Why are film cameras so expensive?

B

BOG

Active member
Looking at film cameras, why are they so expensive compared to video cameras? It seems to me the technology is much greater in a video camera and they should be more expensive. Video camera have lots of advanced electronics that probably requires lots of expensive R&D. Not to mention they release a new model each year. Where film camera technology does not really seem to change. It's still pretty much a box, with a claw and a gate with a few other little cheap parts for the most part and a few electronics thrown in.

Take for expample. The Aaton Minima Vs. the Canon XL2. If you put them side-by-side and did not know anything about either, your going to think the XL2 costs more. But the Minima is like what? $20K? or so?

Anyone know why this might be?
 
They make far less motion picture cameras. I've never been in Arri's factory, but I have the feeling that they're not automated in their construction, so that might be part of it too.

There's a lot of precision engineering in a film camera - that they appear simple on the surface is a testament to how refined they are in design.

e
 
Well for one there are less of them. They don't have as many film cameras as they have digital ones.

Also, they use actual moving parts. The parts that move the film through the camera are extremely precise.

The camera makers also want the camera to be modifiable, so if you're adding a $50k lense, they want it to work out well.

And then you need to make sure things like diopter, shutter, frame speed regulation work almost perfectly every time you use the camera.

The XL2 could probably be perfected in 2 seconds, and then replicated by computer machinery like stamping computer chips and so on in probably an hour.

The obvious reason is quality. You are shooting film, after all.


I could be completely wrong. Feel free to correct me. or flame me.

Edit:
Overland beat me to my to main bullet points.
 
My Bolex was on $1200 CDN with a 12\120. It gets expensive once you begin to shoot though.

My friend just bought a 1 year old Bolex Super 16 with a crystal motor for $3500 which is pretty cheap.

They are like Swiss watches in their gearing etc. And they are made in Switzerland, not China, which raises the price quite a bit.

Digital is great, but the lattitude of film is what I'm still clinging to 'till the Red comes out.
 
What is the ratio of what a film camera costs to the cost of the film it will pull through itself every year?
Kodak should be mulling over the idea of flooding the market with high quality, low cost NEW film cameras.

It's kind of like what has happened with inkjet technology. One can buy an Epson printer for under a hundred dollars, and inside the printer box is 80 dollars worth of ink and a $15 dollar DVD tray. EPSON IS GIVING YOU THE PRINTER FOR FREE! Why? Because within a years time, it is easy to purchase 4 to 5 times the value of the printer in ink costs, and repeat that type of purchase year after year. And lets not forget about the cost of print paper and printable DVD's! If a low cost new film camera is used on a weekly basis, after one year, it would probably have paid for itself in terms of the amount of film that ran through it.

I think it's a matter of pride on Kodak's part to not get involved in the manufacturing of a new film camera. In the video business, there is no way any format would get ahead if it weren't for the tape manufacturers also having a hand in the manufacture of the video cameras.

Additionally, companies like Panavision basically decided to embrace video technology several years ago and they began to take their film profits and plunk them into video lens technology, so the companies that Kodak relied on to handle making and maintaining film cameras have hedged their bets in other directions, so it's up to Kodak to take up the slack, and they haven't done so.

If a couple of million dollars investment in film camera manfacturing could reinvigorate film consumption among younger filmmakers by significantly reducing the cost of a new film camera, it would be worth it on Kodak's part because those new film cameras would end up moving many millions of dollars of film through on a yearly basis.

How about this offer....FREE Super-16mm FILM CAMERA WITH $50,000 dollar purchase of Kodak Film. Wow.
 
Last edited:
no matter the price, that's key
Click to expand...

Yes indeedy. My arriflex cost $1,000 but as my signature implies, it wasn't a cheap $1,000. Crystal costs. Also, I might be picking up a S16 arriflex 16BL for $800...yowza!!!
 
Take for expample. The Aaton Minima Vs. the Canon XL2. If you put them side-by-side and did not know anything about either, your going to think the XL2 costs more.
Click to expand...

Who would think this ?
 
Robert86 said:
Yes indeedy. My arriflex cost $1,000 but as my signature implies, it wasn't a cheap $1,000. Crystal costs. Also, I might be picking up a S16 arriflex 16BL for $800...yowza!!!
Click to expand...

Lets say you were going to buy a real HD camera for $ 100,000, or you spent 5 grand on a used film camera and got it in great working condition.

Now, instead of pleading poverty with every film job you get, you are $95,000 dollars ahead of the game, offer a film rebate to your clients.

Offer yourself at 1 grand a day, but with a $500 dollar rebate towards film purchase.
It may sound crazy, but start adding up all the interest charges one would incur on a 100,000 dollar loan whereas with the film package one is not going into hawk, and that 500 dollar rebate becomes a way to get work while not being in hawk trying to pay off your HD camera that may become out of flavor in as little as a years time.
 
Offer yourself at 1 grand a day, but with a $500 dollar rebate towards film purchase.
It may sound crazy, but start adding up all the interest charges one would incur on a 100,000 dollar loan whereas with the film package one is not going into hawk, and that 500 dollar rebate becomes a way to get work while not being in hawk trying to pay off your HD camera that may become out of flavor in as little as a years time.
Click to expand...

Definitely.

The cool thing about film cameras, is that it takes a really really really long time for them to lose their worth or become obsolete if ever.
 
-zach- said:
Well for one there are less of them. They don't have as many film cameras as they have digital ones.

Also, they use actual moving parts. The parts that move the film through the camera are extremely precise.

The camera makers also want the camera to be modifiable, so if you're adding a $50k lense, they want it to work out well.

And then you need to make sure things like diopter, shutter, frame speed regulation work almost perfectly every time you use the camera.

The XL2 could probably be perfected in 2 seconds, and then replicated by computer machinery like stamping computer chips and so on in probably an hour.

The obvious reason is quality. You are shooting film, after all.


I could be completely wrong. Feel free to correct me. or flame me.

Edit:
Overland beat me to my to main bullet points.
Click to expand...

Hello Zach,

No, you are completely right. I've spent many hours sitting at a lapping plate moving parts across the surface in an infinity pattern using grinding compunds so fine that they resembled talc to bring those parts to a final deminsion that bordered on wavelengths of light. And I was only allowed to do this after many years of training in the coaser aspects of motion picture camera building. Cine cameras are not assembled with parts that pop out of a CNC machining center. Hand fitting is everything.

Chuck
 
A motion picture camera is a far more complex mechanical instrument than a video camera. Video cameras have come down in price because CCD chips, software, etc. keep getting cheaper and cheaper. The basic design of a motion picture camera has not changed much in almost a century. You still need to move a piece of film a very precise distance (feed), stop it at a very precise place (registration) and hold it in that very precise place while keeping it a very precise distance from the lens flange ((FFD)-which must be accurate to one tenth the diameter of a human hair)), and time it exactly with a rotating shutter (movement) that must open for a very precise amount of time (exposure); and you must be able to do that with an incredible degree of accuracy, 24 times each second. There is no way to get around that basic principle. And to machine and build an instrument that can do that in all kinds of conditions, for thousands upon thousands of feet of film, is an expensive proposition.

-Tim
 
I made the original argument that precision and low production numbers cost. At the same time, have you ever watched an entry-level HD device like the Z1U or any MiniDV camera load a tape? It's insane. Only the Japanese (and now Koreans and... well, SouthEast Asians generally) could get such miniaturized precision to work so reliably.

On Kodak producing cameras - they did. There is plenty of innovation happening now in 35mm and 16mm camera systems and there is plenty of product in the marketplace. Nobody needs to get into the motion picture camera manufacturing business at this point.

Someone stated that real HD cameras cost $100k. Not so by a long shot. CineAlta F900s can be had for less than $60k - and they are one of the four mainstream cameras used in theatrical and single-camera narrative television today. The best 1/2" HD variable framerate camera, the F350 XDCam can be your's for $25k before glass.

Second, third and fourth [behind F900 / 950] would be VariCam, Viper and Genesis. On the horizon are 2/3" imager cameras from Panasonic at $20k before glass. 1080p is already used in theatrical features. How many theatrical releases originated in 16mm last year versus HD?

The truth is, celluloid-based production is in its final phase of life. While no one in their right mind would argue that it has been out-classed, it's hard to deny that it has been outpaced by the digital medium, where only time seems to confine the technology. And even time can only hold digital technology hostage for so long. It simply won't be contained.

RED and Sony UHD will soon be a part of this conversation.

With film, you're limited to two commercially-viable formats. There is little room for improvement in the current guages from an image-quality standpoint.

Film is incredibly clunky to produce with - despite the fact that the processes have been honed for a century. Every film ends up as a digital intermediate now with rare exceptions - and that is 2k for the moment.

Film was great, but DC is much better for many reasons. My HVX200 works much more and has produced significantly more usable footage against the cost of ownership and production than my Arri 16s/b or SRII ever did.

They'll make nice bookends for someone in the very near future.

e
 
Last edited:
The truth is, celluloid-based production is in its final phase of life.
Click to expand...

You make me laugh my friend. Here take a look:

http://kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why/filmMaker/visionary.jhtml?id=0.1.4.3.12&lc=en

Now we have to take into account that this was printed before RED really started taking off to the public awareness. But a lot of people still shoot film for many reasons. Video is still pretty contrasty, something that I don't see changing any time soon. Anyways, I don't want this to be a film vs digital arguement but when I read that, it just rubbed me the wrong way.
 
Last edited:
My friend. Dude. Bro,

I've got a shrine to Panavision in my upstairs bathroom. It's actually a little creepy.

I've shot a lot of 35mm and 16mm film and still love working with it. I don't love it to the point where I can't see the writing on the wall. And that writing says we're transitioning from mechanical to digital.

Read through IMDBPro under "technical" and discover how many films still conform their negative. How many are in 2k DI? Also, the article you point to on the "revival of 16mm" was published two years ago. That's like a million years in Moore's Law Years (or at least six).

Hollywood will switch when the technology is just good enough to make it practical. This argument has been done to death, but look at how many multi-camera 35mm film sitcoms now shoot HD. In the 90th percentile from zero five years ago.

Don't hate film, but don't believe for a moment that it isn't going away within 9 years.

e
 
Last edited:
Well "24" i hear shoots their show on 35mm. That one show, studio-something on sunset blvd shoots in super 16.

But until video can match the lattitued/not so contrastiness(not a word), color reproduction, ect... of film I don't see it going anywhere. Now I'm not making the arguement on the post process(D.I. conforming ect...), I think the D.I. process is great and wouldn't want it to go anywhere. But I still think that film will give you the most out of a D.I. due to the high quality of film.
 
Well, actually filmcams are not so expensive anymore. Lenses are expensive, stock is, lab is, but you can find good used S16mm cams on the internet now. It's such a joy to see the rushes or if you scan for video, the images during the CC stage.
 
"Kodak’s sales in this area are up 10% for the first half of 2004."

it's now 2006 !
so what does that really mean ??

sales up = lets say in 2000 they sold $5mil of 16mm and in 2004 they sold $5.5 mil?
perhaps film cost $100 core in 2000 and in 2004 the cost was $150 core which then translates into yes sales $$ are up but they are selling less feet = less are using it ... all depends on how one spin's it ... film cost will continue to go up and feet sold could go down and kodak could still say SALES are up X % ..

Kodak is a public company . you can check their SEC filing's - there you will see the TRUTH = film sales $$ are down over past 5 years .. and they don't forecast the future with movie film sales going up ... Kodak knows their FILM day $$$ are numbered and they have their hands in many digital pockets - including leasing/maintaining Digital projectors to theaters -
 
FIlm is awesome, I love shooting film, but as overlandfilms stated, a lot is changing and quickly. There are some interesting things happening in the film camera market that leads me to believe that it will be around for a while yet. Aaton's new Penelope is a great example of a product that is trying to address the needs of the market and in a cost efficient approach. As long as optical projection is the norm (which appears not to be changing anytime quickly) there will be a need for processing labs and film stock, so I don't see that part of the market drying up anytime soon.

Yes film has serious advantages in terms of dynamic range and latitude and is the benchmark by which all images are judged. The performance of the newer film stocks has gotten so good that S16 today looks about as good as 35mm did not that long ago.

What is interesting is that many of the newer developments in film and film cameras are things that are addressing the cost. Everything in this industry (and really in any industry) is about costs and returns on investment. If there were no pressures on the industry to reduce costs, I doubt that there would be many that would see much if any motivation to change anything and everyone would happily keep shooting film. Unfortunately, there are always serious pressures on every production to look at options and ways of reducing costs.

Producers are very conservative beasts by nature (look at how unwilling they are to break outside of any of the established molds, talent, story, etc) but they are also aware that their position is tenuous at best. There are dozens to hundreds of other projects that are competing for their position each and every new season. If a new producer lands a great pilot script and gets the right talent attached and if they are daring enough to try a new direction, they may be able to come out with a product that is lower in costs (and hence higher in profits) than someone who is less willing to break out. If a production uses mostly standing sets and has a lot of control over their lighting requirements, there is less advantage to the extra latitude that film offers, this may mean that they can get great results at lower costs.

So, yes film is awesome and yes film has advantages in nearly every situation but film based shooting is a pretty mature industry so don't expect too many changes at least ones that can be considered revolutionary, likely all that will occur is things that fall into the evolutionary path. Digital based shooting is much less mature and still evolving very quickly and in the end, software and silicon (once developed) are pretty inexpensive to reproduce, so change and a downward cost are very likely.

I see change coming and I for one am excited by the possibilities that it offers.
 
Robert86,

You're absolutely right. Most single-camera hour shows still originate on 35mm film. Not all, but most. Some have tried HD and gone back to film for the moment.

e
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top