Claire Reilly Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Hi everyone, I'm about to embark on a three year drama degree at a top uni in the UK - the degree is half theatre, half film and you can specialise in the second and third years... anyhoo...having been an avid contemporary theatre geek for most of my life, i recently have fallen out of love with the theatre and in love with film. I'm really new to this, I've been studying film for the past two years in an academic sense via A levels but I haven't had any technical experience (for some coursewrok i was handed a camera and told to go make a film....i physically couldnt get it to work - t'was v.old though). I want to make surrealist shorts, preferably with stop motion as I adore stop motion cinematography and want to have a go. I'm looking for a camera that's simple to use and has the capacity to make aesthetically delightful films...preferably not over the £500/$1000 mark. Recommendations for computers and software programs for editing would be amazing as well. Thanks all. Reilly :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Jason Anderson Posted June 15, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 15, 2008 I suggest you get a single shot still camera, to learn about composition and lighting first. A 35mm film camera will teach you alot, learn the basics of photography. The first camera I used was a dvx100, however the HVX200 has come down in price, and probably will come down more in the future. The HVX200 can shoot higher resolution than the dvx100, if you can afford the HVX its worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 (edited) Hi everyone, I'm about to embark on a three year drama degree at a top uni in the UK - the degree is half theatre, half film and you can specialise in the second and third years... anyhoo...having been an avid contemporary theatre geek for most of my life, i recently have fallen out of love with the theatre and in love with film. I'm really new to this, I've been studying film for the past two years in an academic sense via A levels but I haven't had any technical experience (for some coursewrok i was handed a camera and told to go make a film....i physically couldnt get it to work - t'was v.old though). I want to make surrealist shorts, preferably with stop motion as I adore stop motion cinematography and want to have a go. I'm looking for a camera that's simple to use and has the capacity to make aesthetically delightful films...preferably not over the £500/$1000 mark. Recommendations for computers and software programs for editing would be amazing as well. Thanks all. Reilly :D Yeah, you can use any still picture camera to do stop motion animation and learn exposure, lighting and composition. You didn't mention if you are interested in film or digital. Digital is easier as you can see the result of your picture taking immediately, which keeps cost and disappointment to a minimum. Edited June 15, 2008 by Saul Rodgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerio Sacchetto Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 ditto I'd use a still slr camera for studying light, composition, film exposure etc and a cheap digital camera for motion. Ask your friends to act for you in some shorts, speech driven not action centered! Buy an inexpensive analog lightmeter, keep it with your slr and bring them everywhere you go. Take pictures and immediately (that's very very very important) take notes. very good notes, take your time and write down everything you think can be important. Date, time, lens, aperture, a brief description of the scene, iso, weather, how you decided your exposure, any variation...then while you watch your photos read the relative note and add your feelings, what's good and what's wrong. For stop motion there are many ways. In school (not film school unfortunately) i remember i borrowed a laptop with premiere, plugged in a cheap minidv camera with firewire and did some timelapse and stupid stop motion tests (like glassware running in circles and spelling my name :rolleyes: ) premiere has an option for capturing single frames (or group of frames) directly from the camera. I don't own a digital still camera and with film that can get quite expensive but you can put your dslr on a tripod, secure it so it doesn't move and take a shot for every frame. Inexpensive and rewarding. I haven't read it but there is a book about the work of Ray Harryhausen, that may be useful to you. Plus on the net there are thousands of sites and forums where you can ask and get infos about stop motion techniques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Reilly Posted June 16, 2008 Author Share Posted June 16, 2008 Thanks everyone who has replied, I'm really grateful. I think I'll be going for digital as film looks a bit expensive to clumsily fiddle with as a complete newbie. Thanks again :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I think learning on film is absolutely essential as video tends to foster bad amateurish work habits right from the start. With film if you screw up, you can't just rewind the camera and shoot over your mistakes so you must take time to set up your shots, light them properly and really take a professional attitude towards the work by knowing something about the camera and the technical aspects of film making where as with tape and consumer cameras, you set it on auto everything, (IF it even HAS a choice of manual or automatic setting), point and shoot and never learn a damn thing about photography. This is fine until you want to do something artistic with the image, then your screwed. I would recommend a pro level super 8 camera like a Beaulieu 4008, Nizo or Bauer if you're concerned about film and processing costs or if you CAN go more which would be better, A 16mm camera like a Bolex Rex 5 or an Arri S, maybe something cheaper if you can't afford 1500 to 2 grand like a Bolex H, a Filmo or a Beaulieu R16 all of which should be in your price range with cash left over for a little film, processing and maybe even a super 8 or 16mm projector. Shoot a few shorts. Hell Bolexes shot tons of TV shows back in the day and I know the Beaulieu R16 has been used to shoot a few features. Filmos were used as new cameras even sections of The Doors, Natural Born Killers, Nixon, U Turn, and JFK were shot on S8 according to Wikipedia and I know one real famous concert film was shot on super 8 but the name escapes me right now. Go with film, dude save video until AFTER you learn your craft, at least if you shoot 16mm the a slight chance you'll be able to sell a film.....video, forget about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 (edited) I think learning on film is absolutely essential as video tends to foster bad amateurish work habits right from the start. Indeed. How many self proclaimed "DP's" do I know who have NEVER shot a single frame of film? Too many. It's akin to a race car driver who only drives automatic racing cars . . . As a cinematographer, one is gotta be able to deal with whatever format the particular production throws at one, both film and digital. Not just one or the other. BUT one can always learn if the desire to learn is there, even after starting with video. Sadly, it doesn't happen very often. With the advent of HD, very few of the "digital-only DP's" feel the need to learn how to use a hand held light meter, to light by eye and not look at the video monitor to establish exposure. Damn, I sound like an old man :( Edited June 17, 2008 by Saul Rodgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Lonas Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Indeed. How many self proclaimed "DP's" do I know who have NEVER shot a single frame of film? Too many. It's akin to a race car driver who only drives automatic racing cars . . . As a cinematographer, one is gotta be able to deal with whatever format the particular production throws at one, both film and digital. Not just one or the other. BUT one can always learn if the desire to learn is there, even after starting with video. Sadly, it doesn't happen very often. With the advent of HD, very few of the "digital-only DP's" feel the need to learn how to use a hand held light meter, to light by eye and not look at the video monitor to establish exposure. Damn, I sound like an old man :( I so wish I could shoot on film... its just so expensive.. the cost of developing film are too high for a student...I would love to get my hands on a 16 MM camera to fool around with but even then I would spend so much money on film only to experiment with in my free time... Im thinking about getting a super8 camera to fool around with... but I agree that the workflow of film gives a DP a limited scope that enhances rather than hinders creative view... I think the best way to remedy this in the digital world is to treat your video camera like a film camera... especially when working with prosumer models.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I so wish I could shoot on film... its just so expensive.. the cost of developing film are too high for a student...I would love to get my hands on a 16 MM camera to fool around with but even then I would spend so much money on film only to experiment with in my free time... Im thinking about getting a super8 camera to fool around with... but I agree that the workflow of film gives a DP a limited scope that enhances rather than hinders creative view... I think the best way to remedy this in the digital world is to treat your video camera like a film camera... especially when working with prosumer models.. $4.88 per roll of Super8 E64T at walmart is too expensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I so wish I could shoot on film... its just so expensive.. the cost of developing film are too high for a student...I would love to get my hands on a 16 MM camera to fool around with but even then I would spend so much money on film only to experiment with in my free time... Im thinking about getting a super8 camera to fool around with... but I agree that the workflow of film gives a DP a limited scope that enhances rather than hinders creative view... I think the best way to remedy this in the digital world is to treat your video camera like a film camera... especially when working with prosumer models.. Film is not cheap, granted. But that also forces you to think about what you are doing. One cannot afford to make mistakes when shooting film. So it is a double edge sword. And as Nate pointed out, S-8 is not incredibly expensive to shoot and project. A decent video camera will cost you upwards of $1000. If you find an old S-8 camera that you can do manual exposure on, a Sekonic analog cine meter and a projector, and maybe spend $300 to $500 you still have a lot of money left to shoot plenty of film. S-8 cameras these days can be found for $50 or less, the more advanced ones go for more, of course. I bought a fully functional Canon S-8 camera for $15 bucks not too long ago, and a 16mm Krasnogorsk full kit for $400. There are labs who process S-8mm/ 16mm film for dirt cheap and they do a good job. So there is no excuse not to be shooting film, except not wanting to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Lonas Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 (edited) $4.88 per roll of Super8 E64T at walmart is too expensive? thats why super 8 is a much more practical solution in getting used to film,,,but one roll of super 8 for developing and the film equal about 20 bucks a roll... and if I want to edit it I still have to pay decent chunk of change for a video transfer... so in the end just to fool around with film would cost me over 50 bucks... each time I want to get 3 minutes of footage... thats a hefty chunk of change for most people... Edited June 17, 2008 by Cory Lonas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerio Sacchetto Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 and if I want to edit it I still have to pay decent chunk of change for a video transfer... so in the end just to fool around with film would cost me over 50 bucks... each time I want to get 3 minutes of footage... thats a hefty chunk of change for most people... Try splicers and rubber cement or tape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Lonas Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Try splicers and rubber cement or tape and if I ever want to show someone that doesn't have a projector I still have to get the tape transfer... its a digital world now... so if I want to show what I've shot I still have to shell out the cash for the transfer... Im still looking forward to getting my super 8 camera and shooting a few rolls.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I LITERALLY just bought a B& H 240 16mm with a set of lenses For my 13 year old film student at the Del Norte' Film Institute to use to shoot her 3 to 5 minute short on in GREAT condition for $14.30 well shipping was another $9.95 so it actually cost me $24.25 TOTAL. It's a parallax view camera but what the Hell, she has to learn to measure and adjust the lens settings anyway so parallax is a great way to learn how you'll be setting focus on a 35mm film set later on. Ebay in lousy with Filmos and Bolex Hs for under a hundred bucks and these cameras filmed WWII, Korea and Vietnam and the Hs shot all the model FX sequences for Captain Video in the 50s as well as dozens of other shows. 16mm, you can pick up short ends for pennies on the dollar at the same places you buy 35mm short ends at, so you're building a relationship with industry suppliers right off the bat. Students get insane discounts on EVERYTHING having to do with film (WHICH I might add is one reason we'll have them on the set of Blood Moon) so processing is cheap, equipment rental is cheap, FILM is cheap. If you can't haul your $30 dollar portable projector and $10 dollar portable fold up screen to somebodies house for big screen viewing, you could always video tape the projection off your wall, put it on disk and take it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerio Sacchetto Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 and if I ever want to show someone that doesn't have a projector I still have to get the tape transfer... its a digital world now... so if I want to show what I've shot I still have to shell out the cash for the transfer... Im still looking forward to getting my super 8 camera and shooting a few rolls.. Then, but only then, you'll pay for the transfer. Until that moment why pay a useless service? You do that to learn. When you'll be "good" than you'll shoot your movies on film, get a transfer of them and show it to your potential clients as a demo reel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Haritan Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 My first year at school, we were only allowed to use Sony PD150's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 and if I ever want to show someone that doesn't have a projector I still have to get the tape transfer... its a digital world now... so if I want to show what I've shot I still have to shell out the cash for the transfer... Im still looking forward to getting my super 8 camera and shooting a few rolls.. Edit it with scissors and tape first, THEN telecine. Saves you a ton of money. Why pay to telecine footage that nobody will see? Heck, take the edited footage to WalMart, again, for a Super8 to DVD transfer. Only $30 I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Lonas Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Edit it with scissors and tape first, THEN telecine. Saves you a ton of money. Why pay to telecine footage that nobody will see? Heck, take the edited footage to WalMart, again, for a Super8 to DVD transfer. Only $30 I believe. this is a good point... I think Im going to buy my girlfiends moms 16 mm camera for super cheap... I think the experience will be worth it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glen Alexander Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 super 8mm, choose right stock and blow up isn't really that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 this is a good point... I think Im going to buy my girlfiends moms 16 mm camera for super cheap... I think the experience will be worth it... which camera is it? Some cameras use 2-perf, and will chew up 98% of the 16mm film produced nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 this is a good point... I think I'm going to buy my girlfriend's mom's 16 mm camera for super cheap... I think the experience will be worth it... Nate's right, if the camera is exceptionally old say before the mid to late 40's you have to be careful, 16mm modern film has perforations on only one side so you can add a sound track. It's generally too expensive to have a camera modified to handle single perf so cheap may not turn out to be cheap if the film is hard to find. Post the make, model and year if possible before you lay down any hard cash just to be sure. The 16 guys here will be able to tell you right away if it'll work for you. If you girlfriend's mom bought it new though, you should be OK. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Matthew W. Phillips Posted June 24, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 24, 2008 Thanks everyone who has replied, I'm really grateful. I think I'll be going for digital as film looks a bit expensive to clumsily fiddle with as a complete newbie. Thanks again :D I am getting real tired of this mindset. I thought the same thing too when I first started and I went and purchased a Canon XL2 for $5,000 + the optional 3 year warranty. I spent a total of $5,600 out the door. Later, I got tired of the digital look and went film. I sold the camera for exactly half of what I paid for the beast. I got into Super 8 since I loved the look. Here is what I COULD have spent my $5,600 on if I would have known better: -$300 for a good Super 8 camera (Elmo 1012S-XL, Nikon R10, Minolta D12, etc.) -$500 to sync said good camera through The Film Group -$200 for nice used Manfrotto fluid head tripod off eBay -$75 for Capital D3-B Analog Light meter -$150 for Sound Systems Super Boom Mic stand (I have one and cant live without it now) -$100 for nice used Audix UEM-81 shotgun mic -$50 for long XLR cables and such -$400 Marantz PMD620 Field Recorder -$100 for cheap MiniDV camera to use just as a MiniDV deck to interface to PC/Mac -$150 for 250GB external Hard Drive just for footage -$555 for 15 rolls of Fuji Velvia 50D film stock from Spectra with Processing -$488 for 15 rolls of Ektachrome 100D film stock from Spectra with Processing -$488 for 15 rolls of Vision2 200T stock from Spectra w/process -$488 for 15 rolls of Vision2 500T stock from Spectra w/process -$488 for 15 rolls of Ektachrome 64T stock from Spectra w/process -$1,068 for a short film budget aside from film, processing, and camera/equipment costs. For the record, that film would get you a total of 187.5 minutes of footage(over 3 hours!) of Super 8 footage. If you wanted to shoot a 15 minute short, that would give you a shooting ratio of 12.5:1 which gives you more than a gradual learning curve. All of this you could get with what I paid for an XL2 camera alone. Sad really but you live and learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I am getting real tired of this mindset. I thought the same thing too when I first started and I went and purchased a Canon XL2 for $5,000 + the optional 3 year warranty. I spent a total of $5,600 out the door. Later, I got tired of the digital look and went film. I sold the camera for exactly half of what I paid for the beast. I got into Super 8 since I loved the look. Here is what I COULD have spent my $5,600 on if I would have known better: Agree, but you are forgetting that most people hate to fiddle with things they are not used to, and not having is priceless to them. Sad but true. For instance, how many automatic transmission cars are on the streets compared to standard transmission ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Reilly Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share Posted July 8, 2008 I am getting real tired of this mindset. I thought the same thing too when I first started and I went and purchased a Canon XL2 for $5,000 + the optional 3 year warranty. I spent a total of $5,600 out the door. Later, I got tired of the digital look and went film. I sold the camera for exactly half of what I paid for the beast. I got into Super 8 since I loved the look. Here is what I COULD have spent my $5,600 on if I would have known better: -$300 for a good Super 8 camera (Elmo 1012S-XL, Nikon R10, Minolta D12, etc.) -$500 to sync said good camera through The Film Group -$200 for nice used Manfrotto fluid head tripod off eBay -$75 for Capital D3-B Analog Light meter -$150 for Sound Systems Super Boom Mic stand (I have one and cant live without it now) -$100 for nice used Audix UEM-81 shotgun mic -$50 for long XLR cables and such -$400 Marantz PMD620 Field Recorder -$100 for cheap MiniDV camera to use just as a MiniDV deck to interface to PC/Mac -$150 for 250GB external Hard Drive just for footage -$555 for 15 rolls of Fuji Velvia 50D film stock from Spectra with Processing -$488 for 15 rolls of Ektachrome 100D film stock from Spectra with Processing -$488 for 15 rolls of Vision2 200T stock from Spectra w/process -$488 for 15 rolls of Vision2 500T stock from Spectra w/process -$488 for 15 rolls of Ektachrome 64T stock from Spectra w/process -$1,068 for a short film budget aside from film, processing, and camera/equipment costs. For the record, that film would get you a total of 187.5 minutes of footage(over 3 hours!) of Super 8 footage. If you wanted to shoot a 15 minute short, that would give you a shooting ratio of 12.5:1 which gives you more than a gradual learning curve. All of this you could get with what I paid for an XL2 camera alone. Sad really but you live and lear I get full access to Film camera's in my second year, as well as a decent tuition in how to use them, so I figure, why buy a film camera now, when I get taught how to use them properly over the next year? I don't have the time to practice or the facilities to process film for quite a while yet, especially as I'm currently living in the middle of nowhere. I just wanted something I can make films with that look half decent, with a decent laptop and editing program. I will be taking the camera off auto though, I know a little about lighting so I'm going to see what I can do (I'm not even attempting to use digetic sound for now). I'm also thinking of getting some work experience with companies who produce short films/commercials for the internet, so familiarity with digital equipment should be a plus. In the end I know I should be using film to learn on, but I'll be starting to use film camera's in class from October, so if I have a digital one of my own for now, then I should end up being able to work well with both in the long run. Thanks for the advice though :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now