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

jimpatro said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
for $50k? i'd make this... [link] and have $5000 left over.

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

1215242890.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
The dolly looks like a home-depot special to me...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 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!
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
I have this DVD Film school 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!
 
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...
 
I've been involved in several feature length films shot on the HVX200 starting at 20K and going into the millions.
Click to expand...

Just ouf of curiosity, are you at liberty to say which movies? Especially the "millions" budget?
 
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!
 
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)
 
bosindy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top