16mm montage

yup, i actually like the image it makes when you film the image from a projector, kinda like that old home video look. id rather watch super 8 footage over any same old HD footage any day. people care wayyy too much about having the highest resolution, sharpest, clearest image possible.
 
ok i could also bring it to my dads developer and have them transpose it to mini dv and shipped to my front door in full quality.... but that takes time
 
^and more money

I love 16mm tho, probably the best medium out there, much better than hd. Kinda wish nimbus was filming 16mm but then I suppose the processing would take to long to be able to come out with one every 2 months while still skiing.
 
Its all about the look. People shooting in 16mm dont really care about hd and like it better.
For me it definitely depends on the mood you are trying to set. An HD look is going to set a different mood for something than a 16mm look. Just look at this edit and the mood.
Also everyone is going away from HD cuz MOST young people would rather see hd, and yeah they dont have to spend 150 grand just on film in one season.
 
I knew film was expensive but 150 Gs for one year, damn thats so many hvxs. I still would prefer if some companies shot in 16mm but I do agree it depends on what mood they are trying to set, like I could never see poorboyz shooting in 16mm. BTW he means everyone is going away from 16mm not hd if anyone didnt realize that.
 
how is it full quality if it's on miniDV? Wouldn't harddrive be the full quality option? It's impossible to get HD footage onto DV tape...
 
First of all, 16mm has about the same resolution as consumer HD cameras (HVX specifically). the HD cameras just stretch the pixels to make it 16:9 aspect ratio.

Another plus side to film is shooting tree skiing. There is nothing I hate more than filming in 6' of fresh snow and being stuck with a digital camera to baby so that it doesnt get wet. 16mm cameras are built like tanks. Plus film is much better at processing flat light because you have different film speeds to work with, and higher contrast. With digi, you have one image that you can slightly tweak, but in the end, you will end up stretching the color data just to get a good exposure/contrast balence, and even then, the image will either be grainy or flat. A good example of this is to compare JP's tree skiing shots in Ski Porn (16mm) vs. the tree skiing in Yeah Dude (HVX).

Also, the HVX cams seem to shoot their moderate slow motion at a higher shutter than the 16mm cams. This is one of the things that makes it look so "real". It almost looks "too real" for some people to the point where it looks almost fake. In some instances though, I like it. Picture This is a perfect example of this; I think they did an amazing job using their HVXs.

Unless it's a bluebird day out, it's pretty damn easy to tell when something is shot digitally. Personally, I think it looks like shit, but that's only because I like the film look. And like it was stated earlier, it's all about preference. Film vs. digi is like blonde vs. brunette. Most people like this whole digi-craze right now so since I'm the minority here, I think it's a good idea for all these companies to shoot their HVX's.

 
You can get a solid Arri 16 s/b setup with maybe a telephoto or a few primes and basic necessities for around $2,500 - $3,000 on ebay.
 
i just watched the video again, and at 3:51-4:00 min I like that effect of the skier leaving the screen and then dropping out of it..it was probably an accident, but I like how it stalls on the mountains..cant really explain why but its a cool kinda trippy effect. maybe its meant to break our focus off of the skier for a moment and see where he is and how amazing that environment is.. would do you guys think?
 
i liked it a lot. i don't know much about 16mm but i like it when i've watched it. i also liked that guys style. just kinda clean and relaxed looking
 
crews like mack dawg and standard would literally buy 120 gs worth of film to start off the year in october and then work from there. thanks for correcting that, haha.

There are some guys out there that have been around for a while and never ever shot in film. Good example is Berman. Hes never made a level one movie with film before.
Its all kinda just personal preference.

Landis is right. A decent 16mm set up is about the same price as a DVX now a days.
To bad a roll of film is basically the equivalent to never re using a P2 card and just buying a new one once one fills up.

 
I'm assuming that you're calculating developing into that 120g's....film stock is expensive, but I wouldn't say it costs that much, a roll of 400 foot color which is one of the standard sizes to buy, is about 200$, and that gives you 13 mins of footage...now if you're buying in bulk, which I do with my film guy, I get my rolls of 50D for about 30$ for 400 feet...but if you are counting in developing, it will run you about 50$ per minute of footage filmed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top