Jump to content


Photo

cost differences between 16 and 35


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel Madsen

Daniel Madsen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 201 posts
  • Student
  • Boston

Posted 29 November 2006 - 03:22 AM

What is the difference in cost (stock, scanning, lab) between the two formats? Does it take longer to shoot a scene in 35mm than in 16mm? A friend of mine wants to shoot a project on 35mm so it can be handed into the festivals on a DVD. Is it worth it or is he better off spending his money somewhere else?


Thanks
  • 0

#2 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 29 November 2006 - 04:03 AM

2.5 x as much generally speaking.
  • 0

#3 Oron Cohen

Oron Cohen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tel-Aviv/London

Posted 29 November 2006 - 04:43 AM

"What is the difference in cost (stock, scanning, lab) between the two formats? "

I would say that it will be 3 times more or less.

"Does it take longer to shoot a scene in 35mm than in 16mm?"

Recently I watched the film "Distant" by Turkish director Nuri bilge Ceylan on a DVD, in the extra staff on the DVD you can see that the director him self is also the cinematographer and that they are a crew of 5-6 people on the set!! It's amazing to see how this director works (I see more films form him) so you see it's really depend on what you are shooting and how you decide to work.

"A friend of mine wants to shoot a project on 35mm so it can be handed into the festivals on a DVD. Is it worth it or is he better off spending his money somewhere else?"

Personally I think it's stupid to shoot 35mm and ending up with a DVD, if the director wants to experience shooting on film he can start with super16mm, or re-consider and go for HD master from his 35mm footage (HDcam SR or something).
But hey maybe is very rich and have the money shoot films on 35mm and ending up with a DVD?

Edited by Oron Cohen, 29 November 2006 - 04:46 AM.

  • 0

#4 Jon Kukla

Jon Kukla
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 November 2006 - 06:21 AM

Availability is another factor. In many countries your only choices are 35mm or HD, so that puts 16mm out of the running from the start.
  • 0

#5 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 29 November 2006 - 08:06 AM

Danny,

Please change your forum name to your real name under the 'My Controls' link to the top and to the left.

It's a requirement of membership to the forum.

-nate
  • 0

#6 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 November 2006 - 11:48 PM

Super 16 looks great when going straight to video. If you have no intentions of projecting, S16 would be a great way to go, both for budgetary purposes and for the look. You could always do a quick test and shoot a roll of each to see which you prefer, but I think it's safe to say you'll be happy with S16.
  • 0

#7 Rik Andino

Rik Andino
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 783 posts
  • Electrician
  • New York City

Posted 01 December 2006 - 08:21 PM

What is the difference in cost (stock, scanning, lab) between the two formats? Does it take longer to shoot a scene in 35mm than in 16mm? A friend of mine wants to shoot a project on 35mm so it can be handed into the festivals on a DVD. Is it worth it or is he better off spending his money somewhere else?
Thanks


S16 is a great format to shoot particular if you're doing indie and guerrilla stuff
You can shoot guerilla in 35mm also but it's easier in S16 and cheaper.

As for going to a DVD S16 looks great
The only thing you would wantfrom 35mm is the shorter depth of field
But S16mm is still a great format if you know how to use it.

Good Luck
  • 0

#8 Phil Savoie

Phil Savoie
  • Sustaining Members
  • 94 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Montana / Wales

Posted 01 December 2006 - 08:43 PM

Shooting 3 Perf 35mm costs about 8% more total over a shoot budgeted for 16mm. This is in terms of stock and transfer only and not a big difference. As an owner/op of both formats I'm not sure about rental cost comparisons - probally not that much different.

For DVD release I have to agree with the rest of the posts - S16 looks brilliant when transferred properly - like on a Spirit with a skilled op. When S16 is shot on low ASA stock like Fuji 64 or Eastman 50D with proper craft, optimized F stops and transferred to tape or through the DI route it can be hard to tell 16mm origination from 35. Good photography is good photography, like most things in the end it comes down to the cash at hand. For DVD release (or tape ? HD or SD IMHO) S16 is a wonderful format.

cheers,
  • 0

#9 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 01 December 2006 - 10:27 PM

One difference is being able to say "I shot it in 35mm". That'll open up few doors that otherwise may not open for "I shot it in Super 16". There are plenty of old school producers and distributors who to this day think of 16mm as high class home movies.

I personally agree with the opinion that S16 well shot and transferred looks great on DVD - but 35mm still has that "Hollywood" cache to it.
  • 0

#10 Nooman Naqvi

Nooman Naqvi
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Student
  • Chicago

Posted 01 December 2006 - 11:44 PM

16mm sells cheaper. But I guess the lab work costs the same.

Edited by Nooman Naqvi, 01 December 2006 - 11:45 PM.

  • 0

#11 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 December 2006 - 08:52 PM

One difference is being able to say "I shot it in 35mm". That'll open up few doors that otherwise may not open for "I shot it in Super 16". There are plenty of old school producers and distributors who to this day think of 16mm as high class home movies.

You think so? I'd think that saying "I shot in on film" would have the same effect.
  • 0

#12 Patrick McGowan

Patrick McGowan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • P.A.
  • Brooklyn, NY

Posted 02 December 2006 - 09:56 PM

I saw an article that compared some film costs from American Cinematographer. The article is about the DVX, but they compare the cost of 16mm, 35mm, and video with a film out release.

Their estimates for 16mm:

-Quote-

· 100 x 400' foot rolls of raw stock @ $140 per roll = $14,000
· 40,000' x $0.14 per foot for processing = $5,600
· Video dailies = $18,000
· 35mm Optical Blowup with titles & opticals = $43,000

-Quote-

that would be $37,000 without the blow up to 35 and $80,000 with it.

I'm sure this is not accurate for all stocks and processing, and it would definitely all depend on how much film you shoot.

Here is the article

http://www.theasc.co...ine/product.htm

Edited by Patrick S. McGowan, 02 December 2006 - 09:57 PM.

  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 December 2006 - 10:21 PM

16mm sells cheaper. But I guess the lab work costs the same.


When the lab work is charged "per foot" of film shot (like for processing), then 16mm still works out cheaper because the footage count is lower compared to 35mm for the same running time. When the work is charged by running time (like for telecine work), then it costs the same.
  • 0

#14 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 02 December 2006 - 11:12 PM

If it's just going to DVD for festival showing, then S16 would definitely be my ideal choice. Mostly for budgetary reasons. But if you're ademant about shooting on 35 for once, then go for it, it'll be good experience plus you'll get some raised eyebrows at festivals when you say it was shot on 35.
  • 0

#15 Delorme Jean-Marie

Delorme Jean-Marie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • paris, france

Posted 03 December 2006 - 06:51 AM

hi
for each short prep i'm doing this study :

for a 20min long film 35 print my lab cost was :
5500? in 35 (developing, color timing, neg cuting, print 0 and print 1)
in S16 i had to do in another lab an optical blow up but it was less expensive
in HD the transfer to neg, developing and print was around 9000?

the cost of the cam package for 8 days was 2000? in 35 (arri bl4S) against 4000? for a 750p sony.

that's the figures i had to deal with. its prices for short films

my tow cents (of euro)
  • 0

#16 Michael Most

Michael Most
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 December 2006 - 09:17 AM

I personally agree with the opinion that S16 well shot and transferred looks great on DVD - but 35mm still has that "Hollywood" cache to it.


It also looks considerably richer and better if shot by the same cameraman under the same production conditions. S16mm is a nice alternative, but let's not go too far with the praise. 35mm is a much larger frame, and a much better product. If one wants to be on film and goes to S16 for monetary reasons, that's fine. But as with anything, you do get what you pay for. It's better than it used to be, and quite feasible for many projects, but S16mm is not equivalent to 35mm on any level other than the fact that they're both celluloid, regardless of what emulsion you're using and what post path you follow.
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Tai Audio

The Slider

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Opal

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Glidecam

CineLab

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

The Slider