How about 35mm

Konton · February 14th, 2002, 04:05 PM

I agree that Tehniscope (2-perf pulldown) would waste less film, but you would have to make 4-perf puilldown reprints then.

I don't see how you get $24,000 for 80 minutes unless you are not trying at all to cut costs.

For example you can get short ends of Ektachrome 100D for about 5 cents a foot. However development will still costs you 30 cents. If 100ft of 35mm lasts about a minute (more like 66 seconds) then film costs are going to be $2,800 NOT $24,000. Big difference.

If you are going to try and cut costs in 16mm, you might a well compare that with a way to cut costs in 35mm. Not cheap 16mm with full cost 35mm.

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

Konton · February 14th, 2002, 07:16 PM

One by one:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Actor:
I said "an 80 minute film", not 80 minutes "of" film, and I did mention a 3:1 shooting ratio.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I see that now. My bad. But why did you choose 80 minutes?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mattias:
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?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have e-mailed you both URL's to see for yourself. Call the other one and ask. The guy who got people the Fuji Velvia Super 8 stock, and bought both my 16mm cameras, is the same guy who got the stock for 5 cents a foot. Of course there was shipping for him, but since I live in LA . . .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by AlexGfromUK:
Where on earth did you get the idea that you can obtain a super 35 camera with lenses for $2500?!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=1332884056
The Konvas 8M was made in 1993, but stored at the manufacturer's and tested every two years. They have never been used and come with a 2 year warranty. They got about 10 left and they don't make them anymore.

Three down sides for this crystal sync camera with quick-change magazines.
1) The camera is loud (around 55db)! But people are working on making blimps and you can buy a braney for it.
2) The 400ft mags work great, but for the 200ft mags the cores are too big, so you have to rethread the film onto the smaller Russian cores, or just use less film. Since the camera comes with 2 400ft mags, I'm not too worried.
3) The lens mount only takes the Russian lenses. But you can get a PL mount made for it.

Yeah . . . I bought one. I've been read this site for a while: http://homepage.mac.com/karmitz/commiecam.htm
And I finally decided to jump on that band wagon as well since I moved to LA.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:
Then the labor cost kicks in!!!
If you gonna shoot 35mm why use little brother for boom operator?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. But here in LA there are a ton of people like I said just looking to break into the business and many of them have their own equipment. Then again, so do it.

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

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

mattias · February 14th, 2002, 09:08 PM

> The guy who got people the Fuji Velvia Super 8 stock, and bought both my 16mm cameras, is the same guy who got the stock for 5 cents a foot.

ask him again, you must have misunderstood. i remember i was impressed by the low price he paid for the velvia, but it was *far* from that good. 5 cents is about 92% (!) lower than the normal price.

/matt

Konton · February 14th, 2002, 09:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mattias:
> ask him again, you must have misunderstood. i remember i was impressed by the low price he paid for the velvia, but it was *far* from that good. 5 cents is about 92% (!) lower than the normal price.

/matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*lol* Well I'll post you exactly what he said to me oh doubting Thomas.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally e-mailed to me by Barry G:
Well, yeah! That's the whole point! Welcome to the addictive, but expensive, world of 35mm! get to know www.filmemporium.com and www.mediadistributors.com -- you can often find film for a nickel a foot. I got 200' of Ektachrome 100D (normally $1.05/foot) for a nickle a foot from them!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So let me know where I misunderstood what he said.

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

mattias · February 14th, 2002, 10:02 PM

ok, you didn't misunderstand, but surely he must have made a typo? or was he extremely lucky? in either case, it's *extremely* far from common to get that price. just listen to the weird sound of it: 200 feet of 35 mm ektachrome for $10. :-)

/matt

Cranium · February 14th, 2002, 11:32 PM

He did make a typo. It's "nickel"
wink

------------------
Mikel Z

Actor · February 14th, 2002, 11:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
BTW, 100 to 1 even for a Kubrick film seems just silly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I meant it to be. But Kubrick was known for doing a lot of takes.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
How can you then get 1to1?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can't. But Jost did get close.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
But why did you choose 80 minutes?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most festivals require that a film be 70 or 75 minutes long to qualify as a feature. 80 minutes is safely over that figure.

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

Konton · February 15th, 2002, 02:45 AM

Yeah, it is an amazing deal. And I can't image it happening that often. I also like to deal in prices I can see online and places I've already worked with.
http://filmemporium.com/shopsite_sc/...tml/page5.html
Here is Kodak 5239 short ends (below 250), color reversal 160D for $0.12 a foot. http://www.yalefilmandvideo.com/16mm_and_35mm.htm#35MM
Here is Yale's development at $0.30 a foot.

So that comes to $42 for 66 seconds of film. So for $80 at 3:1 shoot ratio, that just under $10,000. That's expensive, but it's still not bad for 35mm.

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

Scott Spears · February 15th, 2002, 02:50 AM

35mm is for the big boys. I agree with somebody's earlier comment, in that do well within a format you can afford. A friend of mine wanted to do a feature and I talked him out of 35mm because it would have stretched his budget to the limit. He shot Super-16 and was able to a "name star" for an extended cameo which helped sell his film later. On 35mm, it would have been a no-name movie which may have been harder to sell.

I've shot a lot of 35mm. It's great and expensive. The joy of it that allows room for experimentation because the negative is so big. If you screw up and over expose or underexpose, you usually can fix it. In 16mm it's tough and on Super-8 it's nearly impossible. Before I shot much 35mm, I would show people my 16mm work and they would say some of it looked like 35mm and I would tell them it wasn't. Then they'd ask if I had shot much 35mm and I would say no. They'd shake their heads and I wouldn't get the job. I wanted to shake them and yell, if I can make 16mm look like 35mm, then imagine what I can do with 35mm.

There are a lot of cost involved in shooting 35mm. More crew to move around this heavy camera. More film to move around because you shoot more. The cameras are more expensive to rent or buy. About the cheapest sync camera is an Arri BL-1 runs $17,000. Rentals run $2000/week. You may need more lights than you'd think if you want deep focus. Again, 35mm has less depth of field.

Ways to save money on 35mm:
-Buy short ends through reputable dealers like Dr. Rawstock, Media Distributors, Short Endz, etc...
-Or local production houses. They sell outdated film (sometimes just by an month) for .05 a foot. I just picked up several thousand feet for $110.
-A good lab is Crest National. I got them down to .11 a foot. I don't like to bad mouth anybody, but somebody mentioned RGB, but I've found that they are a dirty lab.
-Find DP who wants to get 35mm on his reel and will work for cheap or free.

Anyway, that's just few comments.

Scott

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

8th Man · February 15th, 2002, 04:17 AM

I've always felt that the best option is get the best of what ou can afford. It's better to have the best Honda than the worst BMW. I think the same applies to this topic. Better to do the best 16mm movie than a lesser 35mm movie.
Better to do the best super8 movie than a lesser 16mm movie.
Spending the most effort where it counts will make for better results. Why barely squeek by in the larger format when you can have room to breath in a smaller guage. Everything always costs more than you think anyways.
BTW, 100 to 1 even for a Kubrick film seems just silly.
Do these ratios mean actual total footage shot to final edited length, or somthing looser like number of takes per scene. Because just slating can take some footage. How can you then get 1to1?

------------------
PRM

Thread: How about 35mm

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions