Hi guys!
I'm going to be directing a low budget feature early next year and we are currently at the point of receiving equipment quotes. We are in the position to have been offered the Arri 416 with Ultra 16s and the Alexa Mini with Xtal Express anamorphics. The 16mm equipment is being offered for considerably less than the Alexa kit to the extent that the difference would pay for all the film stock fresh from Kodak. We could manage the processing and scan by moving different things around in the budget.
I know you guys can't answer the question for me but I'm looking for discussion, experience and opinions about whether you would choose one over the other. The film is a thriller featuring a character who is obsessed with analogue technology and uses a Super8 camera. Part of the story involves him accidentally capturing a murderer on film. Shooting on film kind of fits the brief of the story and if we were able to afford 35mm I wouldn't hesitate. But 16 isn't 35 - I am concerned about too much grain, especially as we have a lot of night scenes. At the same time, my references and inspiration for this film are mostly from the 70s and 80s and the look is often plenty grainy. I'm also looking for the Scope ratio so we would be cropping the Super 16 image.
I know 16 is really in fashion right now but a lot of shoots are emphasising the rough, degraded quality. It'd like to get it as sharp as possible retaining all the beautiful of well exposed film grain and colour.
We have a short schedule so lots of takes won't happen with either film or digital and I don't need monitors everywhere or playback. It'd be great to hear thoughts and opinions to help me decide.
Also, if we want to shoot an 8mm projector running 24 fps shot footage at 24 fps will we be in sync so no flicker?
Mumbai University Login
I'm going to be directing a low budget feature early next year and we are currently at the point of receiving equipment quotes. We are in the position to have been offered the Arri 416 with Ultra 16s and the Alexa Mini with Xtal Express anamorphics. The 16mm equipment is being offered for considerably less than the Alexa kit to the extent that the difference would pay for all the film stock fresh from Kodak. We could manage the processing and scan by moving different things around in the budget.
I know you guys can't answer the question for me but I'm looking for discussion, experience and opinions about whether you would choose one over the other. The film is a thriller featuring a character who is obsessed with analogue technology and uses a Super8 camera. Part of the story involves him accidentally capturing a murderer on film. Shooting on film kind of fits the brief of the story and if we were able to afford 35mm I wouldn't hesitate. But 16 isn't 35 - I am concerned about too much grain, especially as we have a lot of night scenes. At the same time, my references and inspiration for this film are mostly from the 70s and 80s and the look is often plenty grainy. I'm also looking for the Scope ratio so we would be cropping the Super 16 image.
I know 16 is really in fashion right now but a lot of shoots are emphasising the rough, degraded quality. It'd like to get it as sharp as possible retaining all the beautiful of well exposed film grain and colour.
We have a short schedule so lots of takes won't happen with either film or digital and I don't need monitors everywhere or playback. It'd be great to hear thoughts and opinions to help me decide.
Also, if we want to shoot an 8mm projector running 24 fps shot footage at 24 fps will we be in sync so no flicker?
Mumbai University Login
Last edited:
