Super 8 Vs. 16mm costwise

[PannyDeters]

I read the Super 8 vs. 16mm threat, http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/scri...ic.php?t=2391, and I started my own little comparison chart.

Here tis. Feel free to list any CHEAPER prices and where they can be found.

I looked at Pro8, Black and White Film Factory, Franklin Film and a couple of others. The cheapest were from Franklin Film. One scenario involves buying film direct from Kodak and processing through Wal-Mart.

Prices include purchase of film stock and processing only. No shipping.


16mm BW $14.10 per minute

Super8 BW (24fps) $8.40 per minute
Super8 BW (18fps) $6.30 per minute

From Kodak and Wal-Mart:
Super8 K40 (24fps) $6.40 per minute
Super8 K40 (18fps) $4.80 per minute

To get these figures, I diveded the total cost of stock and processing by the amount of seconds on each roll of film. Then I multiplied x 60 to get the price per minute.

-DannyOKC

[rollemfilm]

What frame rate for 16mm?

[Nigel]

This is a slightly loaded statement.

Look at the cost of 16mm K40--It is a rip off nearly $200 per 400' roll with a five roll minimum.

Lets try to level the playing field a bit and use one stock and go based on list prices. Here is how it breaks down for 7274 Vision 200T--My numbers will be based on footage and not running times and be shown in US Dollars.

400' 16mm=137.92
400' S8= 110.16

Processing
400' 16mm=60($.15 per foot)*
400' S8=128($16 per cartridge)**

Totals
16mm=197.92
S8= 238.16

*Based on Forde Motion Picture Labs prices.
**Based on Yale Film and Videos prices. Yale was used because at the moment they are the only lab outside of Pro8mm that I know to process S8 neg stocks.

Good Luck

[PannyDeters]

Frame rate on 16mm is 24fps. I didn't list it because I thought that was the standard. I see both fps listed for Super8, so I made the differentiation.

Nigel, I don't quite follow your figures.

What is a loaded statement? (not definition, but which statement was loaded)

What does that total price represent? Stock and processing per 400'?

You're saying that in the long run, 16mm is cheaper than Super8?

Not arguing. Just asking.

-DannyOKC

[Nigel]

The totals do represent the costs of stock and processing only--For 400' of 7274.

The reason I said it was a lodaded statement was that you are comparing only 16mm B&W to S8 B&W and K40. Instead of in cluding the 16mm K40 in there as well.

So I posted the figures as a way of saying all things being equal--Look at the numbers and decide. I didn't want to use K40 because it is just way out there in 16mm so I picked a stock that seems fairly priced for both. The reason I went based on footage is keep things simple and because one does not know at what speed the film will be shot at.

I am saying that in long run it is best to shoot what does the job best--S8 may be it at times--16 may be it at others.

Good Luck

[Greg Crawford]

If you were to by re-cans or short ends...or even fresh Fuji stock you can save even more.

[Nigel]

Greg don't take this the wrong way--But would you buy used underwear??

That is how I feel about recans. I am a huge Fuji fan--I am on record saying that I love Fuji's MP stocks. There are ways of making 16mm really cheap. There are ways of making S8 really cheap as well. But when money is on the line new film is the only thing to have running through the camera. And, when you look at the costs of the whole production--Film is cheap.

Good Luck

[Greg Crawford]

Nigel,

I can understand how you feel when your neck is on the line, people are paying and the film cost is a small, very small part of the production budget.

Most of the people who post hear and the other small format boards don't have large budgets...and for demo reel, or short films etc. I have been pleased with re-cans. Some of the 35 mm stuff I have bought came from JAG. and other pro shows.

I don't think, Nigel I would ever take offence you have always been quite helpful and very knowledgeable. Since you are a Fuji fan, do you think that Fuji stock used in establishing shots of places would cut well to productions shot on Kodak. There is a cost saving shooting Fuji's prices are hard to beat.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 06, 2003 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Greg_C ]</font>

[Nigel]

The problem with Fuji is its shelf life--I can't get around this fact. It just seems to shift in color a lot faster than Kodak and gets even more grainy.

I think it could be done for what you are doing Greg. In an ideal world I would filp-flop and shoot Kodak outside for the wide angle stock shots and Fuji for the talent.

Good Luck