35mm film costs vs Red costs

[David Wyatt]

I've got a feeling this is going to open up a can of worms...but anyway...

I've found it's useful when pitching the Red to potential clients (particularly feature clients) to be able to give a rough figure for what a traditional film costs (i.e. stock + negative processing) since these are costs the Red camera doesn't have and therefore the supposed saving can be spent elsewhere or go "on the screen" (this is the enticing bit for a producer of course). So without causing a flame war can we ascertain what an average low budget indie film would cost in terms of stock & processing (maybe even things like telecine costs for rushes etc) - I'll start the ball rolling by completely guessing that 35mm stock & processing comes to about £0.50/ft which would be a cost of £50,000 for an entire 100,000ft feature (4-perf for arguments sake). That's a cost the Red doesn't have, so that's an instant saving but are there any more savings to add (e.g. telecine) and how much would they typically be (e.g. telecine suite = £400/hour(?) - how long to telecine a 100,000ft film?) - forgive my post ignorance but pricing isn't something that usually crosses my radar. Conversely are there any extra significant post-production costs the Red has that the film workflow wouldn't have? It might also be interesting to also compare it to the cost of scanning 35mm film (which is even more, right?)

I know this is verging on "how long is a piece of string" territory but I think if we could work out a consensus of typical costs it would be a useful tool for all of us to make the big sell particularly to features producers, many of whom are initially a bit reticent about using the Red.

 

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

OFcours Red will save a lot and so much more.

My vision of film industry (stocks materials)will Vanish very soon.

No one will prefer the hard way if there is easyway..

Other film coasts for sure will go either for screen or for digial quality

improvments that will reflects to screen too.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I've got a feeling this is going to open up a can of worms...but anyway...

I've found it's useful when pitching the Red to potential clients (particularly feature clients) to be able to give a rough figure for what a traditional film costs (i.e. stock + negative processing) since these are costs the Red camera doesn't have and therefore the supposed saving can be spent elsewhere or go "on the screen" (this is the enticing bit for a producer of course). So without causing a flame war can we ascertain what an average low budget indie film would cost in terms of stock & processing (maybe even things like telecine costs for rushes etc) - I'll start the ball rolling by completely guessing that 35mm stock & processing comes to about £0.50/ft which would be a cost of £50,000 for an entire 100,000ft feature (4-perf for arguments sake). That's a cost the Red doesn't have, so that's an instant saving but are there any more savings to add (e.g. telecine) and how much would they typically be (e.g. telecine suite = £400/hour(?) - how long to telecine a 100,000ft film?) - forgive my post ignorance but pricing isn't something that usually crosses my radar. Conversely are there any extra significant post-production costs the Red has that the film workflow wouldn't have? It might also be interesting to also compare it to the cost of scanning 35mm film (which is even more, right?)

I know this is verging on "how long is a piece of string" territory but I think if we could work out a consensus of typical costs it would be a useful tool for all of us to make the big sell particularly to features producers, many of whom are initially a bit reticent about using the Red.

Hi,

Kodak & Fuji will give very good deals & sometimes will give film for free. £400 Telecine an hour is commercial rates, think $250 (£125) an hour. If the film does not need a DI then a photochemical finish can be very economical and shooting 35mm will then be cheaper than shooting S16 or digital.

Unfortunately there are no 'typical costs' it's down to how good a producer is at cutting deals, his relationship with suppliers etc.

Stephen

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Until D.I.'s become more commonplace just in the past two years, one could argue that an indie film may spend about $60,000 on 35mm stock, processing, and telecine, while finishing photochemically just involved cutting the negative and striking an answer print.

Whereas the savings of shooting in HD, let's say, where you don't have that $60,000 in stock, processing, and telecine... were eaten up by the color-correction and then laser recording costs back to film, so it was a wash in terms of which method got you a 35mm print to show people for the lowest cost.

However, this ignores the fact that something shot in film needs to be mastered to HDTV for home video, which can cost an additional $50,000 sometimes in terms of making an IP and then spending a week in a Spirit suite, whereas something shot in HD is already HDTV-ready once color-corrected.

It also ignores the new reality that you can screen a movie digitally these days for festivals and investors.

And with most films going through a D.I. step in the $100,000 to $200,000 range, then it becomes even more clear that shooting digitally tends to be cheaper even for theatrical features.

However, again, if you shoot a low shooting ratio on 35mm film in a contact-printable projection format (standard 1.85 or anamorphic), cut the negative, and make a print, the costs are similar to shooting digitally and doing a film-out.

 

[Jeff Brue]

All depends on the shooting ratio (I say as I cry over an uncompressed HD movie that has jumpred to a 25:1 over an originally planned 7:1)

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, the costs of film vs. tape (or hard drive) are so much in favor of digital that has the shooting ratio increases, the savings increase dramatically. However, this ignores the fact that larger amounts of footage take longer to view, log, and edit, not to mention, more takes of the same set-up take more time to shoot over the course of a day, so there are sometimes diminishing returns to huge shooting ratios.

 

[David Wyatt]

All depends on the shooting ratio (I say as I cry over an uncompressed HD movie that has jumpred to a 25:1 over an originally planned 7:1)

Thanks, Jeff - I was kind of assuming a standard 10:1 shooting ratio on that 100,000 feet of film (that gives you a 110 minute film I think?) I was also assuming 4-perf just for ease of calculations and my rather ropey maths skills.

Cheers,

 

[David Wyatt]

Until D.I.'s become more commonplace just in the past two years, one could argue that an indie film may spend about $60,000 on 35mm stock, processing, and telecine, while finishing photochemically just involved cutting the negative and striking an answer print.

Whereas the savings of shooting in HD, let's say, where you don't have that $60,000 in stock, processing, and telecine... were eaten up by the color-correction and then laser recording costs back to film, so it was a wash in terms of which method got you a 35mm print to show people for the lowest cost.

However, this ignores the fact that something shot in film needs to be mastered to HDTV for home video, which can cost an additional $50,000 sometimes in terms of making an IP and then spending a week in a Spirit suite, whereas something shot in HD is already HDTV-ready once color-corrected.

It also ignores the new reality that you can screen a movie digitally these days for festivals and investors.

And with most films going through a D.I. step in the $100,000 to $200,000 range, then it becomes even more clear that shooting digitally tends to be cheaper even for theatrical features.

However, again, if you shoot a low shooting ratio on 35mm film in a contact-printable projection format (standard 1.85 or anamorphic), cut the negative, and make a print, the costs are similar to shooting digitally and doing a film-out.

Thanks, David - as informative as ever. Is that $60,000 for 3-perf or 4-perf? Does that include likely discounts/favours from Kodak/Fuji, the labs etc? Do you know what typical scanning costs are (I found one website mentioning around £170/minute at 2K on a Northlight (probably full list?) - that would come to about £25,000 for scanning 150 minutes of selected takes - does that sound about right to you?)

 

[Jason Sinclair]

You would have to say also that it is more enticing for the investors to know that they can get a finished product to potential buyers, festivals and then add the remaining funds (if needed) to go to 35mm. So it's like a safety valve for them. That would help in negotiations.

 

[Häakon]

If you're doing a film out, it's a different beast entirely - but as David pointed out, many festivals will accept digital submissions these days. If it's not hitting theaters, you can make 1080p HD Blu-ray discs on your home machine to send out for < $10 a pop.

Whatever deals Stephen can get you from Kodak or your friendly telecine bay, there is still absolutely no question that shooting RED is infinitely cheaper than shooting film. And with no tape stock costs, it's cheaper than shooting most digital formats, too.

 

[laguun]

I am always surprised to hear the high prices for DI in LA, for us its common to have a month DI for the usual 90-120 minute fullfeature at 15-30.000 for dolby Digital master in bluray, 2K uncompressed and HDCAM combined, 30-45 if filmrecording with Dolby Digital is chosen.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Those prices don't make a lot of sense to me -- I'd need to see the breakdown for:
scanning
conforming
color-correction
titles & efx
dust / scratch removal
laser recording

to understand how a feature can only cost $45,000 to go through a D.I. when the Kodak intermediate stock & processing alone that you use in the laser recorder costs $10,000 right there.

How can you have a month in a color-correction suite like a DaVinci for so little money? $500/hr is typical in L.A. for a DaVinci suite, so an 8-hr day is $4000, so $20,000 for five days, $80,000 for four weeks. So even if your DaVinci color-correction suites only cost $250/hr in Berlin, that's $40,000 for four weeks right there, not including all the other D.I. costs. And the cheapest Arrilaser recorder bid I ever got was from Digital Film Labs in Belgium, and that was $45,000 for a feature -- just for the recording.

So how does film scanning at least 10,000' of 35mm neg stock, a month of color-correction, conforming, dust removal, and laser recording to 10,000' of I.N. stock all add up to only $45,000? How does that breakdown?

 

[John Brawley]

So how does film scanning at least 10,000' of 35mm neg stock, a month of color-correction, conforming, dust removal, and laser recording to 10,000' of I.N. stock all add up to only $45,000? How does that breakdown?

I have to agree with David.

It seems optimistic. It could be done perhaps with a HD/Tape based path, using a single pass flat telecine on an older HD TK like a millennium.

Even then.......

jb

 

[David Mullen ASC]

http://www.swisseffects.ch/english/english_pdf/New_prices.pdf

Even Swiss Effects in Europe lists an Arrilaser recorder cost of $417/minute, so $41,700 for a 100-minute feature. And again, that's just one part of what makes up a D.I., which is not the same thing as a simple digital-to-film transfer.

 

[David Wyatt]

So, just to make it clear cost-wise, the money saved on stock & processing by shooting on Red (in the region of $60,000 I think David said) is almost eaten up by the cost of the Arrilaser recorder ($40,000), which is a cost the photo-chemical 35mm route doesn't have (they just have to cut the negative and produce an answer print - which I'm guessing is a lot cheaper?). [Likewise a feature shot on tape (e.g. F900) has to go through the same process and expense of transferring to 35mm via Arri laser recorder and has the additional cost over the Red of the cost of the tape ($40/tape) and the man-hours to digitize the tapes].

However if the photo-chemical route needs to be transferred to HD for DVD/Blu-Ray release (which I'd guess is essential since most films make their money from DVD sales & rental rather than from cinema exhibition), then the saving gets eaten up and may end up actually costing more (I think David mentioned a figure of around $50,000 for that whole process)?

The only other thing to consider is the typical cost of digitally grading a feature shot on Red compared to the cost of grading with the photo-chemical route (I have no idea what the comparable costs would be here).

 

[laguun]

Those prices don't make a lot of sense to me -- I'd need to see the breakdown for:
scanning
conforming
color-correction
titles & efx
dust / scratch removal
laser recording

to understand how a feature can only cost $45,000 to go through a D.I. when the Kodak intermediate stock & processing alone that you use in the laser recorder costs $10,000 right there.

How can you have a month in a color-correction suite like a DaVinci for so little money? $500/hr is typical in L.A. for a DaVinci suite, so an 8-hr day is $4000, so $20,000 for five days, $80,000 for four weeks. So even if your DaVinci color-correction suites only cost $250/hr in Berlin, that's $40,000 for four weeks right there, not including all the other D.I. costs. And the cheapest Arrilaser recorder bid I ever got was from Digital Film Labs in Belgium, and that was $45,000 for a feature -- just for the recording.

So how does film scanning at least 10,000' of 35mm neg stock, a month of color-correction, conforming, dust removal, and laser recording to 10,000' of I.N. stock all add up to only $45,000? How does that breakdown?

First, i think we have a misunderstanding in two points.

I am speaking about a DI for a *digitally* shot master, as with red one, sony 750/790/900/950/F23, panavision genesis, arri D20/21, S:I 2K (min), dalsa origin, vision research phantom HD and 65 etc., so i have not included scanning.

Then, the strong euro - i logically calculate all my prices on euro.

250 or 500 an hour for a DI suite, however, is exactly what i was referring to: you have no problems to find very good DIs for 500 a *day* here for a fullfeature, so in this area the prices are much lower, 50-70% easily.

Regarding the filmrecording, arrilaser can be had much cheaper than the prices you quoted, addtionally there are much more inexpensive options from celco, definity etc.

cinepix as example, offers 90min incl. stock, recording, dolby digital, IN and Print for 14.950 list price.
If you negotiate and they understand that you are fully pro, you even can get lower.
http://cinepix.de/german/preisliste/preise.htm

stock: For a Kodak basing stock & process, i calculate usually 6.500 so the prices seem to be pretty much the same.

So it seems that the price difference is due to a) much lower prices for colorcorrection/timing here, b) filmrecording lower prices and different options. Then we had different basics for the calculation; you planned mechanical camera as source, i planned digital camera. Stock seems to be similar on both sides of the pond.