THere are lenses that can make your footage into proper widescreen format rather than the pseudo-widescreen created by your camera. I wouldn't pay $7000 for that though. For that cost you could get a couple of cameras and shoot each scene from multiple angles at once saving a ton of time.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

When I shoot an "important" feature I rent lenses - most of them sell for more than $7,000. A good lens isn't final solution and it won't make MiniDV shot on an XL2 look like 35mm film, but it can make a difference. The stock lens on the XL2 is really terrible.

Since he is buying a lens it seems to me you should take advantage of all his equipment. Is he putting as much money into what is really important? Lighting.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Well actually he wanted me to give him the money so he could buy the lens and to answer your question. No he has not spent a dime.

Ask for examples. Make him take you shopping. Don't take dumbed down answers. Write down everything he says and cross check it. Also like the guy above said, ask what he plans to do inregards to lighting. If this lens is such a huge blow to the budget, which it seems it would be, is it worth it?

He wants you to buy him a $7K lense? All the camera people and DOP's I have ever hired always either have their own kit or we hire what they require in.

Don't trust this guy - he sounds like he is taking you for a ride!!!

??Goofy Horace??

Okay, if you were going to hire him for $2,000 per week for five weeks, then buying him a lens for $7,000 in lieu if pay would be a good deal for you. If you were planning on paying him $7,000 to shoot your movie then giving him the money up front so he can spend it all on a lens seems a fair deal - IF you trust him. And by trust I mean that you have known him personally for a while and you have seen his previous work. If not, I would suggest to this guy he buy the lens on credit and pay it off with the paychecks he will be receiving from you.

However, if you were paying him less than $7,000 then it's a bad deal for you. Even if he's right and it will make your MiniDV look like 35 mm film, he will get the benefit of that amazing look on future films and not you. Rent a $20,000 lens for $1,500 per week and save money.

agvkrioni has a very good point. Have him show you the movies shot on MiniDV with the Xl2 and this $7,000 lens before you spend the money.

How many weeks is the shoot and how much were you planning on paying him?

I think im not going to work with this guy. Hes showed me what he has filmed with the XL2 but it looks nothing like Film, looks just like a DV shot with OK lightning.

I have a question. Im very interested in filming my next film in film. I have talk to some other camera men and photographers and they want to see the script and so on. But how much would film cost for a movie thats around 90Mins? Also how much does it cost to get film edited?

All prices are approximate. Each lab will set their own prices and offer discounts, or be higher. You will need to purchase stock, then develop and transfer to digital format - either tape or hard drive.

16mm color negative: $200 per 400ft reel
Processing: .15/ft

Prep for Telecine: $50/hr
Telecine: $200 to $300/hr

This is lab time, NOT running time.

A typical shooting ratio is 10-1 so for a 90 minute feature you will shoot 900 minutes. 16mm runs at 36ft per minute so you will need 32,400ft of film.

That?s 81 400ft reels - $16,200, Processing - $4,860, Telecine figure appx. 2 reels per hour - $10,000, for a total of around $33,000 with taxes and tape stock.

Shoot a very lean 6-1 ratio and you?ll need 19,440ft. That?s 49 reels - $9,800, processing - $2,916, telecine - $6,250, for a total of around $20,000

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

All prices are approximate. Each lab will set their own prices and offer discounts, or be higher. You will need to purchase stock, then develop and transfer to digital format - either tape or hard drive.

16mm color negative: $200 per 400ft reel
Processing: .15/ft

Prep for Telecine: $50/hr
Telecine: $200 to $300/hr

This is lab time, NOT running time.

A typical shooting ratio is 10-1 so for a 90 minute feature you will shoot 900 minutes. 16mm runs at 36ft per minute so you will need 32,400ft of film.

That?s 81 400ft reels - $16,200, Processing - $4,860, Telecine figure appx. 2 reels per hour - $10,000, for a total of around $33,000 with taxes and tape stock.

Shoot a very lean 6-1 ratio and you?ll need 19,440ft. That?s 49 reels - $9,800, processing - $2,916, telecine - $6,250, for a total of around $20,000

---

WOW seems like it takes alot of work to film in film

Work and cost, that is why DV has caught on so well with indendents. Still film has a certain something that makes it all worthwhile and many swear by it.

In one of the Lloyd Kauffman books he has a debate with Trent Hagga about the pluses and minuses of the two formats. I suggest you find the book in a Library and read that chapter at least. I think Trent won the debate but you may agree with Lloyd.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureFilmMaker
WOW seems like it takes alot of work to film in film

---

You are so right!

All aspects of filmmaking takes a lot of work. Film or video. The recent inexpensive availability of cameras and editing/DVD burning software has made making a movie more accessible - which is a great thing. How I wish I had iMovie and iDVD when I was just starting.

But owning a camera - or having access to one - and editing software is a very, very minor part of making a movie. The true test of a filmmaker is being able to develop a story and script that people actually want to see, motivate cast and crew to work together and learn and apply the skills needed.