35mm: Cost?
- Thread starter ilmagic88
- Start date
One Hour of 35mm Kodak Film: $2900
16mm Kodak Film: $1600
And that's unprocessed. Plan on spending arond .12 per foot.
There are always deals to be had on film so you can do it cheaper. Go to my site www.scottspears.net
and click on the Filmmaking Page. There's an article on Buying Short Ends which is a great way to save money on film.
Scott
16mm Kodak Film: $1600
And that's unprocessed. Plan on spending arond .12 per foot.
There are always deals to be had on film so you can do it cheaper. Go to my site www.scottspears.net
and click on the Filmmaking Page. There's an article on Buying Short Ends which is a great way to save money on film.
Scott
Don't shoot on film. FILM IS DEAD as far as low budget indi features go! It puts you $250,000 in the hole for a 90 min feature. Hi-def Panasonic Varicam or better is the only way to go. The bottom line is making money here. Most movies go straight to DVD anyway. You can make $750,000 with a horror, comedy or urban movie just going straight to DVD. With that kind of margin why spend an extra 1/4 million??? Bump it up to film if it actually makes it into theaters.
Hi Def is good but at the moment not always readily available. In the UK it's quite difficult to find hire companies with complete kits! Getting there tho!
Shot Renegade said:
Move to LA. There's a few rental companies with Varicams. There's DP's with Varicams too. I guarantee you there's SOMEBODY in the UK with a Varicam or the 1/4 million dollar Sony. Put up an ad on CraigsList.com if it's still free to use the site in the UK.
Thanks for the advice Blade.
I totally agree- why bother with Film?
I am asking because a friend of mine is starting production on his film and I am the executive producer and he's trying to shoot on film for the first time.
I'd like to go HD but due to cost I might go with an new Canon XL2 instead.
I can get a nice lens for it, or maybe rent a 35mm lens since it accepts those.
I totally agree- why bother with Film?
I am asking because a friend of mine is starting production on his film and I am the executive producer and he's trying to shoot on film for the first time.
I'd like to go HD but due to cost I might go with an new Canon XL2 instead.
I can get a nice lens for it, or maybe rent a 35mm lens since it accepts those.
Why go film?
Because the people who buy your finished movie, distributors, still want film product over video, even Hi-Def. Hi-Def is making inroads, but film is still king. Film is not dead. Just look at the Indie movies (not documentaries) that make it to the theatres and youll see that film dominates by a 10 to 1 margin. I'd say it has at least ten years of life left in it.
35mm camera package are in general cheaper than HD. A film out from HD or DV will cost about twice what a print will cost.
That said, if you're just starting out and have minimum funds, then DV and Hi-Def is a viable option. I say use what you have at hand to make the best movie. Get the best talent, crew and script possible and if it's good, it will sell. The problem is that the majority of video movies aren't very good, but that's true of most film projects too. DV and HD just make it cheaper and you end up losing less money.
Scott
Because the people who buy your finished movie, distributors, still want film product over video, even Hi-Def. Hi-Def is making inroads, but film is still king. Film is not dead. Just look at the Indie movies (not documentaries) that make it to the theatres and youll see that film dominates by a 10 to 1 margin. I'd say it has at least ten years of life left in it.
35mm camera package are in general cheaper than HD. A film out from HD or DV will cost about twice what a print will cost.
That said, if you're just starting out and have minimum funds, then DV and Hi-Def is a viable option. I say use what you have at hand to make the best movie. Get the best talent, crew and script possible and if it's good, it will sell. The problem is that the majority of video movies aren't very good, but that's true of most film projects too. DV and HD just make it cheaper and you end up losing less money.
Scott
Hi Guys, as you know I'm based in the UK.
My company is in the process of acquiring a Hi-Def camera kit, we're still negotiating so I can't say which we are going with.
However, in the meantime we can not only get hold of a camera without any problems, Panasonic or Sony, we've also got three years experience of working with the format and have Pinewood trained Hi-Def DOP.
We've also got incredible connections for Hi-Def post production, with a new Avid Adrenaline we can source as soon as they are launched here in the New Year.
If you want to shot on High Def in the UK, contact us and we'll sort you out.
My company is in the process of acquiring a Hi-Def camera kit, we're still negotiating so I can't say which we are going with.
However, in the meantime we can not only get hold of a camera without any problems, Panasonic or Sony, we've also got three years experience of working with the format and have Pinewood trained Hi-Def DOP.
We've also got incredible connections for Hi-Def post production, with a new Avid Adrenaline we can source as soon as they are launched here in the New Year.
If you want to shot on High Def in the UK, contact us and we'll sort you out.
scottspears said:
That is not completely true about what buyers are looking for. The main thing they want is some name talent. They also want horror, urban or comedy genre. They want lighting that was done RIGHT. They want to hear a pro job of sound too. The warm "look" of film is not a requirement. If your film is going straight to DVD then why deal with the huge extra cost? You gotta keep your budget to between 300,000 and 500,000 to make money.
Camera package cost is just the tip of the iceberg! A feature done on 35 mm will cost you about $250,000 in film stock, telecine, processing, extra crew, extra lights & power, extra days to shoot because of extra time to light. A 46 minute digital tape is $78.00.
What distributors want...
I actually have a friend who works in distribution...
He's told me on a number of occasions that for their company, it breaks down like this...
Films shot on film (whether 16mm/Super16/35mm) normally go to the top of the heap of films screened due to the fact that based purely on numbers, the percentage of films shot on film are usually better than those shot on MiniDV or DV.
In other words film is still taken a bit more seriously because the percentages are better that the filmmaker(s) did their homework over the DV/MiniDV film.
Having said that...
He's also told me that DV/MiniDV is catching up FAST! They still get a lot of crappy DV/MiniDV films but more and more are being made well.
The most important thing he tells me (strictly for their company mind you) is the story. Is it something that we want to see? If it's something that's already been done, you need to do it a whole lot better to get distribution... Of course they would prefer a name actor or two but he tells me that this is not their number one priority when selecting films to distribute. They want a great story first and foremost. Then great acting, great directing, great cinematography, and of course editing.
He says that his company is always on the lookout for the next great director anyway hence, the reason they look at so many films... But they do screen films on film first...
He says the biggest problem they have with Indie films is the story/screenplay. Many films are shot well, acted well enough, and look okay but the premise of the film sucks. The stories are shallow or copy too many other known films. He would rather see something new even if it's the same old story... Tell it in a different way... One that grabs the audience and you will get distribution.
When I asked him about what other filmmakers have told me about doing horror flicks, urban flicks, etc., he told me to watch getting known for films like that unless that's all you ever want to do...
So don't despair, just make a great film...
filmy
I actually have a friend who works in distribution...
He's told me on a number of occasions that for their company, it breaks down like this...
Films shot on film (whether 16mm/Super16/35mm) normally go to the top of the heap of films screened due to the fact that based purely on numbers, the percentage of films shot on film are usually better than those shot on MiniDV or DV.
In other words film is still taken a bit more seriously because the percentages are better that the filmmaker(s) did their homework over the DV/MiniDV film.
Having said that...
He's also told me that DV/MiniDV is catching up FAST! They still get a lot of crappy DV/MiniDV films but more and more are being made well.
The most important thing he tells me (strictly for their company mind you) is the story. Is it something that we want to see? If it's something that's already been done, you need to do it a whole lot better to get distribution... Of course they would prefer a name actor or two but he tells me that this is not their number one priority when selecting films to distribute. They want a great story first and foremost. Then great acting, great directing, great cinematography, and of course editing.
He says that his company is always on the lookout for the next great director anyway hence, the reason they look at so many films... But they do screen films on film first...
He says the biggest problem they have with Indie films is the story/screenplay. Many films are shot well, acted well enough, and look okay but the premise of the film sucks. The stories are shallow or copy too many other known films. He would rather see something new even if it's the same old story... Tell it in a different way... One that grabs the audience and you will get distribution.
When I asked him about what other filmmakers have told me about doing horror flicks, urban flicks, etc., he told me to watch getting known for films like that unless that's all you ever want to do...
So don't despair, just make a great film...
filmy
FilmJumper said:
It's gotta be Panasonic Varicam quality or better. With accessories the Varicam is like $120,000.00 Even the $26,000 Panasonic camera doesn't cut it. It pixelates.
Of course when shooting with Hi-Def you have to try to avoid certain camera moves to avoid the video look.
Like I said...
Like I said in my post... The friend I have says that as long as the film is a great film and technically sound, they don't care what it originates on...
By the way, I saw "Tortilla Soup" on the big screen (shot with the SDX-900) and I didn't see any pixels... In fact, I had no idea it was shot on video until after I saw it...
filmy
Blade_Jones said:
Like I said in my post... The friend I have says that as long as the film is a great film and technically sound, they don't care what it originates on...
By the way, I saw "Tortilla Soup" on the big screen (shot with the SDX-900) and I didn't see any pixels... In fact, I had no idea it was shot on video until after I saw it...
filmy
Can anyone suggest any idie films to check out... as in ones that were made for less than $500,000 that earned 3/4 mil to 1.5 mil. I'm curious as to the look of some of these.
Open Water
Open Water is still in some theaters... Made on MiniDV for $130K sold for 2.5 Million I think... So far it's made over 24 million at the box office...
filmy
Blade_Jones said:
Open Water is still in some theaters... Made on MiniDV for $130K sold for 2.5 Million I think... So far it's made over 24 million at the box office...
filmy
Yes, here is an "Open Waters" post from earlier, with some loose details. << here >>
However, I'm not sure what Mr Blade_Jones actual recent question was.
I'm thinking that it was to name some indie-films made on actual film, within his quoted budget brackets.
However, I'm not sure what Mr Blade_Jones actual recent question was.
I'm thinking that it was to name some indie-films made on actual film, within his quoted budget brackets.
Film snuffing out in about ten years or dead already? What if Monet, Degas, Munch, Picasso, Klee, etc. decided that because silver halides clump together to compose a picture that their choice of 'clumping medium' (pigment) was obsolete. What would 'The Scream' or 'Guernica' look like as a photo document? As the old theorum states, 'nothing is lost, just transformed' and that, to me, is the artist's job, to transform their chosen medium-be it paint, FILM, video, clay, etc. If your only consideration is to get something to sell then,certainly , pursue the cheapest way. But on the other hand, if you actually want a work to say something about YOU, (I'm not talking about your resume) show us what you can do with your (any) medium which makes us say, 'that's the ONLY way it could/should have been done'.
I think everyone knows already that I'm a big fan of High Def and that for all kinds of reasons I think High Def is one of the most exciting things to happen to indie film making since the first lightweight 16mm cameras were developed in the 1930's.
However, that said, High Def is a creative choice or as is more often the case, a budget choice.
Film isn't dead and it's unlikely too as a medium, because it has unique visual qualities. Given a big enough budget, 35 mm Film is going to out perform High Def; given a tight budget, it often works the other way round.
What makes High Def interesting is that it is the first digital format that can stand up to a full size cinema screening, without the picture falling apart. So, if a cinema distribution is on your wish list, but you have a small budget, High Def is a good choice.
The other factor that makes High Def a good choice is that the High Def TV market is just about to boom and as it current stands, distributors are taking a keen interest in any High Def product. However, that said there is a lot of mis-information out there about High Def and it's worth doing some serious research. For instance, although Final Cut Pro HD, can edit High Def footage, it can't take the image in at full resolution. The only way to do that is to purchase a High Def video capture card, current retail price £15,000.
I think the thing to remember is that although format is important, it's not as important as what you do with it. Script is more important than format, as is performance, as are basic production values and good sound. In fact, more important than all of these, is understanding where your film belongs in the marketplace and the rules that buyers apply.
However, that said, High Def is a creative choice or as is more often the case, a budget choice.
Film isn't dead and it's unlikely too as a medium, because it has unique visual qualities. Given a big enough budget, 35 mm Film is going to out perform High Def; given a tight budget, it often works the other way round.
What makes High Def interesting is that it is the first digital format that can stand up to a full size cinema screening, without the picture falling apart. So, if a cinema distribution is on your wish list, but you have a small budget, High Def is a good choice.
The other factor that makes High Def a good choice is that the High Def TV market is just about to boom and as it current stands, distributors are taking a keen interest in any High Def product. However, that said there is a lot of mis-information out there about High Def and it's worth doing some serious research. For instance, although Final Cut Pro HD, can edit High Def footage, it can't take the image in at full resolution. The only way to do that is to purchase a High Def video capture card, current retail price £15,000.
I think the thing to remember is that although format is important, it's not as important as what you do with it. Script is more important than format, as is performance, as are basic production values and good sound. In fact, more important than all of these, is understanding where your film belongs in the marketplace and the rules that buyers apply.
Film won't be dead in ten years and probably be around for 50 years, but I think it will not be the predominate medium for the entertainment programing we watch. I love film and am a film die hard. (Ask my friends.) I think HD is an interesting format and you can use it to make some great work, but on the a purely technical level of resolution 35mm film is better than HD. What drives me crazy is that I feel HD is being shoved down our throats by manufacturors and cheap producers who have bought the hype that it is better than film, but really the only reason they've use it is because it cheaper. I saw "Collateral" and was very impressed by the look that was acheived, but there was still some nasty motion smear which bothers me.
Finally I'll say, if yu don't know what you're doing, you can make just about any format look like crap and on the inverse, if you have the time and expertise, you can make most formats very good looking. (Ok. maybe not pixel vision.)
Scott
Finally I'll say, if yu don't know what you're doing, you can make just about any format look like crap and on the inverse, if you have the time and expertise, you can make most formats very good looking. (Ok. maybe not pixel vision.)
Scott
I agree with Scott, I think far too many people pick HD as a cheap substitute for film.
I'm really looking forward to the time it becomes just another creative choice.
One of the things that concerns me about the change over to video as the film industry's primary profesional production tool, is that I was working in the sound recording industry when it went from expensive analogue formats into cheap digital, about ten years ago.
If I listen to my showreel, there is a marked downturn in overall quality of recording, post digital. This is using the same sound engineers and studios I'd always used. Personally I think it had to do with the way that digital speeded the process up. An engineer could do four or five times the amount of work per day and the equipment was more forgiving than the older analogue systems, so all around less care was taken.
Not only that, a few years into the process a lot of the old expensive enginners got replaced, with kids fresh from college, who were cheaper. You could do that with the new equipment and still just about maintain broadcast quality.
I see the same thing happening to the UK TV industry now, too much stuff shot on low format cameras, by camera ops who have been trained to leave the camera on auto. The costs of production are being driven down and with it standards.
I sincerly hope that Hi-Def isn't going to do to cinema, what DVCAM has done to the TV industry.
I'm really looking forward to the time it becomes just another creative choice.
One of the things that concerns me about the change over to video as the film industry's primary profesional production tool, is that I was working in the sound recording industry when it went from expensive analogue formats into cheap digital, about ten years ago.
If I listen to my showreel, there is a marked downturn in overall quality of recording, post digital. This is using the same sound engineers and studios I'd always used. Personally I think it had to do with the way that digital speeded the process up. An engineer could do four or five times the amount of work per day and the equipment was more forgiving than the older analogue systems, so all around less care was taken.
Not only that, a few years into the process a lot of the old expensive enginners got replaced, with kids fresh from college, who were cheaper. You could do that with the new equipment and still just about maintain broadcast quality.
I see the same thing happening to the UK TV industry now, too much stuff shot on low format cameras, by camera ops who have been trained to leave the camera on auto. The costs of production are being driven down and with it standards.
I sincerly hope that Hi-Def isn't going to do to cinema, what DVCAM has done to the TV industry.
When you consider that most films lose money and when you consider that most filmmakers are REALISTICALLY aiming to go straight to DVD, you can't ignore the enormous costs of film. $250,000 is a lot of money to gamble in the name of "art". Money doesn't grow on trees.