16 mm or HD?

Gary McClurg · May 3rd, 2005, 08:30 AM

I think the odds are going to 35mm are slim.

I say write a really good script. Then rewrite that really good script a dozen more times.

Put the money into an actor like Michael says for distribution. I've seen some nice stuff come out of the DV world. So going to HD with the new Panny is going to help.

Using a great DP will also help to bring up the production value.

But I still believe if someone is being entertained, they won't care what it's shot on.

Glenn Gipson · May 3rd, 2005, 09:12 AM

>>As I wrote before, you could theoretically shoot a Super 16 feature for under $10,000, at least for the film stock, processing, and telecine.<<

Do you have an actual breakdown to prove this? To shoot a feature with Super 16mm would cost WAY more then 10k. How did you come up with this figure?

Marco Leavitt · May 3rd, 2005, 09:18 AM

Check page three of this thread. In that post I included the caveat that I've never shot on film, so I'm not pretending that my figures are gospel or anything. It's also based on a telecine at NTSC resolutions. A 2K transfer is way more expensive.

Glenn Gipson · May 3rd, 2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Leavitt

Check page three of this thread. In that post I included the caveat that I've never shot on film, so I'm not pretending that my figures are gospel or anything.

Well, I was doing some math, and I have to admit, you might not be that far off.

I don't know the prices on lab and transfer cost off the top of my head (cause they change frequently), but if one were to shoot a 90 minute S16 film, one would have to figure something like this:

One 400' roll of S16 goes for about $100.00 a pop.

A 400' roll is roughly 11 minutes.

If one had an average of 3 shots/angles per scene, and if one took an average of 3 takes per shot/angle, then one would have a 9:1 shootnig ratio.

So now that would mean that one would have to buy 9x9 rolls of film, or 81 rolls of film. 81x100 is $8100.00.

I'm sure that processing, transfer cost, and syncing would be somewhere in the ball park of 9k to 6k. So 10k for a feature, I have to admit, is not THAT far off, but it's a lot more then 10k.

Marco Leavitt · May 3rd, 2005, 09:54 AM

Sorry, I should have said page 4 of this thread. I have more detailed figures there. It boiled down to $7,182 for a five to one shooting ratio, which admittedly is probably too optimistic.

Gary McClurg · May 3rd, 2005, 10:02 AM

Film Stock (8 to 1 ratio) $7,500
Lab & Prep 30,000 feet x .16 = $4,800
Transfer 4 to 1 = 50 hours x $175 $8,750
Beta Stock 50 x $35 $1,750

$22,800

Now it can be done for less. But this is 75 400' rolls. I haven't check out 16mm or S16mm prices in a while.

Plus I only shot recans once on 16mm. So I'm basing this on the $100 per roll figure that someone gave.

Marco Leavitt · May 3rd, 2005, 12:36 PM

I went back to try and find links for budget telecine outfits and turned up this -- http://www.bonolabs.com/HiDefspecials.htm

Bonolabs. If I'm reading this right, they offer a package for film stock, processing, and a 1080/24p uncompressed bestlight transfer delivered to you on a Lacie drive for $1 a foot. The site looks kind of iffy, but this is way cheaper than any other prices I've seen.

Barry Green · May 3rd, 2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Leavitt

For one thing, won't you absolutely have to have an HD monitor on the set?

It would be silly not to. Doesn't have to be quite that expensive though -- Shannon wrote about his use of a monitor that I think cost him less than $1000.

Quote:

There's also the P2 cards

Which can be rented

Quote:

and the editing and storage equipment, which is likely to be far beyond what practically anybody owns right now.

No, a standard Final Cut Pro HD system can edit it just fine, with multiple streams in realtime. And storage is no big deal, 300 gigabytes costs around $200.

Quote:

As I wrote before, you could theoretically shoot a Super 16 feature for under $10,000, at least for the film stock, processing, and telecine.

You can get S16 shot, processed, and transferred to DV for a total cost of about $30/minute. So for $10,000 you'd get 330 minutes, or just under a 4:1 shooting ratio. Mind you, that's with a mediocre telecine, you're not going to get a Millennium or Spirit at that price, but if your plan is to cut the negative and make a blowup, you'll be doing your final video version from that instead of from the original camera negatives. And you'll probably spend your money on the high-quality transfer at that time.

However, these cost comparisons are pretty much meaningless, because there are so many other factors here. First, we don't even know how good the HVX picture will look! Second, you're discounting the idea that you could just sell the camera on ebay and probably recover 75% of the cost... can't do that with your negative! Third, how much post costs are you going to incur to make your master print, and how will that offset the blowup costs from blowing up HD to 35mm... and fourth, what's the likelihood you're going to be blowing it up at all?

So it's all premature. Let's let the camera hit the shelves first, then we'll do some comparisons and find out how viable an alternative to S16 it actually is.

Kurth Bousman · May 3rd, 2005, 02:03 PM

Barry's absolutely right - we have no idea if this camera can or should take the place of 16mm. I've shot alot of 16mm and I've never seem video that looks as good but , that said , we're getting alot closer. Shooting 16mm is expensive. Man, shooting super 8 is expensive ! But if you want to shoot a 16mm narrative film , then read , first Lenny Liptons' bible " Independant Filmaking" and Rick Schmidts' "Feature Filmmaking at Used Car Prices" . You don't need to have 8 to 1 shooting ratios - sometimes you can get by with 1 to 1. You also don't need to shoot super 16. There's 3 other , cheaper alternatives. One - regular 16. Stocks' about the same but the cameras are alot cheaper. Two - Ultra 16 - same advantages but with a wide image area. Three Ultra super 8 . Ok I hear the giggles but I've seen some wetgate telecined superduper 8( that's its' nickname) that looked almost as good as reg 16. That being said , I for one own alot of film ( still and movie ) cameras that are collecting dust because digital is so cheap and easy , esp. for a one-man band. For cheap telecine equipment check out moviestuff. Then after you telecine your film , you can start a telecine company for less than 2 grand for the 16mm setup. But the sad truth is we probably won't even have this choice much longer the way things are going for Kodak. And I have absolutely no sympathy for them since they stopped selling mag-striped super 8 stock - the absolutely worst mistake they could have made for keeping filmmaking alive. Kurth

Jim Exton · May 3rd, 2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

If one had an average of 3 shots/angles per scene, and if one took an average of 3 takes per shot/angle, then one would have a 9:1 shootnig ratio.

So now that would mean that one would have to buy 9x9 rolls of film, or 81 rolls of film. 81x100 is $8100.00.

I'm sure that processing, transfer cost, and syncing would be somewhere in the ball park of 9k to 6k. So 10k for a feature, I have to admit, is not THAT far off, but it's a lot more then 10k.

A 9:1 shooting ratio can be reduced. Especially if you plan your shots carefully.

I made a feature film on 16mm. I bought three hours of film and the rough cut of the film was 2 hrs 15 mins. I think that is a 1:1.003 ratio. :) Of course, the film would have been better if it hadn't been a serious of master shots (a la' Clerks), but... it can be done.

The benefit of video is of course the shooting ratio. You really don't care too much about it. Stopping to offload a P2 card to a hard drive is no big deal if it means you are going to get a 15:1 ratio.

Here is a budget for a 4:1 ratio (bare bones)

9600 ft.(24 rolls) X $125 a roll = $3000
Processing at .12 a foot = $1152
Video Transfer 4 hrs x 3 = 12 hours transfer time @ $200 = $2400
(That would be for a one light)
Video stock = $500
Audio stock = $400
Shipping = $ 1000

$8452.00 Roughly. Probably very roughly. But..... sometimes you have to make do with what you have (or don't have).

Jason Brunner · May 5th, 2005, 08:40 AM

As to if the camera will replace 16mm or not, I would offer this thought. The 2/3 inch 24p SD, and HD cameras have not taken its place, but rather, taken thier place as specific tools, with specific characteristics. I think the HVX will also take its own place, as an option, with its own advantages, and limitations. If 35mm did not have limitations (cost, logistics, etc) we would all shoot it all the time. If Mini DV had no limitations (compression rate, contrast, resolution, dynamic range) we would all shoot it all the time. There is no single killer camera or format, but rather, lucky for us, a wonderful range of options, that can be chosen to suit the form of each project, for every project we do is essentialy a custom job. I know I feel for me, If I had chained myself to one single thing, my career would be far behind where it is now. Will I shoot a "film" with the HVX? Well, yeah, probably, because there will be undoubtedly that situation, created in part, by the very existence of that camera. Will I use it on a project where camera and media are a miniscule part of the budget? If we're shooting HD, and I need a second or third camera, sure, just the way we use 35III's, and Eyemo's etc. to round out options on the 35mm stuff. In my opinion, this camera is a far greater "threat" to Mini DV, and SD in general, (at least in professional applications), than to any film format, if you go in for the "format competition" thing. So, Mathieu, keep us in the loop, when you make this film, let us know what you choose and the reasons, and then how it goes.
Its always a wonderful adventure. (Even the bad is fun, later)

Mathieu Ghekiere · May 5th, 2005, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Brunner

So, Mathieu, keep us in the loop, when you make this film, let us know what you choose and the reasons, and then how it goes.
Its always a wonderful adventure. (Even the bad is fun, later)

Thank you very much for that kind remark, but as I said: I don't have any plans about making a movie with 16mm or HVX (yet of course, I'll begin film academy next year, I'm 18 now) I just asked the question on this forum to see what people's opinions where, because I asked the question myself. But thank you very much about the kind remark, maybe next year I'll experience a miracle and have a HVX and make a feature film with it, and it will be a huge hit over the whole world, and then I'll tell you how the camera was ;-)
Héhé,

best regards,
Mathieu

Tommy James · May 6th, 2005, 09:18 PM

I think high definition video is the wave of the future. With high definition you can distribute your video in high definition because more people have HDTVs than they do 16mm projectors. However I suppose you can always have your 16mm film converted to high definition video but far too often people convert 16mm film to standard definition DVD and lose all the high resolution.

Jason Brunner · May 6th, 2005, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy James

I think high definition video is the wave of the future. With high definition you can distribute your video in high definition because more people have HDTVs than they do 16mm projectors. However I suppose you can always have your 16mm film converted to high definition video but far too often people convert 16mm film to standard definition DVD and lose all the high resolution.

With respect, I would point out that production formats and distribution formats are entirely different things. In entertainment distribution for example, some HD options exist, but at this time SD is a must for hope of wide ranging sales on video. (not to say you can't do both, but you aren't seeing alot of maistream HD only distribution releases.) One of the hard facts about S16,
is you can have your SD now and your HD later, and that is a clear advantage. Other advantages and disadvantages of S16 are made clear in this thread as well. More movie theatres have 35mm projectors than SD TV's. More households have SD TV's than HDTV's, and so on. Just because its not this, doesn't mean it has to be that, if that makes any sense.

I'm not knocking the HD format at all, but rather trying to point out that its not just as simple as all that. Maybe if it were, TV would have killed radio long ago. ;)

Tommy James · May 7th, 2005, 09:20 AM

I don't know for me the aspiration of the independent film maker to have his 16mm movie converted to 35mm and played at movie houses is a pipe dream. Other than the Blair Witch Project there is only a 100 to one chance that independent or amatuer movies make it the big screen. The big Holywood producers already have their big production companies and they really don't need any help from amatuers or independents. Thats why I think that it will be digital high definition that will save the day. Already independent producers are distributing high definition video usually in dual formats bundled with 2 discs one in standard definition and the other in high definition. For big producers Terminator 2 extreme high definition DVD was a very famous high definition release. Most windows Xp computers are high definition capable playback devices. Also televison broadcasting over the internet in high definition is a reality. Today anyone even a bum can set up his own high definition television broadcasting studio over the internet and broadcast high school football games and movies over the internet in high definition.
As far as high definition televisons go for anyone buying a brand new television HDTV is always the first consideration. You can get a good HDTV with a built in digital tuner starting at $550.
Also so called home theatre systems or being built by community organizations such as schools churches restuarants and bars. For schools not only can the children watch the PBS HD channel but students can videotape their games and plays in high definition. Libraries can build archives of HD material and even showcase it.
The point i'm trying to make is that digital high definition is a revolution in the making. With film the costs of production will not only kill you but editing is that much more difficult. Progressives like George Lucas know what they are talking about. People with their age old ideas will never accept the technology of high definition.

May 3rd, 2005, 10:02 AM	#81
Gary McClurg Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Springfield, MO, USA Posts: 389	Film Stock (8 to 1 ratio) $7,500 Lab & Prep 30,000 feet x .16 = $4,800 Transfer 4 to 1 = 50 hours x $175 $8,750 Beta Stock 50 x $35 $1,750 $22,800 Now it can be done for less. But this is 75 400' rolls. I haven't check out 16mm or S16mm prices in a while. Plus I only shot recans once on 16mm. So I'm basing this on the $100 per roll figure that someone gave. Last edited by Gary McClurg; May 3rd, 2005 at 10:27 AM.

May 5th, 2005, 08:40 AM	#86
Jason Brunner Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Salt Lake City. Utah Posts: 68	As to if the camera will replace 16mm or not, I would offer this thought. The 2/3 inch 24p SD, and HD cameras have not taken its place, but rather, taken thier place as specific tools, with specific characteristics. I think the HVX will also take its own place, as an option, with its own advantages, and limitations. If 35mm did not have limitations (cost, logistics, etc) we would all shoot it all the time. If Mini DV had no limitations (compression rate, contrast, resolution, dynamic range) we would all shoot it all the time. There is no single killer camera or format, but rather, lucky for us, a wonderful range of options, that can be chosen to suit the form of each project, for every project we do is essentialy a custom job. I know I feel for me, If I had chained myself to one single thing, my career would be far behind where it is now. Will I shoot a "film" with the HVX? Well, yeah, probably, because there will be undoubtedly that situation, created in part, by the very existence of that camera. Will I use it on a project where camera and media are a miniscule part of the budget? If we're shooting HD, and I need a second or third camera, sure, just the way we use 35III's, and Eyemo's etc. to round out options on the 35mm stuff. In my opinion, this camera is a far greater "threat" to Mini DV, and SD in general, (at least in professional applications), than to any film format, if you go in for the "format competition" thing. So, Mathieu, keep us in the loop, when you make this film, let us know what you choose and the reasons, and then how it goes. Its always a wonderful adventure. (Even the bad is fun, later) __________________ Kindest regards, Jason Brunner jason@aros.net http://www.jasonbrunner.com http://www.fleurpost.net (Thats just, like, my opinion, man)

May 3rd, 2005, 08:30 AM	#76
Gary McClurg Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Springfield, MO, USA Posts: 389	I think the odds are going to 35mm are slim. I say write a really good script. Then rewrite that really good script a dozen more times. Put the money into an actor like Michael says for distribution. I've seen some nice stuff come out of the DV world. So going to HD with the new Panny is going to help. Using a great DP will also help to bring up the production value. But I still believe if someone is being entertained, they won't care what it's shot on.

May 3rd, 2005, 09:12 AM	#77
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	>>As I wrote before, you could theoretically shoot a Super 16 feature for under $10,000, at least for the film stock, processing, and telecine.<< Do you have an actual breakdown to prove this? To shoot a feature with Super 16mm would cost WAY more then 10k. How did you come up with this figure?

May 3rd, 2005, 09:18 AM	#78
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	Check page three of this thread. In that post I included the caveat that I've never shot on film, so I'm not pretending that my figures are gospel or anything. It's also based on a telecine at NTSC resolutions. A 2K transfer is way more expensive.

May 3rd, 2005, 09:54 AM	#80
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	Sorry, I should have said page 4 of this thread. I have more detailed figures there. It boiled down to $7,182 for a five to one shooting ratio, which admittedly is probably too optimistic.

May 3rd, 2005, 12:36 PM	#82
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I went back to try and find links for budget telecine outfits and turned up this -- http://www.bonolabs.com/HiDefspecials.htm Bonolabs. If I'm reading this right, they offer a package for film stock, processing, and a 1080/24p uncompressed bestlight transfer delivered to you on a Lacie drive for $1 a foot. The site looks kind of iffy, but this is way cheaper than any other prices I've seen.

May 3rd, 2005, 02:03 PM	#84
Kurth Bousman Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico Posts: 644	Barry's absolutely right - we have no idea if this camera can or should take the place of 16mm. I've shot alot of 16mm and I've never seem video that looks as good but , that said , we're getting alot closer. Shooting 16mm is expensive. Man, shooting super 8 is expensive ! But if you want to shoot a 16mm narrative film , then read , first Lenny Liptons' bible " Independant Filmaking" and Rick Schmidts' "Feature Filmmaking at Used Car Prices" . You don't need to have 8 to 1 shooting ratios - sometimes you can get by with 1 to 1. You also don't need to shoot super 16. There's 3 other , cheaper alternatives. One - regular 16. Stocks' about the same but the cameras are alot cheaper. Two - Ultra 16 - same advantages but with a wide image area. Three Ultra super 8 . Ok I hear the giggles but I've seen some wetgate telecined superduper 8( that's its' nickname) that looked almost as good as reg 16. That being said , I for one own alot of film ( still and movie ) cameras that are collecting dust because digital is so cheap and easy , esp. for a one-man band. For cheap telecine equipment check out moviestuff. Then after you telecine your film , you can start a telecine company for less than 2 grand for the 16mm setup. But the sad truth is we probably won't even have this choice much longer the way things are going for Kodak. And I have absolutely no sympathy for them since they stopped selling mag-striped super 8 stock - the absolutely worst mistake they could have made for keeping filmmaking alive. Kurth

May 6th, 2005, 09:18 PM	#88
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	I think high definition video is the wave of the future. With high definition you can distribute your video in high definition because more people have HDTVs than they do 16mm projectors. However I suppose you can always have your 16mm film converted to high definition video but far too often people convert 16mm film to standard definition DVD and lose all the high resolution.

May 7th, 2005, 09:20 AM	#90
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	I don't know for me the aspiration of the independent film maker to have his 16mm movie converted to 35mm and played at movie houses is a pipe dream. Other than the Blair Witch Project there is only a 100 to one chance that independent or amatuer movies make it the big screen. The big Holywood producers already have their big production companies and they really don't need any help from amatuers or independents. Thats why I think that it will be digital high definition that will save the day. Already independent producers are distributing high definition video usually in dual formats bundled with 2 discs one in standard definition and the other in high definition. For big producers Terminator 2 extreme high definition DVD was a very famous high definition release. Most windows Xp computers are high definition capable playback devices. Also televison broadcasting over the internet in high definition is a reality. Today anyone even a bum can set up his own high definition television broadcasting studio over the internet and broadcast high school football games and movies over the internet in high definition. As far as high definition televisons go for anyone buying a brand new television HDTV is always the first consideration. You can get a good HDTV with a built in digital tuner starting at $550. Also so called home theatre systems or being built by community organizations such as schools churches restuarants and bars. For schools not only can the children watch the PBS HD channel but students can videotape their games and plays in high definition. Libraries can build archives of HD material and even showcase it. The point i'm trying to make is that digital high definition is a revolution in the making. With film the costs of production will not only kill you but editing is that much more difficult. Progressives like George Lucas know what they are talking about. People with their age old ideas will never accept the technology of high definition.