Hey there, I know this question probably pops up all the time, but I have a reasonably serious question to put out there.

To make a life-long story short:-


I have filmmaking aspirations.
I live in New Zealand.
I have the equivalent of roughly $20,000 ($US).


In the past, my plan was to try and get into the New York Film Academy and try out their year-long course, however, the more time passes, the more I'd like to just buy my own equipment and start filming myself. My friends and family tell me I should be doing this ALL THE TIME. The only problem is, I have little idea what kind of equipment I should be buying.

I did a year-long "film & tv" course at a local polytech, but it didn't really help me achieve anything. I did learn a bit of editing and a few camera tricks, but for the most part, the equipment there was sub-par, and the course was merely a thinly-disguised training course for the local TV station (vomit).

I don't want to buy a digital camcorder. I don't know if it's just me, but digital pictures, for the most part, look... tacky. What kind of camera should I be looking at purchasing (even something slightly outside my budget would be fine)? Am I looking for digital cameras? Or should I be going the way of a 16mm/35mm/whatever-mm camera? And if one of the latter, what kind of editing/post-production equipment?

Any help you guys could give me would be most appreciated.

(Is my bias against digital cameras unfounded?)

Wow, $20,000 is a pretty good chuck of change. Well, if you don't like the way Digital Video looks then you're not alone. There are plenty of people who prefer the look of film. Maybe you just haven't seen good digital video.

But if I had $20,000 Here's what I would buy:

Panasonic DVX100a Digital Camcorder
The fastest G5, loaded up, with a Cinema Monitor.
Final Cut HD in the new Production Suite (http://www.apple.com/productionsuite/).
Then various other stuff like lighting kits and mics, etc...all depending on how much cash I had left...maybe I'd save the rest to pay starving actors and composers :).

Of course...all of this is for use with DV. But I think you can get a lot for your money if you go DV.

Wow, $20,000 is a pretty good chuck of change. Well, if you don't like the way Digital Video looks then you're not alone. There are plenty of people who prefer the look of film. Maybe you just haven't seen good digital video.

But if I had $20,000 Here's what I would buy:

Panasonic DVX100a Digital Camcorder
The fastest G5, loaded up, with a Cinema Monitor.
Final Cut HD in the new Production Suite (http://www.apple.com/productionsuite/).
Then various other stuff like lighting kits and mics, etc...all depending on how much cash I had left...maybe I'd save the rest to pay starving actors and composers :).

Of course...all of this is for use with DV. But I think you can get a lot for your money if you go DV.

This is pretty much what I did except i went with (2) Sony VX2100 digital Camcorder. I got a 1.8 Dual G5 and FCP and it's awesome.

I would suggest you spend your money on editing equipment - I second CommanderGoat's suggestions - and rent the rest.

Digital is changing and changing fast. Soon it will match film.

For argument I will assume you don't have a firm theatrical distribution deal. I will also assume you deeply believe your movies are going to be good enough to be released in the theaters.

The reality is your first few movies will most likely end up going the video/DVD distribution route. Film isn't that essential - good lighting, a good hook and a great story is.

Learn your craft before you invest is a lot of equipment. Equipment changes fast.

Even if you shoot 3 film a year ( and who among us actually finishes 3 feature films a year?) a 35mm camera is a poor investment.

If you spend $10,000 on a 5 year old 35mm camera, in 3 years you'll be shooting with an 8 year old camera. In 5 it'll be 10 years old.

If you are committed to shooting on film, rent a top of the line 35mm camera then spend your money on film stock, processing and telecine.
(Is my bias against digital cameras unfounded?)
I think so.

It's still not the same as film, and if you transfer to film it looks pretty bad, but with proper lighting you DTV feature can look great.

Check out the trailer on my site. Shot on MiniDV. Let me know if you think it looks bad.

There have been some features shot on MiniDV... 28 Days Later was shot with a MiniDV cam and edited with Adobe Premier.

If you want to shoot on film, then the recomendations you've already heard are best. Rent equipment, and save your money for actors/locations/food/post/etc.

If you decide to go the Digital route, which is fine (imo), there are some decent cameras you can buy for relatively good prices... I would suggest the Sony PD170... I know Panasonic has a good MiniDV cam too, but I never remember the name... it's the one 28 Days Later was shot on.

DV can look really bad, but if you light correctly and use a very high end camera; it will look just like film to the untrained eye (maybe even the trained eye).

There's a guy named Matt Mcdermitt that has made a music video with the DVX100. It looks exactly like film!! And although I saw it on the internet, it still looked like 35mm! Sadly his website is down right now for some reason...but when you get a chance check it out:

MattMcdermitt.com

I'm sure it will sell you on the possibilities of video.

P.S. video is infinitely cheaper and easier to use. It will give you freedom to be creative with your time and money.

My friends and family tell me I should be doing this ALL THE TIME.

If they are talking about getting out and filming whatever, whenever... then yes :)

You can learn theory 'til you are blue in the face, but nothing beats getting out there and actually learning from mistakes firsthand.

Nothing wrong with taking advantage of local tv/cable station equipment, even if you consider it subpar. If you keep friendly with them, you should be able to borrow equipment when you need it... as well as meet other people who share similar interests. If you don't have a current project to work on, you can hook up and work on someone else's flick and get some experience that way.

I live in New Zealand.

Bonus points for being a Kiwi. (I'm an ex-pat) Give PJ a jingle and get an internship at Weta :P

With 20k to blow, I'd buy a decent digital camera (panny100), some basic lighting (less than $100 total at a big harware store) and a PC to edit on. That would be it. You'll have a tonne left over... rent any other special goodies you may need, when needed.

Camera 3k~ish
Lights $100~ish
PC $1500~ish

If you decide later that maybe it's not your thing, you still have a camera for vacations, some lights to use when changing the oil in the garage, and everyone needs a PC anyway.

My opinion, anyways. 8)

Wow, cool, thanks for the help so far. I should probably point out that $20,000 is ALL of my money, and in the knowledge that I probably wouldn't make any back (at this point), it'd be foolish to be spending it all in one go.

I guess what I'm looking for is equipment that I can experiment and learn with, with good enough quality that it doesn't just feel like I'm mucking around with the family handicam. Just enough to make a few random DVDs of what I can do. "Demo tapes" if you will.

I'm fairly familiar with Final Cut (we used it at tech), so that seems like a good option for editing. Though I suppose I'd need to buy myself a Mac for that, as this PC is cluttered with all sorts of sh*t. Would a TV and VCR/DV-player with Firewire connections also be a must-have, or would I just connect straight to the proposed DV camera I'd be buying?

Hey, thanks for the help guys.

A lot of people buy cheap MiniDV cams to capture with... saves a lot of wear on your expensive camera. If you spend your money wisely, you should be able to get all you need to start with for less than $10 000...

A camera will set you back around $3500, a Mac around $2000, software $800, and accessories around $400... so $6700 all around, give or take.

You can rent anything else you need, and you'll have some money to do it.

If you find you absolutely love it, then you can rent 35mm cameras and professional equipment for a couple weeks to make a feature.

Good luck.

For that I would suggest getting a DVX100a, G5 Dual Processor (get 2 gig of ram on it), FCP HD Production Suite, 3 point light kit, Seinheisser M-66 mic with boom pole and dvx cable of course, windscreen for your mic. Sony DSR-11 deck and a Sony NTSC Monitor. Pick up a Mackie mixer with a set of studio shielded monitors (speaker). I would also suggest 2 (220 gig Firewire external drives). Hell since you have the money, might as well live your dream and get what you need, you won't have the money later to do it.

When I started to build my studio/production house, that's exactly what I did. I took all of the cash I had and dropped it. Nothing says commitment like investing everything you have into it. Worse case scenario, you buy all solid equipment and you don't use it, you can at least sell it. Buy second rate stuff and it is harder to get a decent return on.

all I can say is Its alot easier to make Digital Vid look 16 or 35mm then to make film look Digital.


Starting off.. save most of your money

Buy a AG100 from Panasonic

Buy Vegas video (Alot easier to learn to us then Adobe) and has much of the same features.. just can be used with photoshop (That I know off)

Buy maybe some 3D Software and learn to use it. I recomend 3DS max but its like 4000 bucks you could buy Animation Masters from Hash martin who developed the Raytrace render for 3D software games. his software is pretty good and is only 300 bucks



If you have a nice size garage and are willing to paint one of the side walls green or make a bluescreen box with back lighting that will help


Buy at least a 5 or 6 megapixle Digital Camera.


So Im thinking..

3,500.00 =3CCD Camcorder
- 400.00 = Vegas Editing Software
-300.00 = 3D Software
-- 30.00 = Light Green Flat Paint with brush and dropclothe
-700.00 = P4 PC with 1gig DDR and 80 gig HD
-300.00 = Kodak 5.0 Megapixle camera
Total Damages
________
=5,200.00 USD leaving you a total left over of 14,800.00 and change USD


unless you want to buy 3D Studio Max and a few Professional Plugins.. you're looking at another 3000 bucks but Im sure you can get by without those.


BTW... Its like 250-400 bucks a mintute to transfer Video to Film if you really want Film. but I get the funny filling you're not ready to make expensive films anyways so save your money and spend several years perfecting your skills.

My advice? Don't buy any equipment.

I don't have any equipment to speak of (expept my still cameras) and I still make movies sometimes on film sometimes on video. How do I do it? Beg, Plead, Bribe, Borrow, use what and who is handy, but most of all I just ask. You would be amazed at the amount of people you can find in the woodwork who already have equipment and are willing to work for cheap to nothing to be a part of making your vision a reality.

Perhaps there's a really talented AC or Camera Op who wants to be a DP and is looking for a project they can add to their reel. Or maybe there's a professional out there who is sick of doing industrials and wants to do something creative for a change.

If it were me, I would focus on my script draw up a budget and start asking around to see who is near by and has some equipment and some free time on their hands. Remember you can never spend too much time in pre-production...unless of course your movie never gets made.

I worked for NYFA teaching high school students how to shoot on 16mm film. The workshops are very intense and there is a lot of hands on work. I don't know much about the year program for adults, but I would recommend first looking into film schools, if this is really what you want to do. Some people don't do well in an educational environment and I am of the belief that you don't need film school to make good films, but it doesn't hurt. If school isn't your bag of chips then try volunteering on shoots in your area. You might have to start off as a grunt, but just keep your eyes open and ask questions.

Katie

DV can look really bad, but if you light correctly and use a very high end camera; it will look just like film to the untrained eye (maybe even the trained eye).

There's a guy named Matt Mcdermitt that has made a music video with the DVX100. It looks exactly like film!! And although I saw it on the internet, it still looked like 35mm! Sadly his website is down right now for some reason...but when you get a chance check it out:

MattMcdermitt.com

I'm sure it will sell you on the possibilities of video.

P.S. video is infinitely cheaper and easier to use. It will give you freedom to be creative with your time and money.

:yes: His site is now online - sortof. He has another music video-this time for a real artist however it doesn't look QUITE as much like film, still amaizing though. If anyone is in his area you should go to his next shoot and figure out what hes doing! By the way - my name is Zebulan and this is my first post here. I love these boards!

Those urging The Psychotic One to buy cheap lights are doing him a real disservice. A camera, any camera, records LIGHT and absence of light (shadow). The better those two things are controlled and composed, the better the final image. If you think he's going to be happy with images reflecting $30 hardwre store light, you're all out of your gourds.

You have 20 large to spend? Here's how to spend less than half that and have a complete location kit:

Panasonic DVX!00A; spare batteries; tapes; Pelican hard case; Matte box w/4 x 4 Haze, Polarizer, Low-Contrast, 1/2 Black Supermist, 1/4 Clear Supermist & #2 Black Net filters; Manfrotto 525MVB tripod w/ Bogen 503 fluid head & Manfrotto Cine Dolly:
$5,150

500W flood w/Medium Photoflex Cinedome softbox; 650 fresnel w/ barndoors;
Two 300W fresnels w/barndoors; Four air-cushioned stands; Two Lowel 21x25 standard frame-ups; gels; scrims; spare lamps & 5-in-1 reflector kit:
$2,000

Audio-Technica AT897 Short condenser shootgun mic; Two 25' XLR cables; shock mount; Audio-Technica ATH-M30 stereo headphones; HD light stand w/boom arm and casters:
$550

Lighthead bag; stand bag; grip bag; gaffer tape, clamps, blackwrap; gloves; bounce boards, cutters & flags:
$600

TOTAL $8,300.00 U.S.

If you can't make a decent film with this kit, then look to your actors, your script and yourself.

(P.S. cheap lights) http://www.stevenrichards.com/images/smiley_pac.gif

The reason people are suggesting (in many instances) lower-end equipment, is because of the qualifications the OP gave. He is not a full-time filmmaker, nor even a part-time one. He has "aspirations".

While you provided a fine list of equipment that many would be proud to call self-owned, it's probably not such a good shopping list for someone that may (or may not) decide to make a go of it in making films.

There is no argument that better equipment (operated by experienced people) can make a world of difference in terms of the quality delivered as compared to a day spent picking up knick-knacks at Home Depot.

However, spending $50 instead of $800 on a basic lighting kit that may (or may not) see more than 2 weeks usage is a different matter.

For someone who is just setting out on finding their "film legs", a basic set of crap lights is more than adequate.

:)

(P.P.S. Mr Spears rocks! (http://www.scottspears.net/Lowbudgetinglighting.htm))

I don't really see the need to spend 2K on lighting equipment. You can get a great little 3point lighting setup for approx $400 with barn doors from rostronics.

http://www.rostronics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=1500Wfull3kit&cat=13

This seems to be new gear. Low end, but they have focusable lightings, barn doors, soft boxes etc. Seems like a sweet deal to me - especiall for a hobbyist!

I don't really see the need to spend 2K on lighting equipment. You can get a great little 3point lighting setup for approx $400 with barn doors from rostronics.

This seems to be new gear. Low end, but they have focusable lightings, barn doors, soft boxes etc. Seems like a sweet deal to me - especiall for a hobbyist!

It is new gear and it's pretty damned good. For the money, it's great gear. I have a couple of heads and stands from them and I'm really impressed. I was worried about the "composite" construction, but it has held up well and their barndoors are actually a better construction than the ones on my Arri's! The stands are on the light side, but they're OK - I would recommend the air-cushioned ones. The best thing of all about these heads is that they cool off VERY quickly, which equals fewer blisters. :D

Good to hear from an actual user! I've been thinking about getting a kit myself. I think you just sealed the deal :D

Interesting that they cool off quickly - and very useful! Thanks for the info RogueCrew!

I'll be the die hard film guy and say get a Super-16 Camera package. Super-16mm is a great format. With the improvements in 16mm stocks, you can almost match 35mm of 15 years ago. Also, it's aspect ratio matches HD.

Try this site:
www.visualproducts.com
I should say I don't work for them but have bought several items and have been pleased.

A Super-16 Eclair NPR runs around $8000. You'll need a tripod so add $1000 for an O'conner 50.

Add a light meter, Spectra, Sekonic or Minolta for $300-500.

Add $1000-2000 for lights. The Briteks seem to be a inexpensive up comers.

If you decide to go the DV route then as many have said, go for the Panasonic DVX100A.

Good luck.

Scott

Good to hear from an actual user! I've been thinking about getting a kit myself. I think you just sealed the deal :D

Interesting that they cool off quickly - and very useful! Thanks for the info RogueCrew!

The guy that owns the company Rostronics is Tom Rost and he is a sweetheart. The night I put in my order, he emailed me three times in the wee hours to make sure I had exactly what I wanted. It arrived two days later. I've heard from others who have received something broken or defective, that replacement has been equally quick and courteous.

You weren't kidding about the MattMcdermitt.com videos. They do look like film, even the ones that didn't seem to be shot in 24p. (some looked like 30 fps)
Awesome stuff. The dvx100 rocks. Had to sell my dvx (along with a car, a bed, and a nice tv) to buy myself a film recorder. That's right - transfers video to 35mm film. I might be able to transfer to 16mm too if I can find a cheap transport. (not the whole rig, just the piece that slides under the oxberry with the little lens). I will rent a dvx100 or a HD camera when I am truly ready to finish a feature and transfer it to film myself. That's a long ways from now, so if anyone has some work for me, email me because I'm completely broke - hopefully the machine was a good investment.

Firstly, congratulations on being a filmmaker in New Zealand. It's country with a good film scene and superb locations.

Next, I've got to side with the don't buy anything except a good macintosh computer guys. Get Final Draft script writing software and Final Cut (Express will do, HD only if you really love digital editing)

As for camera equipment, hire it, borrow it, but never buy it.

Before you do that though, check out the funding possibilities. You may be able to get funding for your film projects, not only from New Zealand, but also from Commonwealth funding. As most funders require some form of matched funding you could use your $20,000 and double it up to $40,000 or even $80,000, just by spending some time now finding out how it all works.

In the meantime, spend your time developing scripts, working our what is is you want to shoot and only after you've decided on your projects, decide what to do about equipment.

What would concern me about doing it the other way round, is what if you buy a AG DVX100 or even a 16mm camera and then decide that you want to do a documentary style thriller, in low light conditions, which actually would be best shot on High Def, you'd be stuffed.

Different projects need different formats, so instead of tying up your money and also missing the match funding opportunities, hold back, do some research and hire in the equipment you need for each film.

Next, I've got to side with the don't buy anything except a good macintosh computer guys. Get Final Draft script writing software and Final Cut (Express will do, HD only if you really love digital editing)

I might be wrong here, but if you shoot 24p (DVX100/A), you won't be able to edit in 24p in Final Cut Express.

I might be wrong here, but if you shoot 24p (DVX100/A), you won't be able to edit in 24p in Final Cut Express.

You're probably right, but as I'd advised him not to buy a camera, that wouldn't be an issue. Final Cut Express is a good enough programme for cutting mini-DV or DV Cam. To edit a few short films, to get some experience that would be fine.

Anything beyond that, then home editing equipment shouldn't be an option for anything but a rough cut. I can't see the point in editing on a system that won't take the footage in at full resolution. Once you are making films that you want to sell or show at festival, at that point you have to be thinking about editing on a full Avid suite, just to control the quality.

The only reason I'd consider buying in Final Cut HD, is if I wanted someone to quickly cut together rushes whilst actually on a High Def shoot. Even then, it would only be to test sequences where I was trying something visually complicated and I had to be sure that it was in the can, before moving on.

I guess it's a different philosophy. I was brought up in the business with the basic idea that you hire in for productions and post production, shooting and editing on the best format/platform you can afford. That you don't buy, unless you can make money from renting it out to other filmmakers.

I've said this before, I like the Panasonic AG DVX 100, I use it scout locations. I like Final Cut Express, I use it for noodling around on, maybe about twice a year. However, if I didn't have either of those two tools, it would have almost no impact on my filmmaking.

However, if I didn't have Final Draft or my powerbook, I'd be in real trouble.


Like I say in most posts, it's about what kind of filmmaker you want to be. There is nothing wrong in buying low end format digital cameras and editing on your computer at home. It's great way to learn the basics.
However (despite 28 Days Later) there is very little evidence of camcorder movies making the break through into mainstream distribution. However, shooting on Super 16mm, yeap lots of cinema release films on that, lots of evidence of sales to TV or direct to DVD; Shooting on 35mm, well unless you make a dreadful movie, you'll probably get some form of distribution and the same of shooting on High Def.

What this means is that every filmmaker has to ask themselves why they are making films and what they want from it? If you want complete creative control, to shoot and edit yourself and have no immediate commercial aspirations then you are the kind of filmmaker who should shoot on the AG DVX100a and edit at home.

If, however, you are interested in moving onto bigger productions, making commercially viable features and making a living doing this thing then either you have to buy into Super 16mm or you forget buying a camera and hire in your equipment.

And, until the camera companies produce a camcorder that shoots High Definition in a true anamorphic 16:9 ratio, with the ability to shoot with a variety of professional lenses and a matt box, until you can capture the footage from that camera into a home computer a full 1:1 resolution, then that's the way it is likely to stay.

You're probably right, but as I'd advised him not to buy a camera, that wouldn't be an issue. Final Cut Express is a good enough programme for cutting mini-DV or DV Cam. To edit a few short films, to get some experience that would be fine.
If he wanted just a rough cut, then he could do it in iMovie, which would cost him nothing.

Anything beyond that, then home editing equipment shouldn't be an option for anything but a rough cut. I can't see the point in editing on a system that won't take the footage in at full resolution. Once you are making films that you want to sell or show at festival, at that point you have to be thinking about editing on a full Avid suite, just to control the quality.
And yet, feature films are being released all the time by the Majors having been cut on (Academy Award Winning) Final Cut Pro, not Avid.[/QUOTE]

Like I say in most posts, it's about what kind of filmmaker you want to be.
I think he indicated that he wants to be a self-taught student and to do that he needs to have some gear, including a camera.

....there is very little evidence of camcorder movies making the break through into mainstream distribution.
True, but there are quite a number being shown in film festivals around the world, large and small. Even the smallest festivals have provisions for DV projection. Producers from the Majors turn up at these shows to buy product AND to scout talent.

And, until the camera companies produce a camcorder that shoots High Definition in a true anamorphic 16:9 ratio, with the ability to shoot with a variety of professional lenses and a matt box, until you can capture the footage from that camera into a home computer a full 1:1 resolution, then that's the way it is likely to stay.
Several such cameras exist from Panasonic, JVC and others. They start in price at about $25,00 U.S. They are not uncommon here in the States for dramatic feature production by both film studios and television networks. For example, much of NBC's "The West Wing" is shot on HDV.

Here's what I did:

eMac G4 with superdrive $1400
FCP3 $1000
2 Lacie External drive 120 gig $240
Canon GL1 MiniDV $2400
Bolex 16mm $800
super8 camera $10

that's about $5850, so it leaves one with around $14K to feed actors, buy film/lights whatev. Or a new car.

Ensure that camera, emac and lacie all have firewire. most important, have fun.

Rogue Crew, you maybe right about the equipment issues, after all, low end formats aren't my area of expertise. Feel free to prove me wrong by making a massive hit feature film, shot on a $2,500 camcorder and edited entirely by you, at home, on the software version of Final Cut Pro HD.

However, my overall point is that you don't have to buy equipment to be an indie filmmaker, there are other ways of doing it and before investing $20,000 of hard earned money I think a person has the right to hear that.

Feel free to prove me wrong by making a massive hit feature film, shot on a $2,500 camcorder and edited entirely by you, at home, on the software version of Final Cut Pro HD.
Clive, by holding onto this idée fixe, you are missing the point that there are many, MANY other levels of filmmaking that are enjoyable and even profitable that don't require or result in a "massive hit feature film". I live in a small rural state with a disproportionately smaller community of filmmakers - no more than a couple of dozen. One member (self-taught) has become the Senior DP at the local Public Broadcast station. Another has made several features and his latest has gone straight to DVD at Blockbuster. He concedes that it has earned him something over $300,000 to date. I regularly correspond with forum members on similar websites, who have a number of Emmy awards and one Academy award between them. They're all pros and they all own DVX's or XL1S's or PD170's and they all come home from a long day at work and start making their own movies.

Why do they do it? Why do WE do it? Who knows? We're all crazy I guess. Crazy, but not necessarily stupid. Just before falling asleep a night, we may think of walking up that red carpet for our latest premiere, reading the glowing reviews in the Times, but we also know that it probably ain't gonna happen in spite of the Rodriguez/Tarantino success stories. We do it anyway for some proof to ourselves that our visions are sound; for some recognition from others of our small talents and for the chance, however small, that our work will be seen and remembered by thousands, if not millions.

If we "small" filmmakers had access to more experienced actors and more polished scripts, I guarantee you that Miramax would be knocking on more doors. Even knowledgeable film-goers are forgiving of the underlit scene, or less than great resolution of a film, if it's a story well told.

However, my overall point is that you don't have to buy equipment to be an indie filmmaker, there are other ways of doing it and before investing $20,000 of hard earned money I think a person has the right to hear that.
Of course there are other ways dear boy, and you've made that point repeatedly. But none are so exciting, so COMMITTED as putting your money where your heart is and just doing it.

I think Clive's main point was that that's not neccessarily the most economical way to do it if you plan on doing features...

wow i just did a search for what equipment to buy when just starting out and I didn't realize how expensive it is. I would love to have something to add to this topic but really I just have more questions. I have no budget. I can't afford the Panasonic AG-DVX100A camera that I keep hearing about. I can probably afford a camera $1000 and under. That's it. I edit on a PC with Adobe Premiere.

I really want to shoot music videos. And I feel I can't really get a start or get noticed without having at least SOME equipment. Most importantly a camera.

My aspirations would be to get some sort of decent camera and ask a band if I could make them a music video. I'd write a treatment and try to make the video more than just a performance video. Do it all for free. And try to get discovered. Try to be original and creative. Get a name for myself locally and hope that would lead to more work. But I don't have any money to start out. Would a $1000 camera even be worth it?

$20K can make a well shot short in 16mm. :)

That's my 2 cents.