Studio vs On-Location - Pros & Cons

F

Fahad

Veteran
so this is a director and producer type question.

i've read that, once upon a time, most (if not all) films were shot in a studio. then a few 'revolutionary' filmmakers decided that it was better, and cheaper, to shoot on-location. then hollywood followed suit. not that hollywood made their on-location productions cheaper, but rather to keep up with popular trends.

now, almost all films are shot on-location. exceptions to this would be VFX heavy productions (ala 300).

so, what are the pros and cons to shooting in a studio vs. on-location?

i'm assuming it's cheaper to shoot on-location. but, it's far more practical to shoot in a studio. artistically, i'd think that shooting in a studio would give a director absolute control.

any thoughts?
 
A studio is a million times superior in every possible way, because it lets you isolate and exterminate all the variables that make location shooting such a crapshoot. Outdoors/on location, you're at the mercy of the weather, the cloud cover, the pace the sun moves at, trains, planes, gawkers, looky-loos, you have to deal with blocking streets and having cops on-set, securing locations, getting permits, getting location insurance, neighbors demanding payoffs to keep quiet, unruly birds/animals/barking dogs, the hassles of having to supply trailers/wardrobe cars on location, catering on-location, power management issues, transporting gear, breaking down at the end of the day and starting up again in the morning, unpredictable interference issues with microphones, uncontrolled heat or cold (i.e., supplying heaters or setting up shade and tents and fans and even portable air conditioner units), etc.

Studios solve all that. But they're not free. The downsides to shooting in a studio are:
1) You have to rent the space
2) It's a big empty square box, so if you want to shoot anything, you have to build sets
3) It's not that easy to replicate the outdoors, in a studio. It can be done, but then you get into matte paintings and all that stuff... although, you'd probably be surprised at just how much "location/exterior" work is actually shot in a studio.

Studios save unholy amounts of time. It's unreal just how much crapola you don't have to deal with, when shooting in studio. And time is (usually) money. When you've got a crew of people who cost money, the savings of studio shooting are just unbelievable. Yes it costs money to build sets, but that can be done by a small portion of the total crew and set up before the entire crew shows up and the dollar clock starts running for real.

However, if your time is free (as in, a bunch of guerillas on a no-budget shoot working for free) then talking someone into giving you permission to shoot on their location is pretty much the only option you've got.

I'd take a studio every day, every single chance, every time, for everything I could possibly make it work for, if the budget permitted. Especially if you're dealing with expensive time (a one-day name actor that's costing you $25,000 per day... that's $2500 per hour just for the actor, not to mention the crew pay too, so when you hear the sound guy saying "wait, hold up... there's a truck..." that's costing you maybe $100 for every minute you have to wait. At a hundred bucks a minute burn rate, studio economics are just too compelling to ignore.

If, on the other hand, you're a two-guy crew with a DSLR and a Lowel 3-light kit, studio economics may not make nearly as much sense.
 
Last edited:
thanks for the thorough reply, Barry.

so, depending on budget, a studio shoot can theoretically save money?

i did a search and found a studio that's around $1500+ per 12 hour day (not including other nessecities). but that's LA prices.

hmm. i like the idea. it'll depend on how cheap (and abstract) one could get/make the sets.
 
Studios can save tons of money, but only if you're already spending it. Like I said, if your total cast and crew burn rate is $100/minute, then spending $1500 on a studio is a no-brainer, it's 15 minutes' worth of dough but it'll save you hours throughout the day.

But if $1500/day is a lot of money to the production, then it's not likely going to result in savings. If it's a micro- or no-budget production that is relying on getting things for free, and is paying people $50 or $100/day, then it's a lot harder to justify the $1500/day studio cost.

So it really is very dependent on what level of production you're doing.
 
yeah that makes perfect sense.

i ask because i'm trying to familiarize myself with everything on the production side of filmmaking. it'll help with development of ideas and business models, too.

thanks again.
 
A few other points...

Shooting on location also requires transporting the cast, crew and gear to the location (plus lodging costs?); shooting permits, which often require an insurance bond (NYC requires $1 million of liability insurance no matter how small the production); and security.

The sound on location - even interiors - is quite often beyond your control, so you may have no choice but to ADR parts of the film which can be quite costly and time consuming, not to mention that ADR performances sometimes fall far short emotionally of the production sound dialog performances.

It is not at all unusual for exteriors to be shot on location and interiors to be shot on a sound stage - the character walks up to the door of a brownstone in Manhattan, opens the door, walks in, and then the interior shot of the character entering and closing the door is done on a sound stage in LA.
 
good points there, bob.

coincidentally, as i was reading this thread, there's star trek iii on tv, and it looks like everything was shot in a studio (just like the series), interior and exterior.
 
Barry_Green said:
3) It's not that easy to replicate the outdoors, in a studio. It can be done, but then you get into matte paintings and all that stuff... although, you'd probably be surprised at just how much "location/exterior" work is actually shot in a studio.
Click to expand...

Do people still use matte paintings vs greenscreen? I know that they did matte paintings for the Dune miniseries, but it gave the series a surreal operatic feel to it.

Check out this demo reel. Shows just how much is shot on location and how some aren't. Especially look at 2:12.

(click on virtual backlot) http://www.stargatestudios.net/page.php?section=4&page=427

Honestly though, it would be a dream to shoot in a studio. You know how often we've had to stop shooting outside on a front lawn because of planes, trains, people, even cars at times (change your mufflers! and stop buying things to make your cars louder!!!!). We took at least twice the amount of time trying to shoot around these variables. In the end we even had to ADR a few lines... *sigh*

Shooting on location is a *****, but like Barry said, if you're low-no budget, then there's not much to do. OR convince your school to let you use their studio. My school has a greenscreen room and a big studio, that I may be able to get for free or cheap.
 
Last edited:
In defense of shooting on location there is a realism you get on location that can't be totally faked, I don't care how well it's done. Universal wanted to shoot Jaws in the studio tank, but Spielberg insisted of going out to sea and I think the film benefitted from it. The Lord of the Rings gets some verisimilitude by having many portions of it shot on real locations in New Zealand instead of a soundstage. Yeah, it's a ***** for the the crew, but sometimes you can get too comfortable. The Star Wars trilogy is another example. The first trilogy had a greater portion shot on real locations, and feels more real because of it. Also, because the actors weren't on a sterile greenscreen stage, their performances felt less staged because they were really there standing on a real set. Witness also Indy 4. For interiors of course, there's not much tangible benefit to shooting on location if you can afford a soundstage.
 
I agree with everything said here. The one thing I want to point out is that your studio shoot will also have the added expense of building and decorating convincing sets. That isn't cheap, so if you are renting a studio for $1500 a day to have to also factor in the cost of construction, plus the days in the studio for that to be done.

If they have existing sets you can use, that might be better, but it won't be free.

Some studios packages differ depending on how much you are renting fro them. A $1500 a day studio might become $1000 a day if you rent a grip and lighting package.

And make sure that the rate includes everything you need, like A/C, heat, dressing rooms, etc. Most studios are clear about what they provide for their price, but it never hurts to double-check that you aren't getting bumped an extra hundred bucks for A/C or heat.
 
Batutta said:
The Star Wars trilogy is another example. The first trilogy had a greater portion shot on real locations, and feels more real because of it. Also, because the actors weren't on a sterile greenscreen stage, their performances felt less staged because they were really there standing on a real set. Witness also Indy 4. For interiors of course, there's not much tangible benefit to shooting on location if you can afford a soundstage.
Click to expand...

Dude, I KNEW Mos Eisley was real!
 
Jim Brennan said:
Dude, I KNEW Mos Eisley was real!
Click to expand...

You'd better believe it! Here's Luke's home, still standing--

mini-starwars2.jpg
tatooine.jpg
 
Jim Brennan said:
I agree with everything said here. The one thing I want to point out is that your studio shoot will also have the added expense of building and decorating convincing sets. That isn't cheap, so if you are renting a studio for $1500 a day to have to also factor in the cost of construction, plus the days in the studio for that to be done.

If they have existing sets you can use, that might be better, but it won't be free.
.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of something as simple as a NYC bodega. It would have to cost thousands(probably tens of thousands) and days to re-create one accurately and make it feel real.

But these days I am absolutely amazed at the green screen stuff they get away with on TV. Part set, part screen. There was a demo reel floating around for a while that made my jaw drop, because they used each element so wisely. It wasn't all set and wasn't all green screen in most cases.
 
Like everything else, there is never one "right" answer. There is only the answer that is best for you under your circumstances.

Personally, after shooting countless location gigs, I would LOVE the luxury and control of a studio.
 
Fahad said:
good points there, bob.

coincidentally, as i was reading this thread, there's star trek iii on tv, and it looks like everything was shot in a studio (just like the series), interior and exterior.
Click to expand...

No actual spaceship, no deep space, no planets!
 
Otis Grapsas said:
No actual spaceship, no deep space, no planets!
Click to expand...

no!!! thanks for ruining the illusion! :P

----

thanks for all the replies, guys. very informative.

running a studio production facility seems to be a less risky business venture than actually making a film.

property (land and building) considerations aside, how much would it cost to 'facilitate' a video production studio facility? i.e. what would a production company expect to find in a rented studio?

i've found resources online to what you need as a production studio (cameras, tripods, mics, lights, etc. etc.). but i haven't found what a facility needs. since the facility itself wouldn't be producing content, i'm assuming some stuff isn't needed, and some other stuff is needed.
 
Thanks Barry. I've have been leaning toward a studio location for 1 of my features. I have access to a 25,000 sqft warehouse for next to nothing for up to 3 months. Plus having owned my own construction company I know a pretty handy group of guys who can make this happen. My only beef is clean up after production raps. Oh yeah, and I will be hiring a kick ass Gaffer.
 
Fahad said:
no!!! thanks for ruining the illusion! :P

i've found resources online to what you need as a production studio (cameras, tripods, mics, lights, etc. etc.). but i haven't found what a facility needs. since the facility itself wouldn't be producing content, i'm assuming some stuff isn't needed, and some other stuff is needed.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sQXCR8U1Ls

It looks a little cheap on analog video but they could afford a Vulcan director. That has to be more expensive that DGA.

I imagine a studio needs a decent height, quality power distribution capable of high currents, sound insulation, air conditioning, a ceiling that can support catwalks and heavy equipment, a kitchen and a bathroom.
 
GRENCH said:
I have access to a 25,000 sqft warehouse for next to nothing for up to 3 months.
Click to expand...
Well, a warehouse does not a studio make...

Okay, let me rephrase that -- seems like everyone thinks that a warehouse is a great thing to make a studio out of, and usually it's a pretty lousy thing to make a studio out of. Because a warehouse is almost invariably located in the absolute noisiest part of town (the industrial area) so there'll be airplanes overhead and train tracks nearby, and freeway noise. Now, if you're talking about a warehouse out in the boonies somewhere, that's much more appealing...

What do you want in a studio? Lots of clean power, lots of clear-span space, and lots of soundproofing. And silent air conditioning. None of those are likely to be found in a warehouse.

Warehouses usually have some level of dirty power, a rattly swamp cooler, and all sorts of crossbeams and poles to prop the roof up. And they'll have noisy rattly roll-up doors. A proper studio would have something like the good old "elephant doors", eighteen inches thick of concrete riding on tracks and big enough to let an elephant in. And a loading dock. And clean three-phase power.

Air conditioning depends on the area you're in, I guess, but unless you're in Toronto or Wisconsin or some cold place, you're gonna want air, and you want that air to be quiet. A studio air conditioning system will be built with massive ducts and tons of baffling so that the cold air just gently falls from the ducts, rather than whistling through and rattling and whatnot.

As for soundproofing -- mass is key for blocking low bass frequencies. Most any warehouse will wipe out high frequencies, but the low frequencies (airplane and truck rumbling) will pass right through. You need mass. A foot of concrete will help. And then you need sound baffling, so it doesn't become a great big echo chamber. So a good studio wall would be a foot of concrete, with an acoustic panel or sound dampening material over it, so the mass of the concrete stops most external sound from entering, and the acoustic panels soak up the reflected echo.

Finally, you want some size. 6,000 s.f. is about the minimum reasonable size for a commercials stage, and 18,000 s.f. is a standard size for a film or television stage, with some going up to about 25,000 s.f. And that size needs to be clear-span, with no pillars supporting the roof, it has to be open/accessible space if you want to do it right. And it should be high, 25' isn't that great, 30+ feet is better. And a catwalk up there would be great, a catwalk and a grid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top