Wes Anderson behind an Aaton 16mm Motion Picture Camera on the set of “Moonrise Kingdom”
Myth
As a college professor teaching filmmaking students in the “digital age,” I often encounter many misconceptions as to the true cost of shooting and finishing a film on celluloid. Students mistakenly believe that if it was not for the “digital revolution” and the “democratization” of the moving image that they would never have had the means or capability of producing a film due to the “high” price tag of film stock and lab costs. Guests visit our campus and say the same thing “we could not have done this if it wasn’t for digital.” When the guest artist is then asked about how much their project costs, they say “$60,000.” Wow! I have priced out feature 35mm films for under $20,000. What about the many young filmmakers who made films on film for over 120 years? They shot many films on celluloid and made masterpieces…on low budgets! As moving image artists, we should feel free to use the medium of our choice and know the truth about the tools we use. The unfortunate thing is that students and new producers and directors are sincerely unaware of the actual cost of shooting on film. The intention of this article is not to disregard the creative attributes of digital technology, but to make the reader mindful of the price tag that comes with working with digital video as well as film.
Cost
Indeed film does cost money, and this is nothing new. Motion picture film has always had an expense, but that expense is very manageable over time. Also, that expense encourages expertise and also helps to elevate the quality of the project. If you spend $300 on a five minute short that screens in twenty festivals, is not the investment of shooting on film worth it? If you put quality in, you get quality out. If you respect your work to invest in it with both time and money – it certainly shows on screen. Film has a unique way of encouraging everyone from the director to cinematographer to actors to perform her/his very best. Movie-makers who work with film, commonly refer to this attribute as the “film discipline.”
Cinelicous Quote: Thursday, February 16th, 2012
Film Takes Top Dramatic Awards at SUNDANCE. Think Indies can’t afford to shoot film… Can they afford not to?
“Here’s a surprising fact that independent producers may want to consider before they write off film as “too expensive”: There were 120 films in competition at Sundance this year. Based on our research and conversations with Kodak and Fuji only 5% were shot on film… and yet that small minority took 100% of the most coveted Jury and Grand Jury prizes in the US and World Dramatic competitions, as well as winning the Excellence in Cinematography Award in the US Dramatic category. It’s true that producers of sub-$1M independent film need to watch the bottom line… but isn’t the ultimate goal to win awards and thereby sell the movie?”
Ratios
It may sound ludicrous to electronic ears, but shooting film can actually be cheaper in a lot of situations. If one shoots at a shooting ratio under 5:1, film will come in below the cost of purchasing or renting electronic equivalent cameras. My career has focused on shooting on Super 8mm, 16mm, and 35mm on modest budgets. To some, these modest budgets of $300 are too often misinterpreted as a lot of expenditure for a short film because digital costs nothing, right? Wrong.
The Secret is Out
What’s actually happening is that students and newcomers are sold inaccurate statements about film by the electronic companies and by people who have never worked with motion picture film. They say that film is “costly, cumbersome, and risky.” The majority of these comments come from RED, SONY, CANON, and PANASONIC. These companies want you to BUY cameras. Of course they are going to downplay the importance of shooting on film and give film a bad press.
These major digital camera makers prey on the vulnerable newcomer to attract them to their product. Once hooked, these companies know you are likely to be addicted….for life. Or at least this is what they hope. Unlike film cameras that last forever, digital cameras depend on resolution and software upgrades.
This addiction to upgrades focuses on the false promises that your project will be better because it was shot on the newest RED camera (like the RED Epic or RED Scarlet). Much like any addiction, the substance abuser does not see the expense in their actions. They go for the fix every two years or even sooner! Like the iPhone, each new upgrade promises more. If you do not upgrade in six months, you become an outdated fossil – left behind.
Truth
Okay, we film users are addicted to celluloid, but with film, the addiction to camera upgrades does not exist. Let’s take a look at some well made clockwork 16mm cameras as a case study. A Bell and Howell Filmo 70DR, Kodak K100, or a Krasnogorsk 3 camera with three prime lenses or a zoom will only set you back $500. Most of the 16mm camera models out there were made from 1950-1990 and are still going strong. They may need a $200 clean, lube, and adjustment every 15-30yrs depending on use. Why are Arri, Aaton, and Panavision not making any new motion picture film cameras? The answer is: there are so many excellent used film cameras out there……one cannot make a profit since film cameras can last forever. Pick up a used Kodak K100 and run some film through it and you’ll see what I mean.
Resolution
These $500 film cameras give one the resolution equivalent of a 3K sensor with no color compression. A 3K digital camera like the RED Scarlet will cost you $10,000. Ten grand is quite a chunk of change and many short films can be shot on 16mm and 35mm for less than this price. Super 8mm is equivalent of HD video (properly, lit, exposed and shot with a professional grade camera of course), Regular 16mm is 2K, Super 16mm is 3K digital equivalent, and 35mm is 8K digital equivalent.
Planned Obsolesce
In fact, one can make ten 15 minute short films with a 3:1 shooting ratio for the price of the RED Scarlet. If you make a short film once a year, it will take you ten years to add up to the investment of the RED Scarlet. RED, CANON, and SONY marketing departments should give themselves a pat on the back for getting folks to buy into purchasing these cameras. Newness sells. If you are the business of selling cameras, digital has opened up a whole new market since digital video cameras have built -in/planned obsolescence. You can market a whole new line every two years and turn a big profit from young and old users.
Film School Investment
It’s crazy that even the largest film schools have bought into buying $6,000-$70,000 cameras. I have heard Universities dropping as much as $300,000 on buying Sony Professional HD video cameras. Many programs have been operating with the rugged ARRI 16S cameras since the early seventies. Talk about an excellent investment. How many purchases has the average American made that last 42 years- lifetime? Keep thinking………perhaps your toilet? These Sony cameras are mostly made up of cheap plastic and are nowhere near the quality of the ARRI 16S cameras in craftsmanship and durability. The Sony cameras have about a 5 year lifespan, if they don’t break first, the film department will likely upgrade in 5 years. Dropping $300,000 every few years sounds like a large waste of money. Would not that money be better spend on student project grants?
ARRI-16S
Computer and Software
In fact there’s more hidden expenses when working with digital video. These expenditures are easily overlooked due to their prevalence in our society. However, these costs need to be taken into account in order to gain an accurate picture of the digital workflow. On top of your camera package, you need a computer, a monitor, and editing software. The major players here are Apple, HP, Adobe, and Avid. What’s their upgrade cycle? You’ve guessed it… about 2 years. Without education discounts, a computer w/ monitor for editing will cost $2,000 and a software package will cost $1,800. Think of every news channel who switched to video in the early 1980s. How many expensive video cameras and editing systems did they purchase over the last 30 years? These news stations missed out on archiving history in the switch. Film’s shelf life when properly stored is 500 years, making it future proof to be scanned into any electronic format in the future. Digital video must be migrated to a new hard drive every 5 years. Just take a look at my office, and you’ll see twelve hard drives. One TB (terabyte) costs around $100. Now times that by two. One for the project and one backup. Oh, but you really should have two back-ups. We’re up to $300 every 5 years. In a New York Times article, “The Afterlife is Expensive for Digital Movies,” the paper reported on the results of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences archival research. “Titled “The Digital Dilemma,” the council’s report surfaced…..: To store a digital master record of a movie costs about $12,514 a year, versus the $1,059 it costs to keep a conventional film master.”
Film and Digital for Education
“What about DSLRs, can’t I pick up a Canon T4i kit for $1,000?” Yes, we currently live at the height of the DSLR proliferation. Canon released the T1i in 2009, now in 2012 they are already on the fourth incarnation, the T4i. The professional 5DMKII was released in 2008, now they sell the 5D MKIII. Talk about out of control upgrades. The DSLR shoots in 1920x1080p HD, this is the equivalent to Super 8mm ($200 for Canon 1014E, Nikon R10, Nizo Professional .) The difference here is that the film has infinite color where the DSLRs utilize highly compressed H.264 codec and have shutter jingle and moire. Super 8mm has limitations too, such as inconsistent registration and prominent grain (if shot with high speed stock). Obviously one makes concessions in any format and chooses the right tool for the right job. Below will be a comparison on a student budget as well as a pro budget. In order to make the comparison fair, the following criteria will be used: 2K resolution, lowest camera price w/ lens, native workflow, and finishing.
Canon Rebel T4i
Estimates
The following gear and prices are general ballpark figures and in no way are absolute. If you are resourceful, you can manage with lower prices in any of these work-flows. You may be the percentage of people who hold on to software and equipment beyond their designated expiration date. Perhaps your parents bought you a camera. Good for you!! You are saving money!
Professional Digital Package
- Black Magic Digital Cinema Camera + Quality Zoom Lens – $4,000
- Apple Macbook Pro w/Retina Display+AppleCare- $2,600
- Adobe CS6 Production Premium (Professional) – $1800
- Lifespan of software and gear – 2 years
Total: $8,300/15 minute short a year cost = $4,250
Professional Film Package w/ Photochemical Finish
- Bell and Howell Filmo 70DR w/ C-Mount Lenses – $500
- Viewer/Rewinds/Splicer/Projector – $200
- Film Stock – 1500ft/45 minutes - $450
- Processing/Workprint – .$40/ft – $600
- Photo/Chemical Finish Print – $1000
- Lifespan of gear: lifetime (Equipment cost is subtracted for the second year.)
Total: $2,750/15 minute short a year cost – $2,050
SUPER 8, 16MM, 2K/DSLR WORKFLOW PRICE CHART
Chart Based on a 15 minute Short Film w/ Shooting Ratio 3:1. Estimates come from the lowest lab and camera costs online. Sources are at the end of the article.
| Class | Cam | Lens | Edit | Stock | 2K Scan | Soft | Lab | Total |
| Pro 2K Digital |
Back Magic Kit 3,500 |
Canon $500 |
Apple $2,000 |
N/A | N/A | Adobe $1800 |
N/A | $8,400 |
| Pro 16mm | 70DR $200 |
C-mount $300 |
Splice$200 | $450 | N/A | N/A | $1600 | $2,000 |
| Pro 2K 16mm Scan |
70DR $200 |
C-mount $300 |
Apple $2,000 |
$450 | $620 | $1800 | $180 | $5550 |
| EDU DSLR Digital |
T4i $1,000 |
Kit Lens $0 |
Apple $2,000 |
N/A | N/A | $450 | N/A | $3450 |
| EDU S8mm Film |
1014 $200 |
Kit Lens $0 |
Splice$200 | $150 | N/A | N/A | $180 | $730 |
| EDU S8mm Scan |
1014 $200 |
Kit Lens $0 |
$2,000 | $150 | $360 | $450 | $180 | $3,340 |
| EDU 16mm Scan |
$200 | $300 | $2,000 | $450 | $620 | $450 | $180 | $4,200 |
35MM, ARRI ALEXA, RED EPIC WORKFLOW PRICE CHART
| Class | Cam | Lens | Edit | Stock | 4K Scan | Soft | Lab | Total |
| Buy 35mm Finish |
Arri 2 C $2,000 |
$1,000 | $500 | $360 | N/A | N/A | $4,000 | $7,860 |
| Buy 35mm + Scan |
Arri 2C Buy $2,000 |
$1,000 | $2,000 | $360 | $2200 | $1,800 | $540 | $8,440 |
| Buy ARRI ALEXA/RED |
$60,000 | Zeiss $15,000 |
$2,000 | N/A | N/A | $1,800 | N/A | $95,000 |
| Rent RED |
$4,500 3 days |
$1500 | $2,000 | N/A | N/A | $1,800 | N/A | $9,800 |
| Rent 35mm Scan |
$600 3 days |
$1500 | $2,000 | $360 | $2200 | $1,800 | $540 | $8,700 |
Stanley Kubrick with ARRI-2C 35mm Motion Picture Camera
Choice
The choice is up to the artist. There are many ways to save on any of these processes, whether film or digital. Both mediums can be inexpensive or very expensive depending on one’s resourcefulness. The longevity of film equipment, the low cost of archiving, and low shooting ratios are the biggest ways film saves over digital in the final race. From the above chart, one can see that a 35mm motion picture camera can be purchased for $3,000. That camera is the legendary, ARRI 2-C – a favorite of Stanley Kubrick. Research, be selective and if you want to shoot on film, go for it! Expense should not be an issue, especially with so many passionate resources out there, Kodak, AlphaCine, Colorlab, Cinelab, Duall Camera, Super 16 Inc, and Process Blue to name a few. If you do not exercise your creative right to choose film, you may lose the option. Film is not just for the big budget projects of Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, and Wes Anderson. It’s for all of us. There are ways to work on celluloid, even on a modest budget. As Nolan and others have professed (as seen on the chart), working photo-chemically all the way to the finished print has advantages and saves money. Educate yourself and your producer. Super 8 is a superb low cost option for students and ultra low budges. Let your imagination soar and do not get caught up in camera marketing. Celluloid has given us Chaplin, Keaton, and Murnau and continues to be a catalyst for creative filmmaking. Own your vision and stay true to your artistic process!
To see a list of projects shot on Kodak film, visit: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/index.htm
For independent and experimental works, visit:
http://canyoncinema.com/catalog/films/
Sources
- Labs
- Film Camera Purchase
- 2K/4K Film Scanning
- Digital Camera Purchase
- Rental
- Film Stock
- Software
Ann Henderson
anubhavbist
Jacob Dodd
F.T. Rea
James River Film Society
James Parrish
Michael Jones
Jere Kittle
Peter Schilling
Ted Salins
Todd Hunter Starkweather
Ward Howarth
Before I start, I just want to say, it’s fantastic to read a post by THE Jake Dodd. A very important person in my life and a mentor for many young aspiring filmmakers in Richmond. The choice of digital and film is something independent filmmakers have been debating for quite some time now, and while I feel Jake is absolutely spot on with many things on this post, I feel there’s a lot of things that haven’t been said.
First, the “hidden costs’ of digital are not only things that apply to digital filmmakers. Many filmmakers working with film edit digitally, so the idea of buying software and computer equipment seems like weird argument. One could splice, but I’m not sure how many filmmakers, or editors, would ever take that route for an independent feature (i apologize to the few filmmakers who still do, but for the a lot of us, it isn’t all that practical when needing to make deadlines). Secondly, while Canon and Nikon continue to produce updates on their cameras, most filmmakers I have talked to have few complaints when using older DSLR models (especially with programs like magic lantern).
But I believe Jake understands all this when he says “Both mediums can be inexpensive or very expensive depending on one’s resourcefulness.” However, the one thing that gets overlooked is that digital gives filmmakers new, unexplored possibilities in the form of experimentation, accessibility, and distribution. This current generation of filmmakers have better access to digital video recorders thanks to inexpensive flip-cameras and camcorder options on most new models of cell phones. Sure, the quality isn’t as great but history has shown that image quality isn’t everything. There was once a time when the idea of a great film being shot entirely on a super-8 camera was preposterous, but now we can point to auteurs like Derek Jarman and Jem Cohen to prove them wrong. Rather than focusing on the camera’s limitations, they, and others who have struck gold with super 8, embraced the aesthetic and saw possibilities that many couldn’t. I believe this can easily be translated to the digital age.
Great filmmakers like David Lynch and Jean Luc Godard have seen these possibilities in digital, made the switch, and created art. Films like Inland Empire or any of Godard’s digital work (the last act of In Praise of Love, Notre Musique, many of his shorts, Film Socialism and of course a few of his work during his Revolutionary Period) may not look as “pretty” as some of their older works that were shot on film, but to only critique these works on the image quality is totally missing why these works are accomplishments in digital cinema. Both Godard and Lynch created works that couldn’t have been created on film, taking advantage of digital production (Lynch explaining what he could accomplish with the freedom of his low-res dv camera in this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej9JZsVmrGo), digital experimentation (one can see this when watching Godard’s experimental 1975 masterpiece Number Two, a film that presents it’s narrative on digital video playing on multiple television screens, or his most recent feature Film Socialism, which is includes footage shot in HD, low res cell phone footage, and even a Godardian video montange), and each present images that embrace the digital aesthetic. These films don’t look like they’re shot on film and refuse to accept the notion that they should.
And Godard and Lynch are not alone. Many great filmmakers who have shot on digital have taken a similar approach and I feel that young filmmakers should as well. Expense is major point of discussion when looking at these two formats, but far more should be considered. But at the end of the day, great cinema is not defined by the format. Great cinema is great cinema, whether it be shoot in IMAX or on a cell phone.
Anubhav,
Thank you for your kind words regarding your experience as one of my students! My time at VCU was amazing, and it was a pleasure to see you and your peers mature into critical thinkers and creative artists!
You added fine points that need to be further explored in another post, such as your notes on “experimentation, accessibility, and distribution.” Lynch, Goddard, and Bill Viola are perfect examples of moving image artists who use digital video specifically for its own unique aesthetic qualities and do not try to emulate film. It seems there are too few, particularly in the mainstream, who respect their work enough to use video for video. If one shoots video, one should embrace it, and respect oneself as a “video artist” or “videomaker.” Only then will you break out and use the medium for its original qualities. Video does not have to be a dirty word, and you do not have to pretend you are “filmmaker,” because “film” may seem more prestigious right now. The processes could not be more different if one follows a purely photo-chemical workflow vs. a complete digital process. Innovations of digital manipulation are actually helping to define “film” and “filmmaking” more clearly, which is a good thing. In many ways film is going through a transition of what painting went through in the beginning of the 20th century. Digital tools do offer much to the moving image and should be explored. However, digital making is not a replacement for film, like photography is not a replacement for painting.
I am very proud and glad that you are actively researching and writing on film! Keep up the great work!
[Private]
Small typo.
Super 8mm has limitations too, such as inconsistent registration and prominent grain (if shot with high speed sock).
Enjoying the article!
Gerard
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed the article! I really appreciate you catching my typo.