Movie Theator Movies

[Peoplerstupid]

Well today at school we had a career faire and beind in san diego CA we were lucky enough to have 3 jobs involving video production. (video producer,editor,and broadcaster) So, i asked the video producer what was the hardest part of a movie. He told me that actors are easy to get in a big company, the company has editors and filming is easiest for him. He said getting the movie to the theator was the hardest. So i contacted a small "artsy" theatre and they said "We can get your movie into the theatre if you have the copyrights but you have to have it on a film real." Which brings me to my question,
HOW DO YOU GET A MOVIE ON A REAL?

[KMProductions]

You can probably find someone to transfer it. For a price.

[WesScog]

If you have a digital copy, you have to send it to a company to get it processed and printed onto a film stock.

Or, if you're shooting in film, you edit your film on a editing machine, then you get an answer print of that, then you get release prints of the answer print.

To get prints of your edited film, you get you once again send it to a processing company (I use Filmcraft Imaging (Gracewild.com) out of Michigan for most of my processing) and you have to order copies.

[Peoplerstupid]

thanks guys and wesScog do u have any movies on vimeo or youtube?

[WesScog]

None of my short films, no. They are all on 16mm and I haven't gotten any of them telecined yet.

I have a PSA that I did in co-operation with a friend, but I don't really show it off because it was done in a very short amount of time with no budget, and it doesn't really show what I can do too well.

[KMProductions]

Hey Wes, about how much is it to get a movie transferred. Is it dependent on time?

[WesScog]

For B/W reversal 16mm, it's 26 cents a foot to get it developed, 100ft of 16mm is almost 3 minutes of footage, close to 2:46.

BUT, you need about 10 feet of (preferably blank, but I usually just cut up trash footage and put it here so I don't need leader.) leader footage to load it into a projector, because if you don't then it'll cut off the first 10 seconds of your footage and you'll start 10 seconds into your film.


But it costs about 20 dollars per 100 feet of film, it costs 26 dollars to process it, and it takes 36 dollars to get a release print (for a 100ft roll). Thats for black and white.

For color negative footage, it can cost an extra 80 dollars (per 100 feet) for a Positive print, and 31 dollars (per 100 feet again), for every release copy.

You usually get a discount for bulk orders, so if you buy 2-10, it'll cost you about $58-$290 dollars.

This doesn't take into account the rental costs of the camera, or buying editing time on a editing station if you aren't in film school.

[KMProductions]

For B/W reversal 16mm, it's 26 cents a foot to get it developed, 100ft of 16mm is almost 3 minutes of footage, close to 2:46.

BUT, you need about 10 feet of (preferably blank, but I usually just cut up trash footage and put it here so I don't need leader.) leader footage to load it into a projector, because if you don't then it'll cut off the first 10 seconds of your footage and you'll start 10 seconds into your film.


But it costs about 20 dollars per 100 feet of film, it costs 26 dollars to process it, and it takes 36 dollars to get a release print (for a 100ft roll). Thats for black and white.

For color negative footage, it can cost an extra 80 dollars (per 100 feet) for a Positive print, and 31 dollars (per 100 feet again), for every release copy.

You usually get a discount for bulk orders, so if you buy 2-10, it'll cost you about $58-$290 dollars.

This doesn't take into account the rental costs of the camera, or buying editing time on a editing station if you aren't in film school.


wow! Thanks for the info Wes

[Peoplerstupid]

ya thankyou

[next-tarantino]

For B/W reversal 16mm, it's 26 cents a foot to get it developed, 100ft of 16mm is almost 3 minutes of footage, close to 2:46.

BUT, you need about 10 feet of (preferably blank, but I usually just cut up trash footage and put it here so I don't need leader.) leader footage to load it into a projector, because if you don't then it'll cut off the first 10 seconds of your footage and you'll start 10 seconds into your film.


But it costs about 20 dollars per 100 feet of film, it costs 26 dollars to process it, and it takes 36 dollars to get a release print (for a 100ft roll). Thats for black and white.

For color negative footage, it can cost an extra 80 dollars (per 100 feet) for a Positive print, and 31 dollars (per 100 feet again), for every release copy.

You usually get a discount for bulk orders, so if you buy 2-10, it'll cost you about $58-$290 dollars.

This doesn't take into account the rental costs of the camera, or buying editing time on a editing station if you aren't in film school.

Wow. You should probably check out Cinelab (http://cinelab.com/), just outside Boston. Much cheaper, and they process everything really well. For B/W reversal, they charge $0.17 per foot (student discount, though). And they charge less for other processing, too.

Kids, shop around. These prices (both mine and Wes') are not the standards. Every lab charges a different price, but remember: you get what you pay for.





Or, if you're shooting in film, you edit your film on a editing machine, then you get an answer print of that, then you get release prints of the answer print.


I certainly hope that by "edit your film" you mean "edit your positive print/processed reversal," because the last thing you want to do is "edit your film." ... unless you want to ruin it.




To get prints of your edited film, you get you once again send it to a processing company (I use Filmcraft Imaging (Gracewild.com) out of Michigan for most of my processing) and you have to order copies.

Or, better yet, have the processing lab transfer all your film to a digital format (MiniDV, DVD, etc.), and edit it digitally. This will not only save you time, it will save you a boatload of money (the shipping and processing do add up quite quickly).

[jawahunter]

Or, better yet, have the processing lab transfer all your film to a digital format (MiniDV, DVD, etc.), and edit it digitally. This will not only save you time, it will save you a boatload of money (the shipping and processing do add up quite quickly).

Not necessarily. Don't forget that it cost Shane Carruth $25k to go from the editing system back to film, and considering everything up to that point only cost $7k, that's a big chunk of change.

[next-tarantino]

Not necessarily. Don't forget that it cost Shane Carruth $25k to go from the editing system back to film, and considering everything up to that point only cost $7k, that's a big chunk of change.

While a valid point, that would only really hold true if you wanted to put that digitally edited copy back onto film.

And, were that the case, then yes, my suggestion might be a more costly endeavor. For myself, however, once I digitally edit my transferred-to-MiniDV-film stock, I plan on keeping it in only its original B/W, negative 16mm (64T ISO) form, and in digital format.

[jawahunter]

And, were that the case, then yes, my suggestion might be a more costly endeavor. For myself, however, once I digitally edit my transferred-to-MiniDV-film stock, I plan on keeping it in only its original B/W, negative 16mm (64T ISO) form, and in digital format.

Right, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about getting the film onto a celluloid reel for film festivals.

[WesScog]

Right and it costs more to convert it to digital, and convert it back to celluloid than to just keep it in celluloid.

[jawahunter]

Right and it costs more to convert it to digital, and convert it back to celluloid than to just keep it in celluloid.

Exactely. Of course depending where you live finding a film editing bay can be difficult.

[next-tarantino]

Right, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about getting the film onto a celluloid reel for film festivals.

Ah, so it is. Apologies.


Right and it costs more to convert it to digital, and convert it back to celluloid than to just keep it in celluloid.

That it does, but:

Exactely. Of course depending where you live finding a film editing bay can be difficult.

^... this is also true.


I suppose, then, the best suggestion would be to find out all possible resources (film editing bays, digital editing equipment, funds), and go from there.

If it's easier and more cost efficient to edit on film and have multiple positive/answer prints made, then that's the way to go. Yet, the same can be said if digital is the more fecund route.




(P.S. "Fecund" is not used as often as it should be...)

[WesScog]

I think digital is the future, and a superior route to take, and I think any film festivals that are still only taking film submissions are going to be left behind.

If your festival accepts DVD's, I say submit a DVD of your work and let them put it into a digital projector.

Or better yet, a blu-ray, to squeeze all of the resolution out of the work as possible, but I have no idea how many festivals are supporting blu-ray yet.

[jawahunter]

I think any film festivals that are still only taking film submissions are going to be left behind.

Yah that whole Sundance thing is so 1990s.

Wait....

[punkandska66]

so simply put. between what price and what price would it cost to get a 30 minute movie converted to celluloid with color.

[WesScog]

Yah that whole Sundance thing is so 1990s.

Wait....

I thought that they had some digital projectors at Sundance this year?

I don't think that we shouldn't use film at all, film still has strengths and things to offer, I just think Telecineing it, and putting it on an HD disk is a better idea than dealing with a projector.

At the screening I attended tonight, there was a DOZEN breaks, films were interrupted so many times because they had to be re-spliced and restrung through the machine.

HD digital projectors and Blu-Ray are simply superior avenues of distribution, it's just so much cheaper to print out HD disks or even distribute it to every theater digitally, than to make Celluloid prints, there is no way film can stay competitive in the long run.

[elscottomagnifico]

HD digital projectors and Blu-Ray are simply superior avenues of distribution, it's just so much cheaper to print out HD disks or even distribute it to every theater digitally, than to make Celluloid prints, there is no way film can stay competitive in the long run.

Film as a capturing material for production still has many qualities that place it above digital, but for output, I completely agree that digital is superior. So long as the projector is in the range of film "resolution" (2K or 4K images) the digital rendering will be far more reliable and, so long as the original work was done on film, the same image-wise. Digital doesn't degrade over time, it doesn't take that much to produce and transport (Disc or Internet file transfers) and it is easy to backup (and replace if something goes wrong).

[jburas]

For festivals, blu-ray and DVD discs make a lot of sense. Considering most indie films are shot on miniDV anyway, there isn't a huge expectation for a high quality image. I worked at a major festival where one screen literally just played from a DVD player on digital projector.

There is a bigger problem for bigger films. For the distributor, digital distribution makes a lot of since because it is so cheap. For theaters, on the other hand, it requires a significant investment, especially if they want to follow the very specific (very expensive) standards for true digital cinema. George Lucas has pushed hard to change this, but it's going to take time to replace all those old projectors and really re-vamp the system. The theater might not have the right equipment, which is why they may need a 35mm print.

[WesScog]

Well in the long run its going to be cheaper for the studios and the theaters to switch over to digital. Just the incentive isn't there, especially if they are a new theater and just invested in new equipment.

[punkandska66]

Considering most indie films are shot on


if by 'indie' films you mean kids filming themselves, you'd be right. but most 'real' indie films (like the ones that people actually max out their credit cards and actually invest their soul into it) are shot on 16mm.

[jawahunter]

At the screening I attended tonight, there was a DOZEN breaks, films were interrupted so many times because they had to be re-spliced and restrung through the machine.


A dozen breaks? Either that projector is a film eating machine or that's some shoddy workmanship. Either way that is not cool for the audience.

And I just want to make it clear I'm actually all for digital shooting and distribution, I just find that since 2002 a lot of people think there's been this automatic switch in the industry and that's not true. It's a slow and gradual process and for the moment film is still king for distribution and projection.

Unfortunately the main problem is we are dead in the middle of this transition so going one way or the other is a hard decision to make. In 10 years or so it won't be but for the time being no matter which way you wish to go you're taking your chances.

(on the Sundance thing if I recall they allowed digital projection of films from filmmakers previously recognized by Sundance [either the festival or the many other branches] but if you weren't recognized the group before your film didn't have a chance unless you were able to have it on a film reel. Also features are still 100% film reels. However I could be mistaken)