What's a distinctive format to shoot a short film on besides

GoPro

>>79146321
Dear God, why?

flipbook

Yeah. Just do digital.

Once you have the raw footage, you can mess with the look in various compositors.

if you feel like you need some gimmick to make your short film interesting, you're not gonna make something good

>>79146344
Even mother fucking Peter Jackson used one on the The Hobbit.

>>79146293
if 8mm is too expensive, digital is your best hope.

>>79146387

And it looked awful

Also, in order to actually SHOW anybody your short film, you're going to have to convert it to digital...whether you upload it to Vimeo, Youtube, or submit to a film festival.

File: 1425542863270.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>>79146387
>Even mother fucking Peter Jackson used one on the The Hobbit.

Super 8 film dude

Looks great and it's fucking cheap. I'm in LA so shipping is cheap, but pretty soon Kodak is going to charge $50 for everything

>>79146384
Looking for a style to match the tone of what you're making isn't exactly what'd I call a gimmick.

VistaVision

>>79146507
35 dollars per three and a half minutes, plus the cost of a decent telecine still causes a pretty sizeable dent in the average wallet.

>>79146293
If 8mm is too pricy, you might be forced to go to cell phone or use SLRs. At least with SLRs you can do odd lenses, like a fisheye or so on with cheap rentals.

>>79146605
I've got a mildly decent DSLR, but the image it produces is pretty bland and flat. Nothing that post production can really fix either.

>>79146586
>35 dollars per three and a half minutes, plus the cost of a decent telecine still causes a pretty sizeable dent in the average wallet.

if 10 dollars a minute is too much, you are not going to be able to do film.

>>79146658
Do you have a camera rental house nearby? It will cost you more then 35 dollars but just be ready to film a ton in your time.

>>79146523
what is the style you are looking for?

>>79146658
>the image it produces is pretty bland and flat
You are not lighting correctly so it won't matter what you shoot it on.

>>79146523
>Looking for a style to match the tone of what you're making
You know how to use a camera right?

>>79146899
Yep

Use digital since it gives you a little more leeway, and call it a Dogme 95 film

>>79146293
DSLR and get a decent lens.

>>79146293
I always liked David Lynch's use of low-res DV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxKPBLjHAEA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kqw5DqdGXw

>>79146677
It's ten a minute just for film stock. You have to get it processed, then get a colorist and telecine, none of which is free.

>>79147307
If you can't afford 8mm, you only option is going to be cheap digital.

>>79147362
Obviously. My point is that it's nowhere near $10/min.

>>79146293
i'll sell you all of my super 8mm for cheap, if you're set on it.

i've been trying to get rid of it all for months now.

>>79146658
You really don't know what you're doing, do you? The camera body is the very least important part of the visual style of your film. Don't rent a camera, rent a decent set of prime lenses and an adapter for your DSLR. Put a real piece of cinema glass on and you're gonna think it's a whole new camera.

Put your attention into production design & lighting. You could shoot your film on 70mm film stock, and it'd still look like dogshit if you don't know how to stage/light a scene.

>>79146293
go buy a vhs camcorder at a thrift store

>>79146293
Film on the cheapest thing you can find, as you need to learn lighting first.