Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

On a $500k to $700k budget - film or HD?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    On a $500k to $700k budget - film or HD?

    next year there's a possibility i'll be able to raise funds for a feature aimed at a limited theatrical release (1 or 2 name actors) and i'm curious at this production budget is it more cost effective to shoot it in film or using RED and transfer to film?

    i've never done anything with film so i only have a basic knowledge of the process

    #2
    If it were me I'd shoot it on Red, or rent a viper and put the savings on the screen. You'll get many opinions on this. I'm not sure what the budget was for "Wanted" first red box office film now out on dvd but I'd assume $15 mil + ? you can find it on imdb, they used red, it worked out well for them. A friend of mine shot a $3 mil budget movie on film and has no regrets.

    What type of movie is it? Any special effects etc???

    Comment


      #3
      I agree with Chip. The Cost for the 35mm Transfer is $30-40K, but the ability to be able to do many tasks easier and cheaper I believe will make up for the $40K loss. I'm trying to raise money for some future projects right now, and at this point it's take a producer who just wouldn't make the Digital Jump, for me to shoot on Film. I figure I may as well get used to the future. ;-)
      Red Collar Studios (Home)
      Coming Correct (Baby's Mama Club) Feature (dvxuser) | The 24 Diary (dvxuser)

      Comment


        #4
        sorry guys, Wanted was not shot on Red, story goes.... the intention was to shoot it on red but the editors where having a really hard time working with red footie on the avid and they went back to 35mm (again this is what I "heard") the budget for wanted was 75M http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493464/technical

        Comment


          #5
          The Reduser board forgot to mention that Do you know if there was any Red footage that made it into the movie?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by aalleexx View Post
            sorry guys, Wanted was not shot on Red, story goes.... the intention was to shoot it on red but the editors where having a really hard time working with red footie on the avid and they went back to 35mm (again this is what I "heard") the budget for wanted was 75M http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493464/technical

            With $75M they couldn't manage to find anyone who could get RED footage into an Avid? Even though any joker with a MacBookPro or a laptop PC is able to transcode the footage to DPX or even Avid Native format?

            Right.
            Don't be a BillyBob...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by PerroneFord View Post
              With $75M they couldn't manage to find anyone who could get RED footage into an Avid? Even though any joker with a MacBookPro or a laptop PC is able to transcode the footage to DPX or even Avid Native format?

              Right.

              Somehow this sounds like a lame excuse... given that most if not all 'big' films are using digital intermediaries... how do those 'get into an AVID' setup???

              Heck, it seems if one transcoded each RED frame into an individual 48 bit TIFF frame... one could get the result into an AVID project... or doesn't AVID have the ability to import a numbered still image sequence into a 'movie'... like $29.95 US Quicktime Pro...

              Comment


                #8
                He he he, film must be easier to get into the avid...

                Comment


                  #9
                  I'd shoot HD and skip the Avid part.
                  maybe take some budget home to the family.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Mickey Munday View Post
                    next year there's a possibility i'll be able to raise funds for a feature aimed at a limited theatrical release (1 or 2 name actors) and i'm curious at this production budget is it more cost effective to shoot it in film or using RED and transfer to film?

                    i've never done anything with film so i only have a basic knowledge of the process
                    One may call me a 'digital evangelist'... not that I have any affiliation with any particular Digital Denomination... but I 'saw' the light in the 80's as digitization process became better and better, and now, I think there is a certain watershed point at which 'film', that is celuloid, chemically processed, based, is 'dead'.

                    In the still photography world there may be a few who can command the fees to run a 'all physical film' process, but most commerical photographers have taken up digitial processes, and most camera manufacturers have cut development of 'physical film' cameras...

                    This transition is 'around the corner' for the movie industry. And it will be in the area of 'no/micro/small' budget films where it will become the only reasonable choice.

                    Then with the idea that Film-Film is actually going to be telecined into a digital intermediary, which has its costs... there seems to be less of a point to use Film-Film in the first place... unless of course you plan to project on a super wide IMAX screen... like most people here are in that budget bracket...

                    Comment


                      #11
                      problem is that when wanted was made, red still had a lot of improvments to make to the camera, beta stages you know, now a days any joker with a macbook pro can edit red footie, I guess back then it was still tough, even more so on the AVID

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The celluloid proponents are barricading the door. The first moat was built around video's poor resolution. That got solved. Then it became a latitude issue. RED, Genesis, F23, etc., have essentially solved that problem. And yes the new Vision 3 stock may hold 15 stops, but there is nearly NOWHERE anyone in their right mind would set up a scene with that much contrast unless they NEVER planned for it to be seen anywhere but a movie theater. Now the last bastion is the storage/archiving. And this one is the best yet. And actually has some merit.

                        Film is a nice archival format. Digital technology really isn't. Not at this point.

                        I don't think film is dead. But I do think that digital moviemaking is become more and more viable for those who choose to use it. The romantic idea of cutting on film and finishing on film is still quite nice. But probably overkill for most people.

                        I did find it funny a year or two ago when people were talking about how RED was nice, but didn't hold up to film's resolution. And in one article, a cinematographer said, "Call me when you get to 8k". I wonder if he's answering his phone these days...
                        Don't be a BillyBob...

                        Comment


                          #13
                          The idea that shooting a feature on Red is cheaper than shooting film, is NOT entirely accurate. Call around and see how much it will be to handle the post with Red. (dailies, conforming, grade and print to film from the R3D files)- its just about the same as starting out with film- and sometimes more.

                          Just crunching numbers in my head, you can easily shoot a feature on 35mm on an indie budget. By shooting 2-perf for example, you are getting twice the runtime on the same footage of film, So lets say your shooting 10:1 with 2-perf (90-min feature), here is a very ruff film budget for an indie feature:
                          (no discounts have been factored in)

                          40,000 feet of Kodak 35mm film = $26,000
                          Processing = $5600
                          Dailies = $9000
                          Budget 2K DI (from your EDL- includes 35mm print) = $60,000
                          2K DCP from your 2K DI for digital release = $5000

                          Total = $105,000 (again, no discounts were factored in)

                          Thats about the same post costs as shooting with the Red, but you actually get to shoot a film with film. And if you pulled the right strings, I bet you could get close to paying 30% less than that. (not to mention if you only wanted to deliver a 2K DCP or HD tape instead of a print)
                          Last edited by Hunter Hampton; 12-02-2008, 11:23 AM.
                          Hunter Hampton
                          hunterismyfriend.com
                          vimeo.com/hunter

                          Comment


                            #14
                            $105k in post costs for red? Ehh? I worked on a movie this summer that was shot on 2 Red's and $105k is more than the entire films budget.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              very interesting indeed....

                              can you give us a budget sample like that but using a red, would love to see the money comparason as to film, thanks

                              Originally posted by hunter richards View Post
                              The idea that shooting a feature on Red is cheaper than shooting film, is NOT entirely accurate. Call around and see how much it will be to handle the post with Red. (dailies, conforming, grade and print to film from the R3D files)- its just about the same as starting out with film- and sometimes more.

                              Just crunching numbers in my head, you can easily shoot a feature on 35mm on an indie budget. By shooting 2-perf for example, you are getting twice the runtime on the same footage of film, So lets say your shooting 10:1 with 2-perf (90-min feature), here is a very ruff film budget for an indie feature:
                              (no discounts have been factored in)

                              40,000 feet of Kodak 35mm film = $26,000
                              Processing = $5600
                              Dailies = $9000
                              Budget 2K DI (from your EDL- includes 35mm print) = $60,000
                              2K DCP from your 2K DI for digital release = $5000

                              Total = $105,000 (again, no discounts were factored in)

                              Thats about the same post costs as shooting with the Red, but you actually get to shoot a film with film. And if you pulled the right strings, I bet you could get close to paying 30% less than that. (not to mention if you only wanted to deliver a 2K DCP or HD tape instead of a print)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X