Jump to content

35mm vs 16mm costs


Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I want to gain a high-level understanding of the pros and cons, when it comes to post production costs, of 16mm vs. 35mm.

 

I have the opportunity to acquire a S16 or 35mm camera. Both are quite nice.

Nonetheless, I have been thinking about going with the 35mm. In this manner, I believe I can avoid all the blow up costs for S16 however does flimstock, lab processing, and etc for 35mm offset 16mm costs.

 

any information is appreciated and welcomed.

 

thanks,

 

r

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I am assuming you mean 35mm is the higher costs when it comes to processing.

Thanks for the info. I want to shoot various projects on my own for educational purposes as well

as for jobs. It seems the S16 may be a better choice since a lot will come out of my pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filmstock and lab charges are by the foot. 35mm runs 2.5x as much filmstock as 16mm for the same running time. 400 feet of 16mm runs 11 minutes, while 1000' of 35mm runs that same 11 minutes. Plus 35mm filmstock costs more to purchase per foot than 16mm because it is larger. Your post-productions costs will be much higher since you will be running 2.5x as much filmstock. For short, small projects this can be offset by the greater cost cost an optical blowup for S-16, but generally 35mm is still more expensive. There are numerous steps in post and it is cheaper to do as much as possible in S-16 and then blowup to 35mm at the end. One step that is charged by running time and not footage length is video transfer, so this will be approximately the same cost either way, but it is only one step of many. For more detailed breakdowns of these costs you should consult a local lab. You can also check the archives of this site where I and others have broken down the post process and listed the associated costs.

 

16mm is always cheaper than 35mm except in the most extreme, usually unrealistic, situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the cameras you are looking at? On the low budget side of things I've found it easier to get 35mm film. Between friendly AC's who are down for the cause, or even shortends, I've had little problem with getting the stocks (and lengths) I wanted for 35mm. I bought a 2C for the obvious access to a 35mm camera but also had later rentals in mind. I've nearly paid the thing off and now I have a camera package I can integrate with other Arri gear on projects or use by itself. In fact, having the package has clinched several early projects for a director I work with frequently and me. Hopefully the camera is now merely a bonus and not THE deciding factor in getting hired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the best kept secrets of 35mm is "short ends" - the resold film of production companies that are short loads (2 minutes long usually). I'm paying one sixth the price of Kodak catalog prices.

 

16mm short ends are usually in much lower supply and higher demand than 35mm stock. They go for the same price per foot as 35mm short ends, sometimes even more. If you want to shoot a 16mm feature on short ends and recans, you usually gotta get fresh stock as well, unless you want to be gathering it for, like, a year.

 

So, when it comes down to it I'm paying about $26.00 a minute for 35mm, processing and one lite transfer included, whereas in 16mm (new stock) it costs about $22.00 a minute for the same. To me the extra four dollars a minute are very much worthwhile, and the cheaper labs don't process 16mm as clean as they do 35 in my personal experience.

 

If I had to pay Kodak catalog prices at its high rate of 0.62/ft or thereabouts, there's no way in hell I'd ever be shooting my project on 35 right now.

 

By the way, that Arri IIc you see me holding in my picture is what I'm using right now. It's a good camera. I'd also suggest checking out the Konvas. Obviously you'd have to loop your dialog for those cameras (which is what I am doing now), unless you want to invest in a blimp.

 

- G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just talking to some Kodak reps at the recent product unveiling of the company's new stocks. They reitterated to me their desire to help indie filmmakers get their products shot and shot on film. That means discounts and deals and whatever the company can do to help people out. I know of several productions that were going to be shot on DV but instead were able to shoot film because of the aid of Kodak. Product list prices and internet research are one way to budget, but it can never hurt to pick up a phone and talk to a live human being. You might be stunned by the response you get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

Kodak have been kind to me in the past (I should actually be able to shoot that stuff within the next couple of months, John!) but the stock cost is only part of the equation. Camera rental is scary, but transfer costs are terrifying. It takes a lot more than kindness from Kodak to go from DV to 16.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the stock cost is only part of the equation. Camera rental is scary, but transfer costs are terrifying.

It seems Phil you're really got an axe to grind with the transfer costs. I'm paying $150 an hour for unsupervised at a place in New Jersey. I am gathering that in the UK it's considerably more costly. Most labs when doing dailies will transfer at a per foot rate.

 

Granted, supervised is obviously more expensive (that same place I told you about charges $250 an hour for this). But the transfer is one of the cheaper parts of the equation. To me the raw stock itself is the most costly part of the enterprise.

 

When you consider it, it can cost under 5 thousand to get a feature film transferred, supervised, to a high quality digital format. Add a little more time and you can really go to town with corrections and whatnot - which in itself is a great creative process. But it costs many thousands more to do a 35mm print and interpos/interneg - which going the conventional optical way has less avenues of image control.

 

So to me the price of the transfer isn't really the big killer.

 

The Rank machines they use aren't cheap, and they certainly kick ass quality wise when compared to the old "film chain" method. Might I add that many people who operate film chain transfers are out right ripping off their customers compared to Rank transfers. I've seen film chain transfer rates that are almost if not equal to unsupervised Rank transfer rates, per foot. It's absurd when you consider that a 16mm filmchain costs under five grand, while the Rank costs over one hundred grand and requires more skill and knowhow to operate and maintain.

 

- G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This certainly is a big factor here in the UK.

 

I had the notion of getting a Kodak HR500 digi photolab scanner and using it for motion picture scanning.

 

It's slow (4 secs a frame) so you'd have to be willing to wait a few days for your TK (in any format). However, it can also do upwards of 4K, and the keycodes are included in the scan area so rescanning at ridiculo-resolution is easy (if you don't want the storage costs).

 

It can only take 200' rolls off the shelf but I think this is not a major problem to overcome. Same for 16mm feed. Fine tuning registration is done in software (Combustion) afterwards - works perfectly, I've tried it.

 

That's about £30K down but even for a couple of indie features it really makes sense. Digi grading in combustion (or even photoshop) on the .TGA sequences is a pleasure, and as long as you make the contrast compensation on your monitor you're ready for film out. (And you have a sweet looking DVD to raise the funds with).

 

With processing at £0.1/ft, free TK, free DI, filming costs become much less of a headache.

 

Cheers,

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wanted to try creating a home telecine device for the same reasons, using flatbed scanner CCD's. I wanted to be able to control and run the whole operation myself, in house - just get the processed negative and do it at home.

 

Just recently, for the hell of it, I took a 35mm positive print and scanned a few frames from it on my Microtek flatbed scanner (it costs around 200 bucks). The image I got was higher in contrast and the color was bleeding compared to the rank transfer (to be fair, the rank was directly off the negative - I didn't risk putting my neg through the scanner's negative holder which can scratch it easily). There was also more noise, especially after gamma adjustment. The color adjustments created noise as well - this is hardly one's idea of color correction. I did of course get higher resolution (2K), but that was simply a function of the rank signal being NTSC versus this being a raw digital file. Besides, the "2K" scan was on the fuzzy side, it looked more like a 16mm frame than 35mm when I blew it up full screen (and the emulsion orientation was correct - I scanned both ways to be sure). The optical resolution of the scanner is listed as 3200X6400, so this is supposedly native all the way w/o interpolation.

 

I personally thought that the electro-optical elements in modern flatbed scanners were better in quality than they actually are, since so many still photographers use them nowadays. But you get what you pay for I guess. I gather nothing beats a good drum scan (and the opto-electric elements in a rank are the same tubes, I believe, that drum scanners use).

 

I didn't, however, test this system to death. Automated scanning software can do strange things sometimes.

 

- G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...