S8mm VS 16mm - cost

Peter Egan · July 17, 2006

Is it just my maths or is S8mm overall more expensive format than 16mm if developed and telecined by lab? :blink:

Kind of hard to believe... I'm thinking I might have my price info wrong - does anyone know exactly how much it costs to develop and telecine one cartridge in the UK?

Has anyone done side-by-side cost analysis between the two formats?

Cheers,

P.

Scot McPhie · July 17, 2006

Is it just my maths or is S8mm overall more expensive format than 16mm if developed and telecined by lab? :blink:
Kind of hard to believe... I'm thinking I might have my price info wrong - does anyone know exactly how much it costs to develop and telecine one cartridge in the UK?

Has anyone done side-by-side cost analysis between the two formats?

Cheers,

P.

It was discussed here - but the costs etc are all out of date

http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/...opic.php?t=2391

Scot

Andy_Alderslade · July 17, 2006

Is it just my maths or is S8mm overall more expensive format than 16mm if developed and telecined by lab? :blink:
Kind of hard to believe... I'm thinking I might have my price info wrong - does anyone know exactly how much it costs to develop and telecine one cartridge in the UK?

Has anyone done side-by-side cost analysis between the two formats?

Cheers,

P.

Yep... you're right. This is especially true in the UK, but when you think about it, its understandable.

Firstly super 8 is a specialised service, so less people provide it, so there is less competition to keep prices down. Secondly the telecine is as labour intensive, probably even more so as many super 8 shooters are probably less experienced than those using the bigger formats, also the processing is actually considerably more labour intensive as the lab operator has to drag out the film from the cartridge or break open the cartridge and build up all the short segments of film onto a large reel ready for processing.

Here some details and experiences including prices;

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...=14872&st=0

Personally I don't think i'll be shooting Super8 neg again, but will use reversal for learning on.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

Rachel Oliver · July 17, 2006

Yep... you're right. This is especially true in the UK, but when you think about it, its understandable.

Firstly super 8 is a specialised service, so less people provide it, so there is less competition to keep prices down. Secondly the telecine is as labour intensive, probably even more so as many super 8 shooters are probably less experienced than those using the bigger formats, also the processing is actually considerably more labour intensive as the lab operator has to drag out the film from the cartridge or break open the cartridge and build up all the short segments of film onto a large reel ready for processing.

Here some details and experiences including prices;

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...=14872&st=0

Personally I don't think i'll be shooting Super8 neg again, but will use reversal for learning on.

Hi;

Yup, super 8 neg in the UK is probably more expensive than 16. I, like Andy, also only really use it for reversal, I shoot S16mm for neg. S8 reversal has a whole "semi/pro" type web of services around it from various places, like the WideScreen-Centre, with lab and telecine connections. Reversal tends to work very well on the cheaper transfer machines like the Flashscan 8 and sniper, unlike neg. My philosophy is I'd rather shoot S8 reversal than DV for small projects and with an informed aproach it can look really good too.

Olly

Anthony Schilling · July 17, 2006

Based on my math and decent services for both, S8 usually comes out to be 40% cheaper with twice the running time.

Andy_Alderslade · July 17, 2006

Based on my math and decent services for both, S8 usually comes out to be 40% cheaper with twice the running time.

I really don't see how this is possible, can you explain where you got your figures from?

Edited July 17, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

Rachel Oliver · July 17, 2006

I really don't see how this is possible, can you explain where you got your figures from?

Hi;

Maybe in the States but not in the UK.

Olly

steve hyde · July 17, 2006

Based on my math and decent services for both, S8 usually comes out to be 40% cheaper with twice the running time.

yes, in the States it's cheaper. Super 8 is *about* 1/3 cheaper for stock and processing combined.

How? the raw film stock is 50% cheaper. Processing is about 14% cheaper than 16mm. Transfer costs the same if not more depending on how you do it..

For me it is about 1/3 cheaper here in Seattle.

Steve

Anthony Schilling · July 18, 2006

100ft 16mm neg $35, 50ft S8 $15. processing a tad more for 16mm. Even if a place offers the same rate for 16mm telecine, you still get twice the running time in S8... and the higher end places rates usually double for 16mm. your looking at at least 40% less $$ for the same running time in S8. NOW, how do you figure 16mm is cheaper than S8???

David Mullen ASC · July 18, 2006

100ft 16mm neg $35, 50ft S8 $15. processing a tad more for 16mm.

At least at Pro8mm, Super-8 color neg is $30 for a 50' cartridge.

And many telecine houses charge the same for Super-8, 16mm, or 35mm, but add a set-up fee for Super-8 in order to rent the Super-8 gate, unless you find a telecine place that has one.

Douglas Hunter · July 18, 2006

unless you find a telecine place that has one.

here in LA pro 8mm, Spectra, Yale, and Modern videofilm all have their own super 8 gates, who else am I missing?

Anthony Schilling · July 18, 2006

Flying Spot in Seattle has an S8 gate on the Shadow... probably the best machine doing S8 in the US, but the rate almost doubles for 16mm on the same scanner... The rate for 16mm @ Modern Digital is the same too with the Vialta... about $600 per hr, no S8 though. It seems that you are limited to a Rank for S8 prices on 16mm xfers, but your running time is still cut in half. No matter how you look at it, even if you go all out on an S8 route, 16mm will still be more costly on the same amount from a budget route.

David Mullen ASC · July 18, 2006

I'm not sure what you mean by running time cut in half. 10 minutes of footage is 10 minutes of footage no matter what the format is. Maybe you mean the footage count is cut in half, but most telecine places charge by the running time or telecine transfer time, not how many feet of film there are (exceptions tend to be places that do cheap video dailies on older Ranks.)

steve hyde · July 18, 2006

Flying Spot in Seattle has an S8 gate on the Shadow... probably the best machine doing S8 in the US, but the rate almost doubles for 16mm on the same scanner... The rate for 16mm @ Modern Digital is the same too with the Vialta... about $600 per hr, no S8 though. It seems that you are limited to a Rank for S8 prices on 16mm xfers, but your running time is still cut in half. No matter how you look at it, even if you go all out on an S8 route, 16mm will still be more costly on the same amount from a budget route.

Are you sure Eric charges double for 16mm? That is looney if he does... I am under the impression switching from super 8 to 16mm is relatively hassel-free when the Shadow is configured with the proper gates for each gauge...

Am I wrong about this? David - are you familiar with Thompson Shadow telecine systems? I'll ask Eric at FSFT tomorrow and report back..

Steve

Edited July 18, 2006 by steve hyde

steve hyde · July 18, 2006

Are you sure Eric charges double for 16mm? That is looney if he does... I am under the impression switching from super 8 to 16mm is relatively hassel-free when the Shadow is configured with the proper gates for each gauge...

Am I wrong about this? David - are you familiar with Thompson Shadow telecine systems? I'll ask Eric at FSFT tomorrow and report back..

Steve

...well I didn't get a chance to talk to Eric directly (the colorist at FSFT) but I did confirm that they do indeed charge more for 16mm. Looks like I'm using CinePost again..

Andy_Alderslade · July 18, 2006

I don't understand why people keep saying 'twice the running time'.

50' of super 8 = 2min30 @ 24fps

100' of 16mm = 2min45 @ 24fps

Now globaly 50' of super8 can work out to be 30-40% cheaper in both stock cost and procesing than 100' of 16mm but the running time remains approxiamtly the same. Proffesional telecine is never cheaper for super8 and can sometimes be more.

So super8 has the possiblity of being 30-40% cheaper for the same running time of 16mm.

But that is only if your in a location where there are plenty of services for it (i.e. not the UK), and there are many more freebies and offers in the world of 16mm.

Peter Egan · July 19, 2006

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Makes you wonder what's the driving force behind S8mm nowdays, seeing it's no longer the format of choice for home videos. I guess the main market for it is a small % of student filmmakers, and just how it manages to be profitable and stay alive just on the basis of that - eludes me.

It would be interesting to know Kodak's yearly profit from S8mm, if there is any at all :)

Mike Crane · July 19, 2006

Spectra offers both 16mm and super 8 film packages with processing and telecine on their web page. You should be able to use it as a rough reference for the cost differences: http://www.spectrafilmandvideo.com/Film.html Remember that they bundle only new filmstock with packages (unlike their compeditors).

steve hyde · July 19, 2006

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Makes you wonder what's the driving force behind S8mm nowdays, seeing it's no longer the format of choice for home videos. I guess the main market for it is a small % of student filmmakers, and just how it manages to be profitable and stay alive just on the basis of that - eludes me.

It would be interesting to know Kodak's yearly profit from S8mm, if there is any at all :)

Music Videos, weddings, student films, snowboarding etc. etc .. It's a niche market, but vibrant. The film stocks require millions of dollars of research. Packaging it is a minor expense - plus notices Kodak does zero advertising for it...

Steve

Anthony Schilling · July 19, 2006

Now globaly 50' of super8 can work out to be 30-40% cheaper in both stock cost and procesing than 100' of 16mm but the running time remains approxiamtly the same. Proffesional telecine is never cheaper for super8 and can sometimes be more.

So your saying that if a xfer house offers identical hourly rates for S8 and 16mm.. and they can transfer 800ft of S8 in an hour, for X amount of dollars... your bill would be the same if you give them 1600ft of 16mm?

David Mullen ASC · July 19, 2006

So your saying that if a xfer house offers identical hourly rates for S8 and 16mm.. and they can transfer 800ft of S8 in an hour, for X amount of dollars... your bill would be the same if you give them 1600ft of 16mm?

The footage amount doesn't matter -- it's the transfer time when played in real time. An hour of Super-8, 16mm, 35mm, 65mm... it's still an hour of footage to transfer. The fact that 35mm is physically longer doesn't mean it takes more time to run through the telecine than 16mm, let's say. 11 minutes of footage takes 11 minutes to play in real time no matter if it's 1000' in 35mm or 400' in 16mm - the only thing that adds time is color-correction time, syncing, etc.

You're paying mostly for the time it takes to transfer on certain equipment going to certain recorders. It shouldn't make a difference what film they thread into the telecine unless they have to take extra time to set-up for a format they don't normally have the machine set-up for, or if they have to rent a Super-8 gate, for example.

Otherwise, what you are paying for is the type of telecine (Rank Mk. III, Shadow, Spirit, etc.), the color-correction suite (DaVinci, Pogle, number of special features, etc.), the recorder it goes to (HD-D5, Digital Betacam, etc.) and the TIME of the colorist to do the work.

Only in some low-end video dailies companies do they charge by footage count.