chris dye

Yeah. Halloween was shot with Panavision anamorphic lenses for $300,000 in 3 weeks at a time when the average budget must've been 20 million or so. For a low budget film, Halloween looks great even to this day. I wonder what 'difficulties', if any, they encountered shooting anamorphic on such a low budget, especially for the nighttime scenes?

[quote name='Felipe Perez-Burchard' post='180783' date='Jun 29 2007, 05:47 PM']Just for people who are unfamiliar, it would be good to explain that the final image does NOT look the same, only has the "same" aspect ratio. To many times I've heard people who don't know ask me what is the difference if in the end you end up with the same ratio. Shooting with an anamorphic lens has very different image characteristics in terms of depth of field, breathing focus, and as David said you have less grain due to the larger negative size and no need for optical step (granted that goes away with a DI, but then there is the whole 2K vs 4K).[/quote] I agree. Even as a kid, before I knew much about cinematography or what an anamorphic lens was, I noticed certain theatrical movies had a seemingly bigger look to them (especially when they were shown on TV). Personally, I love the anamorphic look. It's shallow depth of field, full use of negative etc. I know it's a pain for first AC's in regards to focus, etc, but I will shoot in that format one day, even if it's a five minute short. It'd be a shame if it went away. It surprises me to hear that Spielberg may have been 'forced' to shoot in that format in his early years. I convinced myself that he loved the format because it's so 'anti-television' and it was his way of saying goodbye to working in the small screen back then. Anamorphic lenses may have 'flawed' characteristics, but weren't lens flares considered bad in the beginning? Now they intentionally add stuff like that in video games to give it a 'cinematic' feel to them. Anamorphic almost means 'cinematic' to me.

That's true. I've watched and sold things on ebay. You have a better chance at selling something starting at $1.00 than starting higher or with 'buy it now' only. If you have an item that is starting at $1.00 and another exact item with 'buy it now' at $25.00, the item that started at $1.00 will be more likely to sell and usually for a higher price than the one listed with 'buy it now'.

In terms of stock, processing and transfer, assuming you're simply going to transfer to Digibeta and edit from there (no DI or print required), what would the cost difference be between shooting 2 perf and Super 16? These are the figures I came up with. I'm going to keep this simple though. Let's say we plan on shooting 24 400' rolls of 16mm. The 2 perf equivalent would be about 12 1000 foot rolls or 12,000 feet of 35mm. Correct? Let's say we can get those 24 rolls of 16mm for $100 each and you can get 12,000 feet of 35mm short ends for .20 foot (short ends seem great for 2 perf). This would come out to: 24 rolls 16mm=$2400 12,000' 35mm short ends=$2,400 If my math isn't off, the cost for film is the same here. Now to develop, I know a place that processes for .10 foot. process 12,000 feet short ends=$1200 process 9,600 feet 16mm=approx $1000 Not a huge difference. Transfer approx 6 hours run time to Digibeta @ 300/hr=$1,800 Total cost Super 16=$5,200 Total cost 2 perf 35mm=$5,400 Again. No DI or print is needed. We just want to go straight to Digibeta. Is the difference really this small? I realize that 2 perf cameras are hard to come by at this point, but assuming the Penelope will be available, this may longer be a huge deal. Most labs seem capable of processing 2 perf as well, so that doesn't seem to pose too much of a problem either or am I missing something? With figures like this, who wouldn't shoot 2 perf? Thanks for your help.

Most 16x9 TV's have a 'fill' feature which stretches 4x3 images to fill the 16x9 screen or a 'zoom' feature which will, in effect, 'crop' a 4x3 image to get rid of the black sidebars. Watching 4x3 shows stretched or zoomed isn't too bad, but I think I prefer the black sidebars (just to keep the image true). I have a decent 32" 16x9 HD LCD monitor and I'm able to get HD over the air local channels for free and shows like the Tonight Show look awesome. I mostly watch (non HD) cable though and I too see the black side bars all the time. You do get used to it. It's almost a no win situation because if you have a 16x9 TV, older 4x3 shows will have bars on the side and if you have a regular old 4x3 TV, widescreen movies and certain letterboxed TV shows will have bars on the top and bottom.

Will this be available for the Arri's before or after the Penelope (supposedly Sept. 2007)? I myself have been inquiring about and hoping for a Techniscope comeback as far back as 1999. It's an awesome format and makes some sense to revive it.

The first film I ever worked on, I lucked into a camera intern position (I believe the position was created for me because I asked). A great experience all around. Anyway, at first, I thought it was a student film or very low budget thing, but it turned out to be a 1 million dollar movie with a few actors and stars that went on to bigger and better things since: Jeff Goldblum (sort of strange in a way, but a nice guy. Took a picture with me) Rory Cochrane (first big role. Nice kid. Took a picture with me) Michael Imperioli Famke Jansen (her debut movie. seemed nice) Samuel Jackson (before he became SAMUEL JACKSON. I remember asking then who he was and what he was in. Answer: he was the guy with the shotgun in Coming to America) Roseanna Arquette (seemed nice) John C. McGinley Natasha Wagner (very cool and down to earth)

I can always tell when Super 8 is shot in 18fps. Shooting and projecting Super 8 at 18fps doesn't look as smooth as shooting and projecting 24fps. There is a difference. It isn't just a 'sound speed' thing. Shooting and projecting at 18fps gives Super 8 that slightly jerky 'home movie' look. Shooting 24fps is smoother and gives Super 8 more of a 16mm look. I noticed this as a kid when I bought my first Super 8 camera (A Minolta xl-42 sound camera which I still have to this day). The Minolta camera I have actually takes nice pictures, but it only shoots 18fps, so you only achieve that 'home movie' look. Years later I purchased a Nizo 6080 (which I still have) and it shoots 24fps (among other speeds). I'd never shoot 18fps with that camera. The Nizo footage looks like 16mm if lit properly.

I'm too in love with film. Nothing wrong with video, but I can't bring myself to make a movie on 'video'. Sorry. I don't let the cost of something stop me from doing something I really want to do (and that's make a movie and have it look like a movie). HD video is looking great these days and it's getting harder to tell whether it's film or video right away (Click surprised me), especially from cameras like the Genesis. As a matter of fact, sometimes even film itself these days looks too clean and glossy. Like M. Night Shymalan, I, too, think video is too clean and glossy looking. I prefer the 70's look. Funny how some people dislike the look of movies from the 60's and 70's, but I love it. I grew up on that (maybe that's why). It's got a slight 'grit' and grain to it, but you can still tell when something's shot on 35mm from those days. I love the horror genre and I simply can't imagine shooting a horror movie on video. Half the fun of watching a Hammer movie or Mario Bava movie is the look of it. I shot a little horror film on Super 8 about ten years ago. Nothing great. I cringe at the acting and script, but I LOVE looking at it. I shot in the fall and seeing the trees blowing in the wind on grainy Super 8 is cool. It helps with the 'atmosphere'. It's exactly what I was going for in terms of the look. It just wouldn't look the same on video (even 'filmlooked' video or HD). Super 8 looks cool, but I don't shoot on it anymore because the cost is so close to 16mm that I feel it's more worth it to simply shoot 16mm. (I own a NIZO 6080 and a Frezzolini LW-16 news camera. Both take outstanding pictures. These old cameras blow away any state of the art DV camera out there). I remember reading about Robert Rodriguez comparing film and video. He felt his HD camera was like a Ferrari and a film camera was a Volkswagen or something. I don't see it that way because I'm sure that the HD camera he purchased then has since been 'upgraded' or even outright replaced and film cameras remain the same and are STILL superior in image capture. Which is the real Ferrari? All these guys who were shooting movies on standard DV a few years ago and were saying how great it looked and how it looked like film (which I vehemently disagreed with) have probably since jumped to HDV and saying how much better it is than standard DV. But those old Arri's and CP-16's are still chugging along producing better images than those cameras can ever hope to. Soon some other better video technology will come along and they'll jump on that band wagon and guess what? Those old film cameras will still give them a run for their money. Ironic too that all the film haters out there (and there's a growing number of them really because of the expense of film not the look of it) try so desperately to make their video look like film (the format they seemingly want to die a quick death because the expense prevented them from making a movie apparently). Just because video looks like film and is cheap and 'easy' to use, doesn't mean it's better. I'd rather go through the trouble of shooting film because at least then I don't have to go through the trouble of making it look like film.

I love the film/video debate, so for my first post, I'll chime in with a little something. I'm a film guy all the way. Nothing snobby about it. Just a preference. Film has a 'magical' quality to it that I can't explain in words. Video (HD or otherwise) just isn't the same. Watching my first film dailies many moons ago was the coolest thing ever (I still very much look forward to 'dailies'). As a kid I even got excited getting back my Super 8 footage from Fotomat (remember those?). I've shot video and it never had the same effect as film did when watching it. I bought my first Super 8 camera back in 1985, just when home video cameras were putting the final deathblow into Super 8 film cameras. I remember the salesman trying to sell me a video camera instead. I think my response to him was 'but I want to make movies with it'. That's not to say I ignore what's happening in the video realm. I've always paid attention to it. I first saw HD in person back in 1990 and was very impressed, but not for making a movie. I even remember reading an American Cinematographer article back in 1992 about a Sony/Panavision HD camera that was being tested and thinking 'cool'. From what I see of the Genesis, it seems awesome, but it's quite expensive to rent I'm sure. Anyway, I think what's most disturbing about the 'digital' hype is not that digital isn't as good as film or that it will eventully take over, but that most of those falling for the hype and pushing for the death of film seem to be amateurs and 'wannabes' who believe the cost of film was the only thing stopping them from making a film. The reality is they hate film because it's expensive. They can't possibly hate film for the way it looks because I guarantee their favorite films are shot on film. Not to mention, many of these DV 'amateurs' believe their first 'films' are good enough for festivals and distribution. So in an age where there is a slew of shot on DV 'films' out there, it isn't surprising to hear that distributors are praising you if you shoot something on film. If you're making an 'indie' film and wou want to stand out in the crowd, all you have to do is shoot 35mm (or better yet 65mm). No one will reject you because you shot on 35mm (as David said, 35mm suggests money was spent on the production). You're still taken more seriously when you shoot on a 'professional' format. Not on a camera you can buy at CIrcuit City (please don't bring up Blair Witch).