Luka Kito Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 Hi, Compare to SD or DV production, how much more does a HD production would cost to clients in general? I know this is sort of a nonsensical question since there are many factors that can increase cost, but, say, if someone is to hire a production house ( pre, production, post prodcution all included as one) to make a 10 min. video to display in a museum. When all other things are equal, like travel, personnel cost, getting copyrighted material approval and so on, if the client want to go with HD not regular definition, what kind of cost increase does a client face? In general, how big of a difference does it make budget wise today from regular definition to a HD ? Thanks in advance Luka Kito Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted April 1, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 1, 2005 Hi, Compare to SD or DV production, how much more does a HD production would cost to clients in general? I know this is sort of a nonsensical question since there are many factors that can increase cost, but, say, if someone is to hire a production house ( pre, production, post prodcution all included as one) to make a 10 min. video to display in a museum. When all other things are equal, like travel, personnel cost, getting copyrighted material approval and so on, if the client want to go with HD not regular definition, what kind of cost increase does a client face? In general, how big of a difference does it make budget wise today from regular definition to a HD ? Thanks in advance Luka Kito <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It depends on where you are located and which HD format. Not every Facility can handle HD ! However it should be priced at a small (if any) premium to Digi Beta. The tapes are a little more expensive. Stephen Williams DP Zurich www.stephenw.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luka Kito Posted April 1, 2005 Author Share Posted April 1, 2005 It depends on where you are located and which HD format. Not every Facility can handle HD ! However it should be priced at a small (if any) premium to Digi Beta. The tapes are a little more expensive. Stephen Williams DP Zurich www.stephenw.com <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi, Say, it is in NY ( where i am located), and the format to be the highest quality format, uncompressed. Delivery to be on tape. so, if the facility can handle it, it should not be that much more to HD, but just extra for tapes? That sounds very good. In other words, if someone came to you as a 'client' and asked you to produce a 10m video that requires some story boarding, scripting, interviews, getting some historic video footage into HD, b-roll and compositing. And asks 'how much more do you charge if i want everything on HD?" Will you charge the same or more? - just to clarify, i am not the one who would be involved in this particular situation. Someone asked me if he choose to use HD for the project he is involved, if there is a premium or not in terms of production/post production cost, and he is trying to see if his budget would allow that or not. Apparently , he has worked with people on regular definition in the past, so he has some idea of the cost from that project. thanks Luka Kito Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Cox Posted April 1, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 1, 2005 Talking from a post production point of view, many facilities do charge a premium for HD owing to the extra investment needed. At Baraka, we have worked for 4 years to make our HD rates the same as our SD rates. The element that does add to the cost though is the actual tape deck costs - a HD D5 costs over 4x the cost of a digi beta deck. The other thing you should bare in mind is that, since obviously HD has more pixels, any rendering (processing) time will be increased by a factor of 4 or 5 for anything that you have to process. A good test though is that the facility you use should be able to at least color grade and do simple composites in full (uncompressed) resolution in real time without processing. If they can't, then question whether they have properly invested in HD. David Cox Baraka Post Production www.baraka.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Andino Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 You should also keep in mind that renting an HD camera Is going to cost 2x more than renting and SD camera. I think an F900 goes for about 1grand a day. As opposed to the SDX900 which is around 400 a day. SD lenses are also less expensive than HD lenses... Be expected to shell out close to 2000 a day for a good HD package Especially one with prime lenses. I'd expect to double your budget in the camera dept When moving from SD to HD. You might work out some good deals with rental houses But you should ask around for rental prices for cameras... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted April 2, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 2, 2005 You should also keep in mind that renting an HD cameraIs going to cost 2x more than renting and SD camera. I think an F900 goes for about 1grand a day. As opposed to the SDX900 which is around 400 a day. SD lenses are also less expensive than HD lenses... Be expected to shell out close to 2000 a day for a good HD package Especially one with prime lenses. I'd expect to double your budget in the camera dept When moving from SD to HD. You might work out some good deals with rental houses But you should ask around for rental prices for cameras... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Depending on how many days shoot and your shooting ratio , Super 16 could be an option as you want the highest quality. I charge the same whatever format I shoot. IMHO the final product looks much better when shot on film, so is the best value for my client. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luka Kito Posted April 5, 2005 Author Share Posted April 5, 2005 Thank you everyone, it has been very helpful. luka kito Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted April 5, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 5, 2005 Hi, > Depending on how many days shoot and your shooting ratio , Super 16 could > be an option as you want the highest quality Unless you need to make a film print and weren't considering a DI anyway, film will always be many times more expensive than even very good HD video. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 film will always be many times more expensive than even very good HD video. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's not true. In some circumstances it is possible to get a super 16 body for free. Depending on various factors you could shoot super 16 for less than HD shooting and post. Depends on a lot of factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 I have to agree that a Super 16 budget is going to compete very closely with a HD budget. The very best HD is very expensive. Lots of labs are offering telecine to Hard drives and they deliver it in uncompressed HD. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted April 6, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 6, 2005 Hi, > In some circumstances it is possible to get a super 16 body for free. Well if you're going to say that, you can say anything... Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted April 6, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 6, 2005 Hi, > Depending on how many days shoot and your shooting ratio , Super 16 could > be an option as you want the highest quality film will always be many times more expensive than even very good HD video. Phil <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Phil, "many times more expensive" If that were true then only people with the highest budgets could shoot film. However many students make films on film, instead of making a video on video. Stephen Williams DoP www.stephenw.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Hi, > In some circumstances it is possible to get a super 16 body for free. Well if you're going to say that, you can say anything... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It is much more common for a private person to own a Bolex, a Canon Scoopic, an Aaton LTR, or even an Arri SR 2, than to own a Varicam or an F900. I've recently shot a 5 minute short with a borrowed Aaton LTR. Rented a full set of Zeiss standard speeds, $250 Shot three roles of 400', $80 per role. Processed 10 cents per foot = $120. Got a deal on a Rank to digibeta at $280 for the whole session. I wouldn't count that as many times more expensive than very good HD, and the end product has that elusive "film look". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted April 7, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 7, 2005 (edited) Hi, > If that were true then only people with the highest budgets could shoot film Um... yes? > However many students make films on film, instead of making a video on video. Me too, but I am keenly aware of the amount of freebies I got. > It is much more common for a private person to own a Bolex, a Canon Scoopic, an > Aaton LTR, or even an Arri SR 2, than to own a Varicam or an F900. Yeah, but they don't own the Eastman Kodak company, Technicolor Labs and Thompson/Phillips, which is the other half of the equation, yes? A film camera is half a device - less - without the film, lab and transfer equipment. Phil Edited April 7, 2005 by Phil Rhodes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted April 7, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 7, 2005 Hi, Yeah, but they don't own the Eastman Kodak company, Technicolor Labs and Thompson/Phillips, which is the other half of the equation, yes? A film camera is half a device - less - without the film, lab and transfer equipment. Phil <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Phil, Keep a low shooting ratio, 8:1 and you can shoot a 30 second commercial on 1 400' roll of 35mm! I often have to work like this and then I can shoot 35mm for a tiny premium to DigiBeta! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riku Naskali Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Keep a low shooting ratio, 8:1... That's not low for students ;) I'm averaging about 4:1 whenever I get the change to shoot film. The main thing is, the cost difference really isn't that big a deal when you have to pay for grip/lighting equipment. But on a student projects where the gear is free, it's a big deal. Also, you have ridiculously cheap processing/transfers in the states. I'm actually thinking about shooting some film and sending it overseas for processing and transfer, obviously a little bit risky. 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