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

[IBL]

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 but equally we have seen junk 16mm and junk 35mm too.

 

 

Let's keep it fair and balanced like Fox News :D

[Mitch Gross]

Yes but equally we have seen junk 16mm and junk 35mm too.

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:

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Yes but equally we have seen junk 16mm and junk 35mm too.

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.

Mitch really has a good point here in particular.

 

If you shoot on DV, that is the new "cheapie" medium. It has a stigma of "cheapie indie feature" associated with it.

 

Back a few years ago when Hi8 and SVHS was the only prosumer format out there (and nobody back then was even thinking of comparing it to 35 or 16, for some reason mini DV got such a privilege though...), 16mm was considered to be the cheapie indie format. Now, suprisingly, 16mm has sort of moved up the ladder in a way since so many people have begun shooting DV (of course, the word "Super" has to be there as a prefix to 16, unless you intend to go 1.33:1 which I wish more people did).

 

Anyway, this to me is also first and foremost about FUNCTIONALITY, not just a business savvy proof of product.

 

Just take your video camera outside on a contrasty, sunny day without lights or bounce boards and try to film a scene straight. Just watch those zebra patterns explode. Watch those shadows blacken up. I can get away with this on film, especially color negative 16 or 35, even if I have no source of fill (okay, you'll get that film documentary look to it but it will at least look more pleasant, and there IS more detail to be seen). If you're shooting tape, you'll find yourself praying for cloud cover and mist. Try shooting against the sky on tape. It's harder.

 

Anyway, I wish you luck either way you go!

 

- G.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

An example of a setup shot with a DV camera...

 

 

and the same setup shot on film (off Kodak Gold 400 still film, scanned on a flatbed from a Kodak print) same lighting.

 

 

[IBL]

http://www.icexpo.com/SoftScreenClips.html

 

George have a look at the left hand side clips here...

[IBL]

BTW - the chick is a yummy mummy too :D

[Tim Carroll]

IBL,

 

I have talked to ICExpo quite a bit about what he is doing with the DVX100. He has sent me clips and we have swapped info. ICE is doing real good work with the DVX, with his soft screen and the anamorphic lens. He has even found ways of getting greater depth of field from the little camera. You give him an A-minama or a ARRI SR3 or Aaton XTR and he will make even better images. He has spent much time and effort studying how to create beautiful images. You are comparing some of the best images that can be created with the DVX camera, to some of the worst images created on 16mm. It seems you are more interested in convincing yourself that the DVX is the right choice for you.

 

You should get that camera if it is what you want, we don't have to agree with you. And if you create something really wonderful, with a story that just captures people and won't let them go, you will probably have success with it. Just remember there are thousands of others out there that are calling themselves filmmakers because they had the $3500 to buy that camera. And when you submit to film festivals, and they ask you what was your acquasition format, when you put down DV, that will lump you in with all those thousands of others. So your story better be able to jump out there and grab them, or it will get lost in the crowd.

 

Good Luck

-Tim

[GeorgeSelinsky]

George have a look at the left hand side clips here...

As Tim said, this man has spent a lot of effort making beautiful images.

 

But you can light the hell out of video and make it look as good as possible, but it will always 1) require more work, 2) never have the same range or resolution, esp. on a large screen, 3) will still have to be output to film at high cost, 4) still carry the stigma associated with the format of origination. That won't change, unless you point a machine gun at the film festival programmers and aquisition executives - they'll swear that VHS-C in EP mode has more resolution than Imax in that case :ph34r:

 

I mean, that screen is awesome for closeups and medium shots, but you have to rig it, make room for it, have two stands for it. Not something I'd bother with. And I'm sure at a certain angle you get glare off of it. And yes, it's probably not free either.

 

If you have the time and resources (not to mention expeirence which also helps) to do such a job, by all means godspeed to you.

 

Just to top it off, that girl isn't as sexy as my leading actress, just my opinion <_<

[Fredrik Broman]

Yes but equally we have seen junk 16mm and junk 35mm too.

Of course a $7000 MiniDV movie also won [sundance] this year, so what the fu** do I know? :lol:

If it's Primer you're refering to it was actually shot on super-16mm.

[IBL]

Okay I have learned a few things here.

 

However I will say this much. I have worked most formats. Used film now and again. Used video now and again. I am very much pro film. Some of you do not think that because I am pushing the DVX here, but I am doing that for a reason. I want to see how many people here are thinking, yeah, I am thinking that too.

 

I just wanted to see if anyone here would say realistically - Yep, I would choose the DVX, hands down, to do my next feature rather than the 16mm that I used before because heck my film didn't even get a cinema release and I didn't get an option for a DVD release but I did get option for television.

 

I just wanted to see realistically how many people would turn away from 16mm on the bases that the work they have done to date did not justify shooting on 16mm or 35mm when the DVX would have been sufficient to do the job that they wanted to do.

 

The reaction I have seen here so far is mostly what I have expected. Die-Hard film fans, but that is exactly why I came here. I wanted to see how many of the Die-Hards have been swayed in the slightest by it.

 

Sure there are those who will do film because it is the industry standard. That is understandable. But what gets me so far is that hardly anyone here has said - Yep, this is my next move on the bases of what I have learned from experience. This format will allow me to do things that I could not do before and still feeds the kids at the same time.

 

In short what is point to the DVX then? Many of you say that this it is just a gimmik to make people think they are film makers. However this is still one hell of a "little" camera and I can not for the life of me understand why not one single serious cinematographer here has said - "This is the camera that will redefine how I shoot my next picture."

 

I personally think from what I have seen, the tests I have done, that this camera will get those who wanted to make "GOOD" films on 16mm and 35mm noticed as opposed to those who wanted to make some sort of film on 16mm and 35mm to establish that they can handle the industry standard format.

 

I can still not believe that the DVX has not swayed anyone from changing from 16mm to this camera for their next shoot. You see if someone came up to me and said they wanted to make a Indy film with their friends I would not say - shoot 16mm. I would say - Get the DVX. However you guys think 16mm is the way to go, yet just looking at what 16mm have made directors in the past 5 years and what DV has done... hmmm.. I say the jury is still out on this side. And this is coming from someone who can shot 35mm (Konvas 2M) for his picture 2morrow but knows that the DVX gives him more control over the image manipulation in the editing room at a more economic price. I also know how hard it is to edit 35mm for print. Anything facier than a cut and bam $$$$. Same for 16mm. This is why I am thinking - how come the 16mm people here would not use the DVX when they could really add pep to this movie post-production for next to nothing on the edit suite.

 

Is there anybody out there who fits this bill at all??? :blink:

[Mitch Gross]

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.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I personally think from what I have seen, the tests I have done, that this camera will get those who wanted to make "GOOD" films on 16mm and 35mm noticed as opposed to those who wanted to make some sort of film on 16mm and 35mm to establish that they can handle the industry standard format.

There are two approaches we are taking here,

 

1) Theoretical, as far as filmmakers en masse are concerned, and

 

2) Practical, as it applies to you specifically.

 

I think the second question is much more important than the first, because it really always comes down to that. Theory is fun to debate, but it's not as important in the greater scheme of things.

 

If your tests are satisfactory to you, by all means that's enough of a green light for you continue exploring this option, and weigh all factors that we've outlied here carefully. A feature film is, of course, a serious undertaking, unlike a short, and you can't change horses midstream really. Once you make a choice you pretty much have to stick with it.

 

I myself and others here have given you enough warnings about the negative aspects you will encounter. They relate to both functionality and the business end of film - not just the aesthetic end of things, which is pretty easy to argue.

 

Our job as DP's extends to producing good, useable images. The job of a director and producer is to settle on what is "good enough", especially in situations where you are limited (which is the case on a low budget, first time film).

 

Sometimes people like me don't have the time or resources to make something look as nice as it could look - the idea is you do the best you can in the given situation, so long as the final result will "work". What "works" of course, is up to you and the director to determine, through testing and experience. That is the angle that I'm taking it from.

 

If given your production circumstances, your story, and your aspirations for a certain end result, the choice of digital video will satisfy you, you should by all means accept it and hope that the audience (as well as the business end of production) agrees in retrospect that you "chose wisely" - to quote the guardian of the grail...

 

- G.

[Paul Marschall]

As for the price different in S16 and 35, I think it's pretty big, but can't find any numbers to back me up at the moment.

To purchase and process 100,000' of 35mm is ~$75,000 (kodak catalogue prices) and for 40,000' (equivolent running time) of S16 is ~$20,000.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

To purchase and process 100,000' of 35mm is ~$75,000 (kodak catalogue prices) and for 40,000' (equivolent running time) of S16 is ~$20,000.

If it wasn't for short ends, I would not be shooting in 35mm at its catalog price of around $0.60 a foot.

[Jayson Crothers]

I agree that you shoot with the format that is most appropriate for your story, and if budget ONLY allows you to shoot on DV, then DV it is..........but make no mistake that DV, at the present time, is NOT at all of the image quality of film. Period. People who want to believe that DV is/can be better either buy into misguided hype or want to so badly believe this fact that they ignore real facts and reason. This mentality is similar to the folks who quote Rodriguez shooting "EL MARIACHI" for only 7K.....but never mention the million dollar post work done on it. It's often the same folks who want to "shoot the rehearsal" and complain about how slow sets move with full crews; crews (and we're talking about professionals here) know their jobs well and the procedures on a set are in place to maximize creative time as well as the production day, which equals maximizing your dollar........and I'm getting into a rant here..........

 

28 DAYS LATER wasn't a bad looking movie in m opinion, but it in NO way looked like film. PI was shot on reversal and that crappy grainy look was what they wanted. If you want to fool yourself to think that DV is a better looking medium to creat your film and tell your story with, then by all means do so, but just be aware that you are in fact fooling yourself.

 

Congrats on selling your movie and collecting royalties by the way; it's nice to see money from your work.

[Guest oscar]

Actually I think the 24P on Panasonic looks like a cheap electronic shutter

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Oh, I do love it when people do the comparison thing. You set up a shot for the 16mm, aim a DVCAM at it and hit "Full Auto," then say "Wow, it doesn't look very good, does it?"

 

Whoever shot those video comparison images is grotesquely incompetent; it should be possible to make a better job of it than that under almost any circumstances. If you want I can post some available-light night exteriors which will be realistic pictures on video and black frames on film. C'mon, we can do better than these kind of arguments.

 

Phil

[Matt Pacini]

Blair Witch Project was not shot with a DV camera, it was shot on Hi-8.

The only 16mm stuff, was the tiny bit of B&W footage at the end shot at night with a camera top light.

 

Matt Pacini

[Sam Wells]

This is why I am thinking - how come the 16mm people here would not use the DVX when they could really add pep to this movie post-production for next to nothing on the edit suite.

Maybe because I love the "pep" of say 7245 with beautiful if not quite endless highlight latitude and color you can eat with a spoon, etc

 

-Sam

[Mitch Gross]

Blair Witch Project was not shot with a DV camera, it was shot on Hi-8.

The only 16mm stuff, was the tiny bit of B&W footage at the end shot at night with a camera top light.

Actually all the B&W footage throughout the film was 16mm.

[Matt Pacini]

I'd like to mention here my experience in trying to get distribution for my first film, Lost Tribes.

 

I went to pitching sessions in L.A., where you sit around with about 100 other people taking turns pitching to distributors, and almost universally, they were not interested in seeing anyones DV features unless they had bankable actorrs in them, or had already won festival awards.

 

So the scenario of "if they love it, they'll pay for post and a 35mm blowup" doesn't really fly, because you're unlikely to even get these guys to WATCH your movie in the first place!

 

You should have seen the look of horror on some of these filmmakers faces, when they heard "I'll pass" upon hearing their film was shot on DV and had no stars in it, and then taking my tape, because it was shot on film, EVEN THE LOWLY SUPER 8 FORMAT!!!!!!!

 

I'm not saying this is always the case, but nobody seems to ever mention that most DV films that are getting distributed have a bankable star in it, made by someone with great industry contacts that they were able to get these people to be in their movies to begin with.

 

There are lots and lots of extremely shocked and disappointed DV-makers who can't get anyone in the industry to watch their movies, after hearing how 'digital is going to kill film" and all the other manufacturer hype.

Shoot on film, and you've instantly gone to the front of the class, in who is willing to talk to you, consider at your film for distribution, etc.

 

Matt Pacini

[Tenolian Bell]

Go for the DVX and save yourself a lot of time and money for a project that could end up looking better than 16mm.

The other dirty secret of much of digital production is the money that is spent in post to clean up shots that didn't come out very great, or to make ok looking shots better. From what I've heard 28 Days had extensive post that cost just as much as the porduction itself.

 

I've met Ellen Kuras and her Dv features she said the money they spent on post to clean up DV problems brought the cost of production to the same as shooting film. So when you are watching these film you are not watching what came from the camera, you are watching lots of interpolation, sharpening, and color correction.

 

Tenolian Bell

[Filip Plesha]

IBL...

 

You are all the time talking about how flexible this video is

and how much money you can save...

but what is it all worth if you don't get the images you like?

What is the point of shooting then? If you are doing it for money only,

you could go shooting news or whatever job with a camera...

 

the one thing that makes cinematographers different from

people that shoot wedings is that they do not just record events,

they create images out of those events,so it's not about just what do you

see on screen,it is how you see it.

 

Don't get me wrong here,i am not saying that a cinematographer

can not be happy with video,but he should shoot with video

only if he likes the images it gives him. Everything else is called a compromise.

 

So if people prefer film,why should they say things like those you wanted someone here to say? If a cinematographer prefers the look of film,why should he

"shoot his next film with DVX" ?

 

Its not all about the qualitty of the image...filmmaking is not always

a reproduction of reality...it is allso about the look and the texture.

There is a VERY distinctive difference in the look of all those video cameras

and 16mm film,so it is obvious that people can not happy with both looks

the same way...it can't be like: "ok whatever, we'll draw straws and decide

with what to shoot" Either they chooze one or the other,it is not the same.

If it is same to you then why did you ever use film in the past?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Don't get me wrong here,i am not saying that a cinematographer

> can not be happy with video,but he should shoot with video

> only if he likes the images it gives him.

 

...or if he has no choice. I shoot stuff all the time which should be film, which screams to be film - have you any idea how hard it is to come up with a decent result for a sitcom on video? It's excruciating; it never looks any good. Maybe I'm just doomed to produce stuff I don't like for the rest of eternity, but it's either that or not shoot. I don't have a huge film industry to go and work in; it simply isn't there. I shoot with what I can get.

 

Phil

[Filip Plesha]

Phil ,i know that, of course not everone has a chance to shoot film.

but my whole post was refering to people that do have a choice.

Because IBL is clearly saying why is it that nobody decides to shot

DVX instead of 16mm,and that means he is refering to people

that have a chance to shoot 16mm but rather go to DVX.

this is what i am talking about.

 

If you have a chance to shoot 16mm and you like the look,why the

hell would you go for the video,sure you can save cost,but

if you are a film-lover you won't get the images you like,you wont

get film grain,you wont get the specific film tone scale etc.

 

On the other hand if you do have a chance to shoot 16mm or 35mm

you should only go for the video if it gives you the image you

want.

 

THat is what i was talking about