Super-16 panel discussion

Mitch Gross · September 16, 2004

I'll be participating in a panel discussion at the IFFM next Tuesday in New York City. For those interested, it is entitled "Low Cost/High Art, Super-16 Production" or something similar, and will run from 3pm-4pm at the Puck Building across the street from the Angelika Film Center. I believe there is a small fee but film students, IFP members and others get a discount and may even get in free.

Tim Carroll · September 16, 2004

Mitch,

Any chance they may video tape it for those of us who can't make it to NYC next week. Sounds like an interesting discussion.

-Tim

Mitch Gross · September 17, 2004

Mitch,

Any chance they may video tape it for those of us who can't make it to NYC next week. Sounds like an interesting discussion.

-Tim

I'll inquire. There should at least be a transcript.

September 17, 2004

coolness! :D

Mitch Gross · September 22, 2004

The panel was an interesting, rather freewheeling discussion. In addition to myself, two independent writer-directors participated and when Vondie Curtis Hall could not make it they were fortunate enough to get Ellen Kuras to appear. As always seems to happen with these discussion, it became mostly a comparison of Super-16 to other formats (HD, DV, 35mm) but there was a lot of good info. The session was not videotaped, but the audio was recordede and is available on CD from www.ifp.org.

Alain LeTourneau · September 22, 2004

The session was not videotaped, but the audio was recordede and is available on CD from www.ifp.org.

Hey Mitch,

I looked all over the ifp.org site and could find nothing about the seminar/conference on Super 16 nor any mention of a CD. Is there a contact person at IFP NY that would know more about the availability of the CD?

Thanks,

Alain

Mitch Gross · September 23, 2004

Hey Mitch,

I looked all over the ifp.org site and could find nothing about the seminar/conference on Super 16 nor any mention of a CD. Is there a contact person at IFP NY that would know more about the availability of the CD?

Thanks,

Alain

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I asked after the session and was told this. I'll have to look into it and will report back. The IFFM is still going on this week so everybody there is pretty busy. Don't think I'll get any details before next week. Remind me if I don't get back with info.

Sam Wells · September 23, 2004

"As always seems to happen with these discussion, it became mostly a comparison of Super-16 to other formats (HD, DV, 35mm) but there was a lot of good info. "

Sounds like an interesting panel, I wish I could've been there. I was on an IFP/IFFM panel called "Lighting for the Digital Format" * lead by David Leitner, which started out great but the second half of it veered off into a some (pretty much irrelevant to the subject) debate about progressive vs interlace, despite David's efforts to steer it back where it belonged.

So, that's how it can go, but it does sound like it waas valuable.

I would expect the DI vs optical issue came up iin the foreground -- did it ?

* yeah I know, THE digital format - Huh ?

-Sam

Mitch Gross · September 23, 2004

I would expect the DI vs optical issue came up iin the foreground -- did it ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I arrived late thanks to Pres. Bush tying up traffic. When I walked in Ellen was explaining how helpful she found the DI process and that she fights for a DI on all her work, even 35mm. I later teased that we don't all have the clout of Ms. Kuras and sometimes have to take what we can get, and pointed out that even though DI prices are falling the cost of shooting S-16 and printing optically is still about the same price as shooting DV and burning out to 35. That raised eyebrows in the audience.

I believe S-16's recent revival after a couple of slow years is due to a few market forces.

- Kodak's new Vision 2 line and the excellent marketing thereof (not as many worries about grain anymore)

- DI's emergence as a finishing route and the image quality and control available to S-16 productions when completed this way.

- The hype on HD finally followed by the reality of the format, both for what it looks like under various conditions and what it means physically and economically to shoot with it.

We actually ran out of time before I got to discuss the above much, although I suspect that it is a discussion that's more interesting to a bunch of technicians or cinematographers than to the IFFM young filmmaker crowd. Could be wrong though. We only had an hour and I could go on for days on this!

Tenolian Bell · September 23, 2004

It's good information for them to have. I've met many young filmmaker's (especially in NY) who think HD is equivalent to 35mm, and 16mm is equivalent to miniDV.

There's still a lot of marketing misinformation and confusion.

John Pytlak RIP · September 25, 2004

I've met many young filmmaker's (especially in NY) who think HD is equivalent to 35mm, and 16mm is equivalent to miniDV.

There's still a lot of marketing misinformation and confusion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately, the "hype" is relentless. But the quality on the screen is the best way to show the advantages of film.

Javier Calderon · May 18, 2006

It's good information for them to have. I've met many young filmmaker's (especially in NY) who think HD is equivalent to 35mm, and 16mm is equivalent to miniDV.

There's still a lot of marketing misinformation and confusion.

What?? Oh my gosh . . . I can't believe that! :D

I tell you what, to say that I'm still a novice/neophyte regarding my filmatic knowledge is, I believe, being very, very kind. All that being said, part of the reason why I am now soooo focused on film (particularly 16 at this point) is because, in doing a lot of R&D into what format to most cost effectively shoot my next feature on (still editing the present one), I at first happened upon, and was "sold" on Panasonic's high definition HVX 200. I read quite a bit on it, and the more I read, the more viable it seemed.

And THEN, after all that reading (and, again, being sold on it) . . . I saw some image from it.

Heck . . . it looked good . . .

but it WASN'T FILM. It simply didn't look as "good" a some 16 footage that I'd seen (heck, should I say ALL 16 footage that I'd seen?).

Plus, on top of all that, the camera itself, with a couple of (necessary) p2 cards, would end up running near the 10K range. So then I asked how much more expensive (than 10K that is) would it be to shoot a 16mm feature?

Well . . . as Mitch and so many others on hear have already said, the costs are VERY comparable. There are, of course, trade offs; like, for example, the fact that, because I shot my last feature on DV, I was able to shoot like fourty five hours of footage and not kill myself budgetarilly. On a 16 prod, I'll have to cut my ratio down considerably . . . But then again, 1) image quality on 16 will be vastly improved, and 2) the more I'm learning about film making, the more I'm realizing that I would have enough coverage without having to shoot even half that much footage on a 16 production.

Anyway, the point of all this long ramble is that with me, you're looking at someone who was SOLD on shooting on DV (and/or at least NOT film) because I'm so poor, etc, etc. I figured it'd be a considerable while before I "graduated" to shooting on this oh-so-intimidating (and "vastly expensive" medium). And it's actually been BECAUSE and not inspite of the budgetary constraints THAT I've veered toward film . . .

And I'm happy I did . . . and very exited about the confirmation that I keep getting from the research I've been doing that this was MORE than the right choice to have made.

Just my peso.

Javier Calderon

nathan coombs · May 18, 2006

. I figured it'd be a considerable while before I "graduated" to shooting on this oh-so-intimidating (and "vastly expensive" medium). And it's actually been BECAUSE and not inspite of the budgetary constraints THAT I've veered toward film . . .

I think its only because so many people have so much at stake, career wise, with maintaining this image of film as 'difficult' to shoot that this perception is propagated.

In fact, The Vision2 stocks have a much wider latitude for over and under exposure than DV and don't require difficult grading to get a good image.

That latitude also actually allows LESS use of expensive lighting, contrary to common wisdom. The only intimidating aspects is the shooting ratio really.

Will Montgomery · May 19, 2006

Heck . . . it looked good . . .

but it WASN'T FILM. It simply didn't look as "good" a some 16 footage that I'd seen (heck, should I say ALL 16 footage that I'd seen?).

We need to help younger film makers understand the advantages of film, when Kodak talks about it, it seems like sour grapes to some people. But lets face it, when starting out these days, video is just a far easier medium to enter. The good news is that with so many people exploring filmmaking with video, the best of them will come to realize the quality difference and seek out film. After all, these people keep saying, "Its almost as good as film!" But when they actually work with film, it will be tough to go back.

Joe Sexton · May 19, 2006

We need to help younger film makers understand the advantages of film, when Kodak talks about it, it seems like sour grapes to some people. But lets face it, when starting out these days, video is just a far easier medium to enter. The good news is that with so many people exploring filmmaking with video, the best of them will come to realize the quality difference and seek out film. After all, these people keep saying, "Its almost as good as film!" But when they actually work with film, it will be tough to go back.

I couldn't agree more. I fall in to this category. I started off shooting HDV when it was first released, then I moved in to 24p dv (DVX). I managed to make a short with the DVX that is now in a couple of festivals, but the DVX comes no where close to what I have done with s16. In fact when I attended the one screening that I have been able to attend so far, I was taken back by how poorly it looked blown up on a big screen. Anyone who claims that DV, HDV, or even the footage from the HVX is comparable to 16mm (especially Vision 2) is kidding themselves.