Giray Izcan

Sean, It was a joy to watch. Thank you.

At least the comments were fun to read...

I would say CP is probably the quietest out of all you mentioned. But all of them will cause issues in quiet places - even more so in quiet and small spaces. Even, Arricam LT is not all that quiet in small spaces. I am not comparing LT and the cameras above for clarification.

How was it? How did you like working with it? Did you use any of the textures?

Sync sound Pro8 conversions cost 3-4 thousand dollars. I understand that they are max 8 which is a tad larger than s8 with marginal increase in clarity and resolution. Also, since you are a student, you could get one light 16mm prints to truly judge your skills and detect errors as photochemical finish is a lot more crude next to DI - you have to nail the look in camera for the most part. With DaVinci, you can fix most things but then how do you learn? You can't get s8 prints any more. I just saw a s16 NPR package for 4500... imagine. Sync sound with super 8 sounds silly in my opinion. S8 cameras are too loud with their short loads to do sync sound. You say you have a 16 camera, I would shoot on that.. save the camera purchase money to shoot something with your 16.

It is not cheaper than 16. 16 gives you sharpness and film look as opposed to s8. S8 looks like a bad 16 at best on a good day. I like s8 but with these prices, it's a big silly in my opinion. Bolexes and Scoopics are almost just as portable as s8 cameras with image quality night and day between the two.

It never was... A wedding here and there and some home movie moments in some projects or some backyard music video productions or some hipster fashion videos... I would get a 16mm camera. I keep seeing Arriflex S for 6-800 dollars on eBay. You will not be spending any less for a decent s8 camera. The image you get from any s8 camera will look worse than even shooting expired high speed stock on 16. With the Beaulieu cameras, you can change lenses but even with some sharpest lenses, don't expect much of a jump in image quality but maybe some marginal difference at best. The format itself doesn't yield sharp and stable images regardless of the lens etc. Oh and it will cost you just as much as shooting on 16.

Regular tungsten all the way... oh wait it is dangerous to work with them because they run hot hahaha....

Telecine is fine. TV shows were doing telecine.. I believe the Walking Dead was transferred on Spirits for example.

Tyler has a point, sorry. Film will be very expensive and it adds up in the thousands fast. Your feature will suffer because most or nearly all the budget will go into purchasing film stock and getting processed etc. I did a no budget feature on s16 several years back where it was I and a friend of mine paid out of our pockets as a passion project. Of course, between stealing shots to accessing some terrible locations and horrid sound did not yield worthwhile results. Film only makes sense if there is a proper budget in place where only a percentage of it woild be allocated to film related expenses and still have money to hire a crew and get locations etc... otherwise, really it will be a waste of your money but of course this is just my opinion. I would shoot a short or a teaser for your feature and try to get funding. With a teaser, combining images, art work some stuff you shoot to convey the tone of the film, at least you could show something visual along with a strong script to investors and actor managers etc. Crunch numbers to estimate the budget, from locations to rentals to crew to catering and try the raise that much and then shoot.

I would much rather shoot 2 perf than s16 for 1:85 or a wider ratio.

Never mind.. wrong information on imdb. It was digital.

Apparently, it was both digital and film. I thought it was shot on 65mm film. How much film for what sequences, I'm not sure. If I were to guess, day time exteriors were shot on film and the rest was on digital.

Make sure you have appropriate hard mattes for your mattebox for different focal lengths to cut down the excess light from hitting the gate area to prevent ghosting, flares etc.

It looks like the shutter timing is off.

I agree... I just don't agree with shortchanging every department including the film itself by not getting better locations or better production design etc just to shoot on film. The end product you get after spending thousands of dollars is usually ok at best because of lacking in every department. Or you don't get enough coverage or enough takes so now you have to live with what you got. If there is budget in place, then of course... I prefer film; otherwise, it doesn't make sense to be slave to it.

And if you are talking about shooting a feature film, then you really need the budget. Unless the project calls for s16 look, you will want to shoot 35. 35mm costs A LOT of money as you can't rely on recans. Even with recans, it is expensive. I get that the current film stocks are very clean and sharp but it is still not 35. Let's say you have a 90 page script, 90k feet of 35 film will cost you 57k dollars - just to purchase stock not including processing etc. S16 formula will cost you about 27k dollars just to purchase film. These are rough numbers of course... 800 for 1000 ft 35 film or 300 for a roll of 400ft 16 film. The actual numbers might be a bit more. Now you add processing and scanning. Also, bear in mind, this is shooting 10:1 ratio which is bare minimum on a serious project. Don't so 1 take wonders from 1 or 2 angles so that you can save on film. If you choose to do so, you will cry during editing due to lack of coverage.

It is not worth it. Shooting film is expensive as it is so you should stick with getting your scans done professionally. I guarantee you that you will not get to shoot real projects more than a handful of times a year so you might as well get it scanned properly. If you are Mr deep pockets then maybe you can shoot as much as you'd like but for average earthly beings it is expensive. Besides, if you have to think about cutting corners when it comes to scanning, I'm sorry but you have no business shooting on film. You'll be happier with digital and spend the money elsewhere like production design and rentals. Film only makes sense if there is budget in place where you can get all the coverage you need without cutting corners otherwise you are slave to the format.

Thanks. It's an impressive looking film

I didn't know they printed Joker on film. Do you know if they scanned the ip for blu ray release? I knew about Dune but not the Joker. Dune's blu ray is from the ip for example.

Stephen, all the hardware and people to run these cameras are still substantially cheaper than film. Also, you really don't need all that much stuff to shoot with digital.

At those prices, noone will shoot film except for some studio pictures. Some s16 may be prevalent but 35 will be done except for big pictures. S16 is nice and doable but it is a look and not every project or filmmaker wants the s16 look unfortunately. We'll see what happens...

I would overexpose by 1 stop or 2/3 of a stop.

Overexpose...

I doubt those quick shots would be matching the main format - let's say s16 or r16. For those quick shots, I would use a Bolex or a Scoopic as they are pretty compact.