Uli Meyer

Thank you Stephen, you're too kind ? I'm working with half an eye on my messages. I'll try and find some time later.

The lab I use is the Kodak Lab at Leavesden Studios. They are terrific! 'From Life' has finished its festival run a while ago. It won a few awards, I'm happy to say. The film is available to view online here: or on the 'OMELETO' Youtube channel here:

2-perf is the width of Normal 35mm while 3-perf is the width of Super 35mm.

If you shoot 3perf it is 60k ft film. My calculations are based on fresh stock.

One way of doing it is to start your budget calculations with the film stock included from the start. Once you have put everything together and the cost is overall above what you've got, you can look into finding the least important bits and pieces in each department and shave off until you are within budget. It is of course a lot easier to just take that $90k chunk out but usually, if there is a will, there is a way.

The cost of film is additional to a camera package. You have to hire a camera either way, if it's an Alexa or an Arricam, that cost is there regardless. The film stock is on top of it but in my view, worth every penny ?

At a 10:1 shooting ratio, 35mm 3perf for a feature length film you have to allow roughly $90k.

Hahaha...

It's $34k for stock, processing and scan. That is still a fair chunk on a low budget but makes it more feasible. Camera package isn't an extra since you would have to pay for one either way.

It's not an additional $65k. Tyler included the camera package.

If you want to convince a production to shoot film, I would only calculate the extra costs the "film" aspect incurs. Rental isn't an additional cost.

According to your 11 Minute numbers that should be $34k, not $65k.

Yeah, I thought about that. I'll try and get my wife to press the start button on a set up or two on the next lot ?

Cheers Stephen! I've seen the footage of your Dad on your Vimeo channel. Wonderful way to document your father's dedication to keeping fit. Beautiful black and white footage.

Result is here ?

I suggested 10:1 earlier on. The 3:1 ratio is what I read about Hitchcock and I have no idea if it is true. He was known for knowing exactly what he wanted and meticulous planning though. That was the point I was trying to make.

That is a 40:1 shooting ratio. Way too high for shooting film if you don't have the money. If you know exactly what you want, make the film in your head and on paper (storyboards), plan each take carefully and rehearse, you can get that ratio way down. Hitchcock apparently had a 3:1 shooting ratio average so the studios couldn't mess too much with the film he had imagined. It is a different kind of discipline.

400 feet of super 16mm film costs £99. That's 11 minutes of film. At a 10:1 shooting ratio a 90 minutes film you'd have to pay ca. £9000 for stock and £4500 for scanning. Even if your ratio goes up to 20:1 you'd be looking at £27k. Why would that not be possible on a £1million budget? In regards to short films, I'm not sure where you get your figures from or how big your short film budgets usually are, but Super 16 is very affordable.

I'm not saying that he got paid for this, I wouldn't know. But it is clear that he's got a relationship with ARRI that is beneficial for both of them. And it probably looks like what Stuart said. The "accepting payment as an artist" comment was meant to be a general one.

this looks a little like a sales video, don't you think? Not that I think there is anything wrong with this but to say that someone wouldn't accept a paycheck because the person is an artist is an odd statement.

Quite a few DPs I talk to usually say that they would love to shoot on film but they rarely get the chance. The other day I talked to a guy who works in commercials and he said for a lot of clients the buzz word is "resolution" and they would never ever consider analog film. Then there are those guys working in corporate or documentary who absolutely hate the idea of film simply because it would make their job much more difficult. So much so that I had one person get seriously angry when I mentioned analog film. True story. This was not Robin, by the way. Although he is usually the first one to predict the death of film every time this subject comes up on this forum. Without fail ? As long as film manufacturers can make a profit, there will be film available. It's that simple.

I have a suspicion that he has a deal with ARRI who are not interested at all in keeping analog film making alive. I've seen him promoting their digital products on the ARRI channel.

Meaning that you would rotate the image in post?

I don't quite get the logic. When you mount an anamorphic lens to a camera, the angle of the camera doesn't make any difference to the squeeze of the image. All you would get from turning the camera sideways is a sideways view squeezed.

What a pathetic thing to say.