Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/29/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    I'm not convinced Tyler. Yes, often, a film project is more expensive. But "ALWAYS" as you put it in capitals, no I don't agree at all. As I said above, in some cases it may be about the same cost and who knows sometimes cost less. I'm talking shooting 2 perf with affordable lenses don't forget. Sure, it's a low-budget indie way to be a filmmaker but all I'm saying is that it's not "ALWAYS". Remember, only a sith deals in absolutes. Just joking mate. ("mate" in Australia = "friend").
  2. 1 point
    If you're clever, know what you're doing, and put in the research, for independent filmmakers making short films, I do think that for approximately equal quality, that 35mm film using your own gear possibly works out the same price or approximately so as hiring an Alexa and all the other kit from a rental house. All things considered. Post and everything. Or put it this way, at worst, film wouldn't be much more in cost, and if you're really into film you won't care about such a small cost difference. You know, artists complain about the cost of paint. They always did. Oils cost more but who cares - just paint less and do a great job on what you do produce. But I've never worked it out exactly, the film/digital cost difference for short films. I do know there's just no way I would buy high-end digital gear. I'd only do that if I could work with it and make the money back reasonably quickly.
  3. 1 point
    Still its a bit of a straw man argument, film is cheaper because on expensive shows Panavision and Union DIT's over charge for digital gear. I guess its possible to argue that digital is more expensive on the grounds that big budget productions don't budget carefully ( and of course we know they don't). But on a modest production, with a good PM thats shopped around to source all the staff and equipment - as Tylers own figures show film costs more. If there was minimal price impact of shooting on film vs digital, we'd all be doing it a lot more
  4. 1 point
    https://www.kodak.com/motion/Blog/Blog_Post/?contentId=4295008512 Dan Mindel on the budgeting for "The Cloverfield Paradox" “We priced the production for digital versus analog film, and the Paramount executives were convinced it was going to be cheaper for us to shoot it digitally. We estimated that we would shoot between 10 to 15,000 ft of 35mm per day. The overall figure for shooting on film actually came out $150,000 cheaper than digital. This was in part due to the fact that film cameras and film lenses are a fraction of the cost of the digital equivalents, which are rented at top dollar. Additionally, with film you don’t have the expense of a DIT or data storage on set. It was a really good exercise in economics and demonstrated that film production can be perfectly reasonable financially.”
  5. -1 points
    With tiny budgets, you shoot with an iphone, that's what Steven Soderbergh is doing. I've built A LOT of non-union low-cost budgets, many of them actuated and honestly, film ALWAYS costs more than digital, period. The numbers range from $25k - $90k more depending on what film format you're using. Tacking on another $100k to your budget when your entire budget is $250k, is not possible. Tacking on another $100k to your budget, when your entire budget is $5M is way more possible. It all comes down to how much money you're willing to spend.
×
×
  • Create New...