How about 16mm

[Matt Pacini]

I'm sorry, but you guys are just being silly.
If something costs more, it costs more, period.
Putting other added qualifiers onto it, that were not stated in his initial statement about 16mm and S8 cameras costing the same, is just sloppy reasoning.

If someone buys a camera that is more expensive than another, I don't care if you sell it later and recoup the cost or not, it cost more money. Because if someone loaned you the money, there is interest charged, and even if there was no intereste charged, there is lost opportunity attached to that money, meaning it could have earned more money being properly invested, etc.
All this is irrelevant anyway to the initial debate, which is him simply stating that the camera cost for 16mm was the same as S8, WITHOUT any additional scenarios that him and you are adding to the original statemnt to try to back out of being simply wrong on this one.

Using your logic, one could say that the camera cost for shooting in IMAX is the exact same cost as shooting with a $5.00 Kodak regular 8 camera.

Silly, silly, silly...

Matt Pacini

------------------

[jefury]

Yay! I started this thread! And I got so many responses!! Yay!!!!!! Good times!! Good times!!

Jeff

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

Well, you get lots of posts when you get an intellectual arm restling gong on!
I think most of us agree on most things, but we all have strong opinions, and therefore disagree once in a while.

Fortunately, it remains fairly civil, unlike in the past, when certain individuals hovered over this board like a starved vulture, pouncing on everyone who said anything, with tidbits of misinformation and throwing temper tantrums when proven wrong.

So far, in spite of the little arguments, I wouldn't mind hanging out with most of the posters on this board, and I certainly hope they would say the same about me.
I try not to be too obnoxious in my opinions, but you know... it's so much easier to do in print and not be aware of it!

Matt Pacini

------------------

[mattias]

> If something costs more, it costs more, period.

yeah, you go tell that to the irs. buying and investing are not the same things. buying a camera is like buying stock shares or real estate, not like buying pop corn or whatever.

and i didn't think we were talking about the price for buing a super 8 camera versus a 16 mm one, but the cost for the camera when shooting in the different formats. you see the difference, right? and we're talking about doing this in a business environment, which a movie production is.

/matt

[Matt Pacini]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:
"... and i didn't think we were talking about the price for buing a super 8 camera versus a 16 mm one, but the cost for the camera when shooting in the different formats. you see the difference, right? and we're talking about doing this in a business environment, which a movie production is.

/matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you're pulling adding qualifiers that were not part of his original statement, which is all I'm arguing about.
I keep posting his quote to explain this, but I guess you're not getting it, so I'll do it again:
"The difference in the cost of cameras, telecine, etc. is not significant in the long run."

He then goes on to talk about what Rodriquez spent on El Mariachi, which was a self financed film, as many or most of the films people on this board are making, so I would argue that all this talk about the IRS, investment in equipment and production cost, etc., is out of the context of what he was talking about.
He made a simple statement, which was basically that 16mm cameras aren't more expensive than Super 8 cameras, and I was disagreeing with that.

Like I said, there are exceptions to any rule, therefore you can make his statement true with qualifiers, like "I found an Arri 16mm camera, and I would have to buy a Super 8 camera, so therefore it's cheaper"... or "yeah, but if I sell the camera afterwords, then it didn't cost me anything" or other silly arguments, but the basic premise; that it doesn't cost more to get a 16mm camera than a Super 8 camera is just silly, that's all.
Just like saying a 65mm camera isn't any more expensive than a Super 8 camera is silly, but like I said, using your logic, shooting in IMAX would be the same camera cost as shooting in regular 8. Silly...

Matt Pacini

------------------

[mattias]

> He made a simple statement, which was basically that 16mm cameras aren't more expensive than Super 8 cameras, and I was disagreeing with that.

then i agree with you, even though i think it's mainly because people use consumer cameras in super 8 and professional ones in 16 mm. do you agree with me in "my" context? it didn't seem like you did.

and just for the record: rodriguez didn't spend a nickel on the camera, so had he borrowed a super 8 camera instead, he wouldn't have saved anything. ;-)

/matt