Looking for 16mm --> Digital film lab service.

[RookieGeek]

I'm looking for a specific service, and it might be an odd type of request, but my little team has arrived at the decision to shoot 16mm based on three issues: (a) we want to own the camera, (b) the cost of a CineAlta or VariCam is still much more than a 16mm camera, and © the quality of image available from HDV or anything else is not satisfactory.

 

Hence, we're looking at 16mm (or S16) for image acquisition.

 

Simply put, we're just looking for a lab to scan in 16mm film at 2K, and deliver a hard drive full of the sequential images. We'll do the editing, color correction and effects work (we love! and use Maya and SynthEyes) on our own machines.

 

You'd think this wouldn't be a big deal, but after searching the Internet for a day and a half, I'm gettin' nothing.

 

Do any of you folks know of a lab offering this type of service?

 

Thanks for your time.

Edited February 17, 2005 by RookieGeek

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, there are a number of places in LA that do this -- FotoKem, Technique, Cinesite, etc. However, if you're talking about a feature's volume of footage, the costs are so high that most people instead transfer to standard def video, edit the movie, and then using an EDL, scan selects to 2K for digital assembly.

[Guest Sean McVeigh]

Check BonoLabs

 

It's not quite 2k, but it's quite close, and the cost is next to nothing.

I'm considering this route as a cheap DI for a 35mm project I'm working on.

 

I posted some sample frames from their demo disk they sent me a while back in the Telecine & DI forum.

 

Sean

Edited February 17, 2005 by Sean McVeigh

[RookieGeek]

Sean: Thanks for the link to BonoLabs. That's about exactly what we're looking for.

 

According to their published price lists, I could deliver an hour's worth of developed 16mm film to their lab, and they'd charge:

 

Prep & clean: $108.00 (16mm film @ $0.05 per foot)

Telecine: $650.00 (charge for 1 hour)

Drive usage surcharge: $144.00 ($2.40 per minute)

 

So for $902.00 -- per hour -- plus shipping and other incidental charges, I get a QuickTime file digitized at 1080/24p.

 

That's pretty freakin' cool. If we can get our shooting ratio to, say, 5:1, we could have everything digitized --- and that would make image acquisition less than five thousand bucks. Then me and my crew could get medeival in Maya. As said, that's pretty freakin' cool.

 

I'd love to shoot HD with a CineAlta or VariCam, but those deals are north of $100k, and HDV just doesn't cut the mustard. (I'm confident that eventually there will be a reasonably priced all-digital signal acquisition system that's affordable to the small guy, but we're not there yet.)

 

Thanks very much for the replies. All the best.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> If we can get our shooting ratio to, say, 5:1

 

Which you can't.

 

> and that would make image acquisition less than five thousand bucks.

 

Plus $150,000 to feed your 16mm camera for a feature shoot.

 

> I'd love to shoot HD with a CineAlta or VariCam, but those deals are north of $100k,

 

The film will always be more expensive if you go digital in the middle. If you know you're going digital at some point, shooting digitally knocks off the entire cost of your stock and scanning; it can't fail to be cheaper.

 

Phil

[Guest Sean McVeigh]

Plus $150,000 to feed your 16mm camera for a feature shoot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've seen 16mm features with complete budgets of $40k CDN. Wasn't Pi shot for $60k or so?

[Guest Ian Marks]

I'm sure Pi wasn't anywhere near $150k, and plenty of other 16mm features have gone into the can without spending that much. (BTW, Sean, I'm digging the digital footage counter you made for my ACL - now if I could only get the motor to run more quietly...)

 

I thing Bono's "tapeless" approach is a great idea - get a "flat" HD scan of your negative so that you can make your adjustments on the computer - in effect, you get to be your own colorist.

 

Here's what I want - a digital capture device that mounts to my 16mm camera in place of the normal magazine, with a Super-16 sized sensor. All my lenses would work!

Edited February 17, 2005 by Ian Marks

[David Mullen ASC]

So for $902.00 -- per hour -- plus shipping and other incidental charges, I get a QuickTime file digitized at 1080/24p.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's for one hour of telecine time, which may work out to be nearly double your footage time, so a 5:1 ratio (which is too low) comes to 10 hours of material for a two-hour feature, so it could add up to 20 hours of telecine time -- at nearly $1000, comes to $20,000. Which is not bad, actually.

 

Then, of course, there is the $60,000 laser recorder transfer back to film... And the cost of the stock.

 

Truth is that it is cheaper to shoot and blow-up a Super-16 film to 35mm cheaper conventionally (video dailies / cut neg, etc. and use an optical printer) rather than digitally. An optical blow-up is less than half what a digital transfer back to film costs, something like $12,000 for a direct blow-up to a single print or $28,000 if you use an IP/IN method to make multiple 35mm prints.

 

I'd consider a 7:1 ratio the lowest you want to go.

[Guest Sean McVeigh]

That's for one hour of telecine time, which may work out to be nearly double your footage time, so a 5:1 ratio (which is too low) comes to 10 hours of material for a two-hour feature, so it could add up to 20 hours of telecine time -- at nearly $1000, comes to $20,000.  Which is not bad, actually.

 

Then, of course, there is the $60,000 laser recorder transfer back to film... And the cost of the stock.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, BonoLabs charges per footage time, not telecine time. Best light I think.

I've seen $300/minute laser recorder rates somewhere too I think at HD rez. Not a bad deal considering you then get negative, soundtrack, and a print in the deal for essentially $3/foot.

 

And, um, you're welcome Ian.. Don't remember building anyone such a device, but maybe I'm sleepwalking again.. you never know ;)

Edited February 18, 2005 by Sean McVeigh

[David Mullen ASC]

I've seen $300/minute laser recorder rates somewhere too I think at HD rez. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've seen CRT recorder transfers at that rate but not laser recorders. Cheapest rate I've ever run across for a laser recorder transfer was at Digital Film Labs in Copenhagen, at something like $450 or so per minute.

 

I just think you are underestimating everything because your budget is low. There are lots of hidden costs you have to be prepared for.

[Guest Sean McVeigh]

I've seen CRT recorder transfers at that rate but not laser recorders.  Cheapest rate I've ever run across for a laser recorder transfer was at Digital Film Labs in Copenhagen, at something like $450 or so per minute.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Quite possibly it was a CRT rate.. It was from Cineric that I got this quote:

 

"digital 35mm film out Digibeta, MniDV, or 2k is $295.00 per minute, plus an $800.00 set up charge for a short subject. HI-DEF to 35mm is $495.00 per minute."

 

Of course, for the budget conscious, CRT filmout may be a viable option.

[oswald shonner]

Hi,

 

> If we can get our shooting ratio to, say, 5:1

 

Which you can't.

 

> and that would make image acquisition less than five thousand bucks.

 

Plus $150,000 to feed your 16mm camera for a feature shoot.

 

> I'd love to shoot HD with a CineAlta or VariCam, but those deals are north of $100k,

 

The film will always be more expensive if you go digital in the middle. If you know you're going digital at some point, shooting digitally knocks off the entire cost of your stock and scanning; it can't fail to be cheaper.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Many features have been shot on a ratio of 5:1. 5:1 is not uncommon in the ultra-low budget world.

 

I'm not sure where you got the 150,000 figure - did you add a zero by accident? Also: most indie ultra-low budget features will likely not be using entirely new stock. Lots of recans, favors, etc.

 

My advice is this:

 

If you're going to make a feature and you don't have a distributor etc etc (like most indies) and you REALLY want to shoot on film because of the look - then shoot on Super 16mm, transfer to DigiBeta or if possible HD. Cut the thing and start submitting to festivals. MANY festivals will project your film on Video - only transfer your "film" to 35mm if a BIG festival requires it. Otherwise, don't bother and save the dough.

 

A prime example (sorry about the pun) is the film PRIMER (check the Imdb) which won Sundance in 2004. This was a Super 16mm film that was shot for 7000 I believe on borrowed equipment and favors. That's how to make a film. Don't worry about all this DI stuff for a feature right now - especially if you don't have the money. Do what you can to get it in the can and edit it and at least get a cut on a standard def video format to submit to festivals. then see what happens. If you're lucky, a distributor will pick up your film and pay for the blowup and the sound mix as was the case with Clerks.

 

Other films that have gone this route successfully:

 

Clerks, Pi, Borther's McMullen,

 

Oswald

[RookieGeek]

Thanks to all for the feedback, especially Mr. Mullen (Member #3!) and Mr. Rhodes. And in the case of Mr. Rhodes, for the pointed feedback. I respect your candid comments. And your cameras must be hungry indeed if it takes $150k to feed them, sir.

 

So even if you have every sequence, every scene, every shot storyboarded and rehearsed, the best your can reasonably expect is 7:1? I humbly yield to the experience and first-hand knowledge displayed on this board. Is this the consensus of the group, based on an organized shoot? Or as Oswald says, is 5:1 doable? I think, since as a general rule one should always budget for trouble, we'll plug 8:1 into the plan and if we get better than that, great.

 

I also appreciate Mr. Mullen's reminder of hidden costs. This is why I'm asking the questions and trying to calculate the cost of 'going analog' at this time, so I can present my case for 16mm image acquisition. I am of the strong opinion that HDV is not ready for prime-time, as they say --- even though some independent filmmakers are raving about it. We might be four to five years away from the arrival of a sub $30k digital camera that can rival the CineAlta/VariCam. Maybe longer. But if I'm going to expend the effort to accomplish this great thing, I don't want to mess it up (Remember the prayer of Alan Shepard).

 

I'm not worried about printing back to film (yet). And to one of Oswald's comments, the filmic look isn't really a major concern. Image quality is a concern, so I'm looking for the cheapest way to get quality images into our systems. It appears, from my initial research, that shooting on 16mm, and using BonoLabs (or someone like them) to process the film and provide digitized 1080/24p footage is actually cheaper than renting/buying a VariCam/CineAlta. Seems surprising, perhaps, but it might work out. Am going to really look hard at this before we move either way.

 

However, there's no apparent way around DI. Everything we want to do is an effects shot, so the footage has to get into the system.

 

We're planning on doing a short first, as a test. Maybe five minutes, maybe eight. Short enough that we can easily afford it, but long enough so that we can get a variety of conditions. It will be a good test, because we can rent/borrow a camera to do it, and at the end of it we will know whether or not our workflow, ah, works or not. And we'll have a very good estimate on the actual costs.

 

Thank you all very much.

 

P.S.

Pi was reported done for approx. $68,000.00. Here's a link to some interesting budget figures, and the site is nice enough to tell you up front that these might be complete studio fiction. But that's not the type of story we're interested in telling.

[David Mullen ASC]

It appears, from my initial research, that shooting on 16mm, and using BonoLabs (or someone like them) to process the film and provide digitized 1080/24p footage is actually cheaper than renting/buying a VariCam/CineAlta. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sounds unlikely that (1) renting a Super-16 camera; (2) paying for stock; (3) processing it; and (4) telecine transferring to HD... works out to be cheaper than renting an HD camera in the first place. I've rented an F900 for a month for $10,000 in the past and I somehow doubt all of your 16mm costs up through a transfer to HD will be less than that.

[Dominik Muench]

sorry if i intervene with my humble knowledge in this discussion, from what i understood is that i can get a completely digital scan of my 16mm footage on a harddrive ? in what format would that then be ? uncompresse tiff image sequence ? is that considered to be a DigiIntermediate then ? or what would that process be called since i am interested in getting that done for a music video i am going to shoot on 16mm in 3 weeks.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> from what i understood is that i can get a completely digital scan of my 16mm footage on a harddrive ?

 

Yes. Expensive though.

 

> in what format would that then be?

 

Usually 2048x1556 10-bit log if you want 2K, 1920x1080 8-bit linear for hi-def or 720x480 or 720x576 for NTSC or PAL standard def, respectively. Usually hard disk output is used only for 2K, but there's nothing stopping you doing standard def that way. In fact, I'm surprised it isn't done more.

 

> is that considered to be a DigiIntermediate then?

 

It is if you do stuff to it then burn it back out to film.

 

> or what would that process be called since i am interested in getting that done for a music video i am

> going to shoot on 16mm in 3 weeks.

 

If you're just after the ability to edit it, I'd just have it put out to digibeta tape, then you can cut a DV dub and conform the digi. The only exception would be if you plan to get clever with it in a way that would be too costly to replicate on digibeta.

 

Phil

[David Cox]

RookieGeek,

 

Just one word of caution for the film scan to files. Often the "lower cost" telecine transfers are assumed to be for the cutting process only, and so they assume that you will return at a later date with a "select list" to re-transfer the shots you are actually going to use. I flag this up because if you plan on using such a transfer for your DI input, then these transfers are often done with less regard for noise reduction and optimal contrast grading.

 

The result is that the images you start with might be grainy/noisy and have a restrictive contrast.

 

So either make sure that whoever is doing your transfer knows that you plan to use that footage as your final material, or indeed take the route of having a fast-and-cheap "one light" to cut from, then transfer properly your selected scenes.

 

In general, scans for DI should have the appropriate noise reduction applied, and each scene be graded such that nothing in the blacks is so black it disappears and likewise for the highlights in the whites. That way, you have all of the information you need to proceed.

 

BTW - You mentioned MAYA as one of your systems. Does this mean this is a special effects shoot? Remember 16mm (subject to stock, lighting and transfer) can be technically grainy and have a good deal of film weave (movement in the frame). These can give you a good deal of grief with motion tracking etc. HD of course, suffers less from these particular issues.

 

Good Luck!

 

David Cox

Managing Director

Baraka Post Production Ltd

www.baraka.co.uk

[Rik Andino]

Plus $150,000 to feed your 16mm camera for a feature shoot.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Goddamnit 16mm stock must cost about $500 per 400' can in the UK

I heard things were expensive in Europe, but not that expensive.

 

At a 10:1 ration for a 2.5 hour film

The cost of stock and developement comes to roughly 50K---maybe 60K

 

I know it'll be around 25K to buy 150-400'cans of 16mm film (that's 60,000ft.)

And probably another 25K---40K to develop it.

So roughly around 50K--60K.

 

I just did the numbers for this feature that's in early, early preproduction

And we figure it's easier to shoot S16mm than HD

(And the cost are relatively the same.)

 

& get this

 

Now imagine how much it would cost doing it in a lower ratio-->7:1...?

And doing a shorter movie (how many movies are 2.5 hours?)

Buying recans and short-ends and getting deals with the labs

You could probably lower the cost to about 25K (maybe even less!)

 

Now that's cheaper and easier than shooting HD.

 

It cost money to shoot S16 film, but not that much money.

Do the numbers Phil....it's not that expensive

[RookieGeek]

Just wanted to say thanks to all for your excellent feedback and suggestions. The spirit of community and level of intelligent discussion on this board has simply astounded me.

 

We're going to pencil in a VariCam rental for our current budget plan. Thanks again.

 

Cheers.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi

 

Hm, let's see at London street prices:

 

120 minutes times ten (I suspect that the average hollywood show probably shoots around 20:1, but whatever you want to pretend) is 120 rolls of super16 at about £100 a roll, that's £12k.

 

Rent the camera package. £500/day for at least 20 days, £10k.

 

Process, 10p/foot; £4800.

 

Transfer everything "cheaply" - even a one light is going to cost you £300/hour in London. Even figuring 1:1 times, that's another £6k.

 

Assume you cut on DV, so you have your transfers from digi. £2k.

 

Now let's be nice and overlook cost to cut, we'll assume you do it on FCP or something. £5k to buy the system outright.

 

I have no idea what neg cutting costs, so I can't include that.

 

Then three more days in a £500/hour suite, even if you get a 15% price break, is £15k.

 

15% contingency to cover all the stuff I forgot, around £7k.

 

At the current exchange rate that's just over US$120,000, and as I say, I'd suggest that the average big movie shoots much more stock than that and probably spends on toys like Steadicam. That £500/day will just about get you a workable SR2 package in London.

 

And this is 16mm, so your movie will look soft and cheap.

 

Phil

[Guest Sean McVeigh]

Putting in a word to the budget conscious here,

Using Phil's numbers as a starting point...

Depending on just how DIY you are, there are of course, corners that can be cut:

 

- buying ends / recans instead of new stock (can save 50% or more -- tradeoff here is of course, reliability)

- £10k camera rental? You could buy an SR2 package for that price and sell when finished. Upkeep costs apply in this case of course.

- Possible you (or an associate) already own an NLE system. That £5k cost to buy is non-recurring.

- If finishing to video, there's no neg cutting to do.

- Assuming your three days in a £500/hour suite is the grading.. again, depending on how DIY you want to get, this could be reduced or eliminated.

 

Naturally, I agree that your budget is the "proper" way to do things.. but there are of course cheaper options available, depending on where you're willing to compromise -- either quality-wise, or effort-wise (often these two trade-offs appear at two ends of the same spectrum when you are working on a fixed budget).

Not trying to convince you, Phil, because you already know all of this.. I'm just putting in some words of encouragement for the original poster.

 

Sean

[oswald shonner]

With all due respect, Phil, I think you're a little out of touch with the indie filmmaking scene (which is a little suprising considering your experience).

 

Very few indie low-budget features have a 20:1 reatio. Regardless of of what Hollywood does. And by the way, an average hollywood show has a ratio of more like 30 to 40:1, not 20:1.

 

Your original statement was "Plus $150,000 to feed your 16mm camera for a feature shoot" - So, as I mentioned (and others), you're estimate was a litte high, to say the least<g>. You've included all kinds of costs that do not factor into idea that you'd ave to put "$150,000" through the camera. But lets factor in all the equipment anyway etcetera etcetera:

 

Now let's have a look at my numbers:

 

Shoot the feature at a 10:1 ratio (pretty liberal for ultra low budget, but hey, let's pretend).

 

So, lets say the feature is 2 hours (longer than the average low-budget indie, but let's pretend that too).

 

So, get recans and shortends. 2 hours X 10 = 20 hours which equals 1200 minutes. So lets say the production has decided to get 44000 feet of 16mm film. Now lets say the production shoots on recans at 25cents.

 

That means filmstock will cost: 11,000

Processing at cost with video prep: 9,240

One-lite transfer to mini-dv (get a deal at $250/hour): 9000 (based on a 1.5x)

Edit on your friend's editing system for free or buy your own system for: $6000.

Do a basic sound edit and mix on the same system.

 

The do an output back to mini-dv -start dubbing to VSH or DVD and send to festivals!

 

Now about camera rentals: 500 pounds a day!? Are you kidding me? No ultra-low budget indie show pays that kind of dough. Get a cheap SRII that has been converted or whatever for no more than 200 DOLLARS a day and get it at a three-day week.

 

I could go on and on but my point is this:

 

So many successfull indie-features would not have been made if they were to take your advice, phil. It's just not the way things are working out there. PRIMER was shot for 7000 US dollars and then only when it was accepted to Sundance was it blown up. Clerks, Pi, Borther's McMullen, have you heard of the film "Following?". Shot on 16mm for very, very cheap. Filmmaker went on to make some very popular films. All of these films were made by filmmakers who did not allow the "industry" to tell them what was "right or wrong". They just went out and did it. They begged, borrowed (I won't say they stole... but<g>). They didn't get a camera package for "500(pounds!)" a day. They didn't pay book-rates for lighting. They didn't pay book rates for editing. etc.

 

You can shoot your film on Super 16mm for very cheap and even get it to a projectable format (ie Video) for most festivals. Then after that, if it gets into a biggie, then find the dough for a reasonable looking blowup. Soft and cheap? You mean soft and cheap the way Primer looks? Or Pi? Or Clerks? That kind of Soft and Cheap? Or do you mean the soft and cheap in the "Aviator" kind of way?

 

No, the ultra-low budget world is NOT hollywood. And we're thankful for that both in the prevailing attitude and the stories that are being told. Even if they are little "soft and cheap".

 

Oswald.

 

 

Hi

 

Hm, let's see at London street prices:

 

120 minutes times ten (I suspect that the average hollywood show probably shoots around 20:1, but whatever you want to pretend) is 120 rolls of super16 at about £100 a roll, that's £12k.

 

Rent the camera package. £500/day for at least 20 days, £10k.

 

Process, 10p/foot; £4800.

 

Transfer everything "cheaply" - even a one light is going to cost you £300/hour in London. Even figuring 1:1 times, that's another £6k.

 

Assume you cut on DV, so you have your transfers from digi. £2k.

 

Now let's be nice and overlook cost to cut, we'll assume you do it on FCP or something. £5k to buy the system outright.

 

I have no idea what neg cutting costs, so I can't include that.

 

Then three more days in a £500/hour suite, even if you get a 15% price break, is £15k.

 

15% contingency to cover all the stuff I forgot, around £7k.

 

At the current exchange rate that's just over US$120,000, and as I say, I'd suggest that the average big movie shoots much more stock than that and probably spends on toys like Steadicam. That £500/day will just about get you a workable SR2 package in London.

 

And this is 16mm, so your movie will look soft and cheap.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited February 18, 2005 by oswald

[oswald shonner]

And this is from colorlab: http://www.colorlab.com/services/dailies.html

 

Look at the total at the bottom. Now if you can manage to get camera rental, gear, crew, actors, food, equipment for under 30,000, then you're talking about getting your film made for festivals for under 55000. But with a lot of creativity and favors you can do it for less!

 

Here's a budget for best-light anamorphic or 4:3 video dailies, creating a BCSP with synced sound for Avid editing.

 

40,000' = 1,112' minutes = 18.5 hours

 

40,000' S-16 processing, leader, prep, ultrasonic clean .16/ft 6,400.00

 

40,000' Best-lite anamorphic Rank dailies (each new set up color corrected) .24 9,600

 

49 Reel change charges 20.00 980.00

 

50 BCSP 30's 30 1,500.00

 

36hrs Audio sync 3:1 of approx 65 rolls of sync material 80.00 2,880.00

 

Total: $21,360.00

Or $.53/ft

[Christian Appelt]

@ RookieGeek:

 

Do you really need the entire film digitized?

You could shoot on Super 16, have a standard rez telecine on DigiBeta.

Then do your editing, and when your film is finished, have your S16 negative cut and optically printed/scanned&DI'd to 35mm.

 

If you have only selected effects (assuming the main body your film is not shot in a green screen environment :) ), have them scanned Hirez and do the job in Maya ONLY for these scenes/shots, then have them recorded to 35mm and insert them into the 35mm blowup of the rest.

 

I have seen the total DI route from S16 a number of times, and for most projects the degree of image manipulation (outside of a few effects shots with heavy compositing) was nothing that couldn't have been done in traditional color grading at the lab.

 

Always assuming that the initial cinematography was top notch and not done with a "we'll fix it/degrain/uprez it in the post" attitude. Shoot low and medium stocks, get a good negative density and if you are unsure, make a 1 min test and watch it on a big screen. Then decide what solution will be more satisfactory.

 

Doing it all digital is nice, but why spend money on film in/film out when you don't really need it? ;)

Edited February 19, 2005 by Christian Appelt

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Total: $21,360.00

 

Christ, maybe in your part of the world. There is almost no availability of 16mm recans in London. There is no telecine under £300/hour. There are no workable camera packages under £500/day - £200/day might just barely get you the body and lenses.

 

And if you're finishing to video: what's the point in shooting film? In a world with an SDX-900 in it, that's a very, very tough decision to make - you're going to spend an extra $100k just to get back to exactly the same DVCAM you'd have had with an SDX-900? I can't imagine an investor in the galaxy would buy it.

 

Phil

Edited February 19, 2005 by Phil Rhodes