The cost of film stock for a Super 16mm production

[Mister X]

As Chris was apparently not aware of what was used for Super 16, my reference to "single perf" was meant as a caution against buying "double perf." Not all 16mm film stock can be used for Super 16. For standard 16mm, (and Ultra 16), you can use either "single perf" or "double perf."

 

I wouldn't doubt that you might find better prices in the United States, (especially in New York or Los Angeles), for short-ends, re-cans, and old stock. Chris was looking at 100 foot rolls; and, I haven't seen much of a market for short-ends or re-cans, (in Canada), on daylight spools. You might find some really good discounts in Toronto and Vancouver, from reputable dealers, for tested old stock; but, you may not find the film stock that you really want, in the quantity that you want, at the time you ask for it.

 

When buying film stock from the Yankees, we Canucks have to consider the exchange rate, (now, about US$1 = C$1.30), shipping costs, GST and provincial taxes, and Canada Customs inspections. And, I wouldn't put it past Canada Customs to inspect the shipment by opening up a can of unexposed film! Or X-raying it! Or letting it sit on a warm shelf for a week, or more! A student discount or membership in a filmmakers group may also provide discounted prices. If in Canada, buy Canadian.

 

The cost of telecine for your production is going to depend on how much service you want from the lab. On the low end of the scale, (unsupervised), you may pay about C$0.15 to C$0.25 per foot of 16mm film. Whoever developes your film must "clean" it for C$0.05 to C$0.10 per foot of 16mm film, before sending it to your telecine lab. You will also need to pay for a set-up fee, as well as for the recording stock used for the telecine. Then, you can edit it on your computer and burn it onto a DVD; and, you'll also have a "film negative" that can be blown up to 35mm for theatres or used for HDTV, (not just a "DV tape").

[Wendell_Greene]

Double perf 2R is used on Photosonix Actionmaster 500 highspeed cameras.

 

What?

 

The Photosonic Action Master camera films at speeds up to 500 frames per second (FPS) so you need to use double perf (2R) film. I had a friend who shot an entire music video at 360 fps using this camera.

[Wendell_Greene]

I also find it hard to believe a TV movie shooting 30,000' a day.

Why do you find this hard to believe?

 

I've worked as an assistant on a few commercials and high end music videos that have come close to shooting that much film in a day.

 

If you consider a one hour TV show like "24" or "Alias" which use multiple cameras depending on the action; stunts, explosions, visual efx, etc , not to mention overcranking and shooting at speeds of 96fps or higher, thirty thousand feet is nothing. Even on a single camera TV shows that's not a great deal of film when you consider the network's demand for coverage in each scene.

[Mitch Gross]

Landon, you can get 35mm film for the lower prices you mentioned from certain resellers such as Dr. Film or Film Emporium. Note that this is usually NOT factory fresh cans from Kodak but instead stock that has been purchased by other productions and not used, so it is then sold to the reseller at a loss who then resells it to you. While 16mm film generally runs about $.30/ft. and 35mm around $.55/ft. from Kodak, you can find it sometimes for 1/3 to 1/2 off from the resellers.

 

To answer the original poster's question, the general rule of thumb for Super-16 film stock - including buying the raw stock, getting it developed and a basic transfer to video for editing - is aound $.50 - $.60 per foot, or about $20 per minute. So a 100 minute feature film shot on a 5:1 ratio (4:1 is too low, and even 5:1 is seriously pushing it. 7:1 is better) would mean 500 minutes at $20 per, or $10,000.

[Dominic Case]

I find that hard to beleive... so, shooting 2 million feet of film will run a production $4million huh?

 

I also find it hard to beleive a TV movie shooting 30,000' a day.

 

But Im not a DP...

Im also not a film expert...

Landon is wise to be suspicious of what he reads on the internet - but I can't find where anyone suggests 1m feet of 35mm stock would cost $2m. The figure of 60c/foot (with processing) that Mike Most suggests is closer to it - and as pointed out, you can get deals on big footages, and you can get deals on recans/short ends.

 

And 30,000ft per day for a MOW is not unreasonable with multiple camera shoots, though it's probably on the high side of average usage.

 

Don't forget that if you are comparing 16mm and 35mm costs per foot, then you are getting 2.5 times as much running time for 16mm.

 

And face it, film is not cheap. But you get what you pay for, and if you didn't, nobody would be using film any more. You can indeed buy a DV camera for less money than a given amount of film stock. So what? Where does it get me? I can probably buy a small boat for less than the cost of a round-the world cruise. It's a pointless comparison.

[Landon D. Parks]

but I can't find where anyone suggests 1m feet of 35mm stock would cost $2m.

I was refering to this guys post:

 

mmost

(i.e., over 2 million feet in a season!) pay at least double that for raw stock,

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?

 

And 30,000ft per day for a MOW is not unreasonable with multiple camera shoots, though it's probably on the high side of average usage.

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.

[David Mullen ASC]

Videotape is always cheaper than film stock, but if you budget all the way out to making a print, you find the costs of a transfer to 35mm negate most of the savings of shooting in video.

 

It seems reasonable that a certain percentage of your budget should go to making the film look its best in terms of choosing a format.

 

You also have to understand that the footage numbers are lower with 16mm than with 35mm, so whereas you might budget to shoot 100,000' on a 35mm feature, it may be 40,000' on a 16mm feature.

[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.

[Nate Downes]

You don't do a high-quality telecine, for one, just for editing. You cheap-edit on a 1-light telecine, then conform your negative and do an optical blow-up from there. The end result is a cheaper end-cost than shooting n HD then a video-to-film transfer. Plus, with 16mm blow-up, the quality of the picture will be higher.

 

I shoot with Film due to the cost savings over video. Other people might like Video, but it's just too expensive for me to switch.

[Landon D. Parks]

You don't do a high-quality telecine, for one, just for editing.

Why do they make them for then?

 

You cheap-edit on a 1-light telecine, then conform your negative and do an optical blow-up from there.

What? What good is a 4k or even an 8k teleicne for then? What putpose d they serve in existance?

 

then conform your negative and do an optical blow-up from there.

Your talking about the optical process arent you?... This may be cheaper, But I dont like it.

[Nate Downes]

>>You don't do a high-quality telecine, for one, just for editing.

>Why do they make them for then?

For post-editing, you do a high-quality transfer AFTER you've edited, for distribution to DVD, TV broadcast, etc.

 

>>You cheap-edit on a 1-light telecine, then conform your negative and do an optical blow-up from there.

>What? What good is a 4k or even an 8k teleicne for then? What putpose d they serve in existance?

 

Again, for final-product distribution. You don't waste your money on an 8k for editing purposes, as your editing machine would be overloaded from the data. You do the 8k for final distribution purposes.

 

>>then conform your negative and do an optical blow-up from there.

>Your talking about the optical process arent you?... This may be cheaper, But I dont like it.

 

We are discussing lowest-cost, not personal likes. Me, I'd like to edit using a flatbed, but budget and time constraints put me onto a NLE. When discussing low budget work, you work within your budget.

[Landon D. Parks]

Well, If you just want a cheap process... then yes. Optical is the cheapest.

 

However, I would much rather shoot the film then scan the 10 hours of final footage into the computer, edit it and then film-out with that same footage. I guess that is just a personal like.

 

and also you dont have to deal with the "Blow-Up" process. which adds extra grain and reduces the image quality.

 

 

When you scan the film with say even 2k, then its contained a 1's and 0's... so that there is no real "Blowing up" to do.

 

I guess this may be the most expensive way. But its the only way I'd do it. I once had to edit the first and only 16mm film Project on a Flatbed... and I must say, I would not want to have to do that again.

 

But again, if your just talking about the cheapest way to get the film from the camera to the screen, then yes. Go about it any way you can.

[Nate Downes]

However, I would much rather shoot the film then scan the 10 hours of final footage into the computer, edit it and then film-out with that same footage. I guess that is just a personal like.

But why spend a fortune scanning in 10 hours at the highest resolution when you don't need it for editing? You would do better doing a low-end scan for editing, then re-scanning the film at 2k, 4k or 8k for the final print, conforming your negative then.

[Landon D. Parks]

You do have a point. I suppose you could really just record the Video assist from the camera origionally and edit that and then save the cost of even a one light Telecine...

 

But still. I guess it would depend on my budget really. If I shot film, but did not have the money to scan the whole thing to a 2k D.I, then I giess what other choice would I have but to record the V.I footage, or pay for a 1 light scan?

 

not scanning 10 hours into the computer sure would cut down on the budget a bit also.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Normally you do a one-light transfer, which is pretty much unavoidable. It would theoretically be possible to use Aatoncode, which is exposed onto the film in camera, and drive that with timecode that you then burned into the video tap image, edit with the tap footage, then produce an EDL for the hi-res scan. However, while even the one-light transfer is pretty expensive, it's absolutely nothing compared to the cost of scanning at high res, so if you have the budget to do that then it's probably not worth bothering. There would be a lot of fiddling about with this nonstandard route which would cost extra anyway, and introduce errors.

 

Phil

[Brad Grimmett]

I've worked as an assistant on a few commercials and high end music videos that have come close to shooting that much film in a day.

Back when I was a PA I worked on an Adidas commercial that shot 36,000 ft. on the first day. I've never seen a loader so harried and rushed. And it took me forever to do the film drop at the lab that night. Over 90 cans of film had to be dropped through the drawer.

The crazy part was that this was a single camera shoot. We just rolled and rolled and rolled.......

I can see it being a lot more common on multiple camera shoots, but it's quite a lot for a single camera shoot.

[Dominic Case]

I mean 30,000 feet is like 10 hours a day.

for 35mm at 24fps, 30,000ft is not like 10 hours a day - it's like 5 1/2 hours a day. That's per camera. Remember we suggested this was a top figure for multicam shoots.

 

Maybee on SOME Production. But I highly doubt a lot of TV episodes shoot that much film. .

Again, I think the whole discussion was about "SOME" productions, not all. I don't understand why you ask questions on this forum, then challenge the answers. I work in a processing lab and I can count rolls of film. Here in Australia most TV drama is on 16mm, and we don't have big budgets, so we don't get close to those footages - but Mr Most has had much experience in transferring 35mm TV drama dailies in the US, and I think you should trust his experience.

[Alvin Pingol]

...I've never seen a loader so harried and rushed... Over 90 cans of film had to be dropped through the drawer... this was a single camera shoot...

That loader is now probably able to prep mags in his sleep.

 

 

With one hand tied behind their back. ^_^

[Brad Grimmett]

...I've never seen a loader so harried and rushed... Over 90 cans of film had to be dropped through the drawer... this was a single camera shoot...

That loader is now probably able to prep mags in his sleep.

 

 

With one hand tied behind their back. ^_^

She could already load mags in her sleep. That's why she got the job. The only reason she was so rushed is that the camera truck was parked two blocks away and she was loading in the darkroom on the truck. I think if she had a tent that day she could have loaded ten feet from camera and it wouldn't have been much trouble at all.....although she still would have been busy all day. Someone suggested recently that a dolly grip could double as a loader.....I would have liked to see someone suggest that on a day like that. Silly.....

[Landon D. Parks]

QUOTE 

I mean 30,000 feet is like 10 hours a day.

 

 

for 35mm at 24fps, 30,000ft is not like 10 hours a day - it's like 5 1/2 hours a day.

I was a little off. And I was also using 3-perf instead of 4 in the figure. I guess it only comes to 7 1/2 hours... Thats still I alot of film.

 

I don't understand why you ask questions on this forum, then challenge the answers.

When answers dont seem right to me, I feel I should double check and make sure they are right. But it seems it seems im wronge here. although I never said "No productions shoot 30,000 feet a day" I said "I find that hard to imagine", I never said it was not true.

[Xuefei24p]

Filmstock is like prescription drugs: Inflated price due to R&D, but, eventually, a higher quality at a lower price. There has yet to exist a generic alternative, so, save the dubious business of selecting from pre-sold stocks, there is no deference to price-breaks.

 

It is possible for Kodak or Fuji to sell a good stock at a heavily discounted price, but, alas, there would be no point. See, the price fresh Kodak has turned me into a film-stock socialist.

[John Pytlak RIP]

It is possible for Kodak or Fuji to sell a good stock at a heavily discounted price, but, alas, there would be no point. See, the price fresh Kodak has turned me into a film-stock socialist.

 

When I visited Beijing Lab and Shanghai Lab in 1987, I recall that there was a motion picture negative film made in China at the time. But the higher budget productions generally imported their film.

 

I understand that both labs have discontinued making dye transfer prints. I saw the two dye transfer machines at the time of my visit (part of an ISO/TC36 Cinematography standards conference).

 

Kodak now makes consumer (C-41 process) color negative films in China. Kodak also operates a state-of-the-art multiplex theatre in Shanghai:

 

http://wwwcn.kodak.com/CN/en/corp/pressCen...r20001114.shtml

 

http://www.hotcinema.com/cinema/kodak/

 

KODAK CINEMA WORLD (Keda Dianying Shijie).

First run, 4 screens in total, a jointly-invested multiplex of Kodak and Shanghai Film & Television Group, opened in 2001, located in the Xujiahui business district. Address: No. 1111, Zhaojiabang Road (Metro City), Shanghai, China. Telephone: 86-21-64268181. Web: www.hotcinema.com/cinema/kodak (requires Chinese software to read).

[Josh Hill]

In response to the actual original question:

 

Check Film Emporium for film prices. They have their prices LISTED on their website, and you can even purchase it and pay for it online. Something that I've found most other resellers DON'T (they make you run through the loop of actually calling). I think the most expensive factory roll is 30 cents a foot or something like that, but you can get recans and short ends, tested, much much cheaper.

 

Also, be sure to specify single perf if you're shooting S16mm. Unlike Landon's diagram (which as David pointed out is wrong) there are two kinds of 16mm film, single perf (Super 16 OR Regular 16) and double perf (regular 16 only).

 

To figure how much you're going to spend on raw stock, I usually go with a 5:1 ratio ... take the number of minutes you expect the film to be, multiply that by five and thats how many minutes of film you need (roughly more or less, its a good estimate and a good place to start). 400 feet of 16mm is round about eleven minutes.

 

I do think, though, Landon, that you should not throw in so much information when you are not necessarily in the know. And don't dispute everyone's claims. To me, 30,000 of film a day on a television shoot doesn't seem at all over doing it. You have ot figure, television shoots have to shoot more film per day because they are not doing one two hour movie, but ten or thirteen one hour episodes (or 30 minute episodes). Since they often shoot multiple cameras, and have the budget to shoot as much as they need, 30,000 feet doesn't seem like too much at all. Also, the fact that you even posted that diagram that you did of "regular 16" and Super 16 should just show that you don't understand what is going on. Single perf is pretty much the norm nowadays because of the fact that most 16mm cameras will shoot it with no problem, but I think common usage suggests regular 16 usually refers to double perf while Super 16 ALWAYS refers to single perf. I think you need to pick your replies much more carefully, because they almost always turn into you disputing everything said, and then apologizing for not knowing what you were talking about. Its a definite pattern, and when you do things like that people get too engulfed in debating you and making sure you don't spread false information, and they don't get to answer the question of someone who came here for information from knowledgeable people (not that you aren't intelligent, but when you apologize for being wrong so often, one wonders).

[Xuefei24p]

Maybe Landon is EddieFruchter?

 

True, it is best to know what one is talking about. One might suggest our dear friend type slower, with deference to clarity and, gasp....correct spelling.

[Laurent Andrieux]

Comparing shooting 35 vs S16 :

 

I know for sure shooting in S16 is cheaper than 35. Here in France, most of short films and many low budget features are made in S16. TV films that don't 35 shoot in S16. They wouldn't do if 35 was cheaper. (but here wwe must consider the camera + lenses rental as well, wich is much cheaper with S 16)

 

The short films and features made to end on 35 print that are made in S16 are made so because after blow-up and print on 35 it really looks close to 35 if well shot (photographed), and the quality loss is worth the savings.

 

But one thing you should consider if you print dailies on film (they print dailies on S16, double roll so you have sound reported on perf 16 roll), is that the lab would charge you a lot for printing only the good takes (negative cutting) so it's cheaper to print all the negative. With 35, the cost of the positive makes it cheaper to only print the good takes (and cut the negative before printing the dailies)... so the meter of printing stock shouldn't be calculated the same way.

 

Sorry folks I discovered this topic a little bit late, so I didn't read all of it, and as I'm not much into all this numbers calculation, I don't know if you considered printing the dailies or going to edit on video and only print the master positive on film stock, that, in this case, would make no difference about printing... But I think that some low budget films could still edit traditionnaly since it might be much cheaper in some cases... and then need dailies.

 

I actually think that if you have a good budget, it should be a good choice printing dailies anyway, even though editing on a computer station, as you'd get a much better idea of what the film is going to look like when printed on film.

 

Then, you try to find what you had seen on the dailies.

 

Films that never go to print but at the very end of the process often gives odd surprises that you wouldn't have seen on a monitor, looking at the dailies on video and editing on a computer...