Thread: 16 mm camera or HD

For most I would think cost is the main thing. With 16mm film you are paying, say, 100 quid for a small reel of film, then you would have to pay again for a digital transfer.

The 'look' of film can be duplicated by processing of the raw hd footage and for most this is the only affordable option.

Having said that I know what you mean about film. I am considoring having a play with super 8 just cos of the look and for the fun of it.

As Mark says £100 gets you a roll of nearly 11 minutes worth of footage, then theres processing then theres the telecine process. Probably puts another £300 ish on the bill without the services of a colourist. Also to have HD perspective you will need Super 16 - Normal 16mm will give you 4:3. Then if you want sound you'll need a synced camera that runs ultra quietly, most are MOS and sound like sewing machines reving up, and seperate recording devices. For slow mo you'll need a camera with changeable shutter angles and these only come on the more expensive ones. To get into 16mm is going to work out a lot more expensive than buying a prosumer Sony Z1 or Panasonic HVX 200. But the footage shot on the 16mm will look wonderful compared to what the prosumers will record