Cost to film a feature ? (what did u spend?)

filmman said:
The cameras used were the same.
Click to expand...

Actually, Vic, Prodigi shot his film on one RED, I used two HVXs.

I'd have shot on the RED in a heartbeat but when we shot Corrado the camera and post workflow weren't mature enough for my needs. Two or three months after I shot it was a great, viable work flow and you could rent the cameras anywhere.
 
Oh, yes, the RED is 4k I believe, and the HVX 200 is 2k. I suppose the 35mm blow up will be better from the 4k, although I'm not sure because there are other issues, such as lenses, etc.

I understand you are shooting 35mm on your next project. I think you're making the right decision ... especially because you shot only 17 days so the potential to shoot ten, twenty takes per scene cannot be realized on that short schedule, and if you're going to have to shoot only two or three takes per scene on the average, why not shoot 35mm?

I shot digital for the first time on Felliniesque Players, and it worked out great because I did not work from a script and I could literally write new scenes every time I went out with my actors. I own the camera, a Sony Z1, so I don't have to worry about rental and production schedule. I shot the movie over a two year period with no budget considerations. That's the only justification for shooting digital in my mind.

But if it was 35mm, even though I own the entire equipment needed to make 35mm movies, I'd still have to shoot in a more disciplined fashion -- no experimentation on low budget. My budget for 35mm film stock alone is $15,050.
1) 45,000 ft of short ends 200-400 ft rolls @15 cents per foot average = $6,750
2) developing 10 cents per foot = $4,500
3) 35mm work print 19 cents per foot (20,000 ft circled takes only) = $3,800

Total = $15,050.

To forgo having to blow up the film from digital and all the inherent problems in working with digital for theatrical blow up, $15,000 isn't too much money if the budget of the movie is over let's say $500,000 (ultra low budget SAG with a few B-name actors).

But the digital cameras, including the RED and the Sony F900 series cameras are great for even experimental movie making. If you have the schedule; for example, if you're shooting 50 days or more, with several name actors and the budget is around $15,000,000.00, then you can shoot four or five cameras simultaneously. You can hire several editors to go through the hundreds of hours of footage, finding incredible shots -- it's not possible to do that with 35mm. The budget for fresh stock would be 1,000,000 ft of film at 65 cents per foot; that's $650,000., plus $100,000 for developing. With telecine and the editing bay time rental and all those editors -- I've seen 20 editors on these big features -- you're talking a few million dollars more just for post-production.

So then digital is going to be a lot less because you can reduce the costs of negative cutting too and the storage of all that 35mm film for years to come. But the main benefit is that you can shoot 20:1 or even 50:1 ratio and find some great moments in the footage.

But since major feature films aren't shot experimentally but rather traditionally, they are practically all shot on 35mm and will continue to be shot on 35mm.

I think the digital cameras are great for movie makers learning their craft also. That's why I recommend keeping the budgets at below $25,000 for first time filmmakers, because it's possible to dig oneself out of a hole if one spends only that.

In your case, Adam, and also Justin, you guys succeeded because you really did your homework. Two different approaches, but the budgets were similar in size and the genres were similar too. But I warn young filmmakers trying to immitate you and Justin, it's not that easy.

You guys are the exception, not the rule. Making digital movies over $50,000 is extremely risky, especially going over $500,000. You know what I'm talking about, Adam. I know Brandon and Justin would disagree with me, but it's awfully risky to go over even $25,000. The odds of getting a distributor to advance much more than $10,000 are slim in this financial climate.

Just opinions ....
 
Last edited:
filmman said:
Oh, yes, the RED is 4k I believe, and the HVX 200 is 2k. I suppose the 35mm blow up will be better from the 4k, although I'm not sure because there are other issues, such as lenses, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, the RED is 4k - not sure what Justin shot at. I'd personally shoot the cam 2k. We shot the HVX at 1080 which is like 1K. That is the max resolution of the camera. And honestly, it looks just fine blown up. Same as the other 1080 movies out there.

filmman said:
I understand you are shooting 35mm on your next project. I think you're making the right decision ... especially because you shot only 17 days so the potential to shoot ten, twenty takes per scene cannot be realized on that short schedule, and if you're going to have to shoot only two or three takes per scene on the average, why not shoot 35mm?
Click to expand...

Almost certainly, but not for sure. H14 is a 33 day shoot.

Also one thing I hear almost no one talk about is using multiple cameras, as you mentioned. We could not have maintained the pace we did had we not two cameras. H14 has three cameras! It's all about pace, and nothing kills a great pace by having to reposition a single solitary camera around for a zillion coverage points. Plus it kills your actors' creativity.

Don't take my word for it Ridley Scott (my hero and idol) will use 5 or sometimes 6 cameras - he doesn't care if they cross paths during the take because he knows what snippets of footage he will use from each. Genius!
 
taormina said:
Yes, the RED is 4k - not sure what Justin shot at. I'd personally shoot the cam 2k. We shot the HVX at 1080 which is like 1K. That is the max resolution of the camera. And honestly, it looks just fine blown up. Same as the other 1080 movies out there.
Click to expand...
4k.jpg




taormina said:
Also one thing I hear almost no one talk about is using multiple cameras, as you mentioned. We could not have maintained the pace we did had we not two cameras. H14 has three cameras! It's all about pace, and nothing kills a great pace by having to reposition a single solitary camera around for a zillion coverage points. Plus it kills your actors' creativity.

Don't take my word for it Ridley Scott (my hero and idol) will use 5 or sometimes 6 cameras - he doesn't care if they cross paths during the take because he knows what snippets of footage he will use from each. Genius!
Click to expand...

two cameras, well choreographed with the actor's blocking, is crucial, imo. i don't like static shots so I have them weave and "dance" with the actors to bring some motion to my "motion" picture. :) but more importantly, it frees the actor and provides one of several ingredients that help deliver compelling, authentic performances.
 
Right. It illustrates that 2K is only a hair larger than 1080 (which is 1920 in the direction that corresponds with the 2K number).

But 4K...woof...geometric progressions being what they are, it's 4 times the size of 2K...

What's the consensus on 4K vs 35mm film for resolution?
 
You guys have been busy over the weekend!

Patryk_Rebisz said:
So not to make this post longer then necessary. Let's say you come to see me with 60k in the bank and a small indie script:

DIRECTOR (you) $0
LINE PRODUCER $200/day

DP $550/day
AC1 $200/day
CAM. INTERN $100/day

GAFFER $200/day
G&E1 $200/day
LIGHT INTERN $100/day

SOUND (+gear) $200-250/day

MAKE-UP (+ kit) $200/day

PA1 $100/day
PA2 $100/day

You try to cut any of the above and you will suffer %95 of the time. Depending on the script you might also add:
...

So you discover that with your crew expenses at $3000/day your $60k budget takes you only so far. But at least after 12 crazy days of shooting (you couldn't afford to shoot for longer) you have a film in your can that has at least a tiny possibility of going somewhere.
Click to expand...

I guess it's a good thing I can direct and do lighting/gaffer work. :) I respect your knowledge and truly as a few other people have said, if we had the money - sure we'd do it. But I can pretty much get by with DP/Camera, Lighting, Audio. I can do Art Direction before we shoot. Almost everytime I had my whole crew on set (a whopping 4 people, including myself) the images came out 95% of what I wanted. As I lost people the quality dropped quickly. 3 people about 75%, 2 people 60%, 1 person 50% - and yes I shot about 5 scenes alone. Each one of the ones I shot alone needed lots of help in post.

So I'm not saying I wouldn't want help. Again I'd love to have help and a $250K budget, but it's not that easy to get money. No money - no crew. Fortunately for me - I can shoot regardless. Also unless you're shooting film Ex1 costs $6200 and you can shoot a few movies. :)

Prodigi Pictures said:
If you understand how the AFM works you can stop settling for 5K budgets and go raise 200K with ease.

You don't need connections. You just need to understand how the system works. I've covered much of this in my thread. That's how I went from a 7K short to a 200K feature in one year.
Click to expand...

I love you guys. Prodigi I hope you can help me raise $200K :) Unfortunately I think we all have things we're good at and things we are not good at. I'm good at putting a shoe-string crew together to create scenes that I think make 1 dollar look like 7. So $10K looks like $70K. I think I also do well working with crews that have little to no experience and bringing their skills up to par, all the while staying pretty much on schedule. What I don't do well is fundraise. I've been trying to get help in that arena forever.

brianluce said:
Hard because it's an analog versus digital comparison. Most of the articles I've read say 35mm is roughly 4k. Film still has way better latitude though.
Click to expand...

Yes, but remember 35mm film is transfered to digital 2K to edit. The 2K master is then reblown up for distribution. 2K/3K resolutions are awesome. 4K is overkill. I've read that many people like the 4K more for grain reasons than actual resolution.
 
Good to hear, only in the sense that I hope everybody will show me some mercy in terms of critique when I post me first short film here on dvxuser in a few days; a five minute short, one actress, me doing everything (Pre, Prod, Post) except a college student I hired to hold the boom/mic and she had zero experience whatsoever. But I worked as best I could to make it the best little five minute short. Encouraging to know I should produce better films with more crew!
Randall

jls4 said:
...As I lost people the quality dropped quickly. 3 people about 75%, 2 people 60%, 1 person 50% - and yes I shot about 5 scenes alone. Each one of the ones I shot alone needed lots of help in post.... :)
Click to expand...
 
Yeah a larger crew always helps. Hard to concentrate on lighting when you are worried about sound etc. You should definitely post up your work though and see what people have to say. No need to make excuses just see what areas suffer and which are good and focus your efforts appropriately next time.
 
Will do. I had very low expectations, my primary goal was to do a simple (one actor one location--not an easy script to write) short and have fun doing it, so I would not get turned off by the complexities of filmmaking. Well, I had fun! It turned out better than I expected, even though I know the film has faults that hopefully will not repeat on my next short film. Mailing it today to US Copyright Office (registered copyright online yesterday), so in a few days I will make it public including here on DVXuser.

Jeff Anderson said:
Yeah a larger crew always helps. Hard to concentrate on lighting when you are worried about sound etc. You should definitely post up your work though and see what people have to say. No need to make excuses just see what areas suffer and which are good and focus your efforts appropriately next time.
Click to expand...
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
... Encouraging to know I should produce better films with more crew!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think to everyone this is a fact. :) funny thing though, I have seen people who have had huge crews 10 to 20 people and the final product wasn't good. I think what people forget to say 99% of the time when they encouage people to have a good sized crew, is to have a good sized crew that knows what they are doing. 10 people who've worked in the industry for 10 years and still are doing their craft WRONG aren't helpful.

My wife and I did photography for 3 years and won an award from the number one wedding magazine in America. There were photographers who have been doing it over 20 years and haven't won a thing.

Same goes for lighting/dp/audio etc. I saw an audio guy on a shoot run the microphone-boom through the leaves of a bush that sat in front of a house. The actors were moving and he was trying to keep up with them. The bush rumbling was SO loud. And he was the only one that made any noise. I thought well maybe he knows something about his equipment that I don't. Later watching the movie - we knew his experience didn't mean a thing as the audio was bad throughout the 5 minute short.

Get a crew - but get one that knows what they are doing!
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
Will do. I had very low expectations, my primary goal was to do a simple (one actor one location--not an easy script to write) short and have fun doing it, so I would not get turned off by the complexities of filmmaking. ... in a few days I will make it public including here on DVXuser.
Click to expand...

Cool.. can't wait to see it.
 
My problem is always budget and more than anything time. A lot of budget can be handled through planning but time is an issue with me.

-Nate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top