How do you no budget guys light your stuff?

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

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.

Actually it's in the fine, very fine print of the California Constitution that Southern Californians who were ether born here, or lived so long they can't remember living anywhere else, have the
right to write at least one great script... whether anyone else considers it great, is immaterial.

 

[custerc]

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...).

Sure, but only film school kids knew about it, and especially when it came out, it was still pretty damn expensive. Any kid whose high school offers a photography class knows about DSLRs, and any kid who can find a summer job can save $1000 for a t2i or whatever to get themselves going.

Anyway, my point was just that your "you must have a big budget to do anything" comes off as (1) really arrogant and (2) unnecessarily discouraging. After all, what do you, all-mighty high-budget professional, care if us lowly hobbyists dabble in filmmaking? If there's no way for any of us to become real filmmakers, then it doesn't affect you at all. Why bother to come in here and be pedantic?

 

[David W. Richardson]

j1clark@ucsd.ed,
Bro, DVX100 came out like 10 years ago, where is the new generation of fimmakers coming out now?

Yeah, and 10 years ago indie filmmakers were shooting on 20 year old Bolen Super-16mm cameras. What's your point?

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).

Around here, we can get good crew and actors for food and deferred pay. We've had HIGHLY skilled craftsmen work on that basis. And provide their own gear too. The major cost around here was always the equipment -- and the cost of film, processing, transfer and editing, back in the day. Those costs have dropped way way down in this digital age. Everything else, as you say, has remained the same. But I can make a good feature-length movie here for $10,000 or less -- sometimes WAY less.

chapelgrovefilms: I have (or have written) the great script.

Great! Assuming it truly IS a great script, then you're off to a really good start. But it's only a start. Having a great script is like having poured a great foundation slab for a house. You can't build a great house on a poor foundation. But a great foundation can be wasted on a crappy house. I hope you end up with a great movie from your script! (See??? That's what we call ENCOURAGEMENT!)

You do realize there is a whole city filled with people where everyone have a script they think is great right?

Exactly.

 

[David W. Richardson]

The cool thing is, as soon as someone says "It can't be done!"........someone else will come along and DO it.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Around here, we can get good crew and actors for food and deferred pay. We've had HIGHLY skilled craftsmen work on that basis. And provide their own gear too. The major cost around here was always the equipment -- and the cost of film, processing, transfer and editing, back in the day. Those costs have dropped way way down in this digital age. Everything else, as you say, has remained the same. But I can make a good feature-length movie here for $10,000 or less -- sometimes WAY less.

All I can say is you must be a hell of an orator or motivational speaker!

Do you all have day jobs or what? Patryk and I are professionals... simply meaning we shoot for a living... out in LA don't expect people to work for free unless they are a) very good friends of yours, or b) they're a 22 year old film school grad fresh off the boat. As much as I want everyone to succeed, it makes me literally squirm to read the words "feature film, crew & actors deferred pay".

I love the guerrilla mentality which spawns great ambition... but after working just a couple of years, I've either become jaded or spoiled because I've got to pay my bills and have the tools to do my job correctly. Sometimes I'll do a job with one and not the other, but I'll never do without both! I'll occasionally throw my hat in the ring to work on a project I really believe in which a friend perhaps is struggling with. But overall, the micro-budget films such as El Mariachi and Paranormal Activity are lottery tickets. Having a bit bigger budget with proper equipment, passionate AND paid professionals on-board usually increases the chances of success by 100000 fold. You'll see some wonderful low budget film-making in the future, but you'll see real world restrictions on some things, such as actors, locations, and lighting. That will always require money, time, or considerable risk. Thus people are going to need to get creative in Reseviour Dog ways, regarding writing and locations.

Hat's off to you if you can really get crew and equipment for a feature for 'way under' 10k.

In no way am I being discouraging. It's simply a matter of preparation and when you're ready to pull that big trigger. A film can cost 10k, 100k, 10million or 100million. Simply use what you have to work with and get as much as you can. If you can afford to hire pro's and equipment, I recommend it. If you can't and there is no funding, do your film any way you can. But let's not kid ourselves about budgets. It's always ALWAYS better odds for the success of your film to have one. Nothing high and mighty about it.

With that said... I love the movie Primer. A film that is the proverbial low budget film lottery ticket. One of the handful.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Ryan, I admire the folks who are able to cut it in the highly competitive world of L.A. I'm sure you have the respect of most everyone here, including me.

So please don't disrespect those of us who make movies in our own towns all across the U.S. and around the world. I'm sure you're right that NOBODY would be able to get a decent cast and crew to work for free in L.A. But we're not IN L.A. And that's one very strong advantage we have.

I know what you're thinking. "Yeah, but all the GOOD talent is HERE. You'll have to work with a bunch of rubes!" Don't bet on it.

When I was casting 'Afterlife' -- the romantic ghost story feature that I made for $10K -- I had some very talented cast who came from as far away as Texas and Sacramento. I had some SAG actors, most of whom had speaking (and recurring) roles in movies or TV shows you have probably seen. My director/DP had years of experience gaffing for Turner Studios in Atlanta. All of them worked on deferred pay. Got all of my locations for free. My director provided his own camera and lighting gear, and did a superb job with both. Though we had some kinks to iron out, overall I was very pleased with the results.

When it came time to cast my second feature -- the unique suspense/drama "Tangled Web" -- I put casting notices on NowCasting.com and NYCastings.com. NowCasting focuses on actors in the L.A. area primarily. NYCastings, of course, focuses on New York. In my casting notice I made it clear that this was a deferred pay project, and we would NOT be able to cover expenses for travel or accommodations. All we could guarantee was meals, credit and copy. From those two listings I got nearly 1,000 submissions, most of them from L.A. A great many had fairly impressive resumes and reels. Only a handful dropped out of the running when I reminded them there was no reimbursement for travel expenses. So it seems that while L.A. (and NY) have lots of seasoned professionals, they don't have enough jobs for them. Seems like actors are so desperate for decent work (and exposure) that they'll even travel at their own expense for a deferred-pay project if it has a great script and they feel good about things overall.

So we're by no means limited to inexperienced, unskilled local talent. And even so, our local talent is far from being inexperienced or unskilled. Being just outside of Charlotte, NC, we sit squarely between Wilmington, NC (where lots of TV production happens) and Atlanta. Professional talent is just a 4 hour drive away. (BTW, did you know Showtime is producing a TV show in Charlotte now?)

It's true that folks in L.A. can't make a no-budget movie. Everything is too expensive there, and nobody can afford to work just for the joy of bringing a story to life. While you may have a plethora of talent at your fingertips, you're really quite handicapped. You HAVE to have a chunk of money to get a cast and crew. We don't. And for that I am thankful.

Don't get me wrong. You guys are out there living the dream and making it happen, and you deserve all the respect in the world. I'm not trying to denigrate you at all. I admire what you're accomplishing out there. All I ask is that you have the same respect for us and what we are able to accomplish here. It's just professional courtesy.

 

[David W. Richardson]

By the way, I should clarify something. I said I'd never paid for a location. But I also don't shoot 'guerrilla'. I never shoot on a location without full written permission from the owners. I've shot in a historic mansion, an upscale condo, a city hospital, a bar/restaurant, a cemetery, and a downtown office building. I've been blessed to find people who are enthusiastic about the filmmaking process, and eager to let us shoot in their homes or businesses.

One other point to clear up. I said we can sometimes make a feature for 'way less' than $10,000. 'Tangled Web' required 3 cameras, 3 tripods, 4 mics, 4 mic stands, 3 dressed sets, 3 complete sets of lights, 5 televisions (used as both monitors and props), and enough cabling and splitters to connect it all up -- which was, in itself, a tangled web. There were 11 onscreen characters. Two guns, both of which were 'fired'. Special effects makeup. Quite a few wardrobe changes, for a storyline that covered a span of several months. A small amount of specialized wardrobe. Some digital/graphic effects. And, of course, original music. We shot the whole movie in just 3 days on a budget of $1,000.

Is it 'Gone With The Wind' or 'Lord of the Rings'? Of course not. But it IS good entertainment. Or so I've been told.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I agree with what you have said.

But mind you I'm based in LA, but have served on productions in Washington State, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan, New Orleans, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada, and overseas in Europe. Thus I know that LA isn't the best at everything or anything.

As mentioned, it is good you can encourage and assemble a cast and crew for nothing. It says something about your leadership abilities and that people believe in you. With that said, I never meant to imply your local talent was unskilled. It's just rare to see free crews, free actors, free locations, free cameras, free lighting, and etc.

Work with what you have. That's all any of us can do.

 

[David W. Richardson]

And lastly (I promise), having big bucks and name actors is no guarantee of either a good movie or a profitable project. I'd dare to say there are lots of movies out there with name actors and decent budgets that didn't make nearly as much profit as a film made by 3 kids (unknown) with a couple of cameras, running around in the woods. ("Blair Witch")

Never say never.

 

[David W. Richardson]

I agree with what you have said.

Mind you I'm based in LA, but have served on productions in Washington State, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan, New Orleans, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada, and overseas in Europe. I know that LA isn't the best at everything or anything. As mentioned, it is good you can encourage and assemble a cast and crew for nothing. It says something about your leadership abilities and that people believe in you. With that said, I never meant to imply your local talent was unskilled. It's just rare to see free crews, free actors, free locations, free camera, free lighting, and etc.

Work with what you have.

I totally agree. That's exactly what we do -- work with what we have.

And I'm not nearly as good in the leadership or salesmanship depts. as a lot of others I know. It just seems like people are starving for good work here. I hope that doesn't change anytime soon.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

PS: You shot a feature in 3 days?!!!


Well no wonder. I was curious about how you kept costs down on a 20+ day shoot. 3 days is a weekend!

 

[David W. Richardson]

Yep. 3 days. The script was designed to make that possible.

The whole movie is seen from the POV of 'webcams' attached to the 'computers' of the main characters. So once the cameras and lights and mics were setup, they were never moved. By adjusting lights and camera settings a little bit, we were able to simulate both daylight and nighttime.

We used 3 different rooms in the same house. Each was dressed as a room for a different character's house. We setup a table or desk and chair in each room. On each table we put a TV. The TV represented the 'computer monitor' for that character, since only a small part of it was visible to the camera. We locked a mic on a stand close by each one, and setup lights for each room. For the main character's room, we also put a mic on a boom arm out over the middle of the room, to capture audio when the characters weren't sitting right at the computer.

We put two TV's in the kitchen to act as monitors for the director (me). Everything was cabled up so that everyone could see and hear each other, and I could see and hear them all. We rolled tape on each camera, and they performed each scene essentially real-time. Did several takes of each scene. In between, by the time the actors had changed wardrobe we were ready to shoot the next scene.

Truth is, we actually shot the whole movie in just TWO days. But in editing I found it wasn't long enough. So I wrote an additional two scenes and brought the leads back for one more day. They were great! Real troupers.

11 characters. 3 days. 70 minutes long. Budget: $1,000.

 

[WhiteMonkey]

It's been made to sound like the production budget of any film is going to grow because of the amount of the budget and that's not true. Talent and management are the most expensive parts of the budget, the above the line costs. The production budget is not affected by above the line costs. Right now I'm budgeting a no-budget feature. After securing a small crew to work for minimum wage plus a share of the backend, the production budget is done for the film. This number is not going to change much no matter what the total of the budget of the film becomes.

But I digress, I light my stuff with a 5 light Arri lightkit I learned on. 1K with soft box, 2 650's, two 150's. I try to blow out backgrounds with the lens and leave them darker and recessed. I edge light and key light when I can, spaces permitting. We're averaging around 5 minutes a shot, usually 4 or 5 takes, and getting 50-60 shots in a 12 hour shift.

I use a DLSR, the 7D, and I'm thinking about switching over to LED lights to get better skin tones. It's hard getting rid of the reds in Post.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Yeah, and 10 years ago indie filmmakers were shooting on 20 year old Bolen Super-16mm cameras. What's your point?

Actually I sort of self-censored back when it was really cool to take a 16mm Bolex, hand crank, and make 'cinema verite' films... the typical viewer was so stoned, that the fact that the film was absolute
s**t, didn't bother anyone... except me... I wanted to make films with at least sharp focus, clean sound, and at the time, even a motordriven Bolex, with a Nagra linked up... was too damn poo pooing expensive.

I have over the years kicked myself for not making s**t, because perhaps I would have been in a different place now relative to making films... then again... one never knows...

As for the present state of things. I'm somewhat reminded of the 'print your own stuff' craze early on in the personal computing era. As it is, few people were able to make printed material that matched traditional 'printer' quality. They did sort of blow away the mom-and-pops print shops, but in order to get really good print output, one still has to go to a 'house' to get it, and pay for the quality... But it is also
true, that after 20-25 years, people are getting the hang of submitting 'quality' art work for printing, using the computer tools available.

It is my next year's resolution, as it has been for the last 4 years... to make a short film a quarter... so you the readership can throw darts at it... but alas... where does the time really go...

 

[klas]

It seems no one has put up any pics of setups and very few have given you tips on low budget lighting, it all went down to a debate whether you can do low budget look good or not. So I thought I could give you a couple of light set ups I did in my latest project.

First, my gear:
I have a Redhead kit (three redheads with stands), a DIY thing built into a bread crate, a coulpe of work lights (good for set lighting and other things where you don't have to have real stands) and some chinese paper lanterns (which I havn't used at all in my latest project, but often they are golden).
I have two C-Stands and a lot of clamps(buy these in a hardware store).
For bouncing I have a couple of sheets, foam mats with one silver side and a piece of sheet metal.
Filters and black wrap of course which I attach with clothes pegs in wood.
In addition I would like to have one 2k or something, but then you get to the power issue. In the project we are doing now(postapocalyptic) there are seldom any power on set and high wattage is expensive and/or loud.


But the most important part isn't which kit you have but that you learn to see the light and not work against it. Low budget isn't all about cheap gear, it is about working fast. The sun is your friend. It is easy to put up too much light, often less is more. With a soft highlight for example you rarely have to have a fill. Be bold.

Then some examples:

This is lit with three redheads. The fire is done with a redhead bouncing against a sheet. The moonlight, also a redhead, is blasting directly at them from behind/side, and then there is a third redhead for the trees in the background.

Here the backlight is actually the sun shining through a window. The key is probably a single redhead bouncing against a sheet.

Same location and kind of the same set up. But I've added a redhead to backlight a water drop from the ceiling so that it would register in camera.(It is seen between the actors.) I might have another light in there somewhere for ambience, I don't recall.


This is done with a very low budget. Almost all money went to the talents in front of the camera and a very small crew(two guys carrying things, getting food and such and a sound guy. And some days an extra make up artist). I share the directing responsibilities with my spouse/producer and I DP, pull focus and operate.
I write the script, I am a musician, I sculpt the masks and I do the VFX. My spouse is a makeup artist(though we have extra make up artists when we do zombies).

So you can see we don't have that many people to pay. We do however work very much, which is pretty hard when you have a day job and two kids. But we manage and it is great fun.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Hey klas, I like your milk crate light!

I believe you can get CFL bulbs that are rated at 300w output, but use far less current than a tungsten 300w bulb would. Have you tried using CFL bulbs? You could probably get close to 2K of light output with them, and maybe not have a huge current draw.

Thanks for posting the pics. Great stuff!

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

It seems no one has put up any pics of setups and very few have given you tips on low budget lighting, it all went down to a debate whether you can do low budget look good or not. So I thought I could give you a couple of light set ups I did in my latest project.

First, my gear:
I have a Redhead kit (three redheads with stands), a DIY thing built into a bread crate, a coulpe of work lights (good for set lighting and other things where you don't have to have real stands) and some chinese paper lanterns (which I havn't used at all in my latest project, but often they are golden).
I have two C-Stands and a lot of clamps(buy these in a hardware store).
For bouncing I have a couple of sheets, foam mats with one silver side and a piece of sheet metal.
Filters and black wrap of course which I attach with clothes pegs in wood.
In addition I would like to have one 2k or something, but then you get to the power issue. In the project we are doing now(postapocalyptic) there are seldom any power on set and high wattage is expensive and/or loud.


But the most important part isn't which kit you have but that you learn to see the light and not work against it. Low budget isn't all about cheap gear, it is about working fast. The sun is your friend. It is easy to put up too much light, often less is more. With a soft highlight for example you rarely have to have a fill. Be bold.

Then some examples:

This is lit with three redheads. The fire is done with a redhead bouncing against a sheet. The moonlight, also a redhead, is blasting directly at them from behind/side, and then there is a third redhead for the trees in the background.

Here the backlight is actually the sun shining through a window. The key is probably a single redhead bouncing against a sheet.

Same location and kind of the same set up. But I've added a redhead to backlight a water drop from the ceiling so that it would register in camera.(It is seen between the actors.) I might have another light in there somewhere for ambience, I don't recall.


This is done with a very low budget. Almost all money went to the talents in front of the camera and a very small crew(two guys carrying things, getting food and such and a sound guy. And some days an extra make up artist). I share the directing responsibilities with my spouse/producer and I DP, pull focus and operate.
I write the script, I am a musician, I sculpt the masks and I do the VFX. My spouse is a makeup artist(though we have extra make up artists when we do zombies).

So you can see we don't have that many people to pay. We do however work very much, which is pretty hard when you have a day job and two kids. But we manage and it is great fun.

1st picture is alright. Doesn't turn my head. EDIT: Should be noted that exterior nights are very difficult to do. I don't even like them on BoardWalk Empire 1/2 the time!

The other two are top notch and quite good! The middle picture is just amazing. The mood is really felt. I dig 'em.

 

[Futchibon]

Patryk and I are professionals...

Yes, but there is a huge difference between the way Ryan (positive) and Patryk (condescending) talks to people. Thanks Ryan, your time on this forum is a great asset and much appreciated.

And Klas, thanks for posting! I agree with Ryan, that second one is awesome!

I completely disagree with Patryk that only cameras have come down in price. LIGHTING HAS CHANGED MASSIVELEY over the last 10 years, due to the increased sensitivity of film stocks and digital cameras:

http://www.filmschooldirect.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_current_lighting_techniques.htm

And here's an article on Aronofsky's BLACK SWAN, which used DSLRs to complement 16mm. There's a nice pick of the DP holding a tiny - and cheap! - litepanel over Portman's head.

http://www.alexandrosmaragos.com/2010/12/black-swan-canon-7d.html

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

chapelgrovefilms, your film would be a perfect candidate for a hypothetical game of "what if?" What if you managed to raise more money for your film - would your film improve. (Though I don't want to play this game without your consent as you would be putting your own work on the line).

Futchibon, i'm not sure you realize that a Lite Panel (the "cheap" light from the picture) cost over $1000. Also what you forget is that Black Swan is a $17mil film... meaning they have money to use the "right tool" for the job, so if they chose to a shot on 7D doesn't mean it's the best camera to shoot feature films on but rather that it's the best camera to shoot that shot on. Unfortunately people will see that picture from making-of and assume that to make a great looking film you only need a 7D and one LitePanel...

 

[Svart]

It seems no one has put up any pics of setups and very few have given you tips on low budget lighting, it all went down to a debate whether you can do low budget look good or not. So I thought I could give you a couple of light set ups I did in my latest project.

First, my gear:
I have a Redhead kit (three redheads with stands), a DIY thing built into a bread crate, a coulpe of work lights (good for set lighting and other things where you don't have to have real stands) and some chinese paper lanterns (which I havn't used at all in my latest project, but often they are golden).
I have two C-Stands and a lot of clamps(buy these in a hardware store).
For bouncing I have a couple of sheets, foam mats with one silver side and a piece of sheet metal.
Filters and black wrap of course which I attach with clothes pegs in wood.
In addition I would like to have one 2k or something, but then you get to the power issue. In the project we are doing now(postapocalyptic) there are seldom any power on set and high wattage is expensive and/or loud.


But the most important part isn't which kit you have but that you learn to see the light and not work against it. Low budget isn't all about cheap gear, it is about working fast. The sun is your friend. It is easy to put up too much light, often less is more. With a soft highlight for example you rarely have to have a fill. Be bold.

Then some examples:

This is lit with three redheads. The fire is done with a redhead bouncing against a sheet. The moonlight, also a redhead, is blasting directly at them from behind/side, and then there is a third redhead for the trees in the background.

Here the backlight is actually the sun shining through a window. The key is probably a single redhead bouncing against a sheet.

Same location and kind of the same set up. But I've added a redhead to backlight a water drop from the ceiling so that it would register in camera.(It is seen between the actors.) I might have another light in there somewhere for ambience, I don't recall.


This is done with a very low budget. Almost all money went to the talents in front of the camera and a very small crew(two guys carrying things, getting food and such and a sound guy. And some days an extra make up artist). I share the directing responsibilities with my spouse/producer and I DP, pull focus and operate.
I write the script, I am a musician, I sculpt the masks and I do the VFX. My spouse is a makeup artist(though we have extra make up artists when we do zombies).

So you can see we don't have that many people to pay. We do however work very much, which is pretty hard when you have a day job and two kids. But we manage and it is great fun.

I like your lighting very much. This is probably the best example of lighting on a budget that I've seen. I'm very interested in your film when you finish it!