How do you no budget guys light your stuff?
- Thread starter deadby23
- Start date
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Why is it that the very same few projects are always brought up as a final proof that it can be done for no money while no one is ever talking about the hundreds of thousands that prove that it can not????
Davdo
Active member
For lighting on a very limited budget, clamp lights are your best friend. The plastic socket ones can take about 150w each and if you can find porcelain ones, you're good for up to 500w. There are different sized reflectors available - narrow for a "spot" effect, and wider for more flooded. Are they as good a hard light as a fresnel? No. But it's light and in the hands of someone who knows how to light, they can do wonderful things. And if you bounce a 150w clamp light off of a show card and then do the same with a real inkie, I dare anyone to figure out which is which.
The key to making this whole "no budget" thing work for you is skill and experience. Any old jerk with some clamp lights will find it very difficult to get good results. But a talented cameraman (or dp, cinematographer, photographer, whatever) will put them to very good use.
Also, you have to know your limits. There are things you cannot do on no-budget. I lit a fashion shoot on Thursday - I had 3 2k's in 3'x4' softboxes working along side half a dozen kinos and a small army of 1ks and tweenies and my grips had a large variety of flags and nets and silks on hand to control it all. I would not have been able to do what I needed to do on a shoestring budget.
For Patryk to say you can't do what you're talking about is nonsense. I can sit here right now and light a scene with my cell phone if I wanted. Will your no-budget film be a huge sensation like the famous ones ("El Mariachi," "Following")? Odds are probably not. But the odds are against the $100,000 indies and many of the $1,000,000 ones, too (and hell, how many major $60M+ studio pictures flop every year?). So seriously, make your story with whatever resources you have available to you.
~~Dave
The key to making this whole "no budget" thing work for you is skill and experience. Any old jerk with some clamp lights will find it very difficult to get good results. But a talented cameraman (or dp, cinematographer, photographer, whatever) will put them to very good use.
Also, you have to know your limits. There are things you cannot do on no-budget. I lit a fashion shoot on Thursday - I had 3 2k's in 3'x4' softboxes working along side half a dozen kinos and a small army of 1ks and tweenies and my grips had a large variety of flags and nets and silks on hand to control it all. I would not have been able to do what I needed to do on a shoestring budget.
For Patryk to say you can't do what you're talking about is nonsense. I can sit here right now and light a scene with my cell phone if I wanted. Will your no-budget film be a huge sensation like the famous ones ("El Mariachi," "Following")? Odds are probably not. But the odds are against the $100,000 indies and many of the $1,000,000 ones, too (and hell, how many major $60M+ studio pictures flop every year?). So seriously, make your story with whatever resources you have available to you.
~~Dave
Last edited:
It's not just your time, it's the crew, the talent, the location. If you are reliant on the sun an 8 hour shoot might take 2 weeks to pull off because you have to shoot in the same 30 minute window every day as long as the weather doesn't change - then it could be 2 months. If Patrick said it was impossible he was wrong - it's only impossible in 99% of cases.
WHOOPS - MY BAD Patrick said 99.9% of cases - maybe we can all agree on 99.5%?
WHOOPS - MY BAD Patrick said 99.9% of cases - maybe we can all agree on 99.5%?
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
As far as I've read, "El Mariachi" was not a 'no-budget' film... Yes the legend goes that the bulk of the 'production' cost was $7K worth of film, with reliance on 'free talent', 'free location', etc... But then the actual target market was not Hollywood, but a spanish language TV offering, for which such a film's 'budget' at the time may have been just enough to get in the door...
No one could have known as they were shooting it, that it would become a cult classic, and springboard Rodriguez into the limelight...
But here's the thing... If one does look at the 'script' and the 'locations', etc. one does see that Rodriguez wrote a script that could be shot for 'no/low' budget... no snazy effects, no big budget talent, 'knew' a friend of a friend's cousins' friends uncle... whatever... to get locations... and shot it basicly around 1 or 2 city blocks in a location that didn't have much in the way of permits/fees/insurance requirements... and plenty of sun...
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
There is one main requirement for doing a film for (relatively) no-budget -- a truly great script. Not just a script that YOU think is great. A script LOTS of people think is great. That's not the only requirement, but without a truly great script, it will be a lot harder to produce a (relatively) no-budget feature.
In addition to a truly great script, you need a truly great producer -- one who has a very strong vision of the film and has proven that he or she is capable of delivering. It makes no sense to waste a great script on an incompetent producer. A great producer will know great cast and crew from good, mediocre, or outright bad cast and crew. He or she will choose the people, locations, props, wardrobe, etc. that are the very best for the film.
Now if you have a truly great script -- one which is well suited for a (relatively) no-budget film -- and a great producer, then my experience is that people will come out of the woodwork and be excited about being a part of the production, even with deferred pay. In the past I've been extremely blessed to have had highly professional, skilled and talented people -- both in front of and behind the camera -- who have been willing to give of their time, their talents, and their gear. I've had the use of some really excellent locations for free. I had a company custom-engrave a real cemetery headstone, deliver it to a cemetery, set it up, and come back and remove it a few days later -- and neither the headstone nor the cemetery cost me anything.
I know of a guy (who shall remain nameless) who had plenty of money. He outright bought a full Red camera package, with every kind of lens and accessory imaginable. He bought pro lights. He bought a pro track dolly. He had the kind of hardware I can only dream of. He paid everyone on his feature shoot a really good wage. Had a great location. Had a great story concept. But his script was weak, to say the least. Even so, since he was paying salaries, he got a good, talented, skilled crew. But as bad a mistake as the script was, his casting decisions were worse. He cast people in lead roles whose only previous experience was as film extras. Some of his other principals had virtually no resume at all. It became clear in a hurry that he cast people because he LIKED them -- it wasn't that he liked their acting, but that he liked THEM. Liked their looks, their personalities, etc. Sad to say, most were not very good actors. And the producer/writer also chose to direct -- another mistake. He had no storyboards, no plan for camera positions or blocking. In short, he wasn't prepared. I don't know if his movie ever got finished or not. But I do know it has pretty much disappeared, probably never to be seen.
Having no budget doesn't guarantee failure, just as having a good budget doesn't guarantee success.
If you have a great script, a solid vision, are truly passionate about the film, and are good at communicating with others and getting them excited about your film, then you can accomplish a lot with (relatively) no budget. Granted, it's easier if you have the money. But it's not impossible without it.
At least that's my experience. Other people, in other markets, may not fare as well.
In addition to a truly great script, you need a truly great producer -- one who has a very strong vision of the film and has proven that he or she is capable of delivering. It makes no sense to waste a great script on an incompetent producer. A great producer will know great cast and crew from good, mediocre, or outright bad cast and crew. He or she will choose the people, locations, props, wardrobe, etc. that are the very best for the film.
Now if you have a truly great script -- one which is well suited for a (relatively) no-budget film -- and a great producer, then my experience is that people will come out of the woodwork and be excited about being a part of the production, even with deferred pay. In the past I've been extremely blessed to have had highly professional, skilled and talented people -- both in front of and behind the camera -- who have been willing to give of their time, their talents, and their gear. I've had the use of some really excellent locations for free. I had a company custom-engrave a real cemetery headstone, deliver it to a cemetery, set it up, and come back and remove it a few days later -- and neither the headstone nor the cemetery cost me anything.
I know of a guy (who shall remain nameless) who had plenty of money. He outright bought a full Red camera package, with every kind of lens and accessory imaginable. He bought pro lights. He bought a pro track dolly. He had the kind of hardware I can only dream of. He paid everyone on his feature shoot a really good wage. Had a great location. Had a great story concept. But his script was weak, to say the least. Even so, since he was paying salaries, he got a good, talented, skilled crew. But as bad a mistake as the script was, his casting decisions were worse. He cast people in lead roles whose only previous experience was as film extras. Some of his other principals had virtually no resume at all. It became clear in a hurry that he cast people because he LIKED them -- it wasn't that he liked their acting, but that he liked THEM. Liked their looks, their personalities, etc. Sad to say, most were not very good actors. And the producer/writer also chose to direct -- another mistake. He had no storyboards, no plan for camera positions or blocking. In short, he wasn't prepared. I don't know if his movie ever got finished or not. But I do know it has pretty much disappeared, probably never to be seen.
Having no budget doesn't guarantee failure, just as having a good budget doesn't guarantee success.
If you have a great script, a solid vision, are truly passionate about the film, and are good at communicating with others and getting them excited about your film, then you can accomplish a lot with (relatively) no budget. Granted, it's easier if you have the money. But it's not impossible without it.
At least that's my experience. Other people, in other markets, may not fare as well.
Last edited:
Wow. At first, I thought this guy was just a heartless cynic. Then, reading his next comment, I thought he was just a pompous tool. But now, I learn that inside that pompous tool is an arrogant prick! Fun.
I'm wondering if you understand how "proof" works....if there is ONE project that proves it can be done for no money, that means it can be done for no money. Just because it generally ISN'T done for no money doesn't mean it can't be.
And I find your insistence on money being the deciding factor in quality interesting when there are so many big-budget films that are absolutely, gut-wrenchingly horrible. I, for one, would rather watch a video of mud taped and run 50 times through a 1980s VCR than watch something like Transformers 2.
Without money, making something good is difficult, but it certainly isn't impossible. And having money is no guarantee of quality at all. All the money in the world won't save a film from having horrendous story, terrible acting, or being generally awful (see, for example, the Star Wars prequels, made with more money than I expect either of us has ever seen).
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
I agree with custerc.
Take this hypothetical situation....
I have (or have written) the great script. I know a good, talented, skilled DP with a quality HD camera, a track dolly and a crane, as well as some good lights. He knows a good gaffer with even better lights, a good sound guy with great gear, and a Steadicam operator. All of them are local and like the script enough that they're willing to work on deferred pay.
Around here, there are lots of really good actors desperate for great roles in great stories. I've had actors come from Atlanta, Virginia, even L.A. So getting the right actor for every role isn't a problem. And I can get most any location I need for free.
So if my story is character-driven, modern day, and doesn't require expensive props, specialized wardrobe, etc.......
....and if I can edit the film myself....
....and if I can get great music for free....
....other than feeding the cast and crew, why do I need a lot of money to make my film?
Take this hypothetical situation....
I have (or have written) the great script. I know a good, talented, skilled DP with a quality HD camera, a track dolly and a crane, as well as some good lights. He knows a good gaffer with even better lights, a good sound guy with great gear, and a Steadicam operator. All of them are local and like the script enough that they're willing to work on deferred pay.
Around here, there are lots of really good actors desperate for great roles in great stories. I've had actors come from Atlanta, Virginia, even L.A. So getting the right actor for every role isn't a problem. And I can get most any location I need for free.
So if my story is character-driven, modern day, and doesn't require expensive props, specialized wardrobe, etc.......
....and if I can edit the film myself....
....and if I can get great music for free....
....other than feeding the cast and crew, why do I need a lot of money to make my film?
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
For all Hollywood productions, there is a level of technical skill that is not usually/frequently/almostever seen in 'no-budget' productions.
So the claim stands, with money, you can make a technical 'best there is' film, which fails due to other reasons. In fact, frequently some of the technical Oscars go to films that had crappy stories, and crappy acting... for some value of 'crappy'...
The next issue is the audience. Some of the movies, including The Standard "El Mariachi", were directed to a somewhat limited market. There was a couple of million put in to "El Mariachi" to bring it to 'you' whoever saw it during that early period.
If your target market is the film fest circult, then it is 'provable' that some set of offerings have had the most limited, shoestring, budgets with dedicated filmmakers working feverishly to get something that 'works'... and for ever one that shows up at Sundance... there are 10's of thousands that done even get either submitted, or past the various cuts for showing...
Sort of a 'contropositive' of the 'you need a budget', is 'you don't need a budget to 'learn' to see light'... and so, I strongly recommend shooting with whatever you have, at whatever price you can afford, to learn to use the equipment you do have in your possession... which is also why I advocate someone buy their 'basic' set of 'stuff'... and working with it... for no budget... I think the current DSLR's allow one to 'learn' everything about 'lenses', 'framing', 'lighting', that is needed to either one 1) get more formal training as a cinematographer, or 2) become a very savy director who can then pick a DP that shares their vision, as well as weed out the bullshit artists.
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
Nobody implied that more money wouldn't let you do more, and better, stuff. I'm just disagreeing with the idea that little or no budget automatically means a crappy film.
Indeed. But that's more an issue of experience than money. People making low-budget films these days don't tend to have much experience, because until very recently it was basically impossible to make a film on a low budget, there were no cameras that could do the job. Give this generation of kids time to grow up with the tech that's coming out now; I expect we'll see a lot more indie productions that rival some of hollywood's stuff in a decade or so.
Michael Carter
Veteran
Dead straight. I've been saying for years that we should see a real golden age in cinema hit in the next couple decades. Kids who've made three features before they hit film school, who've been "thinking" in terms of shots, timing, and blocking since they were 12. Kids who've made their most embarrassing cinematic mistakes while they were learning to drive a car. Yeah, thousands of those kids will end up being accountants or whatever - but our next Spielbergs, Welles, etc - they're out there today, shooting with DV cams or T2i's.
Look what's happening in music today - fewer labels developing talent, so kids are learning to record themselves or financing their own hybrid productions (drums and loud guitars in a "real" studio, everything else in the bedroom). And the money they make is going straight back into production, not to a label exec's coke habit. And though there's no mass distribution arm except for iTunes, and no exposure machine like radio in the 60's-70's, there's a tremendous amount of amazing new music out there if you know where to look.
Film will usually take exponentially more resources than music to produce - but the base-level investment for both has plummeted to simply unprecedented levels. I find that heartening and exciting.
pveal
Well-known member
Excellent thread, thanks. For easy to grab / improvised equipment I tend to use batten strips with 5 to 7 ceramic sockets mounted straight off the strip or hanging form 50cm cordage which can be wrapped to the desired height / angle, usually rip stop nylon hangs under these from wire, you can use any type of bulb with E27 socket. Knowing how to use practicals is useful. Par cans with narrow spot and medium bulbs are useful and powerful, use swathes of nylon for diffusion, black hardboard for flags. Metal Halide lamps with high CRI and of 400watts although requiring a ballast can match daylight and give at least the equivalent of 1k of tungsten. With this stuff you don't light streets, large libraries, sound stages, deserts - just small sets, kitchens, bedrooms and so on. What Patryck says is kind of true (if a little caustic and polarizing.). If a filmmaker is trying to make a film outside their reach or experience and testing the limits of the subject's plausibility due to sh*t costumes, sh*t locations, sh*t music, sh*t acting then a budget is need to to pre-unshittify but sh*t camera angles, sh*t editing, sh*t organisation, sh*t direction / leadership / clueless pretentiousness can be unsh*ttifyed with experience, learning, punches in face, certain chemicals and self help books.
Exactly. A good percentage of the best music being made today is being made either by kids with "prosumer" recording gear, or by artists who were recruited to major labels because some project of theirs (album, mixtape, music video) that they made with prosumer gear blew up.
Similar to video, really...yes, a pro can tell the difference between audio that's been professionally mixed and mastered and audio that was mixed and mastered by a kid with some software and a decent pair of monitors. But most listeners can't, or can but don't particularly care or notice until you direct their attention to it. The same is true with video. People like video that looks better, but how many people are watching films streaming online, with blocky rendering, shitty colors, and extreme compression? Most people don't care that much about technical quality as long as it doesn't interfere with their enjoyment of the story. Of course, there has to be a minimum level of technical know-how, below which it DOES interfere with their enjoyment because it's constantly reminding them they're watching a home video.
But the "threshold" for this is much lower for the average viewer than it is for, say, a pro DP.
Jimmy Moss
Well-known member
Lots of good stuff here, what I would like to add is:
1. Write your script for what you will have available to you. So don't write a scene in a location that you don't have access to (or may have to pay for), or you don't have the gear to light. Or if you do, re-write it to a different location. If location affects the story, then maybe you should rethink the story.
2. Get as many daylight balanced lights as possible. That reduces the amount of light you need because you don't have to gel for daylight (when needed) and it helps to use any sunlight available instead of worrying about blocking it out with ND ect. Also its easier to replace a lamp with a 5500k cfl than gelling windows to match daylight, or gelling your lights and blocking the windows.
So in short most people would get a script and then say I need X and its going to cost Y to get it shot. Low budget people have to say, "I have Y money and that can get me X, so I need to write my script so that looks as good as possible."
1. Write your script for what you will have available to you. So don't write a scene in a location that you don't have access to (or may have to pay for), or you don't have the gear to light. Or if you do, re-write it to a different location. If location affects the story, then maybe you should rethink the story.
2. Get as many daylight balanced lights as possible. That reduces the amount of light you need because you don't have to gel for daylight (when needed) and it helps to use any sunlight available instead of worrying about blocking it out with ND ect. Also its easier to replace a lamp with a 5500k cfl than gelling windows to match daylight, or gelling your lights and blocking the windows.
So in short most people would get a script and then say I need X and its going to cost Y to get it shot. Low budget people have to say, "I have Y money and that can get me X, so I need to write my script so that looks as good as possible."
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
j1clark@ucsd.ed, you are using well chose words talking about no-budget allowing one to learn (key word being "learn"). Unfortunately many dilettantes try to skip that process and try to go for gold without any viable skills whatsoever only believing in their own delusion of grandeur.
custerc: until very recently it was basically impossible to make a film on a low budget, there were no cameras that could do the job. Give this generation of kids time to grow up with the tech that's coming out now; I expect we'll see a lot more indie productions that rival some of hollywood's stuff in a decade or so.
Bro, DVX100 came out like 10 years ago, where is the new generation of fimmakers coming out now? Because all i see is TV-like camera setups and seen-on-late night tv direction (obviously i'm grossly exaggerating to make my point). If anything the new DSLR craze is very damaging to students because they can get lost in "it kind looks like expensive movie" syndrome and just get by on the look of things rather then try to deal with meaningfulness (story, acting, composition, blocking...).
Michael: I've been saying for years that we should see a real golden age in cinema hit in the next couple decades. Kids who've made three features before they hit film school, who've been "thinking" in terms of shots, timing, and blocking since they were 12. Kids who've made their most embarrassing cinematic mistakes while they were learning to drive a car. Yeah, thousands of those kids will end up being accountants or whatever - but our next Spielbergs, Welles, etc - they're out there today, shooting with DV cams or T2i's.
How is that different then in old times kids shooting with Super8mm?
Micheal: Film will usually take exponentially more resources than music to produce - but the base-level investment for both has plummeted to simply unprecedented levels.
You do realise that you are only talking from some very limited no-budget filmmaking experience, right? Films still cost a ton of money and only the camera lost it's value. (But the necessity for $ to pay for crew, talent, skilled craftsmen, food, lights etc still exists the same way it did for many years).
chapelgrovefilms: I have (or have written) the great script.
You do realize there is a whole city filled with people where everyone have a script they think is great right? It's called LA.
custerc: until very recently it was basically impossible to make a film on a low budget, there were no cameras that could do the job. Give this generation of kids time to grow up with the tech that's coming out now; I expect we'll see a lot more indie productions that rival some of hollywood's stuff in a decade or so.
Bro, DVX100 came out like 10 years ago, where is the new generation of fimmakers coming out now? Because all i see is TV-like camera setups and seen-on-late night tv direction (obviously i'm grossly exaggerating to make my point). If anything the new DSLR craze is very damaging to students because they can get lost in "it kind looks like expensive movie" syndrome and just get by on the look of things rather then try to deal with meaningfulness (story, acting, composition, blocking...).
Michael: I've been saying for years that we should see a real golden age in cinema hit in the next couple decades. Kids who've made three features before they hit film school, who've been "thinking" in terms of shots, timing, and blocking since they were 12. Kids who've made their most embarrassing cinematic mistakes while they were learning to drive a car. Yeah, thousands of those kids will end up being accountants or whatever - but our next Spielbergs, Welles, etc - they're out there today, shooting with DV cams or T2i's.
How is that different then in old times kids shooting with Super8mm?
Micheal: Film will usually take exponentially more resources than music to produce - but the base-level investment for both has plummeted to simply unprecedented levels.
You do realise that you are only talking from some very limited no-budget filmmaking experience, right? Films still cost a ton of money and only the camera lost it's value. (But the necessity for $ to pay for crew, talent, skilled craftsmen, food, lights etc still exists the same way it did for many years).
chapelgrovefilms: I have (or have written) the great script.
You do realize there is a whole city filled with people where everyone have a script they think is great right? It's called LA.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
LA LA Land.
