XL2 vs 16mm
 

hi,
Just needed you guys to comment on this. I can't seem to make up my mind. If you guys had to make a choice of shooting a 2 hour feature on DV or 16mm film. Which would it be?
I can shoot this feature on 16mm which would be on a very very tight budget. No frills and no means of exploiting the craft.
Or I could shoot it on the XL2 and have around 20,000$ to enhance production value.
What would you pick?

Another question that I have: When I transfer DV to Film, do I get the softness that we aspire for when we shoot film? (pardon my ignorance please)

Thanks,
Zohar.

I'd take the XL2 and $20,000. $20k goes a long way towards gear and lighting rentals (or purchases!)

I'd say it depends if 1) you have any gear of your own and 2) if you would rather buy or rent.

If I had the money, even though I love what I've seen from the XL2 so far, I'd probably go with film for my next project (short film). But I don't. I have a $15 000 CAD budget and so far almost half of it went to buy gear, an other $6000 will be used to buy the body only XL2 and the remains will be used to either rent or buy sone glass to put in front of that cam.

Have I had $10 000 extra to put on it, I would probably have chosen Super 16mm. But this is moot since I don't have that choice.

Everything else being equal, I guess your best bet would be film. However, since everything else doesn't seem to be equal in your case, I would seriously consider DV. If you shoot with film but have no cash remaining for the crew or some quality gear, what's the point?

With DV, I just love the fact that I'll be able to spend months in the editing room without additional costs (all is done on a home PC). No need to develop the film either, you can shoot as many takes as you want since you're using DV tapes and not film, you can watch your footage instantly after the take, and you can get a depth of field similar to film if you use some cine lenses and a Mini35 adapter. Plus you can use your DV gear after your project is done to make a bit of money on the side too or sell it and regain almost all your investment.

On the bad side of things, you won't get the same resolution you would with film, so expect your movie to look softer when projected on a big screen. This is a key point that needs to be considered in light of your project's specifics. If you're shooting mostly indoors with controled lighting, and storyboarded mostly close and medium shots, this won't be too much of a problem. However, if you need to shoot in places where you can't control the light, especially outdoors, and will have a contrast ratio much greater than 3:1, or if you will be shooting very wide shots (landscapes, cities) with lots of detail in your image, DV isn't the way to go.

Also, one other thing to consider if you want to blow it to film afterwards is that this operation is pretty expensive. If you need to pay for it by yourself and insist on going in that direction, it might defeat the purpose of going DV in the first place.

If you can afford it, shoot film. DV is a wonderful medium but when it comes down to costs, there are a few things you may not have thought about:
1. You still need to light it like a movie and video shows everything. Lighting for video for a feature look can actually slow your process.
2. You will encounter costs when it comes to your final viewing product. Do you want the final on film? If you want your final on Digital print, that means blowing it to HD.
3. Color correction. Whether your final is HD or film, I would highly recommend professional color correction/timing.
4. If you shoot DV, you will need to rent a lens package (I wouldn't buy, too expensive and specialized) Often, for low budget projects, you can get rental houses to rent you complete camera packages at reduced costs (believe it or not, there are lots of companies out there that will help out with expendables, short-ends, even services).
5. As good as the picture looks in the XL2 (yes I have one), film still looks better.

Good luck.

Don't forget one thing you guys....
The choices are:
16mm film
or
XL2 miniDV PLUS $20,000.

That $20,000 go go towards hiring better actors, building better sets, lighting, sound, post produciont effects, etc... These are going to make a better movie than higher picture quality.

ANd you still have to light 16mm like film too. If he doesn't have the leftover budget to light properly or hire a DP, the film is going to look like crap compared to miniDV shot properly.



<<<--"4. If you shoot DV, you will need to rent a lens package (I wouldn't buy, too expensive and specialized)"-->>>

Do you mean renting a mini35? That's a great option if there is the money for it in the $20,000 left over from choosing DV. Of course, you don't have to.

Hi,
Thanks a lot for your input guys.

Evan, You said " You still need to light it like a movie and video shows everything. Lighting for video for a feature look can actually slow your process."
--Yes I do need to light video for a feature. To be honest my knowledge is quite limited when it comes to lighting and will be relying on my DOP for that.

"You will encounter costs when it comes to your final viewing product. Do you want the final on film? If you want your final on Digital print, that means blowing it to HD."
- yes I would like the final to be on film, but that conditional to my film being picked up be a distributor.


- The good part about shooting in India is that costs are way way lower than what it costs you guys in the US. Rental is far cheaper here. I do plan to rent a lens package.

Have any of you guys used the skycrane BTW? I know I'm digressing, but am curious.

Dylan, David, Evan...thanks a lot you guys. Would love to hear from other members as well.

I am gonna throw this out there, how is the industry out there in India? Lots of smaller film investment action, or is it pretty rugged.

Back to the show.

Dean

P.S. Shoot on the Xl2. If you have a DP that knows his stuff its gonna look fantastic, and depending on the situation/tale your telling, you can really exploit the medium for all its worth.

so, my two bits -- shoot on the XL2, then double your production schedule so you are doing like 8- 12 major set-ups a day with the money you save.

Another option is to rent an HD package, down covert your footage to miniDV, offline edit on an NLE, then head back into ye old HDTV online suite and bust out your master.

signing - off

Zohar, if you will leave the transfer to film to the distributor, and have a competent DOP, then by all means, go for the XL2.

Lots of smaller advantages that add up to (IMO) overweight the resolution factor of film, especially if you don't have a big enough budget to shoot 16mm and get similar quality gear and crew to surround your camera. The DOP will be the key, as he has to know how to work around the limitations of DV (resolution, color, dynamic range, etc.).

If you plan to rent your lenses, I would suggest to find a nice set of high quality 35mm cine lenses like the Cooke S4 or Zeiss high speeds and use them with the Mini35 adapter. You will probably get fantastic results. You're lucky to be able to rent for cheap in India, take advantage of it. Here in Montreal the prices are ridiculously overblown.

> You still need to light it like a movie and video shows
> everything. Lighting for video for a feature look can
> actually slow your process.

Sorry for the OT but I just have to comment on this point which is --I think-- something much overlooked. You will see film DPs boasting about how cool they are all the time but, because of the limited lattitude of video versus film, video is actually harder to light for. Of course with video you can haul around a monitor and check the results in real time, whereas in film if you mess it up you will only know after processing and transferring, so the DP has to know what he is doing. Still, there is something to be said about people who DP for video, something usually not said: they're cool too :-)

Very true. It is more difficult to light properly for video to get the nice dramatic look you probably want. People do it every day, but it's easier in film (assuming people are experienced and know what they're doing).

The initial question is a tough call. Shooting 16mm will definitely look better. However, on a limited budget I personally don't think it's a good idea. Back in the days when I shot 16mm, film and lab costs were a lot cheaper than they are now, and I always shot at around a 5:1 ratio at least, even on tightly scripted things. Recently, though, I edited a film shot 16mm, and the director wasn't able to do the kinds of things you should do because he was so concerned with film cost. There were numerous instances where the kinds of normal cutaways you do in a scene would have saved his butt whan an action cut didn't work right.

So, my feeling is that if you have to sacrifice production values to pay for the film, it would be best to stick with video. Twenty thousand dollars can go a long way in doing things like renting HMIs when needed, dollys, jibs, etc.; but it doesn't buy all that much film and processing.

My method, for what it's worth to you...
XL2- small dedicated crew- and pull the absolute best from the actors, without the added stress of listening to the sound of limited money being gobbled up at 24 film frames per second. If you need to push the "take" count a little, no problem on XL2 - unless you have very limited schedule. In that case rehearse for six months and nail the characters down cold. XL2 most likely will allow you options in visual nuances and direction. And when the final cut is done you should be in a decent position to secure finishing to film finances, if not, 16mm film would have made no difference.
The XL2 should allow you to push as hard as necessary to attain your vision. I have never felt at ease with set number of cans of film, but then I'm not Cassavetes
All the best with your project.

Zohar, is the feature ultimately planned for output to film? Do you have distribution already in place? These are important questions. If there is a chance that you will have to include the ouptut to film in the budget, that may significantly shrink the $20K gap (actually I haven't priced the film out vs the 16 to 35 blowup, that would be a good figure to see). And since you ask about the results of doing a filmout from DV (the "softness" that occurs does not, in my mind, contribute to a film look, only to a soft look!), I would strongly recommend that you investigate the a projected DV transfer to see if you will be comfortable with the results. That alone will go a long way to answering your questions. Otherwise, it's a bit of a loaded gun to ask "should I pick a medium that costs a lot less?".

I would also, as several others here have indicated, consider HD, especially if multiples takes are a consideration (the equipment will likely cost you more in India, but the tape vs stock savings is good). Then again, I understand that most productions in India are very frugal with the number of takes anyway?

" am gonna throw this out there, how is the industry out there in India? Lots of smaller film investment action, or is it pretty rugged.

Dean,
The smaller film segment is now picking up fast. A lot of small film hitting the screens. However I have not yet come across a film made on DV and blown to screen yet.



"Another option is to rent an HD package, down covert your footage to miniDV, offline edit on an NLE, then head back into ye old HDTV online suite and bust out your master."

- But won't that result in loss of quality due to the transfer.



"The DOP will be the key, as he has to know how to work around the limitations of DV (resolution, color, dynamic range, etc.)."

- hmm....now that has playing on my mind. The DOP I am in discussion with is fantastic. I was an asst. director on 35mm feature for which he was the cinematographer. Simply Brilliant. I've not seen someone work that fast. He really creates magic on screen. I also have a good understanding with him. He's shot a bit for television before, but he hasn't specifically worked with the DV medium. I plan to do a lot of test shoots with him and can show him all the references I have in terms of the look I want to acheive. I'll have to leave the rest to him.


"You're lucky to be able to rent for cheap in India, take advantage of it. Here in Montreal the prices are ridiculously overblown."

- Yup it is pretty cheap here. For eg- for a 35 mm feature an Arri 435 Cam + Lenses + Nagra package would come to around $300.
Not bad huh?
But more than technology, its the price of labour thats really cheap out here.


- Once again thanks you guys. I now feel a lot more sure of going with DV. But now am really concerned about my DOP. LOL
-Jeez I just hope he's not a member of this forumn....oh well atleast he'd know my apprehensions.

Charles,
Yes, I am planning this feature for final output to film.
No, I do not have any distributors in place.

I myslef am longing to see a DV film blown up in the theaters. But nothing been shown in the theaters in Bombay.


"I would also, as several others here have indicated, consider HD, especially if multiples takes are a consideration (the equipment will likely cost you more in India, but the tape vs stock savings is good). Then again, I understand that most productions in India are very frugal with the number of takes anyway?"

- Actually, We have all kinds of Film-makers. Some go over board while some are cost concious. It all depends ya.

Ah. I just worked on "ER" with a couple of actors who were apparently huge stars in India (sorry, can't remember offhand--they are married, the gent had a moustache...?!). They were amazed at the number of takes we did, said they had never seen such a thing.

Having seen a number of DV to 35mm blowups, I'd have to say that it depends on what kind of movie you are making. As much as I loved "28 Days Later" and admired what was being done visually, there were certain scenes that screamed "small format video". Much of it was fantastic visually, but of course that was well-budgeted production.

I have heard from several people who are not in the industry that they were unimpressed with certain films that were shot on DV after seeing them in the theaters, even to the point of finding the look distracting.

And the opposite could easily be said.

There is obviously a balance; if you are unable to put the elements in front of the camera that will flesh out the production properly, then having a lovely film image may not be justified.

I would recommend contacting labs that performs filmouts and seeing if you can arrange a demo; perhaps they can even send you a DV-35mm loaner reel that you can screen locally.

Charles,
The couple you are talking about are Anupam and Kiron Kher. Anupam Kher is himself a director.
To be honest charles, I have no clue of what you'll do there, so maybe what seems like a lot to me may seem frugal to you. But would be interesting to hear about how you'll shoot.

Thanks for the advice about contacting the Lab. I think I will have to do that.

Adding to what Charles mentioned, transfering maybe a minute or so of footage to film to see the end result would be your best choice to confirm or deny any concerns you might have with the final look when blown to film for projection. I know DVFilm in the US will even transfer frame grabs to slides so you can see for cheap how it'll look. It won't show movement but at least for under $50 you'll be able to see if there's too much artifacts and softness for your liking.

And if your DOP already worked with video, he should probably already have a basic understanding of the limitations of the medium, but as someone else mentioned earlier, lighting for video is as much an art form as lighting for film is. Because DV doesn't have a lot of resolution, because it highly compresses color information, because the dynamic range is very limited, the DOP not only has to know the technical implications of shooting with this format (which is the easy part) but also know how to overcome those limitations and still create interesting and beautiful looking images out of it.

Charles mentioned 28 days later, and the fact that some scenes screemed small format video. Well I thought that this harsh and dirty looking footage actually added to the experience of this post-apocalyptic environment. They (director/DOP) were clever enough to realise that the content of the movie would fit the medium like a glove.

Likewise, having lots of close shots to concentrate on faces and cuting your film with tight shots (whether of people or objects) in a minimalistic surrounding should look much better than having wide shots and establishings in highly contrasting spaces (where the disadvantages of DV would show like crazy). This is something the DOP needs to be aware of before shooting and more importantly, be comfortable with. If he knows his craft and has a fair experience with video, this is probably the case. Discuss the matter with him to make sure you're on the same page.

You off-line on miniDV, then take your HD master tapes to an ONLINE edit and compile off your EDL.

Good day.


Dean

You off-line on miniDV, or beta or dvcam, I think that if you have the option HD is your best choice... depending on what you're shooting.

Yes, the shots in 28 Days Later that I had issue with were the wide shots inside the church at the beginning (hard to tell that it was a pile of bodies in there, it just didn't resolve) and some of the wide city shots, with the fringing and ringing around highlights that just don't contribute to a cinematic feel.

I agree, especially about the wide shots. It just does not go well with DV. Better to avoid them and construct the scene with tighter shots. Wonder if the XL2 would have faired better... ;)

<<Yes, the shots in 28 Days Later that I had issue with were the wide shots inside the church at the beginning (hard to tell that it was a pile of bodies in there, it just didn't resolve) and some of the wide city shots, with the fringing and ringing around highlights that just don't contribute to a cinematic feel>>

I think the other shots that didn't hold up very well were the "raod" shots where they had views of the english countryside. The chatter and lack of resolution in the trees and vistas was pretty noticeable.

"28 days Later" these issues are a fair price to pay and indeed negligible when one considers that the film, in all its dynamic splendor, would not exist, or simply would be another beast, and probably a lumbering one at that, if not for the existence of the XL1 and Co.
I would not mind having 28Days Later on my reel. And until I see better stories told for less money I will continue to rejoice on what we have at our disposal in the SD Kingdom.

To be quite honest, I consider myself a "shot on film" snob, on "28 Days Later" I thought they did a good job making the super 16mm look grainy and post-apocalyptic.

Imagine my surprise when I found out the film was shot on DV. I was shocked. In fact, I watched it again the other night because I still don't believe it. Maybe on the big screen it was different, but on a widescreen with DVD it slipped by me the first time.

The reason why? Because I was concentrating on watching the story the first time around. The second time around, I was watching the medium it was shot on. And I did notice that it was shot on DV.

I guess what I am trying to say is I think you have one chance to fool people and if you have a good story, acting, lighting and tight editing, you can do it.

But based on seeing "Open Water" on the big screen and "Personal Velocity" on TV, neither of which fooled me, I would say that what is going to make your DV film stand out is hiring an excellent DP and then making sure that DP has a full complement of lights as if the film had an $25 million budget. Otherwise, I think that DV fails on the big screen.

Maybe 24p cameras like the XL2 and DVX100a will make a difference.

DV doesn't fail on the big screen any more than film succeeds on the big screen. Content, vision, execution. DV is the polaroid print of the film world. Sure, 16x20 Ansel Adam's prints are superb, but it aint the format that makes them that way. And there are equally significant statements made on materials such as polaroid instant film, despite the many shortcomings inherent in the materials. I could not care less if there is moire on Joan of Arc's sack cloth garment as the smoke and flames gather around her.
Ok I wouldn't want to see Lawrence of Arabia filmed on mini DV, but there are unique stories to be told in this format.

<<<-- Ok I wouldn't want to see Lawrence of Arabia filmed on mini DV, but there are unique stories to be told in this format. -->>>

I think this is the most important point in a nutshell. Know what your medium can accomplish and work around its limitations. Because you're right, no one wants to see extreme wide shots of the desert on MiniDV. One that refuses to acknowledge that the medium and the story are irremediably linked will fail to achieve good results.

But...speaking of wide shots in the desert...check out "The King Is Alive," if you haven't seen it.

Exactly. THE KING IS ALIVE exploited the DV medium's ability to allow exhaustive searching for alternative narrative, and still managed to hold up well visually.

<<But...speaking of wide shots in the desert...check out "The King Is Alive," if you haven't seen it>>

I'm not familiar with it Bill. how was it shot (what cameras)? Was it a major release, indie, available on DVD?

THE KING IS ALIVE
Jim, I've no idea what happened to it in North America. I saw it in Europe.
It has been released on DVD. Filmed onMini DV, sorry can't recall the camera but it was filmed around 2001 so that should give you an inkling, compared to todays technology. It was shot under the "How much is that Dogme in the window" manifesto.

THE KING IS ALIVE was an excellent movie, IMHO, although the motion-judder in the conversion to film was a little unsettling at times.

Anyway... it was filmed with a PD-100.

-Tim

Don't know if anyone of you'll saw Monsoon Wedding?
It was made on film, but wouldn't that film have done well on dv too?

-
While you guys have been an immense help and I'm trying to get hold of a DV to Film reel from one of the Labs here and also trying to get all these movies shot on digital, it is taking time cuz acess to them is very limited.

I'm concerned because not having worked with DV myself, its going to be a lot of trial and error which can be scary and exciting at the same time. My film is 80% indoors and 20% outdoors.

Let me know if you'll feel Monsoon Wedding could have been shot on DV.

Funny you should mention that about "Monsoon Wedding." I thought the same thing when I saw it. Not that I thought it was DV, but I remember thinking that this is exactly the type of movie that a handful of people with a miniDV cam could make. Still, that rooftop shot with the wedding planner trying to avoid his nagging mother was so beautiful. Don't think it would have had the same effect on DV. Love that movie by the way. It's one of my all-time favorites. Not sure why. It just puts me in a good mood every time I watch it.

I would say the answer depends on the locations you are using.

For an example:

80% of your scenes are inside settings (banks, hotel rooms, bars, restaurants) and 20% have medium or wide exterior shots (parks, beaches, etc.. )

This would be a case for using mixed formats. You could shoot the inside locations on mini-dv and it won't really matter too much for the final product if well lighted and stable (tripod) shots in the comparison between dv hd & 16mm

With the savings from shooting 80% on minidv you could then shoot the 20% on HD or super 16mm. Since medium & wide shots are where dv falls flat. Or you could take the sky captain route and blue screen the exteriors.

On another note if I had 20,000 for a budget I would spend 10,000 on the feature and 10,000 for 2 cameo spots from semi-famous actors.

You probably could get Mark Hamill :) He just did a horrible movie in Wisconsin recently Reesville.

Marco,
I agree, that scene is rather beautiful. Love that song 'Aaja Baavaria" that plays in the background. And although the emotion comes through so beautifully, it takes on a whole new meaning when you understand the lyrics of the song.

Jed,
I thought of that. Mixing 16mm with DV, but did not want it to look too different. I hear 'full frontal' the movie, had a mix of both mediums. Can't someone notice the difference? I am yet to see this film so am not sure.

""Or you could take the sky captain route and blue screen the exteriors""
As someone who is very new to the film medium, you lost me there. Pardon my ignorance but what was that?

Full frontal used the XL1. The director didn't use it very well so the result is awful. I think everyone on who has seen it would say to ignore this movie as an example of mini-dv footage, or even an example of cinema :)

Sky Captain & the world of tomorrow is the movie I'm referring to. They shot most of the movie on blue screen & then in post added the backgrounds. The result was very cool.

There is another movie (able edwards) that did this & you can find the info on both projects on Apple's pro website http://www.apple.com/pro/filmvideo/