How about 35mm

[Konton]

As long as we are on the subject of moving to new formats, how about 35mm? Sure it costs twice as much as 16mm for film and development, but all other costs are the same (cast, crew, food, locations, telecine tranfer, audio and lighting) then why not? I mean only the film (and development) is more. And if you buy short ends and know cheap places for development, you can widdle those costs down as well.

------------------
Konton the Grey

[Nigel]

I don't know if you are trying to be hyperbolic--but I agree with you. I have only shot 35mm once and I wish I had a camera so I could shoot it more. Plus, when I was shooting 35mm I didn't have to worry about any costs. Good Luck

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

[Konton]

No, I'm serious. I mean I got into Super 8mm because it was a way to make film (and I mean film not DV) cheap. But also because I love to try to resolve the problems that occur with Super 8mm.

But let's face it. Most of us want to make a movie to be seen in a movie theater and perhaps someday be a director or producer. We want to see our movies, not some elses. The people we need to impress at places like Sundace or Telluride get impressed by 35mm. They are film snobs. That's cool. I'm a film snob too. And if I have a good story and good financing, shouldn't I impress those people with 35mm?

Look, I live in LA, filled with people trying to get into film as cast or crew. Many of them are willing to work for free as long as you supply food, gas, and a credit in the film. You still need permits to shoot, but you can get around that if you shoot only in private areas where you have permission. You know the lights and audio needed for good quality are the same in Super 8mm, 16mm, and 35mm. So what it all comes down to is the camera and the film.

The film is going to be more expensive for both film and development. Around twice the cost of 16mm. But if you know you have good talent (maybe a star name) and a good script, isn't worth that extra costs for just film and development?

In my opinion Super 8mm is an excellent independent filmmaking gauge. 16mm is better, but much more expensive. But if you are going to bother to go to 16mm, why not just jump to 35mm. Then you are using a main stream gauge and you get a little more respect from the people you want it from.

Just my two cents.

------------------
Konton the Grey

[This message has been edited by Konton (edited February 13, 2002).]

[Actor]

An 80 minute film with a 3:1 shooting ratio is going to cost you $24,000 just for film and processing. Total cost of the film would probably be around $30,000. For me that's an impossible figure unless I bring in investors. And I don't want to bring in investors because when I do I'm no longer independent if you know what I mean.

35mm cameras are awfully wastefull of film. The claw pulls down 4 perfs per frame but only 1/2 to 3/4 of that area is exposed. There is a gap of about 1 perf between the frames that goes to waste. You can cut your raw stock/processing costs in half (to $12,000) if you can get a two perf camera which makes maximum use of the film. The total cost of the film would then be about $18,000. The problem is that the only two perf camera that I know of is made by Panavision and is rare. You would probably have to rent one and the cost of that rental would probably wipe out your savings in film, unless you can get all your shots in a few days.

If I had the money it takes to shoot 35mm I think I would rather stick with 16mm and try to hire a name actor.


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

[Matt Pacini]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Konton:
"...I don't see how you get $24,000 for 80 minutes unless you are not trying at all to cut costs. "
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you kidding me?
He gave an example using an impossible 3/1 shooting ratio, and you don't think he's trying to cut costs?

Even cheesy low-budget horror movies shoot like 6/1 ratio.
There is no way anyone could reasonably expect to actually end up with a decent film on a 3/1 shooting ratio.

I would love to shoot 35mm film, but it is really freakin' expensive.
The film, processing and camera rental costs are VERY significant to us low budgeters.
Just impossible, unless you have rich relatives or a killer job (like I don't).
Otherwise, 35mm is the realm of films that have investors... which is why we're all shooting Super 8; because we're paying for everything ourselves, in most instances.

Matt Pacini

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

[Konton]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Are you kidding me? He gave an example using an impossible 3/1 shooting ratio, and you don't think he's trying to cut costs?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well first of all I wasn't talking about any shoot ratio. He said 80 minutes of film. Not an 80 minute feature. There is a difference.

Actually there is no second of all. I just was talking about flat film costs. No assumption you would use only a third of your film.

Actually come to think of it I'd say depending you might only use a 4th of your film. But again, I wasn't talking about a shooting ratio.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I would love to shoot 35mm film, but it is really freakin' expensive.
The film, processing and camera rental costs are VERY significant to us low budgeters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

35mm can be expensive. I'm trying to be cheap because I pay for all this myself like everyone else. So I have to find a way to shoot low budget on 35mm.

Let's just say for example I was going to video with the 35mm film. Telecine is usually about the same for 16mm and 35mm because it's based on time. So let's deal with just the film stock and buying a camera (since everyone seems to want to buy their 16mm camera)

First I'd buy film short ends at a place like this: http://filmemporium.com/shopsite_sc/...tml/page5.html
They go for around 10 cents to 20 cents a foot. So let's just say 15 cents a foot.
RGB Color Labs in LA developed negative film for 10 cents a foot.
So now the costs of film and development per foot is 25 cents a foot.
If you are trying to make an hour long TV show on super 35mm are are able to use only a thrid of your footage, that totals a little under $4,500 depending on other factors.

Now you are going to need a sounc sync camera to buy. That camera costs $2500 + $400 shipping and I can always try to sell it later to recoup some costs. A good 16mm camera will costs around the same or more.

So for buying a camera JUST for this shoot and paying for film and development now hits $7,400. Of course we are just talking about the film and camera.

Of course you can cut that price of film from $4,500 to around $2,000 if you use 16mm short ends. But I guess that's your decision. A $2,500 difference for an hour on 35mm quality . . . well it IS substantial. So I guess you need you ask yourself if you can afford such a difference for quality. But that's still not over $20,000

------------------
Konton the Grey

[Actor]

I said "an 80 minute film", not 80 minutes "of" film, and I did mention a 3:1 shooting ratio.

Rodriguez' (sorry, that nasty word again) shot El Mariachi with a reported 3.4:1 ratio.

Schmidt (A Man, a Woman and a Killer, Emerald Cities) seems to advocate 1.6:1 as "the minimum that allows any editing decisions." (I'm trusting my memory here so the quote may not be accurate.)

Jon Jost shot Last Chants for a Slow Dance with close to a 1:1 ratio.

Stanley Kubrick shot everything after Spartacus at 100:1.


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


[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 14, 2002).]

[mattias]

> you can get short ends of Ektachrome 100D for about 5 cents a foot

i don't believe you. you can't even get negative for that price. 30 cents a foot for deveoping sounds high on the other hand, but i guess it's what e-6 costs. maybe cross processing would be better?

/matt

[AlexGfromUK]

Where on earth did you get the idea that you can obtain a super 35 camera with lenses for $2500?! I'll buy that camera and sell it for 10 times the price so I can fund a 16mm short!! I've hardly ever seen any super 35 outfit for less than $50,000 secondhand (I like looking out of interest at secondhand places on the web). If you're right its the best thing I've heard for a long while!

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

[crimsonson]

Then the labor cost kicks in!!!
If you gonna shoot 35mm why use little brother for boom operator?

If you going to shoot/pay 35mm- the only reasonable expectation is a short film used for calling card purposes.
If you are resourceful (borrow gear, hire people for free, etc) you can shoot a 35mm short for 10,000-15,000 American greenbacks.



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