Bill Anderson
Well-known member
That was not addressed to you.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
How many movies are still shot on film ?
- Thread starter Stefan Antonescu
- Start date
- Status
That was not addressed to you.
Marc Wielage
Well-known member
Bear in mind there's only one perforation per frame, so Super16mm is a very unsteady picture (in my opinion). And be sure to budget for lots and lots of time and money for dirt fixes and grain management on the finished project.
BTW, last I checked, 7219 was about $150 per 400' roll, plus about $50 for processing. That's about 11 minutes, give or take. 15 rolls of this stock would be about $3000 (not including dailies transfer), which would be 165 minutes. Even if this is a very short movie, like 80 minutes, that's only a 2:1 shooting ratio, which will be tough to do. A short you could definitely shoot with 15 rolls of film, or possibly a music video or commercial. Feature... that'd be very tough.
Be sure to capture Keykode and all metadata for your ALE and FLX files during the scans. BTW, I think 3K or 4K is overkill for 16mm, but that's just my opinion. I think 2K will be perfectly fine -- do some tests and you might save some money this way.
Marc Wielage
Well-known member
Nick Morrison
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 9,141
- Reaction score
- 50
- Points
- 48
- Location
- Brooklyn
- Website
- www.smallgiant.tv
Haha. Nice one.
Shane Kelly
Well-known member
No way can you shoot a feature on film for that price, not even a bad one. You can talk about the "artistry" of film vs digital all day long but in reality no regular audience member gives a damn. If you want to experiment with film then take those 15 rolls and shoot a short, with multiple takes for your actors.
Elsie N
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,658
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
You assume the machines will allow humanity to survive...
Heh, heh... yeah, there is that concern that machines will consider humans a threat to their continued existence due to our irrational thinking and will just remove us as a threat. A medieval suit of armor might be a good disguise to keep a robot from zapping us. '-)
Marc Wielage
Well-known member
I agree 100% with Shane. Though I have done little indie features that only shot about 25 hours of negative and wound up with 90 minutes of finished material, and that worked out pretty well -- a 16:1 ratio, which isn't too hateful. The director basically had enough stock to do maybe 3-4 takes of every scene, and that was enough to tell that story. We did have one day for reshoots, but that was a grand total of 2 hours of stuff.
In truth, though, I don't think the medium itself matters in 2014. I think you can make beautiful pictures and tell fantastic stories with Red Epic, Arri Alexa, and Sony F55, to the point where I don't think the audience will care or notice. If you have great lighting, even technical people generally will appreciate the results, provided there are no glaring mistakes.
- Banned
- #88
Tony Harris
Banned
Fellas for one I don't do shorts anymore and I don't do 3 takes. It's one or 2 takes and that depends on the shot. I refuse to go back to shorts or waste film on actors. I never paid 150.00 for a spool of film and 15 spools is for people that make many mistakes while shooting, there is a craft to this work some may have it and others may not. I think your max should be 12 spools because left over film is a waste to me. I'm only telling you what I've done and not what I'm thinking about doing, Shane I think you are wrong about the audience not caring because they do.They said albums and tapes wouldn't be used after cd's were created ..wrong... and they still make turn tables
- Banned
- #89
Tony Harris
Banned
Marc you are wrong and sorry you had a bad time filming but I have never heard until ?now of anyone doing 3 to 4 takes of a scene. 90 minutes of film for 25 minutes? wow... you should have paid a camera man, never dealt with dirt etc because I have great camera's and know what I'm doing while using fresh new spools of film. I think using old left over film is a waste of money and time
Gavin Greenwalt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,614
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 39
I don't want to pick on you but this is something that really really bugs me in the film business and you just wandered into one of my largest pet peeves: devaluing people's generosity.
Nothing makes me more mad than when a film maker says "We shot this movie for only $150". What they meant to say was "People donated $100,000 in rentals and $200,000 in labor to my project! How generous of these people to help finance my $300,000 film."
You aren't shooting your film for $3,000. You're shooting your film for several times that amount--and then ignoring the other portion of the cost which was donated to your budget. Out of pocket expenses are not your only expenses. If your alma mater is donating brand new film to you-- great. But that's not how much it "costs" that's how much it costs *YOU*. Someone has to pay for that (your film school is also probably violating their contract with Kodak and effectively stealing from Kodak if they're giving you film student rates on their film. In other words your budget is both the product of generous donations which you're ignoring and borderline theft through reselling discounted film.) So yes, if you are obtaining elicit film then you can shoot for a lot less! If I bought a stolen Epic out of the back of a van I would save a lot of money on digital too!
Ryan W White
Member
As an aspiring Cinematographer it's really upsetting to see film go. I doubt I'll ever get the chance to shoot 35 unless I spend my own cash to fund a film based project.
This weekend I shot some super 8 vision 3 500T. Its funny I have an Epic and I'm somehow more intrigued by my Braun Nizo....
This weekend I shot some super 8 vision 3 500T. Its funny I have an Epic and I'm somehow more intrigued by my Braun Nizo....
- Banned
- #92
Tony Harris
Banned
Gavin with all due respect before you make a comment like that and accuse people of stealing and breaking laws just ask how I came up with that figure. I shot film in 2008, I was into digital and had a hate for film because I couldn't afford it until film school. I spoke to my Kodak rep for my prices. I still talk to Kodak about film ideas and what they have planned for film makers,I shoot super16 but I want to shoot super 35 one day. If shooting 35 will cost me a ton of money out of my pocket it won't happen. No one has donated anything to me, I've paid for my own dreams. I think I will sell my 16mm cameras to a film school and spend more time mastering my Epic. RED is the company that many of use dreamed about to change the film world and give use a chance but after film school I love film too. I'm glad I can work with both.
Les Dittert
Well-known member
Do film schools still use film these days ? I would think that if they are preparing students for the real world they would be into digital, and teaching the related issues for those cameras which are trickier than film cameras.
Marc Wielage
Well-known member
I've worked on about 250 theatrical features and (last time I checked) 200 hours of episodic network television, plus about 100 music videos and more commercials than I can remember over the past 30 years. I don't pay anybody -- I'm a post guy.
I know of projects where they did 60-70-80 takes of quite a few scenes. In network TV, I'd say 5-6 takes is closer to normal, and in indie features, 9 or 10 would be on the outside, and maybe 4 or 5 would be about right. Clint Eastwood -- legendarily -- usually rehearses his actors so much prior to the shoot, he can often get the scene nailed in 2 or 3 takes. If you're trying to do 8-9 pages of material a day, you may have no choice but to try for 3 or 4 takes and then move on, hoping to save the actors' performances in editing (and ADR).
A 20:1 shooting ratio is pretty normal for features, but I've seen them go much higher. My personal record was (I think) 350 hours of material for the Will Ferrell comedy Blades of Glory, but there were a lot of multiple cameras and slo-mo on the stunts & action scenes. For a modest-budgeted indie, I'd say 80-100 hours of footage is pretty close to normal, and that's about a 40:1 ratio. With digital cameras, I think this goes up by about 40% or 50%, because they roll long takes. Add a second camera, and this will double.
Shooting short ends was a perfectly valid way of shooting indie features on film back in the olden days, and it can work, but it always took (and still takes) an element of risk. You generally get what you pay for.
Every single film project I've ever worked on had to have a certain budget for dirt fixes, because it's inevitable. Film is scanned in rooms with air and people moving around. Bear in mind that with 16mm, the dirt will appear to be four times as large as it would be in 35mm, because the frame itself is so small. The dirt is the same size, but it becomes relatively larger to the pixels in the frame. Tiny pebbles become boulders. I guarantee you: your project will get rejected if it goes beyond a specified amount of dirt and grain, but some of these are subjective issues.
Have you ever delivered a project to a distributor? Just curious.
Marc Wielage
Well-known member
I love your message, Gavin, and I applaud you for saying it.
People do overlook the fact that when they have a dream to make a film, the people they hire to work for them don't share the dream. They're just technicians and artists who have bills to pay. Equipment costs money, batteries cost money, fuel costs money, locations cost money, actors need to be paid, and experienced people -- who will reduce shooting time because they know what they're doing and (one hopes) won't screw up -- cost money. Good people do not work for free and... you get what you pay for.
I have done projects on rare occasions at very, very low rates because the people were personal friends of mine, and I had the ability to throw them some pro bono work or some cut-rate facility time. I recall an occasion where I did a favor for a director, and he said, "hey, I'm putting together a budget for my next film. What would the post really cost?" When I gave him the actual facility-rate charges, he was absolutely in shock... since it was about half the budget for the film we just finished. Nowadays, you can do this work more inexpensively, but the need for expertise can never be trivialized.
Gunleik Groven
REDuser Sponsor
This should be the first page of the book. For aspiring filmmakers and funders alike...
You are not necessarily "smart" for being able to do "cheaper".
It's good to be able to push through some pet projects, but unless people have sustainable paying, there is no "business" anymore in the "film business".
It's just an amateurs hobby.
Profesionalism and experience comes through sustained work. For most. Not just great ideas.
And if you can't make a living, that's a rayjer hobbyist approach.
Also if you cannot let your team make a living.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #97
Tony Harris
Banned
If you don't have a Hollywood type budget all you have are amateurs.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Banned
- #98
Tony Harris
Banned
Yes, schools are still training students on 16mm film loading, filming shorts etc. Checkout the Kodak website because they are still having contest for students using film.
Gunleik Groven
REDuser Sponsor
Not really true...
Or what I said.
In Gavins example there was a 300.000$ movie...
And there isb'r anything wrong with amateurs.
Means "doing stuff for love".
But you will not develop the same kind of continuity and skills that way.
David Battistella
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 10,003
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 38
I'd say if you don't have any professionals on your set then all you have are amateurs.
Professionals can choose to work on projects they believe in, to work for a lower rate or lighter hours, or creative freedom and control or any number of reasons. "A budget" is necessary a Hollywood budget helps, but many good films are made with less-than-Hollywood budgets.
Battistella
- Status