mini35 quite expensive to rent - where would you change your mind ?

[Elmar Tewes]

we all know that the mini35 is normly a quite expensive tool to rent. i'm curious about something.
let's say you wanna make something, a short film, feature, commercial, industry film ect and own an plan on using a vx2000 or xl-1 or something in that range but you would like to use the mini35/xl-1/lenses if it would be affordable to give that film the more pro look.
where is your "painborder" ? where would you say, ok i think that script is good i don't want it to look like video i want it to look a little bit more like film when the price for the whole package is ok (xl-1, mini35 and a few primes, batteries, tripod, accessories).
the price for the mini35 alone without anything varies between 200 and 400$ per day i think, even here in germany.
what price for a package would you rate as "discount" and you really would think about renting it for a few days to shoot even if you under normal circumstances would shoot with a much cheaper equipment

[Keith Loh]

I would rent the Mini35 if I knew for certain that I would be exhibiting in a festival or even larger venue.

[Dennis Hingsberg]

The "painborder" is at the "wallet-border"

I don't think spending $250 - $400 per day is bad if you only need it for one day, two days max.. but for longer shoots like perhaps a feature I would negotiate a better rate if possible - especially for the amount of time and effort that goes into producing a feature.

And as Keith said, if you are certain you will be exhibiting the work then perhaps the money should become less of an issue and the overall value should be most important.

[Jonathan Noone]

Yes I think the question over using the mini 35 is all to do with your audience.

I've setup a high level strategic Ad agency and our use will be in providing clients with a best as possible idea of what their full blown ad would look like shot on film at a fraction of the cost

Unfortunately, nobody here in the UK rents them as yet so we may have to bite the bullet and purchase the rig.


As a side question, does anyone know if it was this kind of system that was used to make 28 days later?


Best

Jonathan

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Jonathan,

28 Days Later was shot with as many as 8 Canon XL1s cameras, more than likely the PAL version.

Our strategy for purchasing a mini 35 rig was to produce our own film projects, as well as to work with other filmmakers across Canada to help try and establish both their name and ours!

We've now had our new mini 35 rig with the Canon XL1s (PAL) for a week now and were able to post pictures on our site if anyone hasn't seen them already in our other posts.

[Mizell Wilson]

Jonathan,

28 Days later utilised the Optex B4 to XL1 adapter and older Canon HiDef primes for production. Dod-Mantle's reasons for choosing these lenses was documented in the July 2003 issue of American Cinematographer, with "The Hulk" on the cover. VFG, the rental house that supported the production, reports that this is not a setup that anyone else, including them, would want to duplicate.

They did not use the Mini35 becuase at the time of production, the Mini35 was still in R&D and was not generally known by the public.

I am currently showing to UK rental houses:

Arri Media Film Service LTD at Tel +4420-8573 2255

and

Optex at +44208-441 2199

a full list of European rental houses is available at www.pstechnik.de

mizell

[Jonathan Noone]

Mizell,

Let me know next time your showing one off here in the UK, better still London way.


Regarding 28 days later, would it have looked sharper with the Mini35? I know that they did use the Xl1S Pal version which must have been issued early to them, ie. prior to public release.


Actually 'the making of' feature is quite educational on 28 days. The day they used 8 cameras was the scene on London bridge and Piccadilly when they handed them out to everyone including the runner. This was because even at 4am the general public (mostly drunk) was screaming to get home and the police could only give them 10 minutes with the road shut.

Very breath taking shots nonetheless!


best

Jonathan

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

Just a precision, 28 days later was shot using the original XL1, not the "s" newer version

[Mizell Wilson]

Jonathan,

I'm not sure what you mean, both of those houses are in the UK...are they saying they don't rent them?

As far as which would have been sharper, they would most likely be the same, depending on what diffusion they used.

Once you take the video lens off the camera and use any of the lens adapaters you receive an increase in resolving power because you are letting the better lenses directly interact with the CCD. The Mini35 ground glass does end up diffusing the image a touch, that is why I mentioned diffusion above.

Even though I own the disc, I've yet to watch the heralded behind the scenes featuretts yet. One thing to look for is how much they did in post. I'm told there are camera original shots in the featurette that look nothing like what we saw in the theater.

mizell

[Jonathan Noone]

Hi Mizzell,

It was just to go see the mini35 in action. When you said you were showing them, I took it as you were about to go demonstrate the system to Arri Media and Optex. If you have already done this then fine but eitherway I will certainly go have a look.

From reading elsewhere re: 28 days later, they did do lots of post to get the finished article, particuarly on the fire effects.

I must say as it stands the XL1s is probably just shy of the quality we would need for broadcast but give it a few more years and I'm sure the Xl2 and Sony will have prosummer ones that do.

Best

Jonathan

[Kieran Clayton]

Mizell meant (I am assuming) that he is turning up two results for places in the UK that rent mini35's, as opposed to "showing to", or that ZGC knows of two UK distributors.

I think Optex are usually fairly good at demonstrating stuff if you pay them a visit, and they definitely rent out mini35's.

Kieran

[Graeme Nattress]

Surely it's the edge enhancement "sharpness" used on 28 days... that made it look so bad. If they'd turned the sharpness down on the camera, it would have looked a lot better. The mini35 certainly wouldn't have made it look any worse, and I guess it would have made it look better by reducing some of the contrast, hence not allowing them to push the sharpness as high as they did. The other features of the mini35 would certainly have made the picture look much better though.

Graeme

[Mizell Wilson]

Graeme,

Sorry my canadian geography is not what it should be, but if Ottawa is anywhere close to Calgary or Edmunton you should def check out www.scorchedice.com

I'll be in Alberta all this week presenting the 35Digital technologies to AMPIA.

Johnathan,

At least in the US and Canada, especially Canada, MiniDV and the XL1s are considered broadcast quality and it is a SMPTE endorsed broadcast standard.

Putting any other glass in front of the XL1s other then the stock video lenses increases the camera's overall resolving power making it even more suited for broadcast. This is only more so for the PAL versions. I have seen stuff shot in PAL with the Mini35, then transferred to NTSC on DVD and it looked a lot better then some of the stuff I see on the networks.

I dare ya to shoot with the Mini35 and then bump your final product up to DigiBeta or DVCPRO and then show it to the networks. They'll think ya shot high-def and you can just snicker knowing you've got the original MiniDV tucked safely at home :D

mizell

[Jonathan Noone]

thanks to you all for your comments, they are more inline with what I would have expected.

In terms of 'glass' what is the better stuff for the Canon, bearing in mind we will end up using it for hiQ shoots / Mini 35 etc.

Guessing I will need either a very high quality 16x equiv and a wide angle lens? Any particular brand to go for?


Best

Jonathan

[Adrian Seah]

Hi Jonathan,

Optex (New Barnet) and Arri UK rent the mini35, I've used the one from Optex a couple of times myself. Think it goes for 85 quid a day. I'm London based.

hope that helps

Adrian