I've been trying to determine teh most cost-effective path to produce a 14 minute short film with some extensive FX shots throughout (say about 30 shots). I'd like to protect the possibility of going back to a film print in the end, but primarily this project will be seen on DVDs.
The first scenario is: Shoot on Super 16mm, transfer all my foootage to HD, do my FX in HD, and then filmout from the HD master to 35mm. Thus I end up with a 35mm print and an HD master.
Scenario 2 is -- shoot on 35mm and have my FX shots scanned at 2k, do my FX work and then filmout the FX files back to film, cut them into my neg, finish on 35mm and have that scanned to HD so I get my 35mm print and my HD master.
Any ideas which is more cost effective? The difference in cost between the processing and purchase of 35mm vs super 16mm is negligible. Roughly three grand. What I'm wondering about is the difference between taking all my footage to HD versus scanning FX shots at 2K and filming out again, and then scanning the final neg to HD.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
1 reply to this topic
Posted 23 June 2006 - 01:26 PM
It all depends on the post facility you use and the particular post path you follow. I would suggest contacting a few houses to have them price it out for you. If you have a significant amount of footage the difference in cost can be quite considerable.