Comments on: Shooting Film on a Budget http://marylandfilms.com/2009/06/shooting-film-on-a-budget/ Photography & Cinematography Blog for Maryland, DC, VA, WV, PA (Mid-Atlantic) Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:09:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Frey http://marylandfilms.com/2009/06/shooting-film-on-a-budget/comment-page-1/#comment-241 Frey Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:18:29 +0000 http://marylandfilms.com/?p=633#comment-241 Buy an old 16mm camera off ebay with a good, clean lens - you can easily pick one up for under $250. Buy a 100' roll of 16mm film (100' does about two and a half minutes at 24fps). Get your HD camera and take them both outside, on a sunny day, and shoot a subject (let's say it's a child, playing at the park). Use a light meter, and don't guess. Shoot them both, side by side if possible, don't worry about lighting. Send out the film and have it processed, cleaned, and transferred by a reputable lab (not some fly-by-night lab). Put them both on the screen and look at them side-by-side, and you'll see the difference. Light reacts differently in film than it does with digital sensors. Film handles highlights better (for lack of a better word), it's more akin to how our eyes see highlights. But even more, film has a greater latitude (what reads as underexposed/too dark or overexposed/too bright) – many negative stocks are even able to achieve as wide a range as 14 stops of latitude. To put this in contrast with digital, apparently the RED can only get about 9 stops of latitude. The Z1U and HVX200 can only handle about 7 stops... People have been saying film is obsolete for years – as far back as the 50's when video first came out. When HD came out, they said it all over again. And they were saying it again when the RED was released. But I have yet to see Kodak or Fujifilm close their doors. It's taken a hit, with all the apparent “ease” of Digital acquisition, but film is not dead. Watch your TV for a few nights and write down the shows that are most visually appealing (not the editing, just the visual style). Shows like 24, Big Love, Fringe, Glee, Heroes, and House are all shot on 35mm film. Greek, Monk, Psych, and Burn Notice are shot on 16mm film. As for price, it depends on how you work the numbers. If you are paying your cast and crew by the hour or day, and you are a stickler for the best looking shot, then film will save you money. Why? Because you don't have to work as hard to get good lighting setups (go back and look at your child in the park footage). This alone can shave hours off your schedule. And even one extra day of shooting can cost a few thousand dollars with the cast, crew, catering, rental gear, etc. Not to mention the stress level gets higher for every day of shooting. Even more, the many digital shoots I've been on feel almost obligated to shoot more footage than necessary, because they are not paying per foot. They don't realize that time and money drag out this way. BTW: I own my own equipment, so if someone hires me to shoot a music video for them on 16mm, I can buy 800ft (22 minutes) of fresh film stock for under $250 (the processing and transfer are separate). Buy an old 16mm camera off ebay with a good, clean lens – you can easily pick one up for under $250. Buy a 100′ roll of 16mm film (100′ does about two and a half minutes at 24fps). Get your HD camera and take them both outside, on a sunny day, and shoot a subject (let’s say it’s a child, playing at the park). Use a light meter, and don’t guess. Shoot them both, side by side if possible, don’t worry about lighting. Send out the film and have it processed, cleaned, and transferred by a reputable lab (not some fly-by-night lab). Put them both on the screen and look at them side-by-side, and you’ll see the difference.

Light reacts differently in film than it does with digital sensors. Film handles highlights better (for lack of a better word), it’s more akin to how our eyes see highlights. But even more, film has a greater latitude (what reads as underexposed/too dark or overexposed/too bright) – many negative stocks are even able to achieve as wide a range as 14 stops of latitude. To put this in contrast with digital, apparently the RED can only get about 9 stops of latitude. The Z1U and HVX200 can only handle about 7 stops…

People have been saying film is obsolete for years – as far back as the 50′s when video first came out. When HD came out, they said it all over again. And they were saying it again when the RED was released. But I have yet to see Kodak or Fujifilm close their doors. It’s taken a hit, with all the apparent “ease” of Digital acquisition, but film is not dead. Watch your TV for a few nights and write down the shows that are most visually appealing (not the editing, just the visual style). Shows like 24, Big Love, Fringe, Glee, Heroes, and House are all shot on 35mm film. Greek, Monk, Psych, and Burn Notice are shot on 16mm film.

As for price, it depends on how you work the numbers. If you are paying your cast and crew by the hour or day, and you are a stickler for the best looking shot, then film will save you money. Why? Because you don’t have to work as hard to get good lighting setups (go back and look at your child in the park footage). This alone can shave hours off your schedule. And even one extra day of shooting can cost a few thousand dollars with the cast, crew, catering, rental gear, etc. Not to mention the stress level gets higher for every day of shooting. Even more, the many digital shoots I’ve been on feel almost obligated to shoot more footage than necessary, because they are not paying per foot. They don’t realize that time and money drag out this way.

BTW: I own my own equipment, so if someone hires me to shoot a music video for them on 16mm, I can buy 800ft (22 minutes) of fresh film stock for under $250 (the processing and transfer are separate).

]]> By: Amanda http://marylandfilms.com/2009/06/shooting-film-on-a-budget/comment-page-1/#comment-240 Amanda Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:49:40 +0000 http://marylandfilms.com/?p=633#comment-240 I have shot on dv, hd etc. I want to learn film. Does it make sense to learn film? Many have said that film is dead and that video is catching up and it will be obsolete. Also that film is expensive. I have shot on dv, hd etc. I want to learn film. Does it make sense to learn film? Many have said that film is dead and that video is catching up and it will be obsolete. Also that film is expensive.

]]>