Being new to this scene (an online forum)... I've heard much about DV and very little about film. I've always shot in 16mm or Super-8. I'm shooting in DV for the next project but is this the norm... is 16mm out because I've been looking to shoot in DV and make something that looks decent... very hard. I always shot with an Eclair Acl and a Nagra. Very basic.... it seems with DV we spent time shooting for shooting's sake. In 16mm I'll do 2 or 3 takes not much more, in DV people shoot like a Wiseman film. Where's the restraint or sense of film. I'd have never done what i've done without huge grants from the NFB but that doesn't negate people's sense of... OH I HAVE A PROJECT I HAVE A DV SO I CAN DO A FILM. I like the accesibility to all but not the inate access because some have a family DV and many do not. As much as old school filmmaking privilieged many because of education... new school DV making privileges those with a family cameras.
Cheers
I don't understand how you can go out and get all this grant money so easily. That's why I can't shoot film, 'cause I got no money. DV is cheap, and I like 5+ takes of everything, so it's out of necessity.
Can you tell me how to tap into all this NFB money?
Yes... you're from Canada... I always did my stuff on a PAFS grant (funding to the private sector). I'm not sure if they shut down recently but I always got non-shooting grants i.e. processing, opticals, sound mix, neg cut, answer print, through them. All in total for a 15 min film about 20k. Much worth it. But for myself... spending another 15k for 16mm short.... it is very hard. So I'm turning to DV mainly to get council grants or use my film contacts to get a script through. We all do what we can.
Indeed.
Good luck, anyhow. But you're right, it is very hard to make something truly look decent on dv. My short films haven't come close, but I gotta keep filming anyways.
I've always done shorts and always tried to make something that people will enjoy or at least appreciate. DV seems like another medium... do i do this so I can make something in film or is this what i want to always make. A question to ask. Right now I'm changing mediums because the cost is too great with film... but am I making these films/videos only to get something else or am i making them because people will watch them in DV. Not sure? Ultimately... I had what I think is a good film... my only choice(financially) shoot on DV. That's it.
This might help you Wit... http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1467&start=0
I hear ya...I was recently looking at some listings for films looking for crew, or just to hang out and see if I can learn anything. Most listed were of the student film type...but almost every single one was being shot on some form of DV...
...sadly, if you don't have a big budget, and very limited on time/turnaround...DV just makes more sense to most.
Seriously... I always shot in 16mm or Super 8. It is always a much more organized and intense shoot. You waste 100ft of 16mm it cost you a handful unless you're rich. Personally, I'm having an adjustment problem to shooting in DV.... quality-wise and just shooting with an eye and not unlimited minutes. I thought it would be liberating having hours of non-cost shooting... but I'll see as the shoot goes on.
Quote from: WitkacyYou waste 100ft of 16mm it cost you a handful unless you're rich.
costed me around $30 (US) at at the time (not including processing)...and $30 is a lot to a broke college kid for a few minutes of actual screen time.
$30 is cheap.. add in test print... processing... neg cut... any opticals... answer print... all for a minute of footage of which you cut out 45 seconds. It's a whole different project compared to DV. Then try your sound mix... long and laborious... but nothing is as satisfying and fun as working on a Steenbeck editor. Much more fun than any computer.
Quote from: Witkacy$30 is cheap..
realize thou, I was shooting only reversal at the time.
I'm paying $25 for 100ft of film reversal 16mm that is the price of film and processing.
Reversal is fine for certain applications. It may cheaper in the first stages but ultimately its inherent limitations don't bode well for finished films. If you're shooting small no-budget films that you don't see being screened beyond the classroom it's a good choice. Then again... I'm looking at it from a purely material point of view... I guess you take your reversal and transfer directly to digital and edit there. This wasn't my case a few years ago when reversal was seen primarily as a test role option. So you might as well disregard what I'm saying. I just always loved editing actual 16 footage and having a neg that only some white gloved tech touched. Apologies for the pre-digital tangent.
Right now I'm learning how to edit 16 mm Reversal footage (pre-digital). I have a feeling I'll be spending a lot of time in the editing room.
haha,....I wish I had it transfered to DV!!
cut and splice here too. It sucks, but really makes you feel proud of your finished product.
Shafter expect to spend many late nights in there. Maybe you are different, but I would bust my ass for like and hour, view it, bust my ass for another hour, take a 10 minute ciggie break, and repeat the process. It worked well to not drive me nuts and start choppin' off fingers with a guillotine splicer.
But you can't deny it is much more physical and enjoyable when you're handling the actual film stock... counting out frames... taping up 2 or 3 frames cause you never know when you might want to use them. There's something too sterile about DV on a certain level. Plus, endless shooting on DV doesn't help your eye or your relationship to the image.
Interesting point of view. I've used pretty much every kind of post (including horrid 3/4 deck to 3/4 deck), and I'll take the AVID over anything. No choice. It's nice to hold film in your hand, but not so nice when you try an editing strategy that doesn't quite work, and you're re-taping bits and pieces from everywhere. Plus I had to do all the logging before we sent our cuts to the lab (for dissolves and fades and so on), and it was a nightmare process.
But I like your outlook about shooting on film and really making your eye do more work. That is a good point.
Sorry to say but I'm not quite sure what a 3/4 deck to deck or what AVID is, I've always edited on a Steenbeck. Taping bits of film together is only a horror show if you're shooting in reversal. If you have a neg and an editing role then there's no problem. Ultimately it's all throw away and you use a neg cutter to put together what you've edited. Editing in 16 should not be a bad experience but liberating.. it makes you think about every frame and how to shoot. No excess.
I don't think there's anything wrong with shooting for the sake of shooting. I would hope that if someone makes a video or film, its because they truly enjoy it. Pleasing the audience should come second. I've shot maybe a dozen projects on video over the years and two on film. Film came after. What's the point of spending a fortune to make your mistakes when you can shoot with a video camera, get better at the production aspect of it, then shoot on film when you're more experienced. I have quite a few projects that I've swept under the rug. It pisses me off, but I'd be kicking myself if i'd spent cash on film and it turned out crappy.
I will admit, however, that you do get a bit lazy when i comes to pre-production when you shoot with video. I always go in and shoot way more then I need, just in case and I always end up using some of it in post. If I had started with film, I probly would have learned to storyboard better and put together more thorough shot lists.
But whatever, I'm not broke in the process. Guess it'll just have to be a habit I'll need to break.
Dialogue question here.
I don't know if I'm crazy here but I was just thinking...
say The Big Lebowski, would that work if it was shot on video, the dialogue I mean.
Don't you think a film shot on video have to sound realistic for it to work?
The dialogue in TBL is beautiful but far from realistic.
I have a hard time believing that film would work if shot like, sy, Roger Doger.
Do you get what I mean? I don't blame you if you don't...I'm fairly drunk and over-analytic right now...
Quote from: kotteDon't you think a film shot on video have to sound realistic for it to work?
i dont think so
I have to admit, both my projects I shoot on reversal film. It was a bitch. The image was too dark on the steinbeck and I had to count frames all the time. The longest one was 2 minutes and I edited digital first and it still took me 9 hours jsut to cut it all up. Can you imagine if I had done my entire editing on it? I would still be there.
Man, people are getting lazy today... People can't imagine actually cutting films on Steenbecks or Moviolas. Think about the work and time that went into that process. We're talking about virtually everything made from the time the industry was standardized up until the early to mid-90s. Spielberg still uses a Moviola.
I admit, there is a certain romantic quality to physically cutting your film, but DV is much better. Improvement is improvement. I mean, if you had to choose between a 15 year old car and a brand new car, which one would you take? Non-linear editing is the evolution of analog editing.
Analog editing was always non-linear. Linear editing is when you're going tape to tape. But yes, digital non-linear is an improvement over cutting and splicing.