Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

2K Scan Going Rate?

Manfred Lopez

Manfred Lopez

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
992
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Mexico
Website
www.registrodeactores.com
Does anyone know what the current going rate is for a 2K scan of a film neg(Images delivered as data on hard drives)? I'm trying to analyze the costs of the DI followed on "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)



http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/tools/otherways/4490.html
 
Thanks, on monday I will start calling around. But I was wondering if anyone knew off hand what the going rate is. I am trying to analyze the real cost difference between shooting 35 film and shooting Red. The 'problem' with Red is archiving the digital footage... but that's another topic. Right now I just need the going rate for a 2K film scan... Can anyone help?
 
anywhere from 4K to 60K ...

friend just had a 35mm IP (feature) 2k scanned at Pixel Harvest in LA area - under $5k ...

i've used them for 16mm 2k scans on 2 shorts - good price ..

http://www.pixelharvest.com/
 
donatello said:
anywhere from 4K to 60K ...

friend just had a 35mm IP (feature) 2k scanned at Pixel Harvest in LA area - under $5k ...

i've used them for 16mm 2k scans on 2 shorts - good price ..

http://www.pixelharvest.com/
Click to expand...

What!!! only 5,000 dollars for a feature :w00t: Five cents a frame?!? Just a few years it used to be like 2 dollars a frame. Thanks Donatello. This is exactly what I was looking for. With these prices shooting on film and doing a DIY DI on a mac is becoming very attractive. By the way, where you happy with the quality of the scans?
 
im.thatoneguy said:
It's usually about $500 an hour (of lab time not footage). The faster their scanner, the better in such situations.
Click to expand...

Is this right? Is this for pin-registered scanning, like with an Arri Scan? Let me see if I've got this right:


92 min feature = 3,312 feet of film (s16mm) = 132,480 frames @ 4 frames per second (average scan time, ArriScan w Speed Pack) = 33,120 seconds of machine operation = 552 min = 9.2 hours x $500 per hour = $4,600 x 3 because as an average it takes them 3 times the running length of the footage to set it up and run it = $13,800...


Is this correct?
 
By the way, as an exercise in futility I am trying to figure out if I can pay for negative, developing, scanning, etc. of a 92 min feature for the same price as purchasing a Red camera & accesories... and end up in the same place (2k images inside my mac). I already own a film camera and cine lenses.
 
i'm happy with the 2 16mm shorts i had 2k scanned ...

i haven't seen my friends feature he had scanned - i did see the TEST scans ( 30 sec ) that Pixel did off the IP and it looked good .. the feature was shot 10 years ago on 16mm & was blown up to 35mm - so this was a 2k scan off the 92min 35mm IP ..
in May i'll be going in to supervise a little CC on it for digital projection files.
i think it will be playing on Saturdays midnight show at the Sunset 5 (LA) theater this summer

the more feet you have scanned = the lower per frame

Pixel Harvest did the scan for Dust to Glory few years ago .. the post workflow was in one of the monthly mags ? that was scanned then Pixel outputted to cineform files and it was editied in premiere with prospect 2k ...
if i remember correctly Pixel scans at 3k then they out put to whatever files you want at 2k

call/email Pixel - tell them a little about your project and see what rate you can work out with them ...
 
Wow I notice that pixelharvest's site says: "Filmout service offered very soon"...

I wonder what kinds of rates they will offer for Cineform 2K out to 35mm??

This might be a cheap solution for my 2K short I plan to shoot this summer, so I can submit it as 35mm to fests.
 
TheThe said:
By the way, as an exercise in futility I am trying to figure out if I can pay for negative, developing, scanning, etc. of a 92 min feature for the same price as purchasing a Red camera & accesories... and end up in the same place (2k images inside my mac). I already own a film camera and cine lenses.
Click to expand...

You also have to consider audio. You could always sync the audio yourself with the MAC. Shooting on film means a dedicated audio cart. You might come close to the cost of a RED. But if you paid for the RED you are ready for the next film without the expense.
 
I would advise to watch out-- depending on the film recorders, film scanners and personnel working on any stage of DI. 2K+ scans are often done on Spirit systems and not on pin-registered systems, as they take far less time by running anywhere from 3-8 fps. For a film-out, I would advise to stick with a place that uses Arri, just to be conservative-- otherwise, you may find a place offering film recording on another system at a faster and hence cheaper rate but the film-out's negative when processed and printed can look noticeably different. I mention Arri because that is a useable norm in the industry but at the same time am not demoting anything else-- you may get the same (or even superior) quality from a place that uses a different recorder, but it's just to be on the safe side.

Although Pin-registered scans are theoretically superior in image quality to non-pin-registered, more and more features these days are being run through Spirits as it is faster, and often DI quotes are not specific enough to describe what is involved-- some steps are often left out of the quote, and I myself would certainly be weary of the legitimacy and outcome of a ~$5K DI.
 
The devil is in the details.

Pin registered 2K scanning (with a true 2K + sensor) for a feature is approx. $20K - some places much higher -

Be careful that you are in fact scanning with 2K+ sensor - there are older versions of the Spirit with a 2K upgrade board - and it is in fact an HD image UPRESSED to 2K - so, again, the devil is in the details -

There are some smaller companies who are very competitve - In LA I would recommend TUNNEL POST -
 
donatello said:
Pixel Harvest did the scan for Dust to Glory few years ago .. the post workflow was in one of the monthly mags ? that was scanned then Pixel outputted to cineform files and it was editied in premiere with prospect 2k ...
if i remember correctly Pixel scans at 3k then they out put to whatever files you want at 2k
Click to expand...

Pixel Harvest is an excellent solution, very inexpensive without compromising on quality. Pixel Harvest does scan to CineForm AVI (soon MOVs) and they did this on Lbs ("pounds") and not Dust to Glory, which was scanned at LaserPacific, again compressed into CineForm. It will cost more to do it at Laser. Both the Dust to Glory and Lbs workflows were written up in Post magazine.

David
blog : http://cineform.blogspot.com
 
goldyprog said:
I would advise to watch out-- depending on the film recorders, film scanners and personnel working on any stage of DI. 2K+ scans are often done on Spirit systems and not on pin-registered systems, as they take far less time by running anywhere from 3-8 fps. For a film-out, I would advise to stick with a place that uses Arri, just to be conservative-- otherwise, you may find a place offering film recording on another system at a faster and hence cheaper rate but the film-out's negative when processed and printed can look noticeably different. I mention Arri because that is a useable norm in the industry but at the same time am not demoting anything else-- you may get the same (or even superior) quality from a place that uses a different recorder, but it's just to be on the safe side.

Although Pin-registered scans are theoretically superior in image quality to non-pin-registered, more and more features these days are being run through Spirits as it is faster, and often DI quotes are not specific enough to describe what is involved-- some steps are often left out of the quote, and I myself would certainly be weary of the legitimacy and outcome of a ~$5K DI.
Click to expand...

Nowadays you can stabilize non-pin registered footage as needed. Assuming every shot in the film is going to go through some sort of digital tweeking, you can just add a stablization pass.
 
I agree with Goldyprog. Skimping at the scanning stage is a false economy. But the advantages of Red surely go beyond just a play-off between scanning and the cost of a Red setup. I don't need to list them here but to mention a few.. Imediate access to the shot material, on set inspection in hi-def. Lack of film grain (it can be added later) 4k Raw, (4k scanning costs?) etc. Also, archiving the DI material is as much an issue as archiving Red not to mention storing negatives in controlled environments. Just get Red....
 
TheThe said:
Yes, I plan on getting one eventually; but we start shooting in the first week of october, maybe even september, and I know that Red won't be ready for delivery by then (for those who don't have a reservation yet).
Click to expand...

The big question is: Do you have distribution? Dropping any money - especially your own is always a risk. That is what is so attractive
about the RED. You can produce spec projects without
taking a 2nd mortgage on your house.
 
TheThe, I'd say that, modified with the advice here, your film workflow sounds very good. I love Red, but seriously, if your script is good and your DP is more comfortable with film, why not just go the cheap 35mm + DI route?

Of course if you intend on doing TV / commercials / music videos / internet stuff as well, then Red makes total sense. Also, if you like the immediacy of digital, Red is great for that too.

I'm interested in Red because I do a ton of visual effects and also do music videos, which require a stupidly short turnaround. A day or two saved by not having to go through the film developing / scanning process would be huge, plus we often don't have time / budget to go back and re-scan things - we just get a reasonable-looking first light onto DigiBeta and roll straight to CC from that. Also, our clients often want changes done at the last minute, so it would be great having everything we shot at full online quality.

Getting back to features, RedGuy, I totally agree - distribution is key. Ditto on it being a big risk to drop your own money on a film project. It's also not a good sign if you haven't been able to convince investors because then either you are an undiscovered / misunderstood genius (very possible) or else (more scarily) you just don't have a compelling script and vision for the movie and the investors can sense this.

The scary part with 21st century filmmaking is that people trying to break into the industry used to have a chance to make one or maybe two films on their own, max. After that, they were broke. The good filmmakers were sometimes discovered and the ones who weren't good or weren't lucky went and found other careers.

Now you're going to have people saying "I bought this camera, I don't care if I suck, I spent a ton of money on this and I'm just going to keep on making features - it doesn't cost me anything now." So now you're competing for a slot in festivals and low-end distribution channels with a crowded horde of Used-To-Be-Rich Talent-Less Boys' 10th and 11th films. Locations get more expensive for first-time filmmakers to get access to locations because some idiot stomping around making his 27th movie on a Red "for free" went around trashing the place, actors start charging more, etc.

I think this is why LA is in strange ways an unforgiving place for first-time filmmakers - everyone here has been burned by some scummy person using up favors trying to make a film "for free". The climate towards ALL indies becomes more bitter. The same could be said for DV, except with DV, everyone was broke, which made it fun. With Red, everyone is still broke, except for one guy - the dude with the 40k camera package expecting you to work for free. Not cool.

Of course, this is all relative. I work in a trailer company and we see early cuts of many movies. A lot of them really, really suck too! Then the studio pours in money and does re-shoots, vfx, etc. and it comes out the end actually looking decent. With Red, indies can do the same thing.

In summary, if you're only into making good features, I'd say look at film. If you're interested in making music videos, commercials, internet stuff, TV documentaries, shooting stock footage, etc, then go with Red. Also go Red if you plan on shooting many films, all of which have no production value and which use people for free, and especially if your films suck, because then if nobody notices you and gives you funding, you can just start making another really cheaply. But I'm sure you won't do that.

Good luck and give me a shout if you need help with a distribution trailer.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Not to turn people in different directions from Red, but perhaps now (during the waiting period for Red) it may be wise, if you have the opportunity, to take a look at some other digital cinematography cameras-- not only to see what they are like, but also what it is like to shoot digitally and tapeless on a pro 2K+ camera. There are at least 5 that I can think of right now that are currently available to shoot on via hard drives-- of those I believe 4 can shoot 2K or higher. Perhaps, if you have something to shoot before Red comes out, you can shoot on one of these cameras and at the same time "test" or "acclamate" yourself to shooting digitally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top