35mm Movie Camera for Students

[DivXExpert]

16mm is good choice and still very very popular for film - it also converts quite well to HD as it is about the same resolution

I figured the quality of 16mm would be about HD, pretty darn good if you ask me.
But arn't HDCams more expensive than a Bolex H16 anyway?
And probably still less expensive, when you take into consideration, that I don't have the means to edit HD. Storage, hardware, software.
After it all, I think its more affordable to work with film, even with the cost of the camera, film, and developing costs. Plus you can edit with scissors and splicing tape. And it has that film look that everyone wants.
Now if your making a 45minute TV show every week, its probably more affordable to just go digital. But more than anything, I want the film experience.

I don't see what the um football shot is trying to prove.
For some reason I just get the feeling, digital=lazy/impatient/greedy.

[BJ_M]

there is HDCAM (expensive) , but now there is HDV (relatively cheap) ..


A Bolex with 400' mag, and converted to super 16 (highly suggested) will run 1000-2500 depending on lens and if manual or electric motor.

developing super16 is about 20-30$ i seem to recall per 100'

[thecoalman]

I don't see what the um football shot is trying to prove.
For some reason I just get the feeling, digital=lazy/impatient/greedy.

I wasn't trying to prove anything except that maybe a good digital camera can produce just as fine a picture as a slr if not better.

Anyhow good luck with your project.

developing super16 is about 20-30$ i seem to recall per 100'

Ouch!!!!

[DivXExpert]

So what is converting to super16? And how does it work? And a 400' mag, would be, 400 feet? how many frames in a foot. so i can estimate how much the cost would be per shooting time.

[lordsmurf]

I don't see what the um football shot is trying to prove. For some reason I just get the feeling, digital=lazy/impatient/greedy.

If you worked in photo, you'd know it means
digital=fast=email-ready(instead of wire)=digital edit ready (no scan)

[BJ_M]

super16 is wider screen 16 .. bolex is doing the converting (you have to shift the lens and modify transport, about 500-600$) .. , everyone wants super16 now because it works so well with HD transfers ..

Super 16 is a film format designed to use the maximum image area available on conventional 16mm film. A modified 16mm camera is used with single perforated 16mm film stock (super 16 stock is wider than 16mm stock because it is 8mm unsplit (single perf with super 8 sized holes for max film exposure)) ..
The width of the Super 16 frame extends an extra 20% into the area normally occupied by the sound track.

Super 16 has an aspect ratio of 1.66:1. This is very close to the HDTV format of 16:9 or the widescreen cinema format of 1.85:1. Consequently, very little cropping is needed to convert to these picture formats. The greater frame width of Super 16 and the need for less cropping top and bottom gives Super 16 a 46% increase in image area over standard 16 when displayed in the widescreen 1.85:1 ratio. This means better quality pictures from 16mm film.


besides the cost of the developing - you have film stock costs and maybe a telecine - $60-70 total costs per 100' (including developing) ...

Most Super 16 productions are edited and dubbed using conventional 16mm film techniques and 16mm magnetic facilities. Occasionally a full stereo dub is made for the 35mm release of the film in Dolby Stereo. A 35mm optical sound negative will be required from the final mix master to produce combined 35mm release prints. Super 16 prints are projected "double headed" with the magnetic master track.


After editing and negative cutting, a fully graded wet contact Super 16 showprint is produced from the cut A/B negative to provide a high quality film master for direct transfer to tape. The Super 16 showprint is also used to approve the grading (colour timing) for blow-up to 35mm (if required) and is available for future transfer to Extended or High Definition TV systems.

This approach gives you real flexibility in your future options at no greater cost than a Standard 16 production. Wet gate blow-up to 35mm master positive, or direct 35mm colour print, is carried out on a printer with additive lamphouse, incorporating the approved colour grading of the Super 16 showprint.

The blow-up ratio for Super 16 on to 35mm film is 1.78 x and the 35mm image is normally hard masked in the 1.66:1 ratio, to allow for any screening ratios between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1. If release prints are to be made, two stages of 35mm intermediate are normally used with the blow-up at the first stage, i.e. 35mm master positive, for maximum image quality. Title backgrounds are normally blown up from Super 16mm originals to 35mm master positive for title work in 35mm.

Super 16 film may be transferred direct to tape via telecine using the Super 16 telecine gate. This allows either the whole Super 16 film area to be transferred to tape "widescreen" in the 1.66:1 ratio (with masking top and bottom of screen), or "full height" in the normal TV ratio of 1.33:1 with 10% loss of film image area on either side, using pan and scan facilities if desired. TV systems in the 16:9 aspect ratio will transmit the full width of the Super 16 image without the need for masking top and bottom. You can telecine it to HD-D5, hdcam , d-beta or image files or betasp. if it is only for editing and dvd purposes - and keeping costs down; d-beta or betasp is fine and cheap ..
telecine to image files or hdcam or HD-D5 is more expensive. The most expensive (but much much higher quality) is scanning ..



tools for 16mm film work from Kodak .
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/resources/index.jhtml?id=0.1.4.7&lc=en

film footage and running time calculator included ..


i think i covered most things -- and yes, i am in the film bussness ..

[DivXExpert]

aww jeeze thats expensive. how is the 8mm/super8 scene?

[BJ_M]

IMO -- crap

[BJ_M]

if 16mm is to tasty for you .. go for sony HDV instead ..

[JohnnyCNote]

The bottom line is to look at how much you have to spend and find the best equipment you can afford. If you're going to be making student projects, unless there's a pressing need to use film, or you have you set on it, I can't see where the extra expense justifies it.

I helped out at a university film school program for a while. They had an Arriflex 16mm camera that was very nice, but also very expensive. They had to spend a lot of processing, and had to pray the shots worked out because of their limited budgets.

They also had the (forgive the expression) "film school snob" attitude that video was unworthy of consideration, even when it came to video assist. As a result, they had to reshoot some scenes, at great expense and a major inconvenience for all concerned.

Now that much better video equipment is on the market, you can get an excellent result for much less than film. You can learn nearly all of the basics as far as shot composition, lighting, continuity, editing, etc. etc. with video. There are some differences with film, of course, but they're not great enough to justify the extra cost, in my opinion.

Unless you have lots of money, or are at a school that can provide film equipment, I'd strongly advise considering video. Another point to keep in mind is the audio track. With video, the audio is recorded along with the video, but with film you're going to need an external sound recorder. Then you have to sync it and it's more involved to edit.

Surprisingly enough, at the film school the attitude was that editing was a chore and they didn't even teach it, and this was a MFA program! However, I'll spare you the rant as this was far from their only problem....

[DivXExpert]

Well, in any case, my projects are going to be video for a while. I guess I just thought, I would find out about film. Learn about it and such, see if I was ready for it.

[JohnnyCNote]

It definitely has its advantages. I like to watch DVD's with the commentary track, and it's amazing what they can do with the various filmstocks and processing techniques these days. So in that respect it does have an edge on video, however only big Hollywood style productions can afford it.

If you want to learn more about this, check out "Swordfish" and "Man on Fire". Both directors go into some detail about this. Also, in "Drugstore Cowboy" the idea was to create a black and white movie, but to substitute green for the black in order to give it a sickly appearance. Being somwhat red/green colorblind I couldn't really tell, but I think I picked up on the overall feeling it conveyed.....