Thanks to all for the feedback, especially Mr. Mullen (Member #3!) and Mr. Rhodes. And in the case of Mr. Rhodes, for the pointed feedback. I respect your candid comments. And your cameras must be hungry indeed if it takes $150k to feed them, sir.
So even if you have every sequence, every scene, every shot storyboarded and rehearsed, the best your can reasonably expect is 7:1? I humbly yield to the experience and first-hand knowledge displayed on this board. Is this the consensus of the group, based on an organized shoot? Or as Oswald says, is 5:1 doable? I think, since as a general rule one should always budget for trouble, we'll plug 8:1 into the plan and if we get better than that, great.
I also appreciate Mr. Mullen's reminder of hidden costs. This is why I'm asking the questions and trying to calculate the cost of 'going analog' at this time, so I can present my case for 16mm image acquisition. I am of the strong opinion that HDV is not ready for prime-time, as they say --- even though some independent filmmakers are raving about it. We might be four to five years away from the arrival of a sub $30k digital camera that can rival the CineAlta/VariCam. Maybe longer. But if I'm going to expend the effort to accomplish this great thing, I don't want to mess it up (Remember the prayer of Alan Shepard).
I'm not worried about printing back to film (yet). And to one of Oswald's comments, the filmic look isn't really a major concern. Image quality is a concern, so I'm looking for the cheapest way to get quality images into our systems. It appears, from my initial research, that shooting on 16mm, and using BonoLabs (or someone like them) to process the film and provide digitized 1080/24p footage is actually cheaper than renting/buying a VariCam/CineAlta. Seems surprising, perhaps, but it might work out. Am going to really look hard at this before we move either way.
However, there's no apparent way around DI. Everything we want to do is an effects shot, so the footage has to get into the system.
We're planning on doing a short first, as a test. Maybe five minutes, maybe eight. Short enough that we can easily afford it, but long enough so that we can get a variety of conditions. It will be a good test, because we can rent/borrow a camera to do it, and at the end of it we will know whether or not our workflow, ah, works or not. And we'll have a very good estimate on the actual costs.
Thank you all very much.
P.S.
Pi was reported done for approx. $68,000.00. Here's a link to some interesting budget figures, and the site is nice enough to tell you up front that these might be complete studio fiction. But that's not the type of story we're interested in telling.