drivers license exam, 2 min movie
 

License Exam - 2 minutes

http://www.sonnyboo.com/onlinemovies/dmv.php
Things go awry at the Department of Motor Vehicles

written & directed by Peter John Ross, the first 16mm short film from Sonnyboo Productions

starring Jon Osbeck (MANN shorts), George Caleodis (SECOND CITY), Harley Kaplan (uncredited, SEX IN THE CITY), and Holly Magnani

((we used a Canon GL1 to record audio and also do safety takes).

I've moved the thread to our "showcase" forum. What are your
thoughts on the footage you both had shot on 16mm and on
the GL1? How do the two compare?

The short was pretty neat, nice work!

Cool, I wasn't 100% sure wher to post this. THANKS!

I've been using the GL1 for 4 years now, and I do not believe in the argument "Film is better than video/Video is better than film". In my opinion they are just DIFFERENT CHOICES.

I liked the 16mm look a lot. It's less to do with a comparing the two images of this particular film stock versus the settings on my camera as much as it is purely an aesthetic choice.

In multimedia today, something shot on film is accepted far easier for the voluntary suspension of disbelief. When doing a narrative fiction piece, the rules of 100 years of cinema and television have dictated that film is easier to accept as "story", whereas video is accepted as "real". This is greatly accentuated by reality TV series, always shot on video, as well as talk shows and the broadcast news.

Whenever we see an interview, it's usually video, and that's Samuel L Jackson. Whenever he's shot on film, that's not Samuel L. Jackson, that's the character he's playing.

Since this piece was meant to be an 'altered reality', and I happened to have been given a 400' roll of 16mm film for free - the choice to shoot film was good for me.

I still shoot video, and I don't mind it. But whenever the opportunity presents itself, or when budgets can afford it - I will be shooting film as much as I can.

Also, with the price of 16mm film, processing, and transfer dropping like an anvil, it's not too expensive to shoot film anymore. But even then, I get it all transferred to Mini DV and edit on Adobe Premiere like everyone else.

Thanks for the response. I understand your point of view. But
I was just wondering how the same shot looked both on the
GL1 and the 16mm film. Not for a film vs. video debate, but more
for my own curiosity. How they hold up to eachother (within
their respective differences).

Yeah, the differences were totally aesthetic. the GL1 looks like video - very sharp & clear, but the 16mm looked like a fine grain film...


We did safety takes in case anything should happen to the film, we can "film look" a shot to match, but thankfully that wasn't necessary.

I can say that the blacks and the depth were much better on the 16mm camera. The lighting on the GL1 appears a lot harsher & with soem blow outs compared tot he 16mm, but we were working with 250D negative stock in a black painted room, so we needed a lot more light to expose than DV needed.

There was one shot that we tried to do a sublte lighting changeover effect by lowering gels, and the GL1 picked it up much better than the 16mm camera, but the effect still worked, just not as well as the DV.

There are pro's and con's to shooting either one.

Like I said, I am NOT debating that one is "better" than the other, but I "prefer" the 16mm film look.

You can get 400ft of film with processing included for $.30 per foot, and also transferred to mini DV for editing for $175.

So 400ft = 11 minutes at $120, plus $175 to transfer to video - totalling $295 for 11 minutes of raw footage. People hav e a misconception that shooting film will break the bank... it won't.

Well, that depends, ofcourse. I can shoot those 11 minutes
for $5 or something and still have 49 minutes left for the same
price. So that just saved me $290. Ofcourse it will look different
(although I think you can get some great footage with a good
DV camera in the right hands), but for that $290 I can invest
or save for equipment investments (which can be quite expensive
for us indepedent guys) for things like lights, dollies / steadicams
etc.

Not saying DV is the best way to go, but it definitely is for me.
Could I afford the $295 for a short, sure I could. But for my last
short (almost 6 minuts) I shot 1 hour and 10 minutes of footage.
That might be a high ratio, but I'm just not that experienced, yet.
Also having different takes has proved very nice to have on some
projects.

Thanks for your thoughts!

very valid points all!

Like I said it is a choice. I would 150% agree that for people still learning - DV is the way.

I did over 30 DV shorts before going to 16mm film. I had learend from all my mistakes on many prior DV shoots so that I could completely maximize the 11 minutes of 16mm film. If I had started out on film, I'd have wasted a LOT of money!

So you have made a great point!

First of all, really liked the short. funny stuff, good plot so to speak. I think everyone needs to watch that video, because no one around here understands the "can't change lanes in an intersection principle."

and rob-- i dont think shooting such a high ratio qualifies you as a newb, in fact, i think the exact opposite. most newbs i know shoot one, maybe two takes and move on. this is not the way to go, IMO. the more the merrier, you never know when your actor will say it just SLIGHTLY different the 22nd time and it will fit perfectly in the overall edit. afterall, you dont see big budget movies only doing one take of something. anyways like i said, my opinion.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

This was fun and it reminds me of when I moved to a new state and they made me take the drivers exam... it's a real treat.


Coming first from a film background and moving into DV I find it to be, creatively, a massive improvement.

In 16 I would subconsciously count the clicks the camera made counting off how many feet of film just went past, how much that was to buy the film stock, how much it would cost me to get it developed... ect, ect, ect.

Actually DV reminds me of Super 8. Man, we used to think nothing of burning through a 4 dollar film cartridge just getting a funky angle or something---

I have ended up being somewhere in the middle these days as far as shoot to use ratio.

The big rule I've set for myself is "Never do a set up without knowing how you are coming into this shot and how you are going to get out of this shot." so that has cut down on extra coverage some but after I get what I need sometimes I'll just shoot one or two takes experimenting with something.

Film or DV - these are just options without one being "better" than the other.

I chose 16mm because I hadn't shot 16mm yet and wanted to. I chose actors who I have worked with before and we had an effeciency after rehearsals, so now time or money was wasted. It was a simple 2 minute thing, so experimentation was minimal with the actors, but even then we had room for aome alternate takes & delivery.


I like the flexibility of DV, but I love the aesthetic of real film, not DV emulated. It's all a matter of choice.