What Should I Do? (Advice Solicited)

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

ericMartinJarvies wrote:what is cheaper ... taking an hd final cut out to a new film print? or taking a digial edl to a physical film edit on the original film and from their make the print? and what are we dealing with in terms of quality differances?
cutting the neg is easily the cheapest, and probably the easiest since all you have to do is send the neg and edl off. if you're comparing with regular hd it's also better quality. if you go to 2k though you might get slightly better quality with a digital intermediate, if you know what you're doing, but not with 1080 or 720.

/matt
User avatar
Nigel
Senior member
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 10:14 am
Real name: Adam
Location: Lost
Contact:

Post by Nigel »

I just did the numbers for a short film that was going to be an HD to Film production. Now it is Film-->Video Edit-->Film. The numbers at least here in the USA are almost the same for a print off of HD and to actually cutting your neg. The film has nothing extraordinary when it comes to fades, dissolves or fast cuts--which would change the prices. I think when it was all said and done the Neg cutting may be about 50 dollars more.

The ArriLaser Printer is a great unit and I have seen some good looking stuff off of it. So really the sky is the limit and you will just need to look at the numbers.

Good Luck
David M. Leugers
Posts: 1632
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 12:42 am
Contact:

Post by David M. Leugers »

Just to add my two cents... Cutting a negative is incredibly inexpensive, if you do it yourself. The equipment to do it with is for sale everyday for peanuts on eBay. The Maier Handcock splicer (formerly Bell and Howell) will do perfect frame line splices for doing A and B rolls. Like Roger said, if you keep your film to fades and dissolves and shoot basic titles on film (easy to do) you can cut the negative to match and produce a film print from it or use it for any other distribution needs. Many fine books have all the info you need to learn the process. The key to it all, and the hard part as I see it, is to come up with a truely workable way to match your film to the video edit. I have not used Final Cut, but I understand it has software for match back to film . Anybody have any experiences with this? One of my projects laying on the cluttered shelf, is to create a "work printer" in 16mm which will allow the edgecode to be displayed on the frames so that you can run through the video edit and mark down where each cut is and use this edit list to edit your original. You should be able to burn a CD of the audio from the video edit and have it transferred to 16mm mag so that you can make an answer print with sound from your edited film original. Anyway, good luck Cal with your project.


David M. Leugers
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

Nigel wrote:I think when it was all said and done the Neg cutting may be about 50 dollars more.
seems odd to me, but i guess prices vary a lot between different cities. the key is to find an inexpensive neg cutter (diy?). much easier to do than to find an inexpensive hd to film transfer...

/matt
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

David M. Leugers wrote:I have not used Final Cut, but I understand it has software for match back to film
yeah, but us pal users don't need it since there's a 1:1 relationship between the video frame numbers and the keycode. i have experience with that and it works flawlessly, but i've never used the cinema tools or whatever it's called or done any ntsc matchback.

/matt
User avatar
Nigel
Senior member
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 10:14 am
Real name: Adam
Location: Lost
Contact:

Post by Nigel »

The neg cutter wasn't the big expense. It was actually the print/sound stock and processing is where the money seems to be.

Good Luck
PS--I would not personally want to deal with cutting the neg my self. Spend the money and buy Peace Of Mind.
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

Nigel wrote:The neg cutter wasn't the big expense. It was actually the print/sound stock and processing is where the money seems to be.
how do you avoid print/sound stock and processing expenses when striking the print from digital? the difference in total cost should be the difference between the negative cutter and the arri laser?!?

/matt
christoph
Senior member
Posts: 2486
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: atm Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Post by christoph »

mattias wrote:
Nigel wrote:The neg cutter wasn't the big expense. It was actually the print/sound stock and processing is where the money seems to be.
how do you avoid print/sound stock and processing expenses when striking the print from digital? the difference in total cost should be the difference between the negative cutter and the arri laser?!?
i think the confusions lies in blow-up cost, while the original post was about reg 16mm.

with reg16 prints, easily the cheapest way is to cut it yourself and make an optical print with macnetic soundtrack. dont even think about digital here.

with any 16->35mm blowup, you need stock and optical soundtrack anyway... the main difference will be:

- for HD interneg, you need a 2K scan (expensive), prolly some colormatching (expensive but you save a bit of touble in your answer print), some print-to-film transfer (good ones are expensive)

- for optical blowup, you need a neg cutter, and the lab has to optical work, which is not cheap.

i guess in the states you can come across pretty good deals on the HD route, in germany it's still way more expensive unless you get a sponsored job.

as for quality, some ppl claim that a digital intermediate will reduce grain, but grain isn't everything... i've seen some super16 optical blowups that were just stunning (schwarz-film in switzerland is famous for that).
if cost isn't an issue, i''d prefer optical prints if natural colors and structures are important.. the digital intermed really shines if you want to achieve a very special look (color correction beyond your dreams).

++ christoph ++
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

ok, let's cut to the chase:

at filmteknik in stockholm a direct blow up to 35mm from 16mm a/b rolled negative is 2 euros per meter, or approx 50 euros per minute. a/b negative cutting is 8 euros per cut, and color correction is 5 euros per cut, which for the average film means 130 euros per minute. netto 180 euros per minute.

the cheapest video to 35mm (16mm) film transfer, standard definition analog telefilm, is 650 (200) euros plus 150 (60) per screen minute including timing. they don't list the hd/2k digital printer in their price list but my educated guess is that it's at least twice as expensive.

a direct 16mm print from a/b rolled negative is also 2 euros per meter, but since you need fewer meters for 16mm it's only 20 euros per minute. negative cutting and timing is the same. netto 150 euros per minute.

print stock and processing is included, but not sound transfer, syncing and printing.

conclusion: analog telefilm (pointing film camera at broadcast monitor) to 16 mm is the cheapest, then a 16 mm print tied with telefilm to 35mm if the film is long enough to even out the startup fee, followed by 35mm blow up and finally digital printing to 35mm which is the most expensive. can somebody fill us in with the exact cost of it perhaps?

/matt
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

oh, and as you can see and like i said, negative cutting is the most expensive part of the equation, so if you do it yourself or find a cheap professional you can save a lot.

/matt
User avatar
S8 Booster
Posts: 5857
Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm
Real name: Super Octa Booster
Location: Yeah, it IS the real thing not the Fooleywood Crapitfied Wannabe Copy..
Contact:

Post by S8 Booster »

I think some of the prices are avail from Andec´s price lists (for reference only)

http://andecfilm.de/html/preis-seite_1.htm

R
..tnx for reminding me Michael Lehnert.... or Santo or.... cinematography.com super8 - the forum of Rednex, Wannabees and Pretenders...
ericMartinJarvies
Senior member
Posts: 1274
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:26 am
Location: cabo san lucas, bcs, mexico
Contact:

Post by ericMartinJarvies »

the 'thing' with a movie, be it on film or video, is the audience. if you make a movie on film for example, and have it in your mind to make a film print for projection immediatly upon completing the editing, then you will no doubt have to incur the costs of whether it is traditional cut, or a digital cut. both options are obviously and readily available for you to do so. but the real question is; is it justified? in other words, do you already have a deal with someone that will project the movie in a theatre(s)? or is it you want to submit your film to festivals wherein they receive actual film, instead of a tape or dvd as is common today. will submitting your film to festivals on actual film lend to it's success? if so, then does the cost justify the level of success an actual film print brings to the matter? if so, then make your print(s) either traditionally or digitally, based on your budget.

however, in the real world(from my own eyes anyway), it is obvious most of the film festivals will accept films on tape and/or dvd. additionally, all the internet site film festivals/competitions can only accept the film in a digital format for online viewing(triggerstreet, etc.). so if the purpose of your film is to be viewed by more the just yourself, in today's world, the most obvious path is digital delivery. and i say this with new filmmakers in mind, not established filmmakers of new filmmakers with studio/distribution deals.

if your movie is a good movie, and is well received/accepted by those who have viewed it, then it stands a chance to move it's way up the rating ladder in the various film festivals, or in some cases directly within the studios themselves. in these cases, if you take the cake at the various film festivals, or score high internal rating with the various stuios who you submitted your movie to, then would it not be logicol to say that those who are interested in purchasing your movie for either theatrical release or distribution, would also be the same people you would negotiate a deal with that could include a theatrical release(even if it is in only one theatre, so your movie can stake that claim of 'theatrically released') or video/dv distribution wherein you make part of the deal they are to pay for a film print for your own self, simply because you so desire one?

but making a film print of your movie just for the sake of making one does NOT benefit the movie's success one way or another unless you have made a deal for theatrical release, or a studio/private interest has decided it would be better for your movie to be projected film in the various film festivals, instead of tape or dvd. or, you may simply want to make a film print on your own accord for your own personal reasons, in which case it is totally understandable and respected(because you learn, accomplish, and have a final product/fruit to show for yourself and your labor).

but no matter the direction you take, you need to PLAN it and decide upon it so you can buget for it accordingly ... both you time and $$.

personaly speaking, i desire to have my first film viewed by as many people as possible. additionally, i desire to win competitions and film festival awards ... not just placing, but actualy WINNING, being on the top of the hill, the king on the thrown, etc. i do not desire to make a bad film(even though the mere fact of my inexperience may very well result in one). and i also do not desire to make a film that only i will view. however, i am making a movie for me, first and foremost. but in that, i understand that if after making my first movie i realize it is something i want to continue doing, then i must be realistic in that regard and PLAN correctly. because unless you are made of money, or have a constant river of it running through your billfold, you will not be able to make a second movie, a third, and so on. in order to IMPROVE your movie making abilities, you will also need to increase your budgets. and so chances are your second film will be much more expensive then your first film, simply because you desire to explore greater teritory, which results in increased expense ... be it the salary of an actor, the various special effects scenes you opted to include, the location, the time period(if in the past or in the future, all of the set designs and costumes must adher to this illusion, hence increased expenses). whatever the case, most people yern to improve on their craft, not stand still with it. now it might be that your first movie was made on literally your good looks and charm alone. so you second movie may actually cost you $omething other then your humility/integrety/soul/time/whatever.

the reasons for shooting your movie on film vary between individuals. my reasons, for example, have to do with actually shooting on film, and understanding film, and mastering my artform relationship with film. it also has to do with my PLAN of action, wherein i aspire to win the audiences of the various competitions and film festivals, thus taking the prizes. and in this desire, comes reasoning ... the reasonsing is; because my film will take the prizes at the various competitions and film festivals, it will no doubt be a strong/real/viable/valuable negotiating tool for me to use in my efforts to realize a 'theatrical release' of my film, hopefully one that will be worldwide ... because that is my aim, my goal, and my overall objective. but foremost, it is my DESIRE. and as part of my PLAN i also intend on securing worldwide distribution of my film on vhs, dvd, satellite, cable, broadcast television, and even the internet.

so having a clearly defined objective/goal, you can create a PLAN of action. in this plan of action, it is clear to understand(by way of logicol discovery) what is require each step of the way. so seeing as how my plan includes a theatrical release, i will ned to make certain that either my film original, or high res digital copy, are ready to be used to generate the actual film print, be it the traditional way or the digital to film printer way, either of which will be subject to the actual success of my film at that point, and my ability to negotiate what i so desire to realize(traditional or digital to film printer).

this site is a great site to learn about film equipment and processes for new filmmakers using small guage film, perhaps one of the best ... at least the best for me and my own learning path. there are obviously other pieces to the puzzle regarding filmmaking like, screenplay creation(triggerstreet.com), and the ability to correctly write what it is you visualize in your mind, so that your story translates to film using the correct beats and patterns that human beings have grown accustomed to. you can take the best photos in the world, but if you are not able to put them together to tell the story correctly, then the film will fail the audience. you can be the best writer with the best screenplay, but if you are not able to take good photos, your film will suffer. you can be the best screenplay writer and cinematographer in the world but if you cannot manage people, you will not be able to oranize a film. you can be the best of all of these, but if you do not know how to market and sell you and your film, your film will suffer. and there are so many other areas within these ones mentioned above that were not mentioned, but are equally important, that if not addressed correctly, will cause your film to suffer. like editng, sound, set and costume design, etc. for those of us making our first film, we are having to do much of this ourselves. each one takes time and a certain amount of money based on what your budget will allow. issues like making film prints are much better served AFTER your film has earned a place in the minds of those willing to invest in it, not before. but if making a film print is for personal education and experience, then no matter the film, it will serve a purpose and be worth every penny providing you got out of it what you so desired ... which would be 'understanding' of such a person, place, of thing ... or in this case, a process.

by the way, currently on ebay there is a film printer that can be had for under a $1000.00usd. it has been relisted a few times, and is called the fire 2200(or something like that). so if you so desire, you could most likely rig this machine to ake your digital images and output them to film. additionally, there are much more reasonable services for taking digital files back out to film then the arri device, for example service companies with the following machine could most likely do the same service for 1/3 the price: http://www.lasergraphics.com/pages/cine.htm

eric
eric martin jarvies
#7 avenido jarvies
pueblo viejo
cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
cp 23410
044 624 141 9661
calgodot
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2003 8:14 am
Location: Hollywood
Contact:

Post by calgodot »

Nigel wrote:Who is doing the Telecine for you?? What format have you decided on??
I'm still shopping for the telecine - being in LA, I have a few options to consider (and am waiting for some callbacks from people who might be able to negotiate favors.)

Definitely going for a 1:1 PAL transfer. Nothing I've read convinces me that anything is better.
Nigel wrote:I just did the numbers for a short film that was going to be an HD to Film production. Now it is Film-->Video Edit-->Film. The numbers at least here in the USA are almost the same for a print off of HD and to actually cutting your neg. The film has nothing extraordinary when it comes to fades, dissolves or fast cuts--which would change the prices. I think when it was all said and done the Neg cutting may be about 50 dollars more.
I'd love to see those numbers, Nigel. How long is that project? My film, which I estimate will run about 10 minutes in the end, also has nothing other than fades (to/from black) and cuts. Nothing fancy in the editing.
David M. Leugers wrote:Cutting a negative is incredibly inexpensive, if you do it yourself. The equipment to do it with is for sale everyday for peanuts on eBay.
I am the sloppiest cutter in the world. Not to mention, I live in what has got to be the dustiest apartment in all of Hollywood. (OK, to be fair, I leave my windows open 24/7.) It's possible I may have to end up doing it this way in order to save money. But then again, I live in LA, so how hard will it be to find someone to do this? They still teach this in film school, right?

[quote = "ericMartinJarvies "]but the real question is; is it justified? in other words, do you already have a deal with someone that will project the movie in a theatre(s)? or is it you want to submit your film to festivals wherein they receive actual film, instead of a tape or dvd as is common today. will submitting your film to festivals on actual film lend to it's success? if so, then does the cost justify the level of success an actual film print brings to the matter?[/quote]


I beat myself up with those questions daily. How much of this desire to have a film print is ego? How much is driven by my sense of aesthetic? (And is one's sense of aesthetic divisble from one's ego? I think not.)

On a purely practical level: Yes, having a film print enhances your chances at festival. While many festivals screen digitally now, all do not: all festivals can screen film prints.

Plus, we all know it's better. Why pay for something that's less than the best if you can afford the best? (The question is of course IF I can afford it!)
"I'm the master of low expectations. I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."—George W. Bush, June 4, 2003
ericMartinJarvies
Senior member
Posts: 1274
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:26 am
Location: cabo san lucas, bcs, mexico
Contact:

Post by ericMartinJarvies »

calgodot,

what is it you are working on right now?

personally, i am still not ready to take my stories and reduce them to workable screenplays. although i am now starting to dabble in it, and will start doing script reviews at triggerstreet.com so i may improve my screenwriting skills, as well as reviewing skills. typically, most filmmakers start with a story/screenplay, but not me. i did not wake up one morning and think to myself ... i am going to write a screenplay and make a movie. instead, i woke up and said i want to make movies. or i should say, i have woken up almost my entire life saying to myself i want to make movies. it was only last year i actually did what i had been suggesting to myself that entire time. and now almost a year into my filmmaking carrer, i have just but scratched the surface. it would be one thing if i just wanted to be a cameraman, or a screenwriter, or a griphand, or an editor, or a sound tech, etc., but i want to be a filmmaker, and doing so really requires knowing and mastering each of the required skills.

1. understanding the equipment available, and how to use it. and more important, for what reasons to use it(a particular piece of equipment) and when to use it.

2. understanding light as it relates to either film or video. to understand exposure and contrast and depth of field and so on. both on the capture side, and on the post manipulation side. to be able to visualize a scene in your mind, and have the ability to make it as you so desire, using natural and artificial lights, filters, reflectors, diffusors, etc. knowing how to combine the incoming light, with a partcular lens, with the chemicals/ccd on the camera, to the actual processing of the film, to the digitzing of the film, or use of DV, to the post editing manipulation, and on an on.

3. understanding a story. to be able to not only write a story, but to write it so it can translate to moving images, aka a screenplay. knowing how to properly format a screenplay so it work for you and those who read it. to develope charactors and create tension and drama and on and on. being able to articulate a story with and without words(using expressions of otherwise)

4. processing film, color correcting film. this in itself is an enormous variable. the phrase 'color correction' in itself is a contridiction. is there reallyt a correct color? heck, one can use a color bar and shot it with film over a timelapsed period of a day, and for each lapsed shot, the color will be differant! the actual color on the bar remains the same in its physical nature, but as light changes around it, so does its appearance. so would you really want to correct this type of color? grant it, in a controlled setting / studio, where you are able to replicate the lighting conditions, yes, correction between takes can be made. but aside from that, color is to the maker, and each of use are differant makers ... correct? i beleive there is no one right or wrong color ... it is all a matter of taste.

5. editing film, both traditionally and digitally. geeze ... i can only imagine what a pain it is to edit film manually. managing the rolls of film i have exposed thus far has been an ordeal ... namely keeping it clean and marking and indexing scenes/frames. thank goodness for computers. today we can edit and re-edit with a click of the button. but alas, editng is not an easy task ... the appications/software must first be understood and then mastered. and then the skills of editing apply ... and being a good editor is leaps and bounds away from being a great editor.

6. mastering sound as it is recorded, and as it is edited into the movie. knowing how to use sounds in a story. again, originating sound into a mic and properly recording it is not an easy task. it takes time and understanding, and only experience will seperate the good sound recorder from the great ones. then you have scoring, and all the other aspects of compositing sound. it is a vast arena.

7. directing your actors. this is an area that deal with your understanding the story, and your ability to tell it. it involves your ability to take your vision of it and instill it into the minds of the actors, while letting them also take charge of the content as they see it. kid gloves in this arena. dealing with the cameramen, actors, lighting people, sound recorder, make-up, and everything else is a task of all tasks.

8. producing your movie. like directing, except without the creative results(perhaps creative processes). managing the movie so it is a clean, lean running machine. dealing with creative folks and dealing with business folks. dealing with folks in gernal and making sure everyone is in contact with everyone else with whom they are supposed to be. dealing with the legal aspects, the marketing aspects, the sales aspects, and the internal human resources is enough to make this job the most dreded one.

and the list goes on and on and on. making a print of your film is what? process 10,324 of 100,435? and naturally, process 10,324 has sub-processes in the dozens, sometimes hundreds? one big information difest(digest, fest). talk about either a serious case of constipation or diariah? or downright indigestion.

eric
eric martin jarvies
#7 avenido jarvies
pueblo viejo
cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
cp 23410
044 624 141 9661
calgodot
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2003 8:14 am
Location: Hollywood
Contact:

Post by calgodot »

ericMartinJarvies wrote:what is it you are working on right now?
It's a short film titled COFFEE NOIR. There's no esay plot to describe: it's a series of scenes that do actualyl link together but in a rather symbolic fashion. Some people would think of it as arty pretenstious bullshit, which would not be totally unfair: the scenes are from dreams I had over the course of about six months. Several of the dreams happened to have some symbolic lnks, so I strung them together into a "story."

I started pre-production on it earlier this year, then abruptly halted in when I decided I was in over my head and needed a little more time. I'm going to be putting stuff up on my web site about it as I slowly begin getting things done.

http://www.calgodot.com/coffeenoir/index.html

ericMartinJarvies wrote:personally, i am still not ready to take my stories and reduce them to workable screenplays. although i am now starting to dabble in it, and will start doing script reviews at triggerstreet.com so i may improve my screenwriting skills, as well as reviewing skills.
Trigger Street is a great site. I've yet to post any reviews because almost all of the scripts I've read from there are total crap about which I could find nothing constructive to say. This makes me a bad community member but that's prettymuch normal for me anyway.

I've been writing since I was a kid. It's the only think I ever wanted to do. Even though movies always fascinated me, I was never really driven to make films or even write them. I'm very "old school" - trained in things like art and literature, the kind of stuff that makes me a laugh riot at a Hollywood party but a serious pain in the ass during a script conference. ("You mention Joseph Campbell and mythic resonance one more time and I'll beat the crap out of you.")

Which is just to say: I ain't scared or reluctant to write nothin'. My insecurities and trepidations w/r/t filmmaking are pretty much all in the technical areas.
ericMartinJarvies wrote:typically, most filmmakers start with a story/screenplay, but not me. i did not wake up one morning and think to myself ... i am going to write a screenplay and make a movie. instead, i woke up and said i want to make movies. or i should say, i have woken up almost my entire life saying to myself i want to make movies.
This kind of obsession is very important, I think. My admiration of filmmakers is pretty much restricted to two types: those who amass technical competence and expertise matched by a strong aesthetic sense (Kubrick, Coppola, Lynch, etc.) and those who are wild roman candle artists with little discipline and little technical chops but stange wild obsessive visions that keep my up at night (Herzog, Korine, Cassavetes). Coach Bob said "You've got to get obsessed and stay obsessed." Words to live by.
"I'm the master of low expectations. I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."—George W. Bush, June 4, 2003
Post Reply