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 :)

Film vs. RED. A real comparison.

It will be nice if someone could post the cost
of buying and processing of this volume of film. I have seen Hobbit in 2D 24fps in LA
and it's simply breathtaking. I can't wait to see it in 3D 48fps.
 
Kemalettin Sert said:
and i always thought people on professional sets they never re-format cards until production finishes
Click to expand...

27 million foot of film can seriously impact the budget on any film. At the old price rate from Kodak of $642 for a 1000 foot of 35mm film-to purchase only- would cost $17,334,000.
Once the original digital footage is downloaded to three or four separate drives it would be safe to reformat.
 
Kemalettin Sert said:
and i always thought people on professional sets they never re-format cards until production finishes
Click to expand...

No, that's how we do it when we're hanging of the sides of mountains or whatever, when we can't afford to bring anything extra with us, just the camera, power and media. It hurts the wallet too... Can't afford the cost of all the media, can't afford the logistics of offloading in the field. Ha! 512GB cards are a godsend. Too bad I only own one of them at the moment...
 
The silly kiwis, they could have saved half the amount of digital stock if they had shot in 24p on one camera and did the 3d conversion in post. The he he he haha. I'm creaking myself up...
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
No, that's how we do it when we're hanging of the sides of mountains or whatever, when we can't afford to bring anything extra with us, just the camera, power and media. It hurts the wallet too... Can't afford the cost of all the media, can't afford the logistics of offloading in the field. Ha! 512GB cards are a godsend. Too bad I only own one of them at the moment...
Click to expand...

Well no Hobbit type shooting for you my friend, one 512 card will probably only cover a single hobbit barfight
 
I can't wait o see the movie. Most anticipated film of the year, After skyfall of course
 
Joe D'Arcy said:
27 million foot of film can seriously impact the budget on any film. At the old price rate from Kodak of $642 for a 1000 foot of 35mm film-to purchase only- would cost $17,334,000.
Once the original digital footage is downloaded to three or four separate drives it would be safe to reformat.
Click to expand...
Now let's add the price of processing and telecine to it.
 
Joe D'Arcy said:
$17.33 million for 27 million foot of filmstock
$2.7 million for neg processing
$2,475 million for 4950 hours of film telecine
+ DI etc
Click to expand...

I would expect a huge discount on that quantity! TBH only a fraction of the budget in any case!
 
Joe D'Arcy said:
$17.33 million for 27 million foot of filmstock
$2.7 million for neg processing
$2,475 million for 4950 hours of film telecine
+ DI etc
Click to expand...

And don't forget about costs for disposing of toxic chemicals, storing negatives and work prints in air conditioned clean rooms, etc.
 
shashbugu said:
Well no Hobbit type shooting for you my friend, one 512 card will probably only cover a single hobbit barfight
Click to expand...

Yes and my typical production budgets would only cover the first round of drinks.
 
Ahh shucks I would of hit 999 before him had the gig not updated the firmware constantly and they didn't make me name the mags! 113 days on 1 scarlet with 1 mag! we captured hd sdi out but would roll on the mag as a backup on all the shots in case the external recorder crashed... it was a great system because the external recorder crashed constantly, unlike the mag
 
I would go ahead and budget the same time as telecine for grading, so that I can have it done well.
 
Joe D'Arcy said:
$17.33 million for 27 million foot of filmstock; $2.7 million for neg processing; $2,475 million for 4950 hours of film telecine + DI etc
Click to expand...
I think your prices are way off. Speaking as a longtime (former) employee of Technicolor in LA, I think the real-world numbers are a lot lower, especially nowadays. Figure $1000 per 1000-foot roll with processing, and dailies are negotiable. In Jackson's case, he owns the post facility, so it's fair to say he got a pretty good deal on dailies.

I also don't attribute quality films by footage. As I think I said in a previous message, Charlie's Angels shot 2 million feet of film, and I don't think the vast amount of footage made the movie any better. (And in fact, the movie didn't do very well, critically or financially.)

I think for really big films -- and I would clearly put The Hobbit in that case -- film stock is barely 1% of the budget. Literally, the catering bill could be just as high or higher, assuming a huge cast and crew.

shashbugu said:
The silly kiwis, they could have saved half the amount of digital stock if they had shot in 24p on one camera and did the 3d conversion in post. The he he he haha. I'm creaking myself up...
Click to expand...
Funny, converting to 3D didn't seem to hurt The Avengers or Alice in Wonderland -- both extremely successful films that made over a billion dollars each.

I personally think good 3D can be done after the fact, but it depends more on schedule than budget. They have to design the film at the start for 3D, do the 3D conversion concurrently with production, and take great care with editing and post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top