Mitch Gross

You may wish to consider blackening your gate as well.

Try Mik Cribben at Film Friends. Say hi from Mitch for me.

You talk in such grand generalizations that it's almost imposible to answer. It's really about the right tool for the right job. I've photographed movies in many different formats, including MiniDV on the DVX100. There are times when it is the appropriate choice. And there are times when Super-16 is the appropriate choice. There is no catch all camera or format that will make some grand sea change in my thinking or methodology. Life, art, craft and commerce does not work that way.

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. There were something like 8000 submissions to the Sundance Film Fest this year and imagine that a huge number of them were crappy looking MiniDV movies. You're just one in the crowd anyway--shooting on the cheapo format makes you even more lost in the group. Of course a $7000 MiniDV movie also won this year, so what the fu** do I know? :lol:

John-- I'm curious. Of that 10 billion feet of film, how much is negative and how much print stock? 3000 prints of a 10,000' movie is 30,000,000'. With the wider release patterns of movies, I imagine this accounts for a vast portion of the film stock. On the other hand, most film use goes straight to video transfer not theatrical distribution. Just wondering how these numbers break down.

One should remember that a given medium does not automatically mean a given quality evel. Tadpole and Personal Velocity were shot not only with the same model camera, but in fact the exact same camera, the PAL PD-150 owned by InDigEnt. But two different DPs using different shooting techniques and craft achieved two very different results. It's not just the tools, it's the craftsperson behind them. I've seen a lot of stuff shot on the XL-1 that looks like absolute junk. I know that 28 Days later had to spend a small fortune (hundreds of thousands of dollars) in post to fix the images to make them passable. I've seen some stuff on the DVX100 that looks quite nice, and I've seen other stuff from that camera that was horrid. Don't think that the machine will do the work for you.

Yes, look for my posting about from the archives last summer. Should be sometime last July.

John Pytlak: Human Google machine. :)

It really depends on the color you want from the light. I'd take as large a tungsten light as you afford and place it outseide the window and then gel it. You might like a layer or two of CTO, perhaps mixed with some CTS (straw), Lee 101 (golden yellow) or perhaps something else. Grab a swatch book from wherever you buy your gels and start playing. It can be important to "sell" the effect with some indicators to the audience. One light on the actors and another light splashing the wall or floor behind them, perhaps through a cardboard cutout that resembles a window shape.

Hey, to each their own. I rather enjoyed the film myself as well as the cinematography. Wasn't thrilled with the DI artifacts, but you can't have everything.

My figures are all-inclusive of NOTHING. It's just the cost directly associated with getting to a 35mm print. Nothing in ANY of the formats for editing, sound, effects or titles of any kind. How you do these and what it costs can vary vastly in every format, so I left them out completely. I'm comparing apples to apples here.

Just about none these days. The 65mm shooting format is still used for some special effects and special venue (ride films) work, but it's a rare bird to shoot in the format these days. "Far and Away" and "Hamlet" were the last two major films photographed in 65mm. The cameras look very similar to 35mm but they are fatter and much heavier. I believe the Panavision camera weighs something like 80 ibs.

Film is the cheapest part of any HOLLYWOOD production, not in the low budget/no budget world. Here's some of the numbers I suggested you look up. Running cost for buying raw stock, getting it processed and transferred to SD video for editing: 16/S-16 $20-$25/minute 35mm $55-$60/minute HD $3/minute (for tape stock and downconversion) MiniDV $.10/minute If you shoot a 100 minute movie at a 7:1 shooting ratio (700 minutes of material), your stock costs would be: 16/S-16: $17,500 35mm: $42,000 HD: $2,100 MiniDV: $70 Assuming identical costs for soundmix, editing and such, you posting costs to get to a basic 35mm film print would roughly be (from memory): 16/S-16: $25,000 35mm: $20,000 HD: $50,000 MiniDV: $50,000 So your total relative production costs are something like this: 16/S-16: $42,500 35mm: $62,000 HD: $52,100 MiniDV: $50,070 Shoot at a higher ratio and the costs begin to shift, bringing the 16mm costs closer to that of MiniDV (at 10:1 the costs are 16--$50,000 v. MiniDV--$50,100). But there's certainly no huge savings by going with the lesser format. And make no mistake here, MINIDV IS A LESSER FORMAT TO 16MM FILM. If you want to own the gear or have the easy convenience of the little camcorder in your hand that's fine. but just realize that these are the advantages of shooting in MiniDV. Do not fool yourself or fall for someone else's hype.

No they did not replace them. 16mm was around a long time before 9.5mm, which was a proprietary format developed by a single manufacturer that didn't last long. VistaVision was a format created by a single company for their widescreen format, and it was and is an excellent system. But it was cumbersome and expensive so it fell into general disuse except for effects work. Super-16 and Super-35 are offshoots of existing formats and are still specialized formats. They are shooting formats only, as they are designed to be optically printed to a standard projection format. And let's look at how standardized those projection formats are. Spherical 35mm in 1.33 (rare) or cropped to 1.85 or 1.66, anamorphic 35mm using a 2x squeeze for a 2.40 frame, 16mm spherical 1.33 and spherical 70mm 2.21. Of these the most common are 35 1.85 and 35 anamorphic 2.40. All the various shooting formats -- and there are plenty of them if you want to really stretch -- funnel down to these. Pretty standardized if you ask me. I can take a projector that's 50 years old and project a modern film perfectly (I'd have to update the sound readers). Film formats may change, but at a glacial pace compared to video formats. I wouldn't buy a DV camera and expect it to be of signifant quality to last more than a few years before becoming outdated.

That's not what I said. Here, I went back and copied it. "Good rule of thumb--if you want to finish to video, it's cheaper to shoot in video, but if you want to finish to a film print, it's cheaper to shoot on film. Stay within your format and you'll get the best result for the money." I was talking about costs. Finish on film--best quality/cost ratio is originate on film. Finish on video--best quality/cost ratio is video. You can use a very nice video camera to get a better video image, but it will certainly be less expensive than film. Will it look better? That's a different comparison all together. This is where cameras such as the SDX900 and to a lesser extent the DVX100 really start to shine. Finishing only to video, the SDX900 can look a good deal like film, as do the high end HD cameras when downconverted. Most sitcoms are now shot in HD and the public has no idea. "Joan of Arcadia" is shot in HD and I doubt 99% of the audience has a clue. But a show like "Gilmore Girls" is still shot in Super-16 and I think looks all the better because of it. But for the feature film I was referring to, we shot in S-16 for only $30,000 and now the movie is getting a theatrical release. Once blown-up to 35mm and projected in theaters, it will look better than any DV movie shot for a similar amount of money. Given the nature of the film, with lots of outdoor shooting under variable lighting conditions, I believe that the S-16 image is far better than we could have ever gotten with HD as well. The best tool for the cost for that job.

As I said earlier, if you go to the archives you can see where I've personally done all the math and posted sample budget breakdowns to compare costs. The fact is that while it costs considerably more to shoot with S-16 during production, the cost for blowing it up to 35mm is relatively small compared with the cost of a good transfer of video to 35mm. So the cumulative costs of a Super-16 feature film blown up to 35mm can be less or at least just about the same as a video format feature transferred to 35mm. Certainly if you choose to shoot excessive amounts of film during production that can change, but with good basic planning this is the reality. If you don't belive me you can do the research yourself and work out all the numbers. But I do this for a living and have worked out the realities many times. I shoot in DV, HD, S-16, 35, DigiBeta and just about anything else you can throw at me. I know what they cost and I know what they need to finish out to a useable product. I also own more than $100,000 woth of profesional DV and S-16 camera packages, so I especially know what it takes to work in those formats all the way through to finished products.

There are so many ways to package out a camera, and frankly the A-minia makes for a very hard choice because it is a specialty camera that cannot use many of the available camera accessories. But I'd put a similarly packaged camera at around $25,000. I said the costs would go up for the camera, I just felt it was important to note that for $25,000 for the SDX900 you do not get a complete camera that you could go out and shoot with as you would with a little all-in-one camera such as the DVX100. By the way, if I were buying a S-16 camera package to go out and shoot a feature film with, the A-minima would certainly not be my first choice. A great little camera for specialty use, but I'd much rather spend the same money and get a complete used LTR-54 or XTR package, perhaps including a S-16 lens and some accessories for the price.

You can get an old rear of lens anamorphot adapter used to switch spherical zooms to anamorphic. They were made in mounts that resemble a 2x adapter--stick the anamorphot into the camera lens mount and then the zoom lens onto the adapter. Isaia & Co. have one in PL for their Russian PowerScope anamorphics, but since you're shooting Panavision you'll have to ask them in Woodland Hills. They'll need to go rummaging around the back room to see what's available.

I personally thought that the movie looked pretty bad and I know that the DP was constantly struggling with those cameras. The shots don't match well all over the place and color depth and motion artifacts are constant problems. I think that 16mm looks much, much better both projected and on DVD.

Wrong. I've photographed S-16 features with a shooting budget of less than $30,000. You can't do that on 35mm. This does not include blow-up costs of course, but this is a movie shot on film and looks like it was shot on film, not video. One of these movies so happens to have been picked up by a distributor and will be released in the spring or early summer. It will probably have another $100,000 spent to post it with a good sound mix and a digital intermediate for 35mm and various video format mastering, but all of that would have happened no matter what the format.

That's a whole pile of incorrect information. "Pro-consumer HD Cinecam" It is not Pro-consumer--it is a professional industrial video camera shooting in the DVCPro50 format. HD--no it is only standard definition video. Cinecam--no, it is a video camera. And $25,000 buys you the camera body with no viewfinder, no lens, no batteries, etc. A proper very basic camera package is more like $40,000 - $50,000 once you accessorize it out. Of course the a-minima doesn't come with accessories either. But then again, why are you talking about the cost of tyhe camera when these can be rented at many places for an affordable cost? Only people who use cheap little camcorders that cost only a few thousand dollars bother to purchase equipment rather than rent. Why buy something for one project when in a relatively short time it could be replaced by something cheaper and better? Also, you are not copmparing the more important costs. Who cares what it costs to own these cameras--they rent for fairly similar amounts. But while it is true that it costs much more to shoot Super-16, the costs for blow-up to 35mm (which is the format your asking about finishing in) is so expensive that in the end it is about the same cost if not cheaper to shoot in 16 than on any video format. A good transfer of video to 35mm runs at least $500/minute, so that's $50,000 for a 100 minute feature film. And by the way, there were so many problems with the footage from those little XL-1 camera that they had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in post production to get a useable image. Good rule of thumb--if you want to finish to video, it's cheaper to shoot in video, but if you want to finish to a film print, it's cheaper to shoot on film. Stay within your format and you'll get the best result for the money. You cite a lot of partial information but you need to do considerably more research. If you want some good financial and technical comparisons, look in the archives of this forum for discussions of this and other such topics from previous years. We've talked this to death.

Last time I checked it was around $4500. Just call Local 600 and ask.

The entrances to the Lincoln Tunnel (and many other places) now have large signs emphatically stating "No Cameras or Photography of ANY Kind Allowed."

You are picking some of the worst examples of Super-16 and 16mm footage to make your comparisons. Fact is that every day there is a vast quantity of professional (and non-professional) work being done in 16/Super-16, so the death of the format has been highly exaggerated by you. When many people think of Super-16 for television series, they think of edgy, handheld, gritty material such as "The Shield," "Homicide," and "Oz." But they do not think of more traditional shows with attractive lighting and pretty actresses who need to be photographed in becoming ways such as "Gilmore Girls," and "The O.C." Fact is these are ALL shot in Super-16 and I defy anyone to look at either of the latter shows and be able to tell me that they can tell it is S-16 not 35mm, or attempt to argue that they could possibly shoot these shows on a little DVX100 and get anywhere close to the same results. The DVX100 is a prosumer little toy. It's very nice for what it is, but it does not really compare with a professional Super-16 camera. Even the a-minima, which is an incredibly popular product for Aaton by the way. I'd rate the HD cameras as somewhere near the quality of Super-16, with certain advantages and disadvantages to each. And in the SD world, the relatively new Panasonic SDX900 is up there as well. The DVX100 has been around for a couple of years--so long that there's actually a new model already, the DVX100A. The A-minima has been around for a couple years more. They each have their place and are both selling quite well. But to simply say that Super-16 and the A-minima is dead because of the DVX100 is both behind the times and ludicrous. No one ever needs to go to a movie theater again because we can watch the movies at home on TV. But they are different quality and experiences, and we certainly have not shutter all the cinemas.

I'd go with the 7218, I don't think much of the '89, specially in 16mm. Why do you feel the need to shoot at such a deep stop? That's a lot of light no matter what the lighting package.