Why are film cameras so expensive?

The high cost of film cameras is frustrating, which is why so many of us are shooting DV, right? If it were cheap, we'd be shooting film. I know I would. I looked at the new Arri Super 16 camera and was shocked at the price tag--I think it was $55K. And this was the "low end" model with no accessories. The full version was like $80K. With prices like these, they're even expensive to rent.
 
overlandfilms said:
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
Click to expand...


You excluded some obvious reasons why you are selling more dv footage than film footage.

But beyond that, the biggest mistake that has hurt film is that a format that is harder to sell, (Super-8), has superior filming options than either Super-16 or 35mm. Rather than thumb their nose at Super-8 camera technology, somebody, whom I don't know, should have made sure they made a Super-16mm camera that can easily do the multiple filming effects that are found on Super-8 cameras.

I wouldn't hesitate stepping into Super-16 if I could find a camera that mimicked what a Eumig 800 series (but not the 800) can do. 16mm and 35mm cameras are notoriously weak in both shooting regular speed and then also offering time-lapse, single frame and time-exposure, without also requiring an external motor, which does add a clunkieness factor.

There are no baby steps in Super-16mm and 35mm to draw in new filmmakers. Either you can budget real time productions with full crew, or one trys their hand at a documentary, either way, that is not enough of a opportunity for a newbie filmmaker to try making it in film.

Add in the terrific and film efficient effects that are available on many super-8 cameras, and suddenly, if the type of camera could be produced somewhere in the 10-15 thousand dollar range, owning a Super-16 film camera would be a no brainer.
 
>>16mm and 35mm cameras are notoriously weak in both shooting regular speed and then also offering time-lapse, single frame and time-exposure, without also requiring an external motor, which does add a clunkieness factor.

Hi Alessandro,

I shoot a lot of time lapse with my Aaton Super 16 camera/Cinematography Electronics intervalometer. I can go from time-lapse to 24 frames seamlessly(of course adjusting exposure to compensate)
I have also shot with Arri's intervalometer/435 with built in capping shutter-a fantastic set up-and the older Arris/Norris system.
Do a search at arri.com and aaton.com- the latest generation 435 and 416, Arricam, Aaton Penelope 35mm 2 perf and Super 16 models are absolutely amazing-and there are many reasons they are extremely expensive-they must be very quiet(if it's a sync sound camera), lightweight, steady, dependable, with built in video camera(assist)
You should hear the sound of a 435 at 150 fps, or a Photosonics high speed camera shooting 360 or 2500 fps!

John Babl
DP
Miami
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top