Jason M Silverman

I've just done a (very very rough) price comparison between Super-16 to 35, 2-perf 35 to 35, and HD to 35mm. It was hard to ball-park, since most of the costs are variable by lab, etc, but this is the rough result I got for an assumed 90-minute final time and a shooting ratio of roughly 5.3:1, full cost (including camera/lens rentals) to a 35mm print: Super-16: 69,384.00 2-perf 35: 96,673.58 HD: 114,350.00 The HD camera rental cost actually appears to negate some of the other cost benefits.

Thanks for all the help. The Complete 16 deal doesn't sound so bad, actually. I also found a place in London which rents out Aaton Penelopes, so that could be an option as well. Since I can take the ferry between UK and Ireland, protecting the film shouldn't be an issue other than logistical. I'll rework the numbers and see where that leaves things. The shipping to the US actually adds a massive (unknown) cost, as the Irish customs like to slap huge import duties on film, both stock and processed stock. The last time I tried--for just a test Super-8 shoot--I had to pay over 150 euro when the raw arrived and another 150 euro when it came back processed. I'd be more likely to try to go through the UK for that reason.

For buying and processing, I'd have to go to either New York or London; there are no labs in Ireland which do 16 or 35, so far as I'm aware (though there are a few which can handle super-8). I'd consider taking it to London myself.

Thanks for that. I'll have to see if any 2-perf cameras are available in Ireland to compare costs; that's and interesting option I was unaware of. (I'll also run the S-16 numbers again, see where I went wrong).

The 74K is based on all the costs associated with using Super 16, from the stock, to its processing, transfer, coloring, and blow-up. Perhaps I've over-estimated the cost? I own a camera, and the DP has an HD cam, so rental isn't an issue. Isn't all 35 double-perforated?

I am working on a project which will hopefully end in a 35mm blow up. The question I'm debating at the moment is whether to go the S-16 to 35 route, or to shoot on HD and convert to 35. At my present estimate, for a roughly 90-minute film, the film costs for shooting on s16 will run about 74,310, while the cost of HD to 35 is closer to 30,000. So, in theory, HD is considerably cheaper, particularly for a total budget around 200,000. However, I am concerned that the final print will end up with a digital look, rather than the classic filmic look which I would prefer. I've never been a fan of digital mediums for anything. I've even considered Super-8 for this project (but rejected it). Thoughts? Is the cost savings worth it?

What kind of "clip" are you talking about? A music video, a commercial, a short film, a single shot? I think of an elephant caravan crossing the Hindu Cush.

Thanks for those perspectives. I had a funding attempt fail on Kickstarter last year, and I was thinking of giving it a go again on one of the crowdfunding sites. (on a side note, I thought donors could be anonymous, at least to the public). The thing that made me think about trying a second time was that several "fiscal sponsor" programs have deals with one or the other, which supposedly increase one's profile and reduce the fees payable. Also, if the fiscal sponsor is a registered charity, donors in the US are able to claim tax credits for it. I'm not sure how much of a benefit that is to a filmmaker's efforts or not. Jason

I was unclear on the Kodak site... is most (or all) Super-8 tungen or daylight? Essentially, I am wondering if I shoot on 8 if I'll need HMIs. Jason

Interesting that in the list of people who do both, I don't really see too many whose work I'd be excited about. That said, I've been toying with the idea of DPing my next film, as it probably will be on super-8. But, if I have the money, I still think I'd rather have a DP. From the little experience I've had, the input of a DP is invaluable to the project, beyond just allowing you to focus on other aspects of the project. But, I was wondering, would many professional DPs consider a super-8 film worth their time? jason

Can this process be done on all film, 16mm and 8mm included? I assume few if any labs would do it for 8mm? Jason

Thanks for that: I wasn't aware that some festivals are accepting DVD submissions now. (Maybe I could submit my last project, lol...) Maybe the best bet for me at the moment is to test a few of those stcoks and see if they look grainier than I'd like and then decide.

Hey, It has been ages since I've posted on here, and I apologize if I posted similar things before (but my search didn#t bring any of them up) I'm finally wittling away at another film project, and once again I'm at the pre-planning of logistics stage. The project in question is to be a silent film, and I've been thinking I'd film it in super-8 to enable me to save money, maybe even buying two cameras for easy extra coverage, etc. But--is this actually going to be true in the long run? Will I end up with less colour and more grain for nearly the same price? I plan to edit digitally, and if the money is there, then edit a print on film; I have no idea if I'll be able to afford a 16-mm print or not. If a print for festivals is on the table, would shooting in 16 originally be cheaper by saving the blow-up costs, as well as giving better image results on a theatricl blow-up if it ever came to that? While the graininess of 8 would suit sections of the film, there will be a few large-set sections where I'm afraid it might come out too fuzzy. Any opinions? Peace, Jason

i agree, i think it spielberg gets more flak than he deserves. i found the film compelling; but it seemd to me watching the film, that for all it's historical details (plausible or not), the point of the film was not about munich, but about iraq and afganistan; the issue of israel was really just a cover. the 'OTT' shot of the twin towers just confirmed that to me.

i'm planning on seeing the film, but, i am quite worried about it. I agree with you, Lewis probably would have been opposed to, or at least very reserved about, a film adaptation of his books. But, if I'm not mistaken, he was ambivalent at best towards film as a medium in general.