ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

12 years, 3 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

Almost afraid to say this but...

With no experience in film, it would be very silly to go out and buy a film camera! Why? Because its bloody expensive! Not only the film and processing but the crew you need around it and the post costs.

Sounds like you need to cut your teeth first and shoot some stuff and these days that can be done cheaply on video.

If you want to be a filmmaker and film and direct stuff then video is the way to go. Get some experience on video first then on a project that has a decent budget, hire a film camera and do it right.

Take the generous offer of Michael Johns up and learn from a pro. It will probably be an eye opener.

Good luck.

12 years, 6 months ago - Alistair Briggs

OK, so you've got the cost of the camera. Then there's the cost of the film stock - and the choices of film sock - and the availability of the film stock (neg or reversal, fast or slow, tungsten or daylight). Then there's processing - if you are shooting a neg stock you'll also need one-light rushes so you can view what you've shot. Do you have the equipment to view your rushes? If not, there's the cost of a viewing theatre or cutting suite. Or, if you're not going to cut on film, you'll have to pay for telecine to a video format - and you'll still have to grade the footage. Then there's sound. Do you know a sound recordist who can record separately? Shooting film is a skilled job and expensive. Great to see people wanting to use film, but 'proper' films, as a beginner, can be made on video. Might be better to start there. PS Shooting film is anything but a 'drag'. It is great fun and most importantly a great discipline, so a great way to learn filmmaking - it's just that, without people around you who have already been there, it's perhaps a difficult and costly learning curve. But if you are determined - go for it.

12 years, 6 months ago - Ross A Wilson

If you're asking this question then it would be a mistake to buy one before you learn everything about shooting film and operating.. You need books and manuals, although operation is relatively simple exposure control requires a meter.. That said there's nothing quite like hands on experience but be prepared to pay £150 for ten minutes of film including processing and video transfer.

The films you see on DVD etc are also graded, that cost even more money..

12 years, 3 months ago - Tony Franks

I shot my one and only short film on 16mm, nearly 20 years ago, a solo shoot over a weekend. I learned how to edit and pieced the film together over the following weeks. The whole process was probably one of the most intense experiences I've ever had, a strange mixture of elation, frustration and accomplishment. It cost a lot of money (back then) and now lies in it's can, still awaiting a digital transfer and soundtrack. I'm so glad I did it, and I sometimes think I should have made it my career focus...

Bobby; it sounds like you opted to go down the digital route and that sounded like the right move to me, in this day and age. My advice is: make lots of digital films (don't be too precious) and if "the itch to scratch" still persists, then save up and make your 16mm film.

12 years, 6 months ago - James Martin

Hi Bobby,

Let me play devil's advocate with you for a minute - but please believe me I understand the desire to go out and shoot film! I did the same thing myself when I was a student at a digital-only film school.

There are a few things to consider that you might not have. First is the sheer cost of film - it's fairly cheap nowadays because most people are happy to get rid of it (fuji do some really great deals on short dated stock) but processing is not cheap at all. For example, a cheap package called Complete16 will get you 10 minutes worth of film and processing for £150. I don't want to get into a debate about the best deals etc etc... but if that kind of price is scary to you, then you can't afford film.

Secondly, if you want to use a "proper" film camera and not just a point and shoot affair like a K-3 then you will need some proper film people to help you use it. You'd need to know how to use a lightmeter (and own one - they're expensive too!) and you need to know how to load it properly too.... which means using a changing bag and doing it (semi) blind.

If you've got a big budget for an old ARRI, you'll need lenses and things with it, which aren't terribly expensive on 16mm, but do add to the cost. You also say you want to make "MOVIES" - so I think you need to calculate the cost of how much film you'll actually be shooting.

If you've still got an itch to scratch and want to do it properly, I can point you in the direction of a few companies that keep proper Super16 kits available for students to use and they are the best way of going about learning "proper" film cameras.

There's a couple of points for you to consider, I wish you the best of luck in your FILMmaking.

James Martin
Cinematographer

12 years, 6 months ago - Ogy Stoilov

Unless you are rich and have money to burn, don't bother. The cost of processing alone will break you. Much like Bane

12 years, 6 months ago - Rafal Rakoczy - Gould

Hey Bobby,
It is a great idea to shoot something on film. It is a great practice but most important when ever you are shooting on film it attracts more professional filmmakers and your project will sound more serious as production with 16mm is always a bit more stress full.

I would love to help you, I am buying a new professional light meter (my old got broken) and it would a great occasion to make use of it. I have shoot before on 16mm it was a documentary but please check my drama showreel and let me know what do you think:

12 years, 6 months ago - Rafal Rakoczy - Gould

ups here you got my showreel and website

https://vimeo.com/50757846

http://rafalrakoczy.org/About_Me_CV.html

12 years, 6 months ago - Dan Selakovich

I feel for you, I do. I miss film terribly. Though I've only worked with 35mm, there are still things to think about. My advice would be to start backwards. First, finding a 35 cutting room is hard enough nowadays. Forget cutting on film. So, you need a transfer of your neg. to digital. And the best way to go is a digital intermediate. Very pricey. Let's say you've done that. Working backwards: processing the 16mm negative. Since nobody is doing that any more, really, the price at the lab is going to be top dollar... especially for a short. The next step is buy the film: I don't know about UK prices, but here in L.A., since Kodak really isn't playing ball with discounts, again, top dollar (unless you can find short ends, but good luck with that. Nobody shoots 16 any more). Now, we're at the shoot. How are you recording sound? Your camera, hopefully, will have crystal sync. Unless you have access to an old Nagra, you'll need a pretty expensive production sound mixing set up, since it's all digital now. And since it's all digital, you'll need a timecode slate. Pricey to rent and even more to own. Now you have to hire film people. A great dp and a great camera op, and a great AC. Personally, I think a 10:1 shooting ratio is about minimum. Given that, 10 minute film means buying and processing and telecine of 3,600 feet of film. So now we're at the buying a camera stage. Are you buying magazines as well? You need 2 1000' loads. That makes for a heavy camera. Do you have a fluid head that can handle that? Renting a crane? You need one big enough for that heavy camera. What about lenses? One zoom probably isn't going to cut it. I just looked on ebay here in the U.S. The two best cameras are an old Arri BL and an Eclair super 16mm. Whatever you get, you've got to have them checked out. Start with a film test. If that's OK, find somebody in the U.K. that can check and clean whatever you buy. More cash. Look, by the time you're done with buying the camera, getting it cleaned up, processing film, doing a digital intermediate, and all the above, you could buy a RED camera. A 4k digital camera. And people won't be able to tell the difference between that and 35mm film. Just sayin'. Don't price yourself out of being able to tell a good story. That's what it's about, after all.
Dan

12 years, 6 months ago - Bobby Shemar

Thank you all for your comments, they are much appreciated.

As Rafal Rakoczy mentioned, one of the main reasons I want to shoot on film is because it will attract more attention to my project. I also most definitely do have an ''itch to scratch'' as a lot of my idols started off using 16 too.
However, with that being said I do pay attention to all your wise words! It seems obvious that most people who have responded think that shooting on film will cost too much money, getting a camera appears to be pretty cheep (especially a K3) but there are a lot more costs involved; developing, editing etc. So, I think I am going to go down the digital route instead, however I want to be able to create ''the look of film'' as much as possible. This brings me onto my nest question.

Does anyone know of a affordable (less than £1000) digital camera that I can shoot in 24fps? And where I may able to get one from.

Thanks

12 years, 3 months ago - David Graham Scott

As most of the others have said, it will cost you but I guess it depends on deals you could get with labs etc if you're connected in the right places.
I shot my first serious documentary, Hanging with Frank, entirely on grainy black and white 16mm film stock as I wanted to create a certain mood. It worked perfectly for me and I'm glad I used film instead of the video alternative. That project was entirely cut on film and what a laborious process that was....but enjoyable at the same time too. Then there was the grading...a right pain that!! It depended on the lab getting it right and they didn't always. Have a look at my film and you'll see there are a few shots under and overexposed. I just couldn't afford to get those fixed quite honestly.
I still think the film decision was the right one despite some of the drawbacks: https://shootingpeople.org/watch/43269/hanging-with-frank
Best of luck

DGS x

12 years, 6 months ago - Shoaib Vali

"As Rafal Rakoczy mentioned, one of the main reasons I want to shoot on film is because it will attract more attention to my project."

not sure if that's entirely true, it would only mean that your capable of shooting on film, does not say that your a good filmmaker, and to be a good filmmaker, you need to shoot a lot! besides i think shooting on film, to get the film look is a very bourgeois concept.

Stick to digital, buy a Canon 5D or 7D, you will surprised how good and easy they are to use, and hey, it gives you that film look too, upto some extent ;) look at some test or sample footages on youtube. The time to use film cameras is a gradual thing, gotta shoot a lot of digital so when it comes to film cameras, you will be able to nail a shot in a few takes which is key in using film cams.

12 years, 6 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

Load the camera carefully, so you don't overexpose the film on the way in. Light destroys the film. I shot some film a few times, and over-exposure and under-exposure are almost inevitable in the beginning.

Another problem is there are so few people who develop 16mm these days. There's still a small market for 35mm, as the studios still use this, but the only people I know who deal with 16mm are a film library trying to preserve old prints.

Get some old books on how to operate a 16mm, there are plenty of them out there. The viewfinder won't show what's shot on film, so you need to know a bit about lighting, different kinds of film stocks, how the viewfinder size distorts or crops (or expands) the picture, and a few other things. Some will be specific to the particular brand of camera.

12 years, 6 months ago - Michael Abraham

Hi,could you please tell me what brand of camera it is?I may be able to help you.

Best

Michele

12 years, 3 months ago - SP User

I've probably shot 100 films on 16mm and Super16, dramas and docs, over the years. I've owned Arri16SR and AatonXTR cameras. My advice?
It's easy to go from film to video, and from video to digital. To go the other way? Apart from the obvious, now vast, cost difference and the problems of learning how to use the technology, remember you are not going to know whether your shots are in focus and exposed correctly until you get your rushes back. For a beginner, that's a huge issue.

The likelihood is that if you shoot on 16mm your results will be grainier and rougher. Now you may want a funky film look, but you are going to pay a high price for it and you probably won't be happy with the results.

12 years, 6 months ago - Heinrich Dahms

Have you given any thought to post production? Do you have any idea what its going to cost to transfer the neg to a digital intermedia to edit on NLE systems? Maybe you should check this out as well. I started my career on 16 and 35 and I cant tell you how happy I am with the new digital options. I would NEVER shoot on film again if you paid me. Its an absolute drag and does not necessarily look better. The bottom line is a good set of lenses and a good story. The rest is detail. Thats my tuppence worth.
Heinrich Dahms
Www.buzzmedia.net

12 years, 3 months ago - Sam Seal

Don't be such a wuss. Invent your own look. The "look of film" is a cultural construct - you think it looks nice because you've seen so many beautiful things that were shot on film. Get over it. You want to be the guy of whom someone else says "Do you know what camera and lenses they shot that amazing film on, and how they cut it etc - it was awesome?"

You don't need film for that. You need talent.

12 years, 3 months ago - michael johns G.B.F.E.

Can help you--have been in film industry over 40years--have own Arriflex SRII-am willing to guide you if your happy to provide 16mm film stock (will suggest sources) with quality lenses your results will not be grainy they will be a match for any video result--there are still processing labs near London--am based in Buckinghamshire---Regards Michael