First of all, I've been reading through the 35mm forums and I'm impressed with the degree of expertise along with the willingness of you guys to take your time and help people out. It's great!
Anyway, I'm shooting a ~15 min short soon and I'm thinking about using 35mm for the first time. The interior photography will all happen in a car (about half the film) and the outdoor photography will all happen in remote, sweeping midwestern landscapes.
So all the interior shots I was going to shoot 1080: 24p. I have access to all the equipment (i.e. no cost of renting) and was thinking about using a 35mm adaptor for the lenses. The look will have a relatively shallow depth of field. I wanted to use it because it is cheaper, lighter, small, silent and most importantly - I feel comfortable with it having shot the format before.
The exterior shots I want to shoot 35mm. The lighting conditions are going to change dramatically so I want the latitude that film offers, plus I want have the specific deep-focus look of film for these shots. I'm looking to capture the expansive feeling of the midwest and when it's night I'll be shooting at a gas station that'll have a lot of shadows... and I need the detail in the shadows.
So I feel like I've justified using two formats and now I'm looking to see if I can afford to shoot film. Though any general advice here would be helpful. I'm specifically worried about my post-production workflow.
I've drawn up a diagram (attached below) of what I think I'll have to do to conform the two formats together. Could you guys look at this and tell me if it looks realistic - or is it overkill?
I figure I might shoot a 5:1 ratio for the film.. which will give me 40 minutes of film to process. Anyone care to offer a ballpark cost to develop 40 minutes of 3 perf film and push through to the digital intermediate?
I really appreciate it... I'm having trouble getting a general sense here.
First time Film Short - HD+35mm Questions
No replies to this topic