Why do they increase the costs of Film?

A bird tells me that the collections of Leader have dwindled after the release of  Yeh Maaya Chesaave. And producers are worried about the chances of recovery of more than Rs.18 crores gone in the film. One basic thumb rule that smart investors in films make is:  What's the ratio of film exposed (negative)  to the final reel output? It should be 1: 6 and exceptionally, 1:4.  Sekhar has made Leader  using 450,000 feet of negatives which means it has costed about Rs.1.125 crores for the film print itself. That's a humungous waste and probably exceeds all the unfinished output of Sekhar's previous and future films. When such a high fixed cost is incurred (film negative is paid for upfront), it badly affects the economics of the film for the producer. A frugal and well-planned director doesn't consume more than 1/4th of the film output by way of negatives. This is becoming the bane of modern film-makers and a nightmare for film producers. Bapu's Sundarakanda used up 87000 feet, Vara Mullapudi shot Vishaka Express with 67000 feet, and Krishna Vamsee used up more than a lakh feet just to give an idea of what some of the sensible directors do. This cost is virtually irrecoverable for AVM. We'll look at more such dynamics of film-making in days to come...