# 2 perf vs Super 16mm

6 replies to this topic

### #1 chris dye

chris dye
• Basic Members
• 35 posts
• Other
• Los Angeles, California

Posted 16 June 2007 - 01:15 AM

In terms of stock, processing and transfer, assuming you're simply going to transfer to Digibeta and edit from there (no DI or print required), what would the cost difference be between shooting 2 perf and Super 16?

These are the figures I came up with. I'm going to keep this simple though.

Let's say we plan on shooting 24 400' rolls of 16mm. The 2 perf equivalent would be about 12 1000 foot rolls or 12,000 feet of 35mm. Correct?

Let's say we can get those 24 rolls of 16mm for \$100 each and you can get 12,000 feet of 35mm short ends for .20 foot (short ends seem great for 2 perf). This would come out to:

24 rolls 16mm=\$2400
12,000' 35mm short ends=\$2,400

If my math isn't off, the cost for film is the same here.

Now to develop, I know a place that processes for .10 foot.

process 12,000 feet short ends=\$1200
process 9,600 feet 16mm=approx \$1000

Not a huge difference.

Transfer approx 6 hours run time to Digibeta @ 300/hr=\$1,800

Total cost Super 16=\$5,200
Total cost 2 perf 35mm=\$5,400

Again. No DI or print is needed. We just want to go straight to Digibeta.

Is the difference really this small? I realize that 2 perf cameras are hard to come by at this point, but assuming the Penelope will be available, this may longer be a huge deal. Most labs seem capable of processing 2 perf as well, so that doesn't seem to pose too much of a problem either or am I missing something?

With figures like this, who wouldn't shoot 2 perf?

• 0

### #2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
• Sustaining Members
• 20069 posts
• Cinematographer
• Los Angeles

Posted 16 June 2007 - 01:23 AM

I seem to recall that if you looked at book rates for new stock, you're paying for real estate, so 4-perf 35mm is 4X the cost of Super-16 (being twice as wide and twice as tall), so 2-perf should be 2X the cost of Super-16 in terms of stock.

The two main arguments against 2-perf is (1) lack of available cameras to rent, particular quiet sync-sound ones, and (2) having a 2.35 negative, so panning & scanning for 4x3 home video versions is as bad as if you had shot in anamorphic.

But otherwise, it seems like a potentially great alternative format.
• 0

### #3 John Sprung

John Sprung
• Sustaining Members
• 4635 posts
• Other

Posted 18 June 2007 - 01:58 PM

Here's a guy who has some 2 perf info on his web site:

http://jkor.com/peter/techniscope.html

About 20 - 30 years ago, there was a guy down in Georgia or the Carolinas who bought up a bunch of 2 perf gear. He opened the width to full silent aperture (2.66:1), mounted a 2 perf Arri on a hang glider, and made some special venue films that were screened double system.

There was a guy in Austraila who made some 2 perf telecines. Crest here in Hollywood last I heard had a two perf telecine.

-- J.S.
• 0

### #4 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
• Sustaining Members
• 1259 posts
• Cinematographer

Posted 18 June 2007 - 04:50 PM

There are many transfer houses that can handle 2-perf telecine. Spirits can handle it, as well as other units with meta-speed servo control.
• 0

### #5 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
• Basic Members
• 1246 posts

Posted 26 June 2007 - 04:38 PM

There are many transfer houses that can handle 2-perf telecine. Spirits can handle it, as well as other units with meta-speed servo control.

Can you name a few?
• 0

### #6 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
• Sustaining Members
• 4708 posts
• Cinematographer
• Europe

Posted 27 June 2007 - 09:51 AM

Can you name a few?

Hi,

Any Spirit or Shadow for a start.

Stephen
• 0

### #7 Joe Sexton

Joe Sexton
• Basic Members
• 51 posts
• Director

Posted 27 June 2007 - 11:19 AM

I seem to recall that if you looked at book rates for new stock, you're paying for real estate, so 4-perf 35mm is 4X the cost of Super-16 (being twice as wide and twice as tall), so 2-perf should be 2X the cost of Super-16 in terms of stock.

Last time I purchased film stock, The price per foot was the same for either 35mm or 16mm. But this wasn't new stock. I was buying short ends.
• 0