Question regarding Black Swan: Why did Aronofsky shoot in 16mm instead of 35mm? Dec 24, 09:11
How much more expensive is it to shoot in 35mm? {nm} Dec 24, 09:19
For the average Joe buying it, stock is about double, processing about the same. I dunno how many 100s of feet he shot. {nm} Dec 24, 09:48
They had 17 million dollars and minimal locations Dec 24, 11:04
I think all he was saying is it made it more possible to get it made, as Aronofsky ha been quoted as saying they could barely get 1/2 the Dec 24, 11:19
budget they wanted and funding kept collapsing for a year. Final sequence was shot in 2 days! {nm} Dec 24, 11:20
Yes, that's where my question was coming from. Dec 25, 06:59
Probably wanted a specific look... I have to admit that it's only noticeable in a few sections. {nm} Dec 24, 09:21
I think in some parts, he was trying to recreate the look of The Wrestler to create more realism but it isn't all 16mm {nm} Dec 24, 09:49
I didn't know he shot any on 35? {nm} Dec 24, 09:51
He shot The Wrestler on 16 too. Makes it grittier--gives it that documentary feel, IMO. {nm} Dec 24, 09:50
I'm sure the look was the main reason, but also it's a much smaller camera allowing for freedom of movement. {nm} Dec 24, 10:13
I think it's what The Hat said, it's about manouevrability. Cheaper helps. Subway sequences shot in DSLR to avoid permits {nm} Dec 24, 10:53
What's the size difference between a 16mm camera and a 35mm one? Dec 24, 14:27
It's not just size, it's weight. Dec 24, 14:53