In the interest of maintaining that control, a number of industry experts were recently canvassed to determine the cost of going with film dailies alone, video dailies alone or any combination of the two. Since the form of dailies you use is closely tied to the system with which you cut, I have also included editing considerations for the sake of an honest assessment. The results are surprising. In ascending order, from the least expensive to the most expensive: A)Film dailies\film edit. No video dailies; B) Videotape dailies\digital edit with no conformed print. No film dailies; video dailies are transferred from the camera negative. The first film projected onscreen would be the first answer print; C) Film and video dailies\digital edit. One-quarter-inch production sound is transferred to 35mm mag track and synched to the workprint. Synched picture and sound are then transferred to create video dailies and to allow for digitization; D) Videotape dailies\digital edit with conformed print. No film dailies. Before negative cutting, prints of each take must be ordered so as to conform to one's digital edit list. This can be very expensive and time-consuming and creates all sorts of nightmares for the lab and editor; it also endangers the physical integrity of the negative due to excessive handling.
If you've followed my reasoning to this point, Option C appears to be the choice most likely to keep all parties satisfied, with the possible exceptions of certain line producers or studio executives. Keeping that in mind, the accompanying cost comparison chart (see page 36) illustrates the difference between having both film and tape dailies during principal photography versus tape dailies alone. First, some guidelines: this chart is based on a $1 million, 24-day feature shoot; the production would expose an average of 5,000' of negative per day; even in the videotape-only scenario, some amount of film would be printed in the form of the Print Roll described earlier and the director and producer would see at least one version of the movie onscreen before the negative was cut; editing would take place on the Avid or some other digital system.
The calculated conclusion is that over a 24-day shoot, it will cost about $12,172 more to have print dailies along with the tape versions. This sounds like a lot of money when you consider that on a $1 million project, $12,000 could mean the difference between having an art department or not. But the equation doesn't end there. Remember that the guidelines listed above state that the director and producer will see at least one version of the film onscreen before the negative is cut. And why shouldn't they? In today's industry, each time someone signs off on a film, his or her career and future is on the line. After the overwhelming amount of work it takes to get a movie to completion, it's positively insane for one not to take a look at the product under the same conditions that an audience will experience. Waiting until the answerprint stage to see something onscreen as listed in Option B is no bargain, either. By that point, the negative has already been cut, and any changes decided upon after the screening become prohibitively complex and expensive. Thus, for the sake of this comparison, two additional items must be included: the $10,000 estimated cost of film-to-tape conform (without cutting the negative), which corresponds to Option D; and the amount of time (three to four weeks) that this will add to the postproduction schedule. Suddenly, the $12,172 initially saved by not having print dailies is dramatically reduced. What does that mean to the director of photography desperate to see an onscreen image during the production process? For a feature with a $1 million budget, having both print and video dailies will add just $2,172 to the cost. This represents less than one-half of one percent of the budget.
Naturally, these figures can be adjusted up or down according to the amount of film being shot. However, understand that the cost of raw stock, processing, printing and transfer, among other technical necessities, will remain fairly constant at budget levels between $1 to $5 million. Assuming that one shoots at a 10:1 ratio, the prices will rise only if the total of exposed footage is run up. Barring some dramatic shift in the market or a major technological advance, cost is clearly not a reason to deny the use of printed dailies.
Why the occasional struggle, then? Perhaps on one side there's a lack of understanding as to the need of film dailies, along with inexperience and a false grasp of the economics involved. On the other side is an intense desire on the part of directors of photography to do the finest job possible. For the majority of cinematographers, shooting a film a labor of love. While long hours are standard for every person associated with a production, no member of the team works harder or has a greater sincerity in attaining the best possible look for the story.
Robert Primes, ASC sums it all up: "It's a shame that no one has yet found a device to measure the impact that beautifully realized images have on an audience, and by beautifully realized I mean photography appropriate to the story, not pictures of sunsets. We presume they're affected by the acting because they become fans of the performers. We presume they're affected by the music because they buy the soundtrack. If an audience simply likes the movie, most of the time they give all of the credit to the director. Though what we do isn't measured, anything that takes away from our ability to create mood and beauty through the cinematography hurts the entire package. The certitude of print dailies give you leads to vital, exciting work that pushes the envelope and supports everything else that's going on in the picture."
— Richard Crudo is a Los Angeles-based director of photography whose credits include Federal Hill (see AC May '95), American Buffalo (AC Feb. '96) and the upcoming Music From Another Room. He expresses special thanks to Kathryn Riccio and Brent Elam for assembling the budget information included in this article.
[ Cost comparison chart ]