Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

who can do a price comparison?

V

vstm10

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I saw pricing for the red for 24,000 a month for entire package...

But what is the price comparison on shooting on 35mm?

has anyone done a budget for a feature of 2 months shooting?

renting the entire package and considering the workflow against the traditional film?

ballpark?

is it really that much cheaper?

if you say yes you may have an idea of the cost, no?
 
well, you don't have to pay for film/processing/telecine so you can take off a significant amount right there.
 
Film vs. RED

Film vs. RED

This is just a ballpark, but if you're shooting a 90 minute feature at 4 to 1 (4 takes of every shot), you're going to spend $35,000 to $50,000 just on film stock, processing, and telecine. On an indie feature, with "indie" actors, you may or may not get the shot in 4 takes. Then what? Ultimately, what puts butts in the seats, is story and performance. Your movie will benefit more from the fact that you were able to keep shooting until you got the best performance from the actor, than it will benefit from the fact you shot it on film.

In addition, shooting a Raw file is like having unlimited undeveloped film negatives you can process as many times/ways as you'd like. Film is film. It has a unique look, and unique shooting properties. But if you've only got $250,000 to make your movie, shoot on the Red, and spend the money you saved on sound design, or effects. That, will have a much bigger impact on the audience than any amount of grain.

Kelly H.
http://www.all-in-one-truck.com
 
The comparative budgets we've been making have had an average of $50,000 in savings shooting with Red. Those were just hard costs. There are non-quantifiable benefits that, depending on your project, could also favor Red. If there are any heavy FX in your project, you could save as much as $80,000 or more just in getting the footage into and out of your FX workflow, depending on the quantity of shots, etc.

When looking at the total picture of shooting film vs. Red, it's a no-brainer financially speaking. When it's just dollars and cents, Red is obviously the way to go. Creatively, and from an Ego-management perspective, film still competes.

However, to an audience, there is no measurable difference between film and Red. I've personally never walked out of or disliked a movie because of the grain or the latitude of the negative and I've never met a movie lover that has, either. It's doubtful that the distributor would even be able to detect the difference between a film vs. Red acquisition. I think it's all much ado about nothing.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
However, to an audience, there is no measurable difference between film and Red. I've personally never walked out of or disliked a movie because of the grain or the latitude of the negative and I've never met a movie lover that has, either. It's doubtful that the distributor would even be able to detect the difference between a film vs. Red acquisition. I think it's all much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

Hi,

You could take that further and say the audience does not care if you shoot on Red, Film or DV.

If you need to go to film prints for distribution your savings shooting with a Red will evaporate V Shooting film with a photochemical finish.

I know people who have shot 35mm features for well under $250,000, it's better to choose the medium that best fits the story.

Stephen
 
vstm10 said:
I saw pricing for the red for 24,000 a month for entire package...

But what is the price comparison on shooting on 35mm?
Click to expand...

35 mm film Arri 535 is cheap to rent and shoot.
Cost of film is cheaper than the storage and archiving cost of digital medium.

Rehearse the scenes many times before shooting.
Limit the retakes by careful planning.

You do not need to telecine, FCP, copy back to film etc., except for scenes involving special effects.
Old fashioned cutting and splicing is enough for film and it costs next to nothing.

I know of many many commercially successful movies (2 to 2.5 hrs long) made for total budget of under $250,000.
Movie shot on film has a film look, which cannot be duplicated by digital.
That is why film makers all over the world choose film, for small budget to large budget movies.
 
I`m not an experienced film maker in any way shape or form, and the amounts mentioned above (ie $250,000 etc) are huge sums of money to me. I, fortunately, am unlikely to be filming anything other than natural history footage (although my background is in SFX, so music vids may be an option !), so the costs pretty much end after the camera is bought, except for fuel for my vehicle and other small costs. I can see however that being able to remain in a totally digital environment throughout production could really help get small independant films, with the kind of costs mentioned above, spend their money on what matters, good crew/actor fees and a bit more time (if necessary) to get things right, and ultimately help them get over the finish line in a less financially stressed way.
Efficient planning will still be just as important with digital film making as it is with traditional film (ie, number of takes etc, and traditional `film` directors may have an advantage in terms of experience in being effiecient), but once you have your shots on disk, you can at least finish whatever you`re producing, at full resolution, possibly for next to nothing (if you have the skills to do so?). Now all you have to do is show potential distributors a HD-DVD etc, or acquire extra money to transfer to film if necessary/desired, which should all be easier, if the hard work is done, and a lower risk option to any money lender who can actually see the finished product, and who hopefully likes it).
TV Broadcast material won`t need anything other than an appropriate transcode to a suitable format (ie if not free, virtually free!).
Cost savings are probably less important to big productions, but money saved=greater profits=possibly more films made=possibly greater profits still.
I have a friend who shot a half hour film (he wrote/directed), with a crew of five/six others (not paid), three main actors (paid) and extras (not paid, but happy - I was one), for his (and the other crew members) film graduation piece. They shot on very fast film stock (super 16mm) to create very dark noisy images (looks good, digitizes not so good). The plan is to transfer to 35mm, but because its not cheap they`re taking their time perfecting the edit, and because they`re all working now, creating the master print will take time (although sitting on things is a valid creative option in my opinion, as is using a seperate editing team who aren`t tired out from filming). Avid and Premiere both failed to create correctly working EDLs, repeatedly. I`d advice baking out something thats only half an hour long to avoid this, but thats only possible with totally digital workflows. It already looks good on DVD (although the noisey style will look better projected from film stock). Admittedly you couldn`t shoot such a film on a Red (ie digital noise = crap), but they could certainly use one should they ever shoot a feature length film that isn`t stylized with such noise, as the costs would be at least five times plus, minimum. I believe they spend about 4k (sterling), maybe less, over two weeks, but there will be thousands more spent printing a 35mm master. Red will definately help small budget crews who have access to one, no doubt.
 
vstm10 said:
I saw pricing for the red for 24,000 a month for entire package...

But what is the price comparison on shooting on 35mm?

has anyone done a budget for a feature of 2 months shooting?

renting the entire package and considering the workflow against the traditional film?

ballpark?

is it really that much cheaper?

if you say yes you may have an idea of the cost, no?
Click to expand...

I don't know where you're located but 24k seems a bit much (assuming camera + lenses). There are those that will provide 3 day week and a 3 week month for approx. 800/day. That would make the package around 8000/month.

http://hdpioneers.com/gear.html for instance. You can probably negotiate something less than 24k.

Cheers
 
AIOT said:
This is just a ballpark, but if you're shooting a 90 minute feature at 4 to 1 (4 takes of every shot),
Click to expand...
4 to 1 doesn't mean 4 takes of every shot, it means you shot 4 minutes of footage for evey minute of final running time. 4 to 1 means you get one take of a master, one take of a medium, one take of close-up on actor A, and one take of close-up on actor B, and then you're done. No more shooting that scene.

The only way that a 4:1 ratio would get you 4 takes of every shot would be if you only shot master scenes. If you did 4 takes of every shot that would mean a ratio of at least 16 to 1 if you're going to get any sort of "coverage" at all.

The ratio is used for determining how much film stock you're going to buy; 10,000 feet of film gets you close to 2 hours of running time. So if you're going to shoot at a 5:1 ratio you'd buy 50,000 feet of film and budget for 50,000 feet of processing, etc. But that would be an incredibly tight shooting ratio with absolutely no room for errors or re-takes. A 12:1 ratio is a lot more practical for a low-budget shoot, and at that rate you're going to have to budget for 120,000 feet of film, processing, and transfer.
 
vstm10 said:
is it really that much cheaper?
Click to expand...
Renting for two months? Probably not. That would make sense for a large-budget production, but for a low-budget where you're trying to cut costs, it would make more sense to buy the package, and then sell it when you're done. The difference between what you bought it for, and what you sold it for, would then be your net "rental" cost.
 
vstm10 said:
I saw pricing for the red for 24,000 a month for entire package...

But what is the price comparison on shooting on 35mm?
Click to expand...

Don't forget that with film you can also buy short and medium ends. You can get a "cheap" Rank transfer, cut your film, and if it is picked up, you can re-transfer it. Or have the original conformed off of videotape.

Also, you are going to need to buy or rent or find someone who has the latest and greatest computer to process the Red footage.

There are pro and cons to shooting on both. You might want to hire a distribution consultant to ask them about the marketplace you intend to target. Depending on what kind of film you are making, the foreign markets for that film might prefer for it to be shot on film. In other words, they may frown upon digital, or pay less because they know it is digital.
 
vstm10 said:
are you saying that RED has still a video feel?

the 24,000$ quote I found is here:

http://silverado.cc/shop/product.php?productid=859&cat=0&page=1
Click to expand...

Perhaps 24k is a published rate (rather than negotiated rate) Regardless, you can do better...keep in mind that with RED you're effectively creating a DI. With some cultivated relationships you might get a great deal on conforming and grading. Perhaps we're getting ahead of ourselves? What is the intention of your project? 1080p for TV, Blueray or fullblown theatrical release? At this point I would think you shouldn't compare 35 to Red as much as RED to EX1 or HVX based on how you intend to distribute your content.
 
Thanks everybody for your answers!! I love this site!

Wherther I'll conform the negative or do a filmout, it would be a decision taken after my offline. Meaning I plan to finish only after/if I sell the movie.

But can please someone answer my question about the video look?

I still haven't been able to see something shot in red (on big screen).

I'm not very technical, (although I know filmmaking, I have imdb credits of studio movies up the wazoo), so please forgive my ignorance.

And Barry, you're absolutely right. I would never think of a ratio 4:1.
10:1 will be more likely (and that's still very tight), whether one shoots film of digital.
 
Just for clarification,

Silverado's package incl. High end tripod, ARRI follow focus and matte box, filters, a couple RED lenses, pretty much all the accessories RED makes, 3 batts., etc.

Their book rate is not merely a camera, lcd, cf module and battery.

I'm finding these details to be quite important when comparison shopping for rental rates.

p
 
The video or film look with a camera like the red, viper, f23, genesis,D20 or any other really depends on your colorist, and if they know how to either make anything look like film ,or how to color through a film LUT to get a density that feels filmic.
 
Jeff Brue said:
The video or film look with a camera like the red, viper, f23, genesis,D20 or any other really depends on your colorist, and if they know how to either make anything look like film ,or how to color through a film LUT to get a density that feels filmic.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Generally hi end video cameras look very good until you do a direct comparison with film, then it's clear that film does look different.

Stephen
 
paul engstrom said:
Just for clarification,

Silverado's package incl. High end tripod, ARRI follow focus and matte box, filters, a couple RED lenses, pretty much all the accessories RED makes, 3 batts., etc.

Their book rate is not merely a camera, lcd, cf module and battery.

I'm finding these details to be quite important when comparison shopping for rental rates.

p
Click to expand...

HD Pioneers has the following on there website...

Package: Red One, Basic Production Package + additional mounts, Red LCD, 17" Plasma field monitor, Red 18-50mm zoom, Red 50-85mm zoom, Red 300mm prime, red power pack, sachtler or o'conner tripod, matte box with full ND + pola filters, follow focus with whip, RED Drive 320GB, Red CF Module with 4 8GB CF Cards. MacBook Pro with CF Card Reader and RedAlert Software, more to come...

for what looks like 8,000$/month.

Seems like an even bigger package than the 24k... regardless, I'm not trying to push HD Pioneers over anyone else - just that a 24k package even w/ mb and ff & tripod is perhaps too high and certainly can be negotiated for something nearly half that if not more.

edit - before i get hit over the head, yes i realize 50-85mm must be a typo and that hd pioneers hasn't taken delivery of their red gear. Regardless, as supply increases the 8k/month rate may not be off base.
 
nice comparison Sparkhope--

p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top