Super 16mm or 35mm ?

ropbo · Jul 2, 2005

First time poster here.

I'm planning on shooting a short-film by the beginning of next year. It's based on a short-story I wrote some years ago. Film is already 80% scripted and storyboarded although I still have lots to do.

Some quick information:

-Film duration: about 7 minutes
-Film stock: some grainy black and white stock
-Shooting duration: I'd say 2 days
-Indoor scenes only
-Film-noir look
-Two actors
-No dialogs, foley effects only, so probably shooting MOS
-Already have a composer that will write the score for free
-Budget: about $10,000
-Goal: projection in festivals like Sundance

-Not considering using digital camera.
-I've been using a Krasnogork-3 but just for learning purposes. Not considering using it on this project.
-I'm not going to be the cinematographer, only director/producer.
-Image quality is very important for me

So having said all that, I have basically three questions:

1.) Which format should I choose? Super 16mm or 35mm ? (or maybe 16mm ?)

2.) Which camera should I rent ?

3.) In terms of workflow, there's a lab called Bono Films that telecines directly to hard-drive. Which advantages would I have if I went for it ? I was thinking something like:

film -> telecine -> hard-drive -----> HDCAM, DigiBeta, etc (whatever I need at the time)

Is this correct/possible ?

Sorry for the basic questions. Actually I've found some similar posts here but confess I got a little confused with the answers.

That's a totally new area for me. I've been studying this for only a year and my knowledge is purely based on what I've learned from some books on cinematography I've read, forums I've subscribed to and some practice with my Krasnogork-3.

(and a few films from Ingmar Bergman, David Lynch, and Darren Aronofsky that I watched a zillion times)

I appreciate any help.

laurent.a · Jul 2, 2005

If you care a lot about image quality, one should say you should go for 35 mm. The only point is the cost compared to Super 16 (I would forget about 16 because of the 1/3 ratio, unless you want it).

It's not too difficult to compare the price : multiply the length stock and process length by 3, then make some budget comparisions. If you shoot MOS you can find some cheap 35 mm cameras for rent, like a Mitchell Mark 2, a Arri III or even a 2 C. If you need sound, a BL would be fine !

Also, as you plan to hire a cinematographer, ask him what he thinks !

Just my 2 cents...

Good luck on your project !

ropbo · Jul 3, 2005

Thanks Mr. Andrieux for your help.

Indeed, I'm gonna follow my DP's recommendations. I just posted here because it's a very interesting matter to me and I want to learn the more I can so it might ease future communications with cinematographers, etc.

As for the workflow thing, I've done some research and believe the "simplest" way would be basically shooting on 35mm, getting the film processed/telecined to DigiBeta, for example, and IF NECESSARY cut it offline on an NLE system to send an EDL to a neg-cutting company who would assemble the negative.

I'd have to shoot credits on film as well. I just don't know where the soundtrack would fit on this.

This way I'd have a DigiBeta master, a DVD to submit to whatever festival and also, if necessary, a film print.

I can rent an Arri 2C PL (body only) here in Vancouver for about $230 a day.

But again, that's a matter to be more deeply discussed with my DP.

Thanks again for your quick response.

Cheers,

MarkG · Jul 3, 2005

If your plan is to have a film print for festivals, you may well be better off shooting 35mm. Sure, it will be cheaper to shoot super-16, but by the time you've done a blowup to 35mm, you'll probably be looking at about the same cost (though you should check with local labs first to make sure).

If you're only planning to produce a video for festivals, you might as well save the money and shoot super-16.

Also, make sure you know all the costs before you shoot: film has a marked tendency of costing thousands of dollars more than you expected, even on a short of this length.

indiocine · Aug 15, 2005

hellow pal

hellow pal

look shooting on super 16 mm give you 11 minute on a reel the price of the stock are innexpensive the camera and acesories are lower price the develop on the lab is better

resolution is the same as 35mm the only diference goes tha if you pretent to sow it on festival on 35mm the blow up is gonna affect a little but look
on the new vision 2 you get magic doing that

if need any assistance just writte me

[email protected]

Brad Hoover · Sep 13, 2005

Im not sure if you really meant to say this, but it looks like you're saying that the resolution of super-16 is the same as 35... This is definately NOT the case. If it were, there would be not point in shooting 35mm and NO ONE would do it!. Its physcially not possible for a frame of Super-16 negative to have the sme number of silver halide particles/grains (equaling resolution) as a frame of 35mm negative of the same emulsion. This is easily demonstrated in a side-by-side comparison.