tom doherty Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) However, to give you the basics, developing is £25 a roll and transfer is £20 a roll but best to drop a line for all the details: bookings@sohofilmlab.co.uk Stock is not something we really push (more an add-on for our customers) but we do sell Vision 2 200T 7217 and 500T 7218 both at £12.50 per roll. Oliver £57.50 for 50ft........... :blink: :blink: not being funny but those prices are shocking,why shoot super 8,when i can get 16mm done 40% cheaper. i think a little local competition is needed. by the way i have not got a problem with paying top dollar but i expect the finest quality, your 16 and 35 has always been good but i know better and cheaper s8 labs. :rolleyes: offtopic but where do you get this super16 done 40% cheaper? i recently paid £199 for 3 X 400ft rolls from kodak, and have been quoted 21p per foot for process and telecine by a lab in the uk. Edited March 30, 2009 by tom doherty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan doyle Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 i shoot quite a lot and get good deals,most people can get get discount if they can convince the lab they will spend money. but 100ft of 16mm can be had in general for 20 to 25 quid a roll process,clean telecine through a spirit tk, 1 light. fuji film is nice and cheap,i would never pay full price for kodak 16mm,get it direct and say you are a student.should be looking for 20 -40% discounts. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Cooper Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 i shoot quite a lot and get good deals,most people can get get discount if they can convince the lab they will spend money.but 100ft of 16mm can be had in general for 20 to 25 quid a roll process,clean telecine through a spirit tk, 1 light. fuji film is nice and cheap,i would never pay full price for kodak 16mm,get it direct and say you are a student.should be looking for 20 -40% discounts. ;) One of the reasons I set myself up to shoot 16mm - it's cheaper! Super-8 stock+develop+Tk+VAT £12.50+£25+£20+VAT=£66.13 = £24.80/minute 16mm stock+develop&Tk+VAT £95.65+£84+VAT = £206.60 (400ft min. qty for most labs) = £19.37/minute Most of my 16mm film is bought as surplus stock off ebay, something not possible for S8, so in practice I could perhaps reckon on the price/minute for 16mm to drop to around £10.14/minute. That's without trying to make any false claims to get student discounts. Ok, if you want the super-8 "look" then using 16mm isn't the way to go, but if you want to shoot "film", then 16mm negative is certainly cheaper than S8 negative in the UK. In fairness to SFL, it would work out much more expense taking business to Andec. Their price for developing S8 is 22.50euro per cartridge. For telecine they charge 125euro for 10 minutes minimum to MiniDV. To be a fair comparison you'd need to use 250euro/10 minutes to BetaSP/DigiBeta to compare like-for-like seeing as SFL don't charge 'extra' for DigiBeta (or offer less for MiniDV). 22.50 x4 = 90.00 euro developing 250 euro telecine 3.50 euro 'foreign business' charge. +VAT =408.77euro / 10 minutes =40.88 euro / minute. current exchange rate would put that at £37.95 / minute for an equivalent service. If you're prepared to just accept Tk to MiniDV then Andec's price would fall to £18.57/minute. - but you're no longer comparing equal services. Even so, the price is still much the same as shooting full price 16mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Cooper Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) offtopic but where do you get this super16 done 40% cheaper? i recently paid £199 for 3 X 400ft rolls from kodak, and have been quoted 21p per foot for process and telecine by a lab in the uk. My post above shows 22% cheaper just on 400ft. The price you paid Kodak for x3 400ft rolls effectively means you got "3 for the price of 2" based on the cost of just 400ft on its own. That means you were paying £16.21/minute. From your own figures that is 35% cheaper than the quoted S8 prices! ...of course x3 400ft rolls would equate to x12 super-8 cartridges. Oliver did state they offer discounts for "volume", you might find the price of S8 dropping a bit as well? Edited March 31, 2009 by Ian Cooper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom doherty Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 My post above shows 22% cheaper just on 400ft. The price you paid Kodak for x3 400ft rolls effectively means you got "3 for the price of 2" based on the cost of just 400ft on its own. That means you were paying £16.21/minute. From your own figures that is 35% cheaper than the quoted S8 prices! ...of course x3 400ft rolls would equate to x12 super-8 cartridges. Oliver did state they offer discounts for "volume", you might find the price of S8 dropping a bit as well? i dont know. i dont think of it like that, theres not really alot of point in comparing super8 and super16 prices. 2 different formats for 2 very different outcomes. depends what you prefer. you can never really compare price on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Cooper Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 i dont know. i dont think of it like that, theres not really alot of point in comparing super8 and super16 prices. 2 different formats for 2 very different outcomes. depends what you prefer. you can never really compare price on it. I'm inclined to agree, as I put earlier, if you want the super-8 "look", then using 16mm isn't the way to go about it! But super-8 often gets presented as a 'cheap' and easy way of getting into and learning about handling film. Well clearly it's actually cheaper to learn using 16mm. If one wants to learn about handling film, then I'd also argue then 16mm lenses with proper aperture rings are easier to get to grips with than various dials and knobs to try and manually set the aperture on S8. Also learning how to handle and thread spools of film isn't difficult and is much more educational than dropping a cartridge in a S8 camera. Overall, if someone wanted to know what was the cheapest way to learn and experiment with shooting film rather than video - use 16mm not Super8, it's cheaper and of more educational benefit. You expressed surprise at the comment that shooting 16mm was 40% cheaper than Super 8, but as I pointed out, you're already shooting it 35% cheaper yourself! The comment was made that SFL's prices were high - yet they're actually significantly cheaper than a similar level of service from Andec in Germany! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom doherty Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) I'm inclined to agree, as I put earlier, if you want the super-8 "look", then using 16mm isn't the way to go about it! But super-8 often gets presented as a 'cheap' and easy way of getting into and learning about handling film. Well clearly it's actually cheaper to learn using 16mm. If one wants to learn about handling film, then I'd also argue then 16mm lenses with proper aperture rings are easier to get to grips with than various dials and knobs to try and manually set the aperture on S8. Also learning how to handle and thread spools of film isn't difficult and is much more educational than dropping a cartridge in a S8 camera. Overall, if someone wanted to know what was the cheapest way to learn and experiment with shooting film rather than video - use 16mm not Super8, it's cheaper and of more educational benefit. You expressed surprise at the comment that shooting 16mm was 40% cheaper than Super 8, but as I pointed out, you're already shooting it 35% cheaper yourself! The comment was made that SFL's prices were high - yet they're actually significantly cheaper than a similar level of service from Andec in Germany! dont get me wrong i understand what your saying. i also agree with the fact that you will probably learn more about film as a format by starting with super16. i got introduced to, and started with super8, and i'll be honest, i'm very glad i did. i think if i started with 16, super8 wouldnt have had the effect on me as it did. it was the first film i was introduced to and have loved it ever since. i prefer super16 on a proffesional basis for obvious reasons, but for personal use, its super8 all the way for me. Edited March 31, 2009 by tom doherty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Langdell Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 i do not think the flash scan is a proper telecine an expensive posh projector. Sorry, but it's not a projector. No pull-down claw. No "gate" pressing the film into place. Just smooth, continuous motion with a light tension on the film, and really remarkable results. With negligible operating costs or maintenance. You should download a product information sheet: http://www.flashscan8.us/images/flashscan-FlyerV3.pdf And there's a good description of how it works and what's in it on this site at http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...c=31266&hl= i hope to god people are not using the flash scan then dumping original footage,cos i believe even a 12 year old cintel or bosch/bts machine will do a better job. Send a reel or two to places using aging flying spot and CCD Line Array equipment, and then send it to several flashscan users and see. Also, the new flashscanHD began shipping in March (2009) and would be another comparison to try. Details here: http://flashscan8.us/images/flashscan8-us-...d-V1-103008.pdf Free is not "free," especially when it comes to 10-25 year old broadcast gear. From an operator's perspective, compare owning either flashscan system with trying to keep an aging flying spot scanner or Line Array unit in repair or properly adjusted. Parts and boards are morphing into Unobtanium, and time spent wrenching or board-swapping on the machine is not time spent transferring film at a profit. Hope this is helpful. Ted Langdell flashscan8.us US/Canadian distributor for MWA-Nova products See the flashtransfer at NAB 2009, booth SU6117 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan doyle Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 ok,you guys win.. i will sit back wait for the flashscan company to buy up the remains of thompson,cintel and film light. you can have all the companies knocking out your non projector style telecines. why not use the good engineering that is behind the company and make a proper telecine/scanner. the flashscan is clearly designed for a specific segment of the transfer market,and i am sure fantastic work is being done. but i have seen horrible vision 500 neg footage,which was worse than the oldest cintel mk3. but what do i know you are selling loads of these so the market likes them. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Kumpula Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) but i have seen horrible vision 500 neg footage,which was worse than the oldest cintel mk3. The fact that a Flashscan is so "cheap" (compared to something like a Spirit) also means that there are idiots buying them and trying to operate them. Or even worse, idiots that doesen´t know anything and who doesen´t care about quality are using them. They just want to make a quick buck, they couldn´t care less about quality. Put one of those operators in front of a Spirit and I´m pretty sure you get bad results with the Spirit too. The operator is as important as the equipment, imho. Oh, and regarding negative emulsions I think you are better off using a Spirit, since the Flashscan8 was designed for reversal transfers with the negative capabilities as "a useful feature". It is not tweaked and speicifcally built for negative transfers. But then again Spirit transfers cost a lot more than Flashscan transfers, so it is a balance act with the transfer cost in one hand and image quality in the other... Edited April 8, 2009 by Kent Kumpula Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Langdell Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 why not use the good engineering that is behind the company and make a proper telecine/scanner. Alan, Would you mind outlining what you'd consider a "proper telecine/scanner?" Ted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Langdell Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) The fact that a Flashscan is so "cheap" (compared to something like a Spirit) also means that there are idiots buying them and trying to operate them. Or even worse, idiots that doesen´t know anything and who doesen´t care about quality are using them. They just want to make a quick buck, they couldn´t care less about quality. Put one of those operators in front of a Spirit and I´m pretty sure you get bad results with the Spirit too. The operator is as important as the equipment, imho. As previous posts in this thread illustrate, you can get differing results from the same transfer house. I highly encourage flashscan and flashtransfer users to use (and supply as part of a package) industry standard waveform monitors and vectorscopes for proper level and color adjustment before and during transfer. When training users, we show them how to do so and how the flashremote controls interact visibly on the scopes. It makes it easier for them to get good transfers, and with practice they can do so pretty quickly. Kent, thanks for being supportive of the flashscan when others seem intent on bashing. I refer potential customers to your site and SuperSens for a look-see at how good transfers can be when a flashscan is used. As you say, the operator (or in your case flashscanist?) that makes the difference. Ted Edited April 8, 2009 by Ted Langdell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now