Is this 35mm? at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Techniques for Independent Production

Techniques for Independent Production
The challenges of creating Digital Cinema and other narrative forms.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 27th, 2006, 03:49 AM   #1
Space Hipster
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 1,508
Is this 35mm?

I have a client who says this music video was shot on 35mm for $5000. I have my doubts.

http://www.kourthousemedia.com/octane.html

Any takers on what format it is and why?
__________________
stephen v2
www.insaturnsrings.com
Stephen van Vuuren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2006, 04:35 AM   #2
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 223
I suppose if you told a layman it was shot on 35mm they would believe it. To me, with the web compression I can't tell. But there are some definite signs that it was shot on 35mm. Some parts, looked like CC'd DV. But regardless of that, many people shoot HD and say it was 35mm, it's just better that way, and you can charge more..


Also, there is some very very obvious vignetting done in post. That's a give away sign for DV.
Yasser Kassana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2006, 05:33 AM   #3
Trustee
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 1,961
Video.

Many shots were lit primarily at night by practicals and I don't think 35mm could have fairly broad depth-of-field with the iris closed and get that much exposure. More likely it is video with good low light sensitivity and the broad DOF is caused by a CCD smaller than 35mm film size. I would guess a 2/3" digital video camera. Low-light sensitivity is the strength of modern video cameras.

Blown-out highlights are a weakness of video. Even though the lighting was decent, there are many highlights.

BAD, bad, bad 24p simulation. The stuttering was distracting. This video definitely looked like it was sent through a computer and a 35mm shoot transfered to digital for editing is expensive.

It just FEELS like video. I'm not saying the work is bad (except the stuttering), but it seems like video. There is nothing wrong with that, but they should not claim 35mm as it denigrates the work they did to make video look decent.

Could it be possible your customer is lying to get you to lower your price? If you suspect this is true, stick to your price AND demand full payment in advance. Be honest and fair with them, but don't take any BS. Set your price and let them decide if they want to pay.
Marcus Marchesseault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2006, 06:57 AM   #4
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: switzerland
Posts: 2,131
Sorry but yes it is filmed with 35mm (or at least with a film camera)
You can look at the pictures at
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/inde...2-7c0c4b33462e
or here if you are not registered.
http://www.giroud2.com/download/xx1.jpg
http://www.giroud2.com/download/xx2.jpg
Giroud Francois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2006, 11:16 AM   #5
Space Hipster
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroud Francois
Sorry but yes it is filmed with 35mm (or at least with a film camera)
You can look at the pictures at
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/inde...2-7c0c4b33462e
or here if you are not registered.
http://www.giroud2.com/download/xx1.jpg
http://www.giroud2.com/download/xx2.jpg
Nice find on the pics. I think the deep DOF (which is from the very wide angle lens and tons of light) and classic miniDV color, effects stuff points to shot on 35mm but telecined to miniDV and mastered in miniDV.
__________________
stephen v2
www.insaturnsrings.com
Stephen van Vuuren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2006, 09:02 PM   #6
Trustee
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 1,961
I'm curious as to why they went for a digital video look after shooting on 35mm. Why didn't they just save a ton of money and shoot on video? They could have eliminated film and transfer costs and probably used half the wattage on those lights. They did a very respectable job with the lighting as they retained a lit-by-practicals feel, but they could have just used video and saved a bunch on the lighting costs. There is way too much stigma against video in the industry. For some situations, it is ideal.

This video did not cost $5000. Something is in error with the person making that claim. The equipment rentals alone probably cost that much or even more if it was a multiple-day shoot.

This video could have the exact same look with HD (even HDV). Just look for examples of digital video shot by some of the users of this forum for proof.
Marcus Marchesseault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2006, 09:57 PM   #7
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,750
To shoot daytime exteriors, there's a huge dynamic range in the highlights and shadows of the scene. To light the scene to fit in video's dynamic range would be difficult and take quite a large grip+electric package.

Quote:
I'm curious as to why they went for a digital video look after shooting on 35mm.
To me, wild vignetting and use of graduated filters are found both in video and in film. i.e. CSI Miami uses graduated filters a lot.

For film, you might find even more wild color effects than video, since it's what you can achieve on a da Vinci color corrector (done during telecine stage).

Quote:
This video did not cost $5000. Something is in error with the person making that claim. The equipment rentals alone probably cost that much or even more if it was a multiple-day shoot.
They could have had a good deal on all their equipment... rental houses will do it for low-budget/indie stuff or first-time producers.
You can get deals on the film if you work with short ends.

At a $5,000 budget, it would almost certainly be a building-up-your-reel type of shoot where no one gets paid.

The downside to shooting 35mm with a $5,000 budget is that the film is going to eat up all of your budget. Hence, you have no money to have more than one shoot day... which can limit where you can go with the video creatively. Hence the video only has the artist running around mouthing the lyrics to their song... it's not very novel in my opinion.
Glenn Chan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2006, 05:24 AM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 331
It's obviously 35. You can tell by the way exposure changed when they cranked down the camera for the shots inside the shop and the flourecents went out of sync.

I was looking for signs of what camera it was. I often recognize the Arri 2C in low budget videos since it has a weird shutter flicker in the upper left corner and this one has it too. No problems getting your hands on a cheap 35mm camera, a few cans of 35 and one a one light transfer under $5000. I have friends that have shot 35 videos in that budget range. Here's one http://www.adamfrisch.com/music/masa...ndexmovie.html
__________________
Martin Munthe
VFX Supervisor/DP/Director
Martin Munthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2006, 07:02 AM   #9
Trustee
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 1,961
"To shoot daytime exteriors, there's a huge dynamic range in the highlights and shadows of the scene. To light the scene to fit in video's dynamic range would be difficult and take quite a large grip+electric package."

"You can tell by the way exposure changed when they cranked down the camera for the shots inside the shop and the flourecents went out of sync."

So, shoot 35mm during day exteriors and HD at night and interiors?

"To me, wild vignetting and use of graduated filters are found both in video and in film. i.e. CSI Miami uses graduated filters a lot."

There was a short-lived cop show here a couple of years ago called "Hawaii" that had so many filters and colors applied that I assumed it was shot on video and they were compensating for exposure latitude on exteriors. Nope. All these shows shoot on 35mm but do so much digital processing that it looks like video. Weird.

"They could have had a good deal on all their equipment... rental houses will do it for low-budget/indie stuff or first-time producers. You can get deals on the film if you work with short ends."

Around here, $5000 would be a decent deal on the equipment. I assume all those big lights need generators and 35mm cameras with lens packages aren't cheap. Add all that up and it wouldn't leave much for film and processing/transfer.

"...type of shoot where no one gets paid."

Wha-wha-WHAT?! Oh, wait...I've done that...

That's a lot of locations for a one-day shoot. Do crew around there do that many setups and breakdowns without getting paid?
Marcus Marchesseault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2006, 11:04 AM   #10
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 90
Fad

...maybe the latest fad is to shoot on 35mm and make it look like video...

New thread proposal: "Video Look Film Methods and Techniques"... :o)
Nick Outram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2006, 02:29 PM   #11
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
So, shoot 35mm during day exteriors and HD at night and interiors?
The problem with that is now you have to rent an additional whack of gear. HD camera, monitor, accessories, lenses, etc. And in post, you need to pay for the HD deck (or downconverts). They also may not have experience with the particular HD camera they rent (i.e. how to get more exposure latitude out of it)... this is sometimes handled by a DIT.

With interiors + video, practicals will usually need to be dimmed (or overpowered with other light) to fit into video's exposure range. So it's not necessarily so easy to shoot natural light interiors with video.

Quote:
All these shows shoot on 35mm but do so much digital processing that it looks like video.
The graduated filters may have been done optically.

Quote:
That's a lot of locations for a one-day shoot.
Ok I was just speculating there. It's typically cheaper to shoot a single day than to spread it out. It could have been a really long day, or it could've been a weekend. I wouldn't know.
Glenn Chan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2006, 06:48 PM   #12
Trustee
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 1,961
"...or it could've been a weekend."

I forgot about weekends. I suppose the equipment can be done for the $5000, but with film and transfer costs nobody got paid.

I still think all the blown-out practical lights look exactly like video. I guess this is due to the type of film/video transfer?

I can't wait for video cameras with greater exposure latitude. That is the last problem to be solved before it can be substituted for film. Resolution is nice, but the big difference is the exposure.
Marcus Marchesseault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2006, 12:12 AM   #13
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
I still think all the blown-out practical lights look exactly like video. I guess this is due to the type of film/video transfer?
It's probably in the transfer that they blew the lights out. However, the lights blow out gracefully (because of the soft knee characteristics of the film) without artifacts.

Quote:
I can't wait for video cameras with greater exposure latitude. That is the last problem to be solved before it can be substituted for film. Resolution is nice, but the big difference is the exposure.
RED my friend :D

But if you want something now, there are a bunch of cameras out there that shoot a little more exposure latitude than normal:
DVX100
modified DVX100 / Andromeda
Varicam film rec (may need to record onto low-compression format? Wafian might be a solution?)
F900 (may need to record onto low-compression format?)
Glenn Chan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2006, 12:29 PM   #14
Tourist
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: greensboro, NC
Posts: 3
ok so wow....i have no idea how i found this thread. but yea....i put togther that video....and i have no idea who you are whoever posted this, and where your getting your numbers from as well....it costs around 2200 bucks to make, thats just processing pretty much and food and gas....we had to put the thing togther in somewhere around 5 days (pre production, gettin equipment,and so on) so since there is no budget and no time, its a performance video. thats my lame excuse.....everyone on crew is around 22 years old...and worked for free.....oh and thats the first edit of the video as well, the final looks alot different....and has since been mastered.

yes it was shot on 35. on an a super old arri 2c with probally the oldest zoom lense ever that was probally a T 10 or something. ha....processed and transfered to digibeta and then uncompressed 8-bit. and the webcompression is super crappy, we know.

the film stock is old short ends, that i aquirred from other gigs. we shot 18 and 05. 05 for the the avaiable light (daytime stuff) and 18 for everything else....the camera came from a shooter we know who let us borrow it. as far as juice....our biggest gun was a studio 2k, and we had some 650s and other randomness...sooo yea, balling on a budget.

pretty much every image you saw on screen was all the footage we could afford to shoot.

ummmm practicals? look at it boss....how could those be practicals? granted stock today is super forgiving, but still....the set up of him coming down the hallway at night is a 2k bounce off the ceiling...inside the store is the avaible fluorescents. and since it was shot at 36, the flicker comes into play...oh and we had a wide lense as well, not sure what size.

....and yea, that was our first video on 35...about 8 months ago. and since then we have shot around 4 other ones. from 4200 bucks to 14,000.00.....we are young bucks, but trying to do it big....dont get scared now.
Brian Johnston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2006, 12:43 PM   #15
Space Hipster
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Johnston
and i have no idea who you are whoever posted this, and where your getting your numbers from as well....
I'm a filmmaker in Greensboro, NC. A potential client called (some band, don't remember who) and asked if I could shoot a 35mm music video for them for less than $5000. I said, not likely and they sent me the link to your video.

Thanks for the explanation - it's hard to judge formats on a small web video especially since you did not use the normal advantages of 35mm (shallow DOF etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Johnston
....and yea, that was our first video on 35...about 8 months ago. and since then we have shot around 4 other ones. from 4200 bucks to 14,000.00.....we are young bucks, but trying to do it big....dont get scared now.
Are you shooting them all on 35mm?
__________________
stephen v2
www.insaturnsrings.com
Stephen van Vuuren is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Techniques for Independent Production

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:19 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network