Old School Camera? Obviously Not

I'm sure a good number of your recieve wakeboarding mag monthly. (The best magazine ever published by the way) Besides that though on page 16 of the April 2005 issue the filmer on the ladder is using an old school camera. What's the deal with these cameras I've seen them around a lot in both snowboarding and wakeboarding videos. What are the benefits, where can you get them, etc.?

old school cams? are you sure it wasn't a 16mm cam? they look pretty old school even tho they're new. can you post a pic?

(Message edited by dakid on February 27, 2005)

Ya I'm pretty sure it was a 16mm cam. I knew they were newer cams I just don't know watsup with the old school look and what advantages and benefits these cams have over say a GL2 or other high end camera?

Here's a pic just to confirm:

16mm = film; better quality, more expensive to use (buy film, film processing, transfer film to digital), camera lasts forever.
gl2 = digital video camera; easier to use, quality is good, but not as good as film.

i could be way off here.

I think "Old School" is a pretty appropriate description. Editing film is not an easy process either. (if you're making a film) You literally cut the physical film stock and splice it together. Don't like your last edit? OOPS! If you hear the term "non-destructive" when you're reading about computer based editing now you know where the term comes from. Film has a unique analog look to it that electronic CCD's or CMOS sensors have a hard time duplicating but they keep getting closer.

Do you guys know of any sites in which you can purchase a 16mm cam or how much they go for?

check out ebay!

search for "arriflex 16mm"

you guys should check out the movie metranome by justin stephens, during the credits at the end they show him putting a reel of film onto a computer for editing. there is no cutting and splicing involved.

What you're seeing is probably a Telecine which creats a digital copy of the raw film for editing in a computer based NLE. It's really only used for high quality transfers and is basically just the high speed equivalent of a slide scanner. After the post work is done the project could go to tape, DVD, harddrive or some other electronic form of media but the film itself has not been edited and still has to be physically cut and spliced. The whole idea of shooting film is normally so one can show your work on film on the big screen. To use film for acquisition only (when final output onto VHS or DVD) is a waste IMHO. HD resolution is approaching film and if you're talking a lot of footage is cheaper to shoot and process.

Dude the thing to understand about 16mm is that it is not practical for the average "filming your bros" type. They go for thousands for the camera, then you have film, developing, editing, and conversion to a usable media(digital or analog). I have a buddy that films for Electric and they use the same 16mm that half the little production companies in Tahoe do(they actualy share it). So the point is that these kids get paid to film and they still cant afford a 16mm set up. My friend Daves company has $30,000 into just on camera and lenses. Not to discourage you but this is truly professional grade gear. The image quality is like Atari vs PC games, home movies vs Star Wars. $25 for a dvd doesnt sound to outrageous when you figure what went into it.

Ya, 16mm/film is not "old school", im not going to turn this post into a film vs. digital thing, but HD looks good but not close to film, and the ones that are cost like $100,000. If you want to get an Arri or any good 16mm camera, then there $$$, plus you need to pay for film and telecine. Thats if you know how to shoot film, and you live some where close to get it developed and telecine, then you need to get a deck for your system so you can import it. When we shot my short for school we used 2000ft. of film and only got an hour of footage and ended up only using six. And in just film that cost us $610 with a student discount. So if you plan on just shooting for just fun, stick with digital or buy a cheap super 8mm if you really want to try film.

How many people can actually tell the difference between video shot with 16mm compared to a good digital camera when played on a DVD player at their house? Seriously, I'm asking. Can you tell?

Ya, at least i can, look at Relentless, most of it is in film and some of it is in digital.

without a doubt. Just look @ any older videos (before 16mm was as common). It the difference between what most of us do and what ,the dudes getting $24.99 for vid, do.

and then look what happened when they remastered some of the old VHS titles for re-release on DVD - some of the worse looking footage you'll ever see. All that beautiful 16mm shot to hell. At least the stuff being shot on film now makes it's way to DVD with the proper quality.

You can easily tell at home on your DVD even on a standard low-res tv. Film looks way better, contrast/color. I always get disappointed when DV shots get thrown in.

well if you are going to mix DV you just have to color correct it. Thats what im doing with my film since i dont have a huge budget. 8mm film is fun and cheap as well

Properly white balanced video doesn't need color correction as the color is already right. I think I know what you're trying to say above but you're using the wrong terminology. Color correction doesn't get rid of the video look it just changes the color balance. If you're adjusting the contrast, saturation and white/black point as part of your "color correction" process I can see how you could attempt to end up with a bit more of a film look.

Really the bottom line is most people in the know can spot video vs film a mile away, even when it's done with one-off sony cameras like the ones George Lucas uses. The rest of your viewers couldn't spot the difference if you pointed an arrow at it.

Poor camera work & editing will make people think even film is video while good technique with video will fool most people. My own personal opinion is that it's best to concentrate on technique and content rather then technology and tricks. Even a seasoned pro with an Avid or FCP machine can't make DV match 16mm film.

I meant to say color timing, but ya i know what your saying.

"My own personal opinion is that it's best to concentrate on technique and content rather then technology and tricks"

so true. learn to hold a camera still before you try and make your video look like film.

Travis,

Sorry I didn't want to make it look like I was bashing your shooting/editing skills in any way I just think the film vs video debate at this level is a non issue. Worrying about how to make any video I get look more like film is a non priority for me.

Scott,

You wouldn't say that if you were a Chiropractor!

Oh no worries, i didnt feel you were bashing me, i just wanted to correct my self. But having the shot look good in the first place is the most important, but even before that, your content should be good(a general statment for any type of filming,but that doesnt really matter for wakeboarding i guess) I dunno i am in film school and i just like to try new things with digital to make it look better.

When that Magic Bullet plugin for After Effects was originally released it sold for well over a grand. It was created by some guys originally from ILM who then left and formed their own company and used the knowledge they had gained there to develop it. It was a very big deal when it was originally released and many pro videographers and Indie filmakers jumped all over it. I guess my point is that whether I personally believe trying to make video look like film is a worthy process or not doesn't necessarily echo the sentiments of the industry. It is a big deal to many.