This is how it works. Luckily I am drunk enough to be wasting time from work to get mixed into this cluster *beep* – 16mm is GREAT if you are amateur and on a budget. ANY REAL FILM will have a budget and 16mm is great for starting out. No matter how you cut it – you better expect to pay money. That said. super 16 was mentioned and its affordable. HD is GREAT if you have a LARGER budget as an independent ; that is to say, HD cams go really far once you pass about $4,000 in camera price. And even then, its still VIDEO and not FILM, as mentioned by many people. If you are an independent filmmaker and wanting to make a short film, HD is great if you can get access to a top of the line true HD camera (not some HVX crapola or minidv). If you can do this, it pays for itself by allowing you to edit directly to the footage digitally. (this goes back to the question would QT use minidv – probably not, its just not logical)
As mentioned however, if you are ANYWHERE near serious, VERY few films are allowed into festival brackets without a 35mm or 16mm PRINT made. That is to say, if you shoot digital, you better have hi-res 1080 or more footage or that *beep* is gonna get blown out on your SUPEREXPENSIVE film reel print and look like garbage. It is a rule in many festivals to have reels. Add to it, as mentioned, unless you HIGHLY color correct and post your digital video and know EXACTLY what you are doing with the camera (35mm adapater, 35mm lenses, filters, lighting, makeup) then your digital footage will be a LOT weaker than film. So its give and take with both mediums at this point in technology, however film tends to lend itself to lower budgets and less experience in the end imo.
Personally, I shoot with a cameraman who KNOWS his camera. We shoot digital with 35mm adapter/lens and it comes out remarkably close to 35mm film. The only noticeable difference at the point that we reach is motion quality and texture of the print (which can be corrected to a point).
In summary, digital is great, but only if you have the means and the knowledge to take it to the next level. Film , while expensive and a hassle, is a lot easier to navigate and handle in the end.
reply
share
worldofbong
15 years ago
I don't see how you could say film is easier or cheaper.. lighting for film has to be a lot more precise than DV, hell with DV you can just set up the shot and check the lighting thru the viewfinder. With film you're gonna be screwed without at least a light meter, and the setups are gonna take a lot longer.
Then there's the actual cost of the filmstock itself. With DV the only real investment is the camera - digital tapes are so cheap it's not really even a factor. With film on a low budget project the majority of your budget will probably going to filmstock, and good film camera itself isn't exactly cheap either.
For an inexperienced filmmaker I can't imagine suggesting anything than DV.. you can shoot all the footage you want with no concerns of eating up film, lighting is easier to set up, etc.. and a lot of festivals are now allowing digital footage anyway
but then again, i'm not so sure, lol - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PSVP9LuRhU
reply
share
DirtyDowntown
15 years ago
yeah i agree with the above poster. film is miles more expensive and tougher to use than video. i've filmed on 16mm before, but only ever bought super 8 film and even that is $20 per cassette (i.e like 3 minutes of film), so i assume 16mm film costs much more. whereas i use an hvx-200 or dvx-100 and it can look perfectly fine... in my opinion anyways. video is getting more expensive now though for sure, what with the cameras growing in price and new formats (those damn p2 cards that the hvx-200 uses are pretty expensive), but most of the cameras still have miniDV as an option. i dunno in my eyes, yes film looks better, but its much more of a headache skill-wise and price-wise than video is and video now you can pretty much get the same look.
OH and by the way to the person who said film festivals dont usually accept video, that's complete b/s. from festivals i've browsed i think nearly all of them accept tapes and dvd's etc.
reply
share