Jump to content


Photo

The Future


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Steven Schuneman

Steven Schuneman

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 August 2006 - 11:06 PM

Hi:

I've been reading forum posts for months, learning
everything I can from you all.

I am largely a self-taught filmmaker working in digital
using the Panasonic DVX. I've been shooting some
short films (15-20 min.) with an eye to expanding.

I've always been interested in shooting 16mm using an
Arriflex camera that I'll probably purchase on Ebay
someday.

But, I'm worried about the future of 16mm, whether
film stock and processing will continue to be available.
How do you all see the future here.
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 August 2006 - 11:19 PM

Super-16 is more popular than ever right now. I think the future of Super-16 and 35mm are pretty tied together and I wouldn't worry about not being able to shoot film for many years to come.

As for regular 16mm, the stocks are the same as for Super-16; the only issue is whether you will feel limited by the 4x3 aspect ratio or feel OK with cropping it to widescreen.
  • 0

#3 Keneu Luca

Keneu Luca
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 August 2006 - 11:37 PM

Consider this.

The Panasonic DVX, while yes a revolutionary camera, will probably be relatively obsolete in a few years. Meanwhile, those Arriflex 16mm cameras you see on ebay which continue to produce beautiful images while being affordable and user friendly are still in good demand after 30 - 40 years of existence. They are built to last.

Edited by Keneu, 13 August 2006 - 11:39 PM.

  • 0

#4 shutter bug

shutter bug
  • Guests

Posted 14 August 2006 - 01:32 AM

the fact that you can use a 35mm motion picture camera from the 30's and get professional results tells you something. as for digital...i hate upgrading!hell, the film is what gets upgraded...


film will be used for a hell of a long time.
  • 0

#5 Mark L Chapman

Mark L Chapman

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 August 2006 - 01:47 AM

See ARRI 416 @ www.arri.com. Here is the future.
  • 0

#6 Steven Schuneman

Steven Schuneman

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 August 2006 - 04:30 AM

Great!

Your posts have been very helpful.

While I admit to shooting with the DVX
I am still quite passionate about my love
for film. I'm glad to know that you all
feel that 16mm or Super 16 still has a healthy future.

I'm glad for this forum, as a place to share ideas
and learn.
  • 0

#7 Steven Schuneman

Steven Schuneman

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 August 2006 - 04:30 AM

Great!

Your posts have been very helpful.

While I admit to shooting with the DVX
I am still quite passionate about my love
for film. I'm glad to know that you all
feel that 16mm or Super 16 still has a healthy future.

I'm glad for this forum, as a place to share ideas
and learn.
  • 0

#8 Steven Schuneman

Steven Schuneman

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 August 2006 - 04:31 AM

Great!

Your posts have been very helpful.

While I admit to shooting with the DVX
I am still quite passionate about my love
for film. I'm glad to know that you all
feel that 16mm or Super 16 still has a healthy future.

I'm glad for this forum, as a place to share ideas
and learn.
  • 0

#9 paralx

paralx

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Director

Posted 14 August 2006 - 08:37 AM

I've shot both DVX and 16 together. And plan to do so this coming winter on another project. They intercut nicley and because of that, you can keep your budgets in check while expanding toward more film based stuff. I've also found that the more I work with the DVX as if it's a film camera, the better the video stuff looks...
  • 0

#10 Steve Phillipps

Steve Phillipps
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 14 August 2006 - 04:17 PM

I've shot both DVX and 16 together. And plan to do so this coming winter on another project. They intercut nicley and because of that, you can keep your budgets in check while expanding toward more film based stuff. I've also found that the more I work with the DVX as if it's a film camera, the better the video stuff looks...

There's never been a better time to buy into 16mm film, prices are so cheap. Lovely Aaton Super 16 packages going for $7000 etc. However, it's not very popular in broadcast at present, word from the BBC is that it's pretty much HD or nothing, at least that's what I've been told. Even for wildlife (my work) it's Varicam all the way (although how they're going to get away without 150fps I don't know). Some of the latest high-end wildlife progs I've seen shot on HD have looked like cheap DV, horrible!
  • 0

#11 Edwin Arévalo

Edwin Arévalo

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Director

Posted 14 August 2006 - 04:34 PM

Hi everyone.

I am also a self-taught filmmaker, shot a feature last year on a DVX and I am in the middle of shooting another feature right now, but my main goal is to learn the craft on my DVX and then move on to 16mm and hopefully to 35mm later on. I am planning my third feature on 16mm b&w, which will be a great challenge as I never shot a thing on film (except for super-8) but having an experienced DP on the side helps a lot.

Anyway I don't see a reason why 16mm would dissapear, it's been the perfect medium for indie filmmakers for a while and I don't think change much, regardless of the digital revolution.
  • 0

#12 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 14 August 2006 - 09:02 PM

However, it's not very popular in broadcast at present, word from the BBC is that it's pretty much HD or nothing, at least that's what I've been told. Even for wildlife (my work) it's Varicam all the way (although how they're going to get away without 150fps I don't know).

The CBC was advirtising an upcoming "nature" series today whith the tag line "shot entirly in HD" On my 30 year old standard definition NTSC TV the trailer had that "Hidef Video Look" which seems to be trendy. Its almost as if their is more signal in the higher frequencies than in normal video, even after conversion to NTSC. I find the look unsetling but that may be just me.
  • 0

#13 Marty Hamrick

Marty Hamrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oshawa, Ontario

Posted 16 August 2006 - 09:48 AM

As for regular 16mm, the stocks are the same as for Super-16; the only issue is whether you will feel limited by the 4x3 aspect ratio or feel OK with cropping it to widescreen.



Is there that much of a noticeable difference in shooting S 16 and shooting regular 16 and cropping?I was talking to a shooter friend in NYC who is still debating on whether or not he wants to spend the money on converting his Arri SR 2.He says he shoots slower stocks for the tighter grain and says right now his clients aren't pressuring him to do so.He shoots primarily commercials.


I'm sure alot depends on what your end result is going for.Blow up to 35mm or straight telecine.
  • 0

#14 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 17 August 2006 - 06:34 AM

As for regular 16mm, the stocks are the same as for Super-16; the only issue is whether you will feel limited by the 4x3 aspect ratio or feel OK with cropping it to widescreen.


Didn't you mention using wide angle lenses, anamorphic, I think they're called, to squeeze more into the frame, and then expand it in Telecine.
  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 August 2006 - 10:32 AM

Didn't you mention using wide angle lenses, anamorphic, I think they're called, to squeeze more into the frame, and then expand it in Telecine.


Standard anamorphic lenses have the wrong squeeze ratio if all you want is to get a 16x9 image squeezed onto a regular 16mm frame. No help there.
  • 0

#16 Deepak Bajracharya

Deepak Bajracharya
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Nepal

Posted 17 August 2006 - 11:43 AM

Is there that much of a noticeable difference in shooting S 16 and shooting regular 16 and cropping?


Definately the clearcut advantages of super 16 over regular 16, with more image area and wide aspect ratio when blowing up to 35mm wide screen from super 16.

I recently did a full length feature with factory converted super 16, Arri BL, produced good images when blown up to 35 widescreen, with angeneiux zoom 12-120mm.

Also shot with regular 16 for highspeed work on a documentary for the discovery channel, the principal camera was Sony HDV, the 16mm footages stood out cleary different from those of HDV when mixed together.

Regards,
deepak
  • 0


Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Opal

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

CineTape