Video versus 16 mil for nature film

Nowadays, some great 16 mm equipment are available at

prices that defy imagination and I would have jumped on some

of

what I see, 20 years ago. A high end broadcast video

camera is still an expensive piece of equipment, even if tape is

much

cheaper to run through than film. And am I right in saying

that film does produce a distinctive image quality that video

cannot

produce? Or is this bullshit and 16 mm has long been

abandoned for nature films? How many productions aimed at TV

are still

made on film? When I see a beautiful docko on TV, I wish I

knew if it was made on video or on film. I often think that if the

colors

are saturated and images contrasted with detailed skies, it

was made on film, maybe 35 mil, and if it's dull and slightly

overexposed, it was video. Perhaps I am wrong, ignoring the

possibilities of video and post production. My question is: has 16

mm still a reason to be and when would it be a good

choice? What kind of video camera would match the quality and

dynamic

of film, Velvia for instance? (I am an amateur shooter and

can probably not afford a video camera capable of producing the

image quality I am after). Thanks for your comments!

 

Paul

16mm has its purpose, when you want that look.When I had a 2 week shoot in the jungles of Southeast Asia, with 99% humidity 24hrs aday, I left the Betacam at home and shot with a ARRI SR,I didnt want to risk tape jams and clogged heads from the high humidity. It depends on the job if it is film or video, the look the client wants, the budget and the shooting conditions.I shot alot of nature footage last year with a Betacam SP, the image quality is great, and I was about 2 miles in the forest with 2 extra batteries and 1 extra tape, didnt have to worry about changing film magazine after 10 min. of shot film, or carry rolls of extra film and a changing bag.This is where video was very handy. I shoot 99.9% video , other people I know shot mostly film, they have different client needs than me.Lots of music video`s and some comercials are shot on 16mm,, and the bigger budget stuff on Super 16 and 35mm, and the real bigtime stuff on Panavision.But you can know start to see the light at the end of the Tunnel with cameras like Sony HDWF 900...AKA .24 p.. AKA "the film killer". I have seen this camera , it is awesome, it aint film,, film looks like film,, video looks like video,, each camera looks different depending on how it is setup and the scene is lit.No one video camera defines how video can look or what it is. with cameras like the HDWF 900 is getting very close to 35mm.The video cameras today you can tweak all the functions of the camera to get whatever look you want, you have total control of the settings.Most people I know who where shooting 16, now shoot Digibeta,,HD or Super 16 or 35mm. I dont know of any inexpensive ways to get the film look, not a Canon XL1 at movie mode or PAL at 25fps either.

 

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/webapp/ModelInfo?m=0&sm=0&p=2&sp=19&id=56201

 

http://www.whites.com/camera/sony_tech_port/document_1.html

Ronny, thanks for your comments and insight. I have posted an answer in the Nature Forum where I had the same thread. Cheers! Paul

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004D1J

Nothing captures the look and feel of the natural world better than film in my opinion. Video is great for purely informative nature documentaries, but I think that film really does the beauty of nature a lot more justice.

 

As far as image quality, 16mm has the look and feel (as well as dynamic range) of film, while still resolving the image better than almost all video cameras. It sounds like HD is the only way to get the image quality you're looking for in a video camera. Those rigs can be rather large, so I think you'd almost be better off with a good mechanical 16mm camera (bolex H16/Arri S). And I could be wrong, but I think 35mm still films (Velvia) are better than movie films.

 

That said, in the right light and the right operator, even a low end prosumer camera like the Canon GL-1 can produce some fantastic colorful images for a television screen. It all depends on what your target market is, and how much money you're willing to put into it.

 

So, if you've got the money, go with film. If not, video solutions will get the job done.

 

Karl

If you are going to view it on television, the detail is limited to the display of the television and broadcast equipment. Film may be higher resolution but it gets chopped up into the same chunks that video is chopped up into before transmission. Film does have a lot more color depth, but then you have to look at the television capabilities as well. TV has limitations and so forth. Film is good for some things, video is good for others. But if your final viewing method is going to be Television you may not want to spend the extra money on film if it is going to be degraded to television quality anyway. There are pro DV camcorders out there that can push television broadcast capabilities to its limits. It can transfer to film afterwards, and granted it won't be as great of depth as originally shot film, but I never see anybody leaving a film that has complimented the production on how well the subtle shadows in the background came out or how much extra little contrast the cloud in the upper left corner of the shot there had.

I've shot both, and for a doc, it's cheaper to shoot video. But, if you've got the cash, then shoot 16. The quality is better, you only have to haul 2 batteries for a film camer if you're out in the field all day (as opposed to the 10 for video) and you can do a hi-definition transfer if you want to in the future. I've also used the sony HDW-900 and it EATS batteries. Just not practical for shooting all day out in the middle of nowhere.

 

that bit above about video looking better on tv than film is bunk IMHO. If you can shoot film, then go for it, but few doc producers will spring for film these days now that video has all but relegated film to the backbenches (as far as documentaries are concerned at least)

 

Cheers

Very much what I thought. For occasional filming of non sync sound sequences, 16 should be a

good choice especially with a lower investment in some second hand camera. There are some nice

gear at unbelievable price nowadays. Saw recently a mint Beaulieu R16 with 10x12 motorized

Ang�nieux for 500 bucks! This frees some funds for film and processing. But could not find any

place that still services that brand, so I skipped.