Location shooting 24p HDV OR Arri BL2
Posted 26 March 2006 - 04:42 AM
Posted 26 March 2006 - 05:08 AM
Let me preface this: I have not shot film (other than lots and lots and lots of still) I have shot lots of HDV (my latest feature, beekeeping, was shot on the HVR-ZU1 sony HDV. The panny will have more quality than the ZU1 and be closer to a varicam, but bottom line their HDV cannot....CANNOT be better than the varicam. The varicam exibits video like tendancies on a film out, so I can only reason that the 200 will have similar artifacting. In its price range shooting DVCPRO-HD to P2 disk would be much MUCH MUCH better than HDV (which I consider better than DV, lesser than professional HD formats) but no where near 35mm. Most people would say there is large difference between S16mm so you got to figure that there is a huge difference between 35mm and DVCPRO-HD on a pro-sumer camera.
do it on cost alone. Consider cost. What is your budget. Film should factor in a certain percent of the cost, it should never cost more than half of the cost (and thats assuming guerrila style, where nobody is paid and only production costs are paid.) if its between paying real actors or getting real film, get the real actors. Plan what is best for the complete movie, not just the look. Most people cannot tell a real difference between 35mm and HD on an SD tele, so consider your likely market. If its for DVD most likely, than dont worry about 35mm. You can sink money into more productive places, like cranes dollys jibs actors lights sound post production set design and shooting days.....just ot name a few.
Format choice is HUGE, especially on a small project. Consider all options.
You have a 2 hour feature. that means that your likely shooting around 10-20 hours of material. So in HDV your paying around 10K for the camera, P2 cards and firestore. With 35mm your paying around 30-40K minimum on film costs. Plus 1000 a day for camera rental. Add to that the extra lighting you need and its easily a 50-100K difference.
Your plans for the movie will affect your choice. If you want to find a distro who will put it in theaters, 35mm will definatley set you appart and give you a good chance at getting the movie sold for that option. However if the planned distro is DVD, 35mm wont add a whole lot of production value in the eyes of a distrobtor. They would rather pick up an iffy movie on a great deal, which if you shoot HDV, proffits are easier to come by.
Also check out super16. In almost the same situation you are in, I have opted to shoot my latest feature, In search of the Armegedon Chronicals, in super-16. Its only a 100min film, so shorter than yours, but film cost I have kept around 10K, and that includes stock for shooting a 4:1 film, proccessing of the negative, DVCAM telecine for editting, and the final spirit HD datacine for final HD output. The whole film will cost 30K. a great deal compared to what it would cost to shoot in 35mm. (and comperable to shooting it in HDV or DVCPRO)
Posted 26 March 2006 - 05:16 AM
Posted 26 March 2006 - 05:28 AM
Posted 29 March 2006 - 09:59 AM
Posted 29 March 2006 - 01:45 PM
If the primary market is DVD or broadcast release, and 35mm film prints are unlikely, you can likely save some money upfront and still get a film look with Super-16. If your production is commercially successful, Super-16 still keeps open the option of a good looking 35mm release using a Digital Intermediate.