HD v. Super 16mm

[Max Jacoby]

Oh, and if you want ease in production, take a look at the size of an Aaton or Arri Super-16 camera package. Then pick up the new copy of American Cinematographer and look at the support gear needed for the Viper on "Collateral." Looks like their hauling HAL 9000 with them.

I just read that article. Very informative. Especially the fact that they were shooting in such low light levels and cranking up the gain on the camera so much that they couldn't judge the lighting by the look of the HD monitor anymore. What still looked good on the monitor didn't look good on the film out anymore.

 

Looks like all the people who think that having an HD monitor allows them to light by themselves and not use a Dop better rethink their approach.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> What still looked good on the monitor didn't look good on the film out anymore.

 

Then either the filmout or the monitor is wrong.

 

Phil

[Nitin Sagar]

my findings tell me shooting S16 is cheaper and faster than HD...

HD has to be colour corrected while shooting ...which takes a lot of time..

[Max Jacoby]

Then either the filmout or the monitor is wrong.

The noise just wasn't as visible on the monitor than on the film out.

[Jayson Crothers]

A 13" field monitor (or any size for that matter) yields a far different image than a 30'+ screen.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Without seeing it I hesitate to comment more - but what you're saying suggests problems with the equipment. By definition; surely you recognise the purpose of a monitor for HD?

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

Best read the AC article then. Especially for close-ups at night where noise would have been distracting on faces, they had to bring up the light levels so that it looked overlit on the monitor but pefect in the filmout.

 

I agree with Jason, there is surely a difference between a monitor and a filmout.

[Sam Wells]

Did they assess this with a print on Vision Premiere ?

 

It's surprising how Premiere seems to feather noise...

 

-Sam

[Jayson Crothers]

Without seeing it I hesitate to comment more - but what you're saying suggests problems with the equipment. By definition; surely you recognise the purpose of a monitor for HD?

 

Phil

Phil, I didn't at all mean to imply a problem with equipment, and a monitor for HD is obviously of paramount importance; what I meant to say is that viewing something on such a small source is going to inherently look and feel different than watching it on such a large source - it'll simply be two varying images. Grain, noise, focus, camera movement, etc, can, and often will, look and feel very different on TV versus the theatre. Is that more clear, sorry for the confusion.

[Jason Rodriguez]

Were they going direct from the monitor to the film-out, or were they going through a color-correction stage first? From what I gathered from the AC article, they were overlighting faces so that they had something to work with in post, so that grain wouldn't be an issue when they tried to color-correct the image and the faces were in the dark, not that the HD monitor and film-outs didn't correlate.

[Matt Pacini]

Hi,

 

I think you'll find that film requires probably more support gear; it just doesn't end up being constantly attached to the camera.

 

Phil

I'd say that's not a trivial plus.

I was filming in the mountains last summer & fall, and it's nice to be able to just grap a camera & stuff a couple batteries in my pocket (we're talking about 16mm here).

 

And I agree with Mitch, I just can't get over that pasty, flat, color-fringy VIDEO look.

Yuck.

 

 

Matt Pacini

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I just can't get over that pasty, flat, color-fringy VIDEO look.

 

Well, I can - I just shoot it so it doens't look like that...

 

Phil

[Landon D. Parks]

Well said Phil.

[Matt Pacini]

Well said Phil.

It might be well "said", but I want to see it well DONE.

 

Words are just words.

Perhaps you're some wizardry master who has learned secrets that all the top professionals shooting HD haven't figured out, because so far, all the HD I've seen still looks like video.

 

Matt Pacini

[Corey]

It seems a little crazy to me that a 16 year old would have enough money and experience to shoot a feature film. Especially in super 16 or HD. I suggest you buy a cheap camcorder, and make tons of short films. You'll learn a lot, and then later make your big movie and you can avoid all kinds of mistakes and save a load of money.

 

Good Luck

Corey

[Landon D. Parks]

It seems a little crazy to me that a 16 year old would have enough money and experience to shoot a feature film. Especially in super 16 or HD. I suggest you buy a cheap camcorder, and make tons of short films. You'll learn a lot, and then later make your big movie and you can avoid all kinds of mistakes and save a load of money.

 

Good Luck

Corey

 

I am a Computer Programmer. I am currently working on a Program that I intend to put into retail market.

 

With this, I estimate an Income of $400,000.00 - $600,000.00.

 

This is the funds I intend to use.

 

And why is it so Creazy for a 16 y.o to make a feature? Im just as capable as any other 20, 30, 40 year old....

 

I know LOTS of 16 y.o that have made features. None have ever made it anywhere to my knowlege. This is only because they lack the knowlege and Capability to deliver the final product. I dont.

 

Some wont agree, But I do.

 

I alread have a screenplay, and have a few producers interested in coming onto the project.

 

I intend to stay on as Executive Producer though.

 

Due to my age, I intend to let the business side be handled by the Line producer, UPM, and the like. as I cannot sign contracts, rent equipment, ect.

 

I have considered Emancipation to help me make this feature. That would allow me to enter into the contracts myself, and to rent the equipment. But I would just asoon hire someone to take care of that.

 

P>S) Shooting a film DOES NOT require experiance, It requires a talen and a will. If you have that, you have your film. You just gotta get it off the table.

 

The only way to ever learn to make a film is if you do it. And going out with a Hi8 Video cameras and a crew of 2, and maybee 3 actors, is NOT going to teach you how to make a movie. Besides, I'v already done enough of that kind of stuff.

 

Im still as dumb to the filmmaking process as a was before I ever started. The only way to learn to run a BIG production, is to run a big Production.

 

I intend hire talented people along side me, to help out where needed.

 

I am a hard working 16, I work full time and also balance my Programming to where I have very little time for anything else. I am no stranger to hard work.

 

Remember, NEVER underestimate somthing or someone you know nothing about. they can do AMAZING things. For all you know I may be related to Bill gates and have all the money I need.

 

You see, you dont know. So dont judge before you know the whole story.

 

In my opinion, the best part of filmmaking is working with a crew and cast. And on a small Hi8 shoot, you hardly ever have any of the like.

 

I dont mean to sound mean, But still. I think you could have choose better words than "Crazy". I do not consider myself crazy at all by the way. I understand you meant it as some helpng advice, I just dont take to kindly to being called "Crazy".

 

I have followed Project greenlight enough to know the basics of the process, and how it works. And I have also read at least 20 books on filmmaking.

 

Im not stranger to making I film. I know how its done, I just need to get out and do it.

 

Im sure with that budget, I could get a few Cameros and small parts by name stars at least. I dont think that would be enough for retaining a name the for the whole production.

 

So, continue to call me crazy all you want, but I will pull through on this.

 

Especially in super 16 or HD

What is so special about s16? I have shot 16 before, never s16. However, It is no different to shoot it.

 

And there is NOTHING special about HD either, or 35mm for that matter.

 

I think im making since, does ANYONE else here NOT agree with me?!?! If so, Im interested to find out who and why.

 

I'll stop now before I say somthing I that I dont want too and get more people mad at me.

 

Later dudes.

 

***For security reasons, I cannot give out contact info of ANYONE currently involved or soon to be involved in the Production.***

[Landon D. Parks]

It might be well "said", but I want to see it well DONE.

 

Words are just words.

Perhaps you're some wizardry master who has learned secrets that all the top professionals shooting HD haven't figured out, because so far, all the HD I've seen still looks like video.

Im no wizard, iv never shot HD before. Nor have a claimed to. I am just saying that I have seen NICE films that look exactly like Film but where shot on HD. Take Once upon a time in mexico, I though it was nice looking. Didnt look like any evening news program to me as a lot of HD haters seem to think.

[DanStewart]

Hey Landon, good luck with the film.

 

I think the reservations being voiced are more to do with it being your first feature than your age (although I think you will make the Guiness book of Records). Almost nobody is ever happy with their first film - except Ed Wood and Orson Welles...

 

Spend only what you need to - you can't compete with Hollywood in terms of slickness unless you are going to spend millions. Technical considerations are ALWAYS secondary - you can hold barbie dolls in front of the camera and still win festivals if the script is up to scratch.

 

I would strongly recommend making a 10 - 20 minute narrative piece in the style of the feature, if you haven't already. Then you will know exactly what is possible, and whether you and your crew are ready.

[Nitin Sagar]

i have started to belive that 16Vs HD discussion can go on and on.....grain colour sharpness of the final 35mm print are all comparative terms.... if it goes with the look of the film the DP and the Director aspired for it solves everyones purpose....

 

16 or HD whatever it is ...i quote something i read some place

"U have to make ur first film because it is ur first film"...(..will recollect and post the name as soon as i emember it :rolleyes: )

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm a firm believer in taking baby steps, but obviously you need a different skill set to be a cinematographer rather than a director. In fact, considering how many first-time directors I've worked with, I think they ONLY requirement to be a director seems to be having the money.

 

But of course, these are films where they've surrounded themselves with experienced crew people.

 

Probably being inexperienced AND trying to be a "total" (i.e. one-man band) filmmaker AND spending a considerable amount on the film is probably the worst combination of elements because you are essentially giving yourself a very costly education and will probably end up with something fairly amatuerish and unsellable in the end.

 

My suggestion -- besides starting out with a good script and cast -- is either collect enough of a budget to surround yourself with experienced people, especially a DP, or if you want to do everything yourself, keep it VERY small and your financial risk VERY low, plus try a "short" version some of the same ideas as a warming up exercise.

 

Just my opinion, but I've seen too many people attempt to run before they can walk and end up with a LOT of debt and nothing to show for it. It's no small thing to run up hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal debt.

 

I mean, if your model is Robert Rodriquez, then do what he did -- make a first feature for $7,000, not $70,000 or $700,000. And that was after he had been making a lot of shorts. He didn't exactly jump full-blown into big feature filmmaking either. He LEARNED his craft. And as his budgets rose, he didn't attempt to shoot his own films until he had learned something from the DP's he had hired over the years.

 

I don't have much issue with you using HD instead of Super-16 -- in many ways, I prefer HD over Super-16. Depends on the look you want. I read one script recently that's sort of a rough "life in the hood" story and Super-16 seems more appropriate than HD.

 

24P HD doesn't look like Super-16 or 35mm, it looks like 24P HD. But it can be a very nice look if you know how to shoot images to begin with; it certainly can look very film-LIKE, as opposed to looking LIKE film, if you know what I mean. But the general "digital photography" look of HD doesn't necessarily bother me as much as the niggling problems of compression and color space and resolution, which can bite you on the ass now and then. But there are issues with shooting any format that can bite you on the ass now and then...

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

David's right. Don't get in over your head. If you fail because you've bitten off more than you can chew, you'll kill any hopes of a film career before you have already began. Filmmaking is not as easy as you think it is and one's success is also affected by outside sources which you may not have control over. If it was easy everyone would be making millions doing it.

[Landon D. Parks]

I would strongly recommend making a 10 - 20 minute narrative piece in the style of the feature, if you haven't already. Then you will know exactly what is possible, and whether you and your crew are ready.

Well, I am currently in Production of a feature before this feature. It is also for Communty access TV.

 

It will be my "First" feature. I have no money rapped up in this project, and I intend to get local cast and crew from the Film School for free.

 

The house where its taking place is being donated to me for 3 weeks from a local real estate agent.

 

So, no, Im not jumping headlong into a $400,000 feature withoutb ever even being on a movie set before.

 

I would not take that risk with anyones money, especially mine.

 

I think the reservations being voiced are more to do with it being your first feature than your age

Yeah, I sorta figured that but still, I wanted to make myself fully heard.

 

(although I think you will make the Guiness book of Records)

Really? that would be nice. But Im not in this industry to make awards and have my name wamped all over hollywood. Im in it because I love making movies. Although, I will admit that the Hype sure is fun.

 

you can hold barbie dolls in front of the camera and still win festivals if the script is up to scratch.

I dont doubt that.

 

However, I would prefer to skip the festval route. to do this, there would have to be some interest in the film. That is why I budgeted for a Known name actors and two to apper in the film so that studios would have somthing market it with. I'd think $100,000.00 would get me a one if not a few known actors to play small roles in the film. just enough that I can Place there name on the project.

 

But of course, these are films where they've surrounded themselves with experienced crew people

As I intend to do. There is no way I would invest 400k in a film with no one along side me who knew what they where doing.

 

I mean, if your model is Robert Rodriquez,

Ahhh, Yes and no. I like him for his braveary, but I'm really in doubt that he is my model.

 

Im more of a person to follow in the footsteps of Chris Columbus. Hes the man :-)

 

But as fare as being brave, and having the nerve to try new stuff, rob is awsome.

 

My suggestion -- besides starting out with a good script and cast -- is either collect enough of a budget to surround yourself with experienced people, especially a DP,

Exactly. I budgeted $60k in for the crew alone. then $100k for the cast and so on. I really wanted to get Peter Biagi as DP. I really think he did a wonderful job on Stolen summer. However, I dont know what my chances are on there.

 

And no, Im not a "one man can do it all" person. I would act as Executive Producer / Director / Editor and Writer. All other fields are being taken over by someone else.

[David Mullen ASC]

There are a lot of talented DP's out there who would shoot a $160,000 feature film given the chance. Just start collecting some reels and resumes.

[Corey]

The only way to ever learn to make a film is if you do it. And going out with a Hi8 Video cameras and a crew of 2, and maybee 3 actors, is NOT going to teach you how to make a movie. Besides, I'v already done enough of that kind of stuff.

 

Making a movie is telling a story. It does not matter how many people are involved, or how much money it took to make it, or how many name actors or in it, or what you shot on.

 

You say that the only way to make a movie is to make one, so just make one. Again, it doesn't matter what it's on.

 

I am a hard working 16, I work full time and also balance my Programming to where I have very little time for anything else. I am no stranger to hard work.

 

So you have a job and go to school, when are you going to make your movie?

 

I may be related to Bill gates and have all the money I need.......In my opinion, the best part of filmmaking is working with a crew and cast. And on a small Hi8 shoot, you hardly ever have any of the like.

 

You think if you have money you can do it? And the best part of filmmaking is having a large cast and crew? That's not what it's all about

 

Shooting a film DOES NOT require experiance, It requires a talen and a will. If you have that, you have your film. You just gotta get it off the table........I have followed Project greenlight enough to know the basics of the process, and how it works. And I have also read at least 20 books on filmmaking.

 

Oh okay, you dont need experience, just read 20 books and you've got it!!

 

 

I intend hire talented people along side me, to help out where needed.

 

 

I think you could have choose better words than "Crazy".

 

I think of crazy as overly ambitious.

 

And there is NOTHING special about HD either, or 35mm for that matter.

 

You absolutely right. It works the same as Hi8. I'm not trying to be mean either, but I dont think it'll work. I think you'd be far better off saving your money and making short films for awhile, then later you will have valuable experience and can make an awesome movie on s16 or whatever.

 

Good Luck

Corey

[Landon D. Parks]

Cory:

Nice advice, and I see where your coming from. I can roll out a feature. No matter how "Weird" or "Crazy" it sounds, Im not the only one to have done it.

 

We will just see when my film is in theaters around the nation, or does not make it off the shelf. Then is the time to judge what I can and can't do.

 

Again, don't judge a book by its cover. Age has nothing to do with ANYTHING. Nor does Experiance. If 300 other Directors can walk on to a film set without a lot of experiance, so can I.

 

And, #1: Im not in school #2: The minute I go to Direct the film I'll quit my current job.

 

 

There are a lot of talented DP's out there who would shoot a $160,000 feature film given the chance. Just start collecting some reels and resumes.

I know. I have not started looking yet, but I will once I am sure the Production is funded.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

And no, Im not a think that one should take baby steps. even a baby can walk if it tries hard enough. The question is this: How quick can one LEARN to walk. In my opinion, I have already had propert production experiance to walk onto a set and say I know what Im doing.

 

For example:

Taking baby steps (The Job way):

Step 1: Production Assistant

Step 2: Assistant Editor

Step 3: 2nd Assistant Camera

Step 4: Assistant Camera

Step 5: Director of Photography

Step 6: Then, if your lucky, Director. Maybee 10 years after you started.

 

Taking Baby Steps (The Do it way):

Step 1: Make No budget hi8 short

Step 2: Make another one

Step 3: Make yet another one

Step 4: Graduate to Making a 30-40min mini-feature

Step 5: Make your first DV "Feature". Requires maybee $10 - 20k

Step 6: Make a second DV "Feature". Requires same or more as above.

Step 7: Make a S16 feature. Requires maybee $20 - 50k

Step 8: Finally, you can either make your first real HD or 35mm feature. Or PRAY to god someone will hire you to direct the film. Do it yourself will require $200,000 - 1million

 

OR

Taking big step:

Step 1: Make a Mini-Feature for nothing.

Step 1.5: If you want, for the added experiance, make another one.

Step 2: Make Hd or 35mm Film for $200,000.00 and hope that someone likes it. Hope that it gets a Distrobution deal. If you do, then your Career as a Director is set in maybee 3-9 months instead of 10-20 years. And if it bombs, try again. At ;least youll have the experiance of a large feature under your belt and know what you did wronge and be able to correct it next time. (Its also cheaper than the 2nd way) Of course, this does require a LOT of money. If you dont have the money, then this step will not work. In which case you must use Process 1 or 2.

 

Personally, I like the last process better.

 

Just my Opinion.