Price Comparisons between Super-8 & 16mm.

Alessandro Machi · March 17, 2007

This isn't a topic post about why one format is preferable to another, it's about identifying the true cost differences between Super-8 and 16mm. Anybody want to help with a definitive cost comparison between Super-8 and 16mm?

Are the film stock and processing prices identical between super-8 and 16mm as some claim? Are there some scenarios where the film stock prices are identical and other scenarios were there is a huge difference? Most Super-8 labs offer film packages where if one buys the Super-8 film stock, processing and transfer from them they get a discount. Surely those film packages will be much cheaper than 16mm, no? Or are there identical 16mm film packages as well?

For instance, if I only wanted to shoot two super-8 cartridges, I think I would be around 140-160 bucks for stock, processing and transfer. Plus, my two cartridges could be two entirely different film stocks, one could be black and white reversal, the other color negative, with no additional minimum charges incurred. With 16mm, wouldn't I be facing two film processing minimums for two small orders of 16mm if the film stocks do not use the same processing soup? In Super-8, that would not happen, no?

I also might just shoot at 18 frames per second in Super-8 giving me 6 minutes and forty seconds of footage rather than the five minutes I would get if I shot at 24 frames per second. Do all 16mm cameras offer 18 frames per second?

Also, I have to factor in the rental of additional 16mm film magazines so that I always have film ready to go, don't I? I once was rented an additional 16mm magazine that one person behind the rental counter said would not work, the other person said it would work and overruled the first person. The magazine ended up not working for the exact reason the first person had cited, the camera would not maintain a "loop" during operation with that particular film magazine.

The other issue to consider, what about purchasing extra film stock? Isn't it cheaper and more convenient to "stash" extra Super-8 film cartridges in a variety of different film stocks for a shoot and have them ready to go whereas in 16mm low budget work carrying one or two extra film cans in several different film stocks can create a serious cost issue, no?

On the reverse side, one can argue that 16mm recans may not have any more dirt and dust than is found on new Super-8 film stock, so it is ok to compare 16mm recans to new Super-8 stock, is that a valid point as well? (I'm trying to be balanced here). Also, there is no super-8 guarantee that any footage shot will be clean enough or dust free enough (meaning zero tolerance on all the footage) whereas in 16mm the image in general will have much less noticeable dust and dirt on it.

Mark Lyon IMPOSTOR · March 23, 2007

Let's say you're comparing the format prices for a job (vs. personal work). With that in mind, I'm going to compare prices based on new stock (not recans or short ends) and I'm also going to factor in the lowest cost of a good-quality transfer (spirit to HD).

With those assumptions, here's what you're looking at to shoot about 1/2 hour of film:

35mm 4-perf:

2500' of film=28 minutes

$1500 for stock+$325 for process+$925 for transfer=$2,751, or about $99/minute

35mm 3-perf:

2083' of film=28 minutes

$1250 for stock+$275 for process+$925 for transfer=$2,451, or about $88/minute

Super 16:

1000' of film=28 minutes

$400 for stock+$145 for process+$925 for transfer=$1,471, or about $53/minute

Super 8:

560' of film=28 minutes

$363 for stock and processing+$925 for transfer=$1,289, or about $46/minute

Notes: it's of course possible to get cheaper rates on these things (I based telecine on $400/hour and a 4:1 ratio), but this comparison is pretty much a level playing field.

Also, I based my Super8 costs on a 12-pack of kodak negative film with processing included.

Best of luck to you--

Mark

John Hyde · March 24, 2007

Another direct comparison with good quality SD (standard def) transfer and fresh Kodak film can be seen here:

24 rolls new Kodak super 8 film w/ processing, prep and transfer to BetaSP or MiniDV (60 min) = 1259.00

OR

2000' new Kodak super 16 film w/ processing, prep and transfer to BetaSP or MiniDV (55 min) = 1595.00

Difference in cost is $336.00 or less than 25%

Comparisons between 16mm and super 8 cost can be figured from prepared film packages on Spectra's film page.

Terry Mester · March 24, 2007

On the reverse side, one can argue that 16mm recans may not have any more dirt and dust than is found on new Super-8 film stock, so it is ok to compare 16mm recans to new Super-8 stock, is that a valid point as well? (I'm trying to be balanced here). Also, there is no super-8 guarantee that any footage shot will be clean enough or dust free enough (meaning zero tolerance on all the footage) whereas in 16mm the image in general will have much less noticeable dust and dirt on it.

Alessandro, when you talk about dust and dirt, are you including Kodak S8 Carts, or just Pro8mm and Spectra? How would you compare dust problems between Pro8mm, Spectra and Kodak?

For prices, have you ever enquired of Kodak's Qualex Photofinishing? Their # is 1-800-315-9901. I don't think you'll find better prices or quality. Additionally, you just drop your films off at Wal-Mart, and so you also save on no postal fees (with Pro8mm & Spectra).

35mm 4-perf:
2500' of film=28 minutes

$1500 for stock+$325 for process+$925 for transfer=$2,751, or about $99/minute

35mm 3-perf:

2083' of film=28 minutes

$1250 for stock+$275 for process+$925 for transfer=$2,451, or about $88/minute

Mark, why haven't you used 1875 feet for Film length for 35mm 3-perforation?

Bernhard Zitz · March 24, 2007

The main difference between my S8-workflow and my 16mm-workflow are the transfercosts...

S8 to SD uncompressed on harddrive with flashscan8 3.5$/min

16mm to SD uncompressed on harddrive with spirit 21$/min

maybe it's a bit stupid to compare a spirit to a flashscan but I think the flashscan is good enough for S8, and it's six times cheaper, so that's fine for me...

cheers, Bernhard

Alessandro Machi · March 24, 2007

Mark, thanks for taking the time to do that!

------------------------------------------------------------

Notes: it's of course possible to get cheaper rates on these things (I based telecine on $400/hour and a 4:1 ratio), but this comparison is pretty much a level playing field.
Mark

The main difference between my S8-workflow and my 16mm-workflow are the transfercosts...

S8 to SD uncompressed on harddrive with flashscan8 3.5$/min

16mm to SD uncompressed on harddrive with spirit 21$/min

maybe it's a bit stupid to compare a spirit to a flashscan but I think the flashscan is good enough for S8, and it's six times cheaper, so that's fine for me...

cheers, Bernhard

Based on the above two comments, I wanted to repost Marks data without the actual transfer to video costs. Super-8 transfer costs have possibly shifted more dramatically in recent years because of all the various ways one can transfer Super-8. Since most Super-8 work is probably not going to HD at this time II think top notch non-HD Super-8 transfers via a rank can be had in the 175-275 dollar an hour range and as Bernhard points out there probably are other options as well even cheaper.

So here are the straight film cost comparisons based on 28 minutes of film with processing but no transfer costs...

compare prices based on new stock (not recans or short ends) with processing...

....here's what you're looking at to shoot about 1/2 hour of film stock and processing only....

35mm 4-perf:

2500' of film=28 minutes

$1500 for stock+$325 for process = $1,825.00 = $65.18 per minute

35mm 3-perf:

2083' of film=28 minutes

$1250 for stock+$275 for process = $1,525.00 = $54.46 per minute

Super 16:

1000' of film=28 minutes

$400 for stock+$145 for process = $545.00 = $19.46 per minute

Super 8:

560' of film=28 minutes

$363 for stock and processing = $363.00 = $12.96 per minute

The Super-16 quote might be somewhat different if a thousand foot mag doesn't work on every Super-16mm camera, thereby forcing one to go with a four hundred footer instead. If one's goal is to shoot different film stocks and have a back up of each film stock, that would require that the Super-16mm stock be 100 or 200 foot loads instead.

Alessandro Machi · March 24, 2007

Alessandro, when you talk about dust and dirt, are you including Kodak S8 Carts, or just Pro8mm and Spectra? How would you compare dust problems between Pro8mm, Spectra and Kodak?
For prices, have you ever enquired of Kodak's Qualex Photofinishing? Their # is 1-800-315-9901. I don't think you'll find better prices or quality. Additionally, you just drop your films off at Wal-Mart, and so you also save on no postal fees (with Pro8mm & Spectra).

I consider the Spectra and Kodak cartridges to be on par with each other, I don't know about Pro-8mm's.

The shoot I recently did we were swapping out Super-8 cartridges all day long and the cartridges were left in an open faced half egg crate, (but usually back in their own original open box) so it's possible that we added some dust to the overall image from all the film swapping we did. It wasn't a ton of dust but I definitely noticed some type of a minimal dust particle every 5-10 seconds, but I've been told by various clients that I notice tiny defects that they never see the first time or two.

If your goal is zero dust and dirt defects than I doubt the super-8 negative stocks will deliver that. However, they do provide far more latitude than the reversal stocks so it's a trade off. Most of the specks could probably be easily taken out with certain NLE software that would sample the frame before or after and replace the offending spec or dust particle.

Robert Houllahan · March 24, 2007

If your goal is zero dust and dirt defects than I doubt the super-8 negative stocks will deliver that. However, they do provide far more latitude than the reversal stocks so it's a trade off. Most of the specks could probably be easily taken out with certain NLE software

Dust introduced into the camera while being shot will show up in the film image only if it is in the gate of the camera. When the film is processed any dust particles will be knocked off the film once the film goes into the developer tank with it's strong turbulation. Dust from the camera gate (when shooting negative) will show up in the picture as black. Dust in telecine (when shooting negative) will show up as white in the picture.

Super8 color negative can be very,very clean if proper attention is paid in the processing and film handling steps after processing. This clean negative does require special and attentive handling. Our head of color processing, Bob Hume, has developed a good set of simple techniques for combating dirt as any lab that runs color negative seriously should. One should expect the same amount of dirt on 35mm negative as you would on super8 color negative. This is of course a relative statement as any dirt on 8mm will be far more visible but the 8mm should not be a mess either. There are many good labs out there that turn out clean 8mm.

-Rob-

Jim Simon · March 24, 2007

Super 8:
560' of film=28 minutes

$363 for stock and processing+$925 for transfer=$1,289, or about $46/minute

Notes: it's of course possible to get cheaper rates on these things (I based telecine on $400/hour and a 4:1 ratio), but this comparison is pretty much a level playing field.

Also, I based my Super8 costs on a 12-pack of kodak negative film with processing included.

OK, I've been out of the Super 8 game for about 20 years, and am only just now getting back into it. So maybe I've just not far enough back into it to know any better, but those costs seems rather high to me.

At B&H in NY, a roll of 200T costs about $20. Back in the day, Super 8 rolls included processing, so I'll assume that still holds true. That translates to about $240 for the twelve rolls with processing. That a significant discount over mark's estimate of $363.

A DV transfer using a Rank Cintel Turbo (I assume that's a good telecine) will cost $214 at the Debenham Media Group (3516.com), and that's a very big difference from Mark's estimate of $925.

So my total comes up to about $460. That's just over 1/3 of Mark's estimate. Am I missing something here, or am I just a better shopper than Mark?

Alessandro Machi · March 24, 2007

OK, I've been out of the Super 8 game for about 20 years, and am only just now getting back into it. So maybe I've just not far enough back into it to know any better, but those costs seems rather high to me.

At B&H in NY, a roll of 200T costs about $20. Back in the day, Super 8 rolls included processing, so I'll assume that still holds true. That translates to about $240 for the twelve rolls with processing. That a significant discount over mark's estimate of $363.

A DV transfer using a Rank Cintel Turbo (I assume that's a good telecine) will cost $214 at the Debenham Media Group (3516.com), and that's a very big difference from Mark's estimate of $925.

So my total comes up to about $460. That's just over 1/3 of Mark's estimate. Am I missing something here, or am I just a better shopper than Mark?

Super-8 processing has gone up in exchange for faster service. There still are places where it is "cheaper" than 15 bucks, from a low of around 5 bucks at Walmart to somewhere around 12 bucks at Dwaynes. The walk in labs usually have some type of film package discount if you buy film stock, processing and transferring from them.

Bernhard Zitz · March 24, 2007

A DV transfer using a Rank Cintel Turbo (I assume that's a good telecine) will cost $214 at the Debenham Media Group (3516.com), and that's a very big difference from Mark's estimate of $925.

So my total comes up to about $460. That's just over 1/3 of Mark's estimate. Am I missing something here, or am I just a better shopper than Mark?

mark said: "good-quality transfer (spirit to HD)"

if this goes to hd-cam and includes davinci color correction, noise reduction and what else a colortimer would do, marks price could be realistic...but maybe it's a little overkill for S8

I my opinion an uncompressed SD to harddrive and DIY colorcorrection is good enough for S8.

As source-format I'd avoid DV, even for S8...

Anthony Schilling · March 24, 2007

I consider 16mm to be quite a bit more expensive than S8. If you leave telecine out of it (there are so many different options that change cost) just look at the basic costs of 1 roll and processing alone:

100ft roll 16mm $35, processing $15, total: $50

50ft cart Super 8 $15, processing $13, total $28

Alessandro Machi · March 24, 2007

I consider 16mm to be quite a bit more expensive than S8. If you leave telecine out of it (there are so many different options that change cost) just look at the basic costs of 1 roll and processing alone:

100ft roll 16mm $35, processing $15, total: $50

50ft cart Super 8 $15, processing $13, total $28

Super-16 usually has a processing minimums no? Something around 40 or 50 bucks??? I did a super-8 shoot a couple of weeks ago in which we used Ektachrome 64, Vision 200 and Vision 500, Plus-X, Tri-X and Velvia, that's six different film stocks, 15 cartridges were shot in total, with another 9 cartridges as back up just in case we ran out of a particular stock.

What I found interesting is if I had to downscale the amount of stock choices, I would consider offing the Tri-X for more 200 VisionT and 500 Vision T and turn that black and white if necessary. Hmmm, on the other hand, one indoors scene that was shot on Tri-X looked pretty good, or was that scene on Plus-X???

Regardless the 500T is a Godsend for nighttime shooting and the 200T handles high daytime contrast really well.

Jim Simon · March 25, 2007

Super-8 processing has gone up in exchange for faster service.

Am I incorrect then in assuming that a roll of Super 8 still comes with processing included? Processing must be paid for separately?

mark said: "good-quality transfer (spirit to HD)"

Even doing a 10 bit 4:2:2 telecine to HD will cost only about $340 at Debenham Media Group for 12 rolls of Super 8, about 1/3 of Mark's estimate. From their site, I gather they use the same process and equipment used by Hollywood and broadcast studios for their film to video conversions. To me that says quality.

I'm not familiar with the Spirit equipment. Is it a general consensus that it's superior to the Rank Cintel Turbo Telecine?

Alessandro Machi · March 25, 2007

Am I incorrect then in assuming that a roll of Super 8 still comes with processing included? Processing must be paid for separately?

When Kodachrome was discontinued that pretty much went out the door. I still don't mind however because I think Super-8 looks so refreshingly different from any video format that it's still a bargain in my opinion.

Bernhard Zitz · March 25, 2007

I gather they use the same process and equipment used by Hollywood and broadcast studios for their film to video conversions. To me that says quality.

It depends a lot from the guy who's operating the machine, not on the machine only.

Mark Lyon IMPOSTOR · March 26, 2007

Mark, why haven't you used 1875 feet for Film length for 35mm 3-perforation?

Thanks for catching that! I'm sorry about the error (I used 75 feet/minute, when 3-perf is really more like 67.5 feet/minute). I hate seeing misinformation on the web, and here I am contributing to it.

My apologies.

Fernando Morales · March 28, 2007

Hi to all!

Super 8 is really cheap when you home process/transfer IMHO. Of course, you maybe develop 30m super 8 a day or 60m DS8 a day average using a Lomo tank, i.e. Plus, you can push process at will (great results pushing fomapan r100 to 400ASA). Takes more time though, but it's definitely worth it.

Cheers,

Morales