Super16 and HDCam numbers...

**jb_617** · March 26th, 2005, 05:29 PM

[img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

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

'bout time someone laid it down for 'em.

**MatJimMood** · March 26th, 2005, 07:09 PM

I don't think the argument that video is cheaper is really about the higher end video.

It's more to do with the fact you can shoot a film on miniDV and edit it on your home computer for the cost of a few tapes.

Perhaps it would be more suitable -for the situation of people on this forum - to compare the cost of super16 to the use of a high end miniDV camera.

Also were these figures for a feature or a short? Just because 80min of film at 4:1 (like you gave the HD) would only leave you with a 20min film.

Cheers for taking the time to lay some figures down though - its interesting to see the comparisons.

**Yammeryammeryammer** · March 26th, 2005, 08:16 PM

I just got a quote from a camera place about an hour from my house, William F. White, they offer an Arri SR3, with monitor and basics for about 4 grand a week. So camera rental would be about 8 grand for two weeks... which would add 6000 to the S16 costs, and provide a comparable set-up. Most people who say video is cheaper are talking about the consumer grade stuff, and then pitting it against a synced corrected 16 mm, or a Super8 flick, which costs more. If you were to drop 10 grand on a HD camera you are automatically in a different class. At that point it becomes just a choice. For instance I am trying for a project in may that would require some HD, S16 and MiniDV, and that is all a choice of what would fit best. I think there is too much "this is BETTER because it is cheaper" and "this is BETTER because it has 'the look'" and not enough just repecting that each are tools that can fit different needs at different times.

**Tasty Fish Lips** · March 26th, 2005, 09:21 PM

That is definitely true sometimes.

But I think the price debate is for those who want to shoot video only because they think it's cheaper, not because they specifically want their project to be on video or have a "video" look.

**Nigel** · March 26th, 2005, 11:08 PM

I don't know where these people are getting 8,000 for two weeks of rental on a SR3. Unless all you did was take their day rate and multiply by 14....Which isn't how you calculate the costs.

Good Luck
PS--All my numbers came from Three rental houses which all use pretty much the exact same rate schedule. It is also the rate schedule that I use when renting out my Aaton.

**peter_g** · March 27th, 2005, 12:10 AM

In Europe, the weekly rate for renting cameras and camera accessories is typically the daily rate multiplied by 4 for 16mm and multiplied by 3 for 35mm. I?m guessing that it?s the same in the U.S.A.

Here is what you can get for ?280 / $360 / ?190 a day here:
Aaton XTR S16 camera
Carl Zeiss 12-120mm distagon
Set of Carl Zeiss primes 9.5, 12, 16 & 25mm
Follow Focus, Video Assist. with b&w monitor & batteries
3x 400ft magazine, batteries & charger
85 & ND filters
F4 Head with Ronford Long & Short legs, top hat
Extension viewfinder
Changing bag & barney

**Nigel** · March 27th, 2005, 03:21 AM

Here in the USA we work on three day weeks for both 35 and 16. That is simply what the houses advertise...Often you will pay two days for 5 or they will call a 2,150 dollar two day rental for 5 days 2,000 even.

The numbers I gave for the S16 package would be a pretty well rounded out deal. You could add more or take less kind of thing.

Good Luck

**Nigel** · March 27th, 2005, 04:47 AM

Film
Camera Rental (S16 2 weeks) 2,000 This might be a tad high or even low depending on what you want in the package. It does include a zoom lens.

80 minutes of Kodak Vision2 at list is 1,120 you will end up paying less than this I am sure.

Processing will come out to 576 at 18 cents a foot which you could find for less.

Transfer to HDCam will be roughly 1,200 with simuldub DVCam I pay 325 an hour for an HDCam and 45 an hour for a DVCam dub. This is basic correction only. The main color correction will be done during the online.

Tape Stock 195.00 for two 94 minute HDCam and one 94 minute DVCam.

Costs in the can...
5,091.00

Online Costs

Conforming 325 an hour at 4 hours may be less or more depending on how many cuts we have and the EDL 1,300.

Tape to Tape color correction 325 an hour for three hours 975.

Titles and credits 325 an hour for two hours 650

Audio lay down 100.00

VFX ???
Deliverables???

Total Online 3,025.00

Total Combined Costs 8116.00

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

HD
Camera Rental Sony HDW-900 lists including lens and a 14? monitor for 10,050. You may be able to take a bit off of this lets say we can rip 1,050 off and call it 9,000 even.

Lets say that you somehow stay inside the 4:1 shooting ratio tape stock will be 87.00 and a DVCam dub to edit at home with will be 65.00 including stock.

HDCam in the can...9,152.00

Online costs will be the same rates and roughly the same times so we can use the same numbers for a total of 3,025.00

For a grand total and huge saving of....

12,177.00 or 4,061 dollars more than Super16.

Good Luck

**Actor** · March 29th, 2005, 08:25 AM

Let's see if I understand this correctly.

You propose to compare the costs of film vs. video for a 10 minute short shot at a shooting ratio of 1:4?

And?
<ul type="square">[*]A film camera rents for $1,000 per week.[*]A video camera rents for $4,500 per week.[*]Raw film stock costs $14 per minute.[*]Processing costs $0.18 per foot or $7.20 per minute.[*]Transfer to HDCam with basic color correction costs $15 per minute.[*]A 94 minute tape for HDCam costs $65 and for some unknown reason you need two.[*]And also for some unknown reason you need another $65 tape (also 94 minutes) for a DVCam?[*]The video camera takes an $87 tape and you only need one, but you still need a $65 DVCam tape?[*]Conforming (whatever that is) costs $16.25 per minute.[*]Tape to tape color correction costs $12.19 per minute.[*]Audio lay down (whatever that is) costs $1.25 per minute.[/list]Titles and credits? Gimme a break. Those can be done on iMovie HD. Surely on any editor?

**Actor** · March 30th, 2005, 01:05 AM

Ok, using Nigel's numbers, what should it have cost Rodriguez' to shoot El Mariachi? He had a 3 week shooting schedule and shot 25 mags of film. Let's take that to be 250 minutes of film. Let's also assume he could not find anyone to loan him a camera and had to rent.

Since the "online" seems to be the same either way I'll not bother with that.

FILM
<ul type="square">[*]Camera rental - 3 weeks @ $1,000/week = $3,000.[*]Film stock - 250 minutes @ $14/min = $3,500.[*]Processing - 250 minutes @ $7.20/min = $1,800.[*]Transfer - 250 minutes @ $15/min = $3,750.[*]Tape - 9 @ $65 each = $ 585.[*]Total $12,635.[/list]VIDEO
<ul type="square">[*]Camera rental - 3 weeks @ $4,500/week = $13,500.[*]Tape - 3 @ $87 each = $ 261.[*]Tape - 3 @ $65 each = $ 195.[*]Total $13,956.[/list]This seems to support the "film is cheaper than video" theory to the tune of $1,321. However, it is 67% less than the $4,061 of Nigel's 10 minute short. By stretching the length of the final product to 80 minutes we reduce the cost advantage of film over video by 67%. If the film gets long enough or the shooting ratio gets high enough then video becomes cheaper.

According to Murch's In the Blink of an Eye the usual shooting ratio for a Hollywood feature is 20:1. Assuming a shooting schedule of 10 weeks and a length of 120 minutes my calculations show.
<ul type="square">[*]Cost of film = $245,800[*]Cost of video = $51,080[/list]And that's using Nigels numbers. That's why Hollywood is going video. Even on a $20 million picture where a $200,000 savings is only 1% of budget it's still enough to make the bean counters take notice. And if the director wants to shoot video the 1% savings certainly does not work against him.

The "film is cheaper than video" argument stands on the cost of renting the camera. What if you buy? Rodriguez used a Arriflex 16S with on zoom and one wide angle lens. This exact same camera and lens combo can be purchased for $4,000. In his thread "Finally a Video Camera I could own..." Nigel covets a camera that is expected to sell for under $10,000. And Sony is expected to announce one for under $5,000 within a year. At these prices the cost of film becomes the overriding factor and video wins.

Of course, it could be that Nigel wants the camera in question for a toy and not for serious work.

I think this post has gotten long enough. I'll continue in another, with a slight change in subject.

Thread: Super16 and HDCam numbers...

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions