Jump to content


Photo

Short Film Project - Questions


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 xtraview

xtraview
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Student
  • New York City

Posted 18 July 2005 - 01:24 PM

Hi
I'm a film student at NYU. I have made a few short films but never with the whole nine yards.
I would like to make 8-10 minutes short film with sync sound to submit in film festivals.

I have a few questions:

Roughly how much would be the cost difference between 16mm and Super16mm?

What are the main advantages with Super 16mm.. is the extra money worth it for my project?

What would be the shooting ratio I should shoot for -- 3 to 1 .......4 to 1?

Is there such thing as royalty free music for the film? If not, is it expensive to have someone
do the sound track for the film? If there was no sound track would that work... just the ambience/dialogues?

Thanks in advance,

RJ
  • 0

#2 Laurent Andrieux

Laurent Andrieux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1527 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • France

Posted 20 July 2005 - 08:28 PM

Hi,

Welcome to these boards !

As your post didn't get many replies I'll give my 2 cents :

Super 16 was originally designed for blow-up to 35 mm. If you want your film to be traditionnaly (film) screened, you'll have to pay for the blow-up. It will cost but you'll have a 35 mm film.

Most of the festivals are used to project video (tape or DVD) nowadays, so you can just as well shoot film and have a video master anyway.

One basic difference beetween 16 and super 16 is the frame ratio. regular 16 is 1.37, that suits 4:3 TV perfectly, but it's not used much for fiction film those days... New TV sets are 16:9 (1.77) and super 16 (1.66 or 1.85 if you wish) is close to it. It's also a question of aesthetical choice, about the frame ratio.

If you master on video, Super 16 won't cost you much more than regular 16, just the camera will cost a bit more to rent.

If you master on film, the extra cost will defenetly be the blow for 35 mm. Ask a lab to make different propsitions. You'll be their customer at one point.

For the number of time the take, it depends if you're really broke and if you can assume a low number of take (not too many "complicated" things, rehearse a lot...) but you should better count on 5 times the take if you don't want to stress so much on the shoot that you get obsessed by this problem better than directing... and, then, obsessed by financing more rolls when you need them. Buying short ends can be an interesting alternative.

If you are that broke, consider Super 8, why not ?

Music : yes, there are musics free of rights. Don't you consider having friend(s) writing the music for free ?

The pertinence of music in your film depends a lot on the screenplay and your goals about that project (I'm talking aesthetic goals), no one can answer but you...

Good luck anyway.

Hope It would help,

Don't hesitate asking !

Regards
  • 0

#3 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1735 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 29 July 2005 - 01:57 PM

Another thing, Super 16 and REgular 16 use the same stock, so to shoot Super 16 will cost no more money (upfront) than to shoot regular 16. Super just uses the soundtrack area usually set aside for the sound.

You will however have to pay for either a blow-up to 35mm, or a D.I since super16 is NOT a projection format. There are projectors that will project Super16, but I dont think they have sound.

IMHO, if your just wanting to make a short film, enter it into some feativals, shoot Super16 and scan it to the computer, make a video master and do all titles, effects, ect in the computer then just have it projected digitally, as all major festivals and most non-majopr festivals have video-projection systems.

After all, it's not like your trying to sell this film to someone, because short films (to my knowlege) hardly ever sell at festivals because there is no market for them.

Good luck! ;)
  • 0

#4 Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
  • Guests

Posted 29 July 2005 - 04:30 PM

Hi
I'm a film student at NYU. I have made a few short films but never with the whole nine yards.
I would like to make 8-10 minutes short film with sync sound to submit in film festivals.

I have a few questions:

Roughly how much would be the cost difference between 16mm and Super16mm?

What are the main advantages with Super 16mm.. is the extra money worth it for my project?

What would be the shooting ratio I should shoot for -- 3 to 1 .......4 to 1?

Is there such thing as royalty free music for the film? If not, is it expensive to have someone
do the sound track for the film? If there was no sound track would that work... just the ambience/dialogues?

Thanks in advance,

RJ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You say you're a college student, does the college have any music facilities? Sometimes, if it works with the film, you can just create basic but effective music from a midi keyboard. Sometimes when you have properly recorded music by a proper band, it comes out a bit more fancy and will take the audience out of the film. It's pretty easy to do and atleast then the film will have an original soundtrack.
  • 0

#5 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 29 July 2005 - 10:27 PM

Well, unless you intend to get your movie distributed, I honestly think that you should shoot in the aspect ratio that you feel best suited to your film, be it widescreen or academy. I like the 2:3 ratio of academy better than widescreen myself. It does better with closeups and cramped shots. Also, I feel that it can often save you money because you only have to decorate what's in the frame and you aren't decorating to either side. Another thing I like about R16 is that you actually can put an optical soundtrack on your film. I am shooting my first dramatic short film with an Auricon optical sound MP camera. Although editing optical sound poses difficulties, I think it is a great system as you don't have to worry about synch until you actually edit your film, where you can bounce it over to tape or digital with only minor quality loss and then make a final print with a new optical track. Anyway, if you're worried about projection, just rent or find a theatrical 16mm projector and tell the festival to use that when they run your film. That is unless all of your effects and titles are going to be digitals. In either case best of luck to you. Keep shooting film! ;-)

Regards.
~Karl Borowski
  • 0

#6 John Mastrogiacomo

John Mastrogiacomo
  • Sustaining Members
  • 210 posts
  • Other
  • Las Vegas, NV

Posted 29 July 2005 - 11:08 PM

Hi
I'm a film student at NYU. I have made a few short films but never with the whole nine yards.
I would like to make 8-10 minutes short film with sync sound to submit in film festivals.

I have a few questions:

Roughly how much would be the cost difference between 16mm and Super16mm?

What are the main advantages with Super 16mm.. is the extra money worth it for my project?

What would be the shooting ratio I should shoot for -- 3 to 1 .......4 to 1?

Is there such thing as royalty free music for the film? If not, is it expensive to have someone
do the sound track for the film? If there was no sound track would that work... just the ambience/dialogues?
RJ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I am constantly amazed at the basic questions film students ask. Almost all of the questions being asked can be found by searching the internet. Do any film students do their "homework" before posting basic questions? :huh:
  • 0

#7 zrszach

zrszach
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Student
  • Olathe, Kansas

Posted 30 July 2005 - 01:17 AM

I am constantly amazed at the basic questions film students ask.  Almost all of the questions being asked can be found by searching the internet. Do any film students do their "homework" before posting basic questions? :huh:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would really tend to agree? some people really need to do some more research before they post.

ok

A shooting ratio of 10 to 1 is usually the standard to account for actors, focus puller, boom operator, and all the other things that can go wrong. Sure you can get it right in 3 or 4 shots but its always better to buy too much film than to run out when you are out on location and there is no film for 100 miles. :o

But 10 to 1 is the standard?

If you were blowing up to 35mm it would be better to shoot s16. Because s16 is a larger negative there will get less grainy than 16mm in the blow up.

I think with what you are going for; a 35mm blowup is not really worth the money. A lot of festivals do accept digital formats. Therefore a good telecine to a digital format for edit may suite your needs

If you are renting the camera, s16 will cost more. But the film and processing will be the same.

Hope this helps
-Zach

Edited by zrszach, 30 July 2005 - 01:19 AM.

  • 0

#8 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1735 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 30 July 2005 - 02:03 AM

Actually Zach, Cameras like the Arri SR 3, HS, and Advanced and some other 16mm cameras do both, so they really cost the same price.

I'm sure there are cameras that do just one, and not both, but the common cameras are able to switch to both 16 and s16. Similare to the way most 35mm cameras can switch between 35 and s35 without much trouble.

Examples:
http://www.cameraser...amera/16sr3.htm
  • 0

#9 zrszach

zrszach
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Student
  • Olathe, Kansas

Posted 30 July 2005 - 07:19 AM

Actually Zach, Cameras like the Arri SR 3, HS, and Advanced and some other 16mm cameras do both, so they really cost the same price.

I'm sure there are cameras that do just one, and not both, but the common cameras are able to switch to both 16 and s16. Similare to the way most 35mm cameras can switch between 35 and s35 without much trouble.

Examples:
http://www.cameraser...amera/16sr3.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I was actually referring to a site such as birnsandsawyer.com
http://www.birnsands...l&catalogno=SR3

They charge $100 extra for an SR3 package that shoots s16? but other than that there is no difference between the r16 and s16 packages. :huh: I knew that the SR3 shot both r16 and s16 so i dont know why they would charge extra.

Edited by zrszach, 30 July 2005 - 07:22 AM.

  • 0

#10 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 30 July 2005 - 11:25 AM

Actually Zach, Cameras like the Arri SR 3, HS, and Advanced and some other 16mm cameras do both, so they really cost the same price.


Examples:
http://www.cameraser...amera/16sr3.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi Landon,

The SR3 is a very modern and expensive camera, that was designed to do S16. Most 16mm cameras in existance were delivered many years before S16 became an issue. Some early cameras have been converted. However many very cheap 16mm cameras available for short films were originally used for TV news!

Stephen Williams
Lighting Cameraman

www.stephenw.com
  • 0

#11 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 30 July 2005 - 11:30 AM

I was actually referring to a site such as birnsandsawyer.com
http://www.birnsands...l&catalogno=SR3

They charge $100 extra for an SR3 package that shoots s16? but other than that there is no difference between the r16 and s16 packages. :huh: I knew that the SR3 shot both r16 and s16 so i dont know why they would charge extra.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

The reason why the SR3 Package cost more is it has a S16 compatable lens! Older 16mm zooms don't cover S16. The best Zeiss and Cooke's can be modified but thats not cheap!

Stephen Williams
  • 0

#12 Steven Budden

Steven Budden
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco

Posted 31 July 2005 - 02:33 PM

Don't do super 16mm. It's more of a pain than it's worth for an 8 minute sync film. You'll be able to shoot with regular 16mm lenses (cheaper) and you can even edit physically with a viewer if you like (cheaper) or on a computer. I tried super 16mm for my first short and threw in the towel a ways in to shoot regular.

Super 16mm is really only useful for blow up to 35mm and wide screen ratio on dvd. Also, keep in mind that chances are very slim that your film will be blown up to 35mm (expensive), and even if it did need to be regular 16mm would be fine for 8 minutes. I've seen many shorts screen before 35mm films here in SF, mostly all done on standard 16mm, and they look fine.

Steven
  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 July 2005 - 05:02 PM

Something only 8 minutes long can't be all that expensive to blow-up to 35mm, even digitally. Yes, shoot regular 16mm if you want a 16mm optical sound print. Shoot Super-16 for everything else though unless you really only want a 4x3 image.
  • 0

#14 Steven Budden

Steven Budden
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco

Posted 01 August 2005 - 05:29 PM

I just meant chances are it wouldn't be blown up to 35mm and it's expensive. But I assume there are festivals that screen shorts in 35mm right? Don't most shorts these days show digital or 16mm? I guess if you got it blown up you could try and get it to show with a feature in a similar style?

I haven't yet moved into the business side of shorts.

Steven
  • 0

#15 Tomas Koolhaas

Tomas Koolhaas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • los angeles

Posted 02 August 2005 - 12:36 AM

Hello,
I would recomend shooting super16, even if you are not going to ever make a print (blow-up), you should still shoot super16, I have shot regular 16 and super for HD mastering for entrance into festivals, and the results with S16 have been much more pleasing, if for no other reason than grain! I shot a project on Reg.16 for telecine to HD and we shot 7279 kodak vision 500T, we ended up having to push a stop due to some low light night exteriors, and the resulting image was VERY grainy, some people liked it but I felt it was too grainy. The fact that we wanted an end ratio of 16x9 meant we had to zoom in a bit on the 4x3 frame in telecine and that increased the grain even more! I would strongly recomend shooting super16. You can see exactly how grainy the regular 16 project was by looking at the stills from "Nurture" in the 'Gallery' section of my website www.fnvfilms.com.

Also, I don't agree with whoever said that these types of posts are too basic, firstly this is the first time filmmakers section of the forum, secondly you cannot get the varied opinions of people of all talent and experience levels that you can access on this forum on google, thirdly if you think it's too basic don't read/reply no-one is forcing you.

Cheers,
Good luck with your shoot.

Edited by Tomas Haas, 02 August 2005 - 12:38 AM.

  • 0


Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

CineTape

Opal

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Visual Products

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

CineLab

The Slider

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Opal

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery