S35/S16/Hd Not a whats the best topic
Posted 05 September 2008 - 12:07 AM
I am getting ready to shoot my senior thesis film and I am in limbo when deciding a shotting format. There is so much to look into. I would love to shoot super 35 but its expensive. I found an arri 35bl for 400 a day that i can afford but is the camera good? and i have never shot super 35 before.
with super 16 i like the look of certain stocks and i know the camera very well and i'm assuming i could throw some cooke s4s lenses on there and get a great image, but how does it look blown up?
and HD is cheap maybe throw a red rock on there, di the crap out of it, and ill get a good image.
but the thing that really sticks out in my mind is the future, can I shoot HD and expect producers to throw a S35mm camera t me and say go!
any tips/ advice?
Posted 05 September 2008 - 12:13 AM
You mention the BL, but which one, there are 4, the 3 and 4, especially, being the best to work with.
On super 16mm, it'll look good "blown up," though I"m not sure how you're blowing it up ( are you really going out to 35mm, or just projecting from a DVD/tape?) If you go Super16mm, just use some slower stocks, like 200T which is pretty grain less in S16mm, and overexpose it a bit to tighten the grain up more.
For Hd, well the question is WHAT HD? There are so many formats! I'd avoid the lens adapter, and instead invest in a 2/3" HD camera with good glass if you can. . . but that's just me.
It sounds like you lean towards film, and that's so respectable and amazing. It's great to hear people wanting to shoot film. If you can work S16mm and a good supervised color correction/DI well then there are plenty of opportunities.
Posted 05 September 2008 - 12:17 AM
16mm- "But how does it look blown up" well for one thing, this is what film school is for. People do blow up S16 for theatrical release so testing is important. but if you wont be getting a blow up dont worry about it. If there was question, to keep it affordable I would shoot in a projection format. standard 4-perf acadamy or anamorphic.
35mm and Super35 are basically the same thing. only difference is the route to projection format.
DI the crap out of HD with a redrock? okay. I'd push for a film format especially if planning on striking a release print. But you need to determine which is best for the project. Aesthetically and Price, Functions needed etc. Compromise where you must.
S16 will look better than a HD camera with a Redrock on it. Theres more resolution and Lattitude.
Will a producer throw a 35mm camera at you and say go? No. I dont think so.
Posted 05 September 2008 - 10:32 AM
well there are a few option my school has the sony ex3, or i would shoot with a varicam.
i need to look more into these cooke s4s lenses i hear there amzing.
Edited by Chris Dingley1, 05 September 2008 - 10:35 AM.
Posted 05 September 2008 - 05:07 PM
I like the ex series myself, small and portable, but if the script calls for film; shoot film!
Posted 05 September 2008 - 06:24 PM
No matter what camera you use, do plenty of testing before you go out with it. Put all the parts together and shoot tests before your shoot.
Posted 05 September 2008 - 08:38 PM
is it great??? does it rocks???? then dude, go all out and shoot this mofo on 35mm or Super 16, both fine choices, but wait..... what's your film about? maybe is a cold frivolous Sci- fi were hd will fit perfectly, or maybe u want the movie to have a more of hands on approach and even vhs will make it look great.
My advice is to ask yourself: what will be the right format for my film? what I'm trying to tell through the photography of this picture? softenss? gritty? Mickey MOuse ??
Posted 06 September 2008 - 01:31 PM
i prob wont be making 35mm print.
Posted 06 September 2008 - 02:36 PM