It it really worth it

[Malinko]

Most 16mm cameras with the exception of the elaine and others like it really arent worth what they are sold for. Two thousand dollars for an Eclair NPR or Arriflex BL? Not worth it! These cameras are devastatingly simple machines when you compare them to thier suggested prices (2g and up). While the pull-down mechanism is amazing it is cheap primitive technology compared to a computer with all it expensive matierals and digital hardware that can be sold for six hundred dollars!

 

Im not saying these cameras are simple machines. Im just saying that the technology is primitive compared to the price and the more complex machines such as computer or some cars which are cheaper.

[Mitch Gross]

And a diamond is just a rock.

 

You are comparing things that have no comparative value. A high-end mattress can cost as much as a good used car. Are they at all comparative? Of course not. That isn't the point. Do I think a couple of grand is a good deal for one of these old cameras? Yes, actually, I do.

 

I also have an issue with the use of something other than your actual name. Especially with you flaunting the fact. I don't think it is community-oriented to hide behind a false identity. It smacks of someone wishing to hide and not wishing to stand behind his statements.

[David Mullen ASC]

Also, this person seems to think that mass-produced circuitboards and software should make something MORE valuable than nearly hand-crafted mechanics???

 

Film cameras are not mass-produced, which is why they cost more to make per unit.

 

The other thing is that they don't depreciate in value as much over time. The fact that these units are functioning great after being built thirty years ago is a testament to their design and construction. Not many cars on the road that are that old, not to mention video cameras and computers.

 

If he thinks making a film camera movement is so simple and "primitive", he should try it!

 

These are very precise mechanisms and it's that level of precision in terms of accuracy of speed and quality of registration that makes them expensive to produce.

[Malinko]

Mr Mullen with all do respect I never said it was simple! The pull down mechanism is what I am most impressed with regarding these cameras. That it is so consistant. I believe (but not sure) that it was invented by Tom Armat in the late nineteenth century? Persistance of vision is correlated to this. But a car is handmade and it has just as many gears and mechanisms with more workers and parts and matierals so.....I do agree though. These cameras hold up better than any car or old machine for that matter!

[Christian Appelt]

Most answers have been given already. Here are some more thoughts on film cameras:

 

1. Film cameras require high precision. Their mechanisms required expensive manufacturing techniques. You will find that many professional optical/mechanical instruments, unless they have been substituted by electronic devices, are very expensive even today with CAD/CAM techniques.

 

2. A film camera does not become obsolete as easy as electronic devices. If you have an old camera, put a new lens on it, load a roll of the newest Eastman or Fuji stock - here is your upgrade in resolution, sensitivity and image structure! Nobody will know whether you shot it with a 2003 ArriCam/Panaflex or let's say, a 1964 Arriflex/1975 Konvas.

 

3. The sale prices for used equipment indicate how much the gear is worth to users who buy it. Therefore, it is sheer nonsense to claim that the prices are not justified. Any 16 or 35mm camera in good condition will allow you to produce films that have the same technical standard as any high budget Hollywood film or TV network production. Try that with a 1980 pro video camera and a U-matic recorder, which sold back then for a price that will shock you.

 

Now that you have got some answers, how about abandoning your hide-and-seek?

You do not have to be a professional DoP to use this forum, but if you just want to stir up the old-fashioned film vs. fantastic digital debate, please read what others have said or play your game elsewhere. That said, welcome to the forum!

 

BTW, the persistance of vision and Thomas Armat have very little to do with each other. Read one of Deac Rossell's books on early film technique, like this one:

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846Living Pictures

[GeorgeSelinsky]

What all the others have said is very true.

 

That said there are instances where some equipment is priced high, for example if you take a single lens 35mm Eyemo (a portable 35mm camera you can handhold) made in the 30's or 40's and compare it to the same company's 16mm Filmo (which is virtually identical save for the film gauge), you will notice that one goes for sale for a thousand bucks, maybe even more, while the other one can be often had for under two hundred, sometimes even under one hundred bucks. Both cameras were produced in fairly large numbers (although I suspect strongly that the Eyemo was less produced, and is less of a likely find in yard sales as it was never used for home movies).

 

The basic rule is - whatever the market can bear. There is video equipment that cost ten grand new, and can be had today for six hundred dollars or even less because it cannot by far compete with today's latest and greatest (in the case that it lasts, which is not a frequent occurance). Meanwhile, an Eyemo can deliver images that compares well to other 35mm equipment costing much more.

 

There was once a time where film processing cost less as compared to the rate of inflation than it does today - volume was much higher (and environmental standards probably lower). Film stock, however, has more or less stayed consistent. If you think that in 1978, 16mm Plus X reversal film cost around $0.07/ft and today it retails for about $0.20, that rides smoothly with the inflation index of the day, I checked.

 

- G.

[David Mullen ASC]

An example from my own past:

 

My dad worked on perfecting a laser gyroscope for missiles (particularly, the Sidewinder missile then the Cruise missile I think.) This was the late 1970's, 1980's. I saw one in the lab and it was really high-tech, with a laser beam that was bounced between mirrors in a triangle, somehow measuring the pitch and yaw.

 

Later I asked my dad how much better these laser gyroscopes were and he said that a real gyroscope is the best but they are really expensive to make, being hand-crafted and built to really high precision. The government wanted something that was electronic and could be made cheaper because, I assume, the notion that in a missile, they only work once and then are destroyed. Eventually they got the laser gyroscope up to the standards of a regular gyroscope.

 

But the lesson learned is that precision hand-assembled mechanical devices are generally more expensive to make than electronic devices if the electronics can be mass-produced.

[Leon Rodriguez]

Just an objective reference. Jurgen from Arriflex in Germany told me that there were only about 2,000 Arri 16BLs in the world. I've got one of them. It's a peach, originally owned by NBC news in NYC. Quietest std. 16mm I've ever heard. I maintain it like she is a prima donna and I feel that I am lucky to own it. It is a source of confidence to shoot a finely machined mechanical instrument. Needless to say I've got WAY, WAY more than two grand invested in my std. 16 pkg. I will own it 'till I die, then my son Ryan will own it for his lifetime. I'm sure of it. There are only so many professional motion picture cameras in the world. Two grand is a bargain for a good camera.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

There are only so many professional motion picture cameras in the world.  Two grand is a bargain for a good camera.

Especially when you consider the fact that anything near professional in DV is going to cost you at least 4-5 thousand dollars, and that those cameras are probably going to be deadweights in about 7 years or so.

 

I have a Canon L2 Hi8 camera. That used to be the most awesome prosumer camera you could get. I just barely managed to have it pay for itself when DV became big news, and then I simply wouldn't allow myself to do work in that format anymore - I knew it wasn't competitive enough to everyone else who had their DV packages out there fighting for the same job. So at that point I said "No more video camera investments!" That's two grand that became worthless pretty fast.

 

Furthermore, film cameras are so much more durable than video cameras (good luck having a DV camera survive a respected drop - it's called "replacing the board" at best...), yet they are more precision instruments. An unusual combination.

 

Indeed it's quite a bargain to get a motion picture camera for a price lower than a DV camera.

 

Yeah, you could look at a garage sale special Kodak 8mm Brownie and say "Why not make a 16 or 35mm version of this?". But who the hell is going to go out there and shoot anything but a short experiment on something so limited and potentially unreliable? I certainly wouldn't risk my rep on it.

 

Just go on Ebay and take a look - you can get a cheapo Bell and Howell or Kodak 16mm camera for under a hundred dollars (which, when you calculate inflation, is much cheaper than their going price new). But these cameras were meant for baby's first steps and the like, and most home movie makers were lucky if they could get within decent focus and exposure range. They'd hardly be in a position to judge things like pressure plate problems, gate weave, optical alignment/calibration, etc. Not to say that some of these cameras weren't excellently built - some are actually very good. But remember also, the most useful cameras retain their value best, which is why they cost so much. Herein lies the market value aspect of price. It's also nice to know that a camera has been maintained, which it most likely is in professional hands (they need the stuff to be reliable in order to make a living).

 

I also think that if portable video hadn't come up in the past few decades, 16mm equipment would cost considerably more than it does now.

 

- G.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I've just got a job which will pretty much require me to can what I have now and buy something that'll do widescreen. "Pretty much" in this circumstance means ability to sleep at night having given the client something that'll be remotely sellable. What I have now is worth bugger-all; witness the dropped-brick depreciation of video camera gear, especially not-very-good video camera gear - I can't even reuse the lens very effectively. So, I'm liable to be walking out of a Sony dealer at some point in the near future stinging and being very ginger about sitting down for the next few years having dropped what looks like being about the equivalent of $22K on something else that'll drop 30% in value on leaving the showroom. The pain. The agony.

 

On the other hand, there's a shelf-full of four hour DVCAM tapes over there which represent an investment of approximately the gross national product of Lesotho if shot on film. Unfortunately, of course, that would be the client's investment, not mine, but whaddayagonnado.

 

Phil

[Mitch Gross]

There are only so many professional motion picture cameras in the world.

This is an important fact that so many people do not realize. I own a JVC DV500 DV camera. In five years of production JVC sold more than 40,000 units of this camera, and it certainly isn't as popular as the Sony PD-150 or even the much younger Panasonic DVX100. I shudder to think how many of these cameras have been sold. I also own an Aaton Super-16 camera--serial number 1215. I believe Aaton is up to around 4500, some 20 years later.

 

If Honda made only 100 Civics per year, they would cost several hundred thousand dollars each. It is the economics of scale.

[Tim Carroll]

Another thing to keep in mind is how quickly pro-sumer DV equipment becomes obsolete. Talk to the thousands of folks who bought brand new DVX-100's last summer before the DVX-100A was anounced. Ask them what there three or four thousand dollar investment is worth today. We have used a Canon XL1S for two years now, and we were very lucky that it paid for itself in the first twelve months, because it's value now is pretty much nil. We will keep using that camera for every job where we can till it don't work no more because we would get nothing selling it. And all those DVX-100A's will drop rapidly just as soon as Canon or JVC or Sony anounces their new 24P camera. Heck, the DVX-100 was only sold for twelve months before the New and Improved version hit the market.

 

Our Arri SR1 has been around for over twenty years and it will still create as beautiful of an image as a brand new SR3, which goes for tens of thousands of dollars more than what we invested in the SR1.

 

-Tim

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Bashing video cameras because of their rate of depreciation is ridiculous. Factor the cost of filmstock - just filmstock, not processing, not transfer - and the film gear is infinitely more expensive in the long run. Well, okay, it's more expensive in the SHORT run as well. Look at it the other way around - you pay 22 grand for a DSR-570 package, and within one production it's paid for itself. That SR1 you mentioned is still costing you a fortune every time you take it out.

 

Extreme example, I know, but jeez. Perspective, anyone?

 

Phil

[Tim Carroll]

Phil,

 

Okay, before you go off on a tangent, I was talking about pro-sumer equipment. Now maybe you are in a totally different tax bracket than I am, but I would be hard pressed to describe a $22,000 DSR-570 as a pro-sumer camera. I assumed the original poster was also talking about pro-sumer equipment because he was talking about cameras in the $2000-$4000 range. The point I was trying to make is if you take any digital camera in that price range, within a year or two, it is worth next to nothing. Where as the Eclair or some of the others mentioned here will hold far more of their value for years to come. And I believe holding value has something to do with being "worth" such and such.

 

That being said, I would still take 16mm film with it's DOF and latitude and look over a DSR-570, which I don't know, does it even shoot in 24P.

 

I am not talking about the equipment we use regularly for the non narrative film work we do that pays the bills.

 

For the narrative filmmaking we are doing, which is about one or two productions per year, I would much rather shoot on film, even with it's higher original costs, because if(which is a big if) we create what we have envisioned, it is worth more to the market having been originated on film than having been originated on DV, whether that be the DVX-100 or the DSR-570.

 

-Tim

[Malinko]

Please stop yelling at me guys! I agree!

[Anders Holmstrand]

I have posted this request elsewhere, but, given the number of people here who seem extremely knowledgeable regarding 16mm cameras, can anyone recommend an East Coast service technician or repair facility? I have an Aaton LTR that is misbehaving a bit and want someone who comes recommended to take a look at it.

 

Thanks all -

 

Anders

[andrewbuchanan]

Most 16mm cameras with the exception of the elaine and others like it really arent worth what they are sold for. Two thousand dollars for an Eclair NPR or Arriflex BL? Not worth it!

 

I beg to differ. I think the format is something to take into consideration. In 1999 I bought a 16mm NPR for about $2K (along with a couple of XL1s) and started making films. Most were on DV, but a few were on film... over time my reputation for shooting film got better and I got bigger jobs... A lot of my friends stuck to DV. I learned how to shoot film.

 

Now, I have clients that rent ARRIs and Panavisions for me with REAL lenses and support equipment. My friends... still working in DV. Not that it is a bad medium, just that they haven't shot any nationally broadcast material with - and I have shot plenty on 35mm and 16mm.

 

Now, I work with DV less and less, my NPR went to Les Bosher for a S16 and PL mount upgrade, and I have purchased a Arri 2C. I love DV, but buying the Eclair was one of the best things I ever did... I wasn't just paying for a simple movement, I was buying a path to experience, credential, and frankly higher-end work. AND I use the camera all the time.

 

Don't think of it as an overpriced camera, think of it as a cheap course in film making.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I can afford to buy a 16mm camera; I can even afford to buy a certain amount of stock for it. What I can't afford is transfer - £300/hour for decent results or £200/hour if I really look around is not sustainable for me. What's more, the cheaper option there wouldn't even output video that's technically as good as my video camera; the venerable Rank Cintel 3 is a smeary, fuzzy thing compared to even quite mediocre modern video cameras.

 

So, if you've managed to do that, great - but the costs are crippling.

 

Phil

[Matt Wells]

Hi,

 

I can afford to buy a 16mm camera; I can even afford to buy a certain amount of stock for it. What I can't afford is transfer - £300/hour for decent results or £200/hour if I really look around is not sustainable for me. What's more, the cheaper option there wouldn't even output video that's technically as good as my video camera; the venerable Rank Cintel 3 is a smeary, fuzzy thing compared to even quite mediocre modern video cameras.

 

So, if you've managed to do that, great - but the costs are crippling.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're off topic here. The thread is concerned about the cost of ownership with regard to different camera gear. Video gear is a lot more expensive to own.

 

We are not talking about production costs.

 

Often rare exotic motor cars hold their value better than throw away mass produced vehicles. The fact that they are usually extremely expensive to run is irrelevant to the observation.

 

And some people would argue that video and digital gear often has higher production costs than first meets the eye.

 

Matt

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Well, if you want to consider a camera as a desk ornament, fine, but I prefer to go out and shoot with mine. It's preposterous to try and divert attention away from the sky-high cost of using a film camera in this way.

 

Phil

[andrewbuchanan]

And some people would argue that video and digital gear often has higher production costs than first meets the eye.

 

Matt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree Matt... I also think it's funny that anyone would try to compare S16 to their miniDV camera. When I shoot S16 and get it transferred to Digibeta or HD, I'd have to say that it is just silly to compare that to miniDV. If you transfer to these higher formats the dramatic increase in quality that is latient in S16 will become obvious. Just because you can't afford to transfer to a decent format isn't an excuse to trash film production.

[Matt Pacini]

Feeling like you've jumped into a den of lions?

 

Most people on this board have experience shooting film, and like many other things in life, it's a unique experience that cannont be described in just technical terms.

You may notice that you've never heard anyone who's actually owned (or used extensively) say that film cameras are not what they sell for, and especially since you didn't pick $95,000 Arri's to complain about, but the cheapest of the cheap 16mm film cameras, which are unbelievable bargains!!!

 

To most of us on this board, hearing this is like hearing a virgin say sex is overrated.

 

Give it a try, then you'll say "ohhhhh, now I get it."

 

Matt Pacini

[Matt Wells]

Hi,

 

Well, if you want to consider a camera as a desk ornament, fine, but I prefer to go out and shoot with mine. It's preposterous to try and divert attention away from the sky-high cost of using a film camera in this way.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The thread is about the ownership costs of film cameras.

 

Everyone is agreed they cost less to own than video and digital cameras.

 

It is arguable what economies are really generated by shooting video over film.

 

What it so hard to understand?

 

Matt

[mark leuchter]

Friends, you all have to do what I did yesterday...

 

I bought an Arri 16S, with three lenses, 400ft. mag, case, etc....for 150 bucks. It needs a little cleaning, but it works.

 

Ha ha, ho ho, hee hee.

[Matt Pacini]

WHERE did you get it that cheap????

I keep hearing of these killer deals.

I guess I'm not going to the right garage sales!

 

Matt Pacini