Shooting 16mm Film On A Budget With My New Arri 16SRII

I’m a huge fan of the 16mm format. Many of my favorite films are shot on 16 or S16, and for years I’ve had a goal of shooting future projects, notably a feature film, on 16mm. I had written about the idea on my blog a while back, but it’s taken me some time to find the right project to put it to use on and figure out the most cost effective method to get it done.

Unfortunately, since I first got bit with the 16mm bug in the early 2010’s, prices associated with shooting film have gone up substantially. Not because film is becoming less popular, but because it’s having a massive comeback right now.

There was a point several years back when digital overtook film in terms of popularity, even on most large scale projects. There were of course still some die hard celluloid lovers that refused to shoot on anything but film, but that number was dwindling. It was unclear what would happen with film, or if it would even survive at all.

At that time, everything was dirt cheap. 16mm cameras and lenses could be found on the used market at ridiculous prices. And raw film stock was being sold for rock bottom prices too. To put it in perspective, in 2016 – just two years ago – I was able to buy 16mm film from Kodak for $125/400 ft roll at a discounted rate. Today the standard price is about $180 for the same roll.

There are currently options to buy discounted film stock (re-cans, short ends, returned stock) for around $150 per roll, which is a good option for longer form projects.

But it’s not just the film stock that’s gone up. Camera bodies and kits have increased in price substantially too, as there are far fewer on the market compared to 5 years ago.

The bright side to this price increase is that it signals film is here to stay… At least in some capacity. But for those of us that want to reap the benefits of film but are still looking to keep our budgets in check, we need to think outside the box when working with 16.

I’ve been doing loads of research on the market, trying to figure out what the best combination of gear, processing, and workflow considerations would result in the highest quality image, in the most cost effective way.

Here’s what I learned along the way –


One of the first things to consider when getting into 16mm is your camera choice.

There’s a huge range of incredible 16mm/Super 16mm cameras on the market, all with massively different price points. Many filmmakers are tempted to simply go with the cheapest option, as they understand that film stock and lens choice are ultimately what play the biggest role in their final image.

Cameras like the K3 (Krasnogorsk 3) or Bolex H-16 can be found relatively inexpensively on eBay, and are capable of delivering beautiful results. Naturally they are popular with budget conscious filmmakers.


On the other end of the spectrum are cameras like the beautiful Arri 416, which is effectively a Super 16mm version of a true modern 35mm motion picture camera – Arguably the best 16mm camera in existence.

If all you’re doing is shooting MOS material, music videos, or more experimental films, the lower cost options might work just fine. Provided they are in great condition and there are no mechanical issues.

But once you start getting into narrative filmmaking, the ultra cheap cameras just won’t cut it for most filmmakers. Issues with ergonomics, noise, amount of load the magazines take, or basic functionality (like crystal sync for true 24fps), lead most filmmakers to look at cameras that are truly designed for professional use.

Most of the popular professional grade 16mm cameras were made by Aaton and Arri, with Arri’s 16SR line being the most popular of all.

The lineup, which consisted of variations of the SR1, SR2, and SR3, was iconic and massively popular with filmmakers thanks to incredible performance and reliability. These cameras were only overshadowed by the Arri 416… But the 416 was released just as film was being replaced by digital on higher level productions, so it never gained the same cult-status the SR series did. There are also far less of them on the used market.

So when it came time for me to make a purchase, the Arriflex SR’s seemed to be the perfect happy medium. Professional enough to use on a real set, but not as expensive as the 416 which can run upwards of $20K (or more).

Today, it costs anywhere from $5000 – $10,000+ to purchase a fully functioning 16SR series kit, depending on what it comes with, which model you choose, and the condition. Drastically higher than the going rate just a few years ago.

That said, I personally ended up paying only $2500 for my entire kit, which included an SR2 body, 2 x batteries (with charger), mattebox, vari-speed controller/digital footage counter upgrade, 2 x 400’ magazines, and a Zeiss 10 – 100 T2 lens.

I was able to buy the camera at this price was because 1) it was purchased directly from the owner, not a reseller, and 2) the camera is standard 16mm.

For me, it was the perfect option, as I had planned to shoot my 16mm film project in 1.33 aspect ratio (4:3), so I was happy not to spend extra money right now for the wider gate of Super 16mm. If I want to upgrade it down the road for a future project (which I plan to), I can always bring it into the shop to be converted.

It’s fairly expensive to convert 16mm SR2’s to Super 16mm right now, but it can still make sense financially if you get a good enough deal on the Standard 16mm SR2. Not to mention, if you are able to purchase Super 16mm magazines, you don’t need to convert your standard 16mm magazines, and that brings the conversion cost down further.

It’s become harder to find shops that have the parts/ability to convert 16 to Super 16, so for those interested in doing so, I would suggest getting it done sooner than later.

Most filmmakers will find it more cost effective to simply rent a camera when they plan to shoot a 16mm project. If you’re in a major market like LA or NY, you can rent them for a couple hundred bucks a day, which is optimal for those that just want to dabble. For me personally, I wanted to have it long term, and use it across multiple projects, so the purchase made sense.


A quick note: I touched on this subject on my recent micro-budget weekly newsletter, and used some slightly different examples/cost projections. The numbers outlined here are most current with the vendors and facilities I’m currently working with.

When you start working with film, you realize quickly that the camera package is the least of your concerns, cost-wise. Film stock and processing is by far and away where you’ll spend the most amount of money, especially if you work with a pricey lab.

To give you a rough idea of cost, let’s start with the film stock itself which you will likely purchase straight from Kodak. The going rate is about $180 for a 400 ft roll. Each roll gives you approximately 11 minutes of runtime (at 24fps), so if you are shooting a short film that’s approximately 10 minutes long, and shooting with a ratio of 5:1, you’ll need 5 full rolls, which comes to $900 at full price.

Ideally, the goal is to not pay full price for the stock. If you can find re-cans or returned stock, you can save anywhere from $25 – $50 per roll. The lowest I’ve paid for stock was $125, and that was brand new straight from Kodak, but that was also two years ago.

That said, there are lots of options out there for getting discounted stock, especially if you’re a student or if you’re buying in volume. Not to mention, some labs will bundle their film stock with processing and scanning, which can help you save money too.

Typically labs will offer à la carte services for processing (developing your film) and scanning it to a digital file. They will usually also offer bundled packaging with both processing and scanning included, as it’s unlikely you would process your film at one lab and scan it somewhere else.

The lab I plan to work with charges about $112 per roll for the processing and prepping to be scanned (cleaning, etc.). So using the example above, the 5 rolls processed and prepped would run an additional $560.

Pricing out the scanning gets a little more intricate, as the cost varies significantly based on how you scan the footage. For instance, older telecine systems (which run the footage through in real time, or close to it, typically cost a lot less than data scanners that go frame by frame, and are more expensive as they deliver superior quality. Also – if you want to have the lab do any sort of color correction, that’s going to add to the cost as well, which is why I recommend having your lab scan a log file (ideally in ProRes 422HQ minimum), and do the color grading yourself.

There are lots of other cost variables to consider during this phase too, such as resolution (HD, 2K, 4K), and whether or not you want the lab to remove dirt or scratches from your scanned files.

The most cost effective solution that I found – which seems to offer a nice balance of quality and price – runs the film through a Cintel scanner at a rate of $250/hr. This will result in a 2K file which will be nearly identical to it’s 4K counterpart, but far more economical. Without doing any color work during this stage, the footage effectively runs at half speed, meaning for 5 rolls of film (which total almost one hour of runtime) will need two hours to scan, not one. That brings our scanning cost to $500.

Some of these numbers may sound high, but these are really bottom of the barrel. Some labs will charge double or triple these rates, so this type of pricing is actually quite competitive.

If we tally up the full cost of stock/processing/scanning, we are looking at:

Raw stock (assuming reduced rate of $150/roll): $750
Processing: $560
Scanning: $500

Total: $1810


Clearly, even taking the most economical approach to raw stock/processing/scanning still results in a high sticker price. If we were to budget out a 90 minute feature film (which would require 41 rolls at a 5:1 shooting ratio), we’re looking at $6150 for the stock (at the reduced price), $4592 for the processing, and $3750 for scanning. That’s a total of $14,492.

For many true micro-budget films, that figure is their entire budget, or at least close to it. A film with a $50K + budget might be able to work with those numbers, but on the ultra DIY end, the only way to make shooting film possible is to utilize a much lower shooting ratio.

Some filmmakers coming from the digital world will find it hard to wrap their heads around even a 5:1 ratio. They are used to shooting 10:1 or 20:1 – essentially just spraying and praying, as they say.

I’ve been guilty of that myself from time to time, but I’ve learned over the years that I typically only need 3 takes to get what I need on set, provided we’ve rehearsed actors and camera. Not to mention, there are many instances where I’ve gotten what I needed in a single take, and simply done one extra take for safety.

When shooting digitally, you often just keep shooting because you can, and if anything it can be a hindrance to the production as time is wasted. Film creates the opposite problem as the scarcity forces tough decisions on the director and DP, but at the same time it leads to more instinctual decision making.

All that said, it’s important to understand that reducing your shooting ratio (by default) means you need to reduce your coverage too. To illustrate the point –

Imagine we are shooting standard coverage on a one minute dialogue scene between two characters (one wide shot, two close ups). That’s 3 individual shots that could span the entire length of the one minute long scene. A 3:1 ratio doesn’t mean we need 3 minutes worth of film for that one minute scene. It means 9 minutes of footage, since we are shooting 3 different angles, and each angle needs 3 minutes.

So in order to lower our shooting ratio, we need to minimize our coverage too. The good news, is that doesn’t mean we can’t capture a wide variety of shots in the film, or that scenes can’t “feel” like they are covered. It just takes a different approach.

A longer dialogue scene for instance, could be broken up into 3 or 4 smaller chunks. Each of those sections could be covered as it’s own piece, rather than doing a single master shot for the entire scene, and then shooting inserts or closeups separately. When stringing it out in the edit, the scene will still have multiple shots in it, and it can be just as visually interesting. But by not overlapping coverage (and instead only shooting what you need), your shooting ratio can drop without needing to sacrifice shots.

And if there are some scenes that can be captured from a single angle (and are nailed in one take), that will leave you with extra raw stock that can be tacked on to one of the more challenging scenes. It call comes down to really thinking about what you need, and realizing you don’t need to overshoot your material. If anyone doesn’t think it can be done, read Rebel Without A Crew by Robert Rodriguez and then get back to me.

In our hypothetical example above, if we can get the ratio down to 3:1, that would bring the total cost down to just $8800 – a big drop from nearly $15,000 at a 5:1 ratio.

For some no-budget or DIY films, this will still be too high. In those cases – digital is absolutely the way to go. But for many films in the $25K+ range, this is a reasonable option to consider, and likely in line with prices that would be paid out for a digital camera rental, media, drives, and peripherals.


A lot of what we’ve discussed above focuses on mitigating the challenges associated with shooting film – namely cost. That said, there are so many benefits to shooting film that matter just as much as the quality.

As I alluded to earlier in the article, film changes the entire dynamic of what you shoot and how you shoot. It forces you to truly think about what you’re saying on a deeper level, and challenges you to be a more effective storyteller by using those creative limitations to your advantage. It adds a level of importance, urgency, and immediacy to everything you do, and that is felt throughout the cast and crew.

There are practical advantages too. For instance, shooting a low ratio means your edit time will be massively cut down. Less time and money is needed for post-production, including color grading as the film scans will likely be far closer to a final look than a digital negative might be.

But most importantly is that beautiful 16mm image that simply can not be replicated digitally. Picking up your DSLR will always be the easier option, and for some projects it may be the better way to go. But for those films that do call for that unmistakable 16mm look, the extra blood sweat and tears that go into the process are well worth it.

For more content like this, follow me on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter!

About Author

Noam Kroll is an award-winning Los Angeles based filmmaker, and the founder of the boutique production house, Creative Rebellion. His work can be seen at international film festivals, on network television, and in various publications across the globe. Follow Noam on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook for more content like this!


  • Will
    April 23, 2021 at 5:43 am

    What is the Lab that you use in LA?

    • Noam Kroll
      April 28, 2021 at 7:20 pm

      I’ve used a few, but Spectra is great!

  • Massimo
    January 8, 2021 at 11:06 am

    Hi Noam,
    I have an Arri 16SR II and I was just wondering how expensive is to upgrade it to Super 16.
    Many thanks

    • Noam Kroll
      January 14, 2021 at 2:26 am

      I think it was about $1500 all in. I went with Bernie at Super 16 Inc. Good luck!

      • Joerg
        March 2, 2021 at 3:49 am

        Highly unlikely! That’s probably an Ultra 16 conversion. S16 conversions of an SR2 run in the neighborhood of 6-7K. In other words it’s probably better to find a S16 camera from the start. It’s a lot easier and cheaper with an Aaton LTR because these were switchable meaning the mount and finder can be re-centered from the start, so that leaves only the widening of the gate. For an SR the conversion kit alone costs a good bit more than what you’ve been quoted.

  • Miriam
    May 15, 2020 at 6:43 pm

    Really useful information, thank you. I’ve done some shorts on film and am now looking to do a first feature. Here in Latin America the challenge is where to get the stock and then where to get the stuff processed… Any recommendations?

    • Daniel
      July 28, 2020 at 10:03 pm

      I realize this is an old comment, but for anyone reading in the future Kodak’s website lists a Latin American sale contact:

      Mark Breeze | VP of Sales Western Region US&C & LAR
      Phone: 1-310-866-3597

    • Noam Kroll
      August 5, 2020 at 3:48 pm

      I would contact Kodak USA and see if they can point you in the right direction. eBay also regularly has film stock, as well as B & H (although I don’t know if they ship to your area). Good luck!

  • franco
    April 14, 2020 at 6:08 pm

    do you get any video tap option?

    • Noam Kroll
      August 5, 2020 at 3:40 pm

      Nope, but hope to get one in the future.

  • gaib
    March 22, 2020 at 2:27 pm

    Hi Noah!

    Just had a question regarding the loading of super 16mm on an Arri SR type camera. I have seen tutorials on bolex cams where they say you dont require to load the film in complete darkness. Is this the case with loading a 400ft roll on an arri sr? You would likely need a dark bag to load the film into the magazine correct?

    • Noam Kroll
      August 5, 2020 at 3:25 pm

      Yes, you do need to load it in complete darkness – I typically use a light sealed changing bag!

  • tgm
    February 24, 2020 at 6:45 pm

    “But most importantly is that beautiful 16mm image that simply can not be replicated digitally.” (?)

    Not true, I’m sorry. I’ve been in the computer graphics/imagine/video game for a very long time, and I can tell you from a software engineering perspective that while the software for making digital look like film wasn’t 100% back in the 80’s, and *perhaps* the early 90’s, it *absolutely* is ok now.

    You have got to look at the imaging effects as just another part of the process. No different than finding the right place to develop negatives with un-polluted solution.

    What you guys are expouding upon is no more than baseless purism. The era is gone. Stop throwing money away and learn the editing craft properly.

    Yes, the “raw” footage looks different.
    Yes, the “raw” footage of film looks warm and pleasing.
    But NO, there is no reason that you can’t take digital footage and make it look identical to the best film you’ve ever seen.

    • Noam Kroll
      March 3, 2020 at 2:13 am

      I agree with you, that it is possible to very closely replicate the film look digitally, but it’s quite difficult to get right and is never identical. I’m astonished by the work of Steve Yeldin in this area, but for the average filmmaker (right now), it’s much simpler to just shoot on film if you want a film look. That may very well change in the future as technology continues to evolve, but right now, I think both formats each still have distinct advantages.

    • Daniel
      July 28, 2020 at 9:57 pm

      I have always wondered why anyone would bother emulating the look and feel of motion picture film when Kodak Vision stocks are still readily available for purchase. Why not focus on taking advantage of the inherent qualities of the digital medium instead of reducing the latest technology into a shadow of the “real deal?” Digital would be better off being its own thing instead of masquerading as film.

      I prefer to shoot still photography on film, develop myself at home, and make prints instead of using a digital camera. Perhaps you can imitate the look, but you cannot reproduce the experiences or the mentality tied to shooting on film. You also avoid the occasional heartbreak associated with shooting film, but that is another matter. Shooting on film is expensive (I am still scraping together what I need to try 16mm ), but I make the adjustments to get it to work.

      When a creator or an enthusiast looks at an image shot on film, their eyes see much more than just a moving picture. That is what digital replication can never capture.

      • Noam Kroll
        August 5, 2020 at 4:08 pm

        So well said, Daniel. There is no substitute for the experience of shooting on film. It changes your entire process and can not be replicated digitally.

  • […] on location. For many of these shots, it won’t be practical (or even possible) to shoot with my Arri SRII, so I’ll likely need to supplement the production with some digital […]

  • John Fenik
    January 2, 2020 at 12:49 am

    Good Evening,

    I really enjoyed your article.

    I am planning to shoot a short film up here in Canada in June. I am planning the final edit of the film to be 22 minutes in length. The camera I will be using is an ARII 16 SR3 . At 24fps how many feet of film will I need. I am thinking 1200 feet. Is this correct ?

    Kindest Regards,


    P.S. My apologies if this is a stupid question. I am new to film making.

    • Noam Kroll
      March 3, 2020 at 1:10 am

      Hi John,

      Sorry for the late response. Each 400ft roll will give you 11 minutes of runtime at 24fps. You want to account for a shooting ratio of at least 3:1 or 4:1, meaning you would buy 3x or 4x the film you need, for more takes and coverage. At a 4:1 ratio, you would need 88 minutes worth of film, or 8 400ft rolls.

    • Joerg
      March 2, 2021 at 3:53 am

      You can download a Kodak film calculator on your phone. It’s free.

  • Christopher wibberley
    November 23, 2019 at 9:08 pm

    Dear sir I find your article extremely interesting and informative.for a number of years now I have been collecting classic feature films on 16mm ( like “the Maltese Falcon “ for example) and am now looking to upgrade this wonderful experience into actually making films on 16mm. I have a xenon lamp 16mm projector that gives the correct silver hue to projected black and white film as opposed to a sepia look created by the ordinary 250w halogen lamp

    • Noam Kroll
      March 3, 2020 at 12:16 am

      Sounds awesome! Best of luck with it and hope all goes well

  • bernd neidenberger
    June 29, 2019 at 4:33 pm

    thank you for the information!
    two questions: how high is the price difference between 16mm (ca.180$) and super16 at 400feet roles.
    how high is the cost for the upgrade of an ARRI to super16 approximately?

    • Noam Kroll
      August 22, 2019 at 1:38 am

      No problem, Bernd! To clarify – 16mm and Super 16mm actually use the exact same film stock. The only difference is the gate is widened on S16 cameras so it uses more of the film… As for the upgrade cost, depending on where you go I would anticipate $1500 – $3000.

      • Diana Matos
        July 23, 2020 at 1:37 pm

        Hi! Just getting back into using S16mm myself. You are utilizing 1R or single perf film for S16, correct?

        • Noam Kroll
          August 5, 2020 at 4:06 pm

          Yes, single perf! I don’t think they make double perf 16mm anymore, but may be mistaken.

  • Bridget Botchwav
    May 26, 2019 at 10:42 pm

    Hi Noam,

    Thanks for this article it has been so very helpful. I am producing my first low-budget feature (on film) and was so nervous about the costs but now I feel more calm and confident we can do it! Can I ask you what lab you used to base the cost for film processing/scanning/stock for the feature?


    • Noam Kroll
      August 22, 2019 at 1:17 am

      Thanks Bridget! I would recommend Yale Film & Video here in Los Angeles!

  • Keech Rainwater
    May 16, 2019 at 8:15 pm

    Great piece you wrote here, very spot on. I’ve intensionally kept all my super 16mm gear hoping a day would come when 16mm came back into fashion. Your article and certain posts on instagram like #16mmfilm make me realize that it is still here. I love every aspect of shooting 16mm and using my SR2 to its fullest capabilities, loading the mags, using the light meter etc… Thank you for your detailed info on what is still possible with labs and post services. I’m a Nashville guy and there was a day when you could drop off your film at MPL at night and schedule a color transfer the next morning. I’m so glad I kept my gear.
    Keech Rainwater

    • Noam Kroll
      May 17, 2019 at 10:37 pm

      Thanks, Keech! Definitely on the same page with you, and great to hear you’ve still got the SRII kicking around. I’m sure it will only get more use over the next couple of years if this resurgence continues. Keep at it!

  • Ezra Gentle
    March 8, 2019 at 8:17 pm

    Hey Noam, thanks for writing this (and all your other blog posts/podcast episodes). I recently discovered you and also recently finished Rebel w/o A Crew. I really love what you do and thank you for putting out all this excellent content for free! I look forward to watching Shadows on the Road on Amazon and seeing your new film!

    • Noam Kroll
      May 17, 2019 at 9:42 pm

      Thanks so much, Ezra! Appreciate all the kind words.

  • Steve Bellamy
    February 18, 2019 at 4:12 pm


    Thanks for writing this great piece! While I’m a digital guy && shoot video all the time, I can tell you that there is nothing like shooting real film! I deal with movie costs everyday and constantly see artists coming to find that real film is less expensive such a large % of time. With film you apply the paint to the canvas and you make the art. You are not creating data that a computer has to process to output to an image. The cadence of a movie set shooting film is so different and so artful. Everyone on set knows there is magic happening when you are rolling film and I see sets all the time that have an excitement and a ‘game on’ attitude that is at another level. The greatest movies of all time….virtually all film. The greatest records of all time…virtually all analog tape. The greatest photographs of all time….virtually all film. There is a reason! In my position, I see careers go up and down. I help with a lot those careers and attest there is no greater career accelerator than shooting film. It’s practically cheating!

    Steve Bellamy
    President Motion Picture Kodak

    • Noam Kroll
      March 5, 2019 at 5:19 pm

      Hi Steve – Thank you so much for the note. Really appreciate you sharing this here, and couldn’t agree more with your sentiments… Would love to interview you some time for my podcast. If you have time, feel free to email and we can set something up!

  • Sam Herath
    December 29, 2018 at 1:40 am

    This is an incredibly illuminating piece. Thank you so much for writing it. I am shooting two shorts next year and was trying to see costs associated with shooting on film for one of the films. This article has helped enormously. Best wishes!

    • Noam Kroll
      January 17, 2019 at 1:15 am

      So glad to hear it was helpful, Sam! Best of luck, and keep shooting film.

  • Mat Gilroy
    December 9, 2018 at 8:04 am

    Thanks for writing this quick guide to understanding the basic breakdown of planning a 16mm project. This was very informative and extremely helpful!

    Hope you are having a great holiday season, Noam!

    • Noam Kroll
      January 17, 2019 at 1:02 am

      Thanks Mat! Really appreciate that.

  • Nick
    September 24, 2018 at 7:29 pm

    shooting on film has helped me greatly $$commercially and artistically love Kodak! thanks!

    • Noam Kroll
      November 14, 2018 at 4:59 am

      Awesome to hear, Nick. Long live film.

  • Stephen Perera
    May 15, 2018 at 12:45 pm

    Excellent article and the last line is what says it all……I have an aaton xtra and am shooting some 16mm projects….the look is impossible to achieve on digital no question about it

    • Noam Kroll
      June 13, 2018 at 3:22 am

      So true. It’s become very hard to look at my digital footage after spending time with the film scans, haha!


Leave a Reply