GeorgeSelinsky

Oh, I don't think it's equal at all. I see far more crappy video than anything else, especialy in the no budget feature world. Mitch really has a good point here in particular. If you shoot on DV, that is the new "cheapie" medium. It has a stigma of "cheapie indie feature" associated with it. Back a few years ago when Hi8 and SVHS was the only prosumer format out there (and nobody back then was even thinking of comparing it to 35 or 16, for some reason mini DV got such a privilege though...), 16mm was considered to be the cheapie indie format. Now, suprisingly, 16mm has sort of moved up the ladder in a way since so many people have begun shooting DV (of course, the word "Super" has to be there as a prefix to 16, unless you intend to go 1.33:1 which I wish more people did). Anyway, this to me is also first and foremost about FUNCTIONALITY, not just a business savvy proof of product. Just take your video camera outside on a contrasty, sunny day without lights or bounce boards and try to film a scene straight. Just watch those zebra patterns explode. Watch those shadows blacken up. I can get away with this on film, especially color negative 16 or 35, even if I have no source of fill (okay, you'll get that film documentary look to it but it will at least look more pleasant, and there IS more detail to be seen). If you're shooting tape, you'll find yourself praying for cloud cover and mist. Try shooting against the sky on tape. It's harder. Anyway, I wish you luck either way you go! - G.

As a side note, I also forgot to mention the timing and telecine process that I can use with film. You can't do that tape to tape without introducing a lot of noise and compression artifacts. That can also be critical in getting useable images sometimes. When the digital intermediate comes down in price, the greater powers of the telecine will extend to low budget films that are meant for theater release. Still, even timing in itself is a pretty good tool.

I agree that it's a good idea to practice on a less expensive medium. I played around with video quite a bit, it's good for learning things like setups, camera moves, and so on. But I hate the lighting aspect, it's absolutely a horror to look at that monitor and see just what a bitch of a job it is to make it look good (not to mention trusting the monitor, unless it's an expensive one). I personally am in a position with my project where I can't spend much time on lighting (I'm the only crew member, remember), so my lighting has to be very conservative. With video, this just doesn't work out, I have to spend a good time rigging fill light and being super careful about hot spots. In addition I have to rely on my actors a bit more not to walk into hot spots, etc. I could of course just put a baking sheet over a 1K and shoot away, but that yields very boring images. In film I am not afraid of hard light. I also have a greater dynamic range so I don't have to worry about separation as much. If I wanted my images to look halfway decent, video would be the last choice for a film where I have no schedule. 35mm high speed film, grainy as it is (especially short ends), really does the job best from a functional perspective when all is said and done. I've had moments where I would do a camera speed test/slate in a room without ANY lighting, and I see this footage on my telecine transfer. The unlit image I get looks way better on 35mm film than on DV, so if I wanted to do a truly hardcore Dogme style film without any real lighting, 35mm would fare much better and sometimes make the difference between something that is passable and simply unwatchable junk. What concerns the director's aspect of the job, which I am also involved in, I can say that I chose to shoot on film also because the subject matter of my type of film has never quite been done (it's a comic film about terrorism, acted mostly by Eastern Orthodox Christians, filmed in America). For me to do well with it it has to do business overseas, and I am pretty positive that once it gets to the target countries, it will get me in the black ink - in addition to direct video sales here in America (plus a few theatrical showings at festivals I hope). My actors are mostly amateurs, the film is far from Hollywood quality (there are continuity gaffe's and technical imperfections), and it's the largest project I've done for myself as a director - and I know I make mistakes. But what it lacks in that it makes up in sincerity I think. Whatsmore, doing a project over a long period of time lets you think more about it and make it better, slowly but surely. Of course, you have to be able to FINISH it. But whether you shot on film or tape, that's pretty immaterial - it's really the morale that you need to get it all in the can. There's also something to be said about the up-front financial commitment that comes from shooting on film (esp. if a good deal of it comes from your own pocket). There's an added incentive to finishing the film, as opposed to simply dropping it - when you've put a large chunk of your savings in it. That's not only important to you as a developing filmmaker, but even if you decide that you have no business making films afterwards, it's important to all those who've helped you. They at least get a tape and feel that they've won a victory for their troubles. I could have shot this on DV of course, but then the steam that I need to get a film like this off the road would be tougher to gather. I would have one less thing working in my favor, and while I'm not saying it wouldn't work, I think it was one thing I needed to have as an insurance policy. You may find that video works better for you, and you simply want to get something off the ground. But especially with a project that takes such a long time to make (over six months), the factor of what Tim and I mentioned, having your work on film, will make even better sense. I'd hate it if so much of my time and effort ended up on DV. Besides, what if suddenly a much better format comes across (say another company like JVC releases a prosumer HDTV camera that is useable for production), what are you going to do then, with a year and a half of work already filmed on DV, when everyone else is running around with one of those new HDTV wonders and doing their independent film? Anyway, it is of course your business to decide and I'd hate it if you ended up with an unsellable product, be it on film or on tape. But labor (even goodwill, untrained labor) counts for at least as much as my filmstock, that is the way I feel about it. - G.

I'm right now in my second year of shooting a 35mm feature, my main costs are film, processing, video transfer, and the purchase of my equipment (an Arriflex IIc - which costs virtually the same as a prosumer DV cam, a 250 GB USB/Firewire hard disk, a Pentium computer that I built myself, a mic and tube preamp for dialog looping, etc). I don't regret shooting on 35mm and the reasons for this are: 1) I get short ends that cost one sixth of the price of fresh Kodak stock. 2) I got a decent negative processing deal - not the lowest price possible but pretty low. 3) I use 500 asa film and sometimes push, so I don't have to use very high wattage and therefore don't need a generator like I likely would with 16mm (where 200 asa is pretty much the fastest I'd use). 4) I can light faster with film. I am less reliant on fill light (oftentimes a silver card will do the trick for closeups), nor do I have to diffuse my lights and draw extra amperes to compensate. I have often shot with a crew of one (never again though!) 5) I can't afford a professional soundman, nor are my locations quiet, so I ADR all my dialog and an MOS camera is therefore not a problem. 6) My film will (hopefully) do business overseas where I don't have to worry about PAL-NTSC issues. I also hope it will do theatrical business there, and every theater in the world has no problem showing a straight 35mm print. 7) I have the respect of a 35mm feature film when I speak to professionals, and it is a good marketing tool. When people see it on a large screen they always feel the difference, because I have (pretty well lit) Hi8 footage as well as DV footage cut in sometimes. They can tell. 8) As per point 6, I will never have a problem with any distributor based on film format, which means a lot for an independent movie that has no stars or easily exploitable elements (sex, gore, guns) 9) I shoot faster because I know I can't spend as much film. That's not always a nice feeling but it can be helpful. 10) I have a depth of field I can work with. 11) I don't have to worry about what will happen to my movie's marketability when home viewers begin heavily investing in HDTV sets should my film do good business. 12) Video wouldn't save me much money when it comes to a theatrical release, probably even cost more (as Mitch pointed out), if you take into account the fact that I'm paying less for my film. 13) My work is preserved is on a strong acetate medium which is archivally stable and universally compatible - I don't have to recompress to MPEG-2 and burn it onto a DVD disk in order to know that it is safe. 14) My camera is sturdy and relatively weather proof (no "dew indicator" problems). 15) The cast and crew can relax and joke around as I sweat and reload the mags :P I think I made the right decision. I really believe in my project and I want it to be recorded on film, because I think it will give it the best chance from an artistic as well as financial perspective. Sure there are disadvantages which I can list, to be fair: 1) I have a noisy MOS camera, and some intense dialog sequences and foleys could have easily been recorded in sync if I had just one person holding a boom pole correctly - but this is not an option. If I had gotten an Arri BL1 for a few thousand more, and about 2-3 grand worth of sound equipment, this would be a non-issue. 2) I have to constantly watch my focus - I've already had to reshoot because of focus errors. I can't do certain shots because the focus moves would be too complicated, and not all my talent (some of which is completely inexperienced) can hit marks. My Arri has no follow focus unit, just lens tabs (owch). While video also has focus issues (which get amplified on a large screen), they are not as critical as with film, to be fair. 3) Reloading every 200-250 ft is a bitch, and I'm not about to spring a few thousand bucks for more magazines. 4) You must outlay money up front to shoot and develop, and that is sometimes difficult to do, unless you have it all ready. 5) The camera is heavier than most DV equipment, and every now and then I find a shot I couldn't do because of the Arri's high magazine profile (i.e. inside a passenger car). 6) An unpleasant task known as "negative matching". 7) Having to go to the lab to get my film processed and transferred to tape, versus being able to stick a tape into a machine and get a playback after the day's shoot (I do, however, run a cheap mini DV camcorder during sync takes to check performance and record scratch audio). Overall I'm happy having chosen 35mm film, for the reasons mentioned. I am doing this project over a long period of time (the last two months of shooting are finally within view), and in a way it's also nice to know that something you worked so hard over is going to be recorded on such a solid medium. I'd hate to think that my people and I worked all this time for something on a little crummy mini DV tape that has such a limited quality when projected on even a small screen. This is, of course, just my opinion. For my project, I could have opted for 16mm (it was, btw, the first choice I was going to make). But I don't see myself doing my film on video. Not that I think video is below me as a medium, it's just that I think it would detract from what I am trying to achieve. Hope this helps, - G.

Hi folks, I am planning to film a scene in a private university that charges filmmakers a ridiculous amount per hour for filming on their premises as its standard policy. I am actually filming a workshop for actors, which is being hosted by a student of that university, and using that footage for my film (clever). The people all are in the know and are going to sign releases. I am wondering if I later show this film and someone from the university sees it, and realises there was no "filming permit" applied for the shoot, can they take legal action against me? Also, is it possible or likely that an interior location can be copyrighted? I'm sure their film students film inside there all the time, I was just visiting the location today and I saw a scrap of 16mm raw stock on the floor :) Also, I want to get a shot of the exterior of the school, which was built in the 1800's. I am wondering if this is copyrighted, and if it is, how do I find out - aside from calling them up and asking and getting a bunch of "well, why do you need to know?" questions thrown back. Thanks for all advice, - G.

Okay, I have heard that the number one rule is to get a release from any face that appears in your movie. Me and my coproducer have done a good job in this regard. However, in one instance I clearly filmed several people at a parade. They are in a medium shot, and yes, they are recognizable for four seconds. This parade was a public event in New York City. I really want to cut this into my film and I'm sure there's no way I will find out whom they are. As a still photographer I recall the rule was that if someone was in a public place and you snapped a still of their face, you were in the cool. If you were in a private area that is a different story. Now, we all know that the papparazi take pictures and videos of celebrities everywhere, public or private places. They then sell these images to tabloids and TV for big bucks. I am sure as hell that in most cases they got no releases, yet these people seem to be immune to any problems (I am sure they have good lawyers of course). What is the story, why are the papparazo immune to this and Mr. Joe Indie Filmmaker has a different set of rules that apply? Also, what can I do to defend myself from any problems, if a release is impossible to secure? - G.

I can see one thing happening actually, now that I've thought about it. The price of short ends might go DOWN because I'm not sure indie filmmakers would continue shooting film - and they're mostly the ones who buy short ends. I also think it's possible that some more competition might move in. I know that there's a Russian company, Swema, that still produces 35mm MP film (mostly B&W though, they might do color). I would rather shoot that than HDTV, any day (although I hate the look of the older Swema color films). Their B&W filmstock works out to about $0.12/ft new. - G.

The larger a machine is, the faster they can process the film. The ECN 2 process takes about 20 or so minutes, so after that first twenty minutes, if their processor rate is like 500 feet per minute, you can process a lot of film per hour. Houston Fearless used to make the movie lab standard continuous line processing machines, don't know if they still do or not. Not too long ago I even saw such a machine on ebay for sale. There were more of these companies around, I imagine, when news used to be shot on film - back then some TV stations would have their own in house processing machines so they wouldn't have to make a separate run to the lab after a day's news shoot. Most of those machines have been scrapped, probably. If you're talking about the sort of stuff used for small batch processing, check out my webpage at http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky where I offer some info on the subject. I have some postings there by Martin Baumgarten who is an MP processing guru. - G.

I have an interesting question. It's a bit hard to determine, like the stockmarket in a way, but I figured I'd venture a discussion of it. As we all know, HDTV is not too far from being introduced on a mass scale as a home viewing format, making that horrid SDTV NTSC obsolete (too bad they still retain 60i in the HDTV spec!). Unless this is followed by the introduction of relatively low cost, high performance HDTV cameras, and the price of high quality digital to film processes seriously plummet, I predict the demand for 35mm film will stay the same or even more likely, go up. In view of higher demand for filmstock, does this mean more or less expensive short ends/recans? I suppose that depends on the price that Kodak sets for its film (which steadily but surely increases at least once every two years), and its given that higher demand always increases price. By that logic it would seem the price of film will go up, therefore the filmstock will become more expensive in short ends and recans, and there will be a higher demand for short ends/recans thereby increasing their price. Anyone else care to comment on the price of ends/recans relating to production situations? - G.

I myself am wondering what this could be about. It would indeed be necessary to verify this videomaker's info, track down the movie, maybe see it, etc. I still think that straight to tape from DV stuff that one can find at B-buster is mostly if not virtually all exploitation type stuff. I actually haven't been over to B-buster in a while because mine doesn't carry the movies that I really want to see most of the time! I think that the DVD market sort of gave a small pump to straight to tape product in general, sort of a faint image of the way VHS permitted a film like "Polish Vampire in Burbank" to actually make money (which I think even a drive in audience would have booed off the screen). I've seen plenty of exploitation product marketed on DVD, often they're ONLY on DVD. I haven't been about festivals as much but DV films are definitely gaining more acceptance, or at least it seems that way from the festivals. I continually hear that more and more filmmakers are shooting on DV. But I think the upcoming HDTV revolution, which is not too far around the corner, is going to create huge heaps of XL-1's that will be as valuable as the Canon L-2 is now - maybe even less. Anything shot in DV at that point will be not of interest anymore - if someone plunks down enough cash for their HDTV set, they'll be even less inclined to rent some low rez low budget flick. Then we will have to wait for the next generation of HDTV prosumer cameras and see what happens there. This is one of the reasons I never decided to invest in a serious mini DV camera - I can see the format has a very limited future ahead of it. - G.

I am actually a bit peaved that post houses don't quite have it together concerning digitizing direct to disk. I would love to give them my 250 gb firewire drive and have them dump the dailies straight from the rank to that. What I am guessing is that they don't have the software written for a telecine to disk control, so that would make it somewhat more difficult and require manual operation. They're much happier using their digibeta or dv or whatever decks that are perfectly controllable, then dump it for you onto disk (for an additional price of course) or have you take care of that problem. It would actually be nice to get dailies burned direct to DVD for offline purposes (perhaps in M-JPEG form versus MPEG-2). I could see myself going for that. - G.

The problem here is that reversal and negative are of a different polarity. If you are blowing up from color negative 16mm (I assume you are blowing up), you are going to have to go from the negative, to a 35mm (or sometimes 16mm to save money) interpositive, to a 35mm internegative, to a 35mm positive print. To go from the black and white reversal you will go directly to an internegative and from that onto a print. You need to keep this in mind when planning everything with the lab. If you need to have an IP of your entire movie, not just an IN (which is really only the case with feature films that need to be delivered as IP's to the distributor), then you need to make an extra step with your black and white images, in other words, make an internegative off the B&W reversal, then from that to an interpositive, and you combine that interpositive with the interpositive generated from the color negative footage you shot to make a master IP. Confused yet? :blink: Concerning the color shift that happens when black and white film is printed onto color printstock, this can be corrected in one stage. When you go from the intermediate stage to a print (from the internegative to the print, or from the internegative to the interpositive) you can time this color cast out entirely. My knowlege here is not practical (I have never mixed B&W and color with anything but direct reversal projects or straight to tape stuff) but based on discussions with lab personell when I was anticipating a project of this nature. What concerns the 25A, it's a nice filter for black skies but skintones aren't too great. Also eats over a stop of light I think. - G.

One thing I would add is that mini DV uses M-JPEG compression, DVD uses MPEG-2. The latter is much more compact per frame, which means that its quality is also lower. No labs or houses that I've talked to in the NYC area go straight to DVD. Some go to a hard drive in Avid format, but that's as good as it gets. I myself am getting dailies in mini DV. I wish I had the money for a less compressed video format, but then again, this is only for editing purposes so it doesn't matter that much - I am going to get a supervised transfer to Digibeta after I am done with my edit. I also think that if you want to go from your dailies direct to DVD, I suggest a supevised transfer of your dailies to Digibeta, and going from that through an MPEG-2 encoder to DVD for optimal quality. - G.

Zeiss superspeeds are by far superior to the older Schneider and Cooke lenses that are most frequently available with inexpensive camera packages. There are more recent Cooke lenses but I have never used them nor had the chance to compare them with Zeiss. Zeiss lenses have a pretty snappy look, they're sharp and contrasty.

Try this webpage for more info: http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky

Hi folks, I'm going to be doing one of those available street light shoots in a few days, and I wanted some opinions. I have a chance to shoot it on either 5218 or 5279. I want to push my film a stop, maybe two. I haven't had a chance to try pushing 5218 yet. Has anyone done so, and how do the results compare to 5279? I also was wondering if it might be worth getting a few rolls of 5229 and trying to push that instead? Anyone have any results with that? I hear it's very good for deep shadow details, and pushing it might bring up the contrast to a more 5279 like level. - G.

I think that it would be 1) visciously expensive (consider what instant polaroid film costs over conventional film), 2) yield very contrasty images, and consider also 3) projecting your original is inviting scratches and dust, not to mention film damage. I just did the math to give an idea of how much this would cost. It costs about $23.00 for 1 35mm 36 exp. role of Polaroid's Polachrome, which includes the processing chemistry. A 36 exp. roll is about 5 feet of 35mm film. That works out to a cost of $4.40 a foot. Compare that to $0.63/ft for Vision stock, plus $0.14/ft book rate processing, and $0.25/ft for a workprint. The economy works out in favor of the conventional method by and far, which is superior. What I would like to see is a desktop telecine device that would permit one to do video dailies inhouse. Granted, I know it's not possible to reach Rank quality, but I think it would yield some helpful information for the DP during a production. This way all you need from the lab is a processed negative. - G.

Hi Folks, Happy New Year!!! I wanted to ask if any of you have filmed in San Francisco, particularly film permits? NYC is pretty easy, the department of film is fairly easy to deal with (although recently they altered some rules). Also, any other comments about filming there (i.e. labs, rental) is appreciated. I am writing another script and I am interested in filming there - it's a very beautiful city. - George Selinsky.