Super16 and HDCam numbers...

**Nigel** · March 30th, 2005, 04:20 AM

A film camera rents for $1,000 per week.
--Yes, that is exactly whart I am saying. Go to www.abelcine.com or any other rental house. It is also what I rent my camera for on a weekly basis. You may be able to find one for less if you strip it down.

A video camera rents for $4,500 per week.
--Yes, on this one too. We are talking about HD not MiniDV. A Sony CineAlta check around and see. You might be able to get one slightly less but I would be hard press on that since everyone wants the CineAlta.

Raw film stock costs $14 per minute.
--Well, 400' of 16mm Vision2 lists at $141.92 divide that by 11 and I get about 12 dollars a minute. If you are a student it will be less or if you by Fuji.

Processing costs $0.18 per foot or $7.20 per minute.
--That is processing and prep for transfer and there is about 40 feet to the minute so yeah...It is $7.20.

Transfer to HDCam with basic color correction costs $15 per minute.
--Yes, again. Actually it may be more depending on who transfers the material. I pay $325 an hour.

A 94 minute tape for HDCam costs $65 and for some unknown reason you need two.
--You need two because you need one that will hold the original transfer and one after you are done with the online.

And also for some unknown reason you need another $65 tape (also 94 minutes) for a DVCam?
--What is the CineAlta going to use?? The extra tape is for the fiunal product after your Online.

The video camera takes an $87 tape and you only need one, but you still need a $65 DVCam tape?
--The DVCam is to make a dub off the HD tape so you can edit at home.

Conforming (whatever that is) costs $16.25 per minute.
--Conforming is the part of the Online where they take your EDL and make the cuts/transitions using a computer and software capable of handling full bandwidth. So there is no loss. Conforming is the same word used when cutting a Neg. You "Conform" your Neg...

Tape to tape color correction costs $12.19 per minute.
--That's right. You are using the same hardware used in the Telecine now you are using it to correct the color on the trape and not from the film. It allows the material to be a bit more even.

Audio lay down (whatever that is) costs $1.25 per minute.
--Unless you make silent movies you are going to need sound. This is where they lay the audio down from you offline tapes.

Titles and credits? Gimme a break. Those can be done on iMovie HD. Surely on any editor?
--Wrong not unless you want the nasty titles that have stair-stepping. We are talking about full bandwidth HD here not HDV or compressed information. You need some major power to generate some nice titles. Look at non-fractal based fonts and you will see what I am talking about.

Actor, you asked for the numbers. You can investigate your self. Most places in NYC or LA have rate cards online or you can make a call. I have had to deal with people that think HD is cheaper and its not. Unless you are getting everything for free...Then I would still rather shoot film.

Good Luck

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

250 minutes of 16mm film Kodak Vision2 would come to 3,227 not 3,500...If you pay full list price but if you are buying 23 rolls of film you surley would not.

18 cents a foot for 23 rolls comes to 1,656 not 1,800...

Transfer at $325 per hour at a 1:1 ratio is 1,354 for 250 minutes of film. For the model I outlined you would do about a 1.5:1 so you be paying 2,031.25 for the transfer.

The tape stock would be 2--124 minute tapes and one 90 minute tape for a total of...$334

So that gives me a total of 7,248.25 against Actors 12,635

I don't know why I can get these kind of numbers and he can't but they aren't any different than those taht I deal with on a weekly basis...I am going into production on a feature in April using a Movicam SL 35 and we are getting that for less that the rates you quote for video on a four week shoot.

Good Luck
PS--Your example fails because RR would never rent an Arri S for 3,000 for three weeks.

**Nigel** · March 30th, 2005, 05:04 AM

You asked for the numbers...I produced. Your numbers simply seem to be twistings of mine even after I correct you. So where are your own??

Good Luck

**Tasty Fish Lips** · March 30th, 2005, 06:15 AM

People have made feature with super8 (Jet Benny, The Dead Next Door, Lost Tribes).

I've only seen bits of Jet Benny, yes I know it was Roger Evans who made it.

Jet Benny, from what I saw is nothing to aspire to. It only works as Grade C Schlock. Its slightly funny in an almost Kentucky Fried Movie way.

And I've seen Lost Tribes. To call both of these films features is highly misleading. Lost Tribes was "feature length", just barely, I believe. And it was horrible. Horrible in every way possible. I mean really, we're talking beneath student film quality. There's is not one frame of a professionally made film in that movie. Nor is there anything remotely resembling decent audio.

As for the plot, acting, narrative etc, horrendous. This movie is nothing to be proud of. Really. I'm sure it was hard work, but it does nothing to strengthen your argument, Actor.

I love the medium of super 8 - but those films do not in any way represent it in a positve light.

Lost Tribes isn't even good enough for Mystery Science Theater (or whatever that show is called)

[ March 30, 2005 02:17 AM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]

[ March 30, 2005 02:33 AM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]

**Tasty Fish Lips** · March 30th, 2005, 06:31 AM

Using Nigel's numbers for what goes into the camera and US Dept of Labor Inflation Indices to adjust Rodriguez' numbers for what goes in front of the camera I come up with $30,000 as the cost to produce El Mariachi today. Would a title like Rebel Without a Crew: Or How a 23-Year-Old Filmmaker with $30,000 Became a Hollywood Player or Feature Filmmaking at New-Car Prices: How to Write, Produce, Direct, Shoot, Edit, and Promote a Feature-Lenth Movie for Less Than $30,000 have caught my eye, made me take the book off the shelf and buy it. I doubt it.

Wouldnt it make more sense to just compare the prices of cameras, film, etc of today versus the prices of the time that those books refer to, rather than depending on the Dept of Labor's generalized inflation rates?

**eddie123456789** · March 30th, 2005, 07:45 AM

Hello

While on the subject of books, Ive mentioned this book here before but no-one here seems to have read it:

<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786860901/qid=1112172274/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl/202-5235615-7080639" target="_blank">The Unkindest Cut: How a Hatchet-Man Critic Made His Own $7,000 Movie and Put It All on His Credit Card
</a>

IMO its much better than Rebel without a Crew, its more motivating, its more exciting, its more realistic and its a lot funnier too. But Joe Queenan aint an enfant terrible, more an old fart terrible, and his film is probably not very good ( have never seen "12 steps to death" )

This was made on 16mm.

What I found the most interesting was the final chapters about "how"/"why" it only cost him $7000 - Anyone who has read it will know what I mean.

"On his credit card for $7000" sounds a lot more exciting than the reality that was about $150,000 (If I remember right) - most of which was post production costs.

"Bleak Future" is another super8 feature film, which is fabulous BTW. (Although much of the sound is ropy.)

[ March 30, 2005 03:53 AM: Message edited by: eddie123456789 ]

**Actor** · March 30th, 2005, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Nigel:
250 minutes of 16mm film Kodak Vision2 would come to 3,227 not 3,500...If you pay full list price but if you are buying 23 rolls of film you surley would not.

Rodriguez burned 25 mags of film, not 23. I think most DPs count that as 10 minutes. If you want to count one mag as 11 minutes then he shot 275 minutes. 25 mags at 141.95 each is $3,548.75.

18 cents a foot for 23 rolls comes to 1,656 not 1,800...

It's 25 rolls x 400' = 10,000'. 18 cents per foot x 10,000' comes to $1,800.

Transfer at $325 per hour at a 1:1 ratio is 1,354 for 250 minutes of film. For the model I outlined you would do about a 1.5:1 so you be paying 2,031.25 for the transfer.

I'm totally confused about how you are figuring the cost of transfer. However, you agreed that it was $15/minute and for 275 minutes that comes out to $4,125.

However, it's my understanding that telecine rates are lab hours, not film hours, and that to convert film hours to lab hours you multiply by three. 275 minutes x 3 = 825 minutes or 13.75 hours. $325 x 13.75 = $4,468.75.

The tape stock would be 2--124 minute tapes and one 90 minute tape for a total of...$334

OK, more confusion. Tape now comes in 124 min, 94 min and 90 min reels? To hold 275 minutes it seems that 3 94min reels would be better than 124 minute reels. More confusion, do we or do we not need 3 more tapes for "after you are done with the online."

However, you are right that only one tape is needed for the final.

So that gives me a total of 7,248.25 against Actors 12,635

After these corrections I'm now getting 12,928.75, which was more than before.

I don't know why I can get these kind of numbers and he can't

I'm using an Excel spreadsheet. I'll try and send you a copy.

but they aren't any different than those taht I deal with on a weekly basis...I am going into production on a feature in April using a Movicam SL 35 and we are getting that for less that the rates you quote for video on a four week shoot.

Good Luck
PS--Your example fails because RR would never rent an Arri S for 3,000 for three weeks.

What RR would or would not do has nothing to do with it. I could have made the same argument just by saying "90 minute film with a 3:1 shooting ratio" and never mentioned any director's name.

**Actor** · March 30th, 2005, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Nigel:
You asked for the numbers...I produced. Your numbers simply seem to be twistings of mine even after I correct you. So where are your own??

Good Luck

I'm using your numbers. That's fair surely.

**Actor** · March 30th, 2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Tasty Fish Lips:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />People have made feature with super8 (Jet Benny, The Dead Next Door, Lost Tribes).

I've only seen bits of Jet Benny, yes I know it was Roger Evans who made it.

Jet Benny, from what I saw is nothing to aspire to. It only works as Grade C Schlock. Its slightly funny in an almost Kentucky Fried Movie way.
<hr /></blockquote>It works as a marvelous parody of The Jack Benny Program. I love it.

And I've seen Lost Tribes. To call both of these films features is highly misleading. Lost Tribes was "feature length", just barely, I believe.

It's 102 minutes long.

And it was horrible. Horrible in every way possible. I mean really, we're talking beneath student film quality. There's is not one frame of a professionally made film in that movie. Nor is there anything remotely resembling decent audio.

As for the plot, acting, narrative etc, horrendous. This movie is nothing to be proud of. Really. I'm sure it was hard work, but it does nothing to strengthen your argument, Actor.

I love the medium of super 8 - but those films do not in any way represent it in a positve light.

Lost Tribes isn't even good enough for Mystery Science Theater (or whatever that show is called)

[ March 30, 2005 02:17 AM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]

[ March 30, 2005 02:33 AM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]

**jb_617** · March 30th, 2005, 09:00 AM

Don't forget, RR telecined onto tape and edited linear. Saves a lot of money. Also, if I'm not mistaken, he didn't have his footage treated or corrected and he edited on VHS tape-to-tape, which is super cheap. Once he'd sold his film it had about $250,000 of post production thrown at it and transferred to 35mm for exhibition. Add another $1,000,000 or so in marketing into that equation and then you have what the film cost. And for my money, it still looked shit. The actors made that movie, not the production values.

Also, we only have RR's word for the fact that he spent $7,000. He borrowed most of his kit and got a lot of stuff done for free. I don't believe he paid for anything (locations, costumes, etc) except the stock and processing. He already owned the camera and the lights. If you are staring from scratch, then Nigel's numbers are spot-on. It is almost impossible to make a decent looking and sounding short for $20,000 never mind a feature. Even the greatest short ever (in my opinion): Robot Bastard cost $18,000 and it is no way close to being serious.

If you're hell bent on doing it all your own way and in your own style. Don't study RR; study Russ Meyer.

I am still waiting for a miniDV feature to be shown at my local cinema. Does one exist that has been distributed? I doubt it, and as I've said before, that's the name of the game for most of us.

Guerrila is fine when you're staring out. I've made some shorts and student dross myself when I was learning how it works. But most of us are now looking to "step-up" and start doing this for real. And real films need real money.

As an aside, I finally watched that "Indie" movie from last year; Napoleon Dynamite.

jb's quick capsule review? Piece of shit. Nicely shot, but badly written and acted. The whole thing was just one joke endlessly repeated. In conclusion; Piece of shit. It cost $400,000.

What I'm saying here is that there's no need to get obsessed with Film v Video v Money v Guerrila v Indie v Hollywood etc. If your story is a piece of shit then your film will be a piece of shit.

I submit "Pearl Harbour" as exhibit "A" for the prosecution.

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

But then all writers say that. Don't they?

[ March 30, 2005 05:04 AM: Message edited by: jb. ]

Thread: Super16 and HDCam numbers...

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions