What's new

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

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...
 

John Stockton

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 9, 2000
Messages
391
And to be honest, costs aside, finer grain and sharper images does not serve every project anyway...
I completely agree with you on this Scott, which is why only Epic films should be shot in 65 MM. I never suggested that all films should be. It would be totally useless to shoot a Woody Allen film or any other dialouge driven film in 65 MM. But as I mentioned in my post, films like Braveheart, Dances With Wolves, Lord Of The Rings etc. would greatly benefit from 65 MM photography.

I really hope that Hollywood would realize this.
 

Scott H

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2000
Messages
693
Scott, are the camera rigs for 65mm significantly larger than those for 35mm?
Some Arri info:
765 (65mm) - 70 lbs w/empty 500' mag
535B (35mm) - 30.8 lbs w/400' empty mag
535B (35mm) - 24 lbs w/lightweight empty mag and video tap
435 (35mm) - 14.3 lbs w/no mag
ArriCam Lite (35mm) - 11.6 lbs w/viewfinder and no mag
SR3 (16mm) - 15.4 lbs w/loaded 400' mag and on-board battery
Aaton A-Minima (S16mm only) - 5lbs w/loaded mag :)
 

Scott McGillivray

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 20, 1999
Messages
932
This is really an interesting discussion. I had many of the same questions about 65mm vs other formats. I just finished acting in a movie that was shot with a digital camera. Those things are so rediculously small that it just felt like we were in a rehersal, rather than actually filming. The camera was just plain less obtrusive than acting with the standard large 35mm camera. Don't get me wrong, I still think that film rules (for now), but digital is sure a different film making experience!
 

Scott H

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2000
Messages
693
I just realized some gross errors in earlier info that I posted. I have corrected them, and I apologize. Like I said, I haven't worked with 65mm. :b
 

Scott H

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2000
Messages
693
Heck, if you want the ultimate, The showscan process used 65 MM photography and projection at 60 Frames per second.
Another comment on the frame rate issue, aside from photographic effect...

So at 60 fps Showscan uses 2.5x more raw stock than conventional 65mm photography:

1000' 65mm - 8 min 53 sec / 112.5 ft. per min
1000' Showscan - 3 min 33 sec / 281.25 ft. per min

That's a far more dramatic increase in cost than 65 vs 35.
 

Esten

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 15, 2000
Messages
589
Are there any side-affects from reducing 65mm to 35mm,for theatrical presentation,image-wise?
Also,do they have anamorphic lenses for 65mm?
Just wondering,thanks.:)
 

John Stockton

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 9, 2000
Messages
391
I would not recommend shooting any feature film in the Showscan process either. It would be very impractical. But for special venue films it is perfectly alright. The only reason I brought it up was because MattGuyOR mentioned the Maxivision process and I just wanted to let him know that there is(was) a 65 MM high frame rate process, as well.
Hollywood seems to be more concerned about paying outrageous salaries to the stars than on the look of the film itself. When it comes to the stars they will pay any price they ask, but when it comes to Camera equipment and film stock they start budgeting and cutting corners. That is why going to the movies is not magical anymore. There was a time when you went to the movies, it was an event. You went there because you would experince something that could never be duplicated in any home. Not in a million years. You would see films like Ben Hur on Lawrence of Arabia with a picture quality that would blow the doors off anything you could ever see in your home.
With this attitude that Hollywood has taken up I see moviegoing getting less grand and less special as years go by until the time may come, when people will prefer to stay home an see a film in their home theater rather than a real theater.
Again I repeat, Not all films should be filmed in 65 MM but the Epic ones certainly should be.
 

John Stockton

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 9, 2000
Messages
391
Are there any side-affects from reducing 65mm to 35mm,for theatrical presentation,image-wise?
If you reduce a film which was shot in 65 MM to 35 MM, the result is a picture with less resolution and more grain than the original 65 MM film. But still better than 35 MM film shot with 35 MM Cameras and lenses.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,815
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top