If you had a $50k budget for a feature would you use the HVX ?

[FilmBoy77]

got into an interesting conversation today with a person who is looking to invest in films. this person mentioned an investment of $50k max for a feature.

my question to you is, if someone offered you this amount of money for a feature:

1) what type of feature would you make and with how many locations max?
2) would you use the hvx (and maybe even spend money on a second HVX as a B cam)?
4) would you use an adapter or stock lens?
3) how would you spend the rest of the money in order to get the most out of it?

i've pretty much financed my shorts and the current feature i'm working on with out of pocket cash (and not much), so i'm interested in how a larger portion of money would be spent effectively.

[PerroneFord]

if I was going to shoot a "feature", I'd probably want more res. Which means I'd rent the gear. $50k doesn't sound like a lot for a feature. Once you pay talent, crew, rent gear, rent locations (depending on genre), etc. Lots of ways to spend that money.

If you had 10 crew and 10 actors and paid them all $100 a day you'd be dropping $2k a day. Shoot 15 days and you've blown most of your budget before getting any gear.

[Barry_Green]

1) what type of feature would you make and with how many locations max?
Heavily character-centered film with the money being spent on some amazing but inexpensive actors


2) would you use the hvx (and maybe even spend money on a second HVX as a B cam)?
Absolutley I'd use the HVX, but I wouldn't buy one from that budget, I wouldn't buy any gear at all. I'd network with some DVXusers and pay them a few thousand dollars for their labor and the use of all their gear. If you're keeping the shooting schedule under three weeks (and at that budget level, you'd have to), you should be able to get someone with a complete production package willing to cut you a great deal.

Don't spend your production budget on equipment.


4) would you use an adapter or stock lens?
Depends on the film's aesthetic requirements, but I'd be inclined to use an adapter.


3) how would you spend the rest of the money in order to get the most out of it?
Shoot in Michigan. Michigan will give you a 40% cash rebate on the budget, so your $50,000 becomes $80,000 in Michigan.

[Mattykins]

1) what type of feature would you make and with how many locations max?


I would shoot a character centered piece. Trying to get an A-lister or B-lister involved as well on the production. Hold a casting session and pick up a few very good actors. Use as many locations as I can coerce my way onto free or cheap.


2) would you use the hvx (and maybe even spend money on a second HVX as a B cam)?


I would shoot 16mm since I have immediate access to 16mm cameras, accounts at labs, kodak and fuji. So that will be cheaper than renting a camera. If I was going to be shooting a lot I would use an F35 or F23 depending on the look (and when the 35 is released) If I rented a great Red package, it would cost 600 - 800 dollars a day. I can get 2,800 feet of film or 250 minutes of time. The next day and a half would cover the best light telecine for it color corrected professionally.


4) would you use an adapter or stock lens?


Since I'd be shooting 16mm, no worries.


3) how would you spend the rest of the money in order to get the most out of it?

Hire someone to deal with product placement - thus pulling the money for the production up. Also using other money to hire a financial advisor to help boost funds, and then marketing people to get a great press package together.

[Kholi]

1. Kids movie. And knowing me it would be creepy/scary. No blood. No guts. Pure fun and seat jumpers with comedy mixed in. A multiracial piece hands down. Talking about reviving Goosebumps here.

2. Without a doubt. But to be specific one HVX200A and occasionally a B can for action only. If the budget could afford it RED with hard drives. But without a doubt an HVX200A.

3. Without a single doubt if any sub RED camera were in play. That includes an HPX600.

4. Production value. And good faith money. Best unknown actors I could find and a damned good crew of dvxusers being paid.

[jimpatro]

Shooting a feature in the spring with the 200A.
1080/24p.
No adapter needed, just telephoto and wide aperture. Can shoot shallow DOF all day this way.

[aalleexx]

which telephoto do you have in mind that fits the hvx?





Shooting a feature in the spring with the 200A.
1080/24p.
No adapter needed, just telephoto and wide aperture. Can shoot shallow DOF all day this way.

[jimpatro]

I meant setting the stock lens at longer settings. Of course there's also the Century 1.6 and 2.0 extenders.

[aalleexx]

you know this got me thinking, what if we used a

century percision optics 2x telephoto converter lens insted of a 35mm adapter with a nikon lens to get that shallow depth of field

has anyone tried this?

[aalleexx]

jimpatro what can you tell me about that experience as compared to the adapter setup with lens

in the neverending search for that depth of field :)


I meant setting the stock lens at longer settings. Of course there's also the Century 1.6 and 2.0 extenders.

[jimpatro]

Well part of it is that I light in zones. I absolutely try to light foreground separate from background. I light my FG subject with minimal light to open the iris. Once I have proper exposure then I light background. Longer focal lengths of course help to decrease depth of field.

35mm adapters do help to control angle of view but I just don't see that as enough of an advantage. You can always dolly in or out.

In another thread someone asked about shooting on the same project with and without a 35 adapter. It was suggested that since the image without was so crisp it would need to be touched up to match the adapter footage. I'm a bit taken aback.

[aalleexx]

do you find yourself pulling way back whenever you shoot with the tele coverter?

[jimpatro]

Haven't shot with the converter but you definitely would have to pull way back. Worth it though if you have the room.

About angle of view. If you really think about it, if your BG goes real soft why worry so much about angle of view. Mostly it's about using the 35 adapter for shallow DOF then needing to shoot the whole show with it and wanting specific angle of view on other shots where BG is more crucial.

[aalleexx]

good point, got some projects that are gonna require some shallow depth of field
so I am looking for a nice solution (notice I did't say BEST)


Haven't shot with the converter but you definitely would have to pull way back. Worth it though if you have the room.

About angle of view. If you really think about it, if your BG goes real soft why worry so much about angle of view. Mostly it's about using the 35 adapter for shallow DOF then needing to shoot the whole show with it and wanting specific angle of view on other shots where BG is more crucial.

[TimurCivan]

Use an HVX.

Spend dough on actors and art direction. Forget the Adapter, use the money on a good gaffer and DP. They will do more for you in the long run than an adapter.

ART DIRECTION. ART DIRECTION. LOCATION. 3 locations will probably work. 1 free 2 paid locs.

[aalleexx]

great input


Use an HVX.

Spend dough on actors and art direction. Forget the Adapter, use the money on a good gaffer and DP. They will do more for you in the long run than an adapter.

ART DIRECTION. ART DIRECTION. LOCATION. 3 locations will probably work. 1 free 2 paid locs.

[HDkilledFILM.]

Write a good script centered around the budget, then re-write that about 5 or 6 (Hundred) times and then think about what camera to use. Remember, crappy script, crappy movie. HVX, EX1, RED, 35mm, 65mm etc... doesn't matter, it's all about the story and how YOU tell it. I remember that in film school there were these kids who had an arri BL3 that they shot their senior project on, it looked great, and sucked, and was boring etc... then there was a kid who shot on a GL1 (stock) and it was gripping. I'm beating this to death but you get my drift.

Oh and make a Zombie movie, I love Zombie movies :Drogar-Happy(DBG):

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

...
35mm adapters do help to control angle of view but I just don't see that as enough of an advantage. You can always dolly in or out.
...
Dollying in or out does not change the angle of view. Zooming in or out will.

When you dolly in or out you move closer or further away at a constant angle of view.

When you change lenses with an adapter or zoom in or out with your stock lens you change angle of view.

As in the example below, a 24 mm lens will have a different angle of view than a 100mm lens dollied in so the subject is framed up about the same.

Both of these are at the same camera angle, slightly low, but note how in the wide lens her head is pin like and the book shelf tapers up due to the lens while the low angle is almost unnoticeable in the 100mm lens.

Also note the exaggerated size of her hand and it's apparent distance from her head in the wide angle lens.

Lastly note how much more of the background is shown in the 24mm, all of the book case, a black board and a lamp. Because it has a wider ANGLE OF VIEW than the 100mm. Dollying in or out with a longer lens will not get this look i.e., angle of view, and vice versa dollying in or out with a wider lens will not get the same look or angel of view as the 100mm lens

24MM
http://www.frenchquarterfeatures.com/24mm.jpg

http://www.frenchquarterfeatures.com/100mm.jpg

This is for a piece about a blind date with a woman with a hand that's alive. We shot this similar framing with the two different lenses to potentially use the long lens for moments when the date is going better or more near the beginning and the wide angle lens for when things are really derailing and the date is taking a nose dive, through out, but maybe more towards the end.

[jimpatro]

Right. But as you place your camera closer or further from the background, you will see more or less of it. We're talking about making do without an adapter. Distance from BG to SUBJECT to CAMERA can be adjusted. A big thing about angle of view is how much BG can we see. Well, that can be adjusted without a 35 adapter.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

For me its's a significant. Major. much more powerful than controlling the depth of field, story telling advantage. Yeah you can zoom in or out with the stock lens and and move the camera away or closer but you may be severly limited by space and it doesn't seem to be quite the same.

Adapter is less of an expense issue and more of a time issue to me and not even a time issue sometimes depending on who's shooting.

[Kholi]

Right. But as you place your camera closer or further from the background, you will see more or less of it. We're talking about making do without an adapter. Distance from BG to SUBJECT to CAMERA can be adjusted. A big thing about angle of view is how much BG can we see. Well, that can be adjusted without a 35 adapter.

The problem that you will run into when shooting interiors is how far you can get away from the subject etc etc. Just as well, the entire thing ends up looking like exactly what it is: shot nearly completely telephoto and very deep DOF.

However, a wide angle adapter looks pretty nice on an HVX still and helps out a lot. I could see using a Wide Angle instead of a 35mm adapter, just wouldn't be my choice personally.


Edit -- Jack beat me to it. Agreed with Jack. The Time issue depends on who's shooting and which adapter as well.

[Zak Forsman]

for $50k? i'd make this... [link (http://www.sabipictures.com/heartofnow/preview.html)] and have $5000 left over.

we had two HVX200s, each with 35m adapters... 24 day shoot, 30 locations.

[ChipG]

I have been working on a small budget film ($200k budget) being shot with two Red One cameras. I'm the behind the scenes volantier boy.

They have a $500 dolly with $60k+ in cameras with lenses etc.

I Just don't get it... Content is key! I have seen the HVX shine beond belief over and over again...

I'd take a $5k dolly with a $6k cam anyday over a $30k cam & a $500 dolly...I'd bet you can find somene in this thread to make you a deal for 30 days on an HVX when it's not in use. Send me a PM

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/30752/1215242890.jpg

[carbon3c]

Where can I buy the $500 dolly? I'm looking for something inexpensive. Thx.

[SonicStates]

for $50k? i'd make this... [link (http://www.sabipictures.com/heartofnow/preview.html)] and have $5000 left over.

we had two HVX200s, each with 35m adapters... 24 day shoot, 30 locations.

Zak the more I watch the trailer for HoN the more I like it!!!!

[Ted Spencer]

The dolly looks like a home-depot special to me...

[ChipG]

The dolly looks like a home-depot special to me...

Yea,

I think it was a kit he bought off eBay and got the PVC pipe at Home Depot. The handle (removed in this pic) that comes up that you push it with bends and dosen't work very well. If I were you I'd stay away from a dolly like that and rent a better one.

[lawriejaffa]

Hey there! Well 50k$ is a very nice offer but that was his maximum right? But anythings better than nothing!

The type of film you should make - is tied really to the conditions of his investment - and also the type of return (or more likely the % likelihood he expects to have his investment returned.)

Does he know what he's getting into ;) hehe do you?

I don't know if im allowed to suggest this - but a great distribution / info site id recommend if www.filmspecific.com (http://www.filmspecific.com) because you can't possibly think of producing a film (that has been invested in!) without thinking first of the market your going to pitch for.

As you can expect its nominally the genre market like horror and apparently sci - fi that seem to get away without hot actors. (Im not saying that from experience) but from the case studies you can download from that site.

I'm in not altogether too different a situation from you - i too have a potential investor and am going through similar dillemnas!

One thing to bare in mind too is that your investor - however excited he is at the prospect of investing in film - probably only has 50k to spare based on some shrewd business choices (or career choices himself.) He may well ask for a business plan (before or during pre-production if he's lazy) and have his mate (the accountant or lawyer) look it over.

In that case, things like spending your production budget on purchasing equipment and capitol assets can be seen as a real bad!

I know id be pissed if i thought i was buying a 50k movie, and found i was buying some indy filmmaker 15k of gear and only getting a 35k movie - you get the gist!

[lawriejaffa]

lol i made that post and didn't even answer your questions...

So, 1: I would research what films in this budget range without big talent and tech specs are pulling money in. This is apparently horror, or other strong genre films.

2: I would use the HVX if i had one already, if you have no cam then don't buy one, hire the dvx users like folks are saying!

3) Adapters do take time - and time can be money, but if you can then depending on the type of film - i would try to use one. But i love elegant cinematography hehe...

4) Stretching the rest of your budget depends on getting folks to work for it - in that case working with fellow indies like on dvx might be a goer - as many will work for less to get at least some $ and experience doing what they love. Likewise for actors - try penning a story that justifies what may probably be a younger cast of (top wannabe actors!) that need the money and delight at the exposure and experience.

Good luck!

[Justyn]

One area that is so often overlooked when raising capital and also creating a film is the time invest writing and producing and then the post side of things. The first thing you have to do is give yourself a salary for this stuff. Maybe it's 10K or more, but it should be an amount that will offset the amount of time you put into this. Nothing worse than spending all your time making a film, then having to go out and get a 2nd job to pay your bills. So, my advice would be to cover your investment financially and then use the budget there.


2nd. The chances of getting a return on a 50K feature with no known actors and self financed and such is just about the same as hitting the lottery. Atleast in terms of a big return. To hedge this bet... pick a genre element. Maybe horror, kid, or my favorite martial arts. Porno also does quite well so I'm told.


Overal, just don't think it'll be the end all be all. Make sure that he knows that he might loose all of the case so then he won't hound you. Also realize that investors can be giant pain in the ass and you might accomodate and coddle him more than you care to. Just let him know that you are the general partner and he is the limited partner.


cheers and getting money to make a film is a problem.. but what a nice problem it is.

[J_E_R]

I've been involved in several feature length films shot on the HVX200 starting at 20K and going into the millions. The choice of camera is probably one of the last / easiest decisions.

First things first, when taking any investors money, you must do things properly. You will need the help of an entertainment lawyer before taking any money from anyone to make up subscription agreements etc. You of course need a script (or if unscripted a scene by scene treatment) and I would highly recommend a business plan. Taking any investors money is a big deal, but this shouldn't dissuade you in your efforts to make a film. You'll likely want to partner up with a producer if you are not producing it yourself that can assist you in setting up a LLC or corporation. A lot of people forget to budget production insurance & contingency, and also that there are some expenses after a film is made, like paying an accountant to send out Schedule K-1 every year to your investors.

As far as the camera, the HVX200 is a great camera choice, but you must be prepared / and budget for film style lighting. Adding on adapters will normally cause you to lose more precious light.

[Tim Joy]

I have this DVD Film school (http://www.webfilmschool.com/dvd.htm) that really teaches you the practical/ more business end of filmmaking, from buying film to bringing on investors. The guy gets right to the point and covers EVERYTHING. I would highly recommend it to anyone that wants to make a financially sucessful movie. He talks about making films at many different budget levels, including how to make a 35mm feature film for $5k, and it's quite funny too. It's $400 for the 15 hour set, but worth every penny, as it is packed with tons of info.

His first piece of advice is SCRIPT SCRIPT SCRIPT. And as others have said, it doesn't matter WHAT you shoot it on if your script is crap.

But, if I had $50K, (a dream come true) I would try to shoot on 16mm, or super16. Pro8mm has feature film packages where you get film, processing and telecine included for about $10k. I would finish it digitally, then try to sell it and get the distributor to make the final print, or hopefully a blowup to 35.

If, on the other hand, you can get some great name actors in, and the budget won't allow for film, I wouldn't hestitate to use the HVX with an adapter and a DP that knows how to use it... QUICKLY. For me, the cinematic difference with an adapter is a big one, but again, if it's not in the budget, I don't think it would ruin your movie by not having it. I have found that the "zoom-in-to-achieve-shallow-DOF" approach is highly impractical, especially indoors, unless all you want to see is your actors nose hair.

I have never made a feature, so this is just my opinion based off what I've seen others do, but I've worked on plenty of features at this level and they always fail for the same reasons: The script wasn't ready, (or it just flat out sucked), and the actors weren't well rehearsed.

Good luck and keep us updated!

[USLatin]

I agree that if you have an excellent project that is content/performance driven and you only plan to put out DVDs and Blue Rays then I'd be fine with the HVX and an SGpro or other adapter of choice. Spend the money on actors, rehearsals, electric and grip gear and crew... just make sure you expose it all for low noise or wait for the 170... or crush your blacks for dark scenes and work it into the script it that is at all possible... content is king!

but if you can get both then get both, that goes without saying...

[Buck Forester]

I've been involved in several feature length films shot on the HVX200 starting at 20K and going into the millions.


Just ouf of curiosity, are you at liberty to say which movies? Especially the "millions" budget?

[Buck Forester]

A question like this is so dependent upon so many factors. To say, "here's $50 grand for a production budget, make me some money" is so open ended. Plenty of people have $50,000 and if it was reasonable to assume a return on the $$, then lots more people would be tossing $50 grand towards productions. Admittedly I'm not seasoned in the industry, but I have done lots of research and attended seminars on production funding/budgets/marketing/distributing/legal aspects, etc., and most of them say only a small percentage of movies ever make any return on investment. That's why they're always so keen on the legal stuff, getting all your documents and disclosures and forming an LLC and such, because most productions have upset investors wondering why they never saw a dime on their initial principal, much less a return.

But I'm an optimist so I say go for it. Some of them obviously do very very well. But $50 grand isn't really much to work with, especially when you don't already have your own cameras/jibs/lighting/audio, etc.

If it were me (first of all, I wouldn't even listen to me, I'm just trying to get my post count up to the next level, ha!) I would go to some local acting theater joint place, find some very good actors (it's surprising the unknown talent that's out there) and pitch my project and tell them you'll pay on contingency... if the movie makes money, they make money. If it doesn't, well, it was a good learning experience. I'd be very generous in my % of sharing profit to make it more attractive since the risk for them is higher.

It would depend on your intended distribution and market in terms of your camera and gear, I would think. You could learn the skills of cinematography and lighting and audio on your own to some degree (probably within reason), and thus direct the thing yourself. If you're looking at hiring all those guys, and renting the gear, it would be tough on that budget. You'd definitely have to have each hour planned out and each scene well planned in advance because having a skilled crew and rented gear on the clock is major ka-ching.

My usual disclaimer - I don't know what the flying heck I'm talking about. I'm just gonna point my high-def camera at pretty stuff in the wilderness, set my camera down to take a pee behind a bush, grab it again and point it at pretty stuff again. Ad nauseum.

Best of luck! You can do this!

[bosindy]

First, if you haven't made a film, you should definitely shoot a few shorts before you try a feature. You don't know what you don't know and doing the same process on a smaller scale limits your exposure to unforeseen costs and you will learn a ton. Even professional production companies know that there will be costs they didn't anticipate, for someone inexperience they can be crippling. (I just shot a short for instance where the location was free, but payed $500 to keep the air conditioning on in the building and another $200 to have an employee be there for the day. I was thankful and lucky to have the place but that's $700 not anticipated) Getting a sense of how many pages you can shoot in a day is also key and knowing what to shoot and when can be a huge money saver. If you know all these things and have made several shorts THEN

With a 50k budget I think it is a stretch to try to shoot a feature unless you live near a bunch of fellow filmmakers with equipment that would work inexpensively as Barry mentioned. Also, you yourself would need to be well versed in numerous areas of pre production, production and post production so you can jump in in numerous areas you will certainly be needed. Dvxuser is a good place to start meeting people in your area and learning numerous disciplines. if you have and do THEN

you need to have a very good script (to attract people to the project) that would be easy to execute. Few locations, no great artistic direction or costume considerations etc. I would definitely be shooting on the hvx with an adapter, 2 of them, to move quickly and I would budget a decent lighting package to rent. THEN

I would make sure the person giving me the money understood that this is about as risky an investment that can be made and very few people will ever make money or even see the investment back. This level of budget makes the odds diminish even more. Selling a movie is a vast subject and you should know quite a bit about that if you ever want anyone to see the film.

Having said all that, good luck. It's an awesome thing to take on a project like this and I wish you nothing but success. (check out the corrado thread also in the user section)

[Kholi]

you need to have a very good script (to attract people to the project) that would be easy to execute. Few locations, no great artistic direction or costume considerations etc.


Disclaimer: I have only shot one short. And, I'm just kinda thinking outloud about the whole "get a good script first" thing. Grain of salt!

Not disagreeing for the sake of... but disagreeing. I don't think you need a good script to get anyone to work on your feature or short. You just have to have a script, pretty much. I'm sure a BAD script would turn someone off, but there are plenty of people working on "Bad" material daily, right?

If it's SOLID (which does not mean good) then that's even better, but a GOOD script is harder to come by than just saying "get a good script." For 50k? Get a good concept that's interesting to a prime demographic and something that you would like to shoot. There's plenty of garbage with named talent floating around, feature and short film form.

Usually the route to a "good" script is purchasing it from someone that's a "good" writer. Otherwise, I vote for a solid concept if the budget is 50k.

[bosindy]

Not disagreeing for the sake of... but disagreeing. I don't think you need a good script to get anyone to work on your feature or short. You just have to have a script, pretty much. I'm sure a BAD script would turn someone off, but there are plenty of people working on "Bad" material daily, right?

If it's SOLID (which does not mean good) then that's even better, but a GOOD script is harder to come by than just saying "get a good script." For 50k? Get a good concept that's interesting to a prime demographic and something that you would like to shoot. There's plenty of garbage with named talent floating around, feature and short film form.

Usually the route to a "good" script is purchasing it from someone that's a "good" writer. Otherwise, I vote for a solid concept if the budget is 50k.

Well there are good writers here that would work within this budget. but I was thinking more about the talent in front of the camera. Good actors want to work on good material. That's not always the case as you mentioned, but it definitely increases your chances. With such a small budget having a good script would be the difference for me, whether or not to try to make it, but it might not be the same for everyone. The old saying garbage in, garbage out; a good script doesn't guarantee a good film, but why be doomed going in?

More to the point, with a low budget like this, taking the time to work through your idea and make sure your script is as good as it can be (maybe that's a better way to put it) is the one thing that doesn't cost you money. The writing process is the one area where you have parody monetarily with a big budget film (computer and paper). This assumes you have some talent for it.

[Kholi]

Abserloutely. I do know what ya meant. It was really a reflection on "do you really need a good script?". I think it's more like different levels of good which could probably be defined but would only be an opinion.

Anyway, that was just a random thought. Do ya really need a good script? Or do you just need a solid script with a clear concept and built-in audience?

[lawriejaffa]

Kholi makes a good point at least in regards to the kind of genre material - horror for eg. that does not necessarily require as good a script to tick the genre boxes needed to successfully take it to market.

Such films also dont necessarily require as 'good actors' as do films with serious subject matter (or dramtically serious horror films for that matter!)

Getting good actors to work cheap may rely often on the script (if there not desperate for money.)

[FrankC]

Been makin' movies for over 30 years now. Funny how no one ever really plans what to do with that movie BEFORE they make it. What's the distribution plans? And don't forget: Wishing and Hoping are not business plans!

[DavidBeier]

It's hard to say.

I'm in talks to do a feature with some potential investors and numbers being floated around are as low as 50k and as high as 500k. Part of the thing I'm trying to do is keep things slow because we don't have a script yet and I know this will live and die by the writing and the acting (and maybe just a little of my directing assuming they still want me to direct if the budget gets big). Part of the problem you deal with is that, once you've got an idea, everyone wants to rush you. Producers, investors, actors, everyone! They get excited about the concept and want to start making plans without making sure there is a solid story foundation and that will KILL you. If you want to do your investors justice, make sure you work your script to death (good writing is re-writing) and make sure you plan everything out, get as many favors as possible, and make sure you spend every penny wisely. You're still not garunteed to make any money but at least you know, and hopefully they know, that you didn't screw around with their money.

As far as what camera to use; that's a tough call. My own difficulties are purely hypothetical since I'm operating under the princaple that there's only a snow-ball's chance in hell this will go through (don't want to get excited and then let down as so many are in this business). But lets say we actually get a budget of 500k (which my producer thinks we can but I'm not daring to hope yet). If that happens; then the question becomes what do we spend our money on? Do we use my HVX200 gear to shoot it and perhaps rent another HVX200 for B-cam? On the plus side of that, it would require save us money on renting gear and also require less people in the camera department. More than that, it would mean we'd have more money available to pay some of the actors who are interested; most of which are SAG. On the other hand, I'd worry if it wouldn't look professional enough on the big screen but ultimatly, I think spending our money on stuff outside the camera is more important. I'd love to shoot RED but I know that would make things more complicated on a number of levels. I had the same dilema on the short I'm finishing (my first in a while and probably 30-40 min in length). Shortly before shooting, I got an offer to use a RED for next to nothing instead of my HVX200. I turned it down because I knew it would be more instensive as far as the work flow went and would probably slow us down or cost more money as far as the crew went.

The best thing I can advise is what I plan to do once our script is done. FIND SOMEONE WHO SUCCESSFULLY DID WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO! There's a director in town, from the same area, who put together a 1 million dollar film with SAG actors; a few decent names (I won't mention who), and is about to sign a distributer. He shot 35mm. As soon as I've got a script, I'm going to ask him out for coffee and just find out what he learned in his endever, what worked, and what didn't. I'm also going to try to meet with the head of a local studio that has produced a number of low-budget films and get a sense of how he's spent his cash.

It's good to admit ignorance (and asking here is a good first step). Other people know what exactly is involved and can help you out. Often, they'll talk to you for free since so many of them want to impart advice and tell their story.

If you really want to shoot on a 50k budget with an HVX200; I'd suggest the following:

1. Get an experienced DP with his own equipment (lights, C-stands, ect) and pay him the lowest he'll take (I got mine on my short for $100 a day and he was great).

2. Get an experienced sound guy with his own equipment (mixer, GOOD shotgun, lavs) and pay him the lowest he'll take.

3. Find some reliable catering. Food is so important for a cast and crew. Make sure you can find a reliable way to feed people and make them happy. This will cost you some money but try to find a friend who runs a resturaunt or something so you don't pay too much.

4. Get a good digital guy (someone perhaps who works with computers but not in film) and see if he'll work for free as a camera loader (bringing his own laptop). This would be a great way for him to get into the industry and get some experience. If not free, pay him the lowest he'll take but stress that he's getting some good exposure.

5. GET CONTRACTS!!!! Once you start paying people; you need a contract. I had my sound guy bail on me for a higher paying gig 12 hours before the shoot and it REALLY hurt us. Don't let this happen to you.

6. Have a post-production plan budgeted. Make sure either you can edit the footage yourself or you have a guy who can. Also, make sure you have a post-production audio solution planned.

Once you've gone through the above, you have a basic idea of what you NEED to spend money on. After that, see what's left, and see what you can afford to spend on locations and actors. Keep in mind, this is just a rough plan based on my recent short film with a 2k budget.

[davbeisner]

The best thing I can advise is what I plan to do once our script is done. FIND SOMEONE WHO SUCCESSFULLY DID WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO! There's a director in town, from the same area, who put together a 1 million dollar film with SAG actors; a few decent names (I won't mention who), and is about to sign a distributer. He shot 35mm. As soon as I've got a script, I'm going to ask him out for coffee and just find out what he learned in his endever, what worked, and what didn't. I'm also going to try to meet with the head of a local studio that has produced a number of low-budget films and get a sense of how he's spent his cash.

It's good to admit ignorance (and asking here is a good first step). Other people know what exactly is involved and can help you out. Often, they'll talk to you for free since so many of them want to impart advice and tell their story.

This may well be the best advice I've seen on this thread yet. You've got to ask people who have already accomplished what you want to do. And take them out for breakfast--it's usually one of the easier meals to schedule and it's also the cheapest meal for you to pay for and still get good food (it's hard to mess up breakfast!).

My $0.02--and realize this comes from lots of theoretical knowledge and no practical experience since I'm just getting into videography myself--there are a LOT of good scripts out there that are as-yet unseen. I'd suggest going to a local college or university that has an excellent English Literature department. Sit down with some of the english lit students, outline your needs (i.e., needs to be contemporary for costuming sake; needs to be in a city for location's sake, etc) and see what they might be able to come up with. As a former college student myself (and not so long ago) I can tell you that your average college student would DIE for an opportunity to make a little money on the side. And for an english lit student to be involved in writing the script for a movie could be a pretty big thing. And you can usually hire college students fairly cheaply :).

For example, the college I went to has an annual film festival. The scripts in most of the movies were fantastic. The student DPs were usually really good (some better than others) and many of the movies were quite moving. I remember one that actually brought tears to my eyes at the end! The only thing that kept the films from being something that could make great strides was the fact that they were made with cheap equipment and little to no lighting or audio. That ruined most of them from a production standpoint (some students did quite well by bringing in their own equipment to supplement what was assigned to them by the film department at the college).

I had one other pithy piece of advice that I thought of as I read through this thread that I was going to leave for you, but I've now forgotten what it was! Oh well. I guess it wasn't that important.

[Mickey Munday]

Been makin' movies for over 30 years now. Funny how no one ever really plans what to do with that movie BEFORE they make it. What's the distribution plans? And don't forget: Wishing and Hoping are not business plans!

you can only plan but for so much on distribution unless you're buying your own product, lol. so please enlighhten us since you've been making movies for over 30 years (and i'm not being a smart ass here either i'm asking because i don't know).

other than the festival route, selling over amazon/web type of thing, the typical straigt to dvd route or trying to get AE's/studios interested in buying it.....what else is there to plan?