Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

So 16mm is dead...

Zakaree Sandberg said:
ehh... people are using 16 because its cheaper now.. and looks great.. still has that organic, raw film look..

its not because of the size..
Click to expand...

My point is that you can still get "cinematic" results at that size/resolution/DOF factor.

35mm is not "required" to get professional results.

-sc
 
This whole discussion really comes down to a creative choice not quality. If you have the opportunity to film with super 16mm film instead of a 2/3" scarlet you might do so, you might choose digital.

Fot now, how can anyone on earth compare the merits of film to a camera that has not even been shown as a working prototype?
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
ehh... people are using 16 because its cheaper now.. and looks great.. still has that organic, raw film look..

its not because of the size..
Click to expand...

Well, other ditially acquired movies on 2/3rds sized sensors (Star Wars prequels, Benjemin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, Zodiac, etc...) have also shown that the general size format, be it film or digital, can produce excellent results.

Thus, as I said it's exciting to CONTEMPLATE having such a tool that prior to this may have been cost prohibative.

-sc
 
Still a few Dramas and Mini series being shot on 16mm this side.

One of them is burning quite a bit of 8mm stock too. I lament the death of kodachrome though. It'd be great if Aaton or some such eccentric forward looking fellas invented a wee process and telecine machine for super8 cos with the developments in filmstock's MTF etc. it could end up better than 1080 easily and the cameras and rest of the technology is there, just that $108 for 3 or so minutes of footage is a bit dear
 
M Most said:
I wouldn't say "plenty." In fact, at the moment, I can only think of three (One Tree Hill, Chuck, and The Middle) and there's no guarantee that they will remain on 16mm film for the next season.

For the record, Burn Notice, which was on 16mm for three seasons, is now on XDCam for the upcoming season.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike. I stand corrected.

With LOST over, who's still on 35? Any ideas?
 
Fredrik Harreschou said:
Check out Mike´s blog:

http://mikemost.com/?page_id=31
Click to expand...

That list is a little bit out of date, but is correct for the most part. I plan to update it around July when the network television production season begins again, although I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that all new shows will be on digital formats, most likely a mix of F35, Genesis, D21, Arri Alexa, and, yes, Red.

And nearly all of them will have individual scenes or shots on various other devices as well (Canon 5D, Canon 7D, Go Pro, Iconix, you name it).
 
M Most said:
That list is a little bit out of date, but is correct for the most part. I plan to update it around July when the network television production season begins again, although I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that all new shows will be on digital formats, most likely a mix of F35, Genesis, D21, Arri Alexa, and, yes, Red.

And nearly all of them will have individual scenes or shots on various other devices as well (Canon 5D, Canon 7D, Go Pro, Iconix, you name it).
Click to expand...

I saw the short clip about using several Canon 5D MKIIs for driving plates on 24.
Seems Canon is working with several DPs and Directors to develop Cinema Quality lens'.

I'm a fan of Burn Notice, and you mentioned XDCAM, did they say which? I'm surprised someone hasn't gone to a tricked out PMW EX 350.
 
Shawn Booth said:
Thanks Mike. I stand corrected.

With LOST over, who's still on 35? Any ideas?
Click to expand...

I somehow was under the impression that Seasons 5 & 6 of Lost were shot on the F35. Am I wrong about that?

Mad Men and Breaking Bad are still on S35.

And a good chunk of HBO's lineup are also of course originated on S35. But then again, depending on who you listen to, that may not be TV...
 
Jason Murphy said:
I somehow was under the impression that Seasons 5 & 6 of Lost were shot on the F35. Am I wrong about that?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are. Lost was on 3 perf, 35mm film for its entire run.

An abbreviated list of other shows on film this past season would include the aforementioned Breaking Bad and Mad Men, True Blood, The Pacific, Entourage, Nip/Tuck, The Closer, Monk, Burn Notice (the already aired episodes, not the upcoming ones), One Tree Hill, CSI (Las Vegas), Criminal Minds, Chuck, Castle, Brothers and Sisters, Heroes, 24, Friday Night Lights, Greys Anatomy, Private Practice, Ghost Whisperer, House, Glee, 30 Rock, The Mentalist, and 2 and a Half Men. That's 26 shows right there, 27 when you include Lost.
 
I wouldn't say that s16mm is dead.

This year Cannes Palme d'Or winner Apichatpong Weerasethakul's movie Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives was shot on s16mm cameras.

IMDB Pro>>>
 
One of the most visually stunning films I saw last year was 16mm - Revanche. It was stunning.

Was "the headless woman" shot on 16?

I thought that was an incredible achievement in cinematography.
 
M Most said:
It is now a virtual certainty that the use of film for television series origination, other than in very rare cases, is going to be somewhat nonexistent going forward.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with Mike, at least as far as LA production goes (particularly for network and cable TV shows). I've felt for the last six or seven years that it makes more sense to shoot HD or 2K/4K digital than it does to shoot 16mm. And I've worked as a colorist in LA for more than 30 years.

I think the exposure range for 16mm is greater than any digital format I've seen so far, but pretty much everything else is not as good -- sharpness, steadiness, grain, noise, dirt, etc. To me, the higher-end digital cameras (Red included) look better than 16mm to me, all things being equal (lighting, exposure, etc.). And if the digital image looks too "clean," there's a hundred ways to dirty and grunge it up in post.

For features, I think the pendulum is swinging and it's moving more towards digital than film. Me personally, I think high-end features look better on film, but 3D is changing the way a lot of things are done; good or bad, it's the reality in Hollywood right now. I think American commercials are about 60% film and 40% digital, but this is a moving target as well.

I also believe a good DP can make good pictures out of damn nearly anything. As a friend of mine often says, "it's more about the archer than the arrows." The camera and pickup aren't the be-all, end-all.
 
It seems the medium is becoming less and less important. A talented DP can create a great looking film shot on a T2i or 35mm. About 10 years ago, I would say that wouldn't be the case, as creating really stunning imagery on the low end digital cameras was a challenge, unless that specific look fit the story. I mean, with all the compression on HD broadcasts, and the extent of color correction these days, who can honestly say they can easily tell what something was shot on? I sure can't.
 
I agree with you, Craig, but note that our color-correction range in post is greatly limited when the DP chooses to shoot with certain low-end cameras. I just dropped in on a cable TV session this afternoon at a major LA post house, and the colorist was struggling because he was dealing with terribly-compressed 1080 Avid material, all shot at 4:2:2. One wrong tweak, and it was way too easy to see the bits splattered all over the screen.

With wide-range uncompressed material, we can do damned near anything to it in color correction. But the more it gets stepped on with compression, the quicker things fall apart. Even the JPEG2000 used in RedRaw 42 has its limitations.
 
Andrew Wilding said:
One of the most visually stunning films I saw last year was 16mm - Revanche. It was stunning.

Was "the headless woman" shot on 16?

I thought that was an incredible achievement in cinematography.
Click to expand...

The Headless Woman was 35mm. Beautiful, though. And I didn't realize that Revanche was 16mm. Great film. Really wonderful cinematography, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top