Film at Half the Price
Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 9:45AM 
Public domain image by Max SmithI write a lot about accesible, i.e. "cheap" filmmaking. But as I explicitly mention in The Guide, filmmaking does cost money, and often the camera and what's in it comprise the least expensive aspect of a shoot.
And while we all know (and I don't say it enough) that color negative film is still the gold standard for motion picture image quality, we also know that it's expensive. Usually, if I eschew film for digital aquisition, it's for workflow reasons—but sometimes it's purely due to cost.
But what if film stock and processing was half price?
Panavision sent me this press release today:
PANAVISION PROPOSES TWO-PERF FILM SYSTEM FOR INDIE FILMMAKING IN TROUBLED ECONOMIC TIMES
Venerable Film System Provides High-quality Images Coupled with Significant Cost Savings
April 7, 2009—Woodland Hills, Calif. — While there is no easy antidote for the effect of the recession on independent filmmakers, Panavision suggests that the venerable two-perf film system may prove to be both an artistic and economic godsend in these troubled times.Three recent productions – “Curve of Earth,” “Shoot First and Pray You Live” and “Gallow Walker” – are examples of films shot in 35mm two-perf that delivered the artistic vision of the production team, and saved roughly 50 percent on film negative and processing costs over standard four-perf, full-frame production.
Panavision now offers modified 35mm Panaflex cameras with two-perf movements available for rental. All handle Panavision’s range of legendary spherical film lenses from super speeds to Primos.
(For those unfamiliar with two-perf, the term refers to a modified film camera’s ability to record two images within the space usually inhabited by a single four-perf frame. “Perfs,” short for perforations, are the holes on either side of a piece of film that a camera sprocket engages to advance the film past the camera’s shutter.)
According to Andy Romanoff, Panavision Executive Vice President, Technical Marketing and Strategy, two-perf provides filmmakers with the ability to shoot 2.35 wide-screen images, usually attributed to higher-end systems, at reduced costs. It delivers a widescreen viewer experience but slices film stock and negative processing costs by 33 to 50 percent.
“In today’s difficult times,” said Romanoff, “filmmakers want the unique qualities of film, but find themselves daunted by cost. Using digital technology is a viable alternative, certainly, if you are using a sophisticated digital cinema system such as the Panavision Genesis. Using a less robust digital system will produce less robust images, and can compromise an artistic vision.
“With two-perf, no compromise is necessary. The two-perf system delivers true film images, allows creatives to lay down the images they imagined, and still create their film affordably.”
For more information, contact your local Panavision representative.
There's nothing new about 2-perf 35mm—George Lucas used it on THX 1138, back when it was calld Techniscope. No mention of whether the modern incarnation might use the full width of the 35mm frame (Super Techniscope?). The OG Techniscope used Academy width, which, when split horizontally created a perfect 2.35:1 aspect ratio.
This kind of smart use of film is very digital-friendly. Formats like Techniscope and 3-perf never really caught on before the advent of the DI, because they required an optical process to convert to projectable film. But now that every film image is likely to be digitally processed in post, such duplication is unnecessary.
What I like about 2-perf over 3-perf is that it brings some of the cajones back to 'scope filmmaking. There's no post-reframing or full-screen unmatted video versions of a Techniscope film. What you shot is what you got, much like anamorphic 'scope.
Reader Comments (41)
I worked on a major feature last year that shot 2-perf. The downside was in visual effects. The VFX editor was pulling his hair out dealing with the 'fuzzy math' of 2-perf footage numbering vs timecode to pull scans. Forget about stabilizing footage since there is no headroom on the neg and you have to deal with unforgiving blow-ups on the frame, which really shows off the grain of 500T stock.
All the 'planned' VFX were shot 4-perf. The 'fix-it', 2-perf scans were at least smaller in data size.
Thanks, but no thanks, Panavision!
"TROUBLED ECONOMIC TIMES"
I suspect it's Panavision that's having the troubled economic times. I see this as a desperate move by them to find a new revenue stream. It's still going to cost a lot more to acquire footage on 2-perf film than digital.
How many years does Panavision have left unless they move into the digital age?
Oh and Guimnon is right on the hassle dealing with the grain.
Translation: Panavision is worried that the current economic crisis is going to do to them what it's doing to other parts of the traditional media industry - accelerating the collapse of forms and industries that are increasingly anachronistic in the face of modern technology. So they've figured out a way to shuffle things around to make their core technology appear less expensive compared to the digital alternatives in the hope that they can stave off the inevitable for a few more years.
The final quote is hilarious. First they name-check their own system as the gold standard of the digital format, then dismiss the rest as a compromise of 'artistic vision' while claiming that 2-perf is not a compromise... except that it clearly is. Using less surface area of the film does nothing to improve your image - it only improves your budget by compromising image quality. If shooting on film is all it takes to preserve your artistic vision then you might as well shoot super-8 and save even more.
i love the idea of 2 and 3-perf, not only for the reduced cost but also the extended mag time and less frequent reloads.
however, anybody who has the budget to rent panavision gear and do a proper DI has definitely a solid budget and is a completely different production then directors who shoot on a HV30 with adapter or on a D90 with money out of their own pockets.
i mean, there will very rarely be the situation where somebody says "i'd really love to shoot on film, but we cant afford 4-perf so let's rent 2-perf panavision cameras because it's so much cheaper" :)
chris
It's already raining and this sand bag will do nothing to stop the flood.
Then the best ad for 2 perf is THX then, i was utterly blown away watching the latest lucas 'revisit' of it. however who knows what grain reduction etc was used as part of that restore but it certainly looked gorgeous.
unfortunateley you dont get all that great scope look with spherical lenses and the inevitable 16;9 centre cut will magnify the grain issue even more but Its a great way for some productions to hang onto film when they have a digi budget...but sadly.... 'troubled economic times' = progress hitting PV straight in the face.
I would be afraid to shoot film... I can't see what I am going to get.. if I make a mistake, I would be screwed and then would not know it for a day. That means It would take lots of film shooting and all that expense.... just to learn how to use film. That expense... the training part... is basically free when digital...The 2-perf thing is probably very cool in the short term for filmmakers that already shoot film.... while they are waiting for their RED cams.
Guys, remember that Panavision is not dependent on film. They make the Genesis, a camera that they can't keep on the shelves. But as busy as their digital cameras are, their film rigs are even more so. Trying to make film more affordable might be legitimately characterized as an act of desperation by, say, Kodak, but this is simply a case of Panavision giving people more options.
Nice aspect ratio... but no anamorphic flares? You're missing the best bit. I've shot 2 perf before and it looked good but didn't seem to have the full shallow DOF of 4 perf. Still they should have done this years ago.
I agree other-guy-named-Stu, the best part of anamorphic is the badass flares. But many, many folks that have a 'scope release are shot with spherical lenses on Super 35 and cropped to 2.35 for projection. This and 3-perf are options for folks going the spherical route. Which is perry much everyone when a Transformers film is shooting (Michael Bay tends to use up about half the world's anamorphic lenses on his shoots)!
Afraid to shoot film? Oh come on. Has digital made you that complacent?
There's a 100 years of filmmakers who had nothing but film. It's not a black art.
Stu, devote your time to better things. Film is a dumb idea. Though the press release is new, 2 perf is old news. From a budgetary viewpoint, you should only attempt a film shoot if the stock costs for a 5:1 ratio are equal to what you paid for the script. Oh, you're not paying for your script? Shoot HD or HDV. Liberate yourself from the film services industry. The only upside to shooting film is that you might get a higher caliber of volunteer due to the rarity of shooting celluloid. But budget rental of camera, lenses, lights, slates, expendables, raw stock, cans, shipping, processing, transferring/capture, tapes, syncing, shipping... And food for a FULL camera crew (DP, camera operator, 1st A.C., 2nd A.C., plus Key Grip and Best Boy (girl). C'mon Stu. It's not April Fool's Day. Stop joking. Folks might take this 2 perf film nonsense serious. The book is "DV Rebel...", not Film Conformist.
"Trying to make film more affordable might be legitimately characterized as an act of desperation by, say, Kodak, but this is simply a case of Panavision giving people more options."
No, it's not. A company who's equipment has been used on 75-80% of Hollywood feature films for decades now faces a changing industry in which competitors - both old and new - are flooding into the market from all sides.
Hard to know how they're really doing since they're private now, but they basically bled money through the 90's and early 00's until they finally bought back all their outstanding stock a couple years ago after refinancing $300 million+ in debt. Unless they've dramatically turned things around in the past couple years they're probably just hanging on, and the Genesis isn't enough to save them now that there are so many other competitors entering the digital market.
Interesting debate, for my two cents worth I think that two perf will still be too expensive for those on a tight budget, people in this situation should shoot HD, but something no one has brought up is the advantages the increased dynamic range that will be available on two perf system, and for me that comprises a lot of the film look that DV rebels strive for.... Its a double edged sword, it's smaller size image is a disadvantage up against cheaper HD and HDV options but its dynamic range will give an advantage in other areas.
Hey Stu, Aaton's Penelope has been designed from scratch for 2 perf. Made out of advanced plastics its light and about the size of a S16 Aaton XTR. If you do 2 perf indie make sure the camera is a light one....not a Panaflex. The Penelope has a high res digital mag in the works also so snap off the film and snap on the digital mag and shoot away!
That Penelope is beautiful. Makes me want to shoot film now.
Stu, when is the "2-Perf Rebel's Guide" coming out?
What I meant about being "afraid to shoot film" was that you are always several steps away from seeing what you are going to get... and there is cost every time you turn the camera on. When I shot stills on film, I was careful the same way... only shooting things I could see were "good" shots, worrying about how many shots I had left on the roll, and worrying if my exposures were right...
Digital liberates....you can totally afford to shoot away and you really can see what you will be getting (to some extent.. more than with film) ... Again.. for a filmmaker.. film is the gold standard for quality... and it is an art to get the best exposure. Digital allows lots of room to try things on the spot and not worry too much.
Anyway, by the end of the day, film is way more expensive and more hassle than it is worth for amateurs / enthusiasts.... Now... if Costco did film scanning for $19.95 a magazine.... I may change my mind. :)
It's been awhile since I last shot film. Film is gorgeous. It is beautiful. Film is ethereal. Film is light passing through an emulsion to leave behind an indelible truth that only the departed photons can tell.
Film is beautiful. It not cheap. Regardless how you slice it. If you're a student, a recent student or just a plain good 'ol businessman. You can get all kinds of great deals (even better, donations) on Film Stock, Camera Packages, even processing. It's crazy what people will offer to you once you simply ask for it.
I have not, however. heard of any killer deals with regard to Telecine - let alone telecine to something like D5 or HDCAMSR. These machines are the expensive gatekeepers to your killer DI post workflow. Sure, you can beg, scream and crawl. And you might find some new guy who's trying to get hours in between 6pm and 6am. This necessary step is going to cost ya - even you got FREE camera, and processing.
Oh, and once you have your telecined tapes you still need to pay for those expensive decks again to ingest them into your NLE of choice (We’ll be editing at PRORES HQ to keep this easy)
When you finally have your cut you will have to PAY for that SR deck once again… Oi!!!
So, where’s savings? Even if you had shot on RED (or any other data acquisition method) you might be visiting that SR deck ONCE….ONCE.
But hey, if it’s not my dime we’re talking about I’d like to shoot IMAX. What the hey right?
MattMoses, imo the fact that you can't directly see how the image looks like is what makes film so good for learning.
on video shoots, everybody is glued on the monitor all the time, and while it certainly makes the whole thing more predictable, it also strips you of the thoughts about the transformation of a real world scene to a film image. sure, with film you might have a shot with flaws in it sometimes (light leaks, focus/exposure problems etc), but in my experience it happens very rarely, and all the shots will greatly benefit from the extra thoughts that have been put into it (the same often accounts to directing/acting btw).
benellis, i agree that high quality telecine is a killer for "rebel budget" films (specially for something that can be used for DI). also here in europe, processing is very hard to get good deals on, while cameras and stock can be found for ok prices if you ask around.
chris
2:35 with a Vertical load? sounds sweet. THX look incredible old or new and I remember reading about Techniscope years ago and being fascinated with it. Even tho the flares and true "Anamorphicness" may be reduced its nice to have options.
Now, on the other hand if RED can perform the same theory on splitting the sensor into 2 roughly 2:35 frames wouldnt we get better data rates per frame and better Frame Rate options, Etc... something to think about JJ :)
could it/ can it happen?
benellis, file based workflows are getting more and more common every week. There are at least two places I'm aware of that do direct to cineform telecine and even full-bore 4:4:4 scans. "Desktop DI" is not really very exotic these days.
As for two-perf making any sense at all for indies... I guess it depends on the project. I personally wouldn't bother shooting film even if I HAD the budget for it unless there were compelling technical reasons to do so. For example, if I absolutely needed the dynamic range because of some tough lighting situation. Otherwise the "convenience factor" of digital is going to win every time in my book.
Again, horses for courses. I shoot whatever works with the budget, shooting conditions, and creative goals of the project. Or, sometimes, with whatever is available. I'm not quite sure from where all the vitriol towards film is coming (although telecine, the costs and attitude, could be a good starting place). It's a beautiful medium and can be shot quickly and economically if you use the same ingenuity that I see people in this group applying to digital media.
I entered the film business in 1959. We didn't have reflex cameras, video taps or electric lift gates on trucks and we made good movies with film. When the director got the reading he liked, he would look at the camera operator and ask, do we have it, and the operator would give him the thumbs up and we were off to the next setup. We were rarely surprised in the dailies.
That is that last time I try and post something from an iPhone.
I love film. I despise the economic roadblocks imposed on the format involved on getting in the computer - i.e. TELECINE.
As far a data workflows are concerned the last couple places I tried calling charged more to make DPX files than to go to something like SR.
benellis, have you looked at Cinelicious? They have plenty of file based options, and are pretty inexpensive (data is definitely cheaper than their tape rates).
I'm excited to see 2-perf making a comeback. Combine that with shooting short ends, and if you can get a good rate on camera rental, it really approaches affordability. Quality and dynamic range issues aside, there's just something exciting about shooting film.
Cinelicious has low hourly rates. However, I'd look at the equipment/process they're using to see if it meets your needs and I'd consider using someone other than their in-house colorist: to me he seemed slow, disorganized and didn't seem to have a particularly good eye.
Unless you're definitely going to have a 2.35 theatrical release, how much more real estate does 2-perf buy you over Super-16? (26% if I'm doing my arithmetic right). The 16mm camera package is less expensive, lighter, and faster to use. I can see this 2.35 2 perf being an option for a Hollywood "Independent" movie with a 2.35 distribution deal in place where there are still bean counters counting costs, but 16mm would be a better option for many who are staying in the 16x9 world.
You guys for once should turn to Kodak. They should RnD on how to radically make film stocks far more inexpensive to use.
If film goes away, they go down forever.
Film and processing at half the price, great ! I'm going to...nope, scratch that thought, it's still too expensive for my current productions.
Walter Murch gave a talk about the post workflow of Cold Mountain years ago. He showed pictures of the lab in Budapest where they did the developing. It was in a village, so it had to be self contained.
Kodak modified a photo development system, used in photo places, for 35mm motion picture negative. He said it worked really well.
They had the telecine room next door, to do dailies as soon as the negative was ready.
GJA,
Personally, I would only use 2-perf for 2.35:1 productions.
Gee Guys,
Lots of comments, some valid and some bullshit.
In the interest of full disclosure, we rent 2-perf. And I have to day that it is a truly great format.
To the viewer with the impression that film is a crapshoot and video is the gold standard . . . with either you need skill and experience. If you don't know what you're doing in video, you think you''ve got it and only find you didn't in post. With film you find out in dailies, if you get dailies.
A shout out to Jack Beckett -- OK you got into the business 15 years ahead of me, but back in the early 1980's you sold me a 6:1. I'm still doing the rental business and I've now got a 30 year old company!
For all of you: 2-perf is a great format and not a way for Panavision to have a last gasp. The ability to shoot for 2.40 or 1.85, but save half your film and processing is very real. With today's film stocks and lenses, no one needs to apologize for image quality with 2-perf, IF you know what you're doing when shooting film. Think I'm wrong? Have a look at a restored print of "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly". It was shot more than 40 years ago with stocks of the time and lenses we'd only use today for a period look, BUT it looks fantastic. Imagine what you can do today with Vision 3 and Cooke S4 or Primo lenses.
And let's be really bluntly clear. Good images are not an accident. It doesn't matter if you're shooting Super 16, 35, 2-perf 35, RED, HD, or Mini DV. The format doesn't matter as much as the skill and experience of the DP.
My 2 Cents, from the Seattle Film Curmudgeon.
Marty Oppenheimer
Oppenheimer Cine Rental
marty,
i dont think anybody is suggesting that you can shoot great looking footage without skills and talent, or denying that 2-perf is a very cool idea *if* you can afford to rent the gear and shoot on film with DI.
the main point i (and several others) were trying to make is that even if you only pay for half the film cost and processing, you're still well out of range for any low-budget production.
also you can usually get much better deals on an older 4-perf camera package then a 2-perf one..
here's a quick and dirty calculation for a 90min feature, 6:1 shooting ratio:
camera rental, basic package with a few lenses:
4-perf: 800USD/day *30days -> 24'000
2-perf: 1000USD/day *30days -> 30'000
filmstock:
4-perf: 54'000ft -> 26'000USD
2-perf: 27'000ft -> 13'000USD
processing:
4-perf: 54'000ft -> 7'000USD
2-perf: 27'000ft -> 3'500USD
SD transfer for edit w keycodes: 250USD/h
4-perf: 9h*2 -> 4500USD
2-perf: 9h*2 -> 4500USD
HD transfer for DI, 500USD/h
4-perf: 1.5h*4 -> 3000USD
2-perf: 1.5h*4 -> 3000USD
data management and other extras which the labs always charge you for:
4-perf: -> 2000USD
2-perf: -> 2000USD
i'm not familiar with special deals in the US, i suspect you could get it slightly better deals if you pray and beg, here in europe that would be the *absolute* minimum, and usually more likely 1.5 to 2x of the above prices.
so even with 2-perf, we're looking at well over 50'000USD, which is not a lot of money if you have to pay wages anyway, but some of us do filmmaking for the love of it, and we just dont have that deep pockets.
chris
There was also a recent Norwegian feature film production shot on 2-perf with rented Arri-cameras from London. They actually shot 2-perf, and then cropped in to 1,85:1. Cheaper than shooting 3-perf and still twice the size compared to S16mm.
Apparently Arri also has modern cameras modified to shoot 2-perf, but they will not yet sell them. Rumor around here is they want to capitalize on the Arri D-21 right now, which is a shame when they could be pushing film back into play. Norway has been heavily digitized the last year or so.
Well, there is low budget and then there is low budget. Here in the US I all too often see people shoot films that never had any hope of distribution. Bad script, bad execution, no distribution plan.
On pricing, it is true that 2-perf provides no savings bast film and processing.
Also on pricing, I don't know where Chris's pricing comes from, but we can be much cheaper than that, but it all depends on what you're using. We can provide a 2-perf BL4 with Zeiss Speeds and an Angenieux 25-250HR for much less than $30,000/ month. But if you "need" an Arricam and S4 or UltraPrimes, the cost will be much higher.
Bottom line is that the look and flexibility of film can't be beat and 2-perf is a great option. AND, if we're talking about a "real" DP shooting a show, most that I know will agree that shooting RED or HD will mean larger lights, more crew and more OT than shooting film
Marty
hi marty,
i dont doubt that, but the whole point i was trying to make is that a newly advertised 2-perf panavision (which is what started this discussion) with compatible gear will be priced *much* higher then a BL4 with some old lenses.
not that i wouldnt work with a BL4, i quite like it (out of curiosity, what is the going rate in the US for a quiet BL4 with mags, batteries, etc, and a set of old primes and a zoom?).
so yes 2-perf is nice, and shooting film is nice -- what i questioned was how much of an impact it makes for the productions that would love to shoot on film and have to settle on midrange digital cameras out of budget constraints (like me). unfortunately we cant even afford to shoot 16mm on an old SRII most of the times.
chris
Chris,
Enough with the "old lenses" please. There's nothing wrong with a set of MkII Speeds. Sure, I can show you that UltraPrimes, Cooke S4's or Primo's are better lenses, but if you look at the quality films of the early to mid 1980's you'll find great examples of what you can do with Speeds, except that we have much better filmstocks than they had 25 years ago.
We get $440/day for a BL4 with 2 Batteries and $500 for the 2-perf version. The Speeds are $400/day. If we put together a basic but quite shootable package, you can have the gear for less than $4,000/week, but it all depends on what you want in the kit.
Sure you can shoot with a Varicam or F900 for less, but the quality just doesn't compare.
I would propose that it is nearly impossible to shoot a feature that is of a quality to be distributed for less than $600 - 800,000. We've supported shows at much lower levels, but getting to distribution rarely works out.
Marty
Marty i respectfully disagree with you. We completed a full RED feature shot in mostly available light for well under 100K and it has since premiered in Berlin Filmfest and is now in competition at Tribeca Film Fest next week in NYC. I think the overall issue is that it comes down to is story, perfs aside and tech aside, those are all tools and if you made a compelling film on pixlvision then good on you.
hi marty,
thanks for the numbers...
i'm sorry if i gave the impression that i sneeze at everything but ultraprimes, that wasnt my intention at all. i quite like older lenses, in fact i own several myself. again the point i was trying to make (and obviously failed) is that panavision is in a different price range as far as i know (then again, i never rented panny gear myself, so maybe i'm wrong).
i also agree that distribution rarely works out for low budget films, but given the chance to make a completely independent feature for 30K which wont get distribution or NOT making a feature at all for 600K, i do prefer the former.. ;)
chris
Jason,
I have to agree that lacking a compelling story, nothing else matters. That is usually the problem with features, whether low budget or $50mil. No story, no brass ring.
BUT when it comes to film vs a wide variety of digital, the dynamic range and ISO of the current stocks really beats out most digital formats, RED included. You can nearly shoot in the dark with many formats, but then they don't look like we expect a dramatic show to look and that negatively colors the product.
When it comes to RED specifically, they say ISO 320, but most users we work with tend toward ISO 250 or 200 and a few even say ISO 160. For the sake of argument, let's say ISO 250. Compared to 35mm film, you'd need lights that are twice the size for RED to achieve a similar look, with the required generator of twice the size and more crew or more time to light. That boosts the cost of RED as compared to 35mm. While there is certainly a cost to film, processing and telecine, the playing field gets a bit more level on cost.
Just some thoughts.
Marty