RSSShould I shoot 16mm or digital?
Internet Filmmakers' FAQ
This is perhaps the most forefront question in the minds of new and independent filmmakers today. Like many of these questions, there is no straight answer, as individual circumstances, access to equipment, contacts, and the ability to sweet-talk relevant people will all have an effect on this decision.
Assuming you are making an ultra-low to no-budget film, the number one question you should be probably be asking is, "Do you know anyone who works at a lab who can get you cheap processing?" If the answer is no, then you will probably be better off looking to shoot digital, for almost entirely the reason of cost. While it is relatively easy to get your hands on a 16mm camera, and even cheap or free stock, it is more than likely that the cost of processing will be well above your budget.
Film processing is expensive - anywhere between USD $0.15 - $0.50 cents per foot for 16mm, depending on your location. If you are shooting drama, you are probably looking at a minimum shooting ratio of 5:1, that is, you will shoot five times as much footage as you will see on screen in your final cut. 5:1 is actually pretty tight and if you have complex scenes, you may be looking in excess of 7:1; documentaries could easily get into double figures. Now for some maths: say we are shooting a 90 minute feature on 16mm at 5:1. 10 minutes of 16mm at 24 fps is approximately 400 feet. That means you need 3,600 ft for your final cut (9 x 400), and taking into account a shooting ratio of 5:1, approximately 18,000 ft. Even if you process this at one-light (the cheapest), you will be forking out between $US 2,700 - $US 9,000 for your processing, and that doesn't include light-balanced release prints, optical effects (such as fades, dissolves) or other funky stuff. You might be able to save a little bit of money by having your negative processed and telecined to tape, and finish your film on that format.
If you have a budget of $US 10,000 or more for your film, 16mm is a realistic option as it currently offers superior quality and look to that kind of digital equipment you can afford on that sort of budget. If your budget is less than this, you better know someone at a lab if you want to realistically shoot film.
If you decide to go the digital route and have any serious aspirations of having your film seen by anyone besides your parents and friends, you need to think about shooting on one of the "prosumer" digital formats. Although digital video cameras are getting cheaper all the time, the most commonly available models use a single CCD and do not generally provide the level of quality you require for a semi-professional project. The next step up before the ultra-expensive pro gear, are 3 CCD cameras known as "prosumer" models. The most common of these are the Sony PD and Canon XL series, on which many an indie feature has been shot (such as the Dogme 95 features like The Celebration and The Idiots). These currently retail in the region of USD $4,000, and can also be hired from a variety of places.
Another good place to visit for more info on this issue is Filmteam. These guys offer digital to film transfer service for independent producers, and their site has an excellent FAQ covering the topic.
And in case you were wondering... there is a common misconception that the video portions of The Blair Witch Project were shot on Mini-DV. Neal L. Fredericks, DP on the project, sets the record straight:
"Not one frame of The Blair Witch Project's (TBWP) video portions was taped on a Canon or Sony MiniDV camera. In actuality the video portions of TBWP were taped on the lowest quality RCA hi-8mm camcorder. The directors specifically wanted the video to look video.
The film portions of TBWP were photographed on a Cinema Products CP-16A16mm motion picture camera."