HVX v. S16 FILM -- Lab costs

T

TheThe

Well-known member
I was wondering if anyone knows what the current cost is to scan s16 film at 2K. I am trying to do a detailed cost-analysis on what road to follow in an upcoming feature. The idea is to do a poorman's DI using off-the-shelf software on a octo-mac. I know the last time I checked the cost to scan film was like 2 dolars per frame!!! But that was some years ago.


P.S. Right now all the labs are closed so I can't call around, but I really needed to know so I can continue with my budgets. :)
 
I don't know the exact numbers but I'll bet just about anything that developing and 2k scanning is going to run you quite a bit more than an HVX200 and a few P2 cards would.
 
David Wanger said:
This might have the info you're looking for:
http://www.bonolabs.com/
Note that they've got a "tapeless" option where they give you a hard drive, which could save a lot of money.
Click to expand...

I have seen them, but I don't think that they scan anything. I think that it's old fasioned telecine to HD. Five years ago it cost something like 2 dollars a frame to scan something. I wonder what it is now.

Oh, and the only reason I am even comparing it to the HVX/Red (in another forum) is because to do a proper DI and then a film out is quite expensive anyway. So I am wondering if the limitations of the HVX will make the initial 'relative' savings worth it. In other words, once one considers all the costs of post and production... shooting on film vs. digital doesn't save THAT much more money. If one has to spend a bunch of money in post on the digital footage just to make it look like film... maybe shooting in film to begin with is not that bad of an idea... especially if the project calls for a grainy, gritty look.
 
TheThe,

Have you seen raw footage off of an HVX200? It's amazing. Theory aside, it's simply stunning. Sometimes I can't believe I'm looking at footage from a fixed lens digital cam.

They've matched it up with very clean 35mm in 1080p mode without anyone noticing. (The Departed, anyone?) I doubt it will have trouble against 16mm. The most important part is not post, but the talent of the DP.

Even 16mm doesn't have a huge DOF advantage over 1/3ccd. It's WAY better, but not tons, and certianly not the difference between 35mm and a 1/3 CCD.

If your DP does DOF properly (maybe use an M2 with some quality glass?), it's going to be way better than 16mm, IMHO.

For something grainy 16mm will defintiely be better. 16mm is all about grain... :)

BUT: turn up the Gain (I DO NOT advise doing though BTW), and the HVX produces plenty of grain, and sometimes you hit a sweet spot in lighting and the grain comes out fairly filmic. Not like 16mm, but close.

For a clean look though, no question a talented DP with an HVX will likely turn in a better result, depending of course, on the story. That all said, however, I am not a fan of 16mm, especially if you're planning a DI. The only thing you'll get is more latitude and a higher bill. And both can be fixed with good photography.

Get a DP experience in Digital, though. I've seen too many movies with film DPs shooting digital like film, and it looks like crap and gives digital a bad name. They are not the same. But treat them both with love and you'll get great footage.
 
arrestthisman,

Thanks for your post. You are right, the HVX produces some nice footage. It's just that right now I am going though hell trying to figure out on what format to shoot our next feature film. I own both an HVX and an Aaton A-minima super 16mm camera. The first feature that I shot was done on a Varicam (I was the DP), so I know what the limits are of the panasonic technology (or at least the limits of me using it). I know that lighting for digital is a lot harder than for film (at leats for me) because of the redused latitude. So anyway, throw into the mix the iminent release of Red One and I begin to get dissy.

Our shoot date is in october so probably we will just miss the oportunity of using the Red One. Our budget is very tight so right now I am trying to juggle all the scenarios to see what will be the best combination of cost / desired look / ease of shooting / etc... For example, I just found out from a reply in another forum that there is one place that will scan an entire feature film into 2K cineon files for under $5,000. Now that is cheap.


EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget about Hydra as another possible aproach...
 
Last edited:
Ohhh... 5 thousand for a scan like that IS cheap. Very tempting. But remember the lab fees and the quality stock to make 2k worth it. You'll need vision2 stock, and that AIN'T cheap unless it's a student film, even then... [shrug]

Red One... Man that's going to be so hard. Even if you HAD the cam and the time, 4k+ is like IMAX rez. You just don't need that and editing it will be insane, not to mention color finishing etc.

I didn't know you owned a minima. Those are sweet cameras and a serious cost out of the way.

I can't make an educated guess without knowing your budget numbers etc. but Here's a rough assesment:

Since you own both cameras, the cost will still be higher for film, but not by much!

Figure the "stock" cost will be a fraction of the film budget for the HVX (a couple of extra p2 cards... and such. You have 5k down for a DI. I don't know what your plans are for finishing, but you could definitely pull off a desktop DI for each.

What it comes down to is the shooting ratio and setup time. The HVX and 16mm are roughly equivalent in quality when all is said and done. The HVX is a modest savings in cost in your scenario. Film will be a smaller shooting ratio. Period, even if your budget is enourmous when the clock ticking means $ in seconds, you just don't shoot as much with film.

Then there is time. For me, a digital setup is a fraction of the time that it would take for film, but there is a flip side. If film is easier for you to light, that is a factor. How long is your shooting schedule? Locations?

Then there's sync sound. If the director insists on seperate off-cam sound that will need to be synced in post, then that is time. Put it simply, if it is going to be a traditional production. Go with the 16mm. If it will be staged as a proper digital production, go with the HVX. Run and gun, go with HVX.

Hydra is not a good option for you for two reasons. 1. We don't know when it will be out. 2. It will negate your cost savings. Storage for uncompressed data and backup will be a fortune.

The advantage is that Hydra will likely be akin to 35mm quality. Or at least somewhere between 16mm and 35mm. But it will likely exceed 16mm by a significant margin in terms of quality.

Of course you already know that Varicam is a different animal entirely.

Then it just hits me.... Both?

They can be matched up quite easily. Especially if you use the in-cam gamma settings to help match, matching should be a piece of cake.

It may be a hassle, but you'll have the option of a higher shooting ratio, a B-roll cam, and you can literally mix em in the same timeline if you plan right for the editing system. Lastly, you'll have some more audio, easily synced.

How does that sound?
 
arrestthisman said:
Then it just hits me.... Both?

They can be matched up quite easily. Especially if you use the in-cam gamma settings to help match, matching should be a piece of cake.

It may be a hassle, but you'll have the option of a higher shooting ratio, a B-roll cam, and you can literally mix em in the same timeline if you plan right for the editing system. Lastly, you'll have some more audio, easily synced.

How does that sound?
Click to expand...

Both? Um, I don't know about that. Maybe if for some sequences where the look is different from the rest of the film. I know in shake I can add some grain into any digital footage... but even then... I know in the Departed they had an HVX shot, but it was only a VFX insert of a rat (not full frame). I think the only thing in order is to do some testing.

By the way, if we end up using the HVX we still would have to buy a redrock adaptor and a production hi-def monitor (more expenses). And as far as sound we are shooting dual system regardles of which camera we'll end up using (even with Red)... just because we'll have plenty of steadicam shots and because no camera that I know as of yet records 24 bit 196 Khz sound.

As far as the cheapy DIY desktop DI, here is the basic workflow I am trying to copy: (it was used in the movie "Chasing Ghosts")


1. Shoot Super 35mm stock
2. One-light telecine to DVCAM at Entertainment Post (Burbank, CA)
3. Creative edit in Final Cut Pro with AJA Kona 2 card for playback
4. Scan at 2K on Imagica Imager XE at Lowry Digital Images ( Burbank, CA)
5. Make 2K files using G-RAID 800 FireWire drives
6. Dust-busting, FX and compositing in Apple Shake
7. Files stored and served from Xserve RAID. Color-correct and crop image to 2.35:1 in Silicon Color FinalTouch 2K
8. Anamorphic squeeze in Shake
9. Film out at 2K in ArriLaser film recorder at CFI ( Burbank, CA)


It cost them $110,000 to do... but that was back in 2005. So I want to se if it can be done for $40,000 or less (not counting all the stuff that I already have like a shake set-up, etc.). So far the most important piece of the link is the latest pricing of the scans:

http://www.pixelharvest.com/


Now the only missing piece is the silicon color final touch... BUT I have very high hopes that in NAB they (Apple) will announce their replacement (maybe rolled into Final Cut Extreme?)


EDIT: Well, in the list above we would do super 16mm instead of super 35...
 
Last edited:
Wow, 5k is cheap for the scanning. But it looks like that's using the Cineform codec and not cineon/dpx files. I think cineform is about to release their codecs for intel macs. So, of course if cineform is high enough quality, you'd save a lot of money on storage since its a compressed format...
 
Actually the Rat itself was CGI, the shot on the HVX was full frame. The very last one hovering over Matt Damon, to the church. The cathedral was compositied in, but that whole shot was HVX all the way.

That is what is known so far, but there are those who claim that the whole scene between Marky Mark and Matt at the end was all HVX. I got a high def copy of departed and couldn't tell the difference between the last shot and the scene going into it, so it wouldn't surprise me. But yes the very last shot was verified as full frame on the HVX, the windows were plated green and replaced with scenes from Boston. Some artificial, some actual footage.

That said, the 16mm would be far grainer, and obviously you'd do tests, but I'm just saying it's not impossible. The redrock would cause some problems matching to 16mm, since your DOF would be 35mm, unless you could get 16mm PL to fit. I don't know, never done it.

You can do your final out from shake in 32-bit color space and color correct from there. It is slower than Final Touch for sure, but has about the same power, it's got curves, etc. And on a robust system it would not be too slow, either.

I don't know, I get the feeling you're more comfortable shooting 16mm for long form, and if that's the case I say go for it. You already have the cam; if you can make your budget work, I say go for it.

If not, the HVX is default.

I wish you the best on your project, and hope you post links so we can see it in action.

Quick question though: Why 24-bit audio?
 
I don't think it's been confirmed that the last shot in The Departed was HVX200. They mentioned that they used it in concepualizing the shot and pre-visualization but it may well have been re-shot of 35mm givent hat ALOT of the shots in the movie were done that way.

The only shot that is CONFIRMED to be HVX200 is a brief insert of DiCaprio lookinng at a photograph (the shot being the insert of the photographin Leo's hand).

If one has to spend a bunch of money in post on the digital footage just to make it look like film... maybe shooting in film to begin with is not that bad of an idea...
Click to expand...

You should know better than that. When people talk at lengths about all the money spent to get digital to look like film they're refering to 28 Days later or Open Water which were shot with cameras that lacked 24p, full SD resolution, and pretty much everything needed for the film look. The HVX200 just like the DVX before it looks great out of camera. Sure CC makes it look better but so does it with everything, including film.

Look, I've seen Super 16mm and HVX200 footaqe projected in the same theater and the quality is the same. The only difference I saw was that the Super 16mm was more grainy though I think that was on purpose.

Yes, video is harder to light because the Super 16mm will likely give you and extra three stops of lattitude on the HVX200. That really should be your biggest concern since it's the only place where 16mm still has a big advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top