Got a green light on a theatrical feature

khmuse

khmuse

Tech Guru
It’s the old good news and bad news story. The good news is that just today I learned that a feature that we have been working on the development of for the last 3 years is a go. The bad news is that despite the fact that the funding is now in place, the North American distributor is insisting that the project be shot in 35 and not super 16 as we originally budgeted for. We had decided that a super 16 > DI > 35 answer print was going to work and fit our budget (equivalent of just over $4M USD). Now, with the additional cost of shooting in 35, we are estimating that it will add an additional $250K to the production costs (which this distributor is not willing to cover).



Does anyone on this board have any recent experience with a theatrical release of a super 16 shot project? We would like to pitch the concept that our current work flow approach is very acceptable for a theatrical release and would like to back up our assertions with something more than antidotal evidence. The project will be shot entirely in Australia so the logistics of getting the production staff and the financier / distributor together is difficult. If anyone has a fairly recent project that was shot super 16 with a DI and 35mm release, we would be happy to compensate them for a bit of their time to relate their experience with their project.
 
In Brazil, the number of theatrical releases in super16 with optical blowup to 35 is only increasing, due to 35mm cost, and I can honestly say the post hoses do have a complete dominium of the technique, because the optical blowups are gorgeous. It is a true possibility for low budget productions, in my point of view. But if you want to pitch it, you will have to find in australia, a good looking film that used the same process you are willing to use. I wish I had problems like yours... hehehe
 
Yeah I was gonna mention Hustle and Flow. It was shot on Super 16 and it looked great on the big screen (at least I thought so).
 
Thanks to Barry_S and everyone for their comments.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not really complaining about being in this situation, but it really does make for a lot of extra work and costs if we do have to go the 35mm route. I am putting together a list of films to site in the argument, so any additional suggestions would be most welcome.

Thanks again!
 
khmuse said:
It’s the old good news and bad news story. The good news is that just today I learned that a feature that we have been working on the development of for the last 3 years is a go. The bad news is that despite the fact that the funding is now in place, the North American distributor is insisting that the project be shot in 35 and not super 16 as we originally budgeted for. We had decided that a super 16 > DI > 35 answer print was going to work and fit our budget (equivalent of just over $4M USD). Now, with the additional cost of shooting in 35, we are estimating that it will add an additional $250K to the production costs (which this distributor is not willing to cover).



Does anyone on this board have any recent experience with a theatrical release of a super 16 shot project? We would like to pitch the concept that our current work flow approach is very acceptable for a theatrical release and would like to back up our assertions with something more than antidotal evidence. The project will be shot entirely in Australia so the logistics of getting the production staff and the financier / distributor together is difficult. If anyone has a fairly recent project that was shot super 16 with a DI and 35mm release, we would be happy to compensate them for a bit of their time to relate their experience with their project.
Click to expand...

Hell and Congrats !!!
is it impossible for you to go the route they suggested ???
and just get good deals on 35mm stock then 35mm devlopement and 35mmto chosen digital file format transferr
and in some cases print in 35mm ,and watch footage to see it hit the screen and check progress ???
incidentally, despite your drive for super 16mm, what was the leading reason why the noth am distributor insisted on 35mm ,?????????
i have shot all 35mm for thirty years it can get pretty good prices on stock develop and print and transferr if you look ..look and search .
are you doing exteriors with lots of long shots are there nice locations in youir film ..these things could be a factor
Good Luck
Bruce
:thumbsup:
 
Bruce; thanks for the post.

I think that the reason that the distributor is insisting on 35mm is that for them, it is the "norm" and they don't really want to take a chance on anything other than what "fits" into their vision. Now, if they would just cover the additional costs, I would be more than happy to put my vote behind shooting 35mm. My real concern is where the other parts of the budget would be impacted if the costs increase by $250k. With a fairly limited budget, I think that it is even more important to be careful in where the expenditures are allocated. I don't want to see the other production values suffer in order to fulfill this distributor’s requirement, especially if the outcome would be nearly as good shooting super 16. The stock and lab costs in Australia seem to be nearly in line with those that you would expect in LA, but there are considerably fewer options, so getting a really great lab deal isn't as likely.

There are no real "epic" long shots, but there is a decent amount of exterior locations. In fact, there are really a lot of locations in this story, but luckily nearly all the critical ones have already been identified. I really do think that super 16 would tell this films story just fine.

Decisions need to happen in about the next 2 weeks, so one way or another, this will be a decided issue sooner than not.
 
Nevertheless; not the worst dilemma to be under. I'm sure it will work out one way or the other. I would love to shoot S16 myself.

One way or the other your gonna:

Shoot S16
Make the budgetary adjustments to satisfy the Producers (Investors )
Use the DVX100 or other Digital format

(The third option just seems such a let-down after the first two, huh?) Good luck! I'm sure it will work out!
 
If you are going to be shooting in australia why don't you look into multivision 235, the rebirth of 2-perf techniscope. Half the raw stock and processing budget of standard 4-perf, DI cost similar to super16. 20 minute run time on 1000 ft mags, 8 min on 400 ft. Sounds pretty cool, it is 35mm so distributor shouldn't scoff not much different from the workflow of super35.
 
Hey John, while I am certainly a fan of the DVX (and HVX soon enough) this one is going to be film, one way or another. Actually, the distributor that is insisting on 35 isn't even the largest pool of funds (actually, less than 20%) and North America isn't even the first theatrical market that the film will be released in, but this distributor has some excellent DVD distribution capabilities, so they can really help the back end of the project.

As you said, not the worst dilemma, but a dilemma none the less.

As for dop16mm's suggestion, your the second one to suggest considering 2 perf. If the costs really are that low, it might be a great compromise. I will certainly do a lot more investigation over the next few days.

The depth of knowledge that this forum posses and the willingness to share never ceases to surprise me!
 
Ride the wave

Ride the wave

khmuse said:
Bruce; thanks for the post.

I think that the reason that the distributor is insisting on 35mm is that for them, it is the "norm" and they don't really want to take a chance on anything other than what "fits" into their vision. Now, if they would just cover the additional costs, I would be more than happy to put my vote behind shooting 35mm. My real concern is where the other parts of the budget would be impacted if the costs increase by $250k. With a fairly limited budget, I think that it is even more important to be careful in where the expenditures are allocated. I don't want to see the other production values suffer in order to fulfill this distributor’s requirement, especially if the outcome would be nearly as good shooting super 16. The stock and lab costs in Australia seem to be nearly in line with those that you would expect in LA, but there are considerably fewer options, so getting a really great lab deal isn't as likely.

There are no real "epic" long shots, but there is a decent amount of exterior locations. In fact, there are really a lot of locations in this story, but luckily nearly all the critical ones have already been identified. I really do think that super 16 would tell this films story just fine.

Decisions need to happen in about the next 2 weeks, so one way or another, this will be a decided issue sooner than not.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
Ride that wave Buddy
The rentals on good 35mm cameras are not much more than super 16mm ?
on the technical side 35mm film will allow your exterior lighting issues to be an advantage and the images will hold up better ...also your post in super 16mm going back to 35mm is that not a serious cost?
Dont get a production manager only to do the budet for 35mm get a good director of photography to do the same buget ...you might be suprised by perspective issues based on staff position ,
Three budgets are what id present in short order .
If your not versed to 35mm infrastructure get a trusted directory of photography one local guy who shot for orson wells is the famed gary graver someone who can buget that and pull strings he should go from raw stock and rentals all the way to post and output .just an an example i am not his agent .
the second budget is the well loved super 16mm .
A story is in order
i was on "son of the beach " and they shot the promotion trailers in 35mm and the show was in super 16mm ...getting the message ????? It looks like money ....
when your at a film market and your selling,
good story and name actors are the main strengh
but when you can say it was shot in 35mm color that is a very big reality still
i would do privatly a third buget with the panasonic 900 a true film out camera and get a work flow sending it through the right post system like leech and a quick price ..if that is shocking in its price then back up the exteriors with an mos film camera .
I believe we have come to the time when as the bbc used to long ago we can get good filmlike quality on closeups and medium shot in controlled interiors .
In exterior work 35mm film is the KING .
the bbc used to shot exteriors in 16mm and interiors in video
Do that budget and get your dp to promise a strong film look and lead the curve instead of following thee old film wagon .
Some strenghts for why to shot film are listed here;
Panning past diagonal lines? ecery show that has gone hd has a scarry wardrobe test to find out if they will run into morey(spelling ?) patterns .They look like weird wavy lines .Panning past intricate patterns inherent in a subject USE FILM .
The next and the worst is the inhernet key to fill ratio outside in the sun .
Day exterior is a killer sometimes it can be 100 to one ./..the gaffingand rigging for digital to handel this eats up time .
We shot in nevada in the fall we were told that exterior summer day work for digital filming was very hard to handel .Shot FILM in exterior day !!
Will all this match ?...I do not know .
The next issue is frame rate ...
Film cameras can still do high speed and time lapse with better effect than a digital process .
if anyone disagres with all this i am glad to learn from them ,
I wish you good luck on your Project or should i call it a 35mm FILM PROJECT .
Cheers
Bruce
:thumbsup:
 
hard cost

hard cost

khmuse said:
Bruce; thanks for the post.

I think that the reason that the distributor is insisting on 35mm is that for them, it is the "norm" and they don't really want to take a chance on anything other than what "fits" into their vision. Now, if they would just cover the additional costs, I would be more than happy to put my vote behind shooting 35mm. My real concern is where the other parts of the budget would be impacted if the costs increase by $250k. With a fairly limited budget, I think that it is even more important to be careful in where the expenditures are allocated. I don't want to see the other production values suffer in order to fulfill this distributor’s requirement, especially if the outcome would be nearly as good shooting super 16. The stock and lab costs in Australia seem to be nearly in line with those that you would expect in LA, but there are considerably fewer options, so getting a really great lab deal isn't as likely.

There are no real "epic" long shots, but there is a decent amount of exterior locations. In fact, there are really a lot of locations in this story, but luckily nearly all the critical ones have already been identified. I really do think that super 16 would tell this films story just fine.

Decisions need to happen in about the next 2 weeks, so one way or another, this will be a decided issue sooner than not.
Click to expand...
:shocked:
are they putting a hard line item cost of 250 k to you ?/
i am getting concerned here ...35mm is not much different than super 16mm
shoting ratio ? / do they controll dp ? and staff for lighting and post / /
maybe you should not need to replyto my questions but i would work up my own pencil and paper work flow infrstructure in 35mm for australia through a contact and make sure about this 250k stuff ..interesting ...I would not challenge them too much but this may be in house padding and kick back time .
Good Luck
bruce
 
formulas for s16mm vs 35mm please addto this anyone

formulas for s16mm vs 35mm please addto this anyone

khmuse said:
Bruce; thanks for the post.

I think that the reason that the distributor is insisting on 35mm is that for them, it is the "norm" and they don't really want to take a chance on anything other than what "fits" into their vision. Now, if they would just cover the additional costs, I would be more than happy to put my vote behind shooting 35mm. My real concern is where the other parts of the budget would be impacted if the costs increase by $250k. With a fairly limited budget, I think that it is even more important to be careful in where the expenditures are allocated. I don't want to see the other production values suffer in order to fulfill this distributor’s requirement, especially if the outcome would be nearly as good shooting super 16. The stock and lab costs in Australia seem to be nearly in line with those that you would expect in LA, but there are considerably fewer options, so getting a really great lab deal isn't as likely.

There are no real "epic" long shots, but there is a decent amount of exterior locations. In fact, there are really a lot of locations in this story, but luckily nearly all the critical ones have already been identified. I really do think that super 16 would tell this films story just fine.

Decisions need to happen in about the next 2 weeks, so one way or another, this will be a decided issue sooner than not.
Click to expand...
remember the following if you are seeing the diff betwen 16 and 35
35mm 100 ft is one minute
16mm 100ft is something like 2 minutes 40 sec
take that into the total running time via script and shot ratio and then talk to the labs directly .
THIS IN MY OPINION IS WHERE THE 16mm savings ends (please , anyone challenge this!!!! I love to learn )
are you printing anything / ? then the 35mm will cost a bit more again
most folks are transferring these days ....
output from 35mm or 16mm to digital intermediate I will guess is similar .
oh yes what about the cost of the 16mm blow up I would love to hear what that costs .
Good Luck Again
i belive 35mm motion picture film is the KING !!!!
Cheers
Bruce
 
Hello Bruce,

Thanks for the well stated posts, I do appreciate the input. I didn't do the budget breakdown myself, but the calculation of an additional $250k (Australian $) came from our internal calculations, not something that the distributor came up with.

This might seem high, but is based upon the shooting schedule necessary for this film (just under 7 weeks of principal photography) so it is an accurate delta in the budget.

Based upon the suggestion from dop16mm, I have been investigating using a 2 perf 35 process. This might be the best compromise yet. I'll know more by early next week.
 
Can you save any of the costs associated with 35mm in the back end? The optical blow up, the 16mm neg cut (you use a zero cut method versus standard conform for a blow up), etc. Telecine costs should be about the same as they charge the same per foot or by the hour. Your differences will be in kit and lighting and OCN costs at the start.

3 perf is a very popular format for a DI workflow as it saves you 25% of film stick and has a very close aspect ratio to 16:9 and 1.85. 2 perf would require a DI process as well but the aspect ratio is closer to 2.35. I would suggest super 16mm before going the 2 perf route.

In either of the previous scenarios, the DI route will add additional costs - a HD-DI route being less costly than a 2k file based workflow.

Michael
 
great suggestion it was called techni scope

great suggestion it was called techni scope

khmuse said:
Hello Bruce,

Thanks for the well stated posts, I do appreciate the input. I didn't do the budget breakdown myself, but the calculation of an additional $250k (Australian $) came from our internal calculations, not something that the distributor came up with.

This might seem high, but is based upon the shooting schedule necessary for this film (just under 7 weeks of principal photography) so it is an accurate delta in the budget.

Based upon the suggestion from dop16mm, I have been investigating using a 2 perf 35 process. This might be the best compromise yet. I'll know more by early next week.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
he gave you a great suggestion make sure the infrastructure is well supported right through transferr in post and that the editor is working on ???/
nle or traditional
If you pitch TECHNISOPE which is what 2 perf pulldown was called at one time
Pitch the fact that some very sucessfull Clint Eastwood films were shot in techniscope .
Id love to hear the math on savings once you get the recalucation for 2 per pull down ,
Great Suggestion .and as you know 2 per pull down techniscope is close or on the money for Format 16by 9
Good Luck
Bruce :thumbsup:
 
I don't really see how there would be much post savings by shooting 35 versus super 16, its really all on the front end of the project.

The 2 perf is looking more and more like an interesting solution, but super 16 is still what we were/are planning on. Reducing the stock costs and having longer running loads would have a considerable impact on the production costs (due to the subject matter and the fact that there are a lot of kid actors, the total number of days and hence the total number of feet are considerable) and the 2 perf approach has advantages in this area over 3 perf 35.

Again, I am impressed by the depth of knowledge that many on this forum have in this area. Thanks again to everyone who has contributed thus far, it really helps to have other perspectives and will help me a lot when I make my presentation and argument next week.
 
2 per techniscope possible anamorphic lens use

2 per techniscope possible anamorphic lens use

dop16mm said:
If you are going to be shooting in australia why don't you look into multivision 235, the rebirth of 2-perf techniscope. Half the raw stock and processing budget of standard 4-perf, DI cost similar to super16. 20 minute run time on 1000 ft mags, 8 min on 400 ft. Sounds pretty cool, it is 35mm so distributor shouldn't scoff not much different from the workflow of super35.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: this was as i said a great suggestion 2 perf
I forgot to mention that the last time i had this whole process shown to me .
It was not just the film savings
The techniscope process was used with anamorphic lenes
very wide screen image ..i dont know if it is 2:35 to 1 or what .
now unsqueezing it could be a no charge or a big line item on the buget
so check it out and good luck
Cheers
Bruce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top