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

Sigh...

Alright. Hollywood always originates on film - unless there is a good reason not to. IE. Cost. Yes - cost. IE. Musicals. Example - REPO. They went with two Genesis cameras because they couldn't afford multiple film cameras to do the extended takes a musical requires. The Genesis had a bunch of issues.

There are other reasons to originate on digital as well. But most people don't.

Take a look on IMDB. See how many films were shot on film. Then compare that number to Genesis (21 - which also had a PanArri 435). Which is probably easily number 2. Compared to F23 (Cloverfield), compared to Viper, compared to F900 (any model). The numbers will be staggering. They will lean very heavily film.

Yes - nearly every film goes though a DI. It get digitized anyways to edit. You need to when going to an NLE. There are changes made then in the telecine turing the timing.

Every hollywood film transfers at 2k. Anything else is pointless. 4K happens in VFX shots and other speciality shots. There is only so much resolution does for you.
 
ChipG said:
Ehh? Now I'm confused...

What's this thread about?
Click to expand...

Advice on a 500-700K film budget, which quickly lead to choice of camera, and what budgetary effect that may have... which seems to me from some of the posted responses, at a 'pure' budget level, 'about the same' for digital or film...

At which point, I'd go with digital... were it my choice...
 
dougspice said:
It would depend entirely on the script. There is no magic bullet.

Truth be told, this is a conversation you should be having with your DP, not a bunch of yahoos on a message board who don't know anything about your film. Get a producer, get a crew, THEN start worrying about this sort of stuff.
Click to expand...

Hi Mickey,

This is a good conversation and fairly well informed as well but I think the comment above is the most important conclusion that should be drawn from this thread.
 
Chip, my second post was in reference to another poster who simply posted incorrect information. I wasn't going to go into it until said post came up. There is one thing to posting opinion. It is another to post something that is incorrect.

I am not making an argument either way. Only going and correcting information.
 
dougspice said:
It would depend entirely on the script. There is no magic bullet.

Truth be told, this is a conversation you should be having with your DP, not a bunch of yahoos on a message board who don't know anything about your film. Get a producer, get a crew, THEN start worrying about this sort of stuff.
Click to expand...
emretufekci said:
Hi Mickey,

This is a good conversation and fairly well informed as well but I think the comment above is the most important conclusion that should be drawn from this thread.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I think it's important for those who are thinking about doing what the $500K-$700K writer/director is doing. I go to several forums myself just to read, I really only interact with this one. So to have people talk about a concept helps me to figure out what route I should go.

As for the IMDB concept of Film. Tyler Perry's films whether you like them or not have grossed over $1 Billion in Box Office / DVD / Cable TV Sales. Tyler's Studio is totally Independent. Robert Rodriguez is Independent with a great track record. Both of these guys and many more have not followed Hollywood, they have led by example. Trying to say something is right because 99% of the people are doing it, doesn't always make since in the Movie World.

I believe Digital is the future, Film is the past. Film still works and will have it's benefits - long archival for example. But Digital opens up new possibilities that Film just doesn't have or hasn't had without a large price tag.

I think the future of Hollywood is smaller production companies making movies at 50% of what movies are currently made at, dealing directly with movie cineplexes and by passing the "middle". Digital provides the perfect pipeline for all of these things. Sodderburg talked about it in reference to the RED Camera.
 
I agree: the best perspective on digital vs. film discussion.

I'd like to add one major tip: you can screen your movie in thousands of theaters; 99% of theaters worldwide don't have the money to set up digital projectors. The best digital projection boots are costing $500,000 each.

For indie filmmakers dreaming of a theatrical run, 35mm is the most cost effective format.

Never mind should the majors even decide to go all digital; their budgets are over $50 million per picture.

Indie filmmakers should consider that digital releasing is more expensive than 35mm releasing. Festival are much more likely to accept your 35mm movie because they can't afford renting the digital projection cinemas either.

Maybe in 10 or 20 years your digital argument will fly, until then 35mm is the clear choice. Do you know what 35mm stock sells for now and what lab costs are now? Do you know how cheap you can buy an Arri BL now?
The Arri IV was a million dollar camera; you can have it now for less than ten cents on the dollar.

And film is organic? No pesticides. LOL
 
Mattykins said:
Chip, my second post was in reference to another poster who simply posted incorrect information. I wasn't going to go into it until said post came up. There is one thing to posting opinion. It is another to post something that is incorrect.

I am not making an argument either way. Only going and correcting information.
Click to expand...

My bad, 15 hour days infront of the computer is making me go crazy.
 
filmman said:
Indie filmmakers should consider that digital releasing is more expensive than 35mm releasing. Festival are much more likely to accept your 35mm movie because they can't afford renting the digital projection cinemas either.

Maybe in 10 or 20 years your digital argument will fly, until then 35mm is the clear choice. Do you know what 35mm stock sells for now and what lab costs are now? Do you know how cheap you can buy an Arri BL now?
The Arri IV was a million dollar camera; you can have it now for less than ten cents on the dollar.

And film is organic? No pesticides. LOL
Click to expand...


No, dinasaurs had to give up their oil for the polyester bases used today...

But from a post above, the estimate for the 'film out' from the digital process was $60K. Using the film negative process, required work prints to be made, and further, in order to do NLE editing/FX (not massive CGI but perhaps some reframing, altering the contrast via digital means in specific areas (power windows...), etc. one would have to have digitial transfers, ending up with about $60K or more of costs for such transfers and temporary prints... and then the final distribution prints in either case...

I was reading the IMDB trivia on "9 Songs"(2004), and it was claimed that the movie was shot on a DVX100 (that is at 720x480 pixel resolution...ok, perhaps since "9 Songs" was done in England... its 720x576 PAL...) then 'transfered' to film via projection onto a white wall, and captured via a 35mm film camera. Perhaps they used a stop motion style setup... each digital frame projected for a second, then snap a frame of 35mm...

And that film, for better or worse, went to Cannes...
 
Last edited:
Digital will never get the respect of Film. As much as I hate to say this its true. Yeah there's been some big articles about some filmmakers who praise digital, but the Majority of people in the industry, as soon as you tell them your film(being an Indie) was shot on digital, they don't take you serious. I guess this is because of the flooded digital movie makers that has come.

But, to the original posters question, if it's a money issue, then talk to your crew like one poster suggested, but if it's to impress some big shots, like investors, producers and so on.. then shoot Film.

And oh yeah, whether you decide to shoot film or digital, definitely put half of that budget aside for Marketing like someone else suggested. And oh yeah, your movie also have to be good...lol If the movie sucks, then all bets are off...
 
capitalP said:
Digital will never get the respect of Film. As much as I hate to say this its true. Yeah there's been some big articles about some filmmakers who praise digital, but the Majority of people in the industry, as soon as you tell them your film(being an Indie) was shot on digital, they don't take you serious. I guess this is because of the flooded digital movie makers that has come.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on whose doing the talking. A few years ago you heard the horror stories of people being turned away and not even let into festivals because their film was shot digitally. Today there's some big filmmakers now who simply will not shoot film. When I was in College my dream was to shoot video because of it was cheap and easy of use. I figured I could shoot it, edit it and myself, get it dubbed to vhs and make some money. (Eventually that's what I've ended up doing). Indeed low-budget horror films were being shoot that way and for awhile people were buying just because they had a VCR and not a ton of movies for it. A lot of money was made.

Next year everything goes HD and people will want HD content. HD TVs will drop and in ten years (or less) HD will probably become the dominant way of viewing. SD TVs are being thrown at us now. Walk into Sears and get a decent TV for $100. That sweet spot is coming were everyone will want Blueray and HD. This will open the door for HD downloads straight to TV. (Xbox, PS3 Apple TV etc).

We were considering shooting our next film on an SD DVX100. Should it be done? It would be cheaper, but limit our chances. If "Wages of Sin" had been shot in HD it would be selling in the UK right now. I had a guy who liked it and felt it was better than a lot of martial arts films because the martial arts were more real and not the super human antics seen by many Hollywood films (not that I don't like those too). His issue was basically there's a lot of action films and the same type of film shot on HD (ANY 24P HD) is simply a better investment as more things can be done with it and this is what they want.

While sure a "name" will bring sales too, a no name action film will still bring sales if shot right and shot on DV. I always look at my finished project critically and say I don't like this or I don't like that but distributors are only interested in what they think they can sale. With this in mind I do indeed have a product that is marketable.

Now on with the kind of budget we're talking about I would shoot HD without a doubt. I would indeed buy my equipment (it's simply a good investment if you can pull these kinds of budgets) and shoot everything that way. The new Crank film is being shot with Canon XH-A1 and that's a million dollar movie with A-list talent that is pretty popular.

Would I buy Red or multiple lower budget cameras? That's the real question. I like run and gun shooting but on that budget I wouldn't need to so much. When shooting action films I like being able to move around freely when I'm behind the camera and for my crew to have this same ability when their shooting. The scene everyone loved in my first film was in what I figured was the worst fight. It was a hand held scene where I ran around two people in the middle of a gun fight. I'll admit it looked good (would look better now) but that's what got people excited in the trailer. Could I do this with a Red? Maybe I'd use dolly system of some type. Everything can change when you upgrade.

-Nate
 
jls4 said:
As for the IMDB concept of Film. Tyler Perry's films whether you like them or not have grossed over $1 Billion in Box Office / DVD / Cable TV Sales. Tyler's Studio is totally Independent. Robert Rodriguez is Independent with a great track record. Both of these guys and many more have not followed Hollywood, they have led by example. Trying to say something is right because 99% of the people are doing it, doesn't always make since in the Movie World.

I believe Digital is the future, Film is the past. Film still works and will have it's benefits - long archival for example. But Digital opens up new possibilities that Film just doesn't have or hasn't had without a large price tag.

I think the future of Hollywood is smaller production companies making movies at 50% of what movies are currently made at, dealing directly with movie cineplexes and by passing the "middle". Digital provides the perfect pipeline for all of these things. Sodderburg talked about it in reference to the RED Camera.
Click to expand...

i havent heard much about tyler's studio in atlanta - have you been there?

emretufekci said:
Hi Mickey,

This is a good conversation and fairly well informed as well but I think the comment above is the most important conclusion that should be drawn from this thread.
Click to expand...

jls4 took the words right out of my mouth: Agreed, but I think it's important for those who are thinking about doing what the $500K-$700K writer/director is doing. I go to several forums myself just to read, I really only interact with this one. So to have people talk about a concept helps me to figure out what route I should go.

plus, right now i'm in very early stages and in the process of looking for a DP (been looking at demo reels most of this week), crew, etc....we have a producer already. already i've gained even more info that i already knew had i not posted this thread so to NOT have an open discussion about a hypothetical situation (at this point) like this does nobody any good, this is healthy indie film talk baby :)

filmman said:
I agree: the best perspective on digital vs. film discussion.

I'd like to add one major tip: you can screen your movie in thousands of theaters; 99% of theaters worldwide don't have the money to set up digital projectors. The best digital projection boots are costing $500,000 each.

For indie filmmakers dreaming of a theatrical run, 35mm is the most cost effective format.

Never mind should the majors even decide to go all digital; their budgets are over $50 million per picture.

Indie filmmakers should consider that digital releasing is more expensive than 35mm releasing. Festival are much more likely to accept your 35mm movie because they can't afford renting the digital projection cinemas either.
Click to expand...

this was pretty much one of my main concerns (35mm releasing being less expensive than digital releasing) however i like what somebody posted earlier saying the maybe the film transfer $$$ can be included in the budget and used in the event a distributor wants to buy it, etc
 
A distributor will pay to have the film print made if they want to buy your movie.

El Mariachi was made on film (16mm) for around $7k. Rodregez saved alot of money by editing it in digital then sending out 3/4 inch tapes to distributors. He never made a film print, the distributor (I think it was Columbia) paid for the film print and audio finnishing.

If your movie is any good I don't think a distributor will care if it was shot digital or on film, I'm speaking about a high quality digital camera with Red being the minimum standard.
 
Last edited:
that's still money you have to pay them back through sales plus interest though correct? plus as someone pointed out you're limited in the festival circuit by not having it in film (if u want to go that route). i guess its pros and cons to both ends
 
Mickey Munday said:
i havent heard much about tyler's studio in atlanta - have you been there?
Click to expand...

Yep. I've been there a few times. The main thing is that He's outside of hollywood and making money, so is Rodriguez and even Lucas from what I've heard.

Most people follow what has already been done or what people are doing, but it doesn't mean the road less traveled is a bad path.

Mickey Munday said:
this was pretty much one of my main concerns (35mm releasing being less expensive than digital releasing) however i like what somebody posted earlier saying the maybe the film transfer $$$ can be included in the budget and used in the event a distributor wants to buy it, etc
Click to expand...

If you have enough money, set aside $40K for a film transfer if you need it. That's what I'm hoping to do. It's also cheaper than trying to keep up with 1TB of data over a long period of time. - good archival. :beer:
 
Nathyn said:
Next year everything goes HD and people will want HD content. HD TVs will drop and in ten years (or less) HD will probably become the dominant way of viewing. SD TVs are being thrown at us now. Walk into Sears and get a decent TV for $100. That sweet spot is coming were everyone will want Blueray and HD. This will open the door for HD downloads straight to TV. (Xbox, PS3 Apple TV etc).
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should go back and look at this... but 'next year', will be the end of analog NTSC type broadcasts for the US, being replaced by ATSC/8VSB digital broadcasts... there's no specific 'HD' requirement... of course in the 6 MHz TV Channel band one can pack a HD 21 Mb/s signal... but one can also pack a couple of SD subchannels and so there may be more 'overlapped' SD...

But it is also true the broadcast industry is fighting for material in HD... but often material that has the highest ad revenue potential... like sportscasts...
 
j1clark - you're right on the "no HD requirement". The only requirement is the ATSC/8VDB signal which as you noted can carry an SD signal or a few. Most of our local news stations here our using the multiple channels to carry a weather cast on one - pretty cool to have that 24/7.
 
Mickey Munday said:
that's still money you have to pay them back through sales plus interest though correct? plus as someone pointed out you're limited in the festival circuit by not having it in film (if u want to go that route). i guess its pros and cons to both ends
Click to expand...

Sure, but it is a 'when and where, by whom' factor. Up front, for production, film does have a cost. As noted to get it into distribution, there is a cost to transfer to a print. At that point, the distribution deal may be that the costs of that print come out of the income from the distributed film... and so, the original investors, or the production company need not pay that out before the film is produced. So, for the $60 or so K for 'film', to shoo 'film', one can perhaps pay a higher fee for 'talent', or fancier 'editing', etc... or the kid's $1000 an hour pre-school... (I heard a director is being sued for such an 'expense' on a film... a recent one, I think one of perhaps TDK, or perhaps Hulk... don't recall... )
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
But it is also true the broadcast industry is fighting for material in HD... but often material that has the highest ad revenue potential... like sportscasts...
Click to expand...

I think filmmakers can leverage the whole HD thing we just have to figure out how. In the summer all the big budget films hit the screen. I'm thinking about how to hit the living rooms and how to have fans come to me. Fans are seeking out content now so you have to make yourself something that is sought out. If I had 500k then $200k is for promotion right up front. $400,000 is for production. A clever mix of TV actors can make this work.

Sale the foreign rights and keep the American rights if you can. Do some theatrical showings (not many unless they're profitable). There are people who four-walled and made money. It's a lot more work but then again the quick way out is going after the distributors who distribute films like your for the big screen. Stick to action and horror (or action horror) and things should work out. Romance is big too if you get the right people.

Get those annoying kid stars from the WB (CW) and FOX shows and make a teen horror film or vampire romance (Twilight) something similar. When you have $500,000 doors will open without a doubt.

-Nate
 
Mickey Munday said:
that's still money you have to pay them back through sales plus interest though correct? plus as someone pointed out you're limited in the festival circuit by not having it in film (if u want to go that route). i guess its pros and cons to both ends
Click to expand...

It depends on the deal you make with the distributor, if they want it bad they will pay for the film print out of thier pocket, re edit's, sound, finnishing.

It is no doubt cheaper to send a digital master to all the distributors, it would limit you in the festival circut to a point although most do have digital projection systems, not the $500k ones but smaller, cheaper but still nice digital projectors. The festival route can be a very expensive way to campain for a distributor, why not just send them all digital copies of your movie?

If it is good enough for them to want to buy it, pay for a film print etc. and they want it seen at a couple festivals let them pay for that, they will.

I'm not saying one way is wright or wrong but one is cheaper if you decide to shoot on film. I have seen many people spend $30k+ campaigning thier films at festivals for nothing more than satisfying thier ego's so they can say my movie was at Sundance, Telluride etc., it didn't get picked up by a distributor but it played at many festivals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top