Thread: You can afford to shoot film rather than digital

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36
  1. #31  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,074
    Quote Originally Posted by voxndot View Post
    I shot anamorphic super 16. Loved it. That'd be my go-to if i ever got money again to do anything....sigh.
    Question, did you use anamorphic lenses meant for 35, or did someone manufacture S16 2x anamorphics (which I've never heard of)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    502
    As a line item on a project with a real budget, film can be a valid argument. Walking Dead shoots film because the bulk of the show is day exteriors and the need the highlight range. Most big Alexa shows use a very much film style workflow. Codex raw drives go to a lab for dailies processing and color timing, so not a significant savings.

    that said I can see no justification to raise money to shoot film when that cost is going to be your entire budget. Clerks, Slacker, Primer etc would likely be made on Pocket or Dslr now for no budget, and just as likely lost in the glut of no budget product being done now. I say if you can raise $20,000 for 16mm just shoot Pocket and put the money into paying people even a little bit, and get decent food. And to be fair I use the same argument against Alexa and Epic when the budget isn't there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by dop16mm View Post
    that said I can see no justification to raise money to shoot film when that cost is going to be your entire budget. Clerks, Slacker, Primer etc would likely be made on Pocket or Dslr now for no budget, and just as likely lost in the glut of no budget product being done now. I say if you can raise $20,000 for 16mm just shoot Pocket and put the money into paying people even a little bit, and get decent food. And to be fair I use the same argument against Alexa and Epic when the budget isn't there.
    I agree. Pay people, buy lights, wardrobe, set permits etc...

    Those things will make a much bigger difference to your film than 16mm vs pocket/DSLR
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    170
    +2
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by robmneilson View Post
    Question, did you use anamorphic lenses meant for 35, or did someone manufacture S16 2x anamorphics (which I've never heard of)?
    There are anamorphic c mount lenses (I missed out on buying one years ago at a garage sale) but I'd guess he used 35mm lenses
    Toby Angwin - Director/Compositor
    Twitter Vimeo
    http://www.soupkitchenfilms.net
    BMMCC Veydras
    Smallrig, Letus & Ergocine support
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by rick.lang View Post
    When you're writing an article demonstrating the affordability of film, not playing fair when your costs are skewed so much by heavily discounted stock costs. If you're buying film, you're not going to see the same costs.
    Why? Anybody can buy short ends and recans, and anyone with a student ID can get a massive discount from Kodak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. I want to shoot in Super 16mm (film film)
    By SkyHighFG in forum Filmmaking - General
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-02-2014, 09:33 PM
  2. Lens / Diffusion / Camera / Film v Digital / Motion test
    By bmxsummoner in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-29-2014, 05:46 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-06-2013, 06:52 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-30-2012, 01:16 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2012, 10:39 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •