Stop-motion

Matt Duriez · October 30, 2004

Hey guys.

I am shooting a short stop-motion film and obviously want to shoot on 35mm. Obviously I can't afford to buy a 35mm movie camera nor can I afford to rent one for the time it will take to shoot the film, but I think I have come up with a solution and need you guys to check it for flaws.

So here goes.

I think I may be able to utilise my Nikon F5 stills camera, if I buy a bulk loader so that I can load 100ft at a time and shoot the film one frame at a time as per the norm. I would then get the film developed and scan it into my computer at low resolution, giving me a simple digital version of the film so that I can create the soundtrack, could I then have an optical sound print and another print of the film made and combined, giving me a 35mm print, right? Can anyone see any problems there?

Obviously I will still have to pay for film, developing, prints etc but it should work out a darn sight cheaper than hiring or buying a 35mm movie camera.

Thanks guys

Phil Rhodes · October 30, 2004

Hi,

Several thoughts.

First off, if you're shooting loads and loads, and you will be for a feature, it might actually not be cheaper. You only need the oldest, crappies, noisiest single-frame-capable 35mm movie camera for this kind of work, and they're not that expensive. Now you'd have to get that telecined professionally, but that's really a tradeoff between what you have to spend and how long you have to spend; you'd be paying a hell of a lot of money for processing at stills rates.

Which really leads onto the second thought. Neither a 35mm stills camera, your high street photo lab's scanner, nor their printing machine has sufficiently good registration for motion work - the frame will chatter all over the place, forcing you to run it through a tracking stabiliser, which is longwinded and an expensive piece of software, before you could use it.

The absolute best thing you could do would be to get a digital stills camera. Perfect registration, no processing fees, direct transfer to your computer, and even fairly basic models have better resolution than that at which your average feature film effects sequence is scanned. Nobody will look down on you if you do an independent feature at 2K, and that's only just over three megapixels. There's already a stopmotion feature being done this way. Quite feasible to do this - you could even write a simple batch script to produce low res proxies for editing as you shoot.

Phil

Matt Duriez · October 31, 2004

thanks for the advice, I will certainly bear it in mind

Laurent Andrieux · October 31, 2004

I follow Phil.

Though I don't know much about digital solutions, here is my 2 cents :

Using 35mm still camera :

mind that you get 36 shots out a single 135 mm roll, that will give you about 1 second and half of your film for each roll...

Notice that the frame is not the same, since film cameras register the frames vertically and are smaller (16/22) than what you get with your still camera, that prints horizontally 24/36. You actually don't need that "over definition" for motion picture, it's some kind of a loss...

Every time I worked on low costs stop motion films, they use to find an old mark II camera for instance, or any old noisy camera that is very cheap to rent.

You won't have to reload every 135 mm of film but be able to use 400 ' magazines, that gives you about 4 minutes of daily instead of a second and half...

As for the digital solution, as I said, I can't tell.

John Sprung · November 2, 2004

I have in storage somewhere a Bell & Howell 35mm Eyemo with a single frame movement in it. It only does single frame, not continuous motion. It takes 100 ft. daylight spools only, no mags. IIRC, I paid $20 U.S. for it about ten years ago.

-- J.S.

Adam Frisch FSF · November 3, 2004

I have a friend who did a stop-motion video with a Nikon 4 megapixel digital camera hooked up to his Mac. Looked great and had none of the "digital feel" video suffers from.

Filip Plesha · November 3, 2004

Digital SLR cameras do not have that video look.

First of all, the latitude is much greater because RAW files that the camera records are low contrast, much like negatives (well not as much, but they serve the same purpuse), so the output file is a conversion to "print contrast" , much like when you make prints from negatives. That way the highlights are not so much blown out. But negative film still has more dynamic range and latitude than most digital SLR's

The other thing is that these sensors are much more advanced and precise,

and render colors more smoothly and film-like.

High end digital photography like medium format digital backs, matches film in quality of color and tone renedering and exceeds some of the lower quality emulsions that block up oversaturated tones. Yet there is an esthetical difference

which is getting more and more subtle because film development and digital development are coming to a common ground. Film is getting more smoother and cleaner looking, and digital is getting more and more film-like.

Webster Colcord · November 3, 2004

John,

Is your Eyemo spring-wound or does it have a single-frame motor?

Matt,

Go to http://www.stopmotionanimation.com you will find a lot of these topics covered in the message board section of the site.

My first 35mm camera was an old Wall camera, paid $1,500 for it and it makes beautiful pictures. Had someone rig up a single frame motor for it for about $350. You can buy one from Martin Hill - http://www.martinhill.com/ he has one for sale now for $2500. The movement of the Wall is dual-pin registered, not as good as a Mitchell but very steady nonetheless. The Arri BL has basically the same self-contained style of movement. You can also find relatively cheap 35cameras on ebay that are great for animation- 2709's and Oxberry animation cameras.

35mm can't be beat, the next best way to shoot would be with the digital still camera- but you have to buy a higher-end camera with more manual functions. Ironic that you pay more for less automation.

Webster Colcord

www.webstercolcord.com

Filip Plesha · November 3, 2004

Hey Webster, I've heard of you, and I've seen some of your work,

I belive I have some stuff on my computer somewhere. Nice of you to join us here.

Phil Rhodes · November 3, 2004

Hi,

Something like a Canon EOS-1DS will somewhat outresolve 35mm motion picture film, especially if you're using an old 35mm camera with older optics. Of course a 1DS is not a cheap piece of kit - you could probably buy an old 35mm motion picture camera and put one, maybe two rolls of film through it for similar money. There are cheaper digi stills cameras, the 300D springs to mind, which would also do the job, but the 1DS is probably the current king of the crop. I've never done it, but I'd imagine that if you handled it as 4K all the way a filmout could potentially look very nice indeed.

Phil

Matt Duriez · November 3, 2004

I have got access to a nikon D100, would that work?

Matt

Phil Rhodes · November 3, 2004

Hi,

I don't know, what do the pictures look like?

If they're over 2048x1556 pixels, you're in reasonable shape. Depends how the workflow would happen, though. It'd take a lot of planning.

Phil

John Sprung · November 3, 2004

John,

Is your Eyemo spring-wound or does it have a single-frame motor?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a spring drive. It looks like any non-turret, non-magazine bare bones eyemo. It's just that the movement is different, single frame *only*. IIRC, it's stored in a closet at my mother's house, I'll look for it again next time I visit.

-- J.S.

Webster Colcord · November 3, 2004

Hey Webster, I've heard of you, and I've seen some of your work,
I belive I have some stuff on my computer somewhere. Nice of you to join us here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Filip, check out my site to download more stuff. I've shot a few things digitally for the web, but it's a problem later when I want to show it in a theatrical venue on film. It's better to originate on film and make a digital version from that. But of course, having instantaneous results is great too, and it's a cost savings after the initial investment (which is as about much as a decent 35mm camera package for stop-motion). There have been several stop-motion films recently which have shot with digital still cameras and gone back to film.

www.webstercolcord.com

Webster Colcord · November 4, 2004

It's a spring drive. It looks like any non-turret, non-magazine bare bones eyemo. It's just that the movement is different, single frame *only*. IIRC, it's stored in a closet at my mother's house, I'll look for it again next time I visit.
-- J.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder if that was a special-use eyemo made for the army to shoot very long series of still frames, maybe for bomb spotting. Odd. I've seen an eyemo on ebay that was rigged with a stop-motion motor, and a friend of mine in Portland, Oregon had done the same- actually putting it on a motion control rig. I've heard that the dual pull-down claw makes for surprisingly good registration. Have you ever shot with it?