How much qualifies as waste?

David Calson · May 29, 2008

I've heard some people say less than 100' others 150' and still those that say 200'

Also, what about 16mm?

Stephen Price · May 29, 2008

It really depends on the production and the situation, but i will usually waste up to 120' on 16mm and around 100' on 35mm, if i have to. The least the better though, obviously.

steve p

Adrian Sierkowski · May 29, 2008

For myself I trey not to waste anything more than 50 ft on 16mm or 100ft on 35mm. Never know when those extra seconds might help.

John Sprung · May 29, 2008

In 35, I used to save anything over 10 ft -- you could spool it down for SLR stills. All you need is cans and time.

-- J.S.

Matthew W. Phillips · May 30, 2008

In 35, I used to save anything over 10 ft -- you could spool it down for SLR stills. All you need is cans and time.

Now that's what I call resourceful!

Chris Keth · May 30, 2008

I try not to save anything under 150 for 35mm. If it's under that but over what production says to keep (often 100 feet, I was asked once to keep any short end over 50 feet!), I'll sometimes write off the difference as a "camera test." Nobody wants to load, shoot, and download short ends that only get you a minute of footage. It just ends up being a waste of time and money as I see it.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Chris Keth

Satsuki Murashige · May 30, 2008

... I'll sometimes write off the difference as a "camera test."

And then stash it for scratch tests and dummy loads. ;)

Chris Keth · May 30, 2008

And then stash it for scratch tests and dummy loads. ;)

True dat! :ph34r: Or still camera.

Matthew W. Phillips · May 30, 2008

It just ends up being a waste of time and money as I see it.

Or it could end up giving an aspiring filmmaker a chance to shoot on 35mm for a price they could not afford otherwise. I would have no problem using 100' short ends of 35mm if it meant I could get it for pennies on the dollar. I guess one man's junk is another man's gold.

Chris Keth · May 31, 2008

Or it could end up giving an aspiring filmmaker a chance to shoot on 35mm for a price they could not afford otherwise. I would have no problem using 100' short ends of 35mm if it meant I could get it for pennies on the dollar. I guess one man's junk is another man's gold.

That's very true. Those short ends never REALLY go to waste. I just don't want to corner myself into loading teeny-tiny loads all day when I could simplify things a bit and save set time by facilitating fewer camera reloads. On a small production, the savings on short ends like that may very well outweigh the time it takes to load and download them and to reload the camera many more times per day, then again it might not.

Matt Kelly · June 2, 2008

Just to add...the amount of waste depends mostly on the budget of the show. It's ultimately up to production how much you should waste, but a lot of times it's up to you because they don't really understand why you have to "waste" film anyway. I've gotten away with wasting less than 200' on a number of low budget (1-4 million) 35mm films without question. :P

Right now tho, I'm on a film that's forcing us to shoot ONLY 400 loads and short ends, because they happen to have about 60 thousand feet of it leftover from a previous movie. They don't seem to realize that once we hit a scene with one take mags, it'll slow down production a LOOOOT. We'll see how it goes...

Bruce Taylor · June 3, 2008

Just to add...the amount of waste depends mostly on the budget of the show. They don't seem to realize that once we hit a scene with one take mags, it'll slow down production a LOOOOT.

Very true. Interestingly, there is a great combination of short ands and cheap camera. If one is shooting MOS, the Russian Konvas with quick change mags and $0.06 a foot short ends (thank you ReelGoodFilm.com !) is hard to beat. Also, as a shameless plug for Indi35.com, a 200' short end in a 2 perf camera (like a Kinor 35H Techniscope mod http://www.indi35.com/2_perf_techniscope ) is the equivalent of a 400' load in standard 4 perf.

Lots of ways to skin a cat.

Bruce Taylor

www.Indi35.com

Vanessa Ward · June 3, 2008

True dat! :ph34r: Or still camera.

I heard no place will develop ENG anymore for stills. Is this true?

A friend of mine recently got a bulk loader, and was excited to use some 5218 100' short ends, however the second told him it wouldn't work anymore.

Paul Bruening · June 3, 2008

You beat me to it, Bruce. By the way, guys, never shoot the last 220 feet, then sell it to me for $0.025 a foot. That's, obviously, the best approach you could possibly take.

Matthew W. Phillips · June 3, 2008

You beat me to it, Bruce. By the way, guys, never shoot the last 220 feet, then sell it to me for $0.025 a foot. That's, obviously, the best approach you could possibly take.

Sounds like you're a bit self-serving...I admire that! :lol:

Hans Engstrom · June 3, 2008

When I was working as a 2nd and had time to unload and no shortage of empty cans I´d keep as little as 60ft in 16mm or 150ft in 35mm, those cans usually ended up in my fridge after the production was finished because they where considered to short, but I remember one 16mm production where those 60ft-80ft shortends saved us. Now when I work as 1st there have been time when the production decided not to hire a loader or 2nd. Then I consider everything under 100ft (16mm) waste because it would cost to much time keeping them.

John Sprung · June 3, 2008

If all you need is an establishing shot of a house, or an insert of dialing a phone or stuff like that, those 50 - 100 ft short ends are plenty. But if you save them all, you end up with a lot more of them than pickups/inserts that they'd be good for. So, keep 'em when you can, waste 'em when you're in a hurry.

-- J.S.