what does most the budget go to

If you going HD, I would say one of the main ones would be a grip/lighting truck. I would say at least a solid 1ton truck or 3 ton if you can afford it. What are you shooting? Commercials, Feature, Music Video etc?

If the truck is owed by a key grip or a gaffer, you could negotiate a fair rate for both.
 
Last edited:
It depends what you're talking about, every project is different, even within the same type of project (comedy versus horror feature, or rock music video versus rap music video, etc.). Every project I have to cut some corners, so then it comes down to where I cut, it's not that I want to do so, but I have no choice. On the last short it was having no makeup artist / hair stylist and letting my co-producer, with some experience doing this, take care of it herself. That worked out fine. Or not renting any lighting equipment besides what we had (enough, but not everything you could want or imagine), but I wanted to have a 35mm lens adapter and Zeiss lenses so we did spend money on that. We had no money for extras, so we made sure shots were not wide and establishing shots, but instead pretty much cutting into the point, and spending money on sound design to fill out the unseen space in the audioscape.

So you always try to figure out this push-and-pull of where you can cut from without losing too much quality, on indie stuff.
 
To me, no matter the project...

1. Grip and lighting. I would rather shoot a killer lit set and scenes with an HPX170 than an available light or not so well lit set with a RED. Good lighting will make even a lower end camera shine.

2. Sound - Even on the lowest budget projects, do yourself a favor and always, always, always hire a professional sound mixer. DIY sound generally sucks and nothing defeats low budget projects like bad audio.

3. Pay the crew, pay the actors - To me, a sign that a project that is going to succeed is when people get paid. That takes it from amateur hour to a professional production. How many wankers get all excited because they are shooting their low budget project on a $5,000.00 per week RED or film package but then neglect to pay the crew and talent? Geez people, get a clue. Shoot it on a cheaper camera with a smaller lighting package and pay some people, most are not in it for the thrill of it, they need to survive. Even if you can't pay full rates, a couple of hundred a day makes all of the difference in the world in motivating a crew and talent. Nobody likes to work for free.

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
To me, no matter the project...

1. Grip and lighting. I would rather shoot a killer lit set and scenes with an HPX170 than an available light or not so well lit set with a RED. Good lighting will make even a lower end camera shine.

2. Sound - Even on the lowest budget projects, do yourself a favor and always, always, always hire a professional sound mixer. DIY sound generally sucks and nothing defeats low budget projects like bad audio.

3. Pay the crew, pay the actors - To me, a sign that a project that is going to succeed is when people get paid. That takes it from amateur hour to a professional production. How many wankers get all excited because they are shooting their low budget project on a $5,000.00 per week RED or film package but then neglect to pay the crew and talent? Geez people, get a clue. Shoot it on a cheaper camera with a smaller lighting package and pay some people, most are not in it for the thrill of it, they need to survive. Even if you can't pay full rates, a couple of hundred a day makes all of the difference in the world in motivating a crew and talent. Nobody likes to work for free.

Dan
Click to expand...

I totally agree with every point. It's really important to have good lighting, you can make the HVX200 look great if you light it well, I've seen my music video Winded projected even on DVD, not the full 720p data version, onto theater screens and I was shocked it looked so good. I really expected it to look kinda bad, honestly, but it was great looking! A surprise for me. And sound is what kills a lot of indie productions, it's so important, you cannot skimp on sound!

I always pay everyone who works with me, the pay isn't always great, but it's always something. It's a bit of fun, and a bit of pay. I would say in general nobody makes less than $10 to $15 per hour, so it's not good pay, but it's something at least. At least the $100 to $200 per day range.
 
Also a resourceful Art Director can quadrupedal your production value. One of the most underrated crew members.
 
El Gato Negro said:
Also a resourceful Art Director can quadrupedal your production value. One of the most underrated crew members.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no kidding, not underrated on my last project! I went about looking for a production designer 5 weeks before shooting started, before I had a DP for sure, because I knew it was essential to a good looking short. Production design / art direction is extremely important. Not only can it say a lot about the characters, but it makes something look professional.

I think the difference between professional filmmaking and amateur filmmaking at root is that professional shoots are completely planned, every element is carefully selected. It doesn't mean it turns out 100% perfect, but if you look at a scene in my last short film, every object was placed there for a reason. Nothing is in the scene that wasn't carefully thought about, and no actions or mannerisms are there by accident, nothing is there except what we intended to be there. A lot of amateur productions just sort of throw a few actors in a random place and have them do something, cut, move on.

This is part of the fun of analyzing feature films, because it's ok to "overanalyze" them, it's ok to assume that every single detail is there for a reason, and if it has explanatory power you roll with it. Even if maybe the filmmaker just got lucky, a fortunate coincidence (happened to me on my first big music video, even though it was very well planned still and everything was intentional, there were additional layers of subtext that I hadn't thought about consciously until after shooting), we as the audience can still read into it and find meaning.

Amateur productions leave more to chance.
 
I've budgeted/produced webisodes for CBS in the 1/4 million dollar range, features for as little as 30k, and shorts for next to nothing. I've also worked on shows with 2-4mil/episode budgets.

Every shoot is different. Somethings (permits, rentals, etc) always cost the same. So you can do what any line producer has to do - call the places, get a quote for what you need, write it down in your favorite spreadsheet application.

Other things depend on the shoot. If your movie has an elephant that explodes... that's gonna be a cost. If you have VFX, complex makeup, stunts, whatever - costs.

You have to sit down and do a prelim budget, where you do your best to guess, based on research, calls, quotes, etc.

This is how you answer your question. We can wax poetical about the philosophies of indie filmmaking... but this is not the creative side, this is the financial. Add things together.
 
So assuming you have a solid camera package what would you say is better to sacrifice. Actors pay or lighting rental package?
 
lairhair said:
So assuming you have a solid camera package what would you say is better to sacrifice. Actors pay or lighting rental package?
Click to expand...

Assuming you are paying a good chunk for the camera package rental, downgrade the camera package (you were on film, shoot HD, you were on a RED, shoot a HPX500 or 170 instead) and spend the money on lighting and the actors and crew. What good is a great picture without lighting and good talent in front of the lens?

Or did you mean you OWN the camera package?

D
 
lairhair said:
So assuming you have a solid camera package what would you say is better to sacrifice. Actors pay or lighting rental package?
Click to expand...

Save up more money until you can afford both?? lol. ;)

There are certain things I will not sacrifice on a project. Other things you can live without. I mean my production designer may be annoyed, but if I have to go without any set dressers or extra hands, she'll make do. Or for instance 2nd A.C., useless position on a tiny shoot. Why do I need a 2nd A.C.? I've never needed one on the level of work I do, but I darn well won't sacrifice having a 1st A.C. Same goes with 2nd A.D., also a useless position on most shoots. I needed one once for extras wrangling, no way my 1st A.D. could do all of the crew responsibilities and the extras wrangling himself, but on a lot of smaller projects a 1st A.D. alone is sufficient. Again, though, that position is vital to me, I used to wonder what a 1st A.D. was when I was a n00b and why I'd need one, now I wouldn't ever shoot a project with a crew of 6 or more without a 1st A.D. It's a butt-saving position! haha.

I shot my last short without a script supervisor. In my opinion that was stupid, it wouldn't have cost enough extra to be concerned about, and I won't make that mistake again. It didn't affect the final project I don't think, but I had to do a lot of thinking about crap like that where if we had a good script sup it would have freed me to think about directing more. I made a few quick saves in that area, where I noticed things that were off, and had them fixed, but it puts extra pressure on everyone, the 1st A.D., DP, and director, and production designer, actually, to be worried about that kind of stuff every scene. There's a reason these positions exist.

And I'm sure if I was shooting a feature I'd have even more need for various positions that I've heretofore considered expendable. It all just depends on the size of the shoot and the resources available. But unfortunately with indie filmmaking we often face questions like you are asking -- this or that. You either get one or the other but not both. That can be really rough.
 
It depends.

Who are you a better/closer friend with, the DP or the actors?

The thing to take away from this is that, as with everything to do with filmmaking, there is no clear answer. All of us have different resources, people and project experience, so we're all going to have a different view than might be right for your situation, whatever it may be. Ideally, I say start cutting where no one will see it. Even though no one sees the actors' checks, paying them well makes sure they won't quit at a bad time. Lighting is the last think I'd cut at all, unless by that you mean finding cheap ways to do things. Creativity can beat budgets to a pretty large extent, but you have to figure out what fits in your project for yourself.
 
I'd hire a real location sound guy! 50% of the movie 5% (or less) of the budget sounds like a steal of a deal to me. Nothing worse than see a pretty picture and you can't hear what they're saying or it sounds like they recorded off a camera mic (on a digital movie)
JM2C

PS Don't have pizza every meal either. I've seen more experienced crew leave a low budget because of food.
 
Last edited:
The saying with all of the crews I hire is, "no flat food". That means no pizza, burritos, sandwiches, etc. They want a real meal with real hot food, some healthy stuff and salads. If you don't feed your crew well, they aren't going to dig it and certainly aren't going to give 100%.

I wish more producers thought like you Allen. No matter what the budget, hire a talented sound mixer. Always, always, always unless you are making a silent film. Even music videos need a playback person that knows what they are doing.

Dan
 
I would agree with what Dan said in his previous post about paying cast/crew. There are two reasons why:

1) A highly skilled cinematographer can do far, far more with a HMC150 and a standard light kit, than I can with a Panaflex and the full grip truck (and I at least somewhat know what I'm doing). This applies to sound as well.

2) One of the biggest traits that sends up red flags in anything of dramatic narrative (films, or docs with dramatic scenes, etc.) is weak acting. It is the mark of an amateurish film. Even "poor" acting by quality actors tends to be a standard above sub-par actors. Save and spend the money, hire the right talent, and spend the time working with them.

We over here in techgeekland tend to split hairs over equipment choices (even I get caught up in it, sigh), when most people at home are going to focus far more on your content, and it's delivery from who's in front of the screen.
 
puredrifting said:
The saying with all of the crews I hire is, "no flat food". That means no pizza, burritos, sandwiches, etc. They want a real meal with real hot food, some healthy stuff and salads. If you don't feed your crew well, they aren't going to dig it and certainly aren't going to give 100%.

I wish more producers thought like you Allen. No matter what the budget, hire a talented sound mixer. Always, always, always unless you are making a silent film. Even music videos need a playback person that knows what they are doing.

Dan
Click to expand...

*shrug* I had Subway for lunch my 2nd day shooting a short and nobody minded, it was a step up from pizza everyone figured. I don't see the big deal about pizza, though, what a stupid saying. Who the hell doesn't like pizza?! How is that not a real meal? I mean I pay like $28 twice a month to have Dominos delivered to me with those cinestix and buffalo wings because pizza is awesome and it's worth paying extra to get it. It'd be one thing if I had to eat it every day but if I was on someone else's shoot and it was pizza I'd be like thank god it's something edible. If most people made a list of like the 5 best things you can eat, pizza would be on almost everyone's list, so maybe filmmakers are just food snobs or something. I get that you shouldn't serve pizza every meal, but then again you shouldn't serve ANYTHING every meal, haha. I've still never figured out the hatred for pizza.

I agree that feeding the crew well is important, though. It's not always an option to offer the best food for every meal, though, sometimes you just make do on indie stuff because getting the best catering and the best snacks costs a ton. I did that on my first larger pro level music video, spent $750 on food for ONE DAY. On my short the entire food budget was just $400 for two days, and we came in under budget by like $7.

As for a playback person, LOL, no you don't need that. That would be incredibly wasteful. How hard is it to hit play on a freakin' iPod? I make the 1st A.D. do that, or a spare grip, or anyone, it doesn't matter who, heck I'll do it myself even what else am I doing as a director?! Nothing. Once the song starts rolling or is ready to roll I don't do crap until the band plays the song anyway. You certainly shouldn't waste money on hiring someone to push a button. This isn't the United States Government, we don't need that kind of waste on film shoots ;) Not in this economy especially.

I agree that sound, on a short film, should not be messed with, I mean you want to hire an EXPERIENCED sound guy, one who is really good, not someone "looking to try out sound" or your buddy who held a boom once for a student project. Not a good idea at all. I got really good production sound from my last short and it was worth the money. We had a production sound mixer and a boom op each day, which was a good system, and the guy came prepared with excellent sound equipment and was really on task for making sure our sound was good, letting us know when it wasn't so we could retake, etc. That kind of thing is vital. I hear that festival directors complain most commonly about bad sound. I think that sound and music combined, what you hear, is absolutely 50% of the experience. Maybe more, in the sense that if you literally cannot hear the dialogue then you have a pretty much useless film. But certainly if you have a good looking movie with amateurish sound, that's a total joke, and it would be really sad because you were that close to having a good project and you blew it. I can think of things to cheap out on, but it's not sound!
 
JonathanLB said:
...
As for a playback person, LOL, no you don't need that. That would be incredibly wasteful. How hard is it to hit play on a freakin' iPod? I make the 1st A.D. do that, or a spare grip, or anyone, it doesn't matter who, heck I'll do it myself even what else am I doing as a director?! Nothing. Once the song starts rolling or is ready to roll I don't do crap until the band plays the song anyway. You certainly shouldn't waste money on hiring someone to push a button. This isn't the United States Government, we don't need that kind of waste on film shoots ;) Not in this economy especially.

I...!
Click to expand...

There can be a lot more to playback than simply cueing an iPod and hitting "play," especially in a timecode workflow. Multiple takes with multiple coverage, dialog or vocal during a dance number, music going from foreground to background under dialog, all require special setups and involvment from the sound department.
 
Last edited:
One more thing - you write for low budget! That first means no big changes of locations and keep everything close...
 
Post is always the xpense of my projects.
I shoot reality/documentary so a one day shoot really is just a day. Depending on how much I shoot in that day, that could easily be a week of post.
For me it's post production, then travel, then production itself. That's what's cool about today's cameras... production jst doesn't have to be a deal breaker anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top