Random thoughts on no-budget filmmaking

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
KKF, it's been a few years since I've shot film, but IIRC:
The only reason to shoot super-16 is to blow it up to 35mm. This process is really expensive and your prints are really expensive. I don't think this is necessary anymore. You can buy a 5-figure HD digital camera that will produce a better picture. Despite what indy-filmmaking books tell you, blown-up super-16 doesn't look that great unless you have a really good cinemographer. Also, I think the price you quoted reflects reversal film (what you shoot on is what you project) and you would want to shoot on negative film and would have to buy a print.

"As for equipment like Camera, lights, microphones you can buy them used and then resell them used at similar prices."
This is a really good idea, but you would probably need 5-figures to buy quality stuff. Lights/gels/etc will be much more expensive than digital stuff. This is because film (generally) needs much more light to produce a good image than video. All of this equipment is insanely expensive to rent.

You can't edit super-16 on a flatbed and wouldn't want to. I think all aspiring filmmakers should have to spend hours and hours in an editing room taping together tiny strips of plastic less than two centimeters wide. It really gives me an appreciation for digital non-linear editing systems.

Anyway, if you did go the super-16 route, you would need to spend money on a telecine transfer so you could edit the film on a computer. After you had it edited, the program will generate a list of cuts you send this and the negatives to a film cutter. I think the price is around $5 pre cut. This is something you really can't do yourself if you want to be professional.

If you went the digital route, you would edit the film and then deal with all sound issues, which are both time-consuming, and, you guessed it, expensive.

All that being said, you could make a decent film for $50k if shot digitally. I don't think you could get anyone to work for a month without paying them, but every weekend would be doable.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to shoot on film these days if you're looking to make a film for under $100,000. In fact, it's kinda silly to even attempt to do so.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]


Have you ever heard of or used a 35mm adapter for a digital camera? it allows you to use 35mm film lenses on your digital camera to mimick depth of field.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you go with a Canon XL2 or better, you don't need an adapter - they have a prime lens package that fits all of their cameras.

[fish2plus2]

dom,

can you expand on what that means in technical terms?