feature on super 8, a good idea?

[mattias]

oh, a 16mm print of a 10 minute film costs around 3k, including negative cutting and grading. if you do it digitally you need two days in an online suite and you're lucky if you find one for less than 2k per day. and that's not including the necessary high def scanning which costs another k or so.

in both cases there's a lot you can do yourself if you have a lot of time and some skill.

/matt

[steve hyde]

I suspect Matt wouldn't do an optical print to 16, he'd do a filmout from video, because that's the format he's editing in.

if i decide to shoot 16mm, or 35mm for that matter,you bet i'm printing it. i would probably make a low con silent print for telecine, and save the negative for screening prints in 35mm later. this means i can do an ultra cheap one-light telecine for editing, and grade it on film which is dirt cheap and more powerful than you think, plus i save money when i need a blowup. an online session that gives me the same or better image quality as an optical print, they do exist which is why di's are so popular now, costs ten times as much.

but if you meant a 16mm composite print for screening, no i wouldn't do that, even if many festivals actually do screen them.

/matt

That sounds like a 35mm workflow and would be nice for a project with low shooting ratios. For higher shooting ratios I am under the impression that one of the best low budget work flows these days is to

1) shoot S16
2) one light for off-line editing
3)conform EDL and cut negative and prep HD for telecine
4) optimize the HD selects scene to scene with effects for 35mm film out
5) Film out.

...it sounds like you are considering going optical. Is that cheaper? For 35 it would be - but S16 blow ups get expensive, no?

Steve

[steve hyde]

oh, a 16mm print of a 10 minute film costs around 3k, including negative cutting and grading. if you do it digitally you need two days in an online suite and you're lucky if you find one for less than 2k per day. and that's not including the necessary high def scanning which costs another k or so.

in both cases there's a lot you can do yourself if you have a lot of time and some skill.

/matt

..yeah that is what I figured. I know some filmmakers who just printed an S16 originated film that was graded to HD and had it printed at Alpha Cine Labs on an Arri Laser which is an amazing machine. The 10 minute 35mm film print cost a little less than 4K screen ready.

Steve

[mattias]

That sounds like a 35mm workflow and would be nice for a project with low shooting ratios.

why only for low ratios? that doesn't make sense.

For higher shooting ratios I am under the impression that one of the best low budget work flows these days is to...

why this depends on the ratio i still don't understand but i'll comment on it anyway. the reason it's considered one of the best workflows is because it gives you a lot of freedom in grading and digital effects. it's definitely not nearly as cheap as mine though.

...it sounds like you are considering going optical. Is that cheaper? For 35 it would be - but S16 blow ups get expensive, no?

it's *way* cheaper.

/matt

[mattias]

The 10 minute 35mm film print cost a little less than 4K screen ready.

EDIT: plus the 5k i estimated for scanning, online and grading? my digital estimate above did not include a print, it was a comparison between making a 16mm print and a hdcam master.

sorry i edited this while you were posting. thought it needed more detail to be informative. ;-)

/matt

[steve hyde]

The 10 minute 35mm film print cost a little less than 4K screen ready.

including scanning and grading? sounds like they got an insanely good deal then.

/matt

no, not scanning and grading. The scanning and grading was done in an HD telecine session. The files from that session were loaded into the Arri Laser and the print session was about 3.8K

I don't know for sure, but I would guess the telecine session was about 2K

Steve

[steve hyde]

my comments about shooting ratio were related mostly to lab processing costs since processing 35mm is twice as expensive as 16mm - not to mention the cost of raw stock. I do realize there are a lot of good deals on 35mm raw stock, but processing is damn expensive.

Steve

[mattias]

my comments about shooting ratio were related mostly to lab processing costs since processing 35mm is twice as expensive as 16mm

that workflow is completely gauge independent. by "16mm and 35mm too for that matter" i meant that i might shoot 16mm but even if i would shoot 35mm which i'm obviously not going to do the same workflow would apply. :-)

/matt

[steve hyde]

....I'm sorry if I just confused this discussion, but I am interested to know what 16mm to 35 work flow you are proposing here. Maybe it would be helpful if you broke it down step by step. Thanks.

Steve

[mattias]

i'm proposing a 16mm to video workflow that goes via negative cutting, optical grading and printing to silent low con 16mm, and ends with scanning the print to hdcam and/or digibeta. and then if/when i need a 35mm print later i already have a cut negative and all the grading data, and the blowup is cheap. whoever is trying to tell you that it can possibly be cheaper to take the di route only want your money, or they don't know that optical exists still.

i recently got a quote for this workflow and for a 15 minute film they quoted approx:

negative cutting $1000
optical grading $500
silent print $1000
telecine to hdcam $500

which works out to about the same as an ultra low budget digital route, but here comes the magic: since the negative is already cut and graded, a 35mm blowup is only 2k. and these figures aren't negotiated either.

/matt

[wado1942]

I'm with Mattias on that. It's the cheapest way to go and I think optical color timing looks better than digital grading anyway. Plus a film print off a negative which is a lot cheaper and more natural looking than digital printed back to film.

[MovieStuff]

i recently got a quote for this workflow and for a 15 minute film they quoted approx:

negative cutting $1000
optical grading $500
silent print $1000
telecine to hdcam $500

I love the idea but, in my past experience, answer prints for 16mm were pretty expensive. I mean, the colorist takes his best guess, pulls a print, then you project it to see if you like it, then make another answer print, etc, etc, until you get what you want. But you have to pay for each answer print and they easily cost as much as $500 or more per attempt. I don't see how the optical grading could be limited to $500 or even $1000 for the print unless the colorist got it right the first time, which is rare.

Now, back in my old days of printing in 16mm, one trick that I used to do on industrial films was to use out-takes of each scene and cut together a "mini" movie. Basically it would be drawn from the same footage used as the actual film but each cut would only be a second long, which meant the answer print was only a minute or so long, as opposed to 30 minutes. This would allow the colorist to formulate his calculations for color and density quickly and then those could be applied to the actual A/B rolls of the cut negative logically. Using this approach cut down the cost and number of answer prints drastically because all the experimenting was done on a shorter trial roll.

I just wonder if there are any labs will will even produce a 16mm print these days? Haven't looked in a while. Your project sounds cool, though.

Roger

[steve hyde]

Matt,

Thanks for the break down. Sounds like a nice way to work and slightly cheaper. I'll keep that work flow in mind when planning my next project.


Roger,

Alpha Cine Lab here in Seattle still does 16mm work prints. I was told by them that they do an average of about two jobs per week for that. Old habits die hard I guess..;-) Some people love the Steinbeck. I've never used one, but I imagine they have their charm.

They also make show prints with optical sound tracks, however they don't do the sound work. There is a guy here in Seattle (I can find his name if anyone is interested) who does the optical sound track and then Alpha uses it when they lay down the 16mm show print.

Steve

[downix]

Matt,

Thanks for the break down. Sounds like a nice way to work and slightly cheaper. I'll keep that work flow in mind when planning my next project.


Roger,

Alpha Cine Lab here in Seattle still does 16mm work prints. I was told by them that they do an average of about two jobs per week for that. Old habits die hard I guess..;-) Some people love the Steinbeck. I've never used one, but I imagine they have their charm.

They also make show prints with optical sound tracks, however they don't do the sound work. There is a guy here in Seattle (I can find his name if anyone is interested) who does the optical sound track and then Alpha uses it when they lay down the 16mm show print.

Steve

Do they do 16mm workprints off of S8 negative?

[mattias]

Thanks for the break down. Sounds like a nice way to work and slightly cheaper.

if you think 3k and up on a 10 minute film is slight you can afford to shoot 35mm and post it whichever way you like. ;-)

roger, if you're making compromises in every part of the chain you'd better in post as well. if the first answer print isn't perfect then make another one, but a third is out of the question. before you make the first print you've already tested your grading on a few frames from each scene though, and that you can afford to print several times first.

ne trick that I used to do on industrial films was to use out-takes of each scene and cut together a "mini" movie

exactly. it's standard practice these days.

many labs still do 16mm btw, at least here.

/matt