Super 35 Initiate

[John Demps]

Hello fellow cinematographers. I shooting my first Super 35 / 2:35 feature. I will go through the optical blowup process. Will someone explain the concept behind having a common center or common top frame line? Which one is best to use?

I'd also like to know the cost of going to a DI. It's probably too expensive for my 3 million dollar picture.

Thanks,

Njaga

[David Mullen ASC]

The lowest bid I ever got for a feature-length D.I. was $100,000 -- other places quoted me more like $180,000. It's basically like the costs of mastering a movie for home video in HDTV plus the costs of a laser recorder film-out. So if you're budgeted all the way out to making home video deliverables plus release prints, IN's, etc. then the D.I. is not as unreasonable. You could also shoot in 3-perf and apply some of the stock savings towards the D.I.

 

However, many indie films are not budgeted all the way through to home video deliverables. They want to get a distributor first before they spend the money to finish the film past the answer print.

 

The advantage of common top is that the headroom for the TV and theatrical version can be the same, which also helps you preserve more of the sides for TV. The boom person will love you.

 

The disadvantage is that now you have a LOT more space at the bottom to protect for TV. And you are no longer putting the image in the optical center of the lens, so lens flares may appear differently and zooming may required tilting as well to keep the subject centered.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

So if you're budgeted all the way out to making home video deliverables plus release prints, IN's, etc. then the D.I. is not as unreasonable.

Well, let me do the math here, because I myself am interested...

 

Assume a standard 110-120 minute feature going the optical route,

 

Negative cutting is about $10,000

First answer print is about $7,500

Optical track is about $4,000

Second answer print is like $3,500

Add another two at around $5,000

Then we have an interpostitive at $22,000

..and an internegative at another $22,000

Check print at $4,000

Afterwards, there's a HDTV transfer,

which you can get for about $600 an hour.

A fairly conservative 12 hours of that and you have $7,200.

Then there are other smaller costs like downconversions which aren't as important here.

 

So roughly it costs $85,200 to go optically with all deliverables in place. That's still 15 thousand bucks cheaper than the cheapest digital intermediate. I'm sure at 100 grand you don't have much time to be flexible in the DI suite, it's probably nothing more than a glorified film timing session with contrast control added as an extra.

 

I would totally love to try it but I also think it's a bit pointless to shoot 35 then downgrade it via HDTV, I'd rather go the 2K route and I believe that only becomes an option at or above 150 g's - from what I've read.

 

Other opinions appreciated.

 

- G.

[Mitch Gross]

George, your numbers are generally okay but there's a lot of room to play in there and you've left a few items out. What about titles & effects? That can easily be $5000 for even simple stuff, and go up from there. Do them in a DI and you can save plenty.

 

I's also say an HD video mastering at 12hrs. for $600/hr. is unrealistic. You're looking more likely at 20 hrs., plus there's dustbusting and other Q.C. issues or it will never be accepted by a distributor.

 

And a single check print will likely not be it. After the IP/IN, you'll probably need a couple of tweaks even though you've done all the color timing beforehand. So a couple of prints are likely at this point, but the cost per print is closer to $2500.

 

And you didn't account for any cleaning, line-up or handling fees. These can seriously add up.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

And you didn't account for any cleaning, line-up or handling fees. These can seriously add up.

?

 

Never had those, what are they exactly?

 

- G.

[Mitch Gross]

Talk to your lab about their post charges. The lab has to do a lot more work in making timed prints with sound then they do simply processing dailies. There can be various additional fees.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

There can be various additional fees.

My lab seems to be more or less straightforward on the issues, I didn't see any lineup costs nor were they mentioned when we did a rough pricing (not to say they aren't there). Anyway, good thing to have a heads up.

 

- G.

[David Mullen ASC]

Usually home video distributors are pretty intolerant of dirt & dust, so beyond the ultrasonic cleaning before the telecine, the transfer gets sent to a quality control department and they mark select frames that need digital dirt removal. At an extra charge, of course.

 

Dust & dirt removal are one of those black holes for budgets because to some degree, it all depends on how picky you are, beyond how dirty the film is. One place giving you a bid for a D.I. will tell you that "x" number of hours for dirt removal is standard while another will triple that figure. I suppose you could simply give them an upper limit of time allotted no matter what and hope it passes QC with the distributor and broadcasters (certainly I've seen some pretty dirty transfers on DVD and wondered how they ever got approved! Just look at "Ladyhawke" on DVD...)

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I suppose you could simply give them an upper limit of time allotted no matter what and hope it passes QC with the distributor and broadcasters

Well, you could do the removal in post, right? Take the D-1 or HDTV video and just blot it out in a cheaper suite than the telecine? I have a problem now because my lab has been giving me back dailies that haven't been as clean as I'd like them to be.

 

- G.

[David Mullen ASC]

Small dust specks can sometimes be eliminated by using some DVNR (noise reduction) in a telecine, although I don't know if DVNR is installed yet for many HDTV telecines. After that, it's a tape to tape removal where they are essentially painting out the specs frame-by-frame. You just hand them the transfer and let them tell you what they find that needs painting out.

 

Nothing to worry about IF you have the money for the digital dirt-busting session.

 

But remember that they ultrasonically clean the film before the final transfer as well, which helps.

[Michael Nash]

It's my understanding that common topline is more frequently used than common center, and that's how most Super 35 2.35:1 ground glasses are setup. Can anyone elaborate on this?

[Mitch Gross]

I would prefer common topline as well. It's just so much easier to frame the shots. For 4:3 video transfer, I'd try to push out to around a 1.85 image area and frame 1.33 within, only expanding out to a larger image area if necessary.