Cinematography : Super 16 by Robert J Gilman

Shooting Super16 for the feel of the images is a great idea if it is the best choice to achieve the images that tell the story. For obvious reasons, make sure you have more than enough raw stock in your actual possession before you start shooting any major project. The big question mark here is the “lots of VFX” part. Super 16 is not usually the best choice for VFX for a few reasons; resolution, grain and because it is only held in place on one edge. Super 16 is not really high resolution, in your pre-production testing, try both 2K and 4K transfers and see if you can see a difference and whether it makes a difference in creating VFX in the workflow you will be using. Testing will give you your answers and is a step you cannot skip. Resolution and grain both make VFX more difficult because edges are not as sharp . Causes all sorts of problems with mattes resulting in pricey procedures like rotoscoping frame by frame fixes. Additionally grain has other issues since it is in a different place frame to frame it does not compress easily. Super 16 only has sprocket holes on one side of the film stock in order to maximize image area. When the film is in the gate it it only being help and registered on one side, which means that the other side can move slightly. Effectively it means there may be alignment issues coming and going through a shot. Again a by hand, frame by frame fix. Both cameras you list are very nice to use, no issues either is great. The Arri 416HS is capable of shooting up to 150fps while the Aaton maxes out at 75fps, if that is an issue. There are other cameras to consider as well like the Arri SR series cameras. Lots of choices and good prices since they are sadly sitting on shelves for the most part. Super16 would have to have a lot of very strong appeal in other areas to overcome its shortcomings in VFX to be used for the whole picture. That is a script, story and stylistic choice. I wonder if perhaps the VFX laden exteriors could perhaps be shot on a different medium that is more amenable to post manipulation? It is very feasible to approximate look and feel with electronic cameras, artistry and skill. Some cameras would lend themselves more to matching Super 16 than others, but it would depend upon which particular traits are critical to you. This would make a digital intermediate a must have instead of a strongly suggested option. Pretty broad question, so I hope this is a start to the kind of info you are looking for. Its difficult to get more specific without reading the script and talking to the director. The choices are pretty unlimited when you throw creativity, artistry and experience at a project.

Great info & insight, will digest this. Much appreciated, will get back to you.

If it's going to have a lot FX why not shoot it digital. It would simplify you post production work flow. People only shoot super 16 if they want theatrical release. Back in the days we had no choice, now you do, so choose wisely. Don't let the romance of shooting on film stress you out.

Understood - thanks

Robert, let me know however I can help.

Hi Robert we can talk about entire VFX Supervision & post execution. Thanks

Honesty, IMHO walk away from "Film" for a VFX heavy project unless you have a lot of money to burn. Frankly, any VFX heavy film is time consuming and expensive, but if you are running mean and lean on this, shoot 4K and deliver 1080P ( assuming you don't have a formal delivery spec to drive to yet )... Shooting 4K digital will give you lots of capability and flexibility in post. When you say you have already decided to shoot a VFX heavy film on super 16mm tell me you probably haven't tested the production/post production process path yet. FIRST: before making ANY decision. Shoot a test scene that has both traditional footage/lighting, Green screen, Motion graphics, etc... in it and test the post production work flow path and make sure you can get what you need out of the back end. If it works , then you are all set, if it doesn't then take a look at options. Also Get a Post production expert on your film right away.... there are so many things that can go wrong with a VFX heavy project, that you really need to make sure you have a solid understanding and workflow fro start to finish before doing any camera or other tool selection. you can always make the film look anyway you want with proper color and post application, or even take the 4K final output and transfer to film for delivery. If you insist on super16mm please shoot a green screen test and run thru the entire post and delivery process with the test to assure you are getting what you need.

Thanks, much appreciated.

If you haven't shot Green screen before make sure you get a good lighting person and a DP / camera person who has. There are a LOT of Gotchas associated with a good green screen delivery for post including lighting, shutter speeds, sensor ( with digital more so than film) locked camera versus moving camera, tracking marks and methods for post camera tracking, dealing with problematic keys, rotoing out materials and things you want gone that can't be keyed, and general compositing. Also dealing with shooting the plates or creating VFX backgrounds that are convincing and tracked accurately to match what was shot.

Well, that's what I suspected, sort of. Great info about telecines.

Thanks

And thanks Georgia

Have you seen the early samples from the Digital Bolex D16? This camera delivers the softer look you want and it is digital which helps a bunch with the sfx. The camera has a global shutter which is essential for sfx motion matching. Also checkout Hitfilm 2 for the sfx work. Good luck with your project. If you need a sound guy, please keep me in mind.

Thank you much

Hi Robert: I am a DP that has filmed a feature motion picture in Super16 with l6mm motion picture film using an Aaton Super16 film camera. Main advantage is that 16mm Camera is smaller than 35mm. I also have Green &/or Blue Screen shooting experience filming in 16mm, 35mm and video (See my Director of Photography work on "The Making of a Legend: GONE WITH THE WIND" filmed in l6mm & 35mm including some scenes that we used Blue Screen for UltiMatting in post.) Please keep me in mind for your future productions when you need a Director of Photography, I'm available. Thanks!, Glenn

FYI- Clairmont Camera in North Hollywood, www.clairmont.com, is a camera rental house I have used on many shoots. They are the best! I've know Denny Clairmont for decades. Advantage with a rental house is that they always have backup equipment if there are any problems or failure with equipment production is renting.

I've shot a lot on super 16mm, like it way better than any digital format, but what I've heard is that only Fotokem in LA and some other lab in NY develop 16mm film now, check on that so you don't run into trouble in this sense. other then that you have no problem DI or anything like that and the look of your film should be amazing!

I recall reading about a technique to edit using footage recorded off the video tap of Aaton cameras. Not sure if it works for both 35 & 16, though. The process takes advantage of Aaton's proprietary time code. This is just for editing (creating an EDL for the lab) and not in any way a quality digital film print. It's funny because we consulted with a Seattle-based FX house regarding our concerns over scanning digital video up to a 35mm theatrical print and one of the principals there said, "Why don't you originate on film?" Big surprise, considering their biz is working with digital. He clarified by saying film is still far more forgiving with respect to exposure than is digital. Also, the workflow is well-defined with a billion hours of industry experience. And with a video tap, you can review performances on the spot (and potentially edit via Aaton). And film still has a look that digital can not yet replicate. Just some thoughts.

Why on earth would anybody shoot on celluloid for an FX film? There so m any great advancements in digital these days. I've been shooting since 1987 and pray I never see another 2nd asst. cameraman popping open a magazine case. Between the savings and looking for a lab (though FotoKem is great) it's bizarre to think about film. The bottom line is not the bottom line, it's the story. I can't tell that Peter Jackson shot the Hobbit films at 48 fps... all that matters is story. IMO.

Terence makes good points. But then one must wonder: Why do people still paint with oils when they could just use Adobe Illustrator? :-)

Personally I really think in terms of look it's an esthetic choice. In terms of practicality... who knows? When most films were shooting in black and white there were always those who pushed for color. Then the push was for 3D, now its Hi def or 4K or what ever. Sure it would be an easier work flow to shoot digital it's a no brainer. It all eventually comes down to time and money vs desire and Desire is two-thirds of what drives creators in the first place.

Lol great point Hank! I shoot on film every chance I get, even though I also have RED and Canon cameras, if I had a choice it would be film every time!

If money and time are no object, film is great. Making a film or TV series rarely offer such luxury.

What's interesting about TV series (for example) is that until recently, TV series were all shot on film. And somehow, the productions managed to squeeze out double or quadruple the number of episodes which now make up most TV offerings. In either case (digital or film), it's all in the planning (vis-à-vis Sun Su) .

The choice of medium to shoot a picture on should be based in the visual aesthetic that best tells the story or portion of the arc of the story. Without reading the script and talking to the director and producer, it is quite impossible to know exactly why any choice is being made. Considering the aesthetic first is certainly a good starting point although it may end up being done in a very different way. Any camera system can be considered for any project as long as it is not locked in until the DP decides. Camera choice is not a decision that the director, producer or anyone in post should decide. This assumes that the DP knows the differences between camera systems and takes advantage of the strengths and covers the weaknesses of whatever is chosen. Lots of folks wish to assume the title of DP without the experience, knowledge and skill to back it up. Film no longer enjoys a wider latitude than the high end electronic cameras. nor is it as sensitive to light. If any DP is not exposing either film or electronic images properly, it has nothing to do with the medium. Shooting film for a VFX picture is pretty established. Transformers, X-Men, etc etc etc, Shooting 16mm for a picture with VFX is a different issue with a few added points of care to take into account the problematic qualities of the format. Not impossible to do, but is it the best approach when all is considered? Oils or Photoshop? They are completely different mediums and the impact and emotion created is different. Both have unique properties. If one is art, does that preclude the other from being art as well? Sorry but it’s an apples to anchovies comparison. The transition of scripted television production to HD does save money per episode. The costs of the equipment and post are small compared to other line items in a series. The number of episodes that a network wants for any series has to do with many things but I think it has little to do with the transition to HD origination.

• My "oils vs. Illustrator" example was to suggest the presence of a digital medium should not automatically preclude the use of a more traditional one. • My reference to numbers of episodes was to suggest that the use of film to produce them did not limit the number or variety of them. • And as far as the DP deciding on cameras and related equipment, honestly, this is a collaborative medium. If it's my money, guess what: I get to decide. However, my decision will be based wholeheartedly on the DP's input. But the DP does not bear the weight of completion in the same way a Producer or Director does. So, as a Director, I get to pick the "look & feel" and the DP gets to figure out a way to achieve it, adding both his technical and aesthetic input as we go along. Which, by the way, I both encourage and appreciate. But unless you bear the financial burden, you don't get the final say.

So logically all decisions should only be made by the investors in the project since ultimately it is their financial burden. True collaboration can only be of relative equals. To truly collaborate on the choices of equipment means the director needs to have approximately equal knowledge with the DP. If a director knows less about camera systems and imaging than the DP, does the director raise their knowledge to match the DP's or is a DP hired with the same level of knowledge as the director? Since it is not true collaboration, it comes down to what level of micro-managing there will be and by whom. Of course everything is discussed but to make the final camera choice without the DP getting their selection, within the budget parameters, is really questionable for the final picture.

The day any investor gives a crap about the medium I'll eat my foot. Investors want to a) make money b) meet the babes c) eat craft service Robert -- most of the "advice" here is to be ignored. Talk to working DPs who know all media and they'll guide you.

Well, I wish everyone within sight of this thread has all his wishes come true, including never having to deal with investors. Even when investors pull their funding when they don't like what's being done. Oh, wait, that never happens...

Agree, investors should have little to say about that, these are creative decisions...

Of course investors main concern is ROI. The statement was merely taking the thought that money rules to its logical conclusion. We all know the working reality is quite different. As a working DP, my approach is to read the script and talk to the director and producer so I can see the story through their eyes. Deciding how that story is best told visually and what tools are most suitable for a host of reasons. If they agree, all is well. If not, then there is a decision to be made about doing the project. If the DP does the job with the wrong tools we always know it could have been better or cheaper or quicker. Inevitably one of the traits we didn’t like of the camera forced upon us causes an issue. Who’s fault does that become? As a DP who took the job the responsibility falls on me, never on the people who forced the issue. Frankly it is easier to move onto something else taking artistry, experience and skills with you and wishing them well. Your bank balance being the main mitigating factor. Everyone will be happier. Robert actually has received a fair amount of good initial advice and information. Tangental discussions in any thread are just that.

I have DP'd over a dozen super 16 features. In 2014, I think it's the wrong choice... for economy, for ROI, for a number of reasons. I love the format above all, even 35mm ... but I also wear a producer hat and it makes no sense. Also of note, a director ( or producer ) who never worked in film may be put off by the video assist monitor vs. a clear, sharp, color accurate monitor we are used to with digital... you will have to trust the DP and look at dailies. The romantic in me says GO FOR IT! But I don't think the numbers are there.

This Director and/or Director of Photography/Cinematographer would rather shoot projects on 35mm, 16mm or Super 16 motion picture film. I have used the Aaton Super 16 camera on productions and it was great to work with. Then if you must, transfer film to any video format you want for editing and release. Film is a more beautiful image than video and longer lasting for archival storage of master negative. It will still be there in 20 years, with digital archival storage it might not be there in the future. Thanks to Producer Jeffrey Selznick, when I was Director of Photography on TNT's Peabody Award winning "The Making of a Legend: GONE WITH THE WIND" we filmed on 35mm & 16mm motion picture film instead of video. Any kind of photography (motion picture or still) looks better shot on film to me. Plus film is faster to set and shoot than video, all I need is my light meter. No white balance or wires to waste time while setting up and getting the next shot!

I thought it was just me Glenn. When I switched to film I was like "What do you mean all I need is a light meter?!"... And then I shot my first movie on 16mm film and couldn't believe the magic. :-)