Bring on the 444 M4/3!! Jan! Do something, Quick!

HOD crew does not scare my budget half as much as two x eight ton trucks for grips and lights , a Generator truck with Jennie op crew and a small army that goes with the aforementioned.

Lets have a game of Dominoes shall we?

Heavy Camera + heavy Lenses, think about the heavy dolly, jib etc.
Add the trucks to transport that gear at their daily rate.
Add the massive (silent) generator truck at it's daily rate.
Add the crews for those trucks and a qualified spark because we are now officially using three phase power.
Think about set up times, think about the amount of crew required for the heavy equipment...
Then feed them, accommodate them and pay their fuel and transport costs for 40 days.
Suddenly I need a production manager and line producer because my logistics are starting to swell.

NOW I definitely cannot produce and direct simultaneously so I'm gonna need someone to take responsibility for set decor and creative production logistics.
That's a whole other can of worms...
Do I mind have an army around me? Hell no, I love it!
Can I afford it on every shoot? Hell no, I try to shoot three personal projects a year - one of which is a Social investment initiative (the school musical).

There's a clear line between a financed project where you can afford a full crew and a SELF financed project where every cent, every set up and every minute touches your personal pocket.

The Af100 lets you shoot a great story with great movement and really a skeleton crew.


Quick question:
How many of you commenting here have actually carried the financial weight of a movie on your shoulders?
I know you are super passionate about the technical aspects and my question is not meant to be demeaning in any way.

Most of you speak of these luxuries as if they were par for the course. Have you counted the cost of your argument?

My love for the M4/3 format (once again) is in the DRASTICALLY reduced expenditure on a full length feature - thus enabling me to grab a bunch of friends and colleagues and shoot whoever's script works the best - without going cap in hand to investors or putting my family at financial risk!

Jan, if you read this at any point:
The above is the impact the Af and it's M 4/3 kit is having on film making. I don't quite think the film making community has grasped the significance of the reduced size and weight thus logistics required to make a full length feature but it is a game changer for me and every film student I speak to!
 
Wilbur Eddings said:
Quick question:
How many of you commenting here have actually carried the financial weight of a movie on your shoulders?
I know you are super passionate about the technical aspects and my question is not meant to be demeaning in any way.

Most of you speak of these luxuries as if they were par for the course. Have you counted the cost of your argument?
Click to expand...

Financial weight is specifically what im talking about. You are spending money. You are shooting three or so films a year. Why not shoot one really properly done one? Allow me to clarify. By being a one man band, you are eliminating your ability to be a good director. What financial good will come from three films that you cant do your best on? im not trying ot tell you are wrong, im trying to get it into peoples heads that producing the best work you can will ENABLE you to make more films in the future. A good film that has clear direction, a DP that has the tools he or she needs, and a good script will do well at a festival, perhaps even get distribution, there by allowing you some financial freedom to do another that isnt "out of pocket".

Consolidating your three film budget into one bigger, more focused film will give you a fighting chance at making another, better, bigger film with a "8 ton truck". ( btw a 3 ton package will be more than enough for most indie features, and it isnt unmanageable with a crew of three of four)

My job here in DVXuser, is to help people make informed decisions, and produce the best film they can!
 
It seems to me that there are cross-purposes going on in the thread here; people are talking about what's really two different things.

If someone's saying a camera doesn't eliminate all that many crew positions, it's not because they're saying that you shouldn't bother if you don't have the budget for those positions. It's because those positions do things which they'd do no matter which camera it is. The camera is really just a box with a hole. It's what's in front of the camera which matters, and those people are who give you what's in front of the camera, know how to do it, and have the vision to do it. It's about human skill and creativity, and the value they add to your production. (No, I'm NOT saying that any camera is just the same as any other.)

If you have X budget, then of course you prioritize appropriately. But the problem comes when you think that having a particular camera means all those positions are always unnecessary.

I think that when you use the term "luxuries" when discussing key positions, you give the impression that you think of them as things like trailers for the stars, a full craft services truck, etc. But they're not "luxuries." They're not merely "nice to have." They're fundamental. They are the creative backbone of a production. They are what makes a movie what it is.

You should do without them only if you have to. But, again, if you start thinking, hey, I have X camera, and therefore these positions are now obsolete, then you have problems. It would be remiss to say otherwise. :)

(And yes, I've been the checkwriter on almost everything I've done.)
 
David Jimerson said:
It seems to me that there are cross-purposes going on in the thread here; people are talking about what's really two different things.

If someone's saying a camera doesn't eliminate all that many crew positions, it's not because they're saying that you shouldn't bother if you don't have the budget for those positions. It's because those positions do things which they'd do no matter which camera it is. The camera is really just a box with a hole. It's what's in front of the camera which matters, and those people are who give you what's in front of the camera, know how to do it, and have the vision to do it. It's about human skill and creativity, and the value they add to your production.

If you have X budget, then of course you prioritize appropriately. But the problem comes when you think that having a particular camera means all those positions are always unnecessary.

I think that when you use the term "luxuries" when discussing key positions, you give the
impression that you think of them as things like trailers for the stars, a full craft services truck, etc. But they're not "luxuries." They're not merely "nice to have." They're fundamental. They
are the creative backbone of a production. They are what makes a movie what it is.

You should do without them only if you have to. But, again, if you start thinking, hey, I have X camera, and therefore these positions are now obsolete, then you have problems. It would be remiss to say otherwise. :)

(And yes, I've been the checkwriter on almost everything I've done.)
Click to expand...

+1
But hey, I know all about shooting solo, or with a crew of two or three. The backbone of my business is knocking out low to mid budget TV commercials. But as I am a firm believer of the right tool for the job, I am also a firm believer of using the right crew for the job as well. Having worked on many larger productions over the years I know first hand the value a proper crew brings to the finished product. Especially on a feature film! The competition is really tough out there, so why limit your chances of having your film picked up but cutting out fundamentals like great audio and proper lighting? And I sorry for getting a little bitchy, but I think I have seen my fill of indie movie trailers shot outdoors to avoid having to use lights, where they have not even used a bounce fill and the actors faces are so dark it's hard to tell if they are male or female. Or the audio is so poorly recorded I can't even get all the way through the trailer.
I may step on a few toes with my comments but hey, I call it like I see it.

All the Best!

Dave
 
TimurCivan said:
IMHO, all the af100 reduces crew wise is maybe a 2nd ac.
Click to expand...

I just finished two feature films, the last one was a SAG ultra-low $35,000 budget, which is the lowest budget film I've worked on, perhaps ever.

The last three I was in camera department on were between $250,000 and $1,000,000+.

We only had a DP and myself as 1st AC in camera department. Even then, I can tell you production was harmed and/or slowed by not having a 2nd AC. We had to get pretty much everyone to take turns slating the shot, I had to constantly leave the camera to move, setup or take down video village, retrieve batteries, and I had to do lens changes by myself. This increases the time it takes to do my job and increases the risk of breaking the camera or lenses. It also puts lots of work onto the 1st as there is less time to focus on his job because he is doing another.




I don't mind people who have the attitude "I'll shoot with what I got, and do my best." But then I find it strangely ironic when they also have the gear-lust mentality, like "I need 4:4:4" or "I need 3k Scarlett" and etc.

If working with ultra-low budget, I'm sure there's much more important things to desire than 4:4:4... a camera assistant or lighting would be one of them. An out of focus shot or a poorly lit shot looks about the same in 4:2:2 as it does in 4:4:4. :)
 
Last edited:
Meh.
Ill just have to agree to disagree with you lot.

Some of those veiled condescensions are not lost on me though.

Gear lust?

Seriously? Wanting better gear is gear lust?

Most days P enjoy these
 
Well, prioritizing your budget goes a lot of different ways. I'd generally put money to talent and skill before gear pretty much any time. They're the ones who are going to make what you have shine.
 
When someone who professes that they are on a micro-budget but will shoot with what they have, even if that means a shoebox with a hole in it... but then wants better from a new camera, is a bit of a conundrum to me. Those who just shoot, just shoot with what they have. Desiring more from a good brand new good camera to be even better seems like a camera lust that cannot be fulfilled.

This example is not talking about you specifically, Wilbur, but many many others who are like this. The immediate response to any gear-lust afflicted individual is such:

1) Camera is announced. The gear-lust guy drools over specs, because it's better than what is out now.
2) Camera is released. The gear-lust guy jumps for joy over the new tool he has to make his movie.
3) Day after camera is released. The gear-lust guy starts a wishlist of what more he wants.
4) New Camera is announced. The gear-lust guy holds on making his film, drools over new specs because it's better than what is out now.


I'm just saying there are people out there who like to say that they aren't like this and they just shoot with what is available to them, which is a great mentality to have, and it gets things done... but then those same people wait and wait or wish better gear. It just seems a little conflicting to their mantra. My ultimate point, is that people who don't have much to work with, probably have bigger issues than the camera they are using, and focusing on the small things will just destroy them. It's awful.

If I had a good script, good actors, and good production design/locations, I'd probably shoot the **** out of a DVX100, if I had to. Maybe get that DVX100b.... lol. See? Gearlust. :)
 
Wilbur Eddings said:
HOD crew does not scare my budget half as much as two x eight ton trucks for grips and lights , a Generator truck with Jennie op crew and a small army that goes with the aforementioned.

Lets have a game of Dominoes shall we?

Heavy Camera + heavy Lenses, think about the heavy dolly, jib etc.
Add the trucks to transport that gear at their daily rate.
Add the massive (silent) generator truck at it's daily rate.
Add the crews for those trucks and a qualified spark because we are now officially using three phase power.
Think about set up times, think about the amount of crew required for the heavy equipment...
Then feed them, accommodate them and pay their fuel and transport costs for 40 days.
Suddenly I need a production manager and line producer because my logistics are starting to swell.

NOW I definitely cannot produce and direct simultaneously so I'm gonna need someone to take responsibility for set decor and creative production logistics.
That's a whole other can of worms...
Do I mind have an army around me? Hell no, I love it!
Can I afford it on every shoot? Hell no, I try to shoot three personal projects a year - one of which is a Social investment initiative (the school musical).

There's a clear line between a financed project where you can afford a full crew and a SELF financed project where every cent, every set up and every minute touches your personal pocket.

The Af100 lets you shoot a great story with great movement and really a skeleton crew.


Quick question:
How many of you commenting here have actually carried the financial weight of a movie on your shoulders?
I know you are super passionate about the technical aspects and my question is not meant to be demeaning in any way.

Most of you speak of these luxuries as if they were par for the course. Have you counted the cost of your argument?

My love for the M4/3 format (once again) is in the DRASTICALLY reduced expenditure on a full length feature - thus enabling me to grab a bunch of friends and colleagues and shoot whoever's script works the best - without going cap in hand to investors or putting my family at financial risk!

Jan, if you read this at any point:
The above is the impact the Af and it's M 4/3 kit is having on film making. I don't quite think the film making community has grasped the significance of the reduced size and weight thus logistics required to make a full length feature but it is a game changer for me and every film student I speak to!
Click to expand...

Care to comment on what went into the making of your latest feature?
I'm just a little curious of your thought process of going from making a claimed $1Million budget feature, to something like this film?
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?253078-Mage-Hunters
 
Last edited:
Ill answer the other questions a bit later when I get home as I am on my mobile at the moment enjoying ygis debate immensely.

Let me just answer the gearlust statement:

I'm shooting on the shoebox. Consistently.
Why is it a problem wanting it pimped to compete with the fridge boxes?

I bloody luuurv the Af!
 
I produce my own work too. We don't have astronomical budgets and I want to do as many of my own projects as I can. I bought the AF-100 and the kit I have to avoid rental costs where possible for my productions, be able to test and improve, and make a few bucks on other's narrative and commercial projects to pay off the gear. I am not unlike you.

I have taken the full financial responsibility for some of my own projects. I finance them, often as non-profit projects utilizing Indie Go Go and Kickstarter and Fractured Atlas as a 501c3 umbrella like everybody else. I even have a couple of "no budg" projects in the works, bartering with others for their time and services but I can't shoot them myself. I know from experience that there is no real "no budg" project but no one is going to blame us for trying to do as much as we can with what we have. I don't sense any condescension here from present comments just a reality check from pros with strong experience.

On our last project, a short, we had a bunch of great volunteers but we had to pay for expendables, hair and makeup, a good grip, an AC, a good gaffer, an AD, and a UPM, and of course production sound and a boom op. That, for me, was the minimum. Our project ran us $6300 for 3 days of principal shooting and a couple of hours of pickup and that's with my AF100 and my lighting and grip kit augmented as described. Myself, the director, the line producer, the script supervisor and all the PAs volunteered.

I pay actors what I can because I am one, and also people have to be fed. Believe me, no one is getting rich on these projects. Plus I had to rent some lighting gear. You can't own everything you will ever need and you can't do without key people on set who know what they are doing. You'd never get done. There is always a budget, large or small. You can't do it for nothing and you can't do it alone. Why would you want to? Being productive, working through your shot list, keeping the actors engaged, keeping the momentum going and the energy up. These things can't be done without a good cast and crew from my humble experience in front and behind the camera.

Good luck with your projects. I hope you get to do all you want and I hope the results please you.
 
TimurCivan said:
Financial weight is specifically what im talking about. You are spending money. You are shooting three or so films a year. Why not shoot one really properly done one? Allow me to clarify. By being a one man band, you are eliminating your ability to be a good director. What financial good will come from three films that you cant do your best on? im not trying ot tell you are wrong, im trying to get it into peoples heads that producing the best work you can will ENABLE you to make more films in the future. A good film that has clear direction, a DP that has the tools he or she needs, and a good script will do well at a festival, perhaps even get distribution, there by allowing you some financial freedom to do another that isnt "out of pocket".

Consolidating your three film budget into one bigger, more focused film will give you a fighting chance at making another, better, bigger film with a "8 ton truck". ( btw a 3 ton package will be more than enough for most indie features, and it isnt unmanageable with a crew of three of four)

My job here in DVXuser, is to help people make informed decisions, and produce the best film they can!
Click to expand...

Thank you for those thoughts.
Truth is, I have a cap on current production spend at app. $20k because that is the lowest break even point for me profit wise.
Edit: (This excludes the Af, grips and lighting equipment we own).
After exhibitor and distributor cut, producer averages about 20% of box office and in my country, we have 0.02% of global box office...
Until i am confident in my own skills and my team, I am playing it safe.
See my answer to Mr Jones below for more info.

David W. Jones said:
Care to comment on what went into the making of your latest feature?
I'm just a little curious of your thought process of going from making a claimed $1Million budget feature, to something like this film?
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?253078-Mage-Hunters
Click to expand...

First off, it would help my extremely stressed brain if words like 'claimed' and 'alleged' were not used so casually.
I shouldn't care about what you think but unfortunately for me I do, I am one of the 1% of the planet who struggles to handle severe movie criticism and unwarranted distrust well so if you would like to continue any communication with me, just give me the benefit of the doubt. It will cost you nothing.

'Mage Hunters' (current working title) is a 'found footage' fantasy movie shot with 1 camera man, 1 Sound man, 1 grip and me - el director.
Cast is 1 male lead and 1 female lead.
I'll upload a proper trailer when I am happy with the fx, that teaser was an experiment uploaded purely for comment and crit here before we spam the MMORPG communities with teasers.
I was trying to save some bucks by messing around with a teaser on my ace but as you could see for yourself, I failed.
Collegues this side had similar comments to the DVXuser community so I am back at the drawing board, patiently waiting for someone who kicks a$$ in AE to join our team.

How I go from a 'claimed' (really offensive word man) $1 mil budget to shooting micro budget features?

How does 2 years of bankruptcy and humiliation sound to you?

That Movie has been on at Cinema, DVD and is about to air on Pay TV and soon free TV.
I should be proud of that accomplishment but I am not.
You can read my thread called 'just shoot the damn thing' if you really want all the details.

That project affected my self confidence so badly that I have turned down offers to shoot bigger budget features.
The mere thought of that financial pressure on my shoulders creates a pit in my stomach.

If I don't have MY OWN cash to shoot a feature MY WAY and at MY pace, I simply will not touch it.
There are a bunch of other reasons, but lets just say I want to be 100% sure that the crew shooting my next bigger budget film is 100% ready and 100% focused on the big picture.

Thus, I have committed to shoot micro budget features with a full time crew which is growing nicely. I think the next two (start 1st July with the next one) projects are really gonna start shining and already I have one or two additional potential people sharing in my vision.

I guess the bottom line reason is that I now officially have emotional issues in film making which I would like to solve one project at a time before I put myself and my family in the line of fire at any level again.

I hope that answers your question.

For me the Af100 is more than just another camera, for me it is a second chance at my dream - But slowly and carefully this time.

I am a super passionate person, please forgive the potential emo rant above (if that's what it feels like).
I let a lot of people down because I was naive.
The least I can do is make sure it never happens again.
 
Last edited:
Hey, don't mean to ruffle your feathers using world like "claimed" but you have to understand that many kids visit these sites claiming to have shot pictures with budgets like this, only to find out they are 15 years old.
So is there a reason you won't disclose the name of this feature?

From the thread you mentioned......

"I put everything I had into making my first 90 minute movie.
I had zero experience with anything technical, just a love for movies and a massive desire to make them.
I made the movie and lost everything in the process. (Total bankruptcy).
The movie was mediocre at best but got a Cinematic release in my country and did very well on the Rental circuit.
A year or so later it was picked up by international distributors and I made a few million $ profit.
My next project has a 6 mil $ budget with 2 years to produce. (Much better than 40 days no?)"
 
David W. Jones said:
Hey, don't mean to ruffle your feathers using world like "claimed" but you have to understand that many kids visit these sites claiming to have shot pictures with budgets like this, only to find out they are 15 years old.
So is there a reason you won't disclose the name of this feature?

From the thread you mentioned......

"I put everything I had into making my first 90 minute movie.
I had zero experience with anything technical, just a love for movies and a massive desire to make them.
I made the movie and lost everything in the process. (Total bankruptcy).
The movie was mediocre at best but got a Cinematic release in my country and did very well on the Rental circuit.
A year or so later it was picked up by international distributors and I made a few million $ profit.
My next project has a 6 mil $ budget with 2 years to produce. (Much better than 40 days no?)"
Click to expand...


Well in that case, lets just pretend I am a 15 year old kid with a wild imagination.

PM me if you are really interested in more info, I am not willing to air my underwear on a public forum but am certainly willing to share anything if it will aid or encourage you.


It is that 6 Mil (now a bit bigger) project that has me so focused on building a strong team. If I screw that project up, not even Uwe Boll could outclass me!

Hence my excitement at the next gen Af. I'll be able to make that couple of mil look like I had tens of millions!

But right now?
I may as well be a 15 year old with a pair of brown pants and serious depression issues!
(haha... emo!)

Again, the M4/3 video format is revolutionary for guys like me! I want to make $20k projects look like I had 10 x that much and apply that to the bigger stuff when I am ready.
 
With 6million dollars you can just rent an alexa for a month and the crew to run it and a nice 5ton package and still have about 5,950,000, left to buy jelly beans. :)
 
TimurCivan said:
With 6million dollars you can just rent an alexa for a month and the crew to run it and a nice 5ton package and still have about 5,950,000, left to buy jelly beans. :)
Click to expand...

lmao

Does sound like a lot of money doesn't it?

Believe it or not, it aint.

(Not for the kind of movie it is meant to shoot anyway!)

;)
 
Wilbur Eddings said:
Well in that case, lets just pretend I am a 15 year old kid with a wild imagination.

It is that 6 Mil (now a bit bigger) project that has me so focused on building a strong team. If I screw that project up, not even Uwe Boll could outclass me!

Hence my excitement at the next gen Af. I'll be able to make that couple of mil look like I had tens of millions!

But right now?
I may as well be a 15 year old with a pair of brown pants and serious depression issues!
(haha... emo!)

Again, the M4/3 video format is revolutionary for guys like me! I want to make $20k projects look like I had 10 x that much and apply that to the bigger stuff when I am ready.
Click to expand...
Hey Wilbur- I still remember when you burst upon the forum here, it was quite an arrival!
If I remember correctly, you'd been a miserable art director at an agency, then made the switch to film? And included the story of your screen name (details escape me now), but wanting to keep some separation between this small screen life on the forum and the big screen life in film? And the recovery from your big project....

Anyway, the consistent thread through all your posts is passion. And just as I was writing this sentence, I looked up and saw passion is in the quote at the bottom of your posts.
So some may doubt the logic of your argument re AF, crew and budget, but they certainly can't doubt your passion, my man!

And while 15 year-olds may be known for passion, yours is way too focused, and you're much too good a writer to be 15. 16, perhaps... :happy:

Plus, I just can't see you as a shoe gazer. :undecided

But I also have to thank you for getting me to read up on Uwe Boll- the boxing, cursing, insult tossing director- I had no idea! :nads: His career and life seem to be a continuing train wreck that that keeps repeating, thanks in large part to money from the government of Germany?

Anyway, I just want to wish you luck, with a crew of 2 or 2 dozen, and keep on pumping up the passion around here!

And I can't wait to see what you do when you hit 17!!! :grin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top