Now, this brings me to my question - what would be better: Buy or rent a regular film camera and film my movie, then take it to a shop to get it processed into digital so I can then edit it on my computer...
No offense, but you need to seriously rethink that plan.
Research what it is you're contemplating.
Do you know how much a film camera costs to rent, let alone buy?
Film makers don't normally buy them, they rent.
Which is still very costly
Not to mention the film stock.
Having film converted with a telecine is also VERY costly.
It's not like having 35mm negatives put onto a CD.
The resulting image sequence would be a few hundred GB in size.
And that's just an image sequence, not video.
I read in Digital Cinematographer Magazine that it's not unusual for the transfer costs of a feature length film to be over a $million$.
That's just to transfer the actual film to digital via telecine.
They charge by the frame. So that's 24 frames per second, for say 120 minutes.
So you'd be doing all this, and then you'd bring it home and edit it on your Dell or iMac with what? iMovie or windows movie maker?
The film look you're after is a result of framerate, film grain, and color grade.
There are many new HD cams that do 24p framerate, in a widescreen aspect ratio.
Any non-linear edit system like final cut or adobe premiere have film grain filters to give it that look.
The problem is color grading.
Film has better color because it's captured on light sensitive material instead of coming from a charge coupled device and represented by 1s and 0s.
So there's the dilemma.
If you don't have a huge budget, renting a film camera and having it transferred is NOT an option.
So you fake it.
It shows ingenuity and creative prowess.
Personally, I don't see the "film look" as being something so all important that I'd go through all that just to get it.
In reality, it's about the story and how you tell it.
Film or digital, that's just the medium used to tell your story.
When you focus on things like film or digital, the story becomes secondary and it shows.
So you go through all the trouble of faking the film look and you kill your story.
I'll stick with HD, it's an acceptable in between.
Truth be told, I prefer 3D stills.
It keeps automerging!
Get one of the newer expensive HD film cameras (like the Canon XLS series) and film on that and try to find ways in post to trick the eye into thinking it was filmed on regular film?
The trick is actually to tell a compelling story in a creative way that makes the method or medium irrelevant.
People don't sit around thinking about whether a flick is shot with film or digital unless it's a point of discussion.
People want to see the movie, and would much rather see a good storyline than be tricked into thinking it was shot on film.
In this aspect the only eye you'll actually be fooling is your own.
The camera is just a tool you use to create the image.
The story ALWAYS comes first.
Does anybody have any experience with high-quality film production that could offer some advice as to which route I should take? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
I've never created an actual film, but I've been working in a creative field for 6 years.
I went to VFS for awhile(didn't finish) but I collected alot of knowledge regarding visual storytelling.
I work with a local studio as a freelance videographer sometimes.
I also handle some of the technical aspects and editing occasionally.
This is small scale, and in no way is as glamorous as doing films.
I have done some film work on a personal level, although I wouldn't exactly call it high quality as my resources are limited.
In my opinion, if you have the means to get your hands on a good HD camera, and have the resources to support production in HD then that's the route you should take.
Otherwise I would suggest pro-sumer DV.
Hell, I was doing backyard films on Hi-8 in high school and shooting school events.
My advice would be don't worry about the "film look" because nobody really cares what it's shot with.
Is the creative vision of your story dependent on the film look?
No.
Why or how could it be?
Case in point, Cloverfield.
That was a major film that was shot mainly on handhelds.
Shot in a creative way.
You don't have to like the film to appreciate the point I'm trying to make.
By obsessing about this film look you can't let go of, you're creating an obstacle that has the potential to ruin your entire vision.
I don't know what you mean when you say digital video hampers the believability of the film for you?
I mean, you know it's a film. And nothing is gonna make you believe that what you're seeing in the film is actually happening.
Film doesn't simulate reality and suspend your disbelief.
It's just a medium used to tell a story visually.
If your concepts and ideas are solid and well structured, and you can use the camera to bring that to life, what it was shot with makes no difference.
Film requires excessive resources to support properly.
Digital allows you to transcend that and brings that ability to people who don't have those resources.
So many people get caught up in all the technical and equipment aspects of film.
And they totally miss the point of it all.
To bring your vision to life.
A good artist finds ways to overcome his limitations.
He's always brushing up against technical limitations, which is where the real creativity shines through.
You have to think outside the camera and constantly push the envelope.
It's how you deal with your limitations that defines you.
One person might be able to make something with a little handheld DVcam that blows something someone else made with a high end film cam off the planet in terms of creativity and depth.
Seriously, you really need to let go of this film vs digital obsession and just make something.
It'll be an incredible learning experience where you get to know yourself as an artist, and then you'll look back on this discussion and wonder WTF you were obsessing over.
|
Posting Permissions
Originally Posted by livingdeadboy
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks