Jump to content

"The cinematographer of Knives Out wants to end the film-vs.-digital debate”


Alex Anstey

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I think the 65k includes rental for a 24 day shoot. But yes, the "film" aspect is around $34k. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So if you have a 1 million dollar budget, what's $65k?

I've shot a $500k feature and money was tight. The larger a budget grows, the more gets spent on ATL, locations, and crew before rentals, in my experience.

If it's a million dollar movie shooting in 20 days, $65k could be your entire camera, grip, and electric package.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 minutes ago, AJ Young said:

Gotcha. If it's just $65k for camera, though, then that's still a lot.

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.

Edited by Uli Meyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

t'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.

Ah, I believe I misunderstood the numbers. I'll just see myself out:

giphy-downsized.gif

Edited by AJ Young
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Shooting on film only happens when producer and director want it to happen and are willing to make the effort and spend the money. 

There you have it.. this is the truth .. from someone who actually knows what they are talking about .. working in the main stream...  nothing more to say ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
17 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Oh the cost is very low if you have your own equipment and deals on processing/scanning. Most people who shoot film, have those things these days. In fact, many people around the country have purchased high-end scanners and are offering services for WAY less than you'd think. Shops like Color Lab, have incredible processing/scanning combo prices that make it very affordable. 

16mm stock is currently $197/roll for Negative and $220/roll for Ektachrome (400ft) Run time is 11 minutes ish. 

Processing + 4k scan is around .45/ft $180 + $197 = $377 + tax/freight = $415 or so per 11 minutes. (color lab 16mm Spirit 4k transfer)

Did Colorlab lower their rates? When I checked with them last year, 16mm processing (with prep and clean) was .22/ft. Scanning to 4K ProRes was .42/ft. That puts the total at .64/ft, so $256 + $197 (roll) = $453 + tax/freight.

They mentioned not having student rates and that everyone gets the same rate. Let me know if that's changed or if I'm missing something. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here is that all these figures are s16. I love s16. I shot features on the format. One of them I saw on Amazon Prime, which is VERY surprising for me. Vision 3 stocks look amazing but it is still not 35mm. If we want a fair comparison between an Alexa and film, it would be 35mm not s16. In every way s16 is a lesser format. Unless s16 look is the look you want, a traditional "movie" look is with 35. Sorry. I am a hardcore film fan. I shoot and finish photochemically and scan the one light timed prints. Just to prove a point that film doesn't have to be that expensive is not through showing some numbers on 16mm. As great as super 16 is and as much as I love the format, 99 percent of films want 35mm look with a lot more sharpness and a lot less grain so it'd be a more realistic comparison price wise to see what those numbers would be on 35mm. 35mm is the standard when it comes to film film production not s16 or 65. 

Edited by Giray Izcan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that you could achieve those numbers on 2 perf possibly, but if you're shooting 1:85 or 1:78, I don't know... That much cropping would make the grain pop like s16 almost, which is great. I love grainy photography myself but you can't expect every movie out there to be settling for that "look." So 3 or 4 perf would be the answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

The problem here is that all these figures are s16. I love s16. I shot features on the format. One of them I saw on Amazon Prime, which is VERY surprising for me. Vision 3 stocks look amazing but it is still not 35mm. If we want a fair comparison between an Alexa and film, it would be 35mm not s16. In every way s16 is a lesser format. Unless s16 look is the look you want, a traditional "movie" look is with 35. Sorry. I am a hardcore film fan. I shoot and finish photochemically and scan the one light timed prints. Just to prove a point that film doesn't have to be that expensive is not through showing some numbers on 16mm. As great as super 16 is and as much as I love the format, 99 percent of films want 35mm look with a lot more sharpness and a lot less grain so it'd be a more realistic comparison price wise to see what those numbers would be on 35mm. 35mm is the standard when it comes to film film production not s16 or 65. 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much would it be to rent an Alexa package for the duration of let's say a 3 week feature? As opposed to 90k on film expenses. Trust me, if it was up to me, I would always be shooting on film, no questions. I am trying to pretend to be a producer here for the sake of our argument.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

How much would it be to rent an Alexa package for the duration of let's say a 3 week feature? As opposed to 90k on film expenses. Trust me, if it was up to me, I would always be shooting on film, no questions. I am trying to pretend to be a producer here for the sake of our argument.

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 ?

Edited by Uli Meyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that it does. 99.9 percent of projects I have shot have been on film so, obviously, I believe the same way. I am pretending to be the producer here, because, I know for fact, most just wanna get it done as cheap as possible with a good quality. Trust me, unless you have some magical powers, producers etc will shut you down on the spot if you even dare to use the f word in their presence followed by laughs and statements like film is dead, who would shoot film nowadays? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. If one wants to shoot on film, it can be worked out. Except for rare occasions, most producers feel like the additional cost of film is absurd and unnecessary because you can achieve the same quality on an Alexa or some other high end digital camera. So why spend the extra 90k or try to shave off from other departments just to accommodate film? Once again, for the argument sake, I am a producer and am asking you what they ask on a daily basis. Unfortunately, this is the realistic picture of it - at least in LA. I miss movies looking like movies like they did in the 90's and before with great colors and blacks and contrast. I sort of achieve that look myself since I have a hybrid photochemical workflow where I get a one light low con print from select takes and get a 4k scan out of that, which at that point, the project lives in digital domain when it comes to editorial, finishing etc. This way, my color grading gets done in a traditional way but finish in digital. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short ends and recans are great but you can't rely on that on a feature film. 

90min film - 8-9000ft film x 10 (the shooting ratio) = 90-100k ft film.

Good luck finding 100k ft of lets say a matching 5219 recans - don't even bother with the short ends. 

Edited by Giray Izcan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Short ends and recans are great but you can't rely on that on a feature film. 

90min film - 8-9000ft film x 10 (the shooting ratio) = 90-100k ft film.

Good luck finding 100k ft of lets say a matching 5219 recans - don't even bother with the short ends. 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh ok... The reason I mentioned tis is because most people on this forum ever talks about is recans. Recans are great maybe for shorts or music videos, but for a feature? I don't think so. My numbers are based on 4 perf, which is what I shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is certainly an issue. I mean how do you even get matching stocks  with recans? For music videos, it may not be an issue but for a feature - mismatched blacks and grain levels in particular, which it may occur from batch to batch, would not work. Maybe I am being harsh, but those are some considerations when it comes professional film production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how people speak about music videos nowadays actually. When music videos was a thing, real music videos were massive, much like a regular movie set with serious budgets. I know so because I worked on them as an AC. Nowadays, it is usually some backyard production shot amongst friends etc. Times have changed indeed....

Edited by Giray Izcan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
7 hours ago, JJ Walker said:

They mentioned not having student rates and that everyone gets the same rate. Let me know if that's changed or if I'm missing something. Thanks!

I have no idea what their retail pricing is. I can only tell you what our negotiated rate is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

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

Yep, my budget is around $90k with rental for a 3 perf show. 

Mind you, if you have a scanner and can get deals on film, you're reducing the price substantially. People who pay full-retail, aren't shooting a lot of film. 

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...