On a $500k to $700k budget - film or HD?

I agree that you should shoot digital on a RED or Viper then transferyour edited footage to film if you need too. Both of those cameras' footage look great. I can always usually tell when something has been shot HD and not on film, but those two cameras have that subliminal 'film-feel' to me.

Also, with digital projection becoming more common at most theaters, you can show your film digitally right away with the RED. And if you need a film print you can transfer to film then. This will cost a bit more than 30-40k though unless you go through one of the smaller digital-to-film transfer houses like DVFilm.

Film is film in the end and the costs of shooting it are usually a drop in the bucket for major motion pictures, but for an indie it can take up a huge chunk of the budget.

I second what Perrone says that with the RED you will give yourself options that an indie film can take advantage of to be successful.

Best,
Andy
 
Obviously RED isn't your only option here. You've mentioned the total budget, but not the synopsis of the film or the camera budget, so it's hard to know how much money you actually need to make the film. Here's some other systems that might be appropriate: F23, F900/950, Varicam, Genesis, D21, HPX series, Viper, etc. etc. And that's just the stuff that actually costs some money. There are plenty of excellent solutions costing even less. I'd rather have a nice fat lighting budget and trim back on camera than vice versa.

RED is hot around these parts but it's a far cry from the only solution out there.
 
Last edited:
hunter richards said:
Who handled the dailies? The post? The color? The film print?

I know you can shoot a feature on the RED, cut it and color it yourself on a mac, and deliver a 2k master from FCP- just for the cost of the equipment. That is fantastic! And that is what is so cool about these new technologies, but thats not what I was talking about here.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm with ya now, sorry about that. His movie will be digitally projected in a small number of theaters in the midwest. He did say he got a quote for $30k for the film print that he will not need due to the digital projection.
 
damn i fell asleep and woke up to all this useful info. cool. :)

the type of film i plan on shooting is an action/thriller where a majority of the film will be shot in a warehouse. the rest of the locations are inside locations (hotel rooms, homes, etc) and a majority of the action will be indoors where light can be easily controlled. i've actually shot this film on a $5k to $10k budget myself this summer and in post production now. we're going to use it as a tool to help raise the money.

Here's some other systems that might be appropriate: F23, F900/950, Varicam, Genesis, D21, HPX series, Viper, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
yea see i've only heard of the varicam, hpx, genesis and f23 (and dont know if the f23 and genesis is an HD cam or film cam) out of that list.

i was kinda thinking shooting straight film would be more cost effective if making a movie aimed for the big screen, but after reading you guys posts i really agree with the idea of being able to see footage playback asap rather than waiting for daillies which is what i was gonna ask about when working with film.

right now RED rents for about $800 per week correct? I'm trying to put a complete budget together that would include a 2 camera shoot. would that $800 include the entire RED package like lenses and accessories for the camera?

another question i had would be that if my film is roughly 90-100 mins - u guys are saying film transfer would be about $40k to $60k correct? is that with or without savings? i heard you can negotiate with rental houses. i plan on factoring in the film transfer fee if i go digital, which seems like it may be bet bet

i'm interested in hearing what route you guys would go if you had the money and why. i can edit pretty good but DO NOT want to edit another feature myself. this time around all i want to do is write and direct if possible (unless we need to save money somewhere then i can wear multiple hats)
 
It would depend entirely on the script. There is no magic bullet.

Truth be told, this is a conversation you should be having with your DP, not a bunch of yahoos on a message board who don't know anything about your film. Get a producer, get a crew, THEN start worrying about this sort of stuff.
 
A friend of mine has two red one's with lenses, sound gear (good sound gear sd 788, schoeps mics) hmi's, video village etc. that he rents out when he is not making his own films. If you are responsible and treat gear with respect I'd bet he would make you a really good deal for 30-60 days. He is not a rental house but an individual that will rent his cameras out a few times a year. I'll pm you his email right now.
 
lol don't tell me Red rents for just $800 a week lol... Not possible... no way! In the UK you can rent a Canon XL for that lol.
 
Several misconceptions here.

The Viper, The Genesis, the F23, the F35 are all very high end digital cinema cameras. They will require a tech to be on set with you from the rental house. You aren't renting those cameras without at least a 1 million dollar policy. And the techs are very expensive. You need one of them to navigate the menus though. COnsidering the camera costs about 400,000 as a full unit. They want to be sure nothing happens to it.

The entire setup for those cameras is something along the lines of 4,000 - 8,000 a day. 3 to 4 day week. You have to factor in sticks, recording unit, camera body, lenses, mattebox, everything.

Shooting film or Red or any other digital system requires a full camera department. You need an AC to pull focus. You need a loader.

The transfer costs can be lowered exceptionally by printing only circled takes with film. Ever notice how many directors yell "Print it"? The "print" take is circled and the lab prints only the circled takes. Saves money.

You need to transfer film right. And it almost needs to go through a DI. Or at least a scene by scene, best light timing session. And a online color correction. You could offline it and go through a DI.

Both methods are expensive. If you are shooting with film, plan on a 5:1 ratio at the very least. Depending on your shooting style. Also, film requires a whole different work set. Many people who work in video wouldn't be able to figure out film and will butcher it. It is a whole different art unto its own. Same with moving from film to video.

The 14 - 15 stops of latitude isn't just about contrast. Film has a graceful failure. So shooting on a sunny day, nothing really blows out. If it does, the information is there to be pulled out. Video blows out much sooner. The F23 is the closest with I believe 11 stops. You don't think you need that extra latitude until you do.
 
Everything you say is true, and yet I don't see any misconceptions anywhere. Has anyone said that you won't need an AC, or that these cameras aren't expensive? Obviously you'll need a $1m insurance policy to rent them... you'll need it to do a million other things you need to do making a feature film as well. Are there really people out there making features without insurance?
 
very good info there

Mattykins said:
Several misconceptions here.

The Viper, The Genesis, the F23, the F35 are all very high end digital cinema cameras. They will require a tech to be on set with you from the rental house. You aren't renting those cameras without at least a 1 million dollar policy. And the techs are very expensive. You need one of them to navigate the menus though. COnsidering the camera costs about 400,000 as a full unit. They want to be sure nothing happens to it.

The entire setup for those cameras is something along the lines of 4,000 - 8,000 a day. 3 to 4 day week. You have to factor in sticks, recording unit, camera body, lenses, mattebox, everything.

Shooting film or Red or any other digital system requires a full camera department. You need an AC to pull focus. You need a loader.

The transfer costs can be lowered exceptionally by printing only circled takes with film. Ever notice how many directors yell "Print it"? The "print" take is circled and the lab prints only the circled takes. Saves money.

You need to transfer film right. And it almost needs to go through a DI. Or at least a scene by scene, best light timing session. And a online color correction. You could offline it and go through a DI.

Both methods are expensive. If you are shooting with film, plan on a 5:1 ratio at the very least. Depending on your shooting style. Also, film requires a whole different work set. Many people who work in video wouldn't be able to figure out film and will butcher it. It is a whole different art unto its own. Same with moving from film to video.

The 14 - 15 stops of latitude isn't just about contrast. Film has a graceful failure. So shooting on a sunny day, nothing really blows out. If it does, the information is there to be pulled out. Video blows out much sooner. The F23 is the closest with I believe 11 stops. You don't think you need that extra latitude until you do.
Click to expand...
 
Just a general comment on the budget.

Make sure that when you talk about 500-750k budget a good chunk of that (like 20-30%) need to go towards marketing. Marketing is the biggest missing part of most indie movies and without marketing there is no way to make the money back.

In fact i would say if you can cut some of the cost by going the "red" route and allocate some of the money towards marketing that would be a wise thing to do.

my 2 cents

-krish
 
dougspice said:
Everything you say is true, and yet I don't see any misconceptions anywhere. Has anyone said that you won't need an AC, or that these cameras aren't expensive? Obviously you'll need a $1m insurance policy to rent them... you'll need it to do a million other things you need to do making a feature film as well. Are there really people out there making features without insurance?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am sure there are people out there going without insurance. The misconception thing was based on the idea there are too many times large camera packages get recommended for all the wrong reasons without people fully understanding how these packages work. And the differences and similarities between film and digital workflow.

Also based on the argument why digital is 'better' than film. One needs to understand what makes the film image a film image.

I guess I just had a long day, and I was getting sick of seeing incorrect comparisons between film and digital as well as the gravitation towards recommending cameras without fully understanding them.

IE. You wouldn't want to use the Viper in Sodium Vapor lighting scenarios. It doesn't work well with them. The Viper also puts a strange green cast on the footage it outputs requiring a more talented colorist to pull the correct colors out. Just one of many examples.
 
look guys, film is film, ofter imitated but never duplicated (or something like that:)
anyway film is not going away in a long time, look at all these cameras, what do we all look for"film look" why? because we are trying to look for a cheap solution to the feel and look of film now the real argument is weather in the future the digital look will become the standard, say for example the look of what red gives us without tranfering to film, this digital look "could" become the standard in a near future, I say maybe because we never know what tomorrow will bring
 
Oh I know Alex. I use both quite frequently - depends on the project. I don't want this entering into a film v digital argument.

I could go into more detail about different systems working with different scenarios if I just knew a little bit more about the film itself. How long he is planning on shooting. What situations. What is the most complex shot. What is he looking for in the camera - in the look.

Stuff like that.
 
Exactly.

Hunter, it's a still from a Vietnam movie that I somehow ended up being not only a producer but also a bit player in. I was the radio operator during a firefight. Shot on a RED ONE, by the way. Could have been shot on any other camera as well. :)
 
Well, Mickey, if your aim is theatrical release, shoot film, edit on film and print on film. It's more cost effective, better quality, and a great library asset. The only exception is if you're doing a star wars type special effects movie. Then it's easier to do the CGI in digital and output the final master to 35mm film for preservation purposes.

Digital cameras of today will be obsolete in a few years; 35mm film can be telecined to much higher resolutions than any digital cameras in existence today and in development for some time to come.

And if digital cameras truly catch up to film, filmmakers can move up to 70mm and better emulsions. Kodak has introduced the first Vision 3 so far, the 5219. There will be more improvements in film. Digital will never catch up to film.

But getting back to the process of making 35mm prints: it's much easier going film to film in the printing. If you have a limited CGI content, you can do that in digital and convert it to 35mm for insertion in the 35mm negative.

The 35mm procedures are tried and proven. Call DeLuxe and talk to an account executive before you plan your shoot. If you want to save 75% on film stock contact me. I'll sell you the film and provide you with free consultation.

In ten to twenty years maybe digital releasing may become practical, then you can switch to digital altogether. IMHO :-)
 
filmman said:
Well, Mickey, if your aim is theatrical release, shoot film, edit on film and print on film. It's more cost effective, better quality, and a great library asset.
Click to expand...

And how many full chemical process films did we see last year? You'd think if this was the way to save money, more studios would be flocking to it in these hard economic times...

filmman said:
35mm film can be telecined to much higher resolutions than any digital cameras in existence today and in development for some time to come.
Click to expand...

And yet nearly everyone telecines to 2k. Even the largest studios. I wonder why that is? The highest telecine rate I've heard of is either 8k or 12k and that was for IMAX tests. RED's Recent announcement of a 24K+ medium format resolution (should it actually come to pass) seems a fair bit higher. Wouldn't you say? And Hasselblad is already at 25K with still cameras, so I wouldn't call it a pipedream either.

filmman said:
Digital will never catch up to film.
Click to expand...

You better run and tell that to Nikon and Canon. I seem to remember reading the same thing in Shutterbug and Popular photography shortly after I bought my F4. Do you think more pros shoot the F5 or the D2X right now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top