If your budget was 50-100k.. would you?

Azmyth

Azmyth

Veteran
Choice A.

Shoot on a panasonic GH2 with PL adapter and cinema lenses (Zeiss compact primes or similar)

Choice B.

Purchase a Black Magic Production Camera, and pray you actually get one. (or rent)

Choice C.

Rent a RED package or hire DP with red package.

(I'm assuming, I'd hire a DP for the other 2 choices too.)

This is a SAG ULB film, one of the roles is a well known celebrity. I'm paying them 1500.00 per day. The rest will most likely be non union actors at 100.00 a day. Day players will get 25-50.00 a day. I will provide meals, and hotels for out of town people. My other budget expenses will be about 400.00 worth of wardrobe, 1000.00 worth of locations. All post work will be done myself other than final sound mixing. We intend to go to Sundance, Slamdance, SXSW with this. I have a light kit capable of lighting feature films shot on a DSLR, and I will budget some cash for rentals here and there. I own all the sound gear already. Crew will all get paid at least gas money. (most of them are just friends whom volunteer to help.)

Raising funds via crowdfunding, product placement, and maybe a private investor or two.
 
Another impossible question, as there are too many variables to answer, but I hope my opinions can help.

What is the film style?
What kind of look are you going for?

All cameras have pro's and con's, and the type of film you are shooting really effects which camera is the right one for the job. Same with lenses.

For me, I would focus the money into having insurance, good locations/production design, time, lighting, and then camera. In post, I would focus my money into sound first than CC second.

Lighting is more important to me than camera, unless I'm doing all day exteriors, then I'll focus on DR of the camera and lots of grippage. Any good DP should learn the restrictions of the camera at hand and light accordingly. If I'm lighting for a camera with 9 stops of latitude, I'll light differently than if I have one with 14. That's how it's always been! It's a DP's job to understand the limitations of what the camera can see, contrast wise, and adjust the lighting to be in accordance with the camera's ability.

On another note,
Listing where a film is intended to go (festivals) is the most worthless and irrelevant information I consistently hear from people trying to court me as a DP. What does it matter? EVERYONE intends to go to Sundance, Cannes, SXSW, etc. In fact, when people say this to me, I am MORE skeptical of taking the job. Our goal should be to focus on making the best film possible. Telling the story the best. Thinking/dreaming about success, fame, or recognition before the film is made is an unfocused waste of time and leads me to believe that the filmmaker cares more about those things. Let's have the goal of making a good film; telling a story worth telling and doing so in the most effective and exacting way possible. Let's make cinema. Saying the goal is to get into Sundance is putting the horse before the cart. It's like planning on what to spend your lotto winnings on before you play the lotto. As a DP, my goal is not to get into Sundance, it's to visually support and drive home a story worth telling. If we do a good job, the recognition will follow. Telling me this ahead of time isn't going to impress me.

What do you mean you have a light kit capable of lighting feature films shot on DSLR? There are so many variables to lighting! A camera only dictates the amount of light needed for exposure, not the quality or style of lighting; that is dictated by the story needs. It's good you have money set aside for occasional rentals, you'll use it. Lighting is important and different scenes can call for different types of lighting.


Regarding your crew, if you are only paying them in gas money, and they are friends just helping out, you will need to make sure you have more time than a schedule of seasoned professionals. If your crew will not be skilled professionals, you will find things take longer, and you'll need that time.

To answer your question regarding camera:

I would first find the camera that is the best one to tell the story image wise and logistically. It will have to accommodate your budget and workflow, and provide the technical requirements needed to shoot the film, and also one that can achieve the look as well. You want a camera that will work well on production and give the look you need. If going handheld docu style, that would be likely a different camera from a traditional studio style film.

Once you know what camera, I would investigate the pro's and con's with renting versus buying. If you buy a camera, use it and then sell it used with a 20% reduction in price, and that amount comes out less than renting a camera, than buy and sell after. I've seen this done with many long form documentaries. This works with cameras like AF100's and the lot. Buy one, use it for a month and sell it 'used in new condition' for 20% off retail. Typically this is less money lost than renting an AF100 for a month. However, this won't work for a Red, and if it were, that is a lot of capital tied up in the meantime.


The MOST important thing is story and the appropriate schedule to accomplish telling that story. If Kubrick had to make 2001 in 12 days, you think he could have? Nope. Over 3 years! Not saying you need to take your good ol' time and waste tons of money. But it's important to not unrealistically screw yourself by going into a battle you can't win. I've seen too many unrealistic schedules. People in their heads work faster than in real life.

Next is having the right locations/production design and lighting. Nothing makes a film look better than appropriately designed sets and lighting. It creates the atmosphere in which the film takes place and is typically undervalued by indie filmmakers. Production design! Walls painted with the 'right' color and tone goes a long way from a bare white walled ikea apartment, unless the film calls for that.

Next is camera. You want a camera that allows you to get what you need with ease, speed, and reliability. You also need it to be capable to achieve the look you need. The camera that can do both is the one you want. You don't necessarily want to shoot a handheld found footage film with a full Alexa Studio and Master Primes! That is a great combination, but it will weight over 40lbs fully built! However, an Epic with a LWZ might be key. Most people forget that the type of camera you use is not JUST about the final look. It's about having the right tool to allow you to get what you need reliably, quickly and without issue. It's why cinema lenses are still the best. Of course some will argue and I'll take that up elsewhere, but reliable equipment that helps people do their job better and faster, saves time and thus money.
 
Last edited:
If you're planning on hiring a DP, let them make the camera system choice for you. You can make a great film on any of those camera systems.
 
Any of those cameras will do as far as being technically capable of acquiring an image that's projectable. The audience will not tell the BMCC, GH2 or RED apart. So which to pick, use different criteria. First in my mind, is the DP - if you are hiring a DP with gear, then go with whatever s/he has. If the DP doesn't have the gear and doesn't care which cam he gets, then it becomes a question of what's easier and faster to work with - you are going to be under huge time pressure on a low budget. There's also post. Be aware, that it's going to be a lot more in the way of technical gear required for the BMCC with those huge files. In some ways the GH2 will be faster in post. So, it's really practical considerations. If it were me in your place, and the DP didn't care, I'd go for the GH2 - you already have the cam, you know it well, you've worked with it, and we know that motion pictures have been released on it to great images.
 
The Red is the right choice. End of thread.


Real answer: Agreed with the above, there's too much information needed. It really matters what I'm shooting. Is my film mostly made up of sweeping landscapes with a lot of detail, or is the footage being shot in controlled spaces with most of the action coming from the CGI, which I have to scrimp and save to afford? And as has been said, what does the DP like shooting on? That last one is probably the most important question. And if the producer already owns the GH2 and lenses it really changes the criteria. This is just something no forum can help with.
 
I would go BMC, as I am in love with the look and capabilities, and cash strapped (as you sound from the thread title).

To say there's no image hit from going GH2 is just not so. I would eliminate that choice if you're putting that much time and expense into a project. Blown highlights are an issue. The GH2 DR just isn't in that class. There are too many bad image quality "features" out there, a veritible tsunami. You really need to rise above the flood. And even then you might be screwed. It's all the hands of the movie gods.
 
First things first, hire a DP who can give you the look you are after. Then the DP will be able to advise you on which camera will work best for your look and budget. Whenever I hear of a DP not really caring what camera they shoot on I instinctively think that they don't have the experience to produce high end work. All the high end DP's that I know are familiar with the constraints of each camera and usually have more experience with a certain camera that they are used to lighting for.

A DP experience with shooting on a GH.2 is going to be able to get more out of the camera then a DP who hasn't used it before and lights for a RED Epic for example. Knowing the limitations of the camera is essential for being able to light effectively for it. Knowing that a camera is going to perform better in the highlights means you have the range to push the highlights and still bring them back later on in post if needed.

All to often do I see RED owner/operators forget to light for a lesser 'B' camera because they are so used to the dynamic range of their RED. And when essential 'B' cam shots done on say a 5D come out looking horrible it reflects on the lack of understanding of the DP. So to reiterate the point, hire the DP first.

As a great DP can make any camera look good, while a great camera can't make a not so great DP look good.
 
Let me state it again: there is HUGE difference between 50k and 100k. So it needs to be specified which one it's going to be. With 50k you are still doing bottom of the barrel film and with 100k you actually can start cooking.
At 50k - hard to say.
At 100k - hire a skilled DP. Let me just add that all the things that allowed you to make your previous low budgeter will probably hamper you to some extent. The fact that you are far away from film industry made your film special, this unfortunately will also make you realize how hard it it to get skilled technicians "outside of the film centers." Because you are not doing a hobby film anymore burning time will mean burning money. You got a though cookie here, too much money not to hire a DP but I'm not sure you are at the same luxury that people in NYC or LA are where they can have their pick of the best DPs (even at your 100k rates).
 
As Patryk has noted, there is a huge difference in budget numbers.

And as Ryan said, yet another impossible question.

Finalize your budget and do a spreadsheet breakdown so you really know how much you have for camera.

Then let the DP select the correct tools to use to best tell your story which fits your camera budget.

I would also take off your camera blinders. You have limited yourself to these 3 camera options, when in fact there may be better option available that you are not aware of.

Good luck with your project.

Dave
 
There's a whole lot of camera options available, but I'd personally +1 everything Ryan has said.

For me, lighting is way more important than camera choice - I've seen low budget Producers and Directors choose DPs based on the fact that they own a RED camera, only to find out that the images look nothing like they want as it turns out the DP is really just a camera operator who bought a RED.

Decide on what your budget will be, and then sit down with a DP and discuss cameras, lighting, lenses etc. I'd rather shoot on a 5DmkIII with a truck full of lights and grip equipment, than shoot on a RED with none of that, or with lights that the Producer feels are 'good enough' to light a feature with..
 
A lot of good things have already been said. To which I would add that one of my first rules for microbudget filmmaking is to always have a back-up in place. That includes locations if our first choice falls through, that includes actors we can call if someone doesn't show up, and it applies to essential gear. I would go with the option that I would be able to replace immediately and with as little cost as possible, if something went wrong. Microbudgets are a house of cards. It's too easy for one bit of misfortune to derail the entire production. So with that in mind I'd either go with the least expensive option (if you were forced to buy a replacement DSLR for example), or go with a rental house that could replace a problematic camera quickly.
 
Boy all good advice here. THe last low budget feature i directed I shot on the gh2 - what a mule kick of an image. I just wrapped a new feature I directed that we shot on the bmc ef mount. For my money I'm glad we went with the bmc. I believe you can now get a new one from adorama and texas media - also on bmcuser people are selling at price un=opened ones. i bought one and i just love the camera.
Most important is getting the best dp you can get. I had a very good dp who lit himself and was super fast and exacting. His experience really allowed me to do the film for the budget I had.
Anyway - good luck!!

ps - a good purchase we made was the honda 2000 generator for about a grand. We shot a lot of night stuff. And it was great to be able to get 2000 watts of power whenever we needed it - then resold it at a loss of 200 bucks.
 
The only thing i'd add is to use a camera which has a log profile, yes the GH2 gives you a great image, but an image you're mostly locked into. a red/bmc/c100/etc... have the all important flat log profiles that give you the flexibility to really fine tune your desired look in post. red and bmc have the added advantage of raw, which CAN result in an even better final image, but that again depends on numerous factors, and in the end still no audience member is going to know the difference unless you shot both cameras side by side and were projecting it split screened.
 
If the C100 is anything like the C300, the 'log' isn't very "loggy" compared to Red/BMC. CLog is more of an expanded flat scenefile than a real LOG process. I don't know the bits and bobs behind the engineering, but I have seen and used Panavision, Arri and Red's LOG, and the C300 is hardly as flat. But the Canon LOG is still better, flexibility wise, than GH2, but then again I'm a huge in the camera dude.
 
Last edited:
If you're serious about the future prospects of your feature, budget $30K to $40K for post and a big chunk on locations. And trust me that $40K go's really fast. Doubt anyone will see the difference between a Red One and a BMC.
 
I'll also add a lot of this will depend on your DP - I've seen some awful images out of a BMC (and even RED) from people who don't really know what they're doing, and I've seen stuff out of a 5D that looks comparatively better because there's a real DP behind the camera. Simply having one camera or another does not immediately mean your picture is going to be better or worse. A lot of it has to do with the lighting and lensing as well..

So, all things being equal, the general audience member may not pick a huge difference between a RED and a BMCC, but that's assuming all things are equal.

I'd also suggest ensuring you budget enough money for a professional colour grade.
 
Something i havent seen mentioned here, is if you have these name celebs in the cast, how is the situation with the volunteer/nonprofessional crew going to appear to them? I foresee guys dropping lights, stuff falling over cause its not properly gripped correctly, everything taking astronomically longer than you think, and all of this possibly eventually adding up to one of these actors, contract or no, saying "**** this mickey mouse bullshit, im outta here." Id say planning on using inexperienced crew in the situation you described is playing with fire.
 
jax_rox said:
I'll also add a lot of this will depend on your DP - I've seen some awful images out of a BMC (and even RED) from people who don't really know what they're doing, and I've seen stuff out of a 5D that looks comparatively better because there's a real DP behind the camera. Simply having one camera or another does not immediately mean your picture is going to be better or worse. A lot of it has to do with the lighting and lensing as well..

So, all things being equal, the general audience member may not pick a huge difference between a RED and a BMCC, but that's assuming all things are equal.

I'd also suggest ensuring you budget enough money for a professional colour grade.
Click to expand...

+1
 
If you were to hire me. I'd say get a BMC, Shoot to log proRes, (storage requirements are lower, and the image still rocks). Named actor will help, but i GUARANTEE you paying people 25-50$ a day means you will get flaky performance at best, cause when people get tired.... that "passion" and paycheck seem to be not so important. Get a good sound guy, and a good DP. This also depends on how long you want to shoot. 15 days? thats $22,500 to the actor, out of lets say $100,000.

So for $100,000
Insurance: ( This should be priority one) This includes production liability insurance, equipment rental, and potentially workmens comp depending on the state. Though i reccomend getting workmens comp, because recently in NYC a grip got hurt on a shoot where the insurace was questionable. Guy went to the hospital, and wound up getting a MRI / CAT scan and the insurance company basically said to production : you are on your OWN. The producer is stuck with a $20,000 hospital bill for a small bump on the head that in the end needed one stitch. So yea.... Insurance. Will probably run about $3,000 - $7,000 for a month.

Actor, you said $1500 a day: So thats $22,500 for 15 days ( thats cutting it REALLLLLY close, as a SAG actor will go into overtime after 10hrs, and you will get penalized out the ass if you dont pay up) So think about realistically scheduling your story, then what that rate will really cost you...

Crew: Now lets assume you get a decent DP, with a uuuhhhh i dunno, and F3/basic glass/tripod, for the two weeks at $10,000 ( for RED may be more, BMC maybe a bit less) You will need a 1st AC, 2nd/Loader, Gaffer, KGrip, and at least 2 grips/Electrics to move fast enough to make it cost effective, remember, time = money so spending a bit more on crew to make sure you move fast enough to not abuse the people working for $50-$100 a day. Not to mention additional lighting you will occasionally need. I honestly dont think you will be able to keep a crew for 15(assuming) days at $100 a day. I budgeted my last feature for crew on a $100,000 budget and everyone averaged about $350 a day, keys getting $400. Now a great place to spend some of that $100,000 is a good professional sound mixer and boom op. I know it isnt sexy to spend money on them, but you will thank yourself to no end in post. The two should run about $1000 a day, Mixer getting $700 for him and gear and the Boom op getting the rest. WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE.

HMU: Hair/Make up is so overlooked its scary. Even if you try to get em on the cheap, get someone with some training.

Wardrobe: Again, super important ( should be working in combination with your Script supervisor on continuity)

Locations: this is a greatplace to spend some money. A slightly more expensive better looking space will save you time on having to dress it , and rent/buy props and set pieces. Not to mention needing less art depantment crew members.

spend your money wisely and with the big picture in mind. The camera should be of least importance. LEAST. LEAST. LEAST. Get good crew and you will get a chance to actually direct cause you wont have to think about everything... you can focus on your job directing the action.
 
Sorry I was enjoying Mother's Day weekend. Let me explain more.

I'm shooting a film around professional wrestling. It's a narrative. I'll be shooting in high school gyms, VFW's, bar's, and most of the shots are interior. Very few exterior night shots. Almost all the shots are interior, or day exteriors. This is a comedy, not a horror film that I'm usually doing.

Shooting in GA. Georgia is the 4th largest production state now, and its quickly climbing. We are getting tons of new films, and shows here. We have Anchorman 2, Need for Speed, Vampire Diaries, The Walking Dead, 42, Trouble with the curve, and oodles of tv shows, and movies being shot here right now. I have had auditions for a ton of them via my agent.

I'm talking with a couple of DP's right now. One has a RED, the other does not but he's experienced with everything from 16mm film to RED to Alexa. I'm supposed to have a meeting with the DP that does not own the camera. He came highly recommended by an actor friend of mine. He suggested of the choices available, that BMCC would make the most sense budget wise. A red package is going to put is out at over a grand a day, not to mention that we shoot sort of odd, and only have short stints of consecutive days.. usually its like.. fri-sat-sunday, fri-sat-sunday, fri-sat-sunday, thur-friday-sat-sunday-mon, and so on.. I usually take time off so I can shoot 2 full weeks in a row along with my weekends.

You've also got to include lenses and all the extra crap you need to even run one of those camera's properly.

This is my 3rd feature. I've already done two. First one was with an HV40, 2nd was with my GH2. My crew has learned as we go, but they aren't "professionals". But we've gotten plenty of compliments from actors who work with us about how nice everyone is, and how efficient we are compared to other productions. Apparently the bar isn't very high. I shot 7TM in 16 days.

I'm thinking about just putting my name on the list for the Black Magic Production Camera, and putting it on a credit card. I have a GH2 already, but the DP I'm talking to is suggesting we use something with a little more play in post. I've already learned myself that the GH2, while great and I'd use it again in a heartbeat.. your pretty much stuck with what you get in camera. You can't push the footage very far beyond that.

My sag talent are professional wrestlers, former WWE super stars. They live in Atlanta, and I used to wrestle so I got them via my trainer who knows one of them. They are coming in for 1-2 days tops. They are just cameo roles. they are getting paid 1500.00 a day, and I will film as much with them as I can for that short period of time. The other 4 non union roles, will get 100.00 per day. Everyone else will probably get 75.00 a day (they only shoot for one day)

50k is the bare minimum I think I can shoot this for. I have to rent wrestling rings, secure insurance, pay for costumes, etc. 100k would be ideal. 50k is the backup plan. This is going to be something on the same level production wise as "The Wrestler" or "Facing the Giants" but will look more like napoleon dynamite. I want it to have a distinct indie feel, but still looking cinematic and professional. I think the subject matter is going to help with that.

As far as the celebs having an issue with my crew. They are pro wrestlers, they've worked in far worse conditions.

I'm just trying to make the right choice, given all the other things are as they should be. I wouldn't dare put something as silly as a camera over the other stuff. Also, I mentioned the goals of the film because I personally feel like you need goals for what you want to do with your film before you make it. Some films fare better at film festivals than they do just going straight for distribution. You sort of need to know that in order to determine what kind of movie you need to make. I wouldn't consider either of the last two of my films "festival" films that would do well at anything but genre specific fests. It's true its irrelevant to my question, but its not totally irrelevant. I'm usually the last person who will say "going to sundance" etc. but you know I feel like its a right of passage. I always laugh at film makers who are making a film SPECIFICALLY for that, and no other reason. That imo is laughable. But, I always have other plans for what I do. I just wanted to take a stab at it at least once. You never know. It's better to try and fail, than to have never tried.

Ok, now I'm rambling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top