Putting together a short film (questions)

S

Sajc05

Active member
Hey, first post, love this forum

I've been shooting 30 sec commercials for local small business, nothing big get the employees to be in them set up some lights, get a VO, some music ect. i shot them myself.

Now i have a short comedy, 32 pages. i want to put this together right. I'm in the process of raising money and i have gotten together around $6400. two main locations - A small grocery store and a farm. around a 3 day shoot in july (cause i'm taking some editing classes till end of june)

I have a dvx 100a. and some of questions that i would like some feed back on are:

1: i've been debating the idea of getting a 35mm adapter for my dvx. should i do that or would it be better to invest that money into another dvx 100 for a two camera set up and faster shooting time?

2: I understand a very good "film look" can be achieved without the adapter, with good lenses, lighting ect... and if I were looking for a DP (obviously within budget) who would be good in helping achieve a good look, skilled with the dvx, where do i seek them out? i guess with all the different aspects of this movie that need to be put together, how would i go about seeking collaboration?

the money i've raised i would like to spend some on equipment - lights, sound ect - and also to pay for a small crew, like a dp and ac, as well actors. so i guess i'm wondering how to go about that cause up till now i've been a one man crew.
 
man $6400? shoot it on DV or HDV and save 90% of that money! That money can shoot a whole feature film. I think you can get a good 'film look' if you shoot on those formats and you can always transfer it to 35mm after the film is done. Jeez, that's a lot of money for a short film!
 
well i already have a dv camera, and if i invest in another one i think they are going for 2100 - 2400 right now. that cuts my budget almost in half. or spend that money on a 35 mm adapter and a dp thats skilled with it and the rest on actors, crew and post. not sure which to do.
 
If you go with a 35mm adapter, there are a few more pieces you may consider budgeting for.
- most adapters will need some kind of support, besides the added weight of the lenses themselves, all the equipment to support the use of the adapter may outweigh the camera, balance becomes an issue, so rails are a good idea, and the plate you're using may not have enough forward/backward play to achieve good balance
- you'd need a follow focus, and maybe someone to pull focus for you
- if you get an adapter that doesn't flip (to save money), that can be a problem (upside down images can be difficult to frame, and panning is awkward)
- if you get an adapter that doesn't flip, you might need a camera-mounted display to pull crisp focus, because the LCD on the DVX is kinda small, especially if you're using it to display camera information at the same time (AND its upside down - so, you'll need a mounting option to mount it upside down so the image is right-side-up).
- your new display will probably need power of some kind... thats an entirely new problem and has costs associated with it (mounting it, charging it, spare batteries, etc.)
- if you get someone to pull focus, you'll really need a decent camera-mounted display (larger then the camera's LCD), even if the puller can do it by sight and measuring without looking at the display.
- there are primes to consider purchasing if you don't already own any.
- 35mm lenses (as well as all others) tend to flare, might consider a matte box too
- there's viginetting issues, setup issues, dust and alignment issues, all solvable, but you'll need to learn the issues and solutions early on if you're on a schedule (so they don't impact your shoot)
- hopefully, you've gotten rods long enough to support all that, because without rods, you've got a really front heavy camera.
- you've just added a lot of weight to your rig, (can your tripod head support it?)
- filters, you may have 72mm ones, now you need either 4x4's or filters for your 35mm primes, because your original filters may not fit anymore with which ever 35mm adapter you've decided to go with.

I'm always amazed that when you decide to go one direction, the costs that accrue in other directions to support that decision tend to equal or go higher then the initial investment.

Just a thought or two.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a big fan of multiple cameras for a narrative film. One of the performances always suffers. Even at the expense of perfect continuity, it's more important as a director to manage 1 performance at a time when you can. (Of course, that doesn't apply for a 2-shot, but in that case you can actually watch both perfomrnaces at the same time.)
 
dilmandila said:
man $6400? shoot it on DV or HDV and save 90% of that money! That money can shoot a whole feature film. I think you can get a good 'film look' if you shoot on those formats and you can always transfer it to 35mm after the film is done. Jeez, that's a lot of money for a short film!
Click to expand...

I used to think that way too. But after working on a bunch of bad low budget indie features all with budgets upwards of $200K, expecting a decent feature film out of $6400 is pretty unrealistic. I would much rather watch a well-produced, well-shot, well-scripted short film instead of turning off a REALLY poorly-made feature film within the first 10 minutes. Not to say that you won't do a good job if you made a feature with that money, but having a budget allows for a certain level of production value.

$6400 is NOT overkill for a short film. In fact, it'll be money well-spent when you can show off high-quality work.

Go for the adapter - but I recommend renting it and hiring an AC for the three days.
 
Cameras are only as good as the person using them.

If it were me, I'd invest the money in PEOPLE. I'd hire an experienced DP with his own camera -- preferably an HD. I'd hire an experienced sound person with HIS own gear. And an experienced lighting person. Hair/makeup person too. And actors, of course.

And don't forget to hire a good editor!

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much great new gear you've added to your collection -- what matters is the quality of your finished film. If you've got money, then hire professionals -- if you don't have money, then you do it yourself.

And before you dive in, it wouldn't hurt to have someone critique your script. You want it to be the best it can possibly be.

My 2 cents. Good luck!
 
32 pages is ALOT to shoot in 3 days with one camera and an inexperienced crew.

Not to say that it can't be done, but you don't want to rush yourself. I made a ten minute film on S16 in two days and I didn't even get enough coverage.
 
32 pages in 3 days is way too much.

Also, you will have difficulty getting a 32 minute short film in a festival. The best thing is to keep it to 10 minutes or under.

The rules say you can submit a short of usually under 69 minutes, but trust me, your chances of getting in are low with such a long short.
 
dilmandila said:
man $6400? shoot it on DV or HDV and save 90% of that money! That money can shoot a whole feature film. I think you can get a good 'film look' if you shoot on those formats and you can always transfer it to 35mm after the film is done. Jeez, that's a lot of money for a short film!
Click to expand...

Don't waste $6400 making a shitty feature film. Put that $6400 into making a great short film.

I'd say if you can raise more money for this short, do it. Despite what dilmandila says.. a feature cannot be shot on a $6400 budget... well.. let me *rephrase... a "good" feature cannot be shot on a $6400 budget.

Taormina is right.. a 32 page script is a heck of a lot to shoot in 3 days. And he is also right when he says you'll have a lot of trouble getting into film festivals.

My two previous films were both around the 20 min mark.. and both have had a hard time getting play at festivals.

A current film I am working on.. it's final budget once I get the final tally that is.. will be in the neighborhood of $7500. And thats for a 1 day shoot... and a 7 page script. The most I've shot was 15 pages.. and that was a 3 Day shoot.. and those had very little dialogue in them. I'd give your script a good edit.. try and get it to something more concise in less pages.

If you're going to shoot on DV, a 35mm Adaptor is good idea for sure. Will give you more options when it comes to playing with focus. Will also give the film an interesting look thats for sure. Just be sure to work with a good DP and AC.

peas.
 
Loki said:
... well.. let me *rephrase... a "good" feature cannot be shot on a $6400 budget.
Click to expand...

It depends on the genre. I saw a great feature two years ago that was shot on a $2,000 budget. It was a character oriented drama. The filmmakers made quite a profit distributing the film themselves, even going on tour across the nation to screen their film. And I'm also working on developing my own feature to be shot next fall for not much more than that. Also a drama.
 
Huy Vu said:
It depends on the genre. I saw a great feature two years ago that was shot on a $2,000 budget. It was a character oriented drama. The filmmakers made quite a profit distributing the film themselves, even going on tour across the nation to screen their film. And I'm also working on developing my own feature to be shot next fall for not much more than that. Also a drama.
Click to expand...

The chances of getting that kind of success are minimal. It'd be easier to try and survive a lightning strike.. solely for the press it would give you.

There is a chance yes... but...not a very realistic one.
 
By the same token, if you were able to raise $6400 for a short film -- which has virtually no chance of returning on the investment -- then you might be able to raise a lot MORE for a feature. Apparently you have a knack for raising money.

A successful short will be seen by a fraction of the number of people who will see -- and buy or rent -- a successful feature. If you're GOOD at what you do, then you can make a good feature. If this is a learning experience, then a short is the way to go.

Either way, I still say it's best to use the money to hire experienced folks, rather than using it to buy more gear. More gear does not make a better movie. Better talent makes a better movie.

Good luck!
 
Loki said:
The chances of getting that kind of success are minimal. It'd be easier to try and survive a lightning strike.. solely for the press it would give you.

There is a chance yes... but...not a very realistic one.
Click to expand...

Again, depending on the genre and your management skill. I believe that technology now has reached a point when you're able to create works with high production value for a very low cost. I'm in no way saying that the beginning filmmaker with his DVX can automatically make a great feature. It does take skill, and working with the right people, and of course a good story. But it depends on what you mean when you say make a "good" feature. If you're talking about making a good film, then yes it absolutely can be done. If you're talking about making a film that will make money, then that's a different story.

The main thing is to know your limitations and work with your advantage. A drama is obviously cheaper to shoot than an action epic. The budget for my feature will be shockingly small, but I believe that I will be able to turn out a product with reasonably high production value. How? By using every resources that I have and by having a strong story to back it up. Based on the strength of the script I've already secured the service of a sound person and a composer, both at a huge discounts, and will be seeking to negotiate with other professionals to work on my film at a fraction of their usual rates. I'm able to borrow thousands of dollars of equipment from a friend and by scouting ahead of time I'm able to get great locations at no charge. You can turn out a quality feature film on a shoe string budget, but you do have to plan it right so that you're not paying for everything yourselves.
 
I agree with Huy. Budget isn't everything.

Take my current feature 'Tangled Web', for instance. Total budget - $1000. Shot in just 3 days. Very strong story. Great actors. Production values better than most. One of the reasons it cost so little to do was tied directly to the fact that it only took 3 days to shoot. Shorter shoot = less food and drink for cast and crew.

Also, the strength of the script had people DYING to participate. I had highly qualified actors from L.A. and NYC ready and willing to travel at their own expense to our little corner of NC to be in this movie -- on deferred pay!

Everyone is working on deferred. Since it was only a 3-day commitment for a feature, people were more than willing.

I own my DVX100a. The audio gear we bought was only used for 3 days, so we were able to re-sell it and get nearly all of our money back. The entire movie was shot in my house, although it was dressed to look like 3 different places.

How we were able to get the whole thing shot in just 3 days -- well, that's the subject of my book "'Tangled Web' - The Making of the 3-Day, $1000 Movie". :)

BTW - Production pics can be seen on our website - www.chapelgrovefilms.com
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
I agree with Huy. Budget isn't everything.

Take my current feature 'Tangled Web', for instance. Total budget - $1000. Shot in just 3 days. Very strong story. Great actors. Production values better than most. One of the reasons it cost so little to do was tied directly to the fact that it only took 3 days to shoot. Shorter shoot = less food and drink for cast and crew.

Also, the strength of the script had people DYING to participate. I had highly qualified actors from L.A. and NYC ready and willing to travel at their own expense to our little corner of NC to be in this movie -- on deferred pay!

Everyone is working on deferred. Since it was only a 3-day commitment for a feature, people were more than willing.

I own my DVX100a. The audio gear we bought was only used for 3 days, so we were able to re-sell it and get nearly all of our money back. The entire movie was shot in my house, although it was dressed to look like 3 different places.

How we were able to get the whole thing shot in just 3 days -- well, that's the subject of my book "'Tangled Web' - The Making of the 3-Day, $1000 Movie". :)

BTW - Production pics can be seen on our website - www.chapelgrovefilms.com
Click to expand...

You've used this film of yours as examples in several threads. It's such a poor example of a feature film on shoe string since you had 1 location. And you're film (from my understanding) is a gimmick film...

When you sell your $1000 film at Sundance for a large chunk of money.. and I can see it somewhere other than your own website I will be impressed.

Not a very convincing example. (irregardless of quality of the film)

Huy Vu, artistic integrity and career success can be mutually exclusive or inclusive. My preference is that they are mutually inclusive.

It's also my belief that people should be payed properly for the work they do on set.

Let me pose a question; if your first $10 000 budget film goes nowhere... what will do ? make another go nowhere film for $10 000? Could be an amazing film.. you could have gotten a ton of great deals.. etc.. yet it never materializes to anything. Is it worth your time and energy to make another underfunded film?

Filmmaking is part business part art.. and I think you have to respect both to be successful. I think to get anywhere in the 'business' of film.. you have to go in with the right tools. And in the world of business one of those tools is money.

But prove me wrong... become the big hit off a $10 000 film. I'd love to see that.. but I am realistic..
 
Loki said:
It's also my belief that people should be payed properly for the work they do on set.
Click to expand...

Thank you for looking out for the technicians. In the short time I've worked professionally as a grip/electric, I can't tell you how often people are taken advantage of in this business. Chapel suggests hiring people who are good at their jobs. These types of people have been around the block and don't like to be taken advantage of. And they can see it coming a mile away. Sure, many talented professionals jump on and work for free on "passion" projects, but it's VERY tough to convince a skilled technician - who needs to pay bills and rent - to work on a feature for free.

Of course, you can bring students and friends on to round out your crew, but then again, you get what you pay for.

But whatever you do, please, please, PLEASE make sure your crew is taken care of.
 
Loki said:
You've used this film of yours as examples in several threads. It's such a poor example of a feature film on shoe string since you had 1 location. And you're film (from my understanding) is a gimmick film...

When you sell your $1000 film at Sundance for a large chunk of money.. and I can see it somewhere other than your own website I will be impressed.

Not a very convincing example. (irregardless of quality of the film)

Huy Vu, artistic integrity and career success can be mutually exclusive or inclusive. My preference is that they are mutually inclusive.

It's also my belief that people should be payed properly for the work they do on set.

Let me pose a question; if your first $10 000 budget film goes nowhere... what will do ? make another go nowhere film for $10 000? Could be an amazing film.. you could have gotten a ton of great deals.. etc.. yet it never materializes to anything. Is it worth your time and energy to make another underfunded film?

Filmmaking is part business part art.. and I think you have to respect both to be successful. I think to get anywhere in the 'business' of film.. you have to go in with the right tools. And in the world of business one of those tools is money.

But prove me wrong... become the big hit off a $10 000 film. I'd love to see that.. but I am realistic..
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you would go to so much effort to trash my film when you haven't even seen it. How can it be "not a very convincing example" when the next thing you say is "(irregardless of the quality of the film)"? Wouldn't the quality of the film be what MAKES it a good example or not? (Since the point was whether or not a 'good' film could be made on a miniscule budget.) And isn't that a judgement that you really can't make without actually seeing the film itself?

You make the assumption that the film has only 1 location. You're wrong -- while it only has one PHYSICAL location, the apparent locations in the film are 3, not one -- and that doesn't include the 4 other locations seen in short incidental scenes included in the movie. It's the same concept as if you constructed three different sets inside a single warehouse -- 1 physical location, but the audience sees 3 different 'locations'.

Also, it could be pointed out that many feature films have revolved around a single physical location. "My Little Eye" all takes place in one house, as does "The Brutal Truth". "Blair Witch" mostly took place in the woods -- which can be considered as a single location, since 'woods is woods' so to speak.

The strength of 'Tangled Web' lies in the quality of the script and the performances of the actors, both of which help to engross the audience to the point where they stop thinking about how many locations they're seeing, and become engaged in the people and the story. Granted, that was a challenge -- but challenges are good.

Yes, in many ways 'Tangled Web' is very static. But I feel the story and the characters more than make up for that. Am I right? Audiences will have the last word on that. But it's grossly unfair for anyone to make that judgement without ever even having seen the film.
 
Loki said:
It's also my belief that people should be payed properly for the work they do on set.
Click to expand...

Is 'deferred pay' no longer considered 'proper' pay? Everyone who worked on the film did so under contract for deferred pay -- their choice of either a flat salary or points, either one payable from profits.

As for proving you wrong.......that's the plan. :) (Not you specifically, but the consensus in general.)
 
vertigoanton said:
Thank you for looking out for the technicians. In the short time I've worked professionally as a grip/electric, I can't tell you how often people are taken advantage of in this business. Chapel suggests hiring people who are good at their jobs. These types of people have been around the block and don't like to be taken advantage of. And they can see it coming a mile away. Sure, many talented professionals jump on and work for free on "passion" projects, but it's VERY tough to convince a skilled technician - who needs to pay bills and rent - to work on a feature for free.

Of course, you can bring students and friends on to round out your crew, but then again, you get what you pay for.

But whatever you do, please, please, PLEASE make sure your crew is taken care of.
Click to expand...

I've never 'taken advantage of' anyone on my cast or crew. Everyone knows up-front what the offer is, and each person accepts or declines with full disclosure. There are always spelled-out contracts in place before shooting begins.

I knew a guy once -- a director -- who wanted to work on a project with me. When it came to discussing pay for cast and crew, he was appalled that I would even consider paying them out of the budget. "Why??" he asked. "I say if they'll work for free, the LET 'em!" That is a totally unethical thing to do, and I told him so. Needless to say, we parted ways. But there are certainly other people out there who have the same philosophy he did.

I manage to attract qualified people to work on this basis for two reasons. One is the quality of the scripts. The other is the fact that people are starved for decent work in our area.

When I have budget money to pay people, I pay people. When I don't, I offer deferred pay contracts -- generous ones, in my opinion. And I resent the implication that I treat anyone unfairly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top