sure there is some truth to that. But realistically, if you are on a low budget and you have a choice between 16mm and the DVX which one would you choose? I am not entirely convinced that 16mm is the right choice here and I am sure that many people here would say DVX in a split second. Am I wrong or is this the camera for the low-budget film maker looking for good options. I keep thinking "28 Days Later" and if I could achieve something anywhere near the look of that movie I would say that 16mm (or Konvas 35mm) would have been the wrong choice. I have also noticed people who shot movies of their own on 16mm and 35mm saying that if they had the choice they would have done it on the DVX. What do you think about that?

Of course it is cheaper without the blowup but I am talkin' blow up here to 35mm too and ... well I don't get this... according to your logic you should shoot on video if you are going to end up on video, right. So why did you shoot S-16 then?

Mitch - So what is the final cost of an A-Minima fully kitted out like the above package if we are going to split hairs here? I am sure the way u are talkin' the $12,000 figure for the A-Minima would probably sky-rocket too. No? And whatever the words u mean I am talking about this one here - Cinema Series Cameras here -> http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat/Produ...s_ccorders.html Maybe the cost of DV or 16mm to 35mm is the same, or more in your example, but certainly 16mm film stock costs, development of negatives costs, possitive print costs, and telecine costs are well above the cost of shooting on DV IMO. What about shooting ratios of say 12:1? I am sure 16mm is going to cost a way more in the long run. You say less? I am not so sure about that. It seems to me that it would eventually cost more, A LOT MORE, to shoot on 16mm than DV for what you get. Probably Yes S16 can look better than DV however after seeing "28 Days Later" (shot on a lesser camcorder than the DVX) the only people who are going to split hairs on this one are the cameraman/producers not the audience. IMO with "28 Days Later" the Audience/Joe Soap would not know the difference between DV/16mm but they yes they would see it more as an "amateur looking" film. IMO 99% of them would not see the difference between DV/16mm on that one. chance - no doubt they would prefer the look of 35mm and who would not prefer 70mm for look? Nice article.

You right City of God was shot on 16mm in parts but a lot of it was 35mm too. You can tell where the director used each format. I saw it on the big screen too and thought the 16mm was good but looked 16mm. I think the 16mm was mostly used to film the backflash sequences when they where kids but it is scattered throughout. Having said that though "28 Days Later" looked just as good if not better at times than that 16mm stuff and on DVD "28 Days Later" almost looks like 35mm at times. Have any of you seen it?

David I watched "28 Days Later" in the cinema and I was blown back by the fact that it was shot on a non-cine camcorder. I thought to myself -- If this is the quality of that Canon camera then 16mm is a dead duck. Then I saw the Panansonic range of cameras designed for cine and I had to say to myself that anyone who wanted to do a project on 16mm would either have to have the budget and the gear and some really good reasons for doing it on 16mm ... or simply up the budget a bit and go for 35mm or switch to the cine-camcorders. How many here think 16mm productions are going to be less popular now that DV Cinecams are around? BTW - On IMDB you get tech specs for movies. Look --- 16mm - http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?OFM:16%20mm DVX - http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Pa...nic%20AG-DVX100 SDX - http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Pa...nic%20AJ-SDX900 I wonder how many new productions between now and next year lets say will be in each format. Interesting no?

Okay Let's us up the Ante here a bit here. If you got the budget to go S-16 you are probably not short of a budget to do some work 35mm, right? The difference is not a whole part unless your shooting ratio is very high. So let's take the AJ-SDX900. That is Pro-consumer HD Cinecam with a list price of U.S. $25,000.00 (The is the cost of 2 X A-minima.) In terms of image quality which camera gives the best looking 35mm print for projection after all the processing, transfers etc.

Did he scan the 16mm film or did he telecine it? There is a big difference if he telecined it but if he scanned that it okay. And this article says that the SPIRIT scans film to digital files so it looks like this is not just an optical telecine. http://www.cinematography.net/2k_transfer_on_a_spirit.htm Did you see the movies "Pi" and "The Blair Witch Project" and how they looked on the big screen when compared to "28 Days Later" which was shot on on the Canon XLS? IMO - "28 Days Later" looked a hell of a lot better that either of the other two 16mm projects and that was shot on the Canon XLS and the DVX looks superior to the Canon XLS in terms of quality so far.

I could probably understand latitude, yes. However this test here says that 16mm has more grain than the DVX Blowup but is maybe sharper. http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm The A-Minima is probably a good camera but for the cost it just seems that DVX is maybe a fraction under what the A-Minima can do and ecomonically... well I think you get my point. Doesn't that kill the A-Minima? Bottom line - Why shoot on an A-Minima if you can get very close to the same look on the DVX for a fraction of the price and production costs? By the way, IMO - even the Canon XLS looked better on the big screen for the movie "28 Days Later" than say "Pi" which was shot on 16mm or "Blair Witch Project".

Moire should not appear on film but may appear on the video transfer however good non-linear editing packages can remove moire so moire removal is now dealt with post-production which means that actors can wear twead again.... .... not that twead looks great but anyway :P

Hi, Is the Aaton 16mm A-Minima now a dead duck because the AG-DVX100a out-performs the camera with a better looking cine quality image at a fraction of the A-Minima's price? It seems to me that the AG-DVX100a when blown up to 35mm looks better than 16mm. Basically I think 16mm is mostly dead now except for die-hard users and 16mm projectors. Any Takers who think otherwise? Anyone agree with me? I want to hear your views please. IBL