Camera Porn
The current intention is to shoot I Love Luci
on 16mm film. This is for a number of reasons. I am very keen to
shoot on film for the quality of image. To get a
comparative image digitallly the camera we would have to use is very
big
and we have a number of tight locations and a lot of handheld work on
this film so 16mm will save on space and
get the best image. Secondary to this is the amount of light we will
need. It seems strange to me but we need more light to shoot on HD
than we would to shoot on film now that the stocks are so good (for the
uninitiated: stock is the term for the film that goes in the camera and you get all sorts of makes and speeds, mainly Kodak and Fujifilm).
BTW, if you are thinking of shooting something on film you should try and buddy up to the reps for Kodak and Fuji to see if you can get a good deal on your stock. If you have absolutely no money and you still want to shoot on film then try going to production companies that shoot on film and asking for some of their shorts ends.
So we're thinking of shooting a standard 16mm gate with anamorphic
lenses. This will give us that classic 2.39 or Techniscope image. As I understand it though, anamorphic lenses are expensive and light hungry. Yesterday our exec producer, Gillian Berrie, asked why we weren't thinking of shooting on 35 and I explained that I didn't think there was a camera small enough for us to use that would fit all the criteria we need for an 'A' camera.
So I've had a very fun day looking at all the options for 35, having
previously discounted it as not possible because of the size of the
camera. However, after a little research into new cameras that are
about I have found two cameras that are perfect for the job and could
in fact save us quite a substantial amount of money for another reason
that isn't available to 16mm. If we shoot 2-perf on 35 we would half
the amount of stock we need because it's a far more efficient use of
the negative. I think this is a technique we used on Hallam Foe,
but I didn't go into much detail about it on the blog because I didn't
have time to research it properly. Another benefit to this is that a
mag lasts twice as long so you would get about 9 minutes out of a 400'
roll, this is lighter for the camera operator too and roughly equal to
the time you get out of a roll of 16mm.
The upshot of all this reading and looking into different cameras is that I have found a way of potentially saving us money that could be well used somewhere else as well as improving the versatility of our camera department. If it checks out well in the money department for post-production as well as the shoot then we are quids in and would only have to clear it with our financiers to get the go ahead. We'll see what happens.
BTW, if you are thinking of shooting something on film you should try and buddy up to the reps for Kodak and Fuji to see if you can get a good deal on your stock. If you have absolutely no money and you still want to shoot on film then try going to production companies that shoot on film and asking for some of their shorts ends.
So we're thinking of shooting a standard 16mm gate with anamorphic
lenses. This will give us that classic 2.39 or Techniscope image. As I understand it though, anamorphic lenses are expensive and light hungry. Yesterday our exec producer, Gillian Berrie, asked why we weren't thinking of shooting on 35 and I explained that I didn't think there was a camera small enough for us to use that would fit all the criteria we need for an 'A' camera.
So I've had a very fun day looking at all the options for 35, having
previously discounted it as not possible because of the size of the
camera. However, after a little research into new cameras that are
about I have found two cameras that are perfect for the job and could
in fact save us quite a substantial amount of money for another reason
that isn't available to 16mm. If we shoot 2-perf on 35 we would half
the amount of stock we need because it's a far more efficient use of
the negative. I think this is a technique we used on Hallam Foe,
but I didn't go into much detail about it on the blog because I didn't
have time to research it properly. Another benefit to this is that a
mag lasts twice as long so you would get about 9 minutes out of a 400'
roll, this is lighter for the camera operator too and roughly equal to
the time you get out of a roll of 16mm.The upshot of all this reading and looking into different cameras is that I have found a way of potentially saving us money that could be well used somewhere else as well as improving the versatility of our camera department. If it checks out well in the money department for post-production as well as the shoot then we are quids in and would only have to clear it with our financiers to get the go ahead. We'll see what happens.
3 Comments
Leave a comment
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos and videos from colin kennedy. Make your own badge here.
Well hello there
I'm so glad to hear that the things are going on well with your project!
BTW never knew that under any circumstances 35 mm could be cheaper than 16 mm. And I'd like to know if it's very easy to get a 2 perf shooting camera? I mean we don't seem to have such cameras back here.. or maybe we do have, but definitely NOT many... 3 perforation is a common thing, but not 2...
So we've just been shooting a short and we had to shoot on HD and I'm SO JEALOUS right now, cause it's absolutely impossible to find any funding for making a short here, nobody wants them and making a good quality short is impossible without financing of course. Not to mention that filming a short on 35 has always been so out of the question (either 4,3, or even 2 perf). Indeed, living in Russia is such a waste of oxygen if you wish to work in this industry. I think I'll end up a film editor and I'm not gonna pretend I'm satisfied with the prospect lol. Maybe it's time to drink some poison - but not before we get to see your short in Cannes :)
"If you have absolutely no money and you still want to shoot on film then try going to production companies that shoot on film and asking for some of their shorts ends."
Yeah that's exactly what the students back here usually do when they want to shoot in film. I don't know how this works in Scotland, but here you can't get the shorts ends for nothing - you must pay for them, but of course they are cheaper. And you can also go to KODAK and buy officially expired film from them directly - they sell it for 30% of its original price. And you can pray a lot and then go and try and shoot on it...
And of course a lot of people shoot on 16mm or S16mm and then burn it on 35mm(I'm not sure how the process is called in English, sorry), which is itself a very expensive thing, cause it costs something like 500GBP per minute.
But if you want to shoot on 35mm film, before you find cheap stock you need a camera and that might be a problem if you have "absolutely no money". For instance, in my case to rent an ARRI (btw we only have 3 perf cameras.. never saw one 2 perf in my life unfortunately - but I'd love to!) was SO out of the question that the stock wasn't a problem at all in comparison to that and unfortunatley I don't even own a Konvas (you know loads of students back here and independent filmmakers in the USA use these old cheap Soviet cameras such as Konvas, Kinor etc., cause they cost absolutely nothing, but now they are impossible to find and you must be a real psycho fan to teach yourself how to use them). And if you have like 4000 GBP for EVERYTHING, you have to shoot on HD (IMHO that's not exactly "absolutely no money" if we're talking about a short. Anyway, I know people who have made really good full-length features for 1500 GBP, NOT on film of course, but I swear by God, their works were great, though I've absolutely no idea HOW they did it).
BUT if you can raise the finance and you can get a 2 perf camera I think you SHOULD shoot on 35 mm, it's worth it if you can afford it!
Hey Helge,
Great to hear from you.
I often see your comments on Sweet On Sigma.
In answer to your observations I am not certain that shooting 2 perf will make 35mm a cheaper option for us, but it may do. We are also doing a DI (Digital Intermediate) so depending on the comparative costs of scanning and the fact that we would use literally half the amount of stock then we could reduce the cost of the camera department a bit. I don't know for certain yet though.
The two 2 perf cameras pictured are an Aaton Penelope and and Arri 235. You can also shoot 2 perf on a number of old cameras that wouldn't be suitable as an 'A' Camera on a shoot. Here is a site dedicated to 2-perf cameras if you are feeling incredibly camera-geeky:
http://www.supervision2perf.com/
I'll try and update things as frequently as I can. Email me again about your blog idea, I'd like to do something if possible.