Steve House
Veteran
If by "work" you mean will you record sound ... yes. If by "work" you mean record an acceptable soundtrack for a film you intend to show anyone beyond friends and family .... probably not.
No-budget feature audio gear, please help!!!
- Thread starter therussian
- Start date
Which is why I ended my original comment with, "Unless you don't care about getting distribution later." If you don't care about that, then, yes, that combination is acceptable.
paulears
Veteran
A cheap mic in the right place always sounds better than an expensive one in the wrong place. The various gizmos and apps for iPhone can often be very good quality, and people who have not tried them often assume the results will be poor. There is a guy in the UK selling cheap (actually, VERY cheap) lavs on ebay and they are great, and the dirt cheap lavs you often see can be streets ahead of somebody waving an expensive mic around on a boom. How many times to you see budget productions with a short shotgun on a boom operated by somebody who is not wearing headphones? How can they tell what they are capturing by looking at it. I firmly believe that the people who decry shotguns indoors are the people who aim them visually, or perhaps more accurately point them in the vague direction of the talent and capture the walls or floor or ceiling. Getting a mic close to somebodies mouth works so much better than trying to get decent audio at a distance, and trying to treat the room. There is huge brand snobbery in audio for video, far more than in the audio industry where users are always keen to try new or alternative products and then make a decision based on sound. In video, people are happy to use after market gadgets to get around stupid designs, or products being used for unexpected applications and everyone is happy, but when video people talk sound, they trot out the same old worn out rules on equipment without being willing to experiment and use their ears. Not everyone, but the majority do seem to believe the hype and promote it. If the video side did what we promote in audio, then everyone would be shooting on Red or Arri, sitting on top of top of the range Vintens and Satchlers, with fifty grands worth of glass on the front. We'd be told never to use wide angles because they distort unless you buy expensive ones, and any camera with less than 2/3" sensor is not suitable for quality recording.
There are sonic differences between a $10 microphone and a $1000 microphone, but these differences need quality ears to be able to differentiate in quality terms. There are differences, but often just in perceived tone/timbre.
There are sonic differences between a $10 microphone and a $1000 microphone, but these differences need quality ears to be able to differentiate in quality terms. There are differences, but often just in perceived tone/timbre.
unclebob6958
Well-known member
What it all comes down to in the end is the knowledge and skill of the person(s) running the production sound. The Rode VM and a lower end Tascam DR-series recorder will yield acceptable results as long the person swinging the boom, running the recorder and monitoring the audio have a decent idea of what they are doing. A moron with a $50k sound kit will still yield crap results.
You must always keep in mind that "Sound is HALF of the experience." More films fail to engage the audience (much less get into festivals or obtain distribution) due to poor sound than for any other technical reason. I cannot count the number of times that clients who finally listen and put substantial resources into production sound say "WOW!!! What a difference!" It makes audio post a creative process rather than a rescue operation.
So think it through carefully. Do you want to risk your entire project just to save a few dollars on production sound?
You must always keep in mind that "Sound is HALF of the experience." More films fail to engage the audience (much less get into festivals or obtain distribution) due to poor sound than for any other technical reason. I cannot count the number of times that clients who finally listen and put substantial resources into production sound say "WOW!!! What a difference!" It makes audio post a creative process rather than a rescue operation.
So think it through carefully. Do you want to risk your entire project just to save a few dollars on production sound?
therussian
Well-known member
Thanks for everybody!
Here's what I decided: at the Filmacademy here, there's a sound engineer course. I look around and try to get an aspiring sound engineer student who has his own gear and willing to do it for the experience and learning possibillites. If he could mix the sound as well, that would be awesome. How about this idea?
Here's what I decided: at the Filmacademy here, there's a sound engineer course. I look around and try to get an aspiring sound engineer student who has his own gear and willing to do it for the experience and learning possibillites. If he could mix the sound as well, that would be awesome. How about this idea?
paulears
Veteran
It really depends if s/he is any good, doesn't it. I'm working with a student at the moment who's very, very good and worth his weight in gold. I also have come across graduates who seem to have no working ears at all. The truth is that audio skills have to be learned, and this always involves messing up, you learn from it and don't do it again. If you put these people in as the 'expert', they might do really well. They could mess up. A seasoned pro can also have a disaster of course. Only you can weigh up the probability. You could always ask the filmacademy tutor?
therussian
Well-known member
Yes, that's true! I know a tutor who teaches there. I thought that he could ask the sound engineer tutor to recommend some good student for the task. I'm going to check this out real soon....
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
[QOTE=therussian;1986321913]I don't think Mariachi or Following had a sound technician.... I don't think their audio quality is Oscar worthy, but you can't deny that they are awesome movies. That level of audio quality is enough for me.[/QUOTE]
I know no budget filmmakers love to latch on the the El Mariachi" myth, but you really need to realize that the film you saw was not made for $10,000. The ten grand was the "shooting cost" and in actual fact he did have a sound guy, though I believe only for post (the first time around) and they spent a lot of time putting together the track. That got printed to the 16mm print that got seen at a few festivals. By that point your more like $15K and the sound was "free" since it was his friend doing it.
But then you get to what YOU saw. That was a 35mm print (or maybe you saw a DVD from that 35mm print. It has at least a stereo sound track and that one has little to do with the original mono optical track. The number I heard was around $1,000,000, for the transfer and redoing the sound track.
With duplications etc it's about a five million dollar film, the one you like.
Following is probably a better example since they were on video and didn't have the added cost of working in film. Still it has an "estimated" budget of $6,000. And that I'm pretty sure is very misleading. All of the "no budget" films cost. The better ones are made by people who had lots of favors to call in and who were able to get lots of in-kind donations. AND they never add in what it took to get from the first rough cut to the distributed film.
I don't say this to discourage you but hopefully to inspire you. These folks had crews, they found people who would work with them and they understood that the "real" cost was significantly higher than the "out of pocket" costs.
I did a full sound post on a "no budget" feature some years ago. I even got them in to mix on a real mix stage. We got a couple of down days on the stage they were remixing The GODFATHER. I did it for "free" because I believed in the film, and I could do that because I had some serious favors owed me that I could cash in. People REALLY liked the film and it won some awards at festivals and such. It even came with in a day of being picked up by a small distributor (the day before the contract signing they decided to spend their money on something else). That low budget feature ended up costing the filmmaker and his backers about $35,000 by the time it ended up on the shelf. It was good for a lot of the people who worked on it. It was a nice film and may someday make a few $ (I hope so I have a small piece of it)? But it was used by a number of people as a spring board to careers in film. In a lot of ways it was successful, but that is because it was WELL MADE! He found people with skills and he found ways to make it worth their time.
The "they had no money and made a good film and I have no money so I will make a good film" is a false logic. They knew what it cost to make a good film and found ways to pay for it with currencies other than cash.
And they used a LOT more cash than you are likely to hear about.
The "buz" rule for film is if you made it cheap find a way to promote it with the lowest # you can use semi legitimately (as in Mariachi's "budget" being the filmstock cost). If you spent a lot then pump it up as much as possible (as in the TITANIC budget the $100,000,000+ cost of FOX building a studio in Baja California tagged on). Everything in between you just don't talk about the budget at all because only really big and insanely low numbers generate any "buz".U
I know no budget filmmakers love to latch on the the El Mariachi" myth, but you really need to realize that the film you saw was not made for $10,000. The ten grand was the "shooting cost" and in actual fact he did have a sound guy, though I believe only for post (the first time around) and they spent a lot of time putting together the track. That got printed to the 16mm print that got seen at a few festivals. By that point your more like $15K and the sound was "free" since it was his friend doing it.
But then you get to what YOU saw. That was a 35mm print (or maybe you saw a DVD from that 35mm print. It has at least a stereo sound track and that one has little to do with the original mono optical track. The number I heard was around $1,000,000, for the transfer and redoing the sound track.
With duplications etc it's about a five million dollar film, the one you like.
Following is probably a better example since they were on video and didn't have the added cost of working in film. Still it has an "estimated" budget of $6,000. And that I'm pretty sure is very misleading. All of the "no budget" films cost. The better ones are made by people who had lots of favors to call in and who were able to get lots of in-kind donations. AND they never add in what it took to get from the first rough cut to the distributed film.
I don't say this to discourage you but hopefully to inspire you. These folks had crews, they found people who would work with them and they understood that the "real" cost was significantly higher than the "out of pocket" costs.
I did a full sound post on a "no budget" feature some years ago. I even got them in to mix on a real mix stage. We got a couple of down days on the stage they were remixing The GODFATHER. I did it for "free" because I believed in the film, and I could do that because I had some serious favors owed me that I could cash in. People REALLY liked the film and it won some awards at festivals and such. It even came with in a day of being picked up by a small distributor (the day before the contract signing they decided to spend their money on something else). That low budget feature ended up costing the filmmaker and his backers about $35,000 by the time it ended up on the shelf. It was good for a lot of the people who worked on it. It was a nice film and may someday make a few $ (I hope so I have a small piece of it)? But it was used by a number of people as a spring board to careers in film. In a lot of ways it was successful, but that is because it was WELL MADE! He found people with skills and he found ways to make it worth their time.
The "they had no money and made a good film and I have no money so I will make a good film" is a false logic. They knew what it cost to make a good film and found ways to pay for it with currencies other than cash.
And they used a LOT more cash than you are likely to hear about.
The "buz" rule for film is if you made it cheap find a way to promote it with the lowest # you can use semi legitimately (as in Mariachi's "budget" being the filmstock cost). If you spent a lot then pump it up as much as possible (as in the TITANIC budget the $100,000,000+ cost of FOX building a studio in Baja California tagged on). Everything in between you just don't talk about the budget at all because only really big and insanely low numbers generate any "buz".U
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Distribution? Seriously? ANYBODY who makes a no budget film and is worried about getting distribution probably also thinks the Lotto has good odds.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Sorry but I'm catching up on this thread. I know you have moved on to a better plan on this but it's actually a major accomplishment if you can get sound that is any good in production with out someone who knows what they are doing. Oscars have nothing to do with it, and you don't get them for the quality of your production sound.
therussian
Well-known member
Hey Scott,
Thanks for the insight! I see on your IMDB credtis that you did some stuff, so you know what you're talking about.
I'm convinced on the sound engineer question, so I see your point. But I doubt that shooting no-budget and dreaming of distribution is like lottery... There are many examples to prove my point and I believe that it can be done. If I would shoot it on 16mm than it wouldn't be no budget anymore, but a minimum 10k production. Would it have better chances for distribution if everything else is the same? I don't think so.... This movie is no-budget because it's shot digitally on a HDSLR and not film.... And "no-budget" is kinda misleading as I'm going to invest a few thousand in equipment, plus what I already have.... computer for editing, some ARRI Fresnels, etc... So in this context I don't make a no-budget movie.... It's a challenge, to doubt, but I really believe in it.
Thanks for the insight! I see on your IMDB credtis that you did some stuff, so you know what you're talking about.
I'm convinced on the sound engineer question, so I see your point. But I doubt that shooting no-budget and dreaming of distribution is like lottery... There are many examples to prove my point and I believe that it can be done. If I would shoot it on 16mm than it wouldn't be no budget anymore, but a minimum 10k production. Would it have better chances for distribution if everything else is the same? I don't think so.... This movie is no-budget because it's shot digitally on a HDSLR and not film.... And "no-budget" is kinda misleading as I'm going to invest a few thousand in equipment, plus what I already have.... computer for editing, some ARRI Fresnels, etc... So in this context I don't make a no-budget movie.... It's a challenge, to doubt, but I really believe in it.
therussian
Well-known member
I didn't doubt it.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Thanks for the votes of confidence. I would add that even folks who know there stuff some times have their heads where the sun don't shine so ...
Dreaming, believing, and the Lotto have a lot in common. It's a long shot and while it could happen, I think it's silly to make too many decisions based on what some possible future distributor might want.
You should just go for the best film you can make. If it's great then the rest will (with luck) work out. With enough luck (or hype) it could work out even if your film has serious problems. Part, maybe a big part, of why that feature I mentioned didn't get picked up was that a name director made a film on the same topic. They started later than we did but had $$$ so they finished first (bad luck the projects had no idea what the other was doing). That film came out and just killed the market ,who is going to go for the no-name film when you can show the big name film. If things had worked out differently and we had been finished six months sooner we might well have gotten some action.
That is the part that is the Lotto. Good films with budgets disappear after a few festivals ALL THE TIME. All you can do is make the best film you can and hope the dice fall your way, or at least not against you.
So believe in the project but hope for some luck.
The up side for those just starting is that while traditionally only a small portion of films made ever got much of a showing, the media markets are exploding and the digital theatre age is going to open the big screen to thousands of people who never had a shot before. And films will be able to be shown to the level they support. Right now a theatre needs to rent your film by the week. So it's not worth it if there are only enough people who know about your film to fill one screening a day. With digital distribution they can pay by the screening so a single theatre could show three or four different films in rotation and still make money.
Plus there is HULU and even Netflix who are buying/creating content. We may well get to a point where very few good films just disappear.
Dreaming, believing, and the Lotto have a lot in common. It's a long shot and while it could happen, I think it's silly to make too many decisions based on what some possible future distributor might want.
You should just go for the best film you can make. If it's great then the rest will (with luck) work out. With enough luck (or hype) it could work out even if your film has serious problems. Part, maybe a big part, of why that feature I mentioned didn't get picked up was that a name director made a film on the same topic. They started later than we did but had $$$ so they finished first (bad luck the projects had no idea what the other was doing). That film came out and just killed the market ,who is going to go for the no-name film when you can show the big name film. If things had worked out differently and we had been finished six months sooner we might well have gotten some action.
That is the part that is the Lotto. Good films with budgets disappear after a few festivals ALL THE TIME. All you can do is make the best film you can and hope the dice fall your way, or at least not against you.
So believe in the project but hope for some luck.
The up side for those just starting is that while traditionally only a small portion of films made ever got much of a showing, the media markets are exploding and the digital theatre age is going to open the big screen to thousands of people who never had a shot before. And films will be able to be shown to the level they support. Right now a theatre needs to rent your film by the week. So it's not worth it if there are only enough people who know about your film to fill one screening a day. With digital distribution they can pay by the screening so a single theatre could show three or four different films in rotation and still make money.
Plus there is HULU and even Netflix who are buying/creating content. We may well get to a point where very few good films just disappear.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
A couple of points... anything under $1M is almost a 'no budget' film... any thing under $100K is definitely 'no budget'... anything that is paid for on credit cards... is no budget...
As for 'winning the lottery'...
I don't have a lot of time researching this... but for Sundance 2013, there seems to be about 160 films 'shown', out of approximately 5-6000 submissions, and only about 30 'sold'. Again, since this was a 'quick' search, these numbers may be off, but the orders of magnitude I think are 'reasonable'... Cannes has similar submission numbers for about 100 films, and since the fest is still going on one doesn't know what the eventual 'sales' will be for films that had no distribution before the fest, I think the number will be similar.
So, for say, 10-12,000 submissions, about 50 sales... sounds like 'lottery' to me... and if one considers that even getting a sale at these two fests does not mean 'summer blockbuster' around the corner, it really is 'lottery' time.
There are other alternatives to selling at a fest... for some types of material.. such as 'horror' there is a market for direct to DVD, and now direct to Streaming, that may get a film 'sold', provided it is in the right genre... Porn works this way, and there may be a market for 'better than just episodic sex sequences'... but it still takes about $20K just to get the performers and locations to make the film...
But in any case... lottery is the 'sales' model one should have at the level of 'nolo budget' film making.
Mention was made of "El Mariachi", and further mention was made that after that film 'sold', it took another $5M or so, to get it to the form 'as seen in theaters'...
Shooting a film for under $50K for some level of 'film' is possible, getting it to a screen in a theater near you... is The Lottery...
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Oh, and no DON'T go to 16mm. It's a horrible format. Not a good choice for capture and useless for distribution. Super 16 is OK as a cheap way to shoot "35mm" (frame blows up nicely to 35mm), but it is a capture only format so you have to go to something else to show.
DSLR's right now are shooting arguably better than 16 ever was, and damn near 35mm, if you don't mess with it much. A MUCH better format.
A good exercise is to fully budget your film. Include the going rate for everything you are using for "free", what the actors should be paid, etc. That is what your film really costs. It's what it will cost if you don't get in kind help and have to actually pay for things. It's VERY easy to discount all that stuff and treat it like a hobby, and then wonder why your credit balance is so high.
You need to get the camera, but also cards and drives and backup drives. Toss in some cables and that XZXER that would make life so much easier, oh and the plugin that you don't "need" but it will save all that time. And all the "I wanted that anyway"'s.
Related. El Mariachi, the guy who did the original post sound did it on a Tascam 238. To keep it stable and in sync he probably also got the synchroniser. It's what I used on the first short I worked on. The 238 cost me $1,200 used and I snagged the synchronizer for $550. But it needs a special cable also $60. Then we automated the mix with a MIDIMixer 7, very cool couple of hundred used. I did production and I had a mini DAT machine so "free", or $850 and then tapes at $12 a pop. I also had the mics and wind protection and a boom pole (maybe $1,000 for the lot - I built the zep, and bought everything else used) There was a computer of course $? Oh and a MIDI interface to talk to the MIDIMixer and an sound card for the computer and the VCR and a monitor, and the TC reader so we could lock it to the video.
So that short got for free me and somewhere over $5,000. Now I was doing a lot of theatre so most of it I rationalized for doing sound design for theatre, and I did use a lot of it for that but not all that video stuff. And I wanted to do films. And I did get paid for doing films, about seven years later.
The feature that didn't get picked up was cut (sound) on my ProTools rig. That setup ran about $20,000 in addition to everything I already had and we mixed on a stage that would normally go for $450 an hour.
A "no budget" film is more of a category/ mindset than a description of reality. Hollywood considers anything under 30 mill to be a "low" budget so "no budget" by Hollywood standards can cost a couple of hundred thousand. You are going to spend money, probably a LOT more than you think you will. It's not a bad thing unless the tab catches you by surprise and it kills the film.
Sorry for the novel but there are way too many foices telling (other people) they can make a no-budget film for pennies. They often also have something to sell you that will help you do it. Go in with your eyes open and you will have a MUCH better time making the film.
And good luck
DSLR's right now are shooting arguably better than 16 ever was, and damn near 35mm, if you don't mess with it much. A MUCH better format.
A good exercise is to fully budget your film. Include the going rate for everything you are using for "free", what the actors should be paid, etc. That is what your film really costs. It's what it will cost if you don't get in kind help and have to actually pay for things. It's VERY easy to discount all that stuff and treat it like a hobby, and then wonder why your credit balance is so high.
You need to get the camera, but also cards and drives and backup drives. Toss in some cables and that XZXER that would make life so much easier, oh and the plugin that you don't "need" but it will save all that time. And all the "I wanted that anyway"'s.
Related. El Mariachi, the guy who did the original post sound did it on a Tascam 238. To keep it stable and in sync he probably also got the synchroniser. It's what I used on the first short I worked on. The 238 cost me $1,200 used and I snagged the synchronizer for $550. But it needs a special cable also $60. Then we automated the mix with a MIDIMixer 7, very cool couple of hundred used. I did production and I had a mini DAT machine so "free", or $850 and then tapes at $12 a pop. I also had the mics and wind protection and a boom pole (maybe $1,000 for the lot - I built the zep, and bought everything else used) There was a computer of course $? Oh and a MIDI interface to talk to the MIDIMixer and an sound card for the computer and the VCR and a monitor, and the TC reader so we could lock it to the video.
So that short got for free me and somewhere over $5,000. Now I was doing a lot of theatre so most of it I rationalized for doing sound design for theatre, and I did use a lot of it for that but not all that video stuff. And I wanted to do films. And I did get paid for doing films, about seven years later.
The feature that didn't get picked up was cut (sound) on my ProTools rig. That setup ran about $20,000 in addition to everything I already had and we mixed on a stage that would normally go for $450 an hour.
A "no budget" film is more of a category/ mindset than a description of reality. Hollywood considers anything under 30 mill to be a "low" budget so "no budget" by Hollywood standards can cost a couple of hundred thousand. You are going to spend money, probably a LOT more than you think you will. It's not a bad thing unless the tab catches you by surprise and it kills the film.
Sorry for the novel but there are way too many foices telling (other people) they can make a no-budget film for pennies. They often also have something to sell you that will help you do it. Go in with your eyes open and you will have a MUCH better time making the film.
And good luck
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
In 2013 Sundance had A record 12,146 films were submitted, 429 more films than the 2012 festival. 4,044 feature films were submitted and 119 were selected (with 103 of them being world premieres). 8,102 short films were submitted and 65 were selected. The festival had films representing 32 countries, from 51 first-time filmmakers, 27 of which had films in competition.
But the numbers are a bit misleading. Most big festivals have a health dose of big budget films so figure a quarter to a half of the feature slots you don't even have a shot at. The shorts are probably more representative of nolo film odds.
On the flip side despite the hype Sundance is not the best place to go for a real independent film (remember Mirimax was an "independent"). Toronto is a much friendlier festival.
really the smartest move, other than going for a genre that has an alternate sales route like horror, is to aim at doing a teaser on YouTube and pre-selling DVD's. Get a gazillion hits on your trailer/teaser and you may well be able to get funding for the feature. And if it takes off you can probably get brick and mortar distribution for your next film.
And there are generally two ways to do it: a) become a celebrity or b) rip off a popular IP.
If you want good sound for your indie feature, volunteer on someone elses film that will work on your film down the road.
You'll bank some favors and get a healthy dose of reality doing something you are about to ask others to do for you for free. You'll also see every mistake they make and hopefully how to avoid them on your production. If you absolutely have to shoot now, used gear can be bought and sold for a very small loss after the film is finished if purchased right(or rented or borrowed). In Fort Wayne, In and Austin Tx (the areas I'm most familiar with) the local public access stations have adequate sound gear and lighting pkg for free(fort wayne) or very small charge(austin). Linklater and Rodriguez both made use of the public access facilities in Austin when they were starting out. I've known several filmakers who have won the film "lottery" so it can happen, but the market conditions were very different when they became successful. Also a location sound mixer doesn't build a reel like a dp or an actor(so it might be the area where you might have to pay someone in the end, even with favors). Good advice on lavs (ost are very good and reasonable). Good luck.
You'll bank some favors and get a healthy dose of reality doing something you are about to ask others to do for you for free. You'll also see every mistake they make and hopefully how to avoid them on your production. If you absolutely have to shoot now, used gear can be bought and sold for a very small loss after the film is finished if purchased right(or rented or borrowed). In Fort Wayne, In and Austin Tx (the areas I'm most familiar with) the local public access stations have adequate sound gear and lighting pkg for free(fort wayne) or very small charge(austin). Linklater and Rodriguez both made use of the public access facilities in Austin when they were starting out. I've known several filmakers who have won the film "lottery" so it can happen, but the market conditions were very different when they became successful. Also a location sound mixer doesn't build a reel like a dp or an actor(so it might be the area where you might have to pay someone in the end, even with favors). Good advice on lavs (ost are very good and reasonable). Good luck.
therussian
Well-known member
Thanks All!
Good insights and advices! I know that it's an awfully crowded marketplace. But I think that most of the "crowd" is garbage, because it's so tempting and cheap to enter, a lot of people try it and many of those who have really don't have the talent for it... So as you say that a cheap audio gear can sound great in the good hands, while an expensive can be **** if used badly, I can say the same for the whole film. With the same limited resources one can create magic, and most of the people junk....
The story and script has outmost importance for me, and I believe in that if you can nail a terrific script and make a decent movie out of it with a no-lo budget... Then it has to have get some response down the line... It's a no lose situation.
Good insights and advices! I know that it's an awfully crowded marketplace. But I think that most of the "crowd" is garbage, because it's so tempting and cheap to enter, a lot of people try it and many of those who have really don't have the talent for it... So as you say that a cheap audio gear can sound great in the good hands, while an expensive can be **** if used badly, I can say the same for the whole film. With the same limited resources one can create magic, and most of the people junk....
The story and script has outmost importance for me, and I believe in that if you can nail a terrific script and make a decent movie out of it with a no-lo budget... Then it has to have get some response down the line... It's a no lose situation.