No doubt digital has lowered the cost of getting ninety minutes onto 'film'. Even if it's tape.

My point about the Mariachi legend, and it's often missed - Is that it's not how much you SPEND, it's how much you LEVERAGE that matters. That's what is often overlooked. What is a great story worth? What are the volunteer or deffered costs of great actors worth? What great assests do you have access to? I think what Rodriguez, is saying is that low cost/deferred cost options to high costs are more readily available nowadays. But I think it might be benneficial, if he were to actually come out and say... "Look, I got XXX thousand dollars worth of free stuff and services too, and when I sold the movie, I went back and paid the deferred costs that ammounted to xxx dollars as well... so IF I had paid for everything up front, it would have cost me xxx dollars.

Too many people count on never paying deferrments, which makes for two problems... ONE) You are betting against yourself TWO) You leave a bitter taste in cast and crew's mouths, which makes it much harder for someone else to shoot.

I think a disservice is being done, by perpetuating the myth "All you need is a credit card and a mini dv"...

I don't think anyone is saying this.

Your point of leveraging, and then repaying, the non-cash resources available to you is well-taken. But your message seems to be so negative... :-)

In fact almost everyone who starts up a new business on a shoe string leverages all the resources available to them, if they are smart. If you read Rodriguez's interviews you will see that he relies a lot on family and friends.

The point Rodriguez is trying to get out is to not let the establishment/system keep you down. If you have a great story, find a way to shoot it now cheaply, rather than waiting till later when you can afford a big budget.

This thread is about 16 mm vs HD. The point is to that shooting HD is a great way to realitively inexpensively shoot a high quality movie. Don't let not being able to afford 16mm hold you up.

That's exactly the problem with the Mariachi myth - and it has spurred me on to make my own stuff, but it has given a lot of people the impression that with just enough money to buy film you can make a film. The fact is that movie cost a lot more than $7,000 before he sold it to distributors.

He borrowed an Arri, didn't rent it. The squibs were given to him. The actors mostly worked for free. The bus belonged to a friend of a friend. The rig for sliding down the wire was made by a blacksmith friend for just the cost of the material His friend Carlos, who played the Mariachi, is the son of the wealthiest man in town and the family apparently owns half the buildings in town, including the hotel, the villains ranch (the interior of which doubles as Domino's house) and one of the bars they went to. And many of the actors, extras, and occasional 'crew' worked for Carlos' family, or were friends who thought making a movie would be cool (as you can tell from the performances). Even the bath tube was given to him by the makers of Like Water For Chocolate because they liked him and he talked a good game. He had a stuntman friend who provided all the blanks and squibs for him for free and at one point was going to blow up a car (provided by Carlos) for him for free, but they never got that far becuase he had to return the camera.

And he did all of his post work at school on equipment he wasn't paying for, well in advance of selling it to a distributor.

He really made a $50,000 or $60,000 movie, he just didn't spend that much cash on it. And he knew that's what he was going to do. He wrote the movie specifically to use that which he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt he could get his hands on.

Case in point, a friend of mine is making an HD feature right now for nothing. He's friends with a DP who owns his own CineAlte rig and HD editing suite, they came up with the story together using locations they knew they could film and just about all he's actually spending money on are the tapes and food. So for about $3K - bam, HD movie.

And if you can get all those ducks to line up in a row for you, you can make a film with far more production value than you are actually spending money on as well - but it's not a foregone conclusion.

This is a great thread.

RR is devoted to HD, that's his path. El Mariachi isn't great, but it's got a kinetic energy and shouts out "I have talent!" What the guy really needs is a good script.

The 7k myth is used by studios to pump up movies by young filmmakers..."Novermber" shot for 150k, but they don't mention the sound mix from Skywalker Ranch and the blowup must have cost 3x times that.

Anyway, I submit that super16mm not only looks better, but is now cheaper to shoot and edit. But that's only because HD has forced kodak, telecine etc into competitive pricing. A dp with his own super16mm? 500 a day. Just to rent the damn HD equipment is 1500 a day....

Anyway, whatever path you choose, the point is to get there. But as has been pointed out by posters, the "digital" is the only way is rubbish, and in fact I think a lot of momentum has swung to super16mm.

One of the things that Mariachii and the DV revolution has done, is allow film to be shown, simply as VIDEO. The digital revolution in post production and the increasing willingness to look at a digital film as a 'work print' is a huge plus for indy filmmakers. This saves enourmous ammounts of money on prints. Heck, shoot on super 16, telecine, transfer to DVD and you're in the festival circuit. Save on work prints, conforming, film out...

My point being do the numbers. Work up your shooting schedule, then plug in the cost of renting HD (Don't forget HD monitors/decks etc.) vs renting Film gear, filmstock and telecine costs. See how much money is saved, vs. what you have at the end. A negative to blow up to 35?

A lot of people don't take the time, to do the numbers. And, frankly, I think some new filmmakers are intimidated by the discipline of film.

Don't know where you rent, but it's way to high. :-) In Houston, the Sony Z1 rents for $190, with package deals available. I would expect the HVX200 to be comparable to this.

Who said "digital" is the only way???

So please explain to me how 16mm is cheaper than HVX200 HD after you include the developing/printing of the film?

BTW, did I just pass through to an alternate universe where DVInfo.net is really a film forum? <bg>

The El Mariachi myth has a big flaw on it... Most people seem to discard the fact that he got EXTREMELY lucky! The chances of another filmmaker doing as well as he did for $7k are probably lower than winning the lottery!

Look at Blair Witch, it really sucks in my opinion. Very basic movie, not scary at all, but hugely successful... But if we take this two films has reference we are forgetting that 99.9% of indie films never get anywhere, no matter how much they cost.

Also, most budgets strangly don't include the cost of the camera, so if you're going to fork out $10k for a HVX is that going into your film budget? Most budgets are BS; just another way of marketing your film.

You could shoot a movie with an Optura and get a deal signed by a big studio, whereas zillions of people with their fancy XL2s or HD cameras will get nowhere...

It's all about marketing, a bit of content and a stroke of luck.

HD vs 16mm. Not HDV vs 16mm I thought was the thread.

*L* The Sony is not an HD cam. HDV is definitely not HD.

Hey, shoot with the Sony, and see if you like what you get in post...

>>>I'm not talking about shooting 16mm for an artistic reason, if you want to do that, of course, but purely based on quality and budget...?<<<
Mathieu- aren't quality and artistic reason intertwined ? Hd and S16 each have their own advantages as does hdv. Digital imagery is flexible - film is more aestetically pleasing to most people but far more expensive for bugeteers. Some rationalize our present preference for the film look as something learned , which in turn implies the ability to unlearn it . Rodriguez got the job more for his business and organizational skills than for his cinematic talent. Please , the guys' no Cassevetes ! But , by the location of the thread , I can assume we are talking about a comparison between the AG-HDX200 and S16 - or, have we reached with the HDX a close enough approximation of 16mm quality that it makes the difference acceptable for the cost advantages of shooting digital ? We got to wait and see. Kurth

Yep, it's wait and see. I don't think the HVX will look like what we think of when we thing "HD", although it will certainly better than mini-dv. But 1/3" chips are limiting.

I've found that the sdx900, which is a 25k cam with 2/3" chips, looks about like super16mm when used in closeups and interiors.

S16 Workflow/Costs
 

Can someone explain the basic workflow for S16 from acquisition to distribution. Just the basic steps. I understand that there's no room for a soundtrack on S16, so what format do you release it in? Oh, can you also provide the "normal" cost for each step. Let's take a 110 minute feature as an example. Don't forget to include the cost of printing dailies.

I'll take a stab at this, but I've never actually shot on film. I've just done a lot of reading and called a few labs. Anyone with actual experience, please correct me if I'm wrong.

The cheapest cameras that are quiet enough to shoot sync sound are the Eclair ACL, Eclair NPR and Cinema Products CP16r. You can get them for $1,500 to $4,000. Plan another $2,000 to have them reconditioned, which you will want to do unless you know and trust the seller. These cameras are decades old now. It would also be about $2,500 to have them converted to Super 16.

For the film istelf, it runs about 19 cents a foot for each step of the process -- film stock, developing, and telecine. This can vary a lot, especially if you shoot short ends, which is a good idea with the ACL since it's designed to use 200 foot mags anyway.

Check out Kodak's film calculator at:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16...=0.1.4.7&lc=en

One hundred and ten minutes of film is 2,520 feet. Many people budget a five-to-one shooting ratio, but a lot of working pros say that's unrealistic. Even a seven-to-one ratio is considered tight, and 10 to one is recommended.

So, 2,520 feet x five x .19 x 3 is $7,182. That figure will easily double on you if you can't keep the shooting ratio to five to one, which you probably won't be able to do.

No idea how dailies work in the process. The 19 cents a foot telecine figure is for a one light transfer to miniDV. I would guess you just watch those when they come back. A 2K transfer, which like the name implies is about 2,000 pixels horizontally (not exactly for some reason) is really expensive. I don't have exact figures because that seems to be budgeted by the hour, but they talk in terms of dollars per foot, so you get the idea. Creating a print from miniDV is also out of reach for do-it-yourselfers because of the cost. It would apparently be cheaper to create a projectable print by foregoing the digital intermediate and editing manually so that an optical print could be made. It would look much better too. I don't know anything about that process though, so maybe somebody else could help.

S16 is designed to be transfered, not projected. You either transfer it to video (SD or HD) for television/tape/dvd or optical print blow up to 35mm.

I would not reccomend shooting with the old 'synch' sound systems. Just rent a new s16 camera. Shoot double system sound. I'd do that anyway even if I was shooting a feature on my XL2. You want a good sound man with good gear (DAT) anyway. Synch in post on your NLE. So that workflow/ and cost is the same... whether you shoot 35, s16 or HD/DV (I'd use the audio track on mini-dv as a kind of synch track/backup)

I'd probably do a 'best light' instead of a one-light transfer. Get the footage back on DVCAM, synched with the DAT. Pull it into my AVID, cut/color corrrect and "Bob's your uncle" you're ready to send the video out to festivals. Plus with Avid and to a lesser extend FCP, you can generate a frame accurate cut list to send to your conformer IF you go to film out.

When we shot "After Twilight" we shot on 35mm (It was cut on FCP) and shot on weekends and some weekdays. This allowed us to view the footage between shooting weekends. But we also had a video tap, which S16 will have as well. We could review the videotap on set, for composition and continuity questions. The tap was fed into a DSR11, so at the end of the day, we could actually cut scenes off the tap, to look at how the footage was cutting together. This would have been done with 'dailies' on a hi-end production, but we skipped that. The same thing could be done with S16 of course.

We budgeted 6 to one on After twilight, and went a tad bit over. It takes discipline and planning, no question. Ten to one is pretty generous, I think for an indy, but I'd love to have it.

Film costs can be all over the place. Look for deals. We bought a HUGE chunk of unopened reels off EBAY from a film company that had them left over from a shoot in Canada. When my partner went to shoot "Mr. Hell" a few months after "Twilight" the pro-co got a GREAT deal on 35mm stock that was being discountinued by KODAK. Paid basically less than 16mm for 35mm stock. So that was a huge savings. IT takes some creativity, but then all aspects of Indy feature work are that way. My point is, shop around. Yeah, it's probably going to cost a bit more for film... but is it really the deal breaker, when you consider the trade off of increased resolution (even in S16), better DOF controll and all the other 'film look' qualities, and the negative for blow-up later.

Here's some interesting links.

http://www.kino-eye.com/archives/200..._to_build.html
http://www.catrack.com/pages/cam.htm

Again, I'm not saying Digital isn't the wave of the future... I'm just saying film still has a place in the workflow. Especially since digital is the main workflow of post anyway, even in feature films shot on 35.

Thanks Richard. Apologies. While I did write sync sound, I just meant that the cameras were designed to be quiet enough to use a microphone at all, and can use a crystal controlled motor to minimize drift. I assumed double system sound would be a given.

Maybe it is intertwined, it of course can be. I just thought of the example of a movie here in Belgium, Steve+Sky. It deals about hoockers and little criminials, but it is a love story (an a very beautiful one too). It's filmed on 16mm, positive (don't know if this is the right term, as I said: I haven't worked with 16mm or HD, just asked myself the question) but that brings out in the theatre (and even on the little screen) you have a rough image, but has little 'surealistic' shades of light to, because it's positive. I talked with the director, and he wanted that rough look, but he also said: the movie didn't have a budget for a 35mm stock. He even said he first wanted to film on video, because he likes to film a lot of footage, and improvise a lot, but the producer convinced him that he could shoot 16 mm too... So off course it's intertwined.

What I meant was: I haven't worked with HD. I haven't worked with 16mm. I have seen 16 mm projected (don't know anything of the 'new' super 16mm stocks or anything) in some movies (Steve+Sky, Leaving Las Vegas, some shorts...) and I have seen HD (Star Wars)...
And off course, 'quality' is very, very subjective, but with technical eyes, which one would be the best? That was my curiousity actually, and I wanted to hear some opinions.
Maybe the question is quite impossible to answer and one just has to see it for his self, and I'll do that one time, but in the meantime, I asked my question ;-)

I think that's a kind of ridicolous remark (don't want to attack you or anything, don't be offended) because I think we all know how DVinfo started, but became a lot bigger than that. People don't only speak here about digital video, they talk about movie techniques, advice for filming gigs, questions about film stocks, lightning, mic's, advice on shorts, books on filmmaking, what's legal and what's not, contracts,... and so on and so on. I think we can all agree it comes down on people working with camera's, going from Indie filmmakers to professional cameramen, to guys who want to make a living from filming events and such... and they all try to help each other.
That's beautifull at this forum, it's not that I can only talk here about digital video, but also have some advice on a script or in this case reall film stock, so I can learn.
Okay, the name is DVinfo, it camera from digital video (I hope :-)?) but it has grown and grown and grown.
First there were only 52 posts around here...
I wasn't a member yet, somebody posted a link to an old adress from the forum, or a picture or something, from this forum when it just existed some weeks so...
I'm happy to learn around here, I am sure you'll agree :-) about that :-).
Please don't take this as an offending or something, and if it was a joking remark from your part, then I just took it too seriously and I need to laugh more :-D

Mathieu,

I take it the term you are referring to is "Reversal stock". Unlike 'negative' film stock, which produces a negative image when developed, reversal stock produces a 'positive' image when developed. It has a much different look to it than negative. It's what most people shoot when they shoot super 8. The 'Chrome" stocks, ektachrome and kodachrome are 'reversal stocks' Yes, it give a much different feel to the image.

And as I mentioned, the DIGITAL part of filmmaking was initially introduced in the post process, in editing. Not in the capture process... so filmmaking has been 'digital' a lot longer than the digital cameras have been around!

Yes, that's it!
I know the word in Dutch, but sometimes it's hard to find the english one. Thanks!

Mathieu,

My remark was indeed a "joking remark", tongue-in-cheek, as I tried to indicated with the "<bg>" tag, which means "big grin". This is just one reason we need the similies turned on in this forum. No matter how serious the subject there's always room for humor.

Best Regards,
Pete

... do you realize what forum you have chose to post this in? you will get a biased answer anyway because everyone here is here because they want dv info!

me? 16mm in a heartbeat.

Sorry then :-) Didn't realise it. Well, I suspected it, but... no I just fell for it ;-)

Indeed, I doubted where I would put it, I even thought to put it in Filmlook forum, or Open DV discussion, but ultimately I placed it here.

What is the Dutch word? I only know the English one. Heh.

For Rob:
Zal dom klinken, maar 'omkeerfilm'. Of positieffilm. Of diafilm. Maar het was laat toen ik het typte, en ik kon écht niet op het woord komen :-)

Thanks Mathieu! It indeed sounds "stupid", as with a lot of english word
being translated into Dutch like "wagen terugloop met regel overslag". I
always have to laugh at some of the subtitles in TV shows like Star Trek.
Oh well... back to our regular programming!

Okay Rob, clue us in... Does that translate to "Wagon Train in Outer Space"???

No, it is a literal translation of "carriage return and line feed". But yours was pretty close *grin*

My experience, on both films and TV spots, has been precisly opposite. And I am known for my speed, and have shot both formats for a long time. Most DP's I know would also agree, given that situations are the same.

I once had the president of a large production company ask me why film shoots were so big and messy and complicated. I told him that big messy complicated shoots tended to shoot film, because they were not interested in compromising the image after all that work. Its important not to confuse dilletanting with workflow.

Film is usually more expensive than video. That is also my experience over years and several thousand TV spots.

The thing about it is if you are low budget, then shooting film is a huge part of the budget, and when we choose it in that situation, it is because most of the time thats the best way to put what money there is in a place where it makes the most difference, and thats the end product, the screen.

On projects with reasonable budgets, the decision to shoot video is often
pushed by people in the middle or higher up, so they can put more margin thier own pocket. Not all the time, but a great deal of the time. Thats an unfortunate fact, but these are business people, and thats the way most of them think. Most of the people pushing any format, on a professional level, film included, have there own agenda, and sometimes money is the agenda. Sometimes its about having enough money to do the project at all, and sometimes its about rat holing forty grand for a new car. Sometimes its in the middle of those two extremes.
One of the reasons Im so excited about the HVX is that it promises to add a better production quality to the projects that must currently be shot MiniDV.

My question is how to bill the camera. Can I reasonably bill more for shooting
HD than SD when its the same camera? Do I charge somewhere in the middle for whatever codec? Or more for HD because of the additional workload on memory and machines?

I think you should, not because of the camera, but indeed because it's much more horsepower to edit than regular SD. That's my opinion though.
More work to edit - better picture quality-bigger price tag.
Not to rip people off, but else nobody would want SD anymore. While, for most weddings, it's more about a souvenir then resolution and so on.

S16 vs HD Costs
 

I don't see how it is possible for S16 to cost less than HD, since S16 requires expensive film processing that HD does not. Also S16 requires that you record sound separately, adding cost for acquisition and post production.

But I especially want to address the cost of HD using the HVX100. This should cost quite a bit less than HD used to cost:

1. Cheaper camera (to buy or rent)
2. Doesn't require expensive HD decks
3. Simpler workflow

HVX100 workflow
 

Here's a great explanation of the HVX100 workflow:

The hvx will of course be cheaper than shooting super16mm. But it will not look as good, if you are trying to go to film out.

It will probably look fine for TV, albeit with the video look.

When you say "HD" I think of the Varicam or the Sony 950.

Consumer's haven't yet seen what 1/3" chip DVCPROHD looks like.

I submit that the HVX100 may look different from S16, but as to whether it will look better or worse is a matter of opinion. :-)

As so many have mentioned so many times, the content will be far more compelling than the media.

If the objective is to get to a distribution deal for minimal costs, then the HVX may be an excellent option. Shooting with the HVX will provide a high quality (much, much higher than the best DV camera) product that will be an excellent vehicle to promote your motion picture.

To get a "distribution" deal, a star is probably more important that what you are shooting on.

When I said that it wouldn't be cheaper to shoot with the HVX100 right now, I was referring to the extra equipment you would need. For one thing, won't you absolutely have to have an HD monitor on the set? There's also the P2 cards and the editing and storage equipment, which is likely to be far beyond what practically anybody owns right now. As I wrote before, you could theoretically shoot a Super 16 feature for under $10,000, at least for the film stock, processing, and telecine. It's not hard envision spending that much on a DVCPRO HD workflow, although I have to confess that I only have a vague idea what it would cost. Anybody know? The latest issue of DV Magazine has an article on HDV workflows, and it's pretty daunting. Obviously, once you're all set up it would be far cheaper than Super 16 to shoot future projects.

I think the odds are going to 35mm are slim.

I say write a really good script. Then rewrite that really good script a dozen more times.

Put the money into an actor like Michael says for distribution. I've seen some nice stuff come out of the DV world. So going to HD with the new Panny is going to help.

Using a great DP will also help to bring up the production value.

But I still believe if someone is being entertained, they won't care what it's shot on.

>>As I wrote before, you could theoretically shoot a Super 16 feature for under $10,000, at least for the film stock, processing, and telecine.<<

Do you have an actual breakdown to prove this? To shoot a feature with Super 16mm would cost WAY more then 10k. How did you come up with this figure?

Check page three of this thread. In that post I included the caveat that I've never shot on film, so I'm not pretending that my figures are gospel or anything. It's also based on a telecine at NTSC resolutions. A 2K transfer is way more expensive.

Well, I was doing some math, and I have to admit, you might not be that far off.

I don't know the prices on lab and transfer cost off the top of my head (cause they change frequently), but if one were to shoot a 90 minute S16 film, one would have to figure something like this:

One 400' roll of S16 goes for about $100.00 a pop.

A 400' roll is roughly 11 minutes.

If one had an average of 3 shots/angles per scene, and if one took an average of 3 takes per shot/angle, then one would have a 9:1 shootnig ratio.

So now that would mean that one would have to buy 9x9 rolls of film, or 81 rolls of film. 81x100 is $8100.00.

I'm sure that processing, transfer cost, and syncing would be somewhere in the ball park of 9k to 6k. So 10k for a feature, I have to admit, is not THAT far off, but it's a lot more then 10k.

Sorry, I should have said page 4 of this thread. I have more detailed figures there. It boiled down to $7,182 for a five to one shooting ratio, which admittedly is probably too optimistic.