Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Print Costs?

This is topic Print Costs? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004986

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 06-10-2003, 07:37 PM:

The other day one of the projectionists messed up the print of Finding Nemo. The assistant manager claims that to replace the print would cost about 6000$ Can.
Is this true?
If not what is the cost of an actual print?. 6000$ seems a little high because I was watching the special feature of a DVD of T2 and they claim that in 1991 a 35MM print would cost about 2000$ for a theater.

Anyone know the truth?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-10-2003, 08:25 PM:

Being a Disney print they'll also want your first born child.

As for the monetary value... it depends on what day of the week it is. I've heard of prices of a couple hundred to a thousand dollars a reel. I've never damaged a print though, so I can't really say for sure what they'd want to replace it, especially after only two weeks.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 06-10-2003, 10:55 PM:

It's been said here before that a print would cost roughly $1500, if it had a high print run. I remmeber when a Phantom Menace stolen print made the news, Lucasfilm claimed the print cost $60,000.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-10-2003, 11:03 PM:

Cost depends upon the length of the print, number of prints ordered, and the negotiated price between the lab and distributor. If you damage a print, the replacement cost is higher to cover the additional cost of the paperwork and shipping, as well as making a special print run if extra replacement reels are not available.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-10-2003, 11:36 PM:

Then again, if the damage was the theatre's fault, the distrib could ask almost anything they want. If the theatre lies down and pays it so as not to be punished later to get play on other big titles (illegal -- but very hard to prove), then the distrib can pretty much ask whatever he wants. If it comes to a court battle, then the distrib would have to show actual costs and probably get an allowance for paperwork and time as John said. Thing is, no one wants to wind up fighting the guy who is going to supply your next blockbuster.

Does anyone know if there is such a thing as print insurance? Seems that if a distrib can ask $6000 for a replacement, and accidents can happen with the poorly trained personnel that populate many booths, you would think any owner would have a way of getting relief in such a case. Then again, you would think a smart distrib would add a voluntary "in case of damage" insurance clause on the contract, much like the car rental companies do on their contracts. You know, the "Initial here and you're covered for any damage -- it's only $5" clause. "So if I sign there, then I can enter the car in the demolition derby, eh?" My last Enterprise car rental agent didn't see the humor.

Frank

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 06-11-2003, 12:54 AM:

Sony Classics asked for $3000 to replace our damaged Winged Migration print. The person who missed the roller is feeling pretty badly about it too.

Posted by Greg Routenburg (Member # 1742) on 06-11-2003, 09:48 AM:

A projectionist put a nice big emulsion scratch through the middle of Planet of the Apes on opening day at our theatre. It cost just a little over $6000 CAN to replace it aswell.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-11-2003, 10:24 AM:

I doubt it was 6000 ca
The normal print replacement cost is about 2000 ca for a 6 reel title if the replacement is done in the opening week
after that it costs around 45cents perfoot for lab work

Posted by John Carpenter (Member # 1488) on 06-11-2003, 10:48 AM:

We had to replace a 6 reel / aprox 2 hour film from Sony earlier this year due to "operator error" and it cost us $1680... and it was delivered on Saturday night of opening weekend.

Hope this helps.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-11-2003, 11:17 AM:

For 35mm release prints in large quantities, lab costs should be in the $.10/foot (or maybe lower) range, judging by the price sheets that I've seen. Also, figure on maybe $40 each per ICC shipping container and $5-10 each for good plastic reels. Costs will be much higher for one-off prints, laser-subtitled prints, B&W prints, one-off 16mm blowups, EK prints, etc. An answer print (of the type that one might find at festivals) can easily cost $10k. [Eek!]

Of course, the distributor can charge whatever they want for replacement prints and that charge may or may not have anything to do with the actual lab costs. I've never had to replace a print, so I don't know what they actually do charge.

Frank--I think that the insurance thing is an absolutely terrible idea. Wouldn't it just encourage people to say "it doesn't matter, we're insured" and then proceed to damage film?

Since it is in the distributor's interest to have good-looking prints, it only seems logical that they would spot-check prints upon their return to the depots (maybe inspect one out of every hundred or so) and bill theatres that returned them in bad condition. At least, that's what I'd do. That would be cheaper than inspecting every print, and would be enough of an incentive to encourage theatres to not damage film that fewer second-run and repertory houses would end up with crappy prints.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-11-2003, 11:26 AM:

Scott, I don't think most shipping containers and reels are purchased new, they are reused from junked prints.

--jhawk

Posted by Don E. Nelson (Member # 1049) on 06-11-2003, 02:57 PM:

...............too bad it wasn't a print of "The Hulk," that was destroyed............now there's a BIG waste of perfectly good celluloid film.

I understand "The Hulk" was to be originally filmed in a new film format called, "Hulk-o-Rama" where the film speeds up to 48 fps when the BIG green guy is on the screen,and this was supposed to give the cinematic illusion that this BIG green guy was really as BIG as he appeared to be on the screen, .......it was to be the first BIG psychological cinematic illusion from a BIG Marin County FX house called . "Shrink Wrap Effects" , and this may account for the reason why this 93 minute film reportedly seems like it is over 2 1/2 hours long, according to people who previewed this BIG film before it was even shot.

It was going to be shown only in specially outfitted "Hulk-o-Rama" Multiplex Theaters with an especially BIG Hulk-o-Rama matrix sound system built into one of the new spandex "active gain" movie screens.

One of the really BIG theatre chains even anticipated re-modeling their snack bars and calling them "Snack-A Ramas" and supposedly they were only going to sell green colored drinks and snacks and you could only use green money to buy the stuff. (Unbelievable) Another really,really BIG theatre/movie studio chain even went as far as installing special Hulk-a- Mania green cordauroy seats in their BIGGEST stadium seating auditorium, and installed a specially woven "glow in the dark" green carpet.
The ushers were only going to be allowed to check the thermostat with green colored flashlights.

Too bad we have to settle for regualr 35mm version, shown in a regular multiplex with regular snacks. Whats the BIG deal anyway.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-11-2003, 06:22 PM:

Scott wrote:

quote:
Frank--I think that the insurance thing is an absolutely terrible idea. Wouldn't it just encourage people to say "it doesn't matter, we're insured" and then proceed to damage film?

I have never damaged a print, but I used to have insurance to cover me, just in case. I gave it up when I went for several years without doing any projection work, but now that I am doing some again, I think it is time to get it again. I used to have cover for up to five thousand pounds, which should be enough to cover most prints, not 70mm, but I've only run that once but I did quite often handle 'special' prints.

I've only ever run single screens, and always stay with the machines while they are running, so the chances of damaging more than a single reel are slight, but I wouldn't want to risk having to pay out for a new print. I can't remember how much the insurance cost me, but it wasn't very much, tens of pounds per year. Having insurance seems sensible, I'm not going to take less care handling prints just because I've got it.

What really makes ne nervous is projecting original 16mm camera reversal material, if you damage that you've had it.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-11-2003, 06:37 PM:

When Denmark is going to real highs, for instance on local comedies, the number of prints is about 100, and the cost of a 2400 meter 8.000 feet print then is as low as 6.-7.000 DKR = less than 1.000 USD - Original language, no subtitles, which must be same as Your Nemo print.

I once re-issued "Battle of Britain" (don't ask me why), and after 5 prints coming over the big waters and returned from one reason or another (two were pan & scan for video...) United Artists ended up with ordering me a print, stuck by Technicolor London from the original wault neg, on which they had to do manual filtersettings for every scene - the print costing 54.000 DKR = 7.200 USD (in 1985) before subtitling. 7 reels, but still the most expensive print, i've ever bought.

Danish cinemas can't book films at all, without confirmed insurance coverage of every single print in house and under transport. Distributors association will announce price on 35 and 70 mm prints once a year to renew. -Noone talked about 70mm prints the last 10 years, though...
Normal insurance will cover "all-risk" that is both film prints and equipment.

p.

[ 06-11-2003, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Per Hauberg ]

Posted by Greg Routenburg (Member # 1742) on 06-11-2003, 10:45 PM:

Well it appears that these sneaky Canadian Managers are using print replacement costs as a scare tactic so people are more careful when handling the film. I suppose it works but it sure doesn't do anything for moral.

Posted by Rick Long (Member # 213) on 06-11-2003, 11:21 PM:

I agree with Greg, the cost to low-paid employee morale far outweighs the cost of replacing a print.

I have heard of prices around 2K for replacement, but, as John points out, the costs could go higher, depending on circumstances.

Still doesn't it really come down to 2 things; a matter of proper training, and the set-up of the equipment such that it reduces the likeleyhood of scratching a print?

Have not the booth staff been trained in such a manner that checking threading is a matter or routine that one automatically does without thinking about it?

Who of us, near the end of a long day, have not caught ourselves almost using the wrong roller-set on a platter (and hopefully catching it in time) before it could destroy or mar a print? Can't booth equipment design be modified so that this mistake cant be made nearly impossible?

Given these two important factors to consider, is there any way an employee could be conclusevely charged with print damage, and forced to pay to replace same?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-12-2003, 12:32 AM:

Scott, I think the insurance thing would be something the exhibitor would take out to protect only against acts-of-god, like a piece of equipment failing and causing damage; negligent print abuse certaintly wouldn't be covered. But I imagine there are very few insurance companies around that are knowledgeable in the specifics of booth operation that they would be offering that kind of coverage.

But then given Stephen's post, at least in England, he was able to get personal coverage, something I never thought of. I think I would be OK with buying personal coverage if it weren't too expensive and if I could find a carrier this side of the pond, only because I run "this is the only copy" prints and even those 16mm camera reversal prints at lots of festivals, and those festival people are insane! [Smile]

It would be great knowing that if a few drive train gears strip in the projector and some footage comes out looking like shredded wheat, they won't take me out and shoot me. Or at least they have to let me live long enough to collect the insurance money for them!

Frank

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 06-12-2003, 05:57 AM:

As an exhibitor from 1978-2002, I could only obtain £5,000. ($8,362USD) insurance cover for loss of film due to fire or theft including during transit. Film could not be insured whilst on the projectors.

My Broker was a specialist in cinemas, so I assume it is general in the UK.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-12-2003, 06:59 AM:

Bernard wrote:

quote:

Film could not be insured whilst on the projectors.

Well, I managed to get cover for it. It's about five or six years since I gave it up, and I can't remember which company provided it, but I think I still have the paperwork somewhere, I'll try to find it when I've got some spare time. Obviously there were exclusions, but it did cover accidental damage during projection.

Neither company nor broker were specialists in the field.

If I couldn't get cover again in future it would be a real pain; I'd have to seriously consider whether I could do any projection work.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-13-2003, 03:11 AM:

quote:
What really makes ne nervous is projecting original 16mm camera reversal material, if you damage that you've had it.

That thought has occured to me, as we have more than a few of these elements and depositors usually demand videos. In the vast majority of cases we can't afford to have dupe negs and (film) viewing copies made, and for these elements our rule is very clear and simple: we will telecine them once and then never again unless they are subsequently duped to film or the video master is lost or damaged. Thank goodness we've never suffered any damage during this process but there's always an element of risk, if only a small one - a roller shaft breaking in the machine while it's running, for example.

In the film archive world the insurance situation is that copies are insurable, but not originals. This is because dupes have a quantifiable cost and are thus a known risk, whereas originals are unique and thus irreplacable. You could get into arguments about the potential loss of commercial footage exploitation revenue to determine a risk value, but these are just that - arguments, and insurers tend not to want to have them.

I presume that the same applies to labs when they run the camera negative of a multi-million dollar blockbuster through a printer (i.e. insurance companies won't go near them). I was once speaking to a lab manager who developed the first super 16 film to be shot in space. He said that the operator of the developing machine (who had to unload and thread up the element in total darkness) simply was not told what the can contained, in case he got nervous!

Posted by Howard Johnson (Member # 62) on 06-13-2003, 03:58 AM:

If you are nervous about running originals you wouldn't have liked working for British Movietone News in the 60s ! We ran the original camera 35mm negs as our rushes and also for dubbing commentary and music! We were careful but we didnt have any damage.

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 06-13-2003, 05:22 AM:

Much the same in my days with ITN News, 16mm reversal colour magnetic stripe stock was used. This would be edited then R&R dubbed with additional commentary etc. onto sep mag track, which later or even within minutes went out live on air. Very rarely was there time to time to telecine to VTR, unless there was an arranged studio package to be made with inserts.

We often used to telecine rare material from Movietone & Pathe Newsreels, also the Imperial War Museum. Some stock was on nitrate, only 2,000' was allowed on the premises at one time. During telecine (Rank Cintel) two uniformed security personnel used to stand each side of the operator with fire extinguishers! Much to our relief nitrate was later banned completely.

When I was one of the relief projectionists at the BFI Cinema City exhibition at Chalk Farm during 1970, we ran many rare prints including BBC 35mm features’ transmission prints on Kalee 20s.

Stephen,

I can understand your concern, and for an Individual doing occasional specialised projection, no doubt insurance cover for film damage on projectors is possible and the way to go.