miniDV to FILM transfer

I only saw the HD in the previous posts, I didn't realize that also included SD. I am not familiar at all with these types of houses.

Shooting on 35mm would be financially impossible for me at this time, and to round up a small crew and educate them on the ways of shooting 35mm equipment would be time consuming and difficult. The filmstock is expensive, the handling of it is delicate, the lab costs for processing are enormous, the editing would be costly, acquiring the equipment would be difficult where I am at, getting a tripod, stabilizer rig, dolly, tracks, and jib for a 35mm camera would be a difficult chore, not to mention that everyone involved so far is volunteer - they have day jobs so organizing a shoot is tricky business.

Whereas with the digital format, I already have a jib, a dolly, a stabilizer, a few tripods, monitors, cameras, and editing equipment. It's all paid for and relatively quick to setup. It truly makes me feel "indie" by not needing to rely on rental houses, not to mention the financial burden that is alleviated.

I've been emailing an engineer in LA named Bob Durrenberger who does transfers at $245 a minute. So far I like him. I also plan to inquire at all the places you all have so graciously mentioned and get a feel for who I feel most comfortable with.
 
I still don't get it, you've got $35000, shooting on 35mm can't possibly cost that much. Photography school, all suplies included is only costing me $15000... but I guess it's your film and you can do it the way you want :)
 
kyroneus said:
shooting on 35mm can't possibly cost that much
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...

No, he's not kidding, he's just a student, and is unfamiliar with the costs involved in producing a 35mm feature. :?

:-s
 
35mm features are extremely expensive to produce, Tine. It is uncommon for individuals to own their own cameras due to the enormous pricetag they often carry, so renting them is an option. An average camera package runs about $1200 a day.

Now I am unsure of filmstock prices, but they are usually high, especially if you consider how much film is needed to shoot a feature. Rarely are scenes captured in one take, so a lot film is needed. And lab costs must be considered for developing and printing the filmstock.

These are big cameras, so equipment is needed to support them, like tripods, jibs, dollies, and stabilizers. A good Steadicam rig will cost about $50,000, and to hire an experienced operator will cost a good $3000 a day. Of course renting a Steadicam is much more economical in the short run, maybe $700 a day, but learning to use one well is a difficult process.

Dollies are cheaper to rent. There's some for $250 a day.

People who operate 35mm film equipment tend to get paid well due to their expertise in a specialized trade, so if one plans to shoot on 35mm, a crew will be needed such as a focus puller, cinematographer, and sound recordist. And lighting is a must, as I'm sure you must know being a photography student. It all adds up quick.

Any 35mm feature under $500,000 is usually considered "low budget". Working in this medium is an elaborate craft and takes a lot of skill, experience, money, and patience to achieve decent results.
 
Please don't feel stupid. There are major motion picture companies and there are independents. Some filmmakers prefer to stay away from the hollywood scene to maintain creative control over their work. This is a more difficult route because they have to find money and actors on their own, but most will say the experience is much more rewarding. Then there are independents who are only "indie" because they have not been discovered by hollywood yet. They want to make movies and they want big production backing, but they are forced to find other ways because they are unknowns.

I didn't want to say anything, but I thought you were a "she" from your artwork. I've been an artist all my life and I could see the very feminine qualities in the picture of the fairy on your profile. It is very nice by the way. In college I was always fascinated by the artwork of my female peers in the character animation program. They had a way of expressing forms that I could not duplicate if I tried. I think it is inherent in the gender, very nice.
 
Well thenk you, but although I wish I could honestly say I drew that, I didn't. I just saw it somewhere and loved it. I actually can't draw to save my life, but that's one of the reasons I love photography, I guess it's like a visual art alternative for me. Oops sorry, there I go getting off topic again

Anyways the reason I thought it was more common to shoot on 35mm was because I know a film maker who's done it, and plus tripods and dollies are costs included with any film, not just 35mm, and chemicals well I guess they use different chemicals than in photography, maybe they're more expensive. Photography chemicals are costly, but not impossible. oh right, and plus colour chemicals would cost more than B&W
 
Tripods and dollies are used with any film, yes - but a standard photography or video camera tripod cannot be used with a 35mm film camera. It would be like comparing a small car with a tank. Sure they are both vehicles that can drive, but the durability and price differences are extreme. 35mm film equipment is very rugged. WIth the introduction of video, smaller and cheaper equipment was able to be used effectively, hence the attraction to low-budget movie makers.

Look at the stabilizers. A nice Steadicam rig will cost in excess of $40,000 and can support 35mm film cameras. A Magiqcam rig will cost less than $2000, but it can only support small video cameras.

In photography, you may shoot off a 24 frame roll, have it developed and printed, all for a low price. So why would 35mm movie film be any different? Why would it cost so much? First you must remember that a movie camera generally shoots 24 frames of film every second. So take the price of that roll of film you shot and multiply it by 60 to see what it would cost you to shoot one minute of film.

This is just an example of why shooting 35mm is so expensive, not an actual representation of the price. Try to imagine purchasing 5400 rolls of 24 frame photography film and developing them all. That would equal out to 90 minutes of screen time. But that's just a finished project. You'll probably want 10 times that amount of film to account for multiple takes and screw-ups. So let's say 54,000 rolls of film. Even at $2 a roll, that's a lot of money. Now how about developing and printing all that film? You'd be looking at $200,000 at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top