Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cost of Digital Prints

This is topic Cost of Digital Prints in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000518

Posted by Alex Shultz (Member # 5027) on 03-02-2010, 12:57 AM:

I was talking to the booking agent at Disney today about getting THE LAST SONG on the break. He told me that I don't earn enough on a film like that to get it on the break. I've run in to that before where they only do 2500 prints and they would have to do 3300 to make it where I can get one on the break.

I asked him if I would be able to get it if I were doing digital projection instead of 35mm by that time (which SHOULD be the case by then). He said that, unlike 3D where they would throw a print at me immediately, they won't give me a print on the break unless I can earn back the cost of the print (which he claimed to be about $2k) and make them some money on it in the 2-3 weeks I would have it.

Does a digital print really cost that much? I thought the whole point of the digital stuff was because it would all be so much cheaper.

I can understand that Disney wants to make sure they don't lose money giving a print to me. I don't understand why a digital print would cost so much that they think I wouldn't be able to bring in enough to make them some money on it.

I'm thinking that the cost of a 35mm print might be $2k but the cost of a digital print should be about $2 + the cost of the hard drive. This isn't 1980 so I don't think the hard drive is costing $2k.

I came away from the conversation a bit confused. And a bit miffed. It seems to me that either I completely misunderstand how much less it will cost the studios to produce digital prints OR Disney is trying to create scarcity. I'm sure there's something else going on here that I don't get.

I don't understand why a studio would limit the amount of prints of a movie going out, especially if they can send out a sub-$100 (?) digital print somewhere and get it to play on a screen in place of some other studio's show.

What am I missing out on here?

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 03-02-2010, 06:03 AM:

I have no idea what the real motive is, but it's definitely not money. Digital print is NOT that expensive to make (around the ballpark of two hundred rather than two thousand) and what's even more baffling, they can very well ship you the digital print, have you dowload it into your hard drive and then ship it on to someone else. You don't need to hold on to the copy to be able to show it! Even further, they can do this well in advance, and then only get you the KDM a day before the first show, they can get twenty theaters to show that very same copy they made for three hundred bucks.

SO there's definitely something going on there. OR... the person you talked to doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Or trusts that you don't. Which would be very stupid... I guess it could be that if you don't have your projector yet, they don't know what kind of equipment you're getting, they need to send your specs to the people making the keys and whatnot... it's a lot of hassle there and it takes some time. Nothing that two phone calls wouldn't accomplish, but they are able to make things very, very complicated for some odd reason. It's amazing really. Maybe to create jobs? [Big Grin]

Ahh- silly me. I think I get it. The studio has a VPF deal with someone they will have to pay for your booking (I'm confused at this -who do they pay to if the theater isn't in any VPF deal but owns its equipment?) and that's why they're wanting to make the extra 2K.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 03-02-2010, 08:15 AM:

If you had digital installed under one of the integrators (i.e. Cinedigm, Kodak, Sony, DCIP, etc) then the studios would be paying a VPFs (Virtual Print Fees) to that company for use of the digital projector they installed at minimal cost to you. I understand this VPF is supposedly around 50% the cost of a 35mm print.

Another cost to the studio is the company that does the physical distribution (i.e. Deluxe, Technicolor, Cinedigm) of the hard drive - while the exhibitor pays the shipping cost of the HD I assume they are also charging the studios a fee based on the number of HDs they send out.

Now, if you bought a digital projector outside of a VPF deal the studio would not have to pay that VPF on any digital copy you exhibit - the only cost they would incur is on the physical distribution side, which should be minimal.

We have found that many of the low level studio people we deal with do not seem to know how the digital deals are structured and it sounds like your guy is one of them.

Also, if you read the Wall Street Journal article about DCIP they reported $850 as the supposed VPF amount DCIP is getting from the studios.

Now the studios will still limit the number of copies they allow to be shown in a specific market - it is not always a factor of how many prints they physically have but how many copies they want running at the same time (we run into "not enough print" situations at one of our rural all digital locations a few times a year).

Posted by Alex Shultz (Member # 5027) on 03-02-2010, 09:15 AM:

Ahh. The VPF. I forgot about that. I'm self-financing the whole thing but Disney doesn't know that yet since I haven't been able to send them any paperwork about the equipment that is still in production. That makes sense to me. The installer said to make sure that the studios all know that I am self-financed and not part of a VPF deal and I bet that's where this is coming in.

I do not think it's something where they have too many prints in the market. I'm the only place for 30 miles and the next closest "bigger" theatre grosses almost the same as I do while I'm in a place with about 1/3 the population.

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 03-02-2010, 09:25 AM:

I am all digital with no VPF and running into a similar situation. Couldn't get Shutter Island on the break, but Paramount would gladly make me a hard drive two weeks later (we are opening it this Friday).

It seems these decisions are not yet made on a film vs. digital basis at the individual theater level. The top brass tell the regional salesman you have so many copies to give out and once they hit their number, they are done.

I wonder if Deluxe/Techincolor charge the studios less to produce hard drives/keys/logistical support for second run bookings.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-02-2010, 09:35 AM:

Distributors are treating exhibitors differently based upon whether VPFs are involved? I thought that this was not supposed to happen....

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 03-02-2010, 03:32 PM:

You would think (if no VPF issues) that they would want as many places to show it at the highest percentage, rather than a few weeks later when it is cheaper.

Even if the hard drives were thrown away rather than reused the cost should not be that high.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 03-02-2010, 03:59 PM:

This sounds like a monetary issue, regardless of exhibition format.

The key phrase is

quote: Alex Shultz
....they won't give me a print on the break unless I can earn back the cost of the print (which he claimed to be about $2k) and make them some money on it in the 2-3 weeks I would have it.

...with emphasis on the last line.

This has always been the way when it comes to the distribs giving access to prints - digi or sprockety - and I don't think it will change just because of the so-called higher accessability of the hard drive format.

It's all about maximising return on the release regardless of format.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-02-2010, 04:00 PM:

The big thing you're paying for with a film print or virtual digital print is human labor. It requires staff to produce, organize and ship all those prints as well as staff to run the services necessary for digital projection. That sort of staff isn't exactly cheap.

A 300GB external hard disc can be purchased new for well under $100. The amount of plastic in a 35mm film print probably isn't worth all that much money either.

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 03-02-2010, 04:32 PM:

The CRU drives being used for DCP distribution cost much more than
$100.

I've had problems with one of our distributors who is being charged a large amount just for supplying a drive (and key) for our subrun.
They will happily provide 35mm via the same shipper. So there's definitely something odd going on with digital subrun.

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 03-02-2010, 10:50 PM:

and also not forgetting the point that the digital hard drives are reused all the time , they are not purchasing a new drive for each picture.

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 03-03-2010, 09:30 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Distributors are treating exhibitors differently based upon whether VPFs are involved? I thought that this was not supposed to happen....

Exactly my point. We in FInland don't have many VPF deals in place, but they are negotiated, I am told. Just learned about the whole thing actually! We're self-financed as well, so this whole deal bugs me to no end... I mean, from a distributor's point of view, someone comes and says "listen, you're going to have to pay us every time you book a film for *some theater*. Why? Because we all want you to." as a distr. what sense does that make? In the long run, yes, when everyone goes digital and everything's cheaper but hey, if I'm a tiny tiny distributor I may see the sense in just telling them to bugger off. They'll come again saying "since you don't wanto to make a deal with us, you're gonna have to pay a higher fee" what if I tell them again to take their deals somewhere else and let me do my business as I see fit? What will they do?

I just don't get it. And secondly, if a theater is one of those I will have to pay a VPF for, and then there's one that bought its own equipment (and I supposedly don't have to pay) what sense on earth is there to give the print to they one that will cost me more?

Can anyone explain this logic to me? I get the principal, just not how it's going to work in real life...

Posted by Alex Shultz (Member # 5027) on 03-30-2010, 12:08 AM:

I talked some more today about getting Oceans on the break. It looks like Disney is only contracting for 1000 runs. So getting a copy to my isn't a concern with how much does it cost to copy a file to a hard drive. It comes down to how much does it cost to pay everyone needed in the chain to get permission and whatever for 1001 shows where I am that extra one. How frustrating!

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 03-30-2010, 08:19 AM:

The "plastic" used to make the film isn't the costly part, it's the silver-halide emulsion coated on one side of it and the cost of processing, timing, and shipping that is.

If I were to buy unprocessed 2383, it'd cost me at LEAST $0.20 per foot. That's for unexposed rawstock, chemistry, electricity, processing control, and maintaining a monstrous ECP processor is very very costly.

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 03-30-2010, 09:15 AM:

quote: Jonathan Smith
silver-halide emulsion

There's still actually silver? I thought it was all dye now.

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 03-30-2010, 09:47 AM:

There's still silver halide in the undeveloped film (it's the light-sensitive part), but it's removed in processing during bleach/fix unless bleach is skipped to make a contrastier, blacker image.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-30-2010, 10:15 AM:

quote: Jonathan Smith
If I were to buy unprocessed 2383, it'd cost me at LEAST $0.20 per foot. That's for unexposed rawstock, chemistry, electricity, processing control, and maintaining a monstrous ECP processor is very very costly.

Plus the cost of water, and of treating and heating it, and the cost of treatment and disposal of effulent, minus the value of the silver recovered.

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 03-30-2010, 11:22 AM:

There's very little silver left in print film (still plenty in camera film stock though), and it is all recovered now unless they do a silver retension process (ala "Terminator Salvation" or "Gladiator" or "Headless Horseman"), but it is still a necessary part of the imaging process. There used to be silver left in the soundtrack too before the cyan transition.

But Kodak and Fuji have to charge for that. They have to coat it in the dark. There isn't a 35mm "inkjet" printer. The dye is formed photographically unless you're talking about the now defunct technicolor or Kodachrome processes.

I saw a thread on here where someone was saying it was only a couple cents a foot. There's no way it's under $0.20 per foot when you consider the cost of exposing, processing, and printing the film too.

The most I could see Kodak giving someone off list is 40%. I here that their print film is cheaper than Fuji's in volume (whereas it is 20% MORE expensive if you don't buy in mass quantities, same with camera film).

Posted by Jussi Siponen (Member # 5572) on 04-01-2010, 04:35 AM:

Edit: Jonathan had already replied, my post was redundant. (I didnt see Jontahan's post, my browser cache must be acting up or something...)

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-04-2010, 10:28 AM:

While I cannot divulge my source, I can confirm that 35mm prints cost (not on reels) is "under $1000." Reels/can are reused but billed to each production as if they were new. . . infuriating, isn't it?

I have another source that lists raw costs as even lower. Remember you get a deal if you have a yearly contract for tens of thousands of reels. Louis

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 04-06-2010, 10:05 AM:

Louis: I find that hard to believe.

Even in volume, (I know labs that run ECP, you see, Cinelab, for one) I don't think they go below $0.15/ft.

You can't get a "volume discount" on water or labor, either, at least not legally.

You had better believe the lab techs at the film labs aren't getting paid minimum wage. Those are $20/hr. jobs, probably at least 3-4 technicians for each machine, printer operators, packagers, inspectors, darkroom technicians, chemists.

Even at 10 cents a foot, which is unlikely, even with a billion-foot order of print stock, the cost of labor after all is said and done is going to bring it to at least 20 cents per foot.

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 04-06-2010, 12:15 PM:

It's all dye after the lab is done with it. But silver is still used to FORM the dyes during photographic exposure.

The only part that used to be silver in color film was the soundtrack. That's all gone now in cyan dye prints, unless of course you have a silver-retension process on the release prints.