mini35 vs. 16mm film
 

Going to be shooting a short feature soon, I was wondering about the pros and cons of mini35 vs 16mm and blowing up to 35

Thanks in advance

I'm friends with a film grad that's constantly shooting 35 and 16.... his opinion is that the mini35 looks sharper than 16mm... I'd lean towards 35mm if you're shooting film... grab a 2c off of ebay and you can get matched 35mm ends cheaper than 16, not to mention that 35mm post facilities are more plentiful.

The 2c is a fine camera (own one myself) but not exactly ideal for shooting dialogue! (I call it the "coffee grinder" meself).

I think the film-out from DV and the optical blowup from 16 will likely be on a parity, but the DV will certainly be cheaper to acquire (16mm raw stock/telecine for editing/neg conforming vs the cost of the DV stock, laughably low).

However, well-shot 16mm can be beautiful when blown-up. I've seen a few films ("Leaving Las Vegas", "The Station Agent") that were shot on Super 16; I saw them at the theater and had no idea they were not shot on 35mm until later. I don't believe I could say the same about DV, even with a Mini35 involved. Much, much less resolution and dynamic range than 16mm.

Basically, there's going to be a big price difference between DV and 16 up until the final step, outputting/blowing up to 35mm, which will be quite pricey for both.

I'm not well versed in the costs of film to begin with. What would telecine cost?

16mm Dof
 

Any way if you hare looking for small DoF
mini35 is smaller that 16mm

but 16mm :love: is film :) :)

and you can use film like vision 800T
for low light that whit dv cam and mini35 you never can do it

also is easy to sooth beautifull slow motion whit chip 16 mm cam (bolex, beaulieu, eclai)

i am using boot and i think depends on
the type of image you wont do it

for blow up to 35mm i think is the same if you do very good telecine (at least in europe)


any way if you find good producer is taking charge of this ;)

pR

I think it's mostly already been mentioned here, but shooting on 16mm film for the most part will not achieve the look of 35mm film - the main difference being the depth of field between the two formats.

As for blow up, miniDV is typically about $295USD/minute where as 16mm to 35mm may cost less. As for quality it all depends on the process. "Love that Boy" was a feature film shot on DV and blown up to 35mm which looked amazing when I saw it both in theatre and broadcast.

why blow up?

Blow up from 16 ro thirty five because most theatres project thirtyfive, very few project sixteen. Super sixteen has no space for a soundtrack *That's why its' "super"... the extra frame space takes up the track area. So you have to transfer or blow up to project.,

I went to a Kodak demo last night at world fest, saw the new Vision 2 stocks... absolutely amazing!

Yes! Whoever thinks film is standing still hasn't seen Vision2. We wrapped a feature a few weeks ago and it is one beautiful stock to use.

why not project a digital film digitally?

Indeed, digital "movies" should be projceted digitally. Digital projection systems are still rare in the major theatre chains (For a number of reasons too numerous to go into here.) When you go to the movies, you still see "film" projected on to a screen. (Aside from the theatres showing previews/ads/slides in digital formats).

The digital world is great for manipulating film images, especially effects. The new vision2 filmstocks are really great at this too.

In terms of making a choice of format for an indy production, there are a lot of decisions to be made re: film vs video. The big decision is going to be the choice of final product. Are you shooting for "Direct to Video" no theatrical distribution? Then digital or 16mm is perfect. If you are going for a theatrical distribution... at some point you will need a "blowup" to 35mm. This is where the cost saved in aquisition and processing on DV or 16mm up front will be (potentially) lost in the transfer to 35mm print.

All of this really depends on a number of factors, which is why when we budget a film, we work up a budget for Digital, SUper 16, and 35mm all the way through final print.

Hope this helps explain some of the process.

Good point, Richard. Many indies don't budget all the way to release print and that's why they sit in the can forever.

(this was posted by Mitch Gross over that the cinematography.com forums. )

Film is the cheapest part of any HOLLYWOOD production, not in the low budget/no budget world.

Here's some of the numbers I suggested you look up. Running cost for buying raw stock, getting it processed and transferred to SD video for editing:
16/S-16 $20-$25/minute
35mm $55-$60/minute
HD $3/minute (for tape stock and downconversion)
MiniDV $.10/minute

If you shoot a 100 minute movie at a 7:1 shooting ratio (700 minutes of material), your stock costs would be:
16/S-16: $17,500
35mm: $42,000
HD: $2,100
MiniDV: $70

Assuming identical costs for soundmix, editing and such, you posting costs to get to a basic 35mm film print would roughly be (from memory):
16/S-16: $25,000
35mm: $20,000
HD: $50,000
MiniDV: $50,000

So your total relative production costs are something like this:
16/S-16: $42,500
35mm: $62,000
HD: $52,100
MiniDV: $50,070

Shoot at a higher ratio and the costs begin to shift, bringing the 16mm costs closer to that of MiniDV (at 10:1 the costs are 16--$50,000 v. MiniDV--$50,100). But there's certainly no huge savings by going with the lesser format. And make no mistake here, MINIDV IS A LESSER FORMAT TO 16MM FILM. If you want to own the gear or have the easy convenience of the little camcorder in your hand that's fine. but just realize that these are the advantages of shooting in MiniDV. Do not fool yourself or fall for someone else's hype.

Those figures look realistic to me. A lot of people don't understand the true cost of generating a "Feature film" on film regardless of the acquisition format. And often they forget to factor in shooting ratios. Always high with a cheap format, but even that can cost you in the "long" run.

We are currently shooting a short on 35mm, using a Mitchell BNCR acquired for about ten grand. We've already booked a low budget feature shoot that will pay for the Camera, and another (smaller) camera package as well.

I love digital video, shoot with our Xl1s a lot. But I really enjoy the images that come back from that bad old classic 35mm studio cam we are shooting with.

not to denegrate film in the slightest... and cost aside:

how many indie films are watched in the theatre as opposed to on dvd/vhs?

Of the ones screened in a theatre – what's the % of festival screenings vs. art house circuit screenings?

I'd like to think that my next movie will be a "big fat indie hit" but honestly I'd be happy with a positive festival experience and motivation (maybe some scratch) to work on another.
I cannot realistically expect a theatrical release. I hope for one but I won't risk other people's money on it. Especially since they don't seem to be profitable to begin with.

That being said I think a DV blow-up is an utter waste of money. Festivals will screen on DLP... It's a direct to digital world. Unless you have the $$ and obscene urge to use film. If you do go for it. You should be encouraged. Film is art even with HD a pro-35 and a brilliant lighting director it's still not the same. On the other hand if you're distributing digitally...? or since you post digitally...?
Anyway.

It's a great discussion as I think either defines a tremendous difference in process that trickles down to how actors/directors/producers play their roles. The production process... pre-pro... writing... etc.

Both have tremendous upsides but it really depends on the project.

Not all festivals accept digital but, yes, more are. As Richard said, most theatres don't have digital projectors either. Greg Pak couldn't raise enough money for his latest feature, prefers film, but shot it digitally, transferred to film and tours the country showing it at Landmark Theatres.

The questions you ask vary quite a bit. You could say that if a film was good enough it would be in theatres but I don't know if that's true and wouldn't be surprised if there are some great ones that never made it except to dvd.

from a business standpoint based on what theater-goers are motivated by isn't it silly to assume a sub-$50,000 budget feature would get or benefit from a theatrical distribution?

I had a similar conversation with a buddy working on a movie in NYC with the Wu Tang Clan... they have a $250K budget and it's Wu Tang... that's STILL not enough to warrant a theatrical release. Or is it? Are they the next thing?

In either case I'm dealing with a guy from Chicago named Pete. Pete's a good actor but I'd guess folks don't know him. (Obviously HIS folks do and would buy several copies but seriously) My big-name talent is that guy pronouncing "Coven" correctly in American Movie - Robert Richard Jorge... A great movie.

But a perfect example of a movie that while I saw it twice in theatres I own the DVD and everyone else seemed to see it on DVD as well.

That's what I'm saying. a great script/actors/direction/etc... does not mean theatrical distribution. Without name actors you can pretty much forget it. Why not shoot for festival and direct to vid distribution and be profitable. The goal being a career. If you consistently make great movies you will attract great people. Cart before the horse.

Note: One screening of American Movie was in Milwaukee and the other at the Music Box in CHicago. I believe that movie won Sundance...

btw: If a dv movie of mine wins Sundance and get some theatrical deal THEN I'd consider a blow-up.

whatever your medium my mantra has always been "finish the project" ((I'm finishing one started 5-6 years ago!))

Josh,

Right, you can shoot on dv and hope for a deal that will allow you to transfer to film... as long as you realize the limitations in the process. You can ALSO shoot on film, finish in video,(For festivals and screenings) and have the security of knowing the negative is ready to conform and print! That's very appealing to potential distributors. That's really the best of both worlds.

And don't forget, deals can be made on film and processing. We got some great deals on stock on ebay, and just got off the phone with Kodak, willing to work with us on the next feature.

just curious,


is it possible to transfer to 35mm film by filming a DLP projection or a HDTV?

or indeed to use the principles of a P+S to film off a ground glass?


I dont know - thats why the question - but it seems to me a low cost way ahead

Remember it's not the budget that gets you into theatres but you are on the right track when you say you don't have a name actor for your film. People forget that movie making and distribution is a business. If there were no movies, the same people might be out selling cars, dishwashers or appliances. They are salesmen and only interested in what will sell.

That's why name actors are so helpful. Generating a buzz will get them interested because people are buzzing about it. (I heard Mel Gibson likes this technique:) ) I've read some recommend running a film through the festival circuit and creating such a buzz which leads to an agent/studio/distributor, etc.

So, why would people plunk down money to see your video or film? That is what a distributor will ask himself when he considers your work. Riveting story? Name actor/s? Hype? Name director? You might need all the above.

So you may have to self distribute which can be difficult, won't make you much, if any, money, might HAVE to be on film (so you can show it anywhere), but may get your name out there.

point taken...

Read article on digital projection the other day and was surprised to find it is up and running in Brazil. They developed the system and deliver via satellite. Brazil has huge geographic area so this cuts distribution costs way down and of coarse is a great thing for their indigenous productions of which there are many.

This is a great discussion going here by the way. I just wanted to add to what Richard Alvarez said.. I know a filmmaker here in Toronto who recently finished her film which was shot on 35mm but transferred to digital, edited & finished in video. It played at a few film festivals right off DVD (720 x 480) looks amazing of course and last week was picked up for distribution. The distributor can now worry about its release ie. where it will be released and on what format. The 35mm neg. is always going to be there if needed, but likely in this case it will stay in the 720x480 digital domain and be broadcasted on television.

This is why I think one can never be certain where their film is going to end up, or ultimately how it will be displayed... hopefully if your a filmmaker you plan on making more than ONE film so my advise is to go about using what ever format will allow you to make as many as possible without raising money $ for 4 years just to shoot your first film!

Bottom line is you can never win; if you shoot on video you "may" need to go to 35mm print for theatrical release and you might be kicking yourself for not using film to begin with. But if you shoot on 35mm film and release on video, you may never see a 35mm print either.

The one advantage of going film, though, is you can easily transfer it to anything else at anytime but it may not be practical or possible to do the same with video.

I had a conversation with some cinematographers and it just dawned on me that using Super16mm and Vision2 stock now approaches and surpasses 35mm stocks from only 10 years ago. (And 35mm stock is better also). That is why "The Station Agent" and the current "Die Another Day" (title?) were shot on s16 and blown to 35 beautifully. It's still not 35mm but it does look good.

Using high end equipment, my son has budgeted a 10-minute, s16 short this summer at $9000 through the answer print.

But with s16 you won't get 35mm depth of field.. nor will you with even the best miniDV camera which is where the mini35 comes into play and why were here to discuss it! lol

Bottom line is if you can't let go of the urge or desire to shoot on film, then shoot on film. The mini35 however is an amazing alternative because you get the best of both worlds in some sense: low upfront stock cost, low post production cost, beautiful images that for sure are NOT 35mm film... but pretty damn close enough for the viewer to fall for the illusion of it all.

I have a post in this forum of some stills from a current project I'm working on. In one post I show 2 images, one with the mini35 before post and one after post. Most would agree not much else comes close to the mini35 when it comes to digital...

(no I don't work for P+S Technik) lol

I can guarantee they are not s16 on a 40 foot screen, too, which is what we are doing.

DOF is not an issue with his script. Too many people feel they 'must' have an out of focus background but that is not true in all situations. Specifically, several of his scenes need deep focus to tell the story.