Paul Berenstain

Thanks for fhe feedback!

I have taken some reference shots with my iPhone, as I don't have access to a DSLR at the moment. With its fixed f2.2 aperture I get the daylight shots about a stop or two overexposed at 200 iso and 1/48 shutter, and the night shots underexposed by about the same amount with 50 iso. So using 500T with a filter for daylight would mean I would have to close the aperture quite a bit, unless I apply some nd filters as well.

For the night shots I think it would work quite well. But aren't there any aberrations introduced if I use a colour filter and nd filter at the same time during the day? Also, I guess I'm a bit panicked about getting the exposure just right as I don't know how forgiving film is compared to digital. Then again, there would't be any digital artifacts and grain is more pleasing than noise.

Hello,

I'm going to shoot a short on 16 mm Vision 3 next week and I have to order the film stock.

The short will only be about 3 mins long and I plan on using a single 400' roll. It will be shot in a room, both during the day and at night, using natura light from the window during the day and practicals otherwise. I'm a bit undecided in what speed and colour balance to get. As I see it, I have three options:

Get 250D and use a filter for night time

Get 200T and use a filter for daytime

Get 500T and use a filter for daytime

My goal is to get good exposure during the night with minimal lighting, and also to have some grain, but not excessive amounts.

I'm thinking that if I get tungsten balanced stock and use a filter for daylight, I could have the full sensitivity of the film when I need it most, during the night. But I'm wondering if the 500T wouldn't be unpleasently grainy.

Any thoughts/tips?

Thanks.

I don't think anyone is questioning the value of shooting on film as an exercise to force you to think carefully about each shot when working on a tight ratio.

 

As a tool for admitting potential students to a film course its less useful, since they would have no way of knowing the circumstances of the shoot and have to take it on face value. I've done film shoots with a 20:1 ratio and digital shoots with a 5:1 ratio - people arn't automatically less economical with digital. Its true film shoots typically shoot on lower ratios and require more planning and care then digital. But its not always the case - you could have a rich kid with deep pockets and burning through film stock as much as a digital shoot. Get a good DOP and enough stock and the experience of directing on film and directing on digital is very similar

 

So I don't know if i would automatically assume a filmmaker is "better" because they have shot on film. Actually I think this demand is problematic because film is expensive this could be considered an elitist recruitment strategy; that favours the potential students with deep pockets able to gain film experience and discriminates against the poorer students that may not be able to afford film. Especially on a directing course - you can tell if the potential student is talented from their reel regardless if they have shot film or digital. I've done university film programme admissions and looked at 100's of applications and the good ones stand out. I'd never demand film only, not these days, the risk of missing out on those great students that haven't got "film-film" experience would be too great.

 

If it were me - I'd do something like filming my digital movie off a monitor onto super 8. Technically they couldn't complain or just apply to the NFTS and avoid all this hoop jumping

I have applied to the NFTS for the third time now. It's not necessarily that I've lost hope of getting in, but even if I do get in, I'm pretty sure I couldn't afford it. In Bucharest I could go for free. Granted, not as good, but still a film school with resources, first-hand advice and people to collaborate with.

I don't agree that it's a good strategy either. They probably think that people who apply there have shot on actual film during their Bachelor (which in Romania they will have done), but that limits the pool of applicants by quite a bit. Some people have told me that this requirement is going to be removed soon, unfortunately not for this year.

Thanks for all the answers. I agree that shooting on film is a different experience for everyone, but I don't think it's an effective requirement for a film school. I have contacted the school office and they said they want the film on dvd, with proof that it was shot on film. The school is The National University of Theatre and Film in Bucharest.

In any case, I was looking at the cost of film and, being close to London, I found a film society that will lend me an Aaton camera with 2 lenses for £120 for a week and Kodak film, 400 ft, with processing, at £195. These are the cheapest prices I could find. For a 5 minute film, with 4:1 ratio, it would come up to almose £600, just for shooting. Does anybody know of any alternatives for camera and stock that would be cheaper?

Hi,

I'm planning on applying to a film school this summer, for a directing course. My main focus has always been directing, with cinematography being both a fascinating hobby and something I've had to do for the ultra low budget films I've made.

Now, the requirements are that you submit at least two films, of which at least one "made on film (16mm, super 16mm or 35mm)". I've got plenty of digital films to submit, but nothing on film. So I have to make a new one.

I've never shot anything on film and, as much as I'd like to have this experience, it would be very expensive. Even with clearance stock, if you factor in renting the camera, developing, scanning, then making the final prints, it would run into the thousands.

So I've thought that, since I would be scanning the film anyway and edit it in an nle, I could forgo shooting on film and shoot digitally instead, making a final print on film.

The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera has the right sensor size, dynamic range and resolution, so the way I figured, it would look very close to film. And the grain would be in the final print anyway.

Might be a weird or crazy plan, but that's why I'm running it people who've worked on film before. Any suggestions welcome!

Thanks,

Paul.

P.S. Regarding the ethics of it, I'm applying to a Directing course. Directing is the same, no matter the medium. If it was a Cinematography course it would've been a different story, but as it is, I seems like a pretty random requirement.