Comparing 16mm versus Super-8mm Costs...

**Alex** · December 7th, 2003, 07:46 AM

Nigel, sorry to post this here, but your Super-8 versus 16mm numbers that you posted on Brantley's forum don't add up.

--------------------------------------------
Nigels quote from Brantley's forum....

"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"

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

Why are you comparing the same amount of feet of film when you need less Super-8 footage (I think it's half the amount) to equal the run time of 16mm?

Why do you use $16.00 per cartridge for Kodachrome 40 processing when Dwayne's charges $9.00 a cartridge?

[ December 07, 2003 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]

**belovedmonster** · December 7th, 2003, 10:48 AM

why dont you post your reply on whatever board he posted this on in the first place?

**Alex** · December 7th, 2003, 05:11 PM

I have probably sent Nigel 2-3 PM's in the last year and a half and he has never replied to any of them.

I don't have access to the other forum, since Nigel is the moderator I don't have a problem with him deleting this topic post as long as he responds to my points on the other forum.

**Nigel** · December 7th, 2003, 05:49 PM

Alex--

The only PM I ever got from you was when you sent me some information about an optical printer You did not send me a PM regarding this subject--As of this writing my Inbox reads 0.

Secondly, This does not need to be discussed on this forum. It is not a matter brought up here.

Thirdly, I used those footage numbers and those stocks because it is the best way to compare. I would do the same with 35mm Vs 16mm. K40 was left out of the example because it is just to hard to deal with in 16mm due to minimum order lengths.

Finally, Why am I trying to explain myself to you?? I don't know and I will stop.

Good Luck

**Alex** · December 7th, 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Nigel:
Alex--

The only PM I ever got from you was when you sent me some information about an optical printer.

Incorrect, that was an email.

Originally posted by Nigel:

You did not send me a PM regarding this subject--As of this writing my Inbox reads 0.

I've PM'd you using Hostboard's PM service at least two times in the last year, maybe three, I've never gotten a response. I did not bother using it for this topic because of your lack of response in the past.

I don't PM very many people, but of those I have, you are one of the few who has never responded.

Originally posted by Nigel:

Secondly, This does not need to be discussed on this forum. It is not a matter brought up here.

You know I can't respond on the forum in question.
I brought it up on a "neutral" forum instead.

Originally posted by Nigel:

Thirdly, I used those footage numbers and those stocks because it is the best way to compare. I would do the same with 35mm Vs 16mm. K40 was left out of the example because it is just to hard to deal with in 16mm due to minimum order lengths.

You should be comparing running time of the film footage when comparing different film formats, especially when you are trying to make a point about how expensive one film format is versus another.

Originally posted by Nigel:

Finally, Why am I trying to explain myself to you?? I don't know and I will stop.

Good Luck

It's not about me, it's about posting technically accurate information in regards to film cost comparisons.

**GREATwarEAGLE** · December 7th, 2003, 07:25 PM

I thought "flaming won't be tolerated."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While i dont understand why he posted this here and not on the board he is quoting it from, saying its flaming him is grossly over dramatic. All he is doing is disagreeing with his sums.

Yeah. Perhaps. It was in regard to the title of the thread, not the topic. It struck me as unsual to specifically address someone and to make an accusation, all in the title.

But Im going to stay out of this as it's of no concern to me and none of my business. [img]graemlins/chat.gif[/img]

**Alex** · December 7th, 2003, 08:16 PM

If I didn't put Nigels name on it, it might have sat unread by Nigel for a few days or longer.

I'll gladly change the title now that Nigel can perhaps reconsider a new response on the other forum.