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

oswald shonner · February 19, 2005

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Christopher Nolan's film FOLLOWING was made for under 20 thousand pounds in London, UK. So I don't know what you're talking about. It's about drive, a belief in what you're doing and an unwillingness to take "no you can't" for an answer. I'm sure that independent spirit exists in the UK just as proven with films like FOLLOWING.

Do you honestly think that there aren't any workable camera packages in the UK for under 500 pounds? Come on! We're not talking BOOK RATES Phil, We're talking about and INDEPENDENT FILMMAKER who does the leg work to get DEALS.

There are many reasons to shoot film, even if you are going to finish on Video: 1) you might prefer the look of film to video. 2) If you are going to finish on Video for festival release, then you might want a film-negative for a possible film-finish blowup if the film is picked up by a distributor. Don't these reasons make sense? This isn't an argument AGAINST shooting video. I like the look of video for certain projects. I'm just saying that it makes perfect sense to shoot film even if you finish on video as many TV shows do. Just like it makes perfect sense to shoot color negative even if you're going to finish in Black and White. It's all about what look you are going for and whether you want to cover yourself.

>>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.<<

Sorry Phil, but I think you are totally out of touch with how things work in the ultra-low budget indie film world. "Investors"? Don't you know that "Investors" who "Invest" in a ultra low-budget film don't really concern themselves with format? They concern themselves primarily with an interesting story and the filmmaker him/herself. Do you think the "investors" who threw some money towards Smith, Aronofsky, Nolan or Carruth really cared that their films were being shot on 16mm? Or that the image might be "soft?". Or that it might make "more sense" or be "more logical" to "just shoot on video?".

Even in mid-range low budget projects (under a million), the investors don't get all huffy and puffy about format or the logic of post-production flow.

You're not making a lot of sense on this one. Surely you can't honestly believe that in the UK filmmakers aren't making ultra-low budget films whereby they use borrowed equipment or get excellent deals from equipment houses and post-facilities, and shooting on film. There are a lot of UK filmmakers that would find you somewhat uninformed.

Oswald

Phil Rhodes · February 19, 2005

Hi,

There's probably not a lot of point in continuing this since clearly we're in completely different worlds as regards cost of production, but here we go:

> Christopher Nolan

Yes, famed transatlantic who's married to his producer. Note one: be an American.

> film FOLLOWING was made for under 20 thousand pounds in London, UK.

Not possible; that's under $30k when the dollar was worth something, plus it's black and white. I suspect this 20k was rather like Rodriguez's 7K on El Mariachi.

> It's about drive, a belief in what you're doing and an unwillingness to take "no

> you can't" for an answer.

Yes, that's very lovely. Now you take your belief and unwillingness to Colour Film Services' accounts department and see how far it gets you.

> I'm sure that independent spirit exists in the UK just as proven with films like

> FOLLOWING.

Independent spirit exists in the UK as a bunch of ability-free losers with PD-150s.

> Do you honestly think that there aren't any workable camera packages in the

> UK for under 500 pounds?

It's not just about what I think, it's about what people charge. I can only quote what they tell me. Also consider "workable" - most cheap film cameras have near-unusable viewfinders. The one I used last week required you to move your head around to see the entire image!

> INDEPENDENT FILMMAKER who does the leg work to get DEALS.

Yes, once again that may work where you are, because you have a film industry that is a reasonable source of regular employment. Here we do not, and there is practically no chance whatsoever that the filmmaker you give a deal now will be back in a few years with regular paid work. I wouldn't give anyone a deal in London because they plead poverty (and I don't!) because no matter how much they claim there'll be paid work later, it is fundamentally not going to happen.

> 1) you might prefer the look of film to video

Matter of opinion.

> 2) If you are going to finish on Video for festival release, then you might want a > film-negative for a possible film-finish blowup...

I am not aware of any production that did not budget to a print that actually got around to doing it. The weasel phrase "possible film finish" is an excuse by bad producers for not being able to produce real movies. It will not happen. It never does. It's an excuse.

> Sorry Phil, but I think you are totally out of touch with how things work in the

> ultra-low budget indie film world. "Investors"? Don't you know that "Investors"

> who "Invest" in a ultra low-budget film don't really concern themselves with

> format?

I think they concern themselves with what they're going to get for their money. If the choice is between a DVCAM tape and a DVCAM tape, and they're of largely identical technical and artistic merit, I think I'll take the twenty-grand DVCAM tape over the two-hundred-grand DVCAM tape. Yes, this requires you to hire staff who know what they're doing, and no this doesn't mean you can hire a film DP, shoot video, then gripe about the results.

> Do you think the "investors" who threw some money towards Smith, Aronofsky,

> Nolan or Carruth really cared that their films were being shot on 16mm?

I don't think they cared about anything except the buzz of being involved in film. Nobody invests in independent film with any hope at all of making money on it. God knows why anyone ever would; I guess some people have more money than sense. I have never attempted to produce anything I couldn't finance personally, and personally I don't have £20k lying around even if it were possible to produce for that kind of money. And much less the £200k it actually takes to achieve anything.

> Surely you can't honestly believe that in the UK filmmakers aren't making ultra

> low budget films whereby they use borrowed equipment or get excellent deals

> from equipment houses and post-facilities, and shooting on film.

Why would you believe that? You're not even in the country.

> There are a lot of UK filmmakers that would find you somewhat uninformed.

Name two.

Phil

Edited February 19, 2005 by Phil Rhodes

oswald shonner · February 20, 2005

Okay, Phil. Time to move on. We'll keep making our films on film and you keep telling us that we "shouldn't be". The advice you are giving is based on numbers and situations that don't apply to the indie world. You're not willing to look outside that frustrating, industry box you find yourself in.

>>I have never attempted to produce anything I couldn't finance personally<<

The key wordshere are "never attempted". I'm beginning to wonder if you have any experience producing anything that involved doing the legwork for getting deals. I don't think you have. Have you? If you haven't then how can you have an informed opinion on this? And I'm not talking about a 16mm film test or a three minute short. I'm talking about a longer short, like 20 minutes or a feature. Have you ever even attempted making a film of that length for next to nothing? Based on your outlook, I imagine you never have, or, if you have, you must have given up rather quickly.

>>Independent spirit exists in the UK as a bunch of ability-free losers with PD-150s.<<

LOL! You're hysterical! Clearly you're not part of any independent spirit - and so I am beginning to understand your perspective is so conservative.

Knowing how to spell "lens" is one thing. Knowing anything about the battles and victories of indie filmmaking is another thing.

Oswald.

Hi,

There's probably not a lot of point in continuing this since clearly we're in completely different worlds as regards cost of production, but here we go:

> Christopher Nolan

Yes, famed transatlantic who's married to his producer. Note one: be an American.

> film FOLLOWING was made for under 20 thousand pounds in London, UK.

Not possible; that's under $30k when the dollar was worth something, plus it's black and white. I suspect this 20k was rather like Rodriguez's 7K on El Mariachi.

> It's about drive, a belief in what you're doing and an unwillingness to take "no

> you can't" for an answer.

Yes, that's very lovely. Now you take your belief and unwillingness to Colour Film Services' accounts department and see how far it gets you.

> I'm sure that independent spirit exists in the UK just as proven with films like

> FOLLOWING.

Independent spirit exists in the UK as a bunch of ability-free losers with PD-150s.

> Do you honestly think that there aren't any workable camera packages in the

> UK for under 500 pounds?

It's not just about what I think, it's about what people charge. I can only quote what they tell me. Also consider "workable" - most cheap film cameras have near-unusable viewfinders. The one I used last week required you to move your head around to see the entire image!

> INDEPENDENT FILMMAKER who does the leg work to get DEALS.

Yes, once again that may work where you are, because you have a film industry that is a reasonable source of regular employment. Here we do not, and there is practically no chance whatsoever that the filmmaker you give a deal now will be back in a few years with regular paid work. I wouldn't give anyone a deal in London because they plead poverty (and I don't!) because no matter how much they claim there'll be paid work later, it is fundamentally not going to happen.

> 1) you might prefer the look of film to video

Matter of opinion.

> 2) If you are going to finish on Video for festival release, then you might want a > film-negative for a possible film-finish blowup...

I am not aware of any production that did not budget to a print that actually got around to doing it. The weasel phrase "possible film finish" is an excuse by bad producers for not being able to produce real movies. It will not happen. It never does. It's an excuse.

> Sorry Phil, but I think you are totally out of touch with how things work in the

> ultra-low budget indie film world. "Investors"? Don't you know that "Investors"

> who "Invest" in a ultra low-budget film don't really concern themselves with

> format?

I think they concern themselves with what they're going to get for their money. If the choice is between a DVCAM tape and a DVCAM tape, and they're of largely identical technical and artistic merit, I think I'll take the twenty-grand DVCAM tape over the two-hundred-grand DVCAM tape. Yes, this requires you to hire staff who know what they're doing, and no this doesn't mean you can hire a film DP, shoot video, then gripe about the results.

> Do you think the "investors" who threw some money towards Smith, Aronofsky,

> Nolan or Carruth really cared that their films were being shot on 16mm?

I don't think they cared about anything except the buzz of being involved in film. Nobody invests in independent film with any hope at all of making money on it. God knows why anyone ever would; I guess some people have more money than sense. I have never attempted to produce anything I couldn't finance personally, and personally I don't have £20k lying around even if it were possible to produce for that kind of money. And much less the £200k it actually takes to achieve anything.

> Surely you can't honestly believe that in the UK filmmakers aren't making ultra

> low budget films whereby they use borrowed equipment or get excellent deals

> from equipment houses and post-facilities, and shooting on film.

Why would you believe that? You're not even in the country.

> There are a lot of UK filmmakers that would find you somewhat uninformed.

Name two.

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rik Andino · February 20, 2005

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds to me like there's no point to shooting movies in the UK

It's so goddamn expensive might as well come on over here mate...

The SDX 900 is a great camera but it'll never look like a good film shot on S16

Phil Rhodes · February 20, 2005

Hi,

> I'm beginning to wonder if you have any experience producing anything that involved

> doing the legwork for getting deals.

Let me try to be more complete on this.

In somewhere like Toronto, New York, or LA, if an independent producer comes to you, he's probably going to be a reasonably well-funded outfit. It's easier to give 30% discounts on a $10,000 order than a $500 order. However, the point is this: you know that someone producing at that level is a reasonably good bet for repeat business. I don't know if you're aware of this, but comfortably over 80% of clients for any business are repeat trade. So, you can give things away to this person as what's called a "loss leader", and in any case, you're giving things away as part of a much larger package. It's a workable business opportunity and people will do it.

Compare London. First off, the average independent film here is funded to maybe one tenth the level of something there. So, you're already 90% worse off than you ever were, and remember this is a place where the costs of living and running a business are double to triple what they are in the US. Then, on top of this, you have the unavoidable certainty that the wannabe you're talking to on the phone isn't going to get anywhere in the long term. No independent producer in the UK is ever going to bring back repeat business to you as there's no repeat business to bring; the one in ten thousand (literally one in ten thousand, or less) who achieves a modicum of success immediately leaves for sunnier climes.

The difference is this: giving away camera equipment, film stock and crew time in the US is a business opportunity. In the UK it is a gift, a favour that you know will never be repaid, and in many cases isn't even appreciated. Because of attitudes like yours, and the prominence of the American voice in filmmaking, small-time producers in the UK expect to have the world handed to them on a plate, even though it's absolutely impossible for them ever to be commercially successful and repay what they took.

It is a completely different world. I don't dispute that what you're contending is the case where you are; I have no idea, but believe me I've made the phone calls and I know what filmmaking costs in this country. Having been on the receiving end of those phone calls I'm also very clear on what people expect to get for nothing - eight days of my time, no expenses payments, travel or food was the last "offer" I received. It's hard not to laugh at these people. What possible incentive do I have to offer them myself and my services for nothing - the productions are universally awful, talentless losers with no ability to write, direct, act, and they will absolutely never be back with more business because if they had work they'd be in LA.

On the upside I may be able to spend some time over there this year and possibly shoot some more stuff there - even if I pay book rates, with the exchange rate the way it is, the costs will be at least two thirds lower. But I won't kid myself that it'd be for anything more than my own artistic amusement.

Phil

oswald shonner · February 20, 2005

And on top of everything, you have that whole fox hunt issue that is turning the country upside-down.

>>On the upside I may be able to spend some time over there this year and possibly shoot some more stuff there - even if I pay book rates, with the exchange rate the way it is, the costs will be at least two thirds lower. But I won't kid myself that it'd be for anything more than my own artistic amusement.<<

I can respect that.

Have you considered shooting on 2-perf 35mm? - Just joking.

Oswald

Rik Andino · February 20, 2005

Having been on the receiving end of those phone calls I'm also very clear on what people expect to get for nothing - eight days of my time, no expenses payments, travel or food was the last "offer" I received. It's hard not to laugh at these people. What possible incentive do I have to offer them myself and my services for nothing - the productions are universally awful, talentless losers with no ability to write, direct, act, and they will absolutely never be back with more business because if they had work they'd be in LA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many of the indie productions in the US are the same way...

There's just a bunch of people who should not be filmmaking

They lack the talent, the intellegence, the need, the drive, and perseverance

Everyone of us has had run in with these folks

Have a DV camera and a script and they want to remake Ben-Hur

Anyways we're not so different you and I

The US might just have some UK in it (and vice versa) :)

Marco Leavitt · February 21, 2005

I find this whole thread alarming. I had budgeted film and developing costs for our first ambitious feature at $8,000. I determined this based on a 5 to 1 shooting ratio using the prices for 16mm black and white film stock at www.filmemporium.com. I factored in the developing costs (.19 cents a foot) based on the lab they recommended. This all seemed pretty cut and dry, but if I've been living in a fantasy land, I'd really like to hear about it before I get in way over my head. I understand the shooting ratio may not be realistic (please, more opinions about this), but the rest of the figures seem pretty straightforward: 20,000 feet times .19 times 2. Developing and film stock are about the same price per foot. What's wrong with that formula?

I'm aware that I haven't factored in telecine costs here. It seems kind of hard to budget for since we don't plan to shoot until 2007 and God knows what rates and formats will be available by then.

David Mullen ASC · February 21, 2005

Regarding a 5:1 ratio, it's certainly doable if you have no choice, it's just that you might find it frustrating because it means more camera rehearsals and fewer takes, perhaps less coverage as well. Some directors and actors don't like to over-rehearse before the shot but with a small amount of stock, you have no choice.

The lowest I've gone is 7:1 but I have heard of 5:1 shoots before so it's possible certainly.

Phil Rhodes · February 21, 2005

Hi,

The stuff I shot worked out at around 7:1, and we were kind of trying to find things to do with the last fifty feet - which I guess is roughly where you want to be!

Phil