Film processing

[Boz Uriel]

I am very aware that super 8 and 16 mm film looks a LOT better than DV or even HD. But DV certainly won't transfer to the big screen very well and HD may look decent, it's far from wonderful.

So my question is film processing. How much does it cost on average? How much to turn it digital so I can edit it on my NLE software? Or do I even want to consider doing that because it degrades the picture? How are you film users doing things in this Internet age?

I've never looked into it and advice from people who've been there would mean a lot to me. Thanks.

[Will Vincent]

Super 8 is roughly 10-12$ for the stock, and the same for processing, and the same again for transfer. So if you were to shoot at its native 18fps, it would cost you roughly $30 to $40 for every 3 minutes or so of footage.

This is all variable of course, depending on the film stock, and what lab(s) you use... you're basic premise here is flawed though... the resolution of super8 and 16mm fall far short of that of HD.

[dylan61]

Originally Posted by Will Vincent

you're basic premise here is flawed though... the resolution of super8 and 16mm fall far short of that of HD.

And, poorly shot film won't look better than well shot video. There's no magical format to shoot on. It's all very dependent on the knowledge and skill of the filmmakers. DV is a great way to sharpen your skills before sinking a bunch of money into a film project. DV and HD can look just fine when blown up on the big screen. "28 Days Later" and "Open Water" were both shot on mini-DV. They looked great. They also had another little thing going for them: a good story.

[Will Vincent]

Well.. that's debatable about open water...

Boz: I was just at a premiere on halloween and all the trailers and the feature had been shot on DV.. looked great on the big screen. I think the HD projector helped a bit.

[spinner]

...reading this made me wonder about something...

...does it make sense to transfer mini dv to HD? Since you will never be able to keep up with the technology, if you (I) just purchased a dvx, which isn't HD, does it make sense to transfer? I really like the footage that I got, but it's not HD and I don't see myself buying or being able to rent HD...

--spinner

[Will Vincent]

You don't need to transfer it. Nor did I or anyone else who had something play at the premiere on Halloween transfer anything, it was a projector that does HD, but all the footage was just DV burned onto dvd.

[paramvir]

uh-hh...another one of those film vs video debates!

the resolution of super8 and 16mm fall far short of that of HD

define resolution

films are made for the audiences and not for laboratory study.
however, as an artist, you should look at the tools available to you and see which one is best used to tell your story.

personally, I always prefer film. why?
- better exposure latitude (the ability to capture a wider range of brightnesses)
- better colour latitute : captures colour tones and gradations much better than video
- choice of frame speeds : practically ANY speed you want is available
- higher sensitivity to light (dv/hd is at best ASA 320. Kodak Vision 2 5218 is rated at ISO 500 and can be easily pushed 1 stop to get ISO 1000, and heck, I have even pushed it 2 stops to great effect! pushing causes grain, which, to me at least, look better than electronic noise through Gain)
- shoot in reverse : runa film camera in reverse to get some great effects (true, you can do this in POST, but certainly not in any DV/HD camera)
- multiple exposure : no digital camera, video or still, that I know of allows this. We have used this technique to create some startling effects at low cost.

unless you are shooting MiniDV/HDV, HD costs work out not too far cheaper than film. HD post is pretty expensive and where I live, HD Camera rental is almost twice that of an Arri 435.

I hate to see small designs/patterns in my Image jump from pixel-to-pixel on a digital image as you pan/dolly. Digital images are made of a grid of square pixels and if you look hard enough it can be pretty annoying to see thin diagonal or vertical lines travel across the screen.

all said, the newer generation of people are USED to seeing/hearing Digital. For most of the time the image quality is inferior, but thats what the generation is used to seeing as they grow up and soon such images are fast becoming the standard. use whatver medium makes you feel artistically satisfied, and of course, financially viable. but make sure you know what each medium stands for.

[oakstreetphotovideo]

Wow, paramvir! That was quite a rant. I agree with a few of your points, but some of them are just silly. I can do, not just double exposure, but just about as many layers of digital video I can imagine, using a compositing tool.

What's wrong with reversing action in post? It seems to me, as seldom as I find a need for things like that, whether it's done in camera, or in post, is not a big deal.

I agree that you can push 35mm film, but I surely wouldn't want to look at a movie shot on ASA 1000 8mm.

Some HD formats shoot with 10 bits per color channel (30 bpp), which makes the color latitude indiscernible from an analog image.

The exposure latitude of film is great. More importantly is the way it falls off at the extremes, rather than just clipping. However, I do not accept, for one minute, that the cost of shooting film; especially 35mm is about equivalent to shooting HD digital.

I don't want to have this argument [again]. This will be my last post on this matter. Even if you attack my character, I will not respond. It's not personal, but this argument has been rehashed so many times I've lost count. What's even more disconcerting is that I've argued both sides of this. I love film, the look and quality of film. I was a professional photographer and darkroom technician, so I know what film is capable of. I also know, however, that some of the producers I've worked with have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars shooting on high end HD, and I cannot find a single problem with the footage that would detract from the final product.

p.s. I watch most movies on DVD, and they are 24bpp, digital representations of their analog originals, with all of the limitations of a broadcast quality digital format. I find the DVD versions to be just as entertaining.

Ok, I'm done.

[directorik]

Originally Posted by Boz Uriel

I am very aware that super 8 and 16 mm film looks a LOT better than DV or even HD. But DV certainly won't transfer to the big screen very well and HD may look decent, it's far from wonderful.

So my question is film processing. How much does it cost on average? How much to turn it digital so I can edit it on my NLE software? Or do I even want to consider doing that because it degrades the picture? How are you film users doing things in this Internet age?

I'll try to get back on track. Of course you want to consider shooting 16mm. You should consider all your options. And there are many, many options.

16mm processing is usually .15 per foot. Prep for Telecine: $50/hr. Telecine: $200 to $300/hr. This is lab time, NOT running time.

I just finished a feature shot on 16mm for the DTV market. I have also shot on video (miniDV, DigiBeta, DVCPRO HD). I don't have the figures in front of me, but I think we were sending about 50 minutes of 16mm film to the lab each day - 1,800 feet. The lab costs (FotoKem in Los Angeles) were about $3,300 per day for dailies. That included the transfer to digibeta with a miniDV master made at the same time. So for the 24 day shoot we're looking at around $80,000 for processing and transfer to video.

Film users in the Internet age? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Us film users haven't changed much in the internet age. The internet has helped in getting the word out about the finished project, but it really hasn't had much effect on the use of film. Each project is different. Often the use of video is purely a cost factor. It can make the difference between being able to afford to make a movie or just dreaming about making one.

[knightly]

cost comparison (nothing else). We had about a 24 day (total) shoot for the feature I'm currently editing. 47 hours (2820 minutes) of footage: total cost - <$200 (Just tape stock cost, ingestion was free for me).

[sonnyboo]

Originally Posted by Boz Uriel

I am very aware that super 8 and 16 mm film looks a LOT better than DV or even HD.

That's purely a preferential statement, not a fact. I love film, but I also like HD and even Mini DV's look. Also, technically, 16mm film DOES have a much higher resolution than HD, but there are other factors like the size of the film grain, exposure, etc. The newer Kodak Vision2 filmstocks are pretty robust and rival 35mm of less than 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by Boz Uriel

How much does it cost on average?

Film costs around $.40-$.50 per foot for 35mm film, and $.33-$.48 per foot for 16mm, then developing costs are anywhere from $.15-$.30 per foot, depending on your negotiating skills and the needs of the lab/seller of film. This is not taking into account short ends or student discounts, etc.

Originally Posted by Boz Uriel

How much to turn it digital so I can edit it on my NLE software?

This is in reference to the TELECINE process of getting film scanned to video with a 3:2 pulldown. Again, it can cost anywhere from $200 an hour to $800 an hour depending on the post house & how nice/new their telecine machine is, plus what formats you want to transfer to. * FYI - that's not for an hour's worth of footage, that's for an hour's worth of TIME on the machine. Depending on how different each shot is on the same roll of film will determine how much work the COLORIST will have to do to manually calibrate each shot for the transfer.

Originally Posted by Boz Uriel

Or do I even want to consider doing that because it degrades the picture? How are you film users doing things in this Internet age?

Sure. Even the biggest of big films do this "degrading", which is just editing in a format your computer can handle, and do what is called an OFFLINE edit on DV resolution. What is commonly done is that your film is transferred to video with EDGECODE numbers on screen and then it's put on a tape (even DV) format that you can edit in your NLE software with. After you edit as you have learned to in the computer, you output an EDL (Edit Decision List) which is a computer file with the roadmap to editing the physical film to match (also called CONFORMING) your computer edit.

That's how it's being done even today. Even George Lucas doesn't do his editing on actual HD, that's done as an ONLINE edit after the OFFLINE in standard def.

[paramvir]

Even if you attack my character, I will not respond.

Oakstreetphotovideo: Of course I wont attack your character! I myself am shooting a feature on HDV mid-january. I am only comparing.

in fact Superman Returns was shot on Panavision Genesis and what a wonderful job!

its like oils and water colour and acrylic etc. whatever suits you. at the end of it all, we are in this because we love shooting!

[sonnyboo]

Originally Posted by paramvir

in fact Superman Returns was shot on Panavision Genesis and what a wonderful job!

So was APOCOLYPTO, and MIAMA VICE & the upcoming ZODIAC were also shot HD (these were Grass Valley VIPER cameras)...

This Genesis Camera is taking Hollywood over in many ways. I had no idea APOCOLYTPO was HD...I found out several days later after seeing it. It never entered my mind.

[HailtotheKing]

Wish I would have seen this topic sooner, but if you are a student you can get discounts at different places. I know Kodak has student discounts. Hope that helps alittle.