Best 16mm with 400' capacity/getting around long takes?

samboxall · February 6, 2007

I want to start using 8mm or 16mm within my work. However, the idea of only being able to film for 3 of 4 minutes might cause some problems as i enjoy long slow films/scenes. (example: films by Zhang Ke Jia - made xiao wu, unknown pleasures, platform etc.)

Can anyone offer me any advice on the best way around this, or recommendations for a camera with a reasonable film capacity.

Thanks.

Martin Yernazian · February 7, 2007

To be in this forum you need to use your Real Name !

And for 400 feet you get around 11 minutes of footage

Best

I want to start using 8mm or 16mm within my work. However, the idea of only being able to film for 3 of 4 minutes might cause some problems as i enjoy long slow films/scenes. (example: films by Zhang Ke Jia - made xiao wu, unknown pleasures, platform etc.)
Can anyone offer me any advice on the best way around this, or recommendations for a camera with a reasonable film capacity.

Thanks.

ryan_bennett · February 7, 2007

Any working decent camera with 400' capacity is good enough. Just see what you have available at the local rental shop. But I think ou should ask yourself, how long shots do you honestly need? Does it have to be longer than 2 minutes 46 seconds (the time of a 100' load?) Besides, most cameras that take daylight 100' are sometimes windup and only the wind only lasts for 25seconds.

Have you ever sat and just tried to guess how long a minute is? It's a lot longer than you actually think it is.

THIS IS FILM! EDITING! You said you like slow films/scenes - not LONG TAKES/SHOTS. With editing, you can take one minute of time and edit it together to expand time. Depending on what oyu're planning, you prboably don't need anything that long. Like a man runs across from point A to B. Realtime it takes 5 seconds, but you can take it all from 12 different angles and only use 3 seconds from each of those angles - poof! You just made 5 seconds into 36. Think more about what you want then you can think how you can get it achieved.

samboxall · February 7, 2007

thanks for the replies. good points.

its true, a minute is much longer than you might expect. however some of the work i do would be installation based. perhaps filming one spot for 30 minutes rather than scripted sequential footage.

there are of course ways round it with editing like you said.

for the moment im going to try out an 8mm camera - 3 minutes should be all i need for my most recent project. besides, i don't really have time to experiment with 16mm as im hopefully shooting in china in a couple of weeks and the simplicity/portability of 8 is probably more suitable for this.

i will come back to it a little later --- depending on the results. but thanks for taking the time to reply.

p.s my 'real name' is sam boxall. just put a space in my user name and you've got it. sorry to confuse you.

Edited February 7, 2007 by samboxall

Sam Wells · February 7, 2007

Well if you get to S16mm and a serious level there are 800' magazines for the aaton XTRprod & Xterrra.

(I think someone made some for Arri 16SR3 as well...)

22 minutes.

The problem with say a 400 mag (11 mins) for a say some 6 minute takes - should be obvious: load reload short end etc. IF you are talking about takes that are really long.

Of course you're likely to end up with short ends anyway.

ps re Jia Zangke and "Platform" at least he would have been limited to ~ same length of time with 1000 mags in 35mm as you would be with 400's in 16mm...

He seems to be shooting HD now though.......................

-Sam

Jon Kukla · February 7, 2007

You can also get 1200' mags from Panavision (33 mins). The problem, however, is that you have to use the Elaine... :unsure: Another thing to keep in mind is that while Kodak and Fuji do provide 16mm rolls longer than 400', they may require a minimum order and/or take a little longer to be delivered. So do your homework there too. No point in getting all this equipment and then forgetting that you can't just order the film the day before.

You mentioned that you are looking to do some installation-based work. If that's the case, then maybe you'd consider shooting at a lower frame rate? For example, shooting a 400' mag at 12 fps will be 22 minutes right there (assuming you transfer it at the shooting speed), and double that on an 800' mag. So if you're not necessarily doing traditional narrative filmmaking, you have a lot of possibilities. Best luck!

Edited February 7, 2007 by Jon Kukla

Leo Anthony Vale · February 7, 2007

You can also get 1200' mags from Panavision (33 mins). The problem, however, is that you have to use the Elaine... :

There are still 1200' Mitchell mags floating about.

They'll work on CP-16Rs, Frezziflexes and Auricon conversions.

Finding them will be a hassle.

& there were even rarer 1200' co-axial mags for the Arri 16BL.

But if you try for half hour takes, figure on needing the even rarer AC motor.

K Borowski · February 7, 2007

I have two 1200 foot mags for my Auricon, unfortunately that's *all* I have, because the 600 foot mag I have isn't designed for my Super 1200 Model. From what I gather, I think the longest length you can find without a special order is in 1000-foot lengths. That's still a LOT of film, 25 minutes of continous shooting. I agree that if you're asking these kinds of questions, you probably shouldn't be shooting that much film anyway. 20 minute continuous takes are for people with the budgets for 60:1 shooting ratios and shooting with multiple cameras at once. I personally think that this "machine gun" style of shooting is more suited to digital, keep in mind this is coming from one of the most diehard film fans on this forum.

~Karl Borowski

Andy_Alderslade · February 7, 2007

I think I was told that Derek Jarman shot a film on super 8 at only 2 frames per second. That gave him a running time of 30 minutes for one roll.

You can imagine it was extremly stylised.

Stuart Brereton · February 7, 2007

I think I was told that Derek Jarman shot a film on super 8 at only 2 frames per second. That gave him a running time of 30 minutes for one roll.

You can imagine it was extremly stylised.

Jarman's the man that gave us 70 minutes of blue screen & voices ("Blue") . 70 minutes of black screen and voices is called "Radio".

I think for installation work, HD is a better bet.

Matt Pacini · February 9, 2007

IMO this is a recipe for extremely boring footage.

The truth is, it may sound like a cool thing to do, but the reality is, almost nobody has ever really effectively made super long takes interesting, and the technical problems you are introducting by trying to pull this off on a low budget just makes this idea utter madness, if you're trying to make anything that has public appeal at all.

MP

Rik Andino · February 10, 2007

Well if you get to S16mm and a serious level there are 800' magazines for the aaton XTRprod & Xterrra.

(I think someone made some for Arri 16SR3 as well...)

22 minutes.

The SR3 does have an 800' mag...it's a massive monstrosity.

However I must say:

A month back I did some handheld with the XTR w/800' mag

It wasn't as horrible as I expected, it balanced the camera quite well.

It is as heavy as a Arri 16BL but doesn't feel that way.

Those Aaton ergonomics are great!

However the Arri SR3 isn't as ergonimically designed as the Aaton.

Anyways not trying to knock the SR3, it's a good camera.

Martin Yernazian · February 10, 2007

Since when people have become reserve of trying the extreme,

Sam if you think you have good sequence to try, my advice is go for it, just have it ready and welll ready

I think a long sequence of more than 11 it would be interesting to see.... jeezz today with all the editing trikery I would love to see long 5 minutes sequence, like in the new movie Children of Men.( Well I always was a fun of Long sequences)

Freya Black · February 10, 2007

I think I was told that Derek Jarman shot a film on super 8 at only 2 frames per second. That gave him a running time of 30 minutes for one roll.

You can imagine it was extremly stylised.

The Garden of Luxor is the film you refer to I think.

He also made the angelic conversation which is low frame rates at 35mm.

As for blue, it actually was broadcast on the radio at the time in stereo, along with the film on the tv.

Not that I'm old enough to remember or anything. *cough*

love

Freya