I've been doing the digital video thing since I started making movies. But anybody think it'd be worth it to get a 16mm camera and all the equipment needed to make a film on, well, film? Would it seem more professional? Anybody have a 16mm camera and can relate? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

-Conner

In my opinion it really depends on what story you're telling. Film is organic and each frame is unique while digital is made up of stagnet pixels. It does make a diference to the eye. They are completely different mediums.

Now whether you should buy a 16mm camera is a different story. I think you should stick with video for now. Digital video has made it possible for anyone to make a movie. It has also made it possible for budding filmmakers to hone their storytelling techniques. Film is extremely expensive-and really doesn't afford you the opportunity of getting the take several times due to the costliness. Furthermore, unless you know how to load and maintain a film camera it can be tricky. Unless you're in film school and can try out their film camera or unless you want to be a cinematograher-don't worry about shooting on film.

My advice-stick with video and when you get really good at telling stories find someone to bankroll your feature and hire an amazing cinematographer to help tell your masterpiece

More professional... no. Because it will look weird, and low-quality. Cool, and worth doing? Yes. If you're up for it, go for it!

I definately do not suggest that you buy a 16mm camera and all the gear. unless you find a nice camera at someone's garage sale for less than $100, it will be much more economical to rent.

I don't know that 16mm will make your film more professional, because the meduim is only one small aspect of what makes a good film...that said, while film is more complicated to expose, etc compared to DV,it still looks good and i would dare to say that if you had a well lit scene shot on DV, and then you shot it on 16, the 16 would look much nicer...However, you can't treat film the same as video, as they respond differently to light...

I have personally found learning 16mm very valuable, and kind of addicting. It is certainly more expensive than DV, but it forces you to learn many new aspects of the filmmaking process, as well as force you think very carefully about what you shoot.

I should warn you that if you do plan to shoot 16mm, that doing so economically will put serious restrictions on what you can and cannot do. For me this was a great learning experience, because the more restrictions i put on myself, the more creative i had to be.

For me film was worth it, and i plan to shoot film again soon. It may not be what you are into, but that depends on what your goals are.

I would also like to say that shooting 8mm and super 8mm are less expensive than 16mm, though at a loss of resolution... these, and other small film formats definately bring a unique aesthetic to your work, but this is still probably more expensive than DV.

What are your main reasons for wanting to shoot film?

I would also like to add that 16mm does NOT mean low-quality. just recently, 28 weeks later was shot mostly on super 16, and last year, Babel was shot partly on super 16....many independent films shoot on 16, as do many television shows.

Oh yeah, you CAN get 16mm to look like high-quality footage. I'm just willing to bet you won't, on your first try, with equipment that isn't top of the line. Vera Drake was shot on 16 and that looked incredible.

What ever happened to that other Evan...

I think film is good to use for learning about the medium, but eventually I don't see it lasting 10 years down the road... maybe 20 years. I dunno... I think eventually people will phase out of film and just use digital. But 10 and 20 years is still a long time from now... so I would say sure, get film equipment if it's within your budget. Either way, it's the story that carries more weight and not whether it's in film or digital format. just my opinion though.

ya know, when VHS first came out they said it would be the death of film, When DV came out they said it would be the death of film, When HD came out they said it would be the death of film...

Yeah, I'd never buy a new camera. It'd have to be a junker I found somewhere, or an old used one. It's all the extra equipment that goes with the camera to make filming possible that's gonna cost me.

I don't know. There's just so many random dudes with a dv camera out there cluttering up the indi market. Maybe I'll pick a 16mm up in the future, if I come across one.

If you have an arthouse theater nearby and it plays some pretty obscure stuff, look up the films and see which ones are shot on DV. Even blown up to 35mm and degraded a couple generations down to release print, it looks just fine.

I love the image quality of film, and I have tried shooting one roll of it (16mm). There's no question that film looks better, and I personally believe that there are some aspects of production that "good enough" is just not a good enough standard- acting, stability of camerawork, and clarity of sound should all be high on your list. (assuming you already have a strong screenplay and are a great storyteller) But in terms of cost and the uncertainty of how your footage will come out- including those darned light leaks!- film just isn't worth the trouble.

The downfall of many indie filmmakers is that "talent" is often confused with "gimmicky" and "stylish"... and they will spend loads of money on film, only to find they're rejected or can't find a distributor. Shoot an excellent DV film with a great story and great storytelling, and you just might get a 16mm (or even 35) handed over to you.

quote:

In my opinion it really depends on what story you're telling. Film is organic and each frame is unique while digital is made up of stagnet pixels. It does make a diference to the eye. They are completely different mediums.

This was a great statement and should be the basis for the argument. It all depends on what serves the narrative. I just recently watched a short film (the best I have ever seen) called Validated. Shot completely on 8mm b&w, the stock was grainy and dirty. In another film I would have probably HATED it, but it worked for this storyline. So you should always ask if the use of film will add or take away from your narrative. If the answer is take away...and I mean that in every respect including budget that no...just go with video. With the right tools and knowledge you can make any dv footage look like 8mm. If you want 16 you got to be really good or have HD with a cinelens adapter.