Jump to content

$330K indie feature s16 vs 35 costs


firsttimedirector

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

You know, to be blunt, for my own Philosophy, every choice we make as a DP must boil down to the Story, and not the savings. Some films call for S16mm, others for Digital, others for 35mm, IMAX etc... Would Baraka be as amazing in Super 8? Would 2001 work in Super 16mm? Would "The Shield," be ok on a DVX? Probably not.

Now once you figure out which look your film calls for, then you face the budget beast. And then there is no real Standard cost for ANYTHING. everything is negotiable. For myself, and rates, for example, I often say "give me enough to cover my rent for the month(s) we're shooting," as I just did to get a gig overseas. For Camera packages and the like-- hell, sometimes you can get those for free! Same with film. It comes down to your own negotiations and resources. A DI house may give you free scanned dailies if you agree to post your film with them.

Now, saw you have a film which calls for 35mm like mad for whatever reason, and it's out of budget-- then you can start to get creative on how you do certain things. Hey, let's nix this chopper shot we have here and see if we can find it in a stock shot, or maybe 1 less explosion here, this costume costs too much to make it real, what can we do? We can't shoot 35mm and have this Technocrane shot-- but do we need it? Personally, I find when your resources are limited you wind up with a better product because you're forces to justify everything you do!

All that being said, find out, first, the needs of the story, then work around what you can actually afford. And sometimes, maybe it's much better to shoot NOTHING if you can't do it right.. and wait until you can.

Then again, that's just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm the firsttimedirector. Instead of changing the name I've created this new account.

thanks for all the input. My DP is out of town shooting a feature right now so our communication is limited but we'll have plenty of time to catch up. I've done a lot of research and have talked to a few labs to get some numbers which i have posted on a different threat: DI vs Old-school.

I have a lot of respect for 16mm the format. And think those who don't work as hard on a 16mm set will not last in this biz. I think the leadership skills of the above the line people have a lot more to do with how seriously talent and crew take the project. There are plenty of gems in every format. 16 to me has the quality of the impressionistic painting, the grain being that intentionally visible brush stroke. But it all depends on the project and unfortunately a 35mm film is still more marketable than a 16mm film all else the same. Even despite the successes of Funny Ha Ha (my dp shot), Leaving Las Vegas, Band a part, Wendy and Lucy, the Wrestler, Hustle and Flow, the Balad of Jack and Rose, Mutual Appreciation (my dp ), Half Nelson, etc.

 

Surprisingly after doing my homework shooting on 35mm and staying in the film world is almost the same if not cheaper as shooting on 16mm even with a 10 to 1 shooting ratio. 4 perf, recans. 2 perf of course would require DI. Assuming the goal is a film print which it is. I have 35mm prints for my old shorts which I obtained from a D5 master and also have a few HDcam masters and the difference between the print and the HDcam is very significant imho. I remember seeing this really crappy film Cargo at the largest theatre at sundance fest about four years ago and a few seconds into it you realize it was shot on 35 and it's a 35mm print, I didn't have to ask, the difference was that significant. It's night and day really.

 

I think DI has its place and is very useful for films with special effects, and anything that will end up on the small screen, but ultimately HD found its way into our lives because of very clever marketing. You can't pick up a film mag without HD being mentioned at least once on every page. Yet screenwriting, or original composition, or actor's performances usually get a few pages somewhere. I mean blue-ray? common. Do we really need an hd master on a 46'' tv? I'm not talking about capturing on HD here, I'm talking about the work flow. I respect all those 40K festival features shot on HD, and the special effect blockbusters... I think the DI process is being pushed onto the indie filmmaker because a) the theatrical release is becoming more of a dream these days and it'll end up on the small screen anyways B) those post houses have to eat too and DI is their bread and butter. The biggest question I had to ask myself was can we realistically hope for a theatrical release? the answer is yes and we are shooting on 35mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm the firsttimedirector. Instead of changing the name I've created this new account.

thanks for all the input. My DP is out of town shooting a feature right now so our communication is limited but we'll have plenty of time to catch up. I've done a lot of research and have talked to a few labs to get some numbers which i have posted on a different threat: DI vs Old-school.

I have a lot of respect for 16mm the format. And think those who don't work as hard on a 16mm set will not last in this biz. I think the leadership skills of the above the line people have a lot more to do with how seriously talent and crew take the project. There are plenty of gems in every format. 16 to me has the quality of the impressionistic painting, the grain being that intentionally visible brush stroke. But it all depends on the project and unfortunately a 35mm film is still more marketable than a 16mm film all else the same. Even despite the successes of Funny Ha Ha (my dp shot), Leaving Las Vegas, Band a part, Wendy and Lucy, the Wrestler, Hustle and Flow, the Balad of Jack and Rose, Mutual Appreciation (my dp ), Half Nelson, etc.

 

Surprisingly after doing my homework shooting on 35mm and staying in the film world is almost the same if not cheaper as shooting on 16mm even with a 10 to 1 shooting ratio. 4 perf, recans. 2 perf of course would require DI. Assuming the goal is a film print which it is. I have 35mm prints for my old shorts which I obtained from a D5 master and also have a few HDcam masters and the difference between the print and the HDcam is very significant imho. I remember seeing this really crappy film Cargo at the largest theatre at sundance fest about four years ago and a few seconds into it you realize it was shot on 35 and it's a 35mm print, I didn't have to ask, the difference was that significant. It's night and day really.

 

I think DI has its place and is very useful for films with special effects, and anything that will end up on the small screen, but ultimately HD found its way into our lives because of very clever marketing. You can't pick up a film mag without HD being mentioned at least once on every page. Yet screenwriting, or original composition, or actor's performances usually get a few pages somewhere. I mean blue-ray? common. Do we really need an hd master on a 46'' tv? I'm not talking about capturing on HD here, I'm talking about the work flow. I respect all those 40K festival features shot on HD, and the special effect blockbusters... I think the DI process is being pushed onto the indie filmmaker because a) the theatrical release is becoming more of a dream these days and it'll end up on the small screen anyways cool.gif those post houses have to eat too and DI is their bread and butter. The biggest question I had to ask myself was can we realistically hope for a theatrical release? the answer is yes and we are shooting on 35mm.

Edited by Johnny Roc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, Sasha: If there are hairs on the gate, it is generally loader or AC error, regardless of format. Don't blame the actual format on that, please. Your (very long and meandering) diatribes make you sound , hum, confused -to be gentle. Hey it is OK, I have done the same before. But when infinitely more experienced people than you (Stephen Williams and David Rakoczy and others) explain and give you examples showing that based on their professional experience what you are stubbornly arguing is wrong, well, there is very little doubt that you are indeed wrong. So please spare us the childish rants . . . Thanks.

 

Dont want to split hairs :lol: but not always the loaders fault,some batches are just full of crap.. and the raised gate of an Arri will pick them all up.. in 16mm the Aaton gate was much better.. not checking the gate is one thing.. its another where the crap came from..

 

I think the simple reason this guy had trouble with his shoot,is that really long hours and very low pay piss people off even if they started with the best intentions,and it totally wears you out.. physically and mentally ... you can push people the extra mile,but not another 10 miles the same day.. the attitude problem is often that of the indie producer who,s seen Easy Rider a few too many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly sure how this relatively friendly thread got so heated. Kinda crazy!

 

Jonny - Adrian actually makes a great point which agrees with just about every detailed response on here. I know nothing about marketing a film so I'll defer to you on those points...but if you have a close relationship with your DP and you can afford either 35 or s16, allow him or her to make that decision in concert with you. If you're looking at it from a marketing standpoint only, then defer to the DP. If you're directing and you feel that the look of S16 doesn't fit the project, then you've already made your decision, and being your project - your DP should agree.

 

Here's the thing - modern S16 can look REALLY good. A lot of 35mm films are shooting entirely on 500T, meaning that in well-lit scenes, you're capturing as much noise as s16 shot on significantly slower stock. yes, in dark scenes the difference becomes a lot clearer, but I'd caution you to keep an open mind about how excellent s16 CAN look (though it's not always done in such a way). Now, lenses play an important role in figuring the cost difference between your film choices as well. You can easily find really cheap 35mm packages and rent old superspeeds inexpensively, and get an ok product. Likewise you can find s16 packages REALLY cheaply with superspeeds...etc. But if you like the feel of s16, you can go with Cooke SK4's or Arri Ultra 16's which are some incredibly beautiful lenses....they are breathtakingly sharp. Combined with slow film, these lenses can make s16 on par resolution-wise with a cheaper 35mm setup. The kicker is expense. Ultra 16s and SK4's are expensive.... but again a producer can crunch the whole production's numbers and decide if it's worth it. s16 film is cheaper, cameras are cheaper, processing is cheaper, scans (I know I know) are cheaper, support equipment is cheaper, shipping is cheaper and experience is cheaper. Overall, on the last film production I worked, they found a $40,000 capture to delivery difference in price, and that's comparing a rented 16mm setup from a reputable rental-house to the full 35mm setup the DP owned (with lenses). Not insignificant! Remember that for a straight print, you'll probably be shooting 4-perf 35, NOT 3-perf. That's a pretty sizable difference on a low-budget feature.

 

Anyways, in the end its up to you and your dp if the money's there to make the choice. There's a surprisingly good amount of useful info in this thread that can probably help you make up your mind either way. As for Sasha's friends' bad experience with s16 - I don't know what caused the chicken in the gate Whether it was on the film itself or in the camera, it should have been caught and remedied. Without being there it's impossible to assign blame, but it's unusual in my experience to lose much if any time on decent S16 cameras. Hairs do cause more problems in s16 than 35, but again - this can be prevented and obviously as Sasha pointed out - a well paid and happy crew is probably going to be more experienced and dedicated. If your decision about format comes down to what can you absolutely afford when stretched, I've seen Sasha's friends' situation come up a number of times when production cuts expenses by cutting rates instead of other expenses (like format). That's a bad way to go! A good crew will save you time and therefore money. Line producing line-by-line will tell you that a cheaper crew will save you money but we all know that's rarely the case in the long run. In the end, if you shoot on standard def video and nail the story exactly as you want...and every detail on set because you were able to hire the best crew you could afford, then it was worth it. If you stretch your budget for hopes of a theatrical release, but your crew mutinies or can't deliver the product you want in the time you have allotted...then that decision to shoot on the more expensive format just got a whole lot more expensive, possibly with an un-marketable film.

 

Anyways, good luck on the project!

 

Also Sasha. - IMDB isn't the best way to see how much experience a person has. There are guys nearing retirement with hundreds of credits who appear on IMDB with a single entry. If production doesn't submit a list and you don't submit a list, according to IMDB the production never happened.

Edited by Jaron Berman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, to be blunt, for my own Philosophy, every choice we make as a DP must boil down to the Story, and not the savings. Some films call for S16mm, others for Digital, others for 35mm, IMAX etc... Would Baraka be as amazing in Super 8? Would 2001 work in Super 16mm? Would "The Shield," be ok on a DVX? Probably not.

Now once you figure out which look your film calls for, then you face the budget beast. And then there is no real Standard cost for ANYTHING. everything is negotiable. For myself, and rates, for example, I often say "give me enough to cover my rent for the month(s) we're shooting," as I just did to get a gig overseas. For Camera packages and the like-- hell, sometimes you can get those for free! Same with film. It comes down to your own negotiations and resources. A DI house may give you free scanned dailies if you agree to post your film with them.

Now, saw you have a film which calls for 35mm like mad for whatever reason, and it's out of budget-- then you can start to get creative on how you do certain things. Hey, let's nix this chopper shot we have here and see if we can find it in a stock shot, or maybe 1 less explosion here, this costume costs too much to make it real, what can we do? We can't shoot 35mm and have this Technocrane shot-- but do we need it? Personally, I find when your resources are limited you wind up with a better product because you're forces to justify everything you do!

All that being said, find out, first, the needs of the story, then work around what you can actually afford. And sometimes, maybe it's much better to shoot NOTHING if you can't do it right.. and wait until you can.

Then again, that's just my opinion.

 

 

AMEN!

 

Thank you!!!

:)

 

 

Also Sasha. - IMDB isn't the best way to see how much experience a person has. There are guys nearing retirement with hundreds of credits who appear on IMDB with a single entry. If production doesn't submit a list and you don't submit a list, according to IMDB the production never happened.

 

Yes, I am well aware of elusiveness of IMDB. I've mentioned it coloqialy in order to get my point and not to be too anal with examples, but than, some of the people started to splicing the hair, even though the hair and the gate are not the only problem my friend experienced.

And knowing he's a smart guy, he wouldn't ditch S16 just like that...

 

It's not just about the hair, it's not just about the gate, it's not just about AC's... it's about the whole picture for which many professionals are obviously not capable to render!

 

huh...

 

I am tired of all this....

 

 

Too much agresivness paired with ignorance for my taste.

 

I just expressed my opinion with a real life example hoping to help to my fellow man who asked for advice, and got tagged as "confused" (to be gentle), my friend became a stupid looser and his crew as amateurs...even though it's quite clear that taggers didn't even tried to read my words carefully!

 

 

too much...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont want to split hairs :lol: but not always the loaders fault,some batches are just full of crap.. and the raised gate of an Arri will pick them all up.. in 16mm the Aaton gate was much better.. not checking the gate is one thing.. its another where the crap came from..

 

Well, since you ARE splitting hairs, I would say that I never suggested some debris does not come inside the mags from the factory. But the loader is responsible for not making it worse and the 1st AC is responsible for making sure the hero takes are debris-free at the gate .

 

I agree with Adrian that different projects need to be shot on different formats, whichever serves the project best, no doubt. But for someone to suggest that S16 as a format is inferior, because there was hair on the gate at someone else's shoot, making it the format's fault, that is too much -and to continuously and stubbornly argue about it in an armchair filmmaker sort of way is beyond the pale. Not to mention that calling people who have 50 years plus combined experience doing this for a living ignorant just takes the cake.

 

One thing is to have strong opinions and to back them up with first hand factual knowledge AND the other is to make outrageous blanket statements with little to no experience, throw childish tantrums such as "my friend has more experience than you do", or whatever and then call others ignorant. Some nerve . . .

Edited by Saul Rodgar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...