Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 113
  1. Collapse Details
    #91
    Senior Member David W. Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    La Petite Roche
    Posts
    6,742
    Default
    Turnabout deal for giving them a great rate on my Epic when they were without a camera. They throw in the glass since they don't shoot that week.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #92
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by David W. Jones View Post
    Turnabout deal for giving them a great rate on my Epic when they were without a camera. They throw in the glass since they don't shoot that week.
    Ok, so you admit your deal is not typical. Therefore, your previous statement about the Alexa being cheaper is invalid. For YOU, it is cheaper but not in general.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #93
    Senior Member David W. Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    La Petite Roche
    Posts
    6,742
    Default
    No, we were still paying $3k for a week renting the original Alexa, but using our Cooke zoom.

    If you search there are plenty of places that will do a 3 day week.

    For what it's worth, we had our own in-house lab and telecine to keep film costs down, but even then things had gotten to the point where clients didn't want to pocket the expense. And frankly, modern digital cameras have gotten to the point where they are really very good. Look at Roger Deakins work with the Alexa as an example.
    Last edited by David W. Jones; 06-25-2014 at 11:00 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #94
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,978
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by David W. Jones View Post
    No, we were still paying $3k for a week renting the original Alexa, but using our Cooke zoom.

    If you search there are plenty of places that will do a 3 day week.

    For what it's worth, we had our own in-house lab and telecine to keep film costs down, but even then things had gotten to the point where clients didn't want to pocket the expense. And frankly, modern digital cameras have gotten to the point where they are really very good. Look at Roger Deakins work with the Alexa as an example.
    A random search yields one place in Culver City that has $700/day for an Alexa, and on their web page one could get a camera + some lenses for about 1K a day. There was also a week option at about $2100.

    Ablecine wanted to submit a list for a quote... so not as quick an estimate...

    As it is... I'll not be in this bracket any time soon...

    One of our group just bought a C100, amazing what single+fullyEmployedHightech paychecks provide... and we shot with it in a low light situation Monday. I want to do more tests with it, but at the moment the use of ISO 1250 seems to have been ok. I believe it still produces an '8-bit' image stream... And needless to say, no one would ante up for 'film costs'...


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #95
    Senior Member 16mman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    108
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by David W. Jones View Post
    Really? In my mind they are a wee bit different.

    Here is an old pic of me shooting with one of my 5 Eclairs from many years ago.
    Nice. I have a big soft spot for those cameras, even though the ones we had at our school were noisy as hell and we had to cover them with coats just to try to save the audio : ) Here's a photo of me with one of the little buggers.

    1917418_212097313377_6695354_n.jpg

    Yes, I know I'm left eyed. It was a real pain cramming my face in between the viewfinder and magazine : P

    As I've looked at this discussion from all angles, I think what's really going on is a difference in equipment. I think shooting on film can be cheaper if you're shooting something short and very well planned out, and you're using lower end equipment like 16mm film and an Eclair for instance. But if you want to shoot 35mm on a premium camera, in an attempt to match modern digital cinema tech, it's probably not going to save you any cash.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,978
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by 16mman View Post
    As I've looked at this discussion from all angles, I think what's really going on is a difference in equipment. I think shooting on film can be cheaper if you're shooting something short and very well planned out, and you're using lower end equipment like 16mm film and an Eclair for instance. But if you want to shoot 35mm on a premium camera, in an attempt to match modern digital cinema tech, it's probably not going to save you any cash.
    I think film vs digital becomes less of a cost thing as the budget increases to the point were Film film is << 10% of the budget for a production.

    For my current 'group', which has about 3 projects that are active, if we had a 5:1 shooting to eventual film output ratio, for our '5 minute' films for say 16mm, which would be about 200 feet of final film, with the 5:1, then we would need 1000' for each short film. Sleuthing out the price of say, Vision 3 500T, one finds that perhaps the cost of 1000' would be about $400...

    I don't know... is 50 cents a foot a reasonable price for processing film to digital transfer... for people who don't have 'miles of film' type discounts... or even 'student' prices...

    So, add another $500, so it would be about $900 to pay for Film film, for the 1000' of 'raw' footage, or about $4 per foot to produce a finished 5 minute film.

    And since we have 3 projects... that would be about $3000 for our group... just for the film stock.

    Since no one has a Film film camera we would have to rent, is $400/day good for a ARRI-mumble-foo+lens package?

    And say our films take 3 days each of shooting... that would $1200 per film for camera, or $3600 for our 3 films.

    So, now we are running about $6600 for our films if we shot on Film film...

    I think we could divide that $6600 by 3 and almost afford to by a GH-4 outright for each film, SD cards from Costco for about $20, and get shooting.

    Now, if we were the idle rich, and could afford to pour say $100K in to our little projects... sure $6K is only 6% of that budget, why not get to for the 'film burn' feeling...


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #97
    Default
    Summary:

    1. Video on the cheap (DSLR) is cheaper than film on the cheap (16mm, used gear).

    2. Video on the high end (Alexa) isn't much cheaper, if at all, than film on the high end (35mm) and sometimes more expensive than film on the cheap (16mm, used gear).

    3. For the disciplined and experienced film person, film may be preferable on certain kinds of productions.

    4. Film has a guaranteed, out-of-the-box film look, whereas video can be made to look like film as long as you're somewhat careful while shooting and do the right things in post.

    5. For distribution, video's cheaper, because you don't have to print and ship millions of feet of 35mm film. So Hollywood went that way, for distribution. For acquisition, though, it's a fraction of a Hollywood film budget either way, so are the studios pressing directors to shoot digitally?

    6. Some of us will use film until the day we die. We will find scraps or niche suppliers or make it in our basements, and you can have our old film cameras when you pry them from our cold, lifeless hands.

    7. Regardless of what we use now or later, film will always have a special place in our hearts.
    Last edited by combatentropy; 06-25-2014 at 05:48 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #98
    Senior Member David W. Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    La Petite Roche
    Posts
    6,742
    Default
    You film guys need to buy my last Bolex & lenses.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #99
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by David W. Jones View Post
    You film guys need to buy my last Bolex & lenses.
    Link to ad?


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Senior Member jamedia.uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Birmingham UK
    Posts
    601
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by combatentropy View Post
    Summary:
    2. Video on the high end (Alexa) isn't much cheaper, if at all, than film on the high end (35mm) and sometimes more expensive than film on the cheap (16mm, used gear).


    6. Some of us will use film until the day we die. We will find scraps or niche suppliers or make it in our basements, and you can have our old film cameras when you pry them from our cold, lifeless hands.

    .
    re point 2 I thought we had already decided that high end film is 70mm and 35mm film is not the high quality end.

    re point 6 I accept many want to use film to the day they die BUT unexposed film has a shelf life and soon no one will make it any more. Also you can NOT make it in your basement. That is the whole point of this discussion.

    Film REQUIRES AN INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AND A FACTORY to make it. The *businessmen* (not artists/filmmakers ) who own the factories look at the bottom line are (have been) pulling the plugs.

    Factories that make film are being closed as film usage plummets.
    There are no new users of film (in any significant numbers).
    Those who were using film are either going digital or retiring/dying off

    At some point in the next few years (2015/6?) There will not be enough on-going film use to justify the last film plant. Then when the stock run out or the shelf life expires there will be no more film.

    The situation is more critical than many realise. At the moment you can still get 120 roll film for still cameras etc because when they make the 5 mile runs of 2 yard wide film it can be cut into any format of film.

    So when the last factory goes it means that no only no more 35mm or 70mm film for movies but no more film for still cameras. Those of us who still have a collection of old still cameras with non 35mm film formats are going to discover that film for those has gone as well... :-(

    However it will still be possible to knock up 8*10 glass plates in the garage for as long as people produce sheets of glass and the chemicals are available. Phonographic glass plates, unlike film, do not need an industrial process and can be knocked up at home in the basement (with suitable ventilation! :-)

    As I keep saying this has Nothing to do with the look, ethics, ethos or quality of film. Simply the cold hard facts on the economics of production of the stock. No matter what a Director thinks it is the suits with the money (who are not in the movie business) who will close the factories.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •