|
Author
|
Topic: 35mm! Is it cheaper than 16 and 8mm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winbert Hutahaean
Film God
Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted September 11, 2009 06:03 PM
But Hamid, I don't think you can easy to get access on 35mm films, since selling-buying 8mm films is not really "open" if you know what I mean.
Secondly, beware with the size. One feature of 35 mm will take almost similar to 3 title of 8mm films. There will be a huge amount of reels taking place.
Thirdly, the number of brightness achieved by a 35mm projector is more than enough we can enjoy. The 35 mm is designed for outdoor with an appropriate distance between machine and screen. What is the point to have 1000w light in a small room?
I think it is better to stick with 16mm and 8mm which are designed for home use.
quote:
Im trying to educate my self, 35mm used in theater mostly and should be best picture (below 70mm), and yet it’s cheaper than super 8?
REMEMBER: don't ever think that the cost TO MAKE 35 mm is cheaper than 8mm, no... it is more expensive.
The 35 mm films are cheaper in second market because they are made for theater (commercial) purposes. So people already make a money out of it. Be Understood that most 35 mm films are actually not for sale and if you got it, they are already (mostly) scratch or splices.
While 16mm and especially 8mm are made for private purposes. It is illegal to show this to public. Therefore, people have it for their own use and when they re-sale it, they have to re-cover at least part of it.
--------------------
Winbert
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Todd
Film God
Posts: 3846
From: UK
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted September 11, 2009 06:27 PM
A 16mm feature is 4 times as much film as in super 8, A 35mm feature is then more than 4 times as much as 16mm so you can work out how amy times as much.
Cost is related to handiness Hamid.
Super 8 is easy to handle, easy to store and far cheaper to post etc and sort of fun.
16mm takes another step up, not as easy to use, more storage needed and a good deal more post cost.
Also larger usually louder projectors than 8mm.
With 16mm its even more imortant than 8mm then to factor in the cost of two ways post if a not so good film has to be returned and you need to then pay it back to the seller as well.
Often sellers , even if having msidescribed thier films expect the buyer to cover both ways, its wrong but its far too often the case.
35mm everything steps up again. Far more awkward to handle, especially as getting reels is a problem so its put on and off cores for each viewing usually, time consuuming etc. Also its quite heavy.
Storage becomes very awkward and takes up an aweful lot of space.
Projector noise can be far louder unless you get a fairly quiet machine, not so easy.
Also the post cost is very very high. And two ways if sold rubbish !!!
Also unless 35mm films were re-relased after the introduction of low fade stock many before 1982 are on fading stock, wheras in super 8 there is an abundance of great films put out on low fade stock, also in 16mm the same and more older films were reprinted etc for libraries and also many for TV studios on low fade stock.
You can get many rather good films still printed new on 16mm if you find the contacts.
I would guess Hamid from what you have been talking about your best choice would be the middle ground "16mm" for quality, availability and overall practicallity including very relibale quality and easily moveable machines.
You probaly know all of this Hamid, and I would think very hard before going 35mm.
What you can`t get on 16mm you could try Video projection. The not so high end video projection can look very filmic, even some HD.
Best Wishes Mark.
PS just realised while I was writing Winberts post saying similar things had gone on.Best Mark.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damien Taylor
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 111
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted September 12, 2009 11:46 AM
Films can be cheaper for non-blockbusters and otherwise flawed prints, however anything that is rare, popular, historically important or contains a star follows the same supply/demand principle as small gauge.
They are generally cheaper because the number of people who can play them is smaller. The prints are cheaper, but shipping is a nightmare, especially for myself, often exceeding the cost of the print itself.
The machines are generally more expensive, take a little more self education to use and are generally huge, power guzzling monsters that will instantly impair the otherwise normal use of your garage/rec room/spare room/shed.
On the up side, you own arguably the closest publicly obtainable film elements to the original. You also see the movie in its original theatrical form. But yes, if stored on 2000 foot reels or in cans, they will take up a lot of room.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hamid Moqadam
Film Handler
Posts: 33
From: Kuwait
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted September 12, 2009 07:17 PM
Claus, few people who interested in these formats mostly generation from 70s (including me). We use to have 16 and 8 mm almost in every house, very good lab processing in every place too, but as you know since Betamex these start to decline slowly. Quite frankly, particularly this period cinema did make strong audience more than now ![[Smile]](smile.gif) . Cinemas used to be very crowded to a point you can’t find a seat until four weeks past! Star Wars is one example I can remember .
To give you picture about modern films did well I remember: Jurassic park, Pearl Harbor, Lord of the ring, Troy, Star Wars prequels (just ok not like 70s). Recent films like: Spiderman, Dark Knight, Crystal Skull, Star Trek begin, didn’t make good audience. While we achieved advanced technology (DTS & 7.1), we win less audience ![[Confused]](confused.gif) .
There are many enthusiasts who demand a good home entertainment, but modern digital and CGI distracts them. Also, there is lost art. I can describe more details if you like. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Damien, Fabrizio, Osi thank you very much.
More and more im surprised and tempt by cheap price ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) , but indeed size and placement probably takes major importance. My old (ancient) understanding a feature film like Star Wars should cost something like $100,000, and because that were the producers make money! But if its something less than $1000 or cheap, then how they earn $$$?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Winbert Hutahaean
Film God
Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted September 13, 2009 07:29 AM
quote:
a feature film like Star Wars should cost something like $100,000, and because that were the producers make money! But if its something less than $1000 or cheap, then how they earn $$$?
Hamid,
The cost to make a copy of full feature copy is ranging between $1000 to $2000 (depends on which lab you are using and the stock used). Remember this is the cost TO MAKE a copy (so copyrights issue is not counted yet).
With the question above, I don't know if you understand about the rule of games in making a copy o film.
Be understood that to make a copy of film you have to pay a copyright no matter how cheap is your copy. For example, the cost to press a vinyl is less than 50 cents, but company cannot sell it for $1. Because the company has to pay copyright to the musician. So, it will be sold for $25-35 after counting all aspects (copyrights, shipping, packing, margin, GST).
So, since at the previous post you were thinking that 35 mm was cheaper than 16mm or 8mm, let I make a point that the cost to make the copy of 35mm is (roughly) 4.5 times more expensive than 8mm or 2.5 times of 16mm.
It is simply be looked that the material to make a copy no matter 8mm, 16mm or 35 as well as 70mm is just the same. So, to make 8mm you just slit 16mm stock. So the logical thing will say that 16mm film price will have (roughly) double cost than 8mm. And etc.
cheers
--------------------
Winbert
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Damien Taylor
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 111
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted September 13, 2009 02:24 PM
I will try and make this easy to understand, as the following is not a policy that applies to 8mm and 16mm film. Generally speaking, you, I and the general public at large were and are not meant to own 35mm prints.
The system (usually) works as such...
The film distributor prints X amount of copies at around $2K a piece.
The distributor then rents the prints to theaters for an agreed duration, the theater pays ticket percentages to the studios. At no point is ownership of the print transfered away from the film studio.
After the print has finished the engagement at said theater the print is returned promptly.
All copies (except for a handful which are shelved for archive/repertory use) are destroyed. Usually this means bandsawing, burning or just plain dumpstering.
As long as the prints are 'destroyed' on paper, sometimes thats all the studios need, and thats where the prints go AWOL. Liberated by depot employees, taken for friends, nabbed from the dumpster. In some more forgiving depots, even auctioned to willing collectors.
There are many other ways that prints begin collector circulation. Sometimes actors/directors are given prints on indefinite loan by the studios, then pass away. Sometimes prints that travel very far from the depot are not economically sensible to ship back so are ordered 'dumped'. Distributors fold with warehouses full of abandoned prints, the list goes on.
A bit long winded, but I have a point. Everything I have listed above places theatrical prints in the grey market. The studios never intended for them to see light outside theatrical use. The studios used to get very touchy about 35mm collecting due to threat of copying and such, often bringing in the FBI, see the case of Roddy McDowell! Nowadays its a bit different, but not much. I don't think the studios are thrilled about the idea of film collectors out there, but I suppose they have bigger concerns.
My point! 35mm film prints, being at best semi-legal in nature are governed by simple collector to collector supply/demand economics. A print is only worth what another collector will pay for it. To someone not interested in the print, it might just be unnecessary junk they just want to get rid of. The only way to accurately answer the question, "What is a print of * worth" is, Somewhere between the minimum the seller wants, and the maximum someone will pay for it.
Apologies for the wall of text.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hamid Moqadam
Film Handler
Posts: 33
From: Kuwait
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted September 14, 2009 07:01 PM
Winbert,
No offense indeed, but Im afraid I don’t understand. Your statement is not clear.
Damien,
From what I understand since you mention the case of Roddy McDowell, I think you pointing to Copyrights and Ownership. So now we are talking something else.
Damien, most of what you said I have some background of it; and I really thank you for refreshing it back to me . But let me state it clearly just to clear the confusion:
If someone buying feature theatrical films print whether on Super 8 or 16mm from Ebay or other places like: Derann, private or business seller, and he intend to watch it in his home *ONLY*. In this case he is not violating the law as long he didn’t use it for public or make profit from it.
I mean is there a copyright cost or studio permission, or special procedures should the buyer be aware beside the cost of the film itself?
Can anybody lighten up this please.
[ September 15, 2009, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Hamid Moqadam ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
only 35mm are in progress.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
