Video versus 16 mil for nature film

[alpshiker]

Please bear with me, this is off topic, but I thought some of you

photographers may be interested with nature film too. I posted

this on the Video forum.

 

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

[harry_akiyoshi]

There are a number of ways to emulate the "film look" on video. Often, people buy PAL DV systems and then deinterlace and use frame-blending software to make the 25-interlaced to 24-progressive switch. Canon's apparently going to release a 24 f.p.s. version of the XL1, which could shake things up a bit. Once you've got 24 f.p.s. progressive-scan video, there are a variety of filters one can buy (although they're mostly fairly expensive) to further emulate the look. You can do most of what they do by using a curves tool to control the charactistic curve of the video; video often comes out a little flat, with contrast in the wrong areas.

 

DV isn't a terrific standard, but it is cheap. An XL1 is only about $3000 used right now. Pro stuff -- Digital Betacam, etc. -- is significantly better. Video sensors are still pretty small, especially compared to 35mm, but shooting with the aperture wide open will help.

 

In terms of actual resolution, 16mm is still pretty far above everything but high-definition video, which is impressively good but also unrealistically expensive. However, both 16mm and most DV formats are significantly better than current broadcast TV standards, which are pretty archaic. It makes sense to shoot in video if you know you'll be taking lots of footage and your film will only be shown on TV, which is the case with quite a lot of people right now. Digital-to-film transfers are a whole other story.

[david_goldfarb]

I experimented with 16mm film for a while, but not for nature. I loved the look and the possibilities, but film costs make it an expensive medium to work in, if you don't have someone else paying the bills.

 

Much serious television, like higher quality TV-dramas, is shot on film.

[john_burnley1]

A large number of the more serious nature docs are most certainly shot on film. IT has a 'look' far superior to video, in my opinion. And that 'look' is easily differentiated on televised docs. If you have the budget for shooting film, it is - for many subjects and concepts - the way to go but with many nature films requiring a 20:1 ratio - or more - it will be very expensive. Camera price is not so much an issue as film price. It depends on your subject matter and target market whether you opt for film or video. An interesting recently aired NATURE production on the cougar showed nature cinematographer Ron Shade at work shooting 16mm AND using a modest 'prosumer' Sony digital video camera in a remote setup to capture a couger at a deer kill (probably used video here largely for the extended run time available). Video for that unique view into the cougar's secret life worked outstandingly well and fitted into a doc that was shot mainly on film. Take a look at that one for ideas and how film and video stack up when used in the same production. Best wishes, John

[ahaohio]

What about equipment reliability under harsh conditions?

 

Most mechanic failures are fixable with simple handtools whereas anything that goes wrong with an electronic gizmo makes the device a dead weight.

[alpshiker]

I was holding my breath until that fine Arri ST16 with 10x12 Angenieux and 90 macro auction came to it's end. It sold for 1560 Euros, can you imagine? I missed it for 10 bucks, a little sad but somewhere I was relieved. I have used a 16mm camera 25 years ago, and yes, the film cost was such a concern that it was a paralyzing factor sometimes, and carrying alone the weight of the camera with teles and the big Miller wooden tripod and fluid head up the mountain trails was hard enough for my young body at the time, but would be too much now. Not that a Betacam would weigh less, but maybe I should just forget about film. The quality of nature films has also improved so much with the means and budget allowed by the producers nowadays, that it is hard for a lone amateur to compete. And if it's just for family and friends, my 3CCD camcorder should do the trick and there, I can just forget the tape and let it run as much as I like, and mount it on my Mac for cheap! Thanks for your comments! By the way, the Sony HDWF 900 looks fantastic. But who would dare to take such an expensive and sophisticated device into the field unless there is a whole film crew team around?!!!

 

Happy Christmas to all!

Paul

[alpshiker]

I just watched a nature film called "Lion of America" by film maker Matthew Arkins III. Turned in 35mm (I guess) and on saturated film, with

amazing angles of view and beautiful colored landscapes. He even uses effects that can only be achieved with cranes and chariots or with a steadycam, but in a

very subtle manner. By the way, still photography was by Dan Smith; a chance that it was ours?

 

After seeing that film, even 16 mil seems poor and flat... Okay, they most certainly used trained animals, for some shots such as when the

cougar jumps across the canyon or on the lone rock are simply impossible in the wild, and most takings were at short range and in chosen

settings which makes the film much more vibrant. But the result is the most beautiful nature film I have seen for a long time. It changes from the

boring video safaris taken from 4wheel drives that fill the air time of some nature channels!