The cost of film stock for a Super 16mm production

[beliefpictures]

Hey,

 

I am an amateur here (naturally). How much does 16mm film stock cost for a Super 16mm shoot? Do Super 16 camera uses standard 16mm film or do they use Super 16 stock (is there such thing).

 

I am in Canada and am wondering what it is going to cost me per 100 feet.

 

Chris

 

PS: What type do I need/speed? I am producing a girly, chick flick romance/drama.

[Landon D. Parks]

Do Super 16 camera uses standard 16mm film or do they use Super 16 stock (is there such thing).

No... Super 16 uses regulare 16mm stock. It just uses the sound track area of the regulare 16mm film.

 

 

* Sorry if the proportions are not right, but it gets the point across.

[Mister X]

For Super 16, you do need to use "single perf" 16mm film. Remember that Super 16 is not a projected format. You either reduce it to 16mm, (then why bother with Super 16), blow it up to 35mm, (very expensive), or telecine it to a video format, (then why not use a good DV camera). For amateur work, (without much budget for film and processing), which is not being shown theatrically, you may want to stick with the 16mm format.

 

With a projection speed of 24 frames per second, each minute on the screen would use of about 36 feet of 16mm film or about 90 feet of 35mm film. When blowing up Super 16 to 35mm, for each 100 feet of 16mm, you'll use about 250 feet of 35mm film.

 

Prices are going to vary, depending on what film stocks you plan to use. A fresh 100 foot roll of 16mm for black and white negative will cost about C$25, and for colour negative about C$50, (depending upon the vagaries of the exchange rate with the U.S. dollar, and not including shipping). You may find some savings with buying short-ends or re-cans, for a short film; but, if you are shooting a feature, would you want to risk using second-hand film stock of varied ages?

[Landon D. Parks]

I have worked with 16mm once. which was a 3 minute short I did back 2 or 3 years ago.

 

The Camera Operator always loaded the film, so I dont know what the difference in single and double perf is. But from what I have been reading, does anyone really shoot double perf 16mm? I thought they was really for Projection prints?

[Landon D. Parks]

or telecine it to a video format, (then why not use a good DV camera)

Becuase, Film is film. No matter if it is telecined or not. Film will always look more sharp and have better color and contrast than Digital.

 

Thats about like saying if your going to shoot a 35mm film and scan it to the computer for editing, why not just use HD?

 

Because film looks like film.

[beliefpictures]

Landon,

 

Give that I have done the math if 16mm colour negative is $50.00 CDN a roll @ 100 feet each then a 1 hour 20 minute feature at a shooting ratio would be over $5400.00 This does not include taxes or shipping.

 

That is more in film stock than a new Panasonic DVX-100a costs! Is it worth it? I was interested in Super 16 because of how much closer it looks to 35mill...

 

What would an Arri S16 cost me used? Is there anything else I should be considering?

 

What does it cost to develop and transfer from S16 to MiniDV?

 

Chris

[beliefpictures]

Landon,

 

Give that I have done the math if 16mm colour negative is $50.00 CDN a roll @ 100 feet each then a 1 hour 20 minute feature at a shooting ratio would be over $5400.00 This does not include taxes or shipping.

 

That is more in film stock than a new Panasonic DVX-100a costs! Is it worth it? I was interested in Super 16 because of how much closer it looks to 35mill...

 

What would an Arri S16 cost me used? Is there anything else I should be considering?

 

What does it cost to develop and transfer from S16 to MiniDV?

 

Chris

Sorry... forgot to include that I was using a shooting ratio of 4:1 as my method of calculation.

 

Chris

[beliefpictures]

Hey,

 

Another reason S16 appeals to me is it is closer to 16:9 that the 1.33:1 that standard 16mm uses and someone on this board says it fits into a 16:9 frame nicely in post production.

 

Chris

[Landon D. Parks]

Give that I have done the math if 16mm colour negative is $50.00 CDN a roll @ 100 feet each then a 1 hour 20 minute feature at a shooting ratio would be over $5400.00 This does not include taxes or shipping.

I find that hard to buy.... $50.00 for a 100' load? thats only 2 1/2 minutes of screen time.

 

So, $50 for 2 1/2 minutes? Dont think so, at least not where im from.

 

I figure new color 16mm stock to be about $.12/foot with about 2,100' in an hour. So lets do the math:

 

$.12/foot x 2,100': $252.00 US/ Hour of stock. so a shooting ratio of 4:1 would only cost you a little over $1,500.00... Not $5,000.00

 

Even NEW 35mm stock @ $.20/foot would only cost $800.00/hour of running time (3-perf)... That only comes to $4,000.00 or so with a shooting ratio of 4:1

 

If you dont believe me... go add it up on Kodaks film calculator:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...=0.1.4.24&lc=en

 

Another reason S16 appeals to me is it is closer to 16:9 that the 1.33:1 that standard 16mm uses and someone on this board says it fits into a 16:9 frame nicely in post production

You can also shoot with a 1:1.85 ground glass if you are going to theatrical release.

 

What does it cost to develop and transfer from S16 to MiniDV?

Probably $200 - $300 / hour of running time. Figure about getting actually 20 minutes of running time in a labor hour. So $200 or $300 x 3: $600 - $900.00 for every hour oh labor.

 

That is more in film stock than a new Panasonic DVX-100a costs!

Ok, a DVX 100 has 310,000 Pxels... a Super 16mm frame has about 2 1/2 - 3 million. Film will naturally look like film... so, yes its worth it. even if it was more to shoot film than to buy a DVX100.

 

I could be wronge about it all... but I dont think so

 

I think your going by the actual MSRP of the film... The place you buy the film from will work somthing out for you. With more and more productions turning to digital, the labs are always prepared to sell you the film at a great price. Don't go by MSRP.

 

P>S) A shooting ratio of 4:1 is not much....

[Landon D. Parks]

If your going to shoot Super 16mm film... go to www.clairmon.com and look at there Super 16mm camera rental prices.

 

It will be cheaper to rent a BRAND NEW, well taken care of Arri will run about $300.00/day x 3 days a week rental: $900.00 a week. not bad for a camera that is in good shape.

 

But heck, If you have an extra $2,000 dollars. why not go all out and try some 35mm shooting? I think thats what Im going to do. I'v never shot with the stuff before.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I find that hard to buy.... $50.00 for a 100' load? thats only 2 1/2 minutes of

> screen time.

 

400-foot rolls of 16 cost around £100 in the UK - that's around US$170 - for ten. Combine that with the fact that it will cost you four to six times that again to get it transferred and you have a very good reason why it's daft to shot film if you're only ever finishing on DV.

 

It is very easy to end up spending more on stock - in a single day - than it would cost to buy an entire miniDV outfit.

 

Phil

[Landon D. Parks]

$170.00 US for a 400' roll of Color 16mm film? I dont know where your buying your film. But I'd stop if I where you.

 

That would bring the "Per foot" cost to $0.40/foot... Why would I pay $0.40/foot when I can get 35mm for $0.20?

 

If your saying 10 minutes of running time costs $170.00 US (Which I think is what your saying), then for 1 hour of running time would be $1,020.00/hour. I got better Price quotes on Brand new 35mm film in 1,000' loads.

[Landon D. Parks]

Sure, shooting film WILL be more expensive in the long run than just going out and buying a $3,000 DVX100 and editing it on a home computer.

 

A 2 year old can figure that out. I mean, right now you have shooting ratio of 4:1 with $1,500 tied up in stock, $1,500 in the camera, $3,000.00 in Telecine and $2,000 to get a computer capable of handling HD scanned film (Avid, FCP HD, Ect.

 

and countless other fees to shoot film compared to just going out and buying a $3,000 ($1,000 - $2,000 on e-bay) DVX100.

 

a word of warning: You get what you pay for

[jasarsenault]

In canada, you are looking at 160 dollars (approx) for a 400 foot roll of color negative 16mm film. 7222 b/w is about half that, but no longer is available in 100 foot rolls. I recently bought 24 x 400 feet of 7222 and it only came to a little over 2300 with taxes. I believe if you order straight from Kodak they pay for shipping and they are quite quick. It only took one day to receive my film and I am on the coast.

Jason

[Landon D. Parks]

So, am I wronge here or what?

 

I mean I KNOW i got quoted $.20/foot for new 35mm... so your telling me 16mm cost 100% more than 35mm now?

 

P.S) The $.20/foot was quoted if I bought 30,000 foot or more also though. not for a single load.

[jasarsenault]

As for processing, developing, and transfer to minidv, check out command post and transfer website, as well as Black and White Film Factory website. Command Post is in Toronto, an I believe The Factory is too but not sure. I deal with Command Post, Also known as Alphacine, but I believe because Film Factory is a bit smaller they are also a bit cheaper.

Jason

[David Mullen ASC]

Landon, your illustration has the soundtrack on regular 16mm in the wrong position -- it goes on the outside of the frame where the sprocket holes would be on the right side.

 

Back when people shot double-perf 16mm, when sound came along in the late 20's, the question was where to put it. In 35mm, they shaved some of the picture area and put the soundtrack on the inside of the perfs. In 16mm, they decided to not lose picture area by dropping the perfs on one side and putting the soundtrack there. So while the negative was double-perf, the print stock was single perf.

 

Then the Super-16 format started using single-perf camera stock to extend the picture to the right edge where the soundtrack would have gone.

 

Most regular 16mm cameras can also use single-perf stock so this has become the norm.

[Landon D. Parks]

your illustration has the soundtrack on regular 16mm in the wrong position

Sorry...

[Rachel Oliver]

in kinda relation is there any reason why S16 would be more risky for light leakage on daylight spools compared to standard 16? I read somewhere that it is due to the larger image area but how so?

Thanks

Olly

[David Mullen ASC]

If you have any fogging problems with daylight spools, they are more likely to be along the edges, and the Super-16 image is very close to one edge of the film. The other problem is that film stocks are faster than they used to be -- daylight spools make more sense with the really slow-speed stocks.

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

Landon:

 

List price from Kodak on 16mm color film is in the neighborhood of .28 to .32 per foot, depending on the stock. 16mm B/W is .175 per foot. This is for brand new fresh factory sealed stock. You can get recans and shorts ends for half the price or a little bit more discounted.

 

If you were able to get factory sealed, fresh 35mm color stock for .20 per foot, please share with us what kind of stock and where we can get a great deal such as that. I am sure many would be interested in this info.

 

John G.

[Michael Most]

I mean I KNOW i got quoted $.20/foot for new 35mm... so your telling me 16mm cost 100% more than 35mm now?

The only step in a 35mm film production that will cost you .20 per foot is a daily print or a telecine transfer. Television programs, which can sometimes shoot 30,000 feet in only one day (multiple cameras in a courtroom, for instance) and who often shoot over 100,000 feet per episode (i.e., over 2 million feet in a season!) pay at least double that for raw stock, and that would be a very, very good price. Besides, the real cost of shooting 35mm on a per foot basis is more like .60 per foot (.45 for stock, .15 for development - you develop everything you shoot, even if it's not printed), and that's without creating dailies, which will cost at least .20 per foot regardless of whether they're film or video dailies.

[Landon D. Parks]

I was quoted this in an E-mail from Dr. Raw Stock. This is what the quoted me:

 

35mm Factory Sealed (Not Factory Fresh):

5289, 400' loads: $0.42 / foot

5289, 1000' loads: $0.38 / foot

5284, 400' loads: $0.32 / foot

 

5284, 1000' loads: $0.28 / foot = This is the stock I was refering too... I called them and Asked them if they could come down on the price of this any... and they quoted if I orded more than 30,000 feet they may be able to go as low as $.24/foot.

 

5246, 400' loads: $0.54 / foot

5246, 1000' loads: $0.52 / foot

5277, 400' loads: $0.52 / foot

5277, 1000' loads: $0.48 / foot

5245, 400' loads: $0.54 / foot

5245, 1000' loads: $0.50 / foot

5279, 400' loads: $0.52 / foot

5279, 1000' loads: $0.50 / foot

 

Even if they didnt come down, $.28 foot is still cheaper than what you guys are saying 16mm film is.

[Benjamin Treplin]

Double perf 2R is used on Photosonix Actionmaster 500 highspeed cameras.

[Landon D. Parks]

Double perf 2R is used on Photosonix Actionmaster 500 highspeed cameras.

What?

 

To: mmost;

 

I find that hard to beleive... so, shooting 2 million feet of film will run a production $4million huh?

 

Well, ole Georgy shot Ep 1 with 1 million feet or so, and was charged $500,000 for the stock after discounts from ordering so much of it. (I remember reading this on Peter Grays website).

 

So, 2 million feet would cost maybee $1 million... Not 4.

 

 

I also find it hard to beleive a TV movie shooting 30,000' a day.

 

But Im not a DP... So I dont know what stocks will work and what wont, what are discontinued, ect... I just know what I was quoted.

 

Im also not a film expert... So my advice should be taken with warning. I have ony delt with 16mm once. and never with 35mm... Im just going on what I was quoted and what I have learned so fare.