Low Budget Shoot On HD or 16mm?

[Michael Lehnert]

2) sorry, but I heard 10,000 feet for a music video/ short films? what the hell are you? Kubrick? or super rich? what a waste!!!, that's a 3.1 ratio on a 90 minute feature

 

 

Goodness me, even after an exhausting day with a more exhausting flight in it, this place here allows you to LOL ROTF at the end when going through your mailbag.

 

Thanks, Martín, for those hilarous moments. Am out for dinner now, good night :) !

[Martin Yernazian]

I know, and I'm glad I did good, I hate airlines

I also hate wasting film ! :lol:

Edited December 18, 2007 by Martín Yernazian

[John Brawley]

Gents; interesting points... i agree the $7k number probably is misleading when applied to Primer and to El Mariachi for that matter... there's just no way you could have sound/postprod included in that number which would barely cover film stock/processing...

 

Anyway... $500k theatrical, split 50/50 with theaters... not much left over once everybody is paid. not sure what deal he cut on dvds... so how rich do you think his home run made him?

 

 

Too right. It might have cost 7K to make, but it would have cost AT LEAST 300K to get it into a cinema. That's for a film finish, sound mix, dolby, and a print run.

 

The cinemas take a 50/50 split that then changes depending on how long the film runs.

 

The distributor then takes ALL of the 50% that's coming to you to pay back their costs first, the P&A.

 

Then....once you (the filmmaker) have paid back the distributor's costs, you then SHARE the percentages that are coming back, usually greatly in favour of the distributor.

 

So that means, 500K box office probably means it didn't make any money at all. 250K back to the distributor would barely cover the costs of getting it into the market. Maybe with DVD sales and broadcast (which usually see the producer's getting even less) they would have made a little.

 

The rule of thumb here in Australia is that it has to make 4 times it's production costs to BREAK EVEN. A $1 million dollar film must make $4 million at the BO just to cover the costs. THEN the producers will start to see some money.

 

And guess what. Australian films rarely do more than 3 Million domestic BO and often their budget's are more than a million.

 

"Kenny" is a notable local film, that was made for 100K. Then post costs of say 300-500K on top, plus the P&A costs. One of the few films in the last couple of years to take more than 5 Million. a very rare exception.

 

The problem we have is the size of our market. We have such a small population in the entire country (about the same as the state of NY) that we just can't afford a lot of Australian films within the Australian market.

 

The reality is that filmaking is generally not sustainable.

 

 

 

jb

[Martin Yernazian]

That's a great point! and I agree, but we, at least me, live in the USA where you have so much money around that if you make a great movie, there will always be someone in there to put that money for you....

Carruth made a movie using shady business, I think he's whole things was, I made a movie, I won an award, moving on!!!

 

 

But still your point is taken, and I agree big time

Edited December 19, 2007 by Martín Yernazian

[Javier Calderon]

Wow, John. That's quite a somber perspective, but I absolutely thank you for putting it in the proper light. It's always better to have a good realization of what you're getting yourself into initially than to find it out on the back end.

 

It seems than that the initial, 50/50 ost breakdown estimates were either 1) pretty darn close or 2) optimistic!

[Javier Calderon]

"I think he's whole things was, I made a movie, I won an award, moving on!!!"

 

It certainly seems that way, Martin (I'm out of town presently, by the way. Will contact you when I return). I think, however, that if this was his way of doing business, it seems to really have come back and did some karmic damage to him because, again, it seems to in some way or the other be holding him back and possibly preventing him from making his next film.

 

It seems a good rule of thumb is to simply start off doing things correctly - even if it takes a lot more time. It might benefit you in the long run.

[Javier Calderon]

MUCH CHEAPER!

You can get a russian Kinor 16 sx-2m. That´s NOT a Krasnogorsk wind-up camera, it´s a professionell News Gathering/Documentary Camera; you can call it the russian Eclair ACL. It is pin registered and allows the exchange of Mags. The pictures will be as well as those made by an Arri SR or Aaton. You can get a KInor sometimes for about 500 Euros!! There´s one on EBAy (Kinor 16 sx-1m -same camera but with three lens turret) these days, even equipped with a crystal sync motor under 500 Euros!! If you want to shoot Super 16, you can get a Super 16 AND PL-Mount upgrade for about 850 Euros!!

 

 

Okay, Ole. This russian Kinor, from your description of it, sounds almost too good to be true. How does it sound? Is it quiet enough to do sync sound with? Is it loud? Does it sound like a tractor? I'll do some more research on this camera myself, but if anyone can corroborate some of this information, that would be great. It seems that, for the price, the Eclair ACL II is reputed to be the best sound sync camera around. I don't know what the exchange rate is between euros and dollars (how many dollars is 850 euros?), but it sounds like a lot less money than the $2-4K that one would have to spend to get a decent ACL.

 

Any further info would be appreciated. :)

[David Avila]

I´m thinking about to buy a super 16mm camera with sync motor and pl mount.... any suggestion???... Not to expensive please ;) ... I also had a look to KRASNOGORSK-3... thanks in advance

[Javier Calderon]

David, I hear the Kras is a decent starter camera, but - admitting that I've never used it - I've heard that some of them can have pretty bad registration and your film will look pretty darn jumpy. I don't think it would be the greatest sound sync camera either as they might be somewhat noisy. As I mentioned above, the Eclair ACL is reputed to one of if not the best cameras for sound sync in the 2-4 thousand dollar area. Anything else (Arri, etc) you'll be looking at $10K and up.

 

A LOT of movies have been shot with Bolexes . . . but I hear they sound like lawn mowers . . . Obviously, however, it's possible to shoot features w/them, since it's been done so often.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I've shot the K3 and I can tell you it's about the same as a bolex. Very loud. I don't think i've ever seen one modded for a PL mount but the M42 screw mount is very nice to use some alright still photo glass. It's a decent starter camera though, but not something you can do sync to.

Bolexes do sound like lawn mowers, though they have some quieter sync models which I personally havn't used 9the EBM and SBM i believe).

The Eclairs are nice cameras, if you find one in good condition. they're older so some of htem have seen a lot o milage; but I have no qualms with them in the least. they remind me a lot of Aatons, in their overall design, and I believe the two are linked somehow.

The arris of the time were very loud, 'cept for the BL but even that was no major picnic. It can do syn and make some beautiful images, though; but as mentioned it's pricier.

I'm not sure if oyu'l lfind a S16mm ACL or NPR under $5000, but it not totally unlikly. Call up Visual Products, they have a lot of cameras around and are very nice people from my dealings with them.

[Martin Yernazian]

You will find, Super 16 Eclair cameras for under 5000

But the trick is to do the whole conversion from your pocket

You can buy a nice Eclair kit for 2 grand and then you send it to MR Les Bosher and he can do something like this.... that's my cam, hehehe

 

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1281/740732...1cef32023_b.jpg

 

So my friend you better do a little more research and you can get a cam like this able to shoot a fine movie ( feature... yeah!)

Edited December 23, 2007 by Martín Yernazian

[Guest Ole Dost]

Okay, Ole. This russian Kinor, from your description of it, sounds almost too good to be true. How does it sound? Is it quiet enough to do sync sound with? Is it loud? Does it sound like a tractor? I'll do some more research on this camera myself, but if anyone can corroborate some of this information, that would be great. It seems that, for the price, the Eclair ACL II is reputed to be the best sound sync camera around. I don't know what the exchange rate is between euros and dollars (how many dollars is 850 euros?), but it sounds like a lot less money than the $2-4K that one would have to spend to get a decent ACL.

 

Any further info would be appreciated. :)

 

Hi Javier,

850 Euros is about 1000 Dollars. The Kinor 16 sx-2m is a little louder then a Eclair ACL, but MUCH lesser noisy then a Bolex, Krasnogorsk, Beaulieu R 16 or Canon Scoopic. The Kinor 16 sx-2m has even an advantage over the Eclair ACL : It is pin-registered, like the NPR and the Arri Cams. Rock steady images! I have been using it for a documentary film in the Albanian mountains last autumn. We did some interviews. WE placed the shotgun mic on a boom pole close to the interviewd persons head and the camera was about two meters away. No sound from the Camera audible at all. If you post me your E-Mail-Adress I can post you some still frames out of some telecined films done with the Kinor. Remember: For the cost of one very cheap ACL you get usual two Kinors. Most KInors around are not very old: I have three of them. THe oldest one is from 1979, the others from 1987 and 1985. The overhaul, that every Camera needs from time to time, is as cheap as with no other 16mm Camera. There is Olexandr Kalynychenko in Ukraine who does great overhaul, repair and modification if needed. So you don´t need to fear that you stick with a camera that nobody knows to repair.

If you like further informations, let me know you E-Mail-adress and I will send you the promised frames and more information. This is my e-Mail-adress: Ole.Dost@t-online.de

[David Avila]

Thanks for the info, friends :D ... I´m going to shoot three or four spots for a small production company in the next months and I need researching... everlasting dilemma, rental or buy? ;)

[Walter Graff]

Too bad you would not consider HDV. THE JVC HD200 along with a HZ-CA13U PL mount lens adapter is probably the best thing on the market. Here is an extensive article on it's remarkable abilities with this camera. http://www.bluesky-web.com/HZ-CA13U.pdf. I just did extensive testing with this combo and it makes one of the most satisfying pictures I've ever seen. To be able to use real 16 and 35 mm lenses and not loose any light, while maintaining a clear optical path is remarkable. For the money, it equals the quality of much more expensive camera packages.

Edited December 23, 2007 by WALTER GRAFF

[Javier Calderon]

Wo, Ole. This sounds almost too good to be true! A 16mm camera that's a "little louder" than an ACL but a lot quiter than the others mentioned that costs about a grand?? Somebody else PLEASE chime in because this is definitely throwing some new light upon the "ACL is the way to go" direction I was going toward. Not that I don't believe you, Ole, as it seems that you are speaking from direct personal experience, but, again, I'm not at all familiar with the camera you're referring to, so I'd like - as they say in medical circles - a second opinion if possible.

 

All the same, thank you sooo much for referring me to your email address for the added information. I shall be emailing you shortly. :)

 

Javier

[Javier Calderon]

Well, Walter . . . to tell you the truth I'm not COMPLETELY counting out the possibility of still maybe shooting the next feature on HD. What with all the people I've come across that are screaming at me "Shoot HD!!!" I don't imagine that EVERYONE is completely incorrect in their perspective. The majority of the people that are telling me this have vastly more experience than I in film, so I defer to them to a decent extent anyway.

 

The convenience, the ease of immediate viewage, etc . . . all definite selling points . . . I keep telling myself that if from now until the moment I am going to begin production on the next feature, I happen to see some HD footage that is even close or comparable to film, then I might very well be sold.

 

That hasn't happened yet though - by a loooong shot too. Not even close. It's almost like . . . Well . . . as I'm thinking about this dynamic right now, I'm not sure that video will EVER look like film. It's almost like apples and oranges. This, of course, is not to say that someday (possibly even soon) that HD or some other, more advance video technology, will completely replace film as "THE" professional film making medium (again, there are indeed a LOT of advantages to shooting on video) but I think that if/when that happens . . . the footage itself will STILL look different. Not necessarily worse . . . just different. It seems that HD is getting clearer, sharper, cleaner with the advances in technology . . . all those things . . . This is not a bad thing; but that intangible aesthetic that film images are responsible for seems a very, very unique something or other almost bordering on a type of occult magic that even the most developed HD cameras simply haven't been able to even touch.

 

Granted I might eat my words with Finscher's upcoming "Benjamin Button" movie that, I think, was entirely shot on HD, but even flagship HD representations like Apocalypto LOOKED like HD - not film - in a few scenes. I had no idea the film was shot on HD prior to seeing it, and realized that it was during my watching it.

 

Anyway . . . I'm rambling . . .

 

just some random thoughts is all . . . :)

Edited December 23, 2007 by Javier Calderon

[Michael Lehnert]

The Kinor 16 sx-2m has even an advantage over the Eclair ACL : It is pin-registered, like the NPR and the Arri Cams. Rock steady images!

 

It is a common and inviting mistake to believe that the mere presence of a registration pin automatically increases frame stability and is hence a guarantor for "rock-steady images". It is not, and this has been discussed to death here and here quite recently.

You will have to read through the entire threads to grasp every aspect, but in a nutshell: pin registration is about ameliorating frame stability and reducing frame variance for patented transportat mechanisms. It is hence about relative improvements, and not absolute improvements. Normal 16 and Super 16 cameras which currently have the highest frame stability and lowest frame variance are all cameras that do not have registration pins!

 

Although cine-film is far simpler to operate and deal with than video formats will ever be (daring remark? - actually: No!), even something as simple as a pull-down system deserves a bit more complex appreciation than just stating "register pin = advantegously better / rocksteady images". It's not that simple.

 

Enjoy reading the hyperlinked backcatalogue of ciny.com. Maybe that helps.

[Chris Burke]

Not sure where you are in your decision, but I just noticed this auction on ebay, looks pretty good.

 

It is an Eclair ACL II Super 16 package with a sound recorder thrown in.

 

 

 

chris

 

 

 

camera package link

[Javier Calderon]

Yeah. Thanks, Chris. I just saw this item last night. Put it in my "watch this item" bin. :) It does look good. The price on it might be a little out of my present range, but 1) it is super 16, and 2) it's coming w/the sound equipment as well, so I can understand the reason for the $7K buy it now price. It does look like a pretty decent setup, but the fact that it only has 2 1/2 hours left on the auction (as of this writing anyway) AND it has zero bids, is an indication that the price is probably also considered a little steep by more folks than just me.

 

Everybody's probably also broke from already buying all their Christmas gifts. :)

[Tyler Purcell]

I've been working with Javier a bit in person and I'm new to the forum, so howdy!

 

I've been a cinematographer for a long time, started as a kid with super 8 and moved into commercial 35mm work in my early 20's. Shot my first HD feature at 25 and never got another "feature" gig due to scoring a decent job in Broadcast Engineering and haven't looked back. I'm pretty deep in the industry, touching shoulders with guys who were on the test team for the RED camera, personally working with engineers on the JVC GY HD100u and of course constantly shooting projects. I realized a long time ago, it doesn't matter what you shoot on, what makes a difference your story and how your telling it. Due to that, I've left the cinematography group and have become a jack of all trades; shooter, editor, director... though I'm probably one of the few people who is super proficient at all 3 things.

 

My advice to Javier has been to shoot in Digital. We are talking about telling a story and no matter how you tell it, HD, Film or a cell phone camera, its still a story acted out. Spending money on equipment and film stock is NOT part of the equation, especially if you don't know how to use said equipment. It took me many years of study on my own, to understand film and its organic properties. Now I can walk into a lit room and tell you what stock would work with what lens and what stop. As a one man show, you've gotta know those things, so you know what you got in the can is good.

 

Javier can go buy a camera, sound recorder and mic's, he can pick up a set of primes, pay for film stock and processing, but what does he get? A mess of film and audio that is useless to him because he can't edit it without spending more money on transferring and syncing. Then, only then can he even see what's shot and its not even what you shot because the transfer could suck and of course the film looks better then the NTSC tape your editing. On all the films I've shot, every one gets the best roll printed, mainly for having something to project. I did a 1 light work print on 1 roll of film to compare it to the 1080p 4:2:2 D5 HD master which was color corrected. I was shocked that the HD master looked BETTER then my 1 light work print. But that single reel of film cost the producers over $800 to color correct and another $130 for a tape. Do the math when scanning 60 + rolls of film at 2k HD resolution...

 

My answer to the question of shooting a movie is similar to what some of you have said; If the script is good, get funding! If the script can't get you funding, re-write it or write something that CAN get you funding. The golden rule is to not spend your own money and to never buy equipment because equipment doesn't equal a great movie. Sure cheap HD equipment is everywhere but, have you seen that hot new feature shot on the GYHD110 yet? Or how bout that other one shot on the HDX200? Nop, I've sadly not seen either of them. For some reason I've also missed all the recent features shot on 16mm too!

 

You need to have a screenplay which is so tantalizing, no executive producer can put it down. If you can't pass that hurtle, go get a camcorder and make a zero budge movie. If its awesome, you can get the funding to re-make it in the future. Having a great package lined up from crew, to cast and perfectly done budget is the second step. Find somebody or many people, willing to invest a small sum of change in your movie, under 100k is usually possible, and go to work. There are a lot of DP's around with full Arri SR packages and connections to help get your cost down. Your money should be placed in the screenplay, actors and fantastic DP (what's on screen). If its a great story, well acted and looks like a million bux, you'll probably get a chance to make another. Hiring a DP gets your mind off the "film" aspect and onto the Directing/Editing aspect, which is where it needs to be. The biggest problem young filmmakers run into is the "I must do it all" mentality and it's also the best way to end up like me; a jack of all trades NOT making movies!

 

Don't forget about your goals, do you wanna be an artist or a filmmaker? An Artist usually makes uninteresting movies, that look pretty. Filmmakers are all about the story and screw the art, what's entertaining is what goes! Stanley Kubrick vs Alfred Hitchcock. Kubrick was a TRUE artist and Hitchcock was a REAL story teller!

[Michael Lehnert]

And with that, I think this thread really has reached a state in which it should be put down.

[Walter Graff]

And with that, I think this thread really has reached a state in which it should be put down.

 

 

Yep. Tyler, it is very difficut to come to a cinematography only board and say that it's not about cinematography. While I completely understand your point of view having a similar diverse background, you have to stay more on the cinemtogrpahy angle on a borad like this.

[David Mullen ASC]

You have to understand the role of cinematography in the overall piece, have some perspective, but that doesn't alleviate a cinematographer's duty to choose his tools and techniques carefully, because that what job entails.

 

If a director asks me whether we should use Zeiss lenses or Cooke lenses or Kodak or Fuji film for a feature film, I can't really say "it doesn't really matter if the script sucks" or "it's not important in the big scheme of things". Even if there is some truth in that -- it doesn't matter, we're craftsmen and artists, paid to care about the work we do and do it the best we can, and we become the best we can by caring deeply about our role in the production and what we can bring to it.

 

If I based the quality level of my work on the quality level of the script, I wouldn't get very far, nor would I enjoy my work very much.

 

I also am annoyed by the constant reminder on a cinematography forum of "it's the story that matters, not the cinematography" because it doesn't have to be a choice between one or the other. You don't have to assume that when someone asks about Kodak versus Fuji, or the Genesis versus the F23, they are necessarily making a choice to not care about the story. You don't know one way or the other. Humans do have the ability to multi-task, to think on multiple levels, to care about more than one aspect of a project. A director wouldn't be any good if they couldn't do that, let alone a cinematographer.

 

Otherwise you fall into making the false assumption that the more someone asks about or knows about technique, the least artistic they must be, and conversely, the least they seem interested in technique, or the least knowledgeable they seem to be about it, therefore the most artistic they must be.

 

So stop making assumptions about what people care about deep inside when they ask a technical question and just try to answer their question. "Oh no, this kid is asking about whether to buy an Arri 16BL or an Eclair NPR, he must not be an artist! He doesn't care about his screenplay!!!"

 

IT'S A COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE QUESTION, the "I have a limited budget, which format should I use?" type of question -- even if the answer is more complicated that the person asking the question realizes.

 

The vaguely "macro" answer is that you make the movie on the best equipment you can reasonably afford, something practical for your budget... and then you do the best you can with it -- what else can you do anyway? DV, HD, 16mm? What gets you closest to the look you want with the money you have, and is practical for the nature of the production and post-production?

[Tyler Purcell]

I've had very nice, personal talks with Javier about his film. He is a great guy, truly has a vision and wants to shoot film for obvious reasons. He isn't a cinematographer, so maybe the question shouldn't have been asked on a cinematography forum. He has clearly never shot a piece of film before and some of you thought outside of the box and suggested he not take on such a huge feature film project as his first piece on film. I suggested he come up with some money so he can shoot it on film and the ONLY way to come up with money is to have an excellent screenplay.

 

Anyhow, sorry to upset people, it wasn't my intention. I don't understand how you can just answer the question and not think outside of the box and give some tips/insight about other options. Bashing cinematography wasn't my intention, helping a confused individual who needs guidance was my goal and nothing else.

 

I thought this forum would be more open minded...

Edited December 28, 2007 by Tyler Purcell

[David Mullen ASC]

It's fine to broaden the range of answers, but just remember that we should all be trying to be helpful in our own way. Unless someone else's advice is downright inaccurate or potentially harmful, we don't have to knock each other's advice, just offer our own perspective.

 

But if someone asks a technical question, I assume -- sometimes wrongly -- that they want an answer to that question, not want me to answer a question they didn't ask. But some questions are so badly worded that you have to guess the intent of the question because the question itself is confusing.

 

I wish more people would do a little homework on their own before asking some of their questions though.

 

I don't have any objections to your advice, I was only commenting that I didn't want this thread to devolve into another "it doesn't matter what equipment you use because it's the story that matters" sort of cliche answer.

 

This is a cinematography forum, so getting criticized for centering the discussions around cinematography is ridiculous. We don't need constant reminders of the value of story, etc. -- most of us are intelligent enough to realize that. An occasional reminder is usually enough... ;)

 

Yes, I think Walter, you, and I can all agree that some beginner filmmakers get their heads far up their ass worrying about a particular technology as if that's a make-or-break decision for their movie. I always remember what Alexander Mackendrick used to say about some directors find it easier to address technical problems than human problems, and it's usually the human problems that are the big hurdle in making a movie. People know that moviemaking is expensive, yet buying equipment is so much more emotionally easy than other aspects of moviemaking that they always start out with that, because it's mainly a matter of spending cash, which is easier than writing a script or casting or fundraising.

 

Javier's question was broad and confusing, the answers were broad... I don't see a problem with that. Everyone told him similar things, just from their own perspective.

 

I think he really wanted to be talked out of shooting digitally because he doesn't like digital, which is fine. That's his own aesthetics speaking to him, he just has to realize that there is no right or wrong answer here, and some people don't have the hang-up over digital that he seems to.