Scott H
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2000
- Messages
- 693
If 35mm was replaced with 65mm in the mass marketplace, the cost would come down and perhaps even match that of 35mm.I don't understand this. You get the best deals in Hollywood on gear that isn't in demand. I could prob get a comped 65 cam tomorrow... Again, it's mainly the cost of the raw stock, the processing, post, the prints, the ancillary equipment, and the additional time...
I don't get the feeling that anyone here is considering the cost to house and feed a crew on location, they are just thinking that 65 must be better than 35.
And yes, a hotel room is very much camera related.
And to be honest, costs aside, finer grain and sharper images does not serve every project anyway...
There is more 35mm production than 16mm, so with the above logic 35mm stock and services should now cost about what 16 does. But it doesn't, it costs much more. A 400' roll of 16 costs about $150 (11 mins), a 400' roll of 35 $260 (4 mins 25 secs). 35mm camera rentals are much more than 16, but numbers are tricky because every job is a unique deal, three day weeks, favors, etc...