Is the A-Minima now Dead? (Is 16mm Dead too?)

[Filip Plesha]

First of all i would like to comment on what you said about the audience not knowing the difference...

 

i have been asking the question do they see the difference to many

people that are not in the film industry,nor have ever been reading about

the differences between video and film etc...

 

And i was suprized how much people notice it, and most of them

were not sure if it was just them or there was a real difference.

There are some people that really do not see it,but they are not 90%,

 

 

Secondly...

 

you are all the time talking about the quality...

 

Qualitty is subjective most of the time...

 

But if you want objective qualitty shoot tests and make a MTF curve for

video and film

then go to chalenging light conditions and see what will get blown up

with video,and what with film..

 

And above all...

film look is film look...

if someone wants real film look he will use 16mm or super 16

 

So as long as there are people that want the texture of film

and have money to pay for shooting on 16mm

it won't die...

[Bill Totolo]

"Secondly...

 

you are all the time talking about the quality..."

 

I'm always surprised when people argue against quality.

It's always some first time director who quotes from Robert Rodriguez's book.

It's never the seasoned professional who's directed a hundred projects (commercials, feature films, MOW, sitcoms etc).

 

That said, I've shot tons o' miniDV but never did I claim it looked as good as film, even when it was mistaken for film.

[IBL]

I have no doubt that film will not die for quite some time because of 35mm cinema projection alone and Kodak still make Super 8mm for Super 8mm cameras. It was more or less a nod to the direction that digital is going and how less these other systems will be used as the digital age grows more and more.

 

 

Lucas is an big time director and he thinks Digital is the way.

 

Spielberg thinks not.

 

 

Yes I guess it is mostly about what you feel you can do with your limitations and what you want to see but can people here safely say that their kids will use 16mm with the way things are moving? I think the evolution of DV stuff this part year or two has blown me away. I would never have thought this say - four or five years ago.

 

Okay I actually sold a project recently and my royalties start next month. With that I have enough to wait for several more royality checks and pick up the A-Minima or buy a complete DVX kit with anamorphics, Matte box and a DvRigPro with one royalty payment. I am leaning in the DVX direction at the moment just based on what I got and what is around me. BTW - I will have to BUY because my project is going to span a few years (Two to Three me thinks).

 

Anybody here used the DvRigPro BTW? Is it good and worth the price tag?

[IBL]

And as another thought - didn't 16mm replace the old 9mm format? and didn't Super 35mm replace Vista-Vision cameras?

 

Film formats also change too don't they...

[Filip Plesha]

Bill...

 

i never argued against qualitty...

i was just trying to change the theme of my post to qualitty,

i didn't kno whow to start,maybe it sounded wrong...

 

i was just starting the qualitty theme...

[IBL]

Yeah but the issue of quality was it not Kubrick who said that film was the cheapest part of any Hollywood production?

 

Also how many major Hollywood films are actually shot on 70mm. Some of the production photographs I see look like huge 70mm cameras at times and yet they always say it was a 35mm production.

[Filip Plesha]

Allso people often think of the future as if they think of

what happens next in a film...

But it is people who make the future...

If there are more people that want to use 16mm then

the industry will please them by providing cameras and film stock,

it is in the interest of the equipment industry to sell their products..

And if more people want digital video,then it will be so...

history is not written in advance

 

 

edit: IBL...its 65mm,not 70mm, only prints are 70mm

[Mitch Gross]

And as another thought - didn't 16mm replace the old 9mm format? and didn't Super 35mm replace Vista-Vision cameras?

 

Film formats also change too don't they...

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.

[Mitch Gross]

Yeah but the issue of quality was it not Kubrick who said that film was the cheapest part of any Hollywood production?

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.

[Mitch Gross]

Also how many major Hollywood films are actually shot on 70mm. Some of the production photographs I see look like huge 70mm cameras at times and yet they always say it was a 35mm production.

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.

[IBL]

Do you know Mitch when I look at your costings I can see right away why the DVX is going to be cheaper in the long run for me. The figure you quoted for the DV blowup also includes any and all effects done in post-production on DV right? and for 16mm that is going to be additional isn't it? As in titles, digital correcting, digital effects, color grading, credits and any form of image manipulation is going to cost you extra on 16mm isn't it? But in your DV figure it is all inclusive right?

[Bill Totolo]

No worries, Windman, I wasn't directing my comments directly to you. I was just addressing the issue of quality as well.

 

I was supposed to shoot a gig commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Porsche 911 but the director was so inept that he was let go. So the project died.

 

He kept fighting against using the necessary tools the whole way. It started as it usually does, sounding like all the little things are taken care of, that the director cares about the image, etc...then slowly day by day it unravelled.

 

BTW, speaking of films shot in S16, I was really impressed with "Thirteen".

[Mitch Gross]

Do you know Mitch when I look at your costings I can see right away why the DVX is going to be cheaper in the long run for me. The figure you quoted for the DV blowup also includes any and all effects done in post-production on DV right? and for 16mm that is going to be additional isn't it? As in titles, digital correcting, digital effects, color grading, credits and any form of image manipulation is going to cost you extra on 16mm isn't it? But in your DV figure it is all inclusive right?

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.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I am leaning in the DVX direction at the moment just based on what I got and what is around me. BTW - I will have to BUY because my project is going to span a few years (Two to Three me thinks).

I'm right now in my second year of shooting a 35mm feature, my main costs are film, processing, video transfer, and the purchase of my equipment (an Arriflex IIc - which costs virtually the same as a prosumer DV cam, a 250 GB USB/Firewire hard disk, a Pentium computer that I built myself, a mic and tube preamp for dialog looping, etc).

 

I don't regret shooting on 35mm and the reasons for this are:

 

1) I get short ends that cost one sixth of the price of fresh Kodak stock.

 

2) I got a decent negative processing deal - not the lowest price possible but pretty low.

 

3) I use 500 asa film and sometimes push, so I don't have to use very high wattage and therefore don't need a generator like I likely would with 16mm (where 200 asa is pretty much the fastest I'd use).

 

4) I can light faster with film. I am less reliant on fill light (oftentimes a silver card will do the trick for closeups), nor do I have to diffuse my lights and draw extra amperes to compensate. I have often shot with a crew of one (never again though!)

 

5) I can't afford a professional soundman, nor are my locations quiet, so I ADR all my dialog and an MOS camera is therefore not a problem.

 

6) My film will (hopefully) do business overseas where I don't have to worry about PAL-NTSC issues. I also hope it will do theatrical business there, and every theater in the world has no problem showing a straight 35mm print.

 

7) I have the respect of a 35mm feature film when I speak to professionals, and it is a good marketing tool. When people see it on a large screen they always feel the difference, because I have (pretty well lit) Hi8 footage as well as DV footage cut in sometimes. They can tell.

 

8) As per point 6, I will never have a problem with any distributor based on film format, which means a lot for an independent movie that has no stars or easily exploitable elements (sex, gore, guns)

 

9) I shoot faster because I know I can't spend as much film. That's not always a nice feeling but it can be helpful.

 

10) I have a depth of field I can work with.

 

11) I don't have to worry about what will happen to my movie's marketability when home viewers begin heavily investing in HDTV sets should my film do good business.

 

12) Video wouldn't save me much money when it comes to a theatrical release, probably even cost more (as Mitch pointed out), if you take into account the fact that I'm paying less for my film.

 

13) My work is preserved is on a strong acetate medium which is archivally stable and universally compatible - I don't have to recompress to MPEG-2 and burn it onto a DVD disk in order to know that it is safe.

 

14) My camera is sturdy and relatively weather proof (no "dew indicator" problems).

 

15) The cast and crew can relax and joke around as I sweat and reload the mags :P

 

I think I made the right decision. I really believe in my project and I want it to be recorded on film, because I think it will give it the best chance from an artistic as well as financial perspective. Sure there are disadvantages which I can list, to be fair:

 

1) I have a noisy MOS camera, and some intense dialog sequences and foleys could have easily been recorded in sync if I had just one person holding a boom pole correctly - but this is not an option. If I had gotten an Arri BL1 for a few thousand more, and about 2-3 grand worth of sound equipment, this would be a non-issue.

 

2) I have to constantly watch my focus - I've already had to reshoot because of focus errors. I can't do certain shots because the focus moves would be too complicated, and not all my talent (some of which is completely inexperienced) can hit marks. My Arri has no follow focus unit, just lens tabs (owch). While video also has focus issues (which get amplified on a large screen), they are not as critical as with film, to be fair.

 

3) Reloading every 200-250 ft is a bitch, and I'm not about to spring a few thousand bucks for more magazines.

 

4) You must outlay money up front to shoot and develop, and that is sometimes difficult to do, unless you have it all ready.

 

5) The camera is heavier than most DV equipment, and every now and then I find a shot I couldn't do because of the Arri's high magazine profile (i.e. inside a passenger car).

 

6) An unpleasant task known as "negative matching".

 

7) Having to go to the lab to get my film processed and transferred to tape, versus being able to stick a tape into a machine and get a playback after the day's shoot (I do, however, run a cheap mini DV camcorder during sync takes to check performance and record scratch audio).

 

Overall I'm happy having chosen 35mm film, for the reasons mentioned. I am doing this project over a long period of time (the last two months of shooting are finally within view), and in a way it's also nice to know that something you worked so hard over is going to be recorded on such a solid medium. I'd hate to think that my people and I worked all this time for something on a little crummy mini DV tape that has such a limited quality when projected on even a small screen.

 

This is, of course, just my opinion.

 

For my project, I could have opted for 16mm (it was, btw, the first choice I was going to make). But I don't see myself doing my film on video. Not that I think video is below me as a medium, it's just that I think it would detract from what I am trying to achieve.

 

Hope this helps,

 

- G.

[IBL]

George that pretty much sums up the kind of pros and cons I have. I was going to shoot on a Konvas and the real reason for going 35mm was because it was an industry standard and like you said would get that recognition. However in the long term I thought: But this is my first feature, why not see if the content works, if I can do a good film and it is not all just in my head with years of much more experience needed.

 

Then I thought because of budget constraints, if I shoot DV and submit this to a distributer in its finished format on DV they might say one of a couple things.

 

(1)Your feature sucks! Go away!

(2)Okay great stuff. Not worth throwing another budget at for the cinemas but will do okay on DVD.

(3)Okay we go with a blowup to 35mm which we pay for and do a cinema release too.

(4)A 35mm "remake" with a better budget. Here is more cash and a better production team. Go remake it on 35mm.

 

 

Good luck on your 35mm project. I hope it works it as you wanted it too.

[Brad Grimmett]

"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.

Not the one I flew. It was comparable to a G2. A little heavier, but not much. Just an FYI.

[IBL]

Here is 308 65mm productions...

 

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?OFM:65%20mm

[Tim Carroll]

George,

 

You wrote "in a way it's also nice to know that something you worked so hard over is going to be recorded on such a solid medium. I'd hate to think that my people and I worked all this time for something on a little crummy mini DV tape that has such a limited quality when projected on even a small screen."

 

I have to say that is really one of the biggest reasons we work in film now. I have been an actor and director for over twenty years. The films we work on now are labors of love for me and much of my crew. So many of the actors are folks I have known and worked with for years. There is something, for me anyway, in recording these perfomances on film. It is a way of respecting the work of these wonderful people, who are so giving of their time and talents to make these projects work.

 

I realize that is not a very technical reason to work in film, and I realize it costs us more money, but it feels right.

 

-Tim

[John Pytlak RIP]

Here's a link to the new Kodak website devoted to 16mm production: B)

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/index.jhtml

 

As others have said, it's really a matter of the "look" you want. If you find recent productions that really have the "look" you want, do your research and find out how they were shot. Super-16 can offer a way to get a real "film look" on a lower budget.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

But this is my first feature, why not see if the content works, if I can do a good film and it is not all just in my head with years of much more experience needed.

I agree that it's a good idea to practice on a less expensive medium. I played around with video quite a bit, it's good for learning things like setups, camera moves, and so on. But I hate the lighting aspect, it's absolutely a horror to look at that monitor and see just what a bitch of a job it is to make it look good (not to mention trusting the monitor, unless it's an expensive one).

 

I personally am in a position with my project where I can't spend much time on lighting (I'm the only crew member, remember), so my lighting has to be very conservative. With video, this just doesn't work out, I have to spend a good time rigging fill light and being super careful about hot spots. In addition I have to rely on my actors a bit more not to walk into hot spots, etc.

 

I could of course just put a baking sheet over a 1K and shoot away, but that yields very boring images. In film I am not afraid of hard light. I also have a greater dynamic range so I don't have to worry about separation as much.

 

If I wanted my images to look halfway decent, video would be the last choice for a film where I have no schedule. 35mm high speed film, grainy as it is (especially short ends), really does the job best from a functional perspective when all is said and done.

 

I've had moments where I would do a camera speed test/slate in a room without ANY lighting, and I see this footage on my telecine transfer. The unlit image I get looks way better on 35mm film than on DV, so if I wanted to do a truly hardcore Dogme style film without any real lighting, 35mm would fare much better and sometimes make the difference between something that is passable and simply unwatchable junk.

 

What concerns the director's aspect of the job, which I am also involved in, I can say that I chose to shoot on film also because the subject matter of my type of film has never quite been done (it's a comic film about terrorism, acted mostly by Eastern Orthodox Christians, filmed in America). For me to do well with it it has to do business overseas, and I am pretty positive that once it gets to the target countries, it will get me in the black ink - in addition to direct video sales here in America (plus a few theatrical showings at festivals I hope). My actors are mostly amateurs, the film is far from Hollywood quality (there are continuity gaffe's and technical imperfections), and it's the largest project I've done for myself as a director - and I know I make mistakes. But what it lacks in that it makes up in sincerity I think. Whatsmore, doing a project over a long period of time lets you think more about it and make it better, slowly but surely.

 

Of course, you have to be able to FINISH it. But whether you shot on film or tape, that's pretty immaterial - it's really the morale that you need to get it all in the can. There's also something to be said about the up-front financial commitment that comes from shooting on film (esp. if a good deal of it comes from your own pocket). There's an added incentive to finishing the film, as opposed to simply dropping it - when you've put a large chunk of your savings in it. That's not only important to you as a developing filmmaker, but even if you decide that you have no business making films afterwards, it's important to all those who've helped you. They at least get a tape and feel that they've won a victory for their troubles.

 

I could have shot this on DV of course, but then the steam that I need to get a film like this off the road would be tougher to gather. I would have one less thing working in my favor, and while I'm not saying it wouldn't work, I think it was one thing I needed to have as an insurance policy.

 

You may find that video works better for you, and you simply want to get something off the ground. But especially with a project that takes such a long time to make (over six months), the factor of what Tim and I mentioned, having your work on film, will make even better sense. I'd hate it if so much of my time and effort ended up on DV. Besides, what if suddenly a much better format comes across (say another company like JVC releases a prosumer HDTV camera that is useable for production), what are you going to do then, with a year and a half of work already filmed on DV, when everyone else is running around with one of those new HDTV wonders and doing their independent film?

 

Anyway, it is of course your business to decide and I'd hate it if you ended up with an unsellable product, be it on film or on tape. But labor (even goodwill, untrained labor) counts for at least as much as my filmstock, that is the way I feel about it.

 

- G.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

As a side note, I also forgot to mention the timing and telecine process that I can use with film. You can't do that tape to tape without introducing a lot of noise and compression artifacts. That can also be critical in getting useable images sometimes. When the digital intermediate comes down in price, the greater powers of the telecine will extend to low budget films that are meant for theater release. Still, even timing in itself is a pretty good tool.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

If I was ever to go to the effort of shooting a feature, I'd certainly want it on something better'n miniDV. Our original correspondent needs to understand that his Panasonic miniDV camera is at the bottom of a pile, about two-thirds of the way up which is an A-minima.

 

Phil

[IBL]

Hi,

 

If I was ever to go to the effort of shooting a feature, I'd certainly want it on something better'n miniDV. Our original correspondent needs to understand that his Panasonic miniDV camera is at the bottom of a pile, about two-thirds of the way up which is an A-minima.

 

Phil

Phil If I had the money I would do it on 65mm and have Lucas for digital correction in there too.

 

I am talking realism here with a big Kapitol! R! :ph34r:

 

Remember if someone can pull off "28 Days Later" on DV they have nothing to complain about except that they could have done it on a better format. To be frank I am certainly going to be able to do what I could not have done before with a major backer. Yes, after or later we can all go with the bigger and better systems but right now that is not even the same sport for me.. :(

 

 

Also think about it this way. If I achieve with DV then the next jump is not 16mm. It is 35mm. 16mm or DV for a first feature on a low-budget? I think the masses will go with the new DV even if does forsake a little quality for economics. I also love the fact that I can do whatever I want to the DV in the digital realm and it still costs the same to print it onto 35mm. You can color correct everything, add effects, clean up the image, enhance it, add extra cine effects, titles, credits and it would all cost the same as just transfer from out-of-the-camera DV to 35mm.

[Mitch Gross]

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.

[IBL]

There is also another thing I want to add to this too.

 

"Pi" is the kind of entry film that no one would complain about on their CV as a first Indy movie.

 

"28 Days Later" is more than acceptable in terms of how it looks on the big screen or DVD.

 

"28 Days Later" looked better than "Pi".

 

If you can do a "Pi" that looks like "28 Days Later" then I am sure no one is going to compain if you turn up to the distributers with a film like that shot on DV but is now on a hard disk and is waiting to be scanned to 35mm. This is the route I personally feel that most Indy directors will now go if the funds are limited. Since 16mm was the old route before then I think there is logic here to assume that 16mm is not going to be as popular as it was with Indy film makers before, no?