Making a short -- question about format choices

[Freya Black]

There are still film stocks available that still look incredible, but they are all colour stocks in my experience.

 

Freya

 

Actually I'm being unfair. Tri-X looks great but it is reversal only and very, very, very grainy.

Personally I like all the grain from Tri-X but I know that a lot of people don't like mountains of grain.

 

Freya

[Phil Rhodes]

I don't dislike the way it looks, but it's obviously not exactly in the realm of the conventional.

[Freya Black]

I don't dislike the way it looks, but it's obviously not exactly in the realm of the conventional.

 

EXACTLY I can't imagine a period drama or an action movie shot in Tri-X.

It could work for a quirky sci-fi film like Pi or Primer tho, or something a bit punk in some way.

 

I actually think the fact that it isnt exactly in the realm of the conventional is a big strength in a way, it would really stand out in a festival against all the boring EOS stuff. It has nice grain so I'd probably go even further and shoot it on Super8 to take it all the way! If I was in the states and could buy it for the price you can get it there I'd be shooting mountains of the stuff for sure! :)

 

Freya

[Mark A. Leuchter]

All of this has been very helpful for me -- so I thank everyone for contributing their perspectives.

 

I am no longer considering B&W...after giving it a lot of thought, color (with subtle tones, a little desaturated) will work better for my project.

 

After doing a lot of reading and research, it seems like I have three really good options, determined by a combination of factors, chief among them being cost-efficiency and handheld viability (a lot of shots will be handheld/MOS and require a low-profile camera so as not to draw too much attention):

 

Option 1 - use the Digital Bolex D-16, equipped with a few good but small c-mount primes (maybe the Kinoptic 9mm, and a few Switars?) and a small external viewfinder. The test footage I've seen looks REALLY nice, it's small and good for handheld, and the reports are that it is good for recording audio as well so I could use it for my sync-sound dialogue scenes. An alternate option for the same purposes would be to use the Ikonoskop A-Cam Dii, which looks to me like it produces images of equal quality to the Digital Bolex, and it is obviously also a low-profile machine. Post-shoot workflow still is a new thing for me to wrap my head around, but the discussions I've seen lead me to believe it's not overwhelming to learn.

 

Option 2 - use the Canon EOS C300. These seem to be more available from rental houses. it's not tiny like the Bolex or Ikonoskop...but it's not big, either, and equipped with a prime, it could be mobile/low profile enough. The imagery it can produce is beautiful. but I am concerned also about accessories, and the post-shoot workflow options aren't crystal clear to me....and even though they are more available to rent, they ain't cheap.

 

Option 3 - shoot Super 16. I've got access to Aaton cameras and good lenses, as well as a Super-16 Bolex for low profile/MOS stuff, virtually for free (through my university), and I've shot in that format years ago and am confident with doing so again. And it seems that scanning the neg to hi res (2K, yes?) then results in exactly the same media files that the digitial cameras produce, so workflow from that point onward is effectively the same. BUT -- everyone I've spoken to, and several of you out here, have noted that stock and processing might be cost-prohibitive (I guess even with trying to compete against digital, a lower demand leads to fewer resources for folks still shooting on film, so costs haven't really decreased since I last made a film...)Plus -- having separate audio recording is one more little headache to worry about, and I like the idea of streamlining these things while shooting.

 

As far as I am concerned, all three options would produce the sort of imagery/image quality I'm looking for. Super 16mm certainly would, and the tests from the digital cameras mentioned above prove that they'd do just as nice a job for what I'm after. Of all the options, actually, Option 1 (Digital Bolex/Ikonoskop) is the most appealing to me...but it doesn't look like there are many places in the Philly/NJ/NY area where I could manage to get a hold of one to rent for a few weekends next fall. I'd be appreciative if any of you could suggest places or even individuals who might have those resources.

[Phillip Mosness]

Here's a few quick shots I cut together to compare.

Double X, Tri-x, desaturated vision3 50, desaturated vision3 500.

 

[David Cunningham]

Here's a few quick shots I cut together to compare.

Double X, Tri-x, desaturated vision3 50, desaturated vision3 500.

 

 

That's a great test!

 

I definitely see what you are going for and definitely understand the desire for greater latitude, finer grain and sharper image.

 

But, I love the contrasty and grainy look of Tri-X if I'm going for black and white. Tri-x looks like black and white. Vision3 desaturated looks like vision3... desaturated. It's just too clean and not contrasty.

 

Now 7222, I don't understand. It's latitude really isn't that much better, it's just as grainy but more distracting because the grain is light in color (unlike Tri-x which is dark in color) and the image is just kinda... blah. It just looks like old B&W negative... nothing special.

[David Mullen ASC]

Tri-X is lovely, I used to shoot it all the time in 16mm but you really have to nail the exposures. From that Vimeo test, I'd almost suggest one could do day work on Tri-X reversal and do interiors on 500T 7219 and add some contrast in color-correction, besides removing the color.

[Phillip Mosness]

If it helps Mark, I'll mention that the Tri-X in that clip was done with a Bolex with Switars, and the Vision stocks were shot with an Aaton with a Zeiss zoom.

The 7222 was with an Eclair ACL and a Angenieux 9.5-57 and the roll of film was probably a decade old.

I personally like the 7222 and would sooner use that on a short than Tri-X, but these things are so very subjective.

[Brett Bailey]

All of this has been very helpful for me -- so I thank everyone for contributing their perspectives.

 

I am no longer considering B&W...after giving it a lot of thought, color (with subtle tones, a little desaturated) will work better for my project.

 

After doing a lot of reading and research, it seems like I have three really good options, determined by a combination of factors, chief among them being cost-efficiency and handheld viability (a lot of shots will be handheld/MOS and require a low-profile camera so as not to draw too much attention):

 

Option 1 - use the Digital Bolex D-16, equipped with a few good but small c-mount primes (maybe the Kinoptic 9mm, and a few Switars?) and a small external viewfinder. The test footage I've seen looks REALLY nice, it's small and good for handheld, and the reports are that it is good for recording audio as well so I could use it for my sync-sound dialogue scenes. An alternate option for the same purposes would be to use the Ikonoskop A-Cam Dii, which looks to me like it produces images of equal quality to the Digital Bolex, and it is obviously also a low-profile machine. Post-shoot workflow still is a new thing for me to wrap my head around, but the discussions I've seen lead me to believe it's not overwhelming to learn.

 

Option 2 - use the Canon EOS C300. These seem to be more available from rental houses. it's not tiny like the Bolex or Ikonoskop...but it's not big, either, and equipped with a prime, it could be mobile/low profile enough. The imagery it can produce is beautiful. but I am concerned also about accessories, and the post-shoot workflow options aren't crystal clear to me....and even though they are more available to rent, they ain't cheap.

 

Option 3 - shoot Super 16. I've got access to Aaton cameras and good lenses, as well as a Super-16 Bolex for low profile/MOS stuff, virtually for free (through my university), and I've shot in that format years ago and am confident with doing so again. And it seems that scanning the neg to hi res (2K, yes?) then results in exactly the same media files that the digitial cameras produce, so workflow from that point onward is effectively the same. BUT -- everyone I've spoken to, and several of you out here, have noted that stock and processing might be cost-prohibitive (I guess even with trying to compete against digital, a lower demand leads to fewer resources for folks still shooting on film, so costs haven't really decreased since I last made a film...)Plus -- having separate audio recording is one more little headache to worry about, and I like the idea of streamlining these things while shooting.

 

As far as I am concerned, all three options would produce the sort of imagery/image quality I'm looking for. Super 16mm certainly would, and the tests from the digital cameras mentioned above prove that they'd do just as nice a job for what I'm after. Of all the options, actually, Option 1 (Digital Bolex/Ikonoskop) is the most appealing to me...but it doesn't look like there are many places in the Philly/NJ/NY area where I could manage to get a hold of one to rent for a few weekends next fall. I'd be appreciative if any of you could suggest places or even individuals who might have those resources.

 

 

Is there any particular reason why didn't even consider the Canon 5D with Magic Lantern? I can rent a 5D with Magic Lantern for about $160 compared to the Canon C300 for $450.

 

Just something to mull over:

 

 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2014 by Brett Bailey

[Will Barber]

Because using a camera as it's meant to be used is better than using a hack. Once on a shoot I was producing we lost all our BTS photos because the card our guy was shooting to had 5D RAW video on it, and apparently the card doesn't like that and corrupted. I know that's not typical when using the 5D as your A-Cam, but I've never been a fan of ML RAW and that was basically what sealed the deal for me personally. For slightly more than you'd spend to rent a 5D, you could get a BMCC. Or for even less, you could get the BMPCC with the new Speedbooster and use Nikon glass with a crop factor just about equal to Super35mm.

 

EDIT: I personally wouldn't go with the Digital Bolex. It's overpriced for what it is, and I think you'd be selling yourself short. It was a few months too late to the party and about $2k too much. BMPCC has pretty much taken the spot where it was supposed to live in the market.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Will Barber

[Brett Bailey]

I've never had a problem with the 5D wither I was shooting RAW or h.264. I have experienced Moire and Orb issues with the BMPCC.

As discussed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRDbINYkMyw


It didn't "seal the deal" for me. I would likely try it again in the future. To each his/her own, I suppose. In the end, it's not going to be the camera that separates you from the competition. It's going to be the person behind it. That and telling a story that's worthwhile.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Brett Bailey

[Mark A. Leuchter]

EDIT: I personally wouldn't go with the Digital Bolex. It's overpriced for what it is, and I think you'd be selling yourself short. It was a few months too late to the party and about $2k too much. BMPCC has pretty much taken the spot where it was supposed to live in the market.

 

I've heard the same from several people, Will. And I have seen lots of really good stuff from the BMPCC. Adrian (see earlier in this thread) made a good case for it. BUT...I will probably be renting, not buying, my camera. The BMPCC seems to require a ton of accessories to be production-ready, and the footage I've seen from it doesn't really look **better** (though this is a subjective term, I know...)than what I've seen out of the Ikonoskop or the Bolex. That being the case...simplicity is a very big motivation for me. My experience as a DP has been with Super 16mm film exclusively, and that was 15 years ago (I became a professor in the interim in a field not related at all to filmmaking!), so I am finding myself very attracted to the devices that are fairly streamlined and (partially) idiot-proof.

 

Moreover, as a director...I like wide angle shooting with few closeups. On the last film I made, our "normal" lens was the Optar 9.5mm or, sometimes, the Optar 12mm. From what I gather, I can use the oldie-but-goodie Kern Switar 10mm on the Digital Bolex/Ikonoskop or even the newer, very nice Kinoptik 9mm, and get what I'm after that way and still go handheld quite easily. On the BMPCC -- and correct me if I'm wrong! -- I would need to outfit the camera with quite a bit of support accessories to get a wide angle lens on it. I think we're talking a Super 35 sized sensor, so it would be an 18mm or so, but still...it seems like it would require more gear to get that to happen, which is an expense I want to avoid. Finally, the BMPCC isn't so great on recording audio, and the Bolex and Ikonoskop seem to be much better that way...a nice way to simplify things further when on location.

[Brett Bailey]

 

I've heard the same from several people, Will. And I have seen lots of really good stuff from the BMPCC. Adrian (see earlier in this thread) made a good case for it. BUT...I will probably be renting, not buying, my camera. The BMPCC seems to require a ton of accessories to be production-ready, and the footage I've seen from it doesn't really look **better** (though this is a subjective term, I know...)than what I've seen out of the Ikonoskop or the Bolex. That being the case...simplicity is a very big motivation for me. My experience as a DP has been with Super 16mm film exclusively, and that was 15 years ago (I became a professor in the interim in a field not related at all to filmmaking!), so I am finding myself very attracted to the devices that are fairly streamlined and (partially) idiot-proof.

 

Moreover, as a director...I like wide angle shooting with few closeups. On the last film I made, our "normal" lens was the Optar 9.5mm or, sometimes, the Optar 12mm. From what I gather, I can use the oldie-but-goodie Kern Switar 10mm on the Digital Bolex/Ikonoskop or even the newer, very nice Kinoptik 9mm, and get what I'm after that way and still go handheld quite easily. On the BMPCC -- and correct me if I'm wrong! -- I would need to outfit the camera with quite a bit of support accessories to get a wide angle lens on it. I think we're talking a Super 35 sized sensor, so it would be an 18mm or so, but still...it seems like it would require more gear to get that to happen, which is an expense I want to avoid. Finally, the BMPCC isn't so great on recording audio, and the Bolex and Ikonoskop seem to be much better that way...a nice way to simplify things further when on location.

 

 

Due to BMPCC's crop factor your wide angle options are limited (At least when I used it when it first came out). There have also been gripes/complaints about third party adapters affecting infinity focus.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Brett Bailey

[Chris Burke]

As an average, because all I know about your project is that it will be between 10 and 11 minutes long, you would need ten thousand feet of film for a 10 or 11:1 ratio. You can find a deal where all that film, processing and transfer will cost you 5 or 6k. You might not need as high a ratio, which would lower the price and if you change your mind back to black and white, there is ORWO as an option. Some have stated here that there are only two options, they are incorrect, there are four stocks for black and white. Since you have access to the Aaton equipment for free, the cost of film and transfer is going to be about the same as high end digital cam rental. How long is your shoot? that will factor in. Since your experience is with film, I would go with that, since you have little to learn, you can hit the ground shooting. In the time you have been away, film has improved immensely and in some cases it is essentially idiot proof. Kodak color negative is the best it has ever been. All the stocks have huge latitude, both in dynamic range and color. And if you are concerned about wide angle lens options, go with what you know. You could probably get quite a deal on a nice S16 prime set rental. All the caveats and post and storage concerns with digital, time and again have me going back to film. You have all your footage as ProRes 4444 on a couple cheap hard drives and you have your negative as back up. As a working media manager, I can tell you that this is the most secure route to go.

[Brett Bailey]

Mark,

The C300's post workflow is simple. You can use the Canon XF utility to import footage...

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c300#DriversAndSoftware

But, every NLE recognizes the native MXF format.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Brett Bailey

[Will Barber]

 

I've heard the same from several people, Will. And I have seen lots of really good stuff from the BMPCC. Adrian (see earlier in this thread) made a good case for it. BUT...I will probably be renting, not buying, my camera. The BMPCC seems to require a ton of accessories to be production-ready, and the footage I've seen from it doesn't really look **better** (though this is a subjective term, I know...)than what I've seen out of the Ikonoskop or the Bolex. That being the case...simplicity is a very big motivation for me. My experience as a DP has been with Super 16mm film exclusively, and that was 15 years ago (I became a professor in the interim in a field not related at all to filmmaking!), so I am finding myself very attracted to the devices that are fairly streamlined and (partially) idiot-proof.

 

Moreover, as a director...I like wide angle shooting with few closeups. On the last film I made, our "normal" lens was the Optar 9.5mm or, sometimes, the Optar 12mm. From what I gather, I can use the oldie-but-goodie Kern Switar 10mm on the Digital Bolex/Ikonoskop or even the newer, very nice Kinoptik 9mm, and get what I'm after that way and still go handheld quite easily. On the BMPCC -- and correct me if I'm wrong! -- I would need to outfit the camera with quite a bit of support accessories to get a wide angle lens on it. I think we're talking a Super 35 sized sensor, so it would be an 18mm or so, but still...it seems like it would require more gear to get that to happen, which is an expense I want to avoid. Finally, the BMPCC isn't so great on recording audio, and the Bolex and Ikonoskop seem to be much better that way...a nice way to simplify things further when on location.

 

I totally understand. If I could, I'd shoot all my projects exclusively on film. However, that requires a lot more crew and money. At least here at school, we use Arri SR3s, which means you need at least a 3 man camera department, including an AC that actually knows how to load and pull focus without a monitor. I've only been on one actual 16mm shoot, and sadly it's hard to get a crew together that is experienced enough to pull it off. On that shoot, I served on-and-off as 1st AC, 2nd AC, gaffer, and somewhat of a DP (responsible for lighting, but not shot choice or framing or operating). At one point, I was running lenses, helping set lights, and meter all at once. Not really ideal, which makes 16mm a real pain in the ass for me personally. Props for being in the position to be able to pull off that kind of shoot consistently.

If you're looking for simplicity in a digital cinema camera though, you'll find it in the original Blackmagic. I've heard one DP relate it to the experience of shooting film because of the limited options in the menu. Personally, the limited options aren't a setback to me and I enjoy it for the same reason. When you take away all the finicky settings, you're left with the basic controls. ISO, WB, Shutter Angle. I don't like using electronic lenses (I may use older manual Nikon glass and Zeiss S16 primes for the short I'm shooting on the BMPCC), so my aperture control is usually on the lens. Taking away the menu options makes you think a lot more about how you're lighting the scene, just like film. Shooting on film taught me how to light without looking at an LCD screen. I really think there's only a few modern technologies besides the digital sensor that actually improve HOW you shoot, those being focus peaking and zebra, sometimes waveform, though I rarely use that as I prefer to use a light meter to read my exposure.

 

Also, I believe the BMPCC rents for $99 for a 3 day weekend, it might be cool to put it side by side with the Bolex for a shoot, even a few shots, and see how it stacks up. You may want to look at old PL mount lens rentals. I haven't done any tests with them yet, but I know a 10mm bolex c-mount lens will vignette on the BMPCC, but I expect that the 9.5mm Zeiss will cover the sensor. Putting the Aspheron on as well might be a bit of overkill though.

[Miguel Angel]

If you want to know how much the film is going to cost, Fuji has a site called Frame 24 where you can see the prices of the different film stocks available.

 

http://www.filmstockclearance.com

 

Take care!

[Freya Black]

If you want to know how much the film is going to cost, Fuji has a site called Frame 24 where you can see the prices of the different film stocks available.

 

http://www.filmstockclearance.com

 

Take care!

 

Those are UK/Europe only prices. Fuji no longer makes motion picture film and Frame 24 is a new company set up to handle the clearance of the remaining stock in the UK.

 

Freya

[Darren Levine]

Also realize, that almost all of the suggestions here will work great, if you shoot properly.

 

If i were you, the question i would ask is: what camera will work as smoothly as possible in my workflow. If you're going to be very small crew, run and gun, all over the place, in and out, then i would no question about it pick a canon C100/300/500. They are absurdly intuitive and just make life easier on a shoot with the way they are layed out, add to that the ability to use very clean higher iso if you find yourself in a tricky lighting situation, makes for one of the most 'helpful' camera lines to date. If the budget is tight, a C100 with a ninja-2 recorder gets you prores 8bit 4:2:2, and it is damn pretty despite the 8bit. and it's the exact same sensor as the c300/500

 

Also keep in mind that between now and when you plan on shooting in the fall, at least 1 more option will come onto the market. such as the bmc 4k. it's still up in the air about its abilities, but as with any new camera, it's worth a look.

 

If anything, i'd be happy to accompany you to any of the NYC rental houses to look over the options and throw some ideas around.