Which 35mm film camera is suitable for my needs? (new to this)

[Ethan Bowes]

Evening. I'm desirous to get into cinematography. I have plenty of stories, images and locations in my head, and my requirements aren't all that high.

 

First, I am not a fan of cinema style later than Tarkovsky's Sacrifice (1983), or most holywood-esque film. There is something atmospheric and beautiful about the aesthetic of a handful of 70s films that tend to capture a certain occult magnificence--Stalker, The Shining, Barry Lyndon, Fanny and Alexander, Nostalghia, World on a Wire, etc.

 

Well. My goal is to work towards this type of aesthetic. All I need is the right set of camera/lens/parts, since most of my shots are going to involve the wilderness, myself, and a few friends, with costumes and set pieces I am working on.

 

Now, with that background in my mind, here are my questions:

1) Most of these films use Arri. I was looking at the Arri IIC. Is this the best option for this type of aesthetic? My budget is from $1-3k for the equipment. Is this too low, too high? Is the IIC the best approach?

2) What kind of lenses are the sharpest for this kind of look? Are they expensive? Can one still buy lenses from the 70s? Are there certain cine-lenses suited for landscapes, or for portraits, or macro?

3) I notice the motors on these camera's are very loud. How does one film scenes with the rumbling in the background?

4) What is the average price for these types of cameras? What parts are needed, and what are some precautions I should take in the marketplace?

5) How heavy are these cameras?

Edited December 25, 2012 by Ethan Bowes

[Simon Wyss]

You can achieve your desired style or look or easthetics with any camera. The choice of camera has almost nothing to do with style, except with sound. But even there you can record direct sound with camera in blimp.

 

Are you certain that you want to repeat a 1970s look on paying screen? What is it you need to show, what do you want to tell the world, or is it for you alone? You can be a 35mm film amateur, no problem.

 

There were several people who thought they could influence cinematic style with tools they invented. The Bell & Howell Standard Cinematograph Camera of 1911-12 was heralded as the most efficient and economic camera. One would lose only little raw stock upon loading and setting up. I have worked with the Debrie Matipo, one of the most widely used 35mm film printers of all times, and it is true that only three feet of leader are necessary to thread up the negative. But it is only a printing apparatus. Later the spinning mirror reflex viewfinder came into use, praised as revolutionary. But its impact on film narration or visual style remained marginal. Speed ramps got popular in the past years, you have continuous shots from time to time lasting twenty minutes or so, but Tarkovsky or Kubrick, if you want, did not have technology as a starting point. On the contrary, everything technical is subordinated to content.

 

Someone had to tell you.

[David Mullen ASC]

You're running into the problem of the (cost & size) difference between a self-blimped (silent) camera and a noisy MOS camera that needs a blimp in order to record sound. You also may run into the issue of using a camera with an older lens mount type. But the Arri-2C is a good camera for running around with your friends, sort of the 35mm equivalent of an Arri-S. Just try and make silent movies...

 

The real costs will be stock, processing, and telecine, which will run many times more than the cost of your camera package.

[Ethan Bowes]

Am I missing something? Isn't it the Arri that produces the certain look of those notable films? I have noticed that the character of 80s films appear distinctly different from the 70s. Or is it lens? I absolutely hate the look of modern filmography. The 'pure realism' of digital takes away all character, and I have noticed barely any distinction between most modern film-makers. Same in the camera world, from SLR's to DSLR's.

 

Stalker has a very panoramic and detailed look to it that I haven't noticed in other films. Where do I start trying to attempt something similar?

 

Well. I would try to steer clear of paying films. The film is to capture my ultimate vision, not to fall into any criteria to attract viewers. To me, the look of the 70s tops anything else.

 

How much does a blimp cost?

 

Also, where can I dig into cinematographic knowledge on the basics of film production?

Edited December 26, 2012 by Ethan Bowes

[Adrian Sierkowski]

All a camera does is hold the film and lens. Lenses and film-stock as well as the overall design of the motion picture in question are what give it its look. Not to mention the whole DI process and digital projection of modern films.

[Ethan Bowes]

The headway I've made here is,

1) It really matters not in the film world what body you use, as this is merely a box to store information, with no attributes that change depending on model. What matters is a mixture of vision/film/lens/post-processing.

2) The only difference, then, for film cameras is if it's 16mm or 35mm, if the motor is an issue as related to sound, and the weight. With digital we'd take into consideration megapixels or if it's HD etc?

 

So, wouldn't my best bet (atleast if I'm a beginner) if I prefer the film look to digital, be to buy a CP16R and a nice Zeiss lens? You can get a CP16R package for $1000. I'm curious, why would anyone buy an ARRI SRII for bucket-loads more if it serves the same function?

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I'm curious, why would anyone buy an ARRI SRII for bucket-loads more if it serves the same function?

 

DPs are just like any other enthusiasts...they want more features, more comfort, more options. Why do mechanics buy so many tools? They could make do with less? Yes. But they just want MORE.

[Peter Char]

The headway I've made here is,

1) It really matters not in the film world what body you use, as this is merely a box to store information, with no attributes that change depending on model. What matters is a mixture of vision/film/lens/post-processing.

Wrong, Body does matter. Shutters move differently, quality of registration pins differ. Bolex differs from, Arri S which differs from Aaton LTR which differs from Aaton XTR Prod. There is a huge difference in how smooth and steady it pulls the film through. As well as features the camera offers for ramping, shutter speeds, lens mounts and magazine sizes.

 

2) The only difference, then, for film cameras is if it's 16mm or 35mm, if the motor is an issue as related to sound, and the weight. With digital we'd take into consideration megapixels or if it's HD etc?

 

Also count in super 16mm, lenses for 16mm will not work on 35mm, and film gets used up twice as fast in 35mm than 16mm which equals $$$. 16mm is cheaper to process and yeilds twice the air time.

 

400ft 35mm = 3Min 33 seconds

400ft 16mm = 9 Minutes

 

Super 16mm blown up to 35mm or digital will give you a lot of the look you're after. 35mm has grown so much more sensitive and clean since the 70's and 80's. Super 16mm asthetically feels more like classic 35mm. But it varies by how you use it, what you're after and what films you're looking at.

 

Blimps for the arri can be 4,000 or 10,000 depending on the two different types.

 

I second your thoughts on 70s films. That is the pinnacle for me, visually it just doesn't compare to anything else.

 

I've been after the same thing, its basically balancing your budget. And while I was more after purity and sent myself into film debt I would recommend budget balance. With video you can come close, with film you can get what you look for but with a huge toll bank wise and physically/mentally.

 

The motion film gives you is difficult to replicate, the colors are always worked on. So you're going to need post work which is soo much better digital. You have more control at a fraction of the cost. You'll spend so much working on post in film. Definitely edit digitally. Don't even consider hand editing. You'll spend thousands on edit prints, which are basically useless when your done with them. I've done scanning of work prints for a more gritty look. But it gets so contrasty so fast, and you're loosing a lot of quality in one light work prints. Projection prints are a world of difference. Editing projection prints would be expensive and wastefull. I've tried to save money but it's just not there. not worth it in my book.

 

Now I own an Arri 2c. Arri 2c's are going for dirt cheap on ebay now, as I'm sure you know. The biggest expense though is Lenses and Film. You can't get anywhere without those two things. So the camera body is the only thing you can affordably do.

I can't deny the quality from the 2c is jawdropping, 35mm film is unlike anything else raw. But I will mirror somethig I read here. It is the Siren's song of young film makers. It's lustful glory will guide you straight into the rocks and not look twice.

They are right Arri 2c is loud, but you can ADR the sound(re-record in post), you're after passion so an extra step like this while time consuming and annoying wouldn't stop you. You could never tell watching the movie anyway so who cares.

 

Get a Red save up, borrow, rent, anything you have to do and you wont regret it. With Red you can use pretty much any lens imaginable. BNCR lenses like Super Baltars used in the Godfather, or go PL and get some great 80's era Zeiss or Cooke lenses. Lens give you a LOT of the look your after. They do things to the light which you wouldn't believe.

The other part is lighting. Lighting styles change constantly. Look at the films you're looking ot be influenced by. What are the light colors. how are they lit and who shot them. A lot of these cinematographers have written books about their ideals and techniques.

Then understand how the camera works. Like I said if you go digital it gives you a lot more money to put infront of the lens rather than behind it. Learn to shoot at the right shutter speeds to avoid weird looking movements, strange blurring or digital staples that will give away your format. This couldn't be more vital no matter what camera you use.

 

Buy some old Mole Richardson Lights (i've done that too, they are awesome.)

 

Then when you're done color correct it or have it color corrected to match the classic styles you've seen. Add film grain in post. You'll get it so close the unitiated and even some film guys will find it tough to decipher whether its film or digital. Remember the key is you're after the look and feel. All roads can lead to Rome if you walk it right. You want the best for your production so give it the most opportunity to succeed. Give it the most funding and thought as possible. Now you can shoot Kubrick style with 140 takes a setup, and get a quality that is identical.

 

 

I'm now selling my Arri 2c. But I wouldn't sell it to you, because I lost a lot of time, money and hair fighting film. There is a reason people switched to digital, it will be the gift that keep on giving. shoot 4k.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

You'll get it so close the unitiated and even some film guys will find it tough to decipher whether its film or digital.

 

This man obviously knows what he wants so its not our place to discourage him. And I, for one, would NOT be satisfied with a RED image because I can always tell a difference. I couldn't care less if the public or others notice it if I can see the lack of quality since I'm to one spending my own green to buy it.

 

I saw an interesting thread the other day (dated from 2010) on dvxuser where everyone was saying they couldnt tell the difference between an AF100 and 16mm film. I like the AF100 for what it is but that was an absurd statement if you saw the two side by side. In an ironic twist of fate, Kahleem, whom I have argued in the past, wisely brought out that film kicked the behind of the AF100 and that people were essentially blind or being overly cavalier about the AF100s deficiencies.

 

Suffice to say I have a lot more respect for Kahleem after reading that. He obviously tells the truth as he sees it regardless of format.

[Gregg MacPherson]

...I have plenty of stories, images and locations in my head.....

First, I am not a fan of cinema style later than Tarkovsky's Sacrifice (1983), or most holywood-esque film. There is something atmospheric and beautiful about the aesthetic of a handful of 70s films that tend to capture a certain occult magnificence--Stalker, The Shining, Barry Lyndon, Fanny and Alexander, Nostalghia, World on a Wire, etc.

 

Well. My goal is to work towards this type of aesthetic. All I need is the right set of camera/lens/parts, since most of my shots are going to involve the wilderness, myself, and a few friends, with costumes and set pieces I am working on.......

 

Hey Ethan,

 

When someone new seems identified with Tarkovsky, I have hope. Most everyone else is traveling in the opposite direction. Tarkovsky had a natural but deeper than normal sense of life and experience. What lies beneath the surface (of life) is a kind of magic and his poetic sense in film was allowing a more direct access to that (for the viewer).

 

But what does it mean when someone feels an "aesthetic" connection with his work? Are they identified with the underlying perceptivity, the window into life itself, or are they fascinated by the forms? Are they intuitively engaged with the philosophy or are they just being eclectic, preparing to borrow or paraphrase a "look"?

 

As an entry point for an artist to begin his exploration of film? Maybe those differences don't matter, as long as the feeling is sincere.

 

On a practical level.

Do you already have some projects in mind of defined duration, scale or budget? If you are self funded and don't have any experienced helpers then you have a huge amount to learn in order to execute even a small project, regardless of medium. If becoming the cinematographer is critical to your creative process then maybe a period of exploration, learning, testing. Start by borrowing a 16mm Bolex, allow yourself 100' of film and shoot some short tests of your actor friends in costume, in character, in the environments or sets. Read a bit about lighting, but follow your feeling rather than a formula, get some advice, keep it really simple. You can do an enormous amount with a small number of simple lights, diffusion screens and flags (to cut light).

 

As I gather you have realized, 16mm is a cheaper format to work in than 35mm. There's lots of opinion on different threads about the relative usefulness of different cameras. All the cameras can be cheap now, but you need one that has ben properly maintained. Reactivate one of those threads and ask lots of questions. See if you can borrow a camera, or visit someone who has cameras and experience who can help you learn. Maybe they can help execute one of your projects.

 

I don't know if it makes common sense to approach the profound value of Tarkovsky with digital. It seems ironic. I started writing something relevant to that in this thread .......Film vs Digital. Impact on Art, Culture, Experience,

http://www.cinematog...wtopic=58446=

 

Where are you located? What access do you have to labs, rental houses, film editing equipment, experienced film makers, cinematographers?

 

My writing here is a bid patchy, but your post effectively prompts a lot of diverse streams of information. Hard to know where to start.

 

Cheers,

Gregg.

PS: I'm mostly thinking about The Mirror, Nostalghia, The Stalker, but yes Bergman's wonderfull Fanny and Alexander, Ok, but Kubrik is a bit dry and intellectual to include here (for me).

 

Edit: Added PS

Edited December 27, 2012 by Gregg MacPherson

[Will Montgomery]

A 2C might be a good entry camera body, but I'd suggest looking for one with a crystal and PL lens mount modification. Then you can invest in quality lenses that will work for you in higher-end bodies as your work progresses. Also, 2C magazines will work with cameras all the way up to the ARRI 435 so that's useful as well.

 

If you'd like to record sound the Arri BL4 might be a good option. They are quieter but larger and don't go as fast as the 2C, III and 435 lines. Completely different magazine configuration however.

 

Starting with film will be good for your craft as the discipline film requires will help you in any format. Don't reject digital out of hand however as you can look at digital as simply another brush in your cup.

[Gregg MacPherson]

...There is something atmospheric and beautiful about the aesthetic of a handful of 70s films that tend to capture a certain occult magnificence--Stalker, The Shining, Barry Lyndon, Fanny and Alexander, Nostalghia, World on a Wire, etc.......

Well. My goal is to work towards this type of aesthetic. .....

 

Ethan,

In which direction did your thoughts go ?

 

Cheers,

Gregg.

[Ethan Bowes]

Morning. My apologies for not replying sooner but my computer time is limited. I would like to thank everyone for their candid and specific replies.

 

DPs are just like any other enthusiasts...they want more features, more comfort, more options. Why do mechanics buy so many tools? They could make do with less? Yes. But they just want MORE.

This is very helpful to know. I am willing to spend more time the hard way if I am to find the same result for less capital. If, in the future, I would be able to get any funding, or at-least a salary job (I'm 23 working a minimum wage job), perhaps these tools would be beneficial.

 

Wrong, Body does matter. Shutters move differently, quality of registration pins differ. Bolex differs from, Arri S which differs from Aaton LTR which differs from Aaton XTR Prod. There is a huge difference in how smooth and steady it pulls the film through. As well as features the camera offers for ramping, shutter speeds, lens mounts and magazine sizes.

Does how smooth and steady it pulls the film through affect the end result, shutter movement etc, affect the imagery? You say shutter speed. So, some cameras can take more precise images of a person running for example?

 

Super 16mm asthetically feels more like classic 35mm. But it varies by how you use it, what you're after and what films you're looking at.

Sounds like Super 16mm is the more reasonable option.

 

Definitely edit digitally. Don't even consider hand editing. You'll spend thousands on edit prints, which are basically useless when your done with them.

I think editing digital, not only sounds less painstaking, but would give one versatility and a whole host of commands available at the click of a mouse. So why not?

 

They are right Arri 2c is loud, but you can ADR the sound(re-record in post), you're after passion so an extra step like this while time consuming and annoying wouldn't stop you. You could never tell watching the movie anyway so who cares.

How would you be able to match up facial expressions with the diction?

 

Get a Red save up, borrow, rent, anything you have to do and you wont regret it. With Red you can use pretty much any lens imaginable. BNCR lenses like Super Baltars used in the Godfather, or go PL and get some great 80's era Zeiss or Cooke lenses. Lens give you a LOT of the look your after.

Aren't they a bit above my budget? I can certainly find the lenses, but am I still getting the replicated look of early 70s 80s films?

 

Lighting styles change constantly. Look at the films you're looking ot be influenced by. What are the light colors. how are they lit and who shot them. A lot of these cinematographers have written books about their ideals and techniques.

Which books do you suggest?

 

I will continue to reply here. I have read all of the posts over. Need more free time on the internet.

 

Again, thanks for the replies!

[Ethan Bowes]

This man obviously knows what he wants so its not our place to discourage him. And I, for one, would NOT be satisfied with a RED image because I can always tell a difference. I couldn't care less if the public or others notice it if I can see the lack of quality since I'm to one spending my own green to buy it.

 

I saw an interesting thread the other day (dated from 2010) on dvxuser where everyone was saying they couldnt tell the difference between an AF100 and 16mm film. I like the AF100 for what it is but that was an absurd statement if you saw the two side by side. In an ironic twist of fate, Kahleem, whom I have argued in the past, wisely brought out that film kicked the behind of the AF100 and that people were essentially blind or being overly cavalier about the AF100s deficiencies.

 

Suffice to say I have a lot more respect for Kahleem after reading that. He obviously tells the truth as he sees it regardless of format.

Ah, this is correct. I am a perfectionist and stickler for detail. If there is any sort of difference from the aforementioned films, any trace of digital, why even bother?

 

Hey Ethan,

 

When someone new seems identified with Tarkovsky, I have hope. Most everyone else is traveling in the opposite direction. Tarkovsky had a natural but deeper than normal sense of life and experience. What lies beneath the surface (of life) is a kind of magic and his poetic sense in film was allowing a more direct access to that (for the viewer).

 

But what does it mean when someone feels an "aesthetic" connection with his work? Are they identified with the underlying perceptivity, the window into life itself, or are they fascinated by the forms? Are they intuitively engaged with the philosophy or are they just being eclectic, preparing to borrow or paraphrase a "look"?

 

As an entry point for an artist to begin his exploration of film? Maybe those differences don't matter, as long as the feeling is sincere.

 

On a practical level.

Do you already have some projects in mind of defined duration, scale or budget? If you are self funded and don't have any experienced helpers then you have a huge amount to learn in order to execute even a small project, regardless of medium. If becoming the cinematographer is critical to your creative process then maybe a period of exploration, learning, testing. Start by borrowing a 16mm Bolex, allow yourself 100' of film and shoot some short tests of your actor friends in costume, in character, in the environments or sets. Read a bit about lighting, but follow your feeling rather than a formula, get some advice, keep it really simple. You can do an enormous amount with a small number of simple lights, diffusion screens and flags (to cut light).

 

As I gather you have realized, 16mm is a cheaper format to work in than 35mm. There's lots of opinion on different threads about the relative usefulness of different cameras. All the cameras can be cheap now, but you need one that has ben properly maintained. Reactivate one of those threads and ask lots of questions. See if you can borrow a camera, or visit someone who has cameras and experience who can help you learn. Maybe they can help execute one of your projects.

 

I don't know if it makes common sense to approach the profound value of Tarkovsky with digital. It seems ironic. I started writing something relevant to that in this thread .......Film vs Digital. Impact on Art, Culture, Experience,

http://www.cinematog...wtopic=58446=

 

Where are you located? What access do you have to labs, rental houses, film editing equipment, experienced film makers, cinematographers?

 

My writing here is a bid patchy, but your post effectively prompts a lot of diverse streams of information. Hard to know where to start.

 

Cheers,

Gregg.

PS: I'm mostly thinking about The Mirror, Nostalghia, The Stalker, but yes Bergman's wonderfull Fanny and Alexander, Ok, but Kubrik is a bit dry and intellectual to include here (for me).

 

Most people are travelling in the opposite direction because they not only live in a society of but are themselves cosmopolitan capitalists. Film is the holywood agenda. To woo over the largest quantity, to bring riches, sex, applauds from the herd. The palette of these people are, 'cutting edge technology' 'effects' and 'realism'.

 

Tarkovsky seemed rather to see film as a medium to portray a very wholesome view of the individual, apart from an 'industry's demands'. He slowed down life itself, to a point where he could capture all auras, colors, and poetic moments in between the hustle and bustle of an organized world. Direct access. Yes, he explores his surroundings, taps into their frequencies--and yet, aside from the surroundings, with the medium of film and its appearance, portrays a poetic vision of life.

 

As much as I am influenced by Tarkovsky, who to me is the king of form, I would like to start my own form and design, going far beyond that realm.

 

A cheaper film camera like a Bolex seems ideal, as to start, one is simply testing the waters, and finding out about light, visuals, environment and all the other technical details.

 

I am located in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. No idea about access as the journey has just begun. The city holds 300,000 people. Perhaps Vancouver is a more plausible location?

 

The Mirror, Nostalghia, and Stalker are currently the end-point of cinema.

 

Cheers.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Ethan Bowes

[Gregg MacPherson]

.....I am located in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada....

The Mirror, Nostalghia, and Stalker are currently the end-point of cinema.

 

Cheers.

 

Hey Ethan,

 

I was going to say things like how it's commonly easier to learn all the technology and skills required than it is to hold onto the slender thread of creative intention that made it all begin. Of course, now I have said that......

 

I think Tarkovsky, properly recognized offers a beggining point, at least for an artist. If the world that he saw, imagined and implied is real then it's an inexhaustible well spring. And the forms you find will not necessarily look like his forms.

 

A quick google shows that there are maybe lots of film makers in Victoria BC. If you join CINEVIC then you will get a Bolex or an Eclair NPR for free. My advice is to join, meet some people, just ignore the fact thet they may all be raving about the Scarlet and the Tarantino style film or horror film they want to make. There will be one or two artists in there.

 

Find someone about to shoot on film and help on their project. Doesn't matter what you do as long as you are near the thing you are interested in

[Nicholas Kovats]

Ethan,

 

I could not resist posting considering your statements regarding Tarkovsky and the classic film textures of the 1970's.

 

And your right. He slowed down time and exquisitely observed quiet reflective moments. Very heavy massive Russian Konvas cameras and Lomo lenses were used. It took graceful muscle to move this heavy equipment and create his classic tracking shots.

 

That being said and without getting into too much detail...here is a short film I shot with a modified Bolex camera to potentially assist you with your available options. Stock was reversal re: Ektachrome 100D color and Plus-X b/w. I have recently grown impatient with reversal stocks and aim to shoot more color negative film with it's increased latitude. For a less compressed contrasty look and a more delicate muted color.

 

Anyways here is the film, i.e

[Freya Black]

Ethan,

 

I could not resist posting considering your statements regarding Tarkovsky and the classic film textures of the 1970's.

 

And your right. He slowed down time and exquisitely observed quiet reflective moments. Very heavy massive Russian Konvas cameras and Lomo lenses were used. It took graceful muscle to move this heavy equipment and create his classic tracking shots.

 

Thanks for writing this Nicholas! Definitely not Arri but good old soviet cameras and soviet lomos! :)

 

Also "World on a wire" was shot on 16mm I think?? (not 100% sure but I thought so) and it was shot on the ektachrome colour reversal of the time (VNF). I'm dead jealous that the original poster has seen it, as I'm a huge fan of Fassbinder. Something for me to look forward to! :)

 

I think the thing that will affect the look most is the film stock. Obviously film stocks have changed a lot since the 70's and I agree that you would be better off starting with 16mm to try and achieve a look closer to the 35mm of the past.

 

I think the suggestion to join cinevic is a good one too. I was going to suggest the NPR as a possible camera (cheap, sound sync and the easiest to have converted to Super16 down the line if need be) but if cinevic have one to loan, then you could sign up with them and see how you like shooting on it.

 

I was a bit confused about all this talk of film being expensive and then in the same breath talk of super baltars etc. I think certain people here might be out of touch with the cost of many classic lenses!

 

Sign up with cinevic. I'm sure that will be a good first step forward!

 

love

 

Freya

[Will Montgomery]

I think the thing that will affect the look most is the film stock. Obviously film stocks have changed a lot since the 70's and I agree that you would be better off starting with 16mm to try and achieve a look closer to the 35mm of the past.

If you want to go really hard into a "70's" look, then reversal might get you there. But since Ektachrome seems gone forever I'd take another route. Concentrate on matching the lighting and sets that you want and work in the color booth to get the look you want. Any look can be achieved with Vision 3 stocks when telecined and a proper colorist. Just show up with specific examples.

 

I'm seeing plenty of Arri BL cameras at the top of your price range these days. These might be the perfect camera for you as they are fairly usable in sound situations if they are well maintained.

[Nicholas Kovats]

Thanks, Freya!

 

As a Canadian I wasn't even aware of Cinevic's existence as per the the original poster's location! Very cool in terms of his potential access to some sync sound 16mm cameras. You cannot beat a daily member rental rate of $0 regarding the NPR cameras. Cheap enough to get his feet wet, i.e. http://www.cinevic.ca/equipment

[Nicholas Kovats]

And it has a Tobin Crystal Sync motor.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Ethan,

Are you still reading this?

 

I don't think you need a 35mm camera right now. But I think you have got that already. I don't think you need a quiet 16mm camera either. If you are genuinely interested in a transcendent sensibility as illustrated by Tarkovsky. If you have never shot a foot of film in your life and have very little money then.......Focus on these things.

 

- Idea, the escence of it.

- What is there, really, that can possibly express that idea? When the forms, imaginations come, document this with notes, sketches, anything.

- Composition and light.

 

I would still say, borrow a bolex etc, allow yourself 100' of film and go shoot very short snippets of idea with your actor friends in costume, in character, in the environments or sets that you have in mind. Get a work print from that and project it. See if someone at Cinevic has a picsync or flatbed and try cutting elements of that together.

[Will Montgomery]

Good advice.