What are the costs of filming in 70mm in comparison to 35mm? (1 Viewer)

[AaronNWilson]

What are the costs of filming in 70mm in comparison to 35mm?

 

[Patrick McCart]

2.25 times greater, plus expenses. The film is 2 times wider, but is .25 of an inch taller per frame.

Few labs can do 70mm anymore, so a capable lab has to be found.

 

[Colin Dunn]

I wonder what proportion of a movie production budget is spent on film stock and processing. It is bound to be a substantial amount of money, especially that most film productions shoot about 10 times as much footage as ends up in the final cut.

But I would still think that multi-million-dollar actors' salaries, as well as the many other well-paid trades that are required to complete a feature film, would make up the lion's share of the production costs.

I'd think it wouldn't add 225% to the budget of the entire film...

 

[Scott H]

Short answer: astronomical.

There are maybe two rentals each year for Panavision packages... Probably less than one narrative feature shot annually over the last decade with any make camera... And, sadly, Don Earl, who essentially was Panavision's 65mm department, recently suffered a serious stroke and will likely not return to work.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Ken Branagh's Hamlet from a few years ago was shot in 70mm, and I think I read that they kept the budget under $15 million, but the stars were all paid scale, and very little extra film was shot, which seems to explain the large number of continuity errors.

But it was 4 hours long, too.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

According to the imdb, the budget for Branagh's Hamlet was actually $18 million. So I was close.

But like I said, they were very careful to shot as little film as possible.

 

[Chad R]

Just a bit of trivia: you don't shoot 70mm, you shoot 65mm. The extra 5mm comes when the soundtrack is added to the film for exhibition.

 

[Roberto Carlo]

Short answer: astronomical.

Really? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I would have guessed that the vast majority of the cost of making a film goes to salaries, sets, special effects, and the like. I can see how shooting in 70mm versus 35mm would be much more expensive, but I'm having some trouble getting my mind around the possibility that it could make or break a budget.

 

[Scott H]

but I'm having some trouble getting my mind around the possibility that it could make or break a budget.

Of course it can. Enough Turkey Jerky can... Seriously, these are real issues, it all adds up. Btw, you should always take a 'stars' salary out of any production budget considerations, as that is an entirely different beast, and may be why you have whatever budget you have to even make a film...
Cam depts on major films often have to plead their case for a few days rental of a particular lens... Prod companies won't fly all your guys out to save bucks, they will hire a local for less... It's all about money...
On a feature film, besides the cost of stock and processing and prints (and remember that you will use much more stock, just as you use much more 35mm than 16mm for the same run time - see below), Shooting 65mm will almost certainly increase salaries. In fact, it will likely increase crew size. Setups will take longer, thus more days to film, thus more salary cost. There are more mag changes, and more waste.. Again, time and money...
Mag run times:
400' 16mm mag - 11 min 07 sec
400' 35mm mag - 4 min 27 sec
500' 65mm mag - 4 min 27 sec
1000' 16mm - 27 min 46 sec
1000' 35mm - 11 min 6 sec
1000' 65mm - 8 min 53 sec
Major corrections 07/09. Apologies.
Anyway, there are many reasons why 65 isn't used much. I can't fathom a situation where I would be interested in it... But Roberto, budget is probably the number one reason you would hear from any filmmaker/producer.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Scott, are the camera rigs for 65mm significantly larger than those for 35mm? Are there other aspects of the equipment that would affect the filmmaking process? My impression from what little I've read on the subject is that shooting 65mm requires that shots be set up differently, crews reorganized, lighting adjusted, etc. -- all of which costs more.

Also, does shooting 65mm limit (or possibly eliminate) the use of such common techniques as Steadicam or handheld?

M.

 

[John Stockton]

are the camera rigs for 65mm significantly larger than those for 35mm?

Not to speak for Scott, but the new and updated 65 MM cameras and lenses that were used for "Far And Away" and "Hamlet" are not that much larger than 35 MM units. Century Plaza in Los Angeles had one of those cameras on display in their lobby, when they were showing "Far And Away" in 70 MM. And yes, shooting in 65 MM does require an added expense on lighting etc. but in my opinion it is worth every penny spend.
Nowadays Studios would rather pay astronomical salaries to stars (25 Million plus )than to spend a little extra to shoot the film in 65 MM. Any of you who saw either "Far And Away" or Hamlet in 70 MM must have noticed how breathtaking the picture looked on the big screen. And those who marvel how DLP looks have not experienced true 70 MM before. The following films would have specially looked great, had they been shot in 65 MM.
Braveheart
Titanic
Dances With Wolves
Lord Of The Rings

 

[MattGuyOR]

Why don't they just adopt the Maxivision process? I've heard it looks waaaaaay better than current film and digital projections. It uses 48 frames per second, instead of 24. Plus it's a lot cheaper than upgrading to digital, anyway. I just don't want to lose film, digital is way too new.

 

[John Stockton]

Heck, if you want the ultimate, The showscan process used 65 MM photography and projection at 60 Frames per second.

 

[Scott H]

Michael,
Disclaimer: I have never worked on a 65 project...
The cameras are larger and heavier than modern/new 35mm bodies, and many of the lenses are too. Plus the additional weight of the larger film. Handheld work would certainly not be impossible, more improbable or impractical. I believe the Master Series and some modified Steadicams can take 65mm and IMAX rigs, if you can get them down to 45 pounds... But extended use would be compromised by weight/bulk (SC operators are tough dudes and dudettes) and run time (I'd assume 500' loads).
Crewing would be pretty much the same, regarding the cam dept. Maybe an additional tech around (I think Don Earl was on set for many Panavision shoots).
But setups would definitely take a bit longer (both camera and support - larger/heavier dollies, cranes, etc.), there would be more reloads, there may be additional maintainence while shooting (depending on model), and the like...
There are also other practical considerations like availabilty of multiple cameras and back-up bodies and such... There is a lot of money being spent every minute on large productions, and a camera going down can be a disaster...
The main cost though is the format itself - the amount of raw stock, the cost of that raw stock, the processing, post, the prints...
Filmmaking is all about problem solving... If the cam is 65mm, the camera and grip crews will get the shot... But yes, regarding these topics this format would introduce more problems to the problems

 

[Scott H]

Heck, if you want the ultimate, The showscan process used 65 MM photography and projection at 60 Frames per second.

Personally, the thought of higher frame rates for narrative/dramatic filmmaking turns my stomach... Part of what 'film' means to us regarding movies, what defines it's look and effect, and even separates it from video, is the frame rate... Is that 1/50th of a second where your subconscious fills in information... Movies, in general, are about entertainment and imagination and escape, the suspension of disbelief... Typically, I don't want to reproduce what you see natively with your eyes, crystal clear images with no flicker... While my position is rarely if ever that the medium is the message, the medium is a key tool...

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Handheld work would certainly not be impossible, more improbable or impractical.

Kubrick managed it (himself) on 2001

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Yeah, Rob, but those scenes were shot silent, so he was able to use a very small camera with no sound "blimp" on it. Besides, Kubrick could do *anything*...

 

[Michael Reuben]

And he never did it again!

M.

 

[Bill Buklis]

The main problem regarding cost is that very few films are shot in 65mm. If 35mm was replaced with 65mm in the mass marketplace, the cost would come down and perhaps even match that of 35mm.

Any technical issues regarding size of the camera body can easily be overcome once everyone wants to do it. They are always coming up with new ways to use 35mm. The same can be done with 65mm.

 

[Scott H]

I just can't foresee any movement toward more 65 production for narrative/dramatic filmmaking... Current 35mm cameras are technologically remarkable (yes, state-of-the-art), light(ish), quiet, etc. Film stocks have advanced dramatically in the last decade, with new motion picture stocks coming each year. Many feel lenses have gotten too sharp... And the cost...
Of course, for many applications, especially HD broadcast, I would prefer S16... That is based on living and breathing filmmaking and MP cameras and budgets, practical experience, not "they really ought to.."
Just checked out Arri's modern 65mm camera, the Arriflex 765... The body and empty 500' mag are 70 pounds! That's no lens and no mandatory accessories like matte box (and filtration), follow focus, or if going handheld, shoulder pad and handles...
Btw, blimping cameras and lenses rarely occurs with modern equipment.
Regards.