35mm stock and lab costs, compared to 16mm

I've posted the cost comparisons numerous times over at cinematography.com.
You can check the archives there.

Frames per foot isn't the question, it's the next step, which is feet per
minute. A minute of 16mm film is 36ft. while a minute of 35mm film is 90ft.

For basic shooting, 16mm will run you around $25/minute to buy the stock, get
it processed and a basic transfer to video for editing. To do the same in 35mm
is about $70/minute.

You can calculate out how much film you would need to shoot based on the number
of minutes of material you wish to roll with the appropriate coverage. A 100
minute feature with a modest 6:1 shooting ratio means 600 minutes (10 hours) of
film, which is 21,600' in 16mm or 54,000' in 35mm. Given the per minute
figures above, that would be $15,000 to expose in 16mm and $42,000 to expose in
35mm.

These numbers do not include camera rental and crew payment, and they also do
not include ANY post costs. You didn't indicate how you would wish to finish
the film, be it to a video format or to a 35mm print or what. When printing to
35mm the numbers start to come closer together since the 16mm will have to go
through an optical blowup stage, however I maintain that the costs will still
be below that of 35mm origination.

Mitch
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm stock and lab costs, compared to 16mm 

Thank you Mitch. this is exactly the info i was looking for.

jaxon

mitchgross.DeleteThis@aol.com (MitchGross) wrote in message news:<20040604233917.13482.00000460.DeleteThis@mb-m18.aol.com>...
> I've posted the cost comparisons numerous times over at cinematography.com.
> You can check the archives there.
>
> Frames per foot isn't the question, it's the next step, which is feet per
> minute. A minute of 16mm film is 36ft. while a minute of 35mm film is 90ft.
>
> For basic shooting, 16mm will run you around $25/minute to buy the stock, get
> it processed and a basic transfer to video for editing. To do the same in 35mm
> is about $70/minute.
>
> You can calculate out how much film you would need to shoot based on the number
> of minutes of material you wish to roll with the appropriate coverage. A 100
> minute feature with a modest 6:1 shooting ratio means 600 minutes (10 hours) of
> film, which is 21,600' in 16mm or 54,000' in 35mm. Given the per minute
> figures above, that would be $15,000 to expose in 16mm and $42,000 to expose in
> 35mm.
>
> These numbers do not include camera rental and crew payment, and they also do
> not include ANY post costs. You didn't indicate how you would wish to finish
> the film, be it to a video format or to a 35mm print or what. When printing to
> 35mm the numbers start to come closer together since the 16mm will have to go
> through an optical blowup stage, however I maintain that the costs will still
> be below that of 35mm origination.
>
> Mitch
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm stock and lab costs, compared to 16mm