How much more expensive is it on average is 16mm compared to super 8?
Jeff
------------------
Printable View
How much more expensive is it on average is 16mm compared to super 8?
Jeff
------------------
This could depend on a lot of factors, but are you talking about just film cost? Or other things that may go along with the cost of shooting like cost of cameras, making prints, etc.?
I think the cost of shooting 16mm may be more than just raw film and processing, there is also cost of convenience too.
It's more difficult to carry around a larger camera among other things.
I'm shooting a short on 16 right now and here are days I look at my Nizo and wish I could take that out instesd of the bigger cam.
A 100 ft.( less than 3 minutes) roll of 16mm neg. can be $40 retail and $15 to process. You can get returns and shortends for around $23 from certain places.
Rank is the same cost as S8.
What do you pay for S8? Seems the best price is about $11 for K40 and Less than $5 for Wal-Mart processing.
------------------
PRM
16mm is definitely more expensive than Super-8.
Sync Camera packages can start at around $2500 for a CP16 and go up. Eclair ACL, $3500-5000, Eclair NPR $4500-6000, Arri BL $5000-6000, Aaton LTR, $7000-9000, Arri SR I, $10,0000-and up.
Now you could go with a lesser camera like a Bolex or Bealieau R16 which is not designed for sync, basically too noisy, but you can shoot shorts with some sync sound with them if you plan carefully. I have a friend who built a homemade sound barney, a covereing for the camera which deadens the camera noise , and shot a feature with a Bolex. I recommend a Bolex with reflex viewing. They can start at around $1000.
Decent Super-8 cameras can start at $200 and up. Wrap the camera in soft cloth (I use a sweater) and throw a sound blanket over the camera and operator to kill camera noise and you have a fairly quiet camera.
Onto film stock. Count on around 28-34 cents a foot, so 100ft is around $30. Fuji can be found at about 20% cheaper than Kodak. (I really like their 125 an 250 ASA film.) Processing can be had for as cheap as .12/ft. (Crest National in LA or check out Filmcraft in Detroit at .14-ish).
Now where you can save on film stock is to get short ends. Short ends is film that was unused and sold. It is tested for resale. They can be had for .14-.20 per foot. USE A REPUTABLE DEALER, like Dr. Rawstock, Short Endz, Media Distributors, etc... If you buy from Ebay or some guy off the street, well you're taking a risk with your shoot. Also, you can talk to Kodak or Fuji about buybacks. This is film that was bought directly from them and usually sold back to them not long after it was bought. This can happen when a film project goes belly up during production and has tons of film laying around. I've bought buybacks from Fuji and saved $20 a roll which on a feature can add up to $500 or more.
This is where 16mm competes with Super-8 negative stock in price. I hate to say this because I love Super-8, but if you break down the prices on Super-8 neg and then do a short ends pricing on 16mm neg, Super-8 can be only a penny or two cheaper.
The key to short ends is to start buying way before you start shooting. It ususally takes a while to get enough short ends on 16mm to shoot a film. If you wait, you may not be able to amass enough film and be forced to buy new stuff. There's a lot more 35mm short ends out there than 16mm.
Yes, 16mm camera weight more. You have to decide if the difference in gauge is worth it.
Scott
------------------
Hello rollemfilm!
Could you tell me where I could purchase some 16mm film at the prices you mentioned. Sounds like the perfect way to test the Bolex I just recently picked up.
Thanks!
Kurt
------------------
I guess I'll stick to Super 8 with the sound sync. But I'm still very interested in 16mm. I think I'll look for one of those Bolex cameras. I've always wanted to get my hands on one of those and shoot some B and H!
Thanks!
Jeff
------------------
john schwind sells film: http://members.aol.com/super8mm/johnschwind.html sms productions has great Bolex prices. even one or two DS8 cameras: www.smsprod.com
------------------
i don't understand why the john schwind link won't work. type it in and try that way. it is the correct URL...
------------------
If you use Pro8mm stocks, the price could be the same than shooting 16mm.
------------------
it all depends on where you're at with your filmmaking. if you look at prices for used Bolex cameras you soon see that you can get into a great package for between $350-$1,500.00. now these are not sync cameras. and, you can shoot b&w film. this will bring down your cost also. you can buy Ilford b&w 100ft negative for $15.00. you can also get Foma reversal for $15.00. Super Cine-X for $9.00!! and Svema, yes for $7.00 per 100ft!!! so compare these prices with super8. if your not ready for sync sound, if you like b&w filmmaking, and you like the great Bolex cameras, you can spend "less" on 16mm...plus have more options as far as film stocks. but, if you are looking at doing some sync sound work cheap, super8 will be better to start with.
------------------
Pro8mm stock IS the same price as 16mm neg.
I got a Canon Scoopic M 16mm camera in very good condition for $331.00 on ebay.
The quick answer about stock, from my deductions, is new 16mm stock & processing is around 3 times what Super 8 K-40 & processing costs ($11.00 a roll from Kodak, $5.59 for PK-59 processing mailers from B&H in N.Y.).
I've seen specials on 16mm short ends on Dr. Rawstock or Shortenz ( forget which one) for .10 a foot, which is even CHEAPER than Super 8 stock. (This doesn't include processing, obviously, which is more).
Not counting what the camera costs are (which obviously vary greatly), and film stock & processing, shooting 16mm doesn't inherently mean more expense.
I mean, you don't HAVE to use more light, more professional light, etc., just because you're shooting 16mm, but most people do.
There are pro's & cons both ways, but you can't beat a bigger image, any way you go.
I'm looking forward to shooting lots of 16mm, & still shooting Super 8 for small cheap projects.
Basically, this is going to be my formula for what I shoot in the near future:
1. I'm paying for everything = Super 8.
2. Someone else is paying = 16mm, S16, 35mm.
I think it's that simple...
Matt Pacini
------------------
Regarding somebody else is paying for 16mm-
not necessarily.
Many DPs, aspiring directors and producers I know have their own 16 cam. If you ever decide to shoot a short for calling card purposes- most aspiring filmmakers use their own money to shoot it in 16 or at least be partially pay with their own money.
Many DPs I know never touched S8. Their first film cam was 16 and shot their first major short in 16 with their own money.
Just a thought. Many think 16 is expensive. It is in a way, but if you are serious about filmmaking 16 is an important step - even more important than S8 IMHO. The approach to 16 filmmaking mirrors 35mm in every basic way (different lenses, varying speeds, magazine loading, manual iris, more tripod-less handheld, video tap, etc).
Just thought
still renting/borrowing 16/saving for a NPR/ACL,
Crimsonson
------------------
I don't plan on filming with 16mm in awhile. Super 8 is the big thing in my life now.
What's the difference between S16 and 16mm?
What's a good camera for shooting 16mm if I want synchronized sound? And if I doo want synchronized sound for 16mm, what's the best sorta device?
Thanks
Jeff
------------------
The overwhelming difference is the cost of raw stock and processing. The difference in the cost of cameras, telecine, etc. is not significant in the long run. 16mm costs about 50% more than super8.
Robert Rodriguez shot El Mariachi on 16mm and had it telecined. His cost was $7225. He spent $3700 on film and processing. If he had shot on super8 he would have saved $1233 and the film would have cost him $5992.
By my reconing the film would cost $10,500 at todays prices or about $8500 on super8.
------------------
The overwhelming difference is the cost of raw stock and processing. The difference in the cost of cameras, telecine, etc. is not significant in the long run. 16mm costs about 50% more than super8.
Robert Rodriguez shot El Mariachi on 16mm and had it telecined. His cost was $7225. He spent $3700 on film and processing. If he had shot on super8 he would have saved $1233 and the film would have cost him $5992.
By my reckoning the film would cost $10,500 at todays prices or about $8650 on super8.
------------------
[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 11, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 11, 2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
What's the difference between S16 and 16mm?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The frame on 16mm is 0.404 x 0.295 inches, an aspect ration of about 4:3. Super 16 is 0.488 x 0.295 inches, an aspect ratio of about 5:3. Super 16 cameras always use single perf film. Most 16mm cameras will take single perf film but some require double perf film.
To get the wider frame super 16 uses space normally used for a soundtrack, so you cannot make a super 16 print with a soundtrack. Super 16 is intended for telecine or else it is blown up to 35mm.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
What's a good camera for shooting 16mm if I want synchronized sound?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For regular 16mm I'd go for the Arriflex 16BL but a lot of people like the C.P.16R. For super 16 go for the Aaton A-Minima if you can afford it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
And if I doo want synchronized sound for 16mm, what's the best sorta device?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Get a used Nagra, an SLO and the best mike you can afford. Or hire a sound man who knows his stuff and has his own equipment.
I personally would go for an Arri 16S with a couple of lenses and fight the sync battle in post. (like Rodriguez.)
------------------
[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 11, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 11, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 11, 2002).]
Is it basically next to impossible to get sound sync with those 16mm Bolex cameras?
Jeff
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Actor:
"... The difference in the cost of cameras, telecine, etc. is not significant in the long run..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are either ill informed, or insane.
The most expensive Super 8 cameras anywhere, will run you from say $750.- $2,500.
The most expensive 16mm cameras can exceed $25,000 easily, not counting lenses, which can run anywhere from fairly cheap, to many tens of thousands of dollars.
I'd say that's quite a difference. If you're talking about the low, low end of 16mm cameras, compared to the high, high end of Super 8 cameras, then sure. There's not that much of a difference. (I paid $750 for my Nizo 6080, and $331. for my Canon Scoopic).
But generally, there's a big difference.
Also, minor footnote:
Keep in mind that the $7K dollar amount always tossed around for El Mariachi, was to get the movie IN THE CAN, which is just a BS totally dishonest way to market a movie as being made for "virtually no money" as I've read a million times in indie film magazines (I love that line. What a load of crap!)
He did a 3/4 video edit at his local cable access channel, and after Rodriquez got his distribution deal, they put over $120,000 into post production costs, which is what you are looking at when you rent this video.
A $127,000 movie, not a $7,000 movie.
Same thing with the excremental BLOOD, BULLETS AND OCTANE.
I talked to Joe Carnahan, a local filmmaker who made that piece of shit, and he bragged about how it cost him $9,000 or whatever, but when I questioned him, he admitted that New Wave put over $100,000 to finish it.
Same thing with Blair Witch Projectile. They spent over $100,000 on the film by the time any of you saw it.
$32,000 alone, for the 35mm neg and print to go to Sundance, which is where they got their distribution deal.
IN THE CAN, is not the total budget for a film, it's now much you spent up to the last day of shooting!
Total budget is total budget; including everything spent on the film, AND post production is easily more than half of any movie.
(Sorry, this just drives me nuts, that's all. Everyone is always buying into the BS marketing ploys about now little these films were supposedly made for, thinking they can do it themselves, when in fact, it was not that cheap after all. I've had to explain this many times, when I tell people I spent $25,000 on Lost Tribes. They go; "Twenty five thousand? El Mariachi was only seven thousand!" Yeah, right!).
Matt Pacini
------------------
Matt:
I understand your beef with low budget films getting extra attention for the cost of the film and ignorance of additional cost paid by the distributors.
However, in Actors defense he did say "His cost..." Meaning, the filmmakers cost and not overall cost. Yes, the distributors cost is part of the project but it is something you not need necessarily worry about since the point of making the film in this case was to get picked up and let the distributors pay for the rest (like all the movie examples you gave.).
Remember, if you count what the distributors paid then you have to count - prints, advertisements, parties, etc, etc. Yes I agree 100% this is the FINAL cost, but it is paid after you got the movie's distribution deal AND you got it in the can by the distributor. Anyway, any budget you hear from AC mag to Access Hollywood is only to get the movie in the can. Many studios dont say how much it cost them to advertise and campaign for awards (heavy right now).
Actor - I disagree that camera noise battle should be fought in post. Any filmmaker you know you had to deal with such will say the opposite (including me). Trust me - YOU CANT FIX IT in POST. Even if you can, the time and money you spent could have been avoided if it was decided in pre poduction that the camera should be a *silent* camera. Ask your editor and soundperson what they think - 99% of the time they will say get a quiet camera.
------------------
someone asked if you can shoot sync with the bolex. the answer is yes. infact, there are many ways to shoot sync with a bolex, h16 & h8! the h16 ebm is the best bolex buy for sync. it comes from the factory with an installed electric motor. any of the older non-RX h16 & h8 models can shoot sync by using a tobin sync motor. they recomend models with a serial number over about 115,000. that's when bolex upgraded their claw and film gate. all reflex bolex cameras will also sync. later models like the RX4 & 5 have a 1:1 spindel, but they all accept a motor as well as being able to shoot with the spring motor. the draw back to using a tobin motor on an older bolex is that the motor can cost more than the camera. new for about $900.00. i've seen them go cheap on ebay for less than half. so buying used would make more sense. i would say go with the EBM h16 and save yourself the extra work and bulk.
------------------
I have an Aaton S16 camera that I shoot with a lot. I have a Beaulieu S8 camera that I shoot with a lot. Is 16mm more expensive--It depends like the first post said.
There are far more resources for 16mm. You can get Rank Xfers for 150 dollars an hour. You can get you film processed for .08$ a foot.
There is a time for S8 there is a time for 16/S16. I love shooting S8 more than any other format. However, I have never made more than a few hundred bucks off of it. Whereas, with my S16 I am almost to the point where I can "quite my day job."
S8 will show you the world on film. It will show you the way of larger formats but without the blackeyes when you get harder hit in the wallet.
Good Luck
------------------
Matt:
The cost of the camera is beside the point. The real issue with the camera or any other piece of equipment is how much it depreciates during the course of your project. If you buy an S8 camera for $1000 and then toss it in the trash when you are done with it, or if you buy a 16mm camera for $5000 and then sell it for $4000, your cost is the same for either. Most cameras that I can afford to lay my hands on (not the "most expensive") are so old that it is impossible to predict the depreciation. It is even possible that you could sell it for more than it cost and make a profit. That depends more on how good a horse trader you are than on the age and condition of the camera.
As for El Mariachi, Rodriguez had a salable product for $7,225. IMDb says that Columbia spent $220,000 to make a 35mm print. That's beside the point. If his cost had been $72,250 would Columbia have spent $2,200,000 for the print? I don't think so.
More to the point, if I can get a film "in the can" for $7000 or $11000 or $25000 am I then going to start trying to raise $330,000 (2002 price) so I can make a 35mm print? Hell no! I'll be happy to get a video distribution deal (which is all that Rodriguez hoped for anyway). Anybody that wants a 35mm print can pay for it themselves.
The El Mariachi budget was $2300 for film, $1400 for processing, $2800 for telecine and $725 for everything else. I'd be interested in knowing how the $25,000 for Lost Tribes broke down.
Crimsonson:
I am my own editor and soundperson. If you have enough money to hire these people then by all means get a quiet camera. You'll probably save enough in their salaries to offset the cost of a more expensive camera. But I work very cheap when I work for myself.
------------------
[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 12, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 13, 2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:
"I understand your beef with low budget films getting extra attention for the cost of the film and ignorance of additional cost paid by the distributors...
...Remember, if you count what the distributors paid then you have to count - prints, advertisements, parties, etc, etc..."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was not referring only to films where distributors paid the costs AFTER a film was picked up. Some I mentioned were that way, some were not.
All the money I referred to on Blair Witch Project, for instance was spent before they even went to Sundance, which was BEFORE they were distributed.
I'm simply making a blanket statement, that not one of us has seen the $7,000 version of El Mariachi, yet that's all we ever hear about, is that it was made for $7,000., etc.
And Actor, some of your statements simply make no sense at all.
How can you say the cost of the camera is beside the point?
It is the whole point.
And no cameras depreciate over the life of a film shoot, and I've never ever heard anyone ever mention that in figuring finances of a film anyway, because THAT is beside the point.
And why in the world would someone throw their 1,000 Super 8 camera away?
You're not making any sense at all.
This statement also makes no sense:
"I am my own editor and soundperson. If you have enough money to hire these people then by all means get a quiet camera. You'll probably save enough in their salaries to offset the cost of a more expensive camera. But I work very cheap when I work for myself."
What does that have to do with using a quiet camera or not?
Trust me, you cannot really remove camera noise in post. Not very effectively, anyway.
I don't care if you're paying a sound person or editor or not.
If you shoot with a noisy camera, it's going to be a nightmare to edit, no matter who does it; you or someone else.
And regarding festivals. Many festivals require at least a 16mm print, and some require a 35mm print. If you plan on entering your film into those festivals, YOU are going to be paying for those blow-ups & prints, NOT a distributor, because you don't have a distributor yet.
That's why you're going to the festival, remember?
Blair Witch Project needed a 35mm print, because Sundance only screened 35mm prints, not 16mm, not video.
Matt Pacini
------------------
> How can you say the cost of the camera is beside the point?
> It is the whole point.
no, because you rent or borrow it. i wouldn't shoot a feature on my own equipment, and even if i would, i would rent the camera to myself. makes a lot more sense in the long run, since it lets me a: put camera rental in the budget (good if my own camera breaks down) and b: lets me keep the cost for buying the camera out of the budget.
/matt
"that not one of us has seen the $7,000 version of El Mariachi, yet that's all we ever hear about,"
But the distributors did.
------------------
the footage in the "10 minute film school" on the dvd is supposedly from the original video. it looks and sounds ok, but not great.
what bothers me is that the 35 mm version is cropped to 1.85:1, and then cropped again to 16:9 on the dvd. it doesn't look nearly as good as the original 4:3 edit in many ways. heads cut off and sloppy exit/entry cuts everywhere...
/matt
Those of us that have watched El Mariachi with the commentary can recommend it to those who haven't. Rodriguez borrowed an Arri S for it and would shoot a scene and then have the actors go through the scene again to record sound. He did his best to match them later in post but was forced to make cuts when the dialogue wasn't syncing well enough. This seems like a tough way to do it. Really good commentary though.
Also I'm glad someone mentioned renting equipment. If you're going to make a short and you can be fairly sure about how long it will take, it would make sense to give that option some serious consideration.
------------------
PRM
Those of us that have watched El Mariachi with the commentary can recommend it to those who haven't. Rodriguez borrowed an Arri S for it and would shoot a scene and then have the actors go through the scene again to record sound. He did his best to match them later in post but was forced to make cuts when the dialogue wasn't syncing well enough. This seems like a tough way to do it. Really good commentary though.
Also I'm glad someone mentioned renting equipment. If you're going to make a short and you can be fairly sure about how long it will take, it would make sense to give that option some serious consideration.
------------------
PRM
El Mariachi is sold in Spanish with English subtitles; it is also sold in dubbed English. You are saying that the Spanish was dubbed as well to get rid of camera noise?
Is the dvd version where the extra shorts are to be seen?
------------------
You guys should just read the book and get the movie on DVD. Then you can hear his comments, and watch is 10 minute film school video which explains alot about what happened. Actually the book is better.
Forget 16mm or even Super 16mm. Let's go straight to 35mm!
------------------
Konton the Grey
> You are saying that the Spanish was dubbed as well to get rid of camera noise?
sort of. the sound was recorded after the picture, but on location. the reasons: he had no crew, he had one of the noisiest cameras ever made, and he had no crystal motor.
and yeah, read the book, since this subject is getting really old on all the film boards out there. ;-) the best thing you learn from it is that he was far from being the kid from nowhere, like people sometimes claim. he had made dozens of shorts on 16 mm and video, many of them award winning, before doing el mariachi.
/matt
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
And no cameras depreciate over the life of a film shoot...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A brand new one will, just like a new car. Just walking out the dealer's door with it will lessen its value by 1/3 to 1/2.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I've never ever heard anyone ever mention that in figuring finances of a film anyway...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds like you need to have a talk with your account or your tax advisor. The principle of equipment depreciation applies to any business venture, not just filmmaking. The I.R.S. in particular will not let you claim the entire cost of a camera as an expense in figuring the profit/loss of your venture, at least not in the same year. And anyone being paid points, residuals or deferred payments would not approve either. I know I wouldn't.
If you do manage to depreciate the camera 100% and sell it later then the entire proceeds from that sale become ordinary income. Depending on how your contracts are written you may have to share the proceeds of that sale with your cast/crew.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
And why in the world would someone throw their 1,000 Super 8 camera away?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Three words: NOT ECONOMICALLY REPAIRABLE.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Trust me, you cannot really remove camera noise in post.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not going to try. I intend to use Rodriguez' method of ADR. By the way Rodriguez did not invent this technique. It's been around as long as sound. Stanley Kubrick did the same thing on Fear and Disire and Killer's Kiss. And technology is available today that was not available to Kubrick, or even Rodriguez.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
And regarding festivals. Many festivals require at least a 16mm print, and some require a 35mm print. If you plan on entering your film into those festivals, YOU are going to be paying for those blow-ups & prints, NOT a distributor, because you don't have a distributor yet. That's why you're going to the festival, remember? Blair Witch Project needed a 35mm print, because Sundance only screened 35mm prints, not 16mm, not video.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Many festivals, including Sundance, no longer require a print. Remember all those news stories about how many DV films there were at Sundance? I'll just have to pass on any festival that still requires a print.
The requirement for a print was technologically motivated. Video projectors simply could not produce a quality image large enough for viewing by festival audiences. This has been overcome. State of the art video projectors can produce images just a big as 35mm.
------------------
[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 13, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 13, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 13, 2002).]
Are all H16 Bolex cameras reflex? Like do they have those light bending prisms within them?
Jeff
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Actor:
(Matt Pacini):
"And why in the world would someone throw their 1,000 Super 8 camera away?"
(Actor):
"Three words: NOT ECONOMICALLY REPAIRABLE."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, first of all, that's not necessarily true. Many of us have gotten our S8 cameras repaired.
Second, you never said anything about the camera being broken when you made the statement about throwing it away.
(Actor):
"Many festivals, including Sundance, no longer require a print. Remember all those news stories about how many DV films there were at Sundance? I'll just have to pass on any festival that still requires a print.
The requirement for a print was technologically motivated. Video projectors simply could not produce a quality image large enough for viewing by festival audiences. This has been overcome. State of the art video projectors can produce images just a big as 35mm.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I disagree.
Sundance was publishing their "news stories" saying; "1,000 DV features were SUBMITTED this year..." even BEFORE they had any video projection, and still requiring a print to be in their festival.
This led people to believe that they were screening digital features, which was not true up until last year.
They never said these films were shown, just submitted.
And your statement that requiring a print for projection was technologically motivated is simply not true.
There have been video projectors around for years, and they have all been able to project as big as anyone wants them to.
Yes, the technology is getting better, but the reason many of the larger festivals didn't screen using them is for other reasons.
Namely, they didn't have to; there have been more than enough films from people willing and able to show up with film prints to show at their festivals.
And there are still festivals that require prints, so obviously, technology is not the only reason, otherwise they would all accept videos.
(Ann Arbor is one example).
I think you should send away for festival entry forms before you make your film.
You will be saddened by the fact that most festivals' screening areas for video projection, are considered second rate films, and are treated as such.
You are far less likely to get distributors to even show up to your showing, much less actually buy your film. I'm not saying it never happens, but it's a myth to think that industry buyers are as excited about DV as indie filmmakers are. They most certainly look at a movie with a video master as being inferior to a movie with a film print. (I know this from personal experience, trying to sell my film, which was shot on film, but has a video master).
It's all about perception. We are competing with the "big boys" whether we like it or not.
Matt Pacini
------------------
[This message has been edited by Matt Pacini (edited February 14, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Matt Pacini (edited February 14, 2002).]
> And no cameras depreciate over the life of a film shoot...
great, then you've understood? if it doesn't depreciate, the cost is zero. simple and basic rule of economics. surely you must agree that a cost of zero is insignificant in any budget?
/matt
What are RX lenses?
Jeff
------------------
RX lenses are those that have been designed to work specifically with the reflex Bolexes. They compensate for the distortion of light that the prism causes.
It is possible to use non-RX lenses on a reflex Bolex as long as your using enough light to get an f-stop of 3.5 or higher. this will focus the light enough to offset focal problems. Usually the problem seems to occur in the wider lenses and not with the longer ones. Anything over 50mm seems to be O.K. Many Reflex Bolexes come with an RX zoom lens, like a switar 18-86mm.
------------------
PRM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:
> And no cameras depreciate over the life of a film shoot...
great, then you've understood? if it doesn't depreciate, the cost is zero. simple and basic rule of economics. surely you must agree that a cost of zero is insignificant in any budget?
/matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Huh?
I was not referring to there being a difference in depreciation, as being what made the cost between 16mm and S8 different.
That was HIS argument for them being the same expense.
So if I buy an Arri 35mm camera for $100,000 and I buy a Super 8 camera for $600, and neither camera depreciates over the life of the shoot, you think the cost is now the same to shoot on either S8 or 35mm?
You are making no sense whatsoever.
The simple fact is, that on average, there is a difference in camera cost between 16mm and Super 8.
That was his whole point, and now everyone is throwing all these wild bizarre "extra" arguments for me to chase around.
How can you guys say there is no difference in camera cost between 16mm and S8?
Why can't you just admit that you made a slip of the tongue?
This has gotten ridiculous!
Matt Pacini
------------------
[This message has been edited by Matt Pacini (edited February 14, 2002).]
Jefury,
Not all Bolexes are reflex and therfore don't have the prisms that require RX lenses.
The reflex cameras are more sought after even though RX lenses can be fairly expensive.
------------------
PRM
With such a healthy response to this thread on 16mm,perhaps Mr.Brantley would do well to consider a sister site called "MB's 16mm Filmshooting Site".
Reckon it would prove quite popular.
Just a thought.
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So if I buy an Arri 35mm camera for $100,000 and I buy a Super 8 camera for $600, and neither camera depreciates over the life of the shoot, you think the cost is now the same to shoot on either S8 or 35mm?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
for the camera? yes, it's zero. buying a camera is not a cost. you exchange some cash for another asset of the exact same value. if the value is still the same after the shoot, you can change back and you've lost nothing. counting like this is actually the law, and not just me trying to be smart.
/matt