Landon D. Parks

Thats one thing I never can seem to grasp... Why is shooting film cheaper to Film out than shooting Hd? What is the difference. Ok.. you scan the Film in 2k to the NLE, you edit it, you digitally color time it and blast it out to 35mm again.... Or in the case with HD, you Skip the Telecine and load it into the computer... digitally color time it and blast it out to film. Either way, seems like It would be cheaper, because you dont have to pay for the Telecine in the first place. with all other cost's being equal.... a good quality HD - 35mm Transfer will be 40-50k anyway. No matter if you shot film or HD in the first place. Can someone please explain to me what im missing here. and in the second place... I would wait and let a distributer pay for the film out... why film out until you know it will be for a reason? 99% of the festivals and studio screening rooms are equiped to show Digital footage.

I mean... "I" dont consider it a sin. I Dont consider somthing like that unless I have used somthing.. I have just noticed in these Filmmaking books when they interview people... they always say stuff like that. But I dont know....

I was refering to this guys post: mmost He is suggesting that 2 million feet of film would cost $4 million dollars... At least thats the way I take it. Becasue double 2 million is 4 million. and he sais that they paid at least doub there footage for the raw tock. I may have took it wronge? That just seems like a LOT of 35mm film to me. I mean 30,000 feet is like 10 hours a day. I would hate to see the length of there shooting days if there changing 30 mags a day and setting up enough cameras to actually run that much film per day. Maybee on SOME Production. But I highly doubt a lot of TV episodes shoot that much film. Maybee the ones where action happends every 10 seconds, and slow mo is common... Im not saying it dont happen. Im just saying I cant see that being common place. If im wronge... and 16mm film really cost's as much as you guys say t does... then HD here I come! I'd rahter have a video look for anything than pay $.30/foot for 16mm stock.

I see.. not that I have any plans to shoot it. I have heard a lot about super 8... and how its a sin to shoot it (mostly from books).

The JVC HDV camera has about the same resolution as the Vericam, But the compression is so tight that Its not the best for films. it only has like 30p, not 24 and also the cpmpression is 19mbps... which is so compressed the artifacts would be that of Mini-Dv (Which is what it records too).

What? To: mmost; I find that hard to beleive... so, shooting 2 million feet of film will run a production $4million huh? Well, ole Georgy shot Ep 1 with 1 million feet or so, and was charged $500,000 for the stock after discounts from ordering so much of it. (I remember reading this on Peter Grays website). So, 2 million feet would cost maybee $1 million... Not 4. I also find it hard to beleive a TV movie shooting 30,000' a day. But Im not a DP... So I dont know what stocks will work and what wont, what are discontinued, ect... I just know what I was quoted. Im also not a film expert... So my advice should be taken with warning. I have ony delt with 16mm once. and never with 35mm... Im just going on what I was quoted and what I have learned so fare.

I was quoted this in an E-mail from Dr. Raw Stock. This is what the quoted me: 35mm Factory Sealed (Not Factory Fresh): 5289, 400' loads: $0.42 / foot 5289, 1000' loads: $0.38 / foot 5284, 400' loads: $0.32 / foot 5284, 1000' loads: $0.28 / foot = This is the stock I was refering too... I called them and Asked them if they could come down on the price of this any... and they quoted if I orded more than 30,000 feet they may be able to go as low as $.24/foot. 5246, 400' loads: $0.54 / foot 5246, 1000' loads: $0.52 / foot 5277, 400' loads: $0.52 / foot 5277, 1000' loads: $0.48 / foot 5245, 400' loads: $0.54 / foot 5245, 1000' loads: $0.50 / foot 5279, 400' loads: $0.52 / foot 5279, 1000' loads: $0.50 / foot Even if they didnt come down, $.28 foot is still cheaper than what you guys are saying 16mm film is.

Sorry...

You can always color correct in post to get any look you want. Why sacrifice the actual image being captured?

Does any one know what the true resolution of Super-8 film is? Im guessing somthing equal to 300,000 - 500,000 pixels... But I dont really know. :rolleyes:

So, am I wronge here or what? I mean I KNOW i got quoted $.20/foot for new 35mm... so your telling me 16mm cost 100% more than 35mm now? P.S) The $.20/foot was quoted if I bought 30,000 foot or more also though. not for a single load.

Sure, shooting film WILL be more expensive in the long run than just going out and buying a $3,000 DVX100 and editing it on a home computer. A 2 year old can figure that out. I mean, right now you have shooting ratio of 4:1 with $1,500 tied up in stock, $1,500 in the camera, $3,000.00 in Telecine and $2,000 to get a computer capable of handling HD scanned film (Avid, FCP HD, Ect. and countless other fees to shoot film compared to just going out and buying a $3,000 ($1,000 - $2,000 on e-bay) DVX100. a word of warning: You get what you pay for

$170.00 US for a 400' roll of Color 16mm film? I dont know where your buying your film. But I'd stop if I where you. That would bring the "Per foot" cost to $0.40/foot... Why would I pay $0.40/foot when I can get 35mm for $0.20? If your saying 10 minutes of running time costs $170.00 US (Which I think is what your saying), then for 1 hour of running time would be $1,020.00/hour. I got better Price quotes on Brand new 35mm film in 1,000' loads.

:o ... what is going on with all the weird shouts.

If your going to shoot Super 16mm film... go to www.clairmon.com and look at there Super 16mm camera rental prices. It will be cheaper to rent a BRAND NEW, well taken care of Arri will run about $300.00/day x 3 days a week rental: $900.00 a week. not bad for a camera that is in good shape. But heck, If you have an extra $2,000 dollars. why not go all out and try some 35mm shooting? I think thats what Im going to do. I'v never shot with the stuff before.

I find that hard to buy.... $50.00 for a 100' load? thats only 2 1/2 minutes of screen time. So, $50 for 2 1/2 minutes? Dont think so, at least not where im from. I figure new color 16mm stock to be about $.12/foot with about 2,100' in an hour. So lets do the math: $.12/foot x 2,100': $252.00 US/ Hour of stock. so a shooting ratio of 4:1 would only cost you a little over $1,500.00... Not $5,000.00 Even NEW 35mm stock @ $.20/foot would only cost $800.00/hour of running time (3-perf)... That only comes to $4,000.00 or so with a shooting ratio of 4:1 If you dont believe me... go add it up on Kodaks film calculator: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...=0.1.4.24&lc=en You can also shoot with a 1:1.85 ground glass if you are going to theatrical release. Probably $200 - $300 / hour of running time. Figure about getting actually 20 minutes of running time in a labor hour. So $200 or $300 x 3: $600 - $900.00 for every hour oh labor. Ok, a DVX 100 has 310,000 Pxels... a Super 16mm frame has about 2 1/2 - 3 million. Film will naturally look like film... so, yes its worth it. even if it was more to shoot film than to buy a DVX100. I could be wronge about it all... but I dont think so I think your going by the actual MSRP of the film... The place you buy the film from will work somthing out for you. With more and more productions turning to digital, the labs are always prepared to sell you the film at a great price. Don't go by MSRP. P>S) A shooting ratio of 4:1 is not much....

Becuase, Film is film. No matter if it is telecined or not. Film will always look more sharp and have better color and contrast than Digital. Thats about like saying if your going to shoot a 35mm film and scan it to the computer for editing, why not just use HD? Because film looks like film.

I have worked with 16mm once. which was a 3 minute short I did back 2 or 3 years ago. The Camera Operator always loaded the film, so I dont know what the difference in single and double perf is. But from what I have been reading, does anyone really shoot double perf 16mm? I thought they was really for Projection prints?

No... Super 16 uses regulare 16mm stock. It just uses the sound track area of the regulare 16mm film. * Sorry if the proportions are not right, but it gets the point across.

Don't worry. I don't buy stuff from ebay.

I agree... This seems a good place to end this. I will say this as a closing thought: I see.. :( And to David: Thanks for taking the time to explain all this stuff to me in the best you can. I have learned a lot from you today. :)

I was only joking about the fame thing... I doubt I'll get that either. Although it would be nice. Ok you win. I'll shut up and go film my movie now. :(

:D

To tell you the truth. I would much rather make the film on HD or maybee S16 and try to market it to a TV network as an origional film. I dont care about the money, I just want the fame. And I would think the movie would be seen by more people on TV than it would by people in the cinema. Expecally unless I got a deal where to film was playing in 1,000 theaters Once I get a good film our there, Tv or Cinema. and it makes good reviews, I'll have Directing jobs being pushed in my face. Hell, I'll settle with directing a TV episode or sopa opera :rolleyes: . at least I dont have to come up with the money for it.

Also... I thought Super-35 1:1.85 just used the soundtrack area of film. I did not think it added to the amount needed. Sort of like 16mm v. Super 16mm... check out this link: http://www.aaton.com/products/film/35/3perf.php This explains 3-perf and Super 35mm.