quote:

---

My film is 70 min long and i was hoping to be able to buy about 160 mins worth of stock to shoot on. That'll give me two takes. I'm a newbie so i hope this makes sense.

---

Not... really....

What you need to consider is that you'll typically waste at least 10% of the film on things like slates and starting and stopping the camera (up to 50% or more if you shoot short shots), and unless you get everything done on the first take you won't be able to shoot any coverage of the scene. All you'll be able to do is stick the footage you shot together and hope that every shot works.

About the lowest shooting ratio we've had on any movie I've worked on is around 4:1, and 10:1 is more common (Hollywood probably hits 100:1 or more on some movies). The only way I can think of to get away with a 2:1 ratio would be to shoot the entire scene as a wide shot and rehearse the actors so well beforehand that they'd be guaranteed to get it right. You might get a movie that way, but you'd be lucky to get a good movie.

Personally, if I had that little money I'd seriously consider trying to borrow an HD camera instead: Sony seem to be open to lending them to independent directors for free if you have a good script, and you can do all your post-production editing in SD format on a home PC and only have to pay for the final edit to conform the HD masters. HD is video, but it's not that much worse than 35mm film.

As a reference point, I shot a five-minute 16mm short a few years back, had it processed and telecined, edited it, had the negative cut and a print made, and just doing that cost me about 3,000 pounds. Film is expensive, though we could probably have halved that if we'd hired cheap equipment and used short ends or other sources of cheap film.

Thanx for replying to my message Mark. I've considered a HD camera and i am thinking of maybe borrowing one cause the image they record looks almost like film. How do you go about asking Sony if you can borrow one free? Is there someone to write to?

And yet, film still gets me excited. I've shot many student short videos and on my last production i had my actors get it right, mostly first take as we rehersed so much before hand. However, your correct saying it'll be hard to do short takes.

However, i was thinking about shooting my film in black and white. Would that save me money?

And, you said you could have halved the amount you spent on your short if you'd used short ends/recans and cheap equipment. That's what i plan to do too if shoot on film. Do you know if short ends look okay?

I'm not sure about Sony: you'd probably have to find out who's involved in the HD side of the company and talk to them specifically. From what I've heard they're quite eager to get people shooting on HD rather than film, or were as of a few months back.

Last I heard, shooting black and white could work out more expensive than shooting color because so few people do it now: you'd do best to look up film stock prices and check with the lab that you're going to use to see how processing prices compare.

As for short ends, I ended up having to shoot the titles and credits for my short on a short end, and it came out OK. But it's always a toss-up, even if the people selling it to you have tested the film you've usually got little idea of where it came from or how it was stored.

Hi Spielbergo,

Unless you know someone at a lab and own the camera equipment (or can borrow it for free), I'd say it is pretty unrealistic to be thinking about shooting a feature on film, definitely 35mm, but probably also 16mm. The processing alone will kill you in the UK, let alone the film stock. And then you're talking about wanting to hire crew on top of that. It's just not practical.

If you have ?10K available, I'd second what has already been said in the other responses to your post - try and get hold of some HD kit for free (I wouldn't bother if you have to pay for it, because the kit will be very expensive to hire). Get in touch with Sony Broadcast in the UK (Google is your friend) and try to see if they have an "emerging filmmakers" manager or something along those lines.

I guess it's also worth pondering the question as to whether it really matters what format you shoot on. I'm assuming that this is your first film, in which case the shooting format is probably less-important to a large degree. If this is your first film, chances are it won't actually be that good (particularly if you don't have an extensive track record in making shorts).

This isn't meant to sound like a slur or suggest you don't have talent, but the reality is, it's experience which allows you to deliver the best quality. So you need to sit down and think realistically about how to get the best results from the money you spend, and logic would dicate that minimising your financial risk and maxmising your ability to experiment (and thereby learn) is the best approach.

It may be better to shoot on DVCAM and spend more of you money on getting a good DOP who knows how to light a scene properly. In their obsession with achieving a "film look", most indie filmmakers forget that lighting is probably the single most important thing which affects how the finished film looks. Having a good DOP and shooting on DVCAM may actually get you better visual results than having no DOP and trying to shoot it on film.

Ben C.

--
filmmaking.net
(Incorporating the Internet Filmmaker's FAQ)

Please note the opinions expressed here are those of the author only and do not constitute legal advice. The author cannot accept and liability whatsoever for inaccurate or outdated information contained within.
--

Thanx for the replies Mark and Ben. You've both been really helpful.

I've directed a few short films over the last couple of years. I shot mostly on dv although not on dvcam which i hear is very good. I've practised directing and i've worked really hard on editing too. Meanwhile, i wrote my feature script which is 70 min long and v good. And i was hoping with the money i'd saved during this time to have a chance at making my feature on film.

It seems to me you are both experts/very expreienced in filmmaking. There must be a way of making a feature on film cheap? I can even double my budget to ?20,000 possibly. Wouldn't shooting my film using short ends/re cans etc save money? And I know i'd need a dop and i was hoping to find a young dop who would be happy to help me for little money, based on the strength of my script. I was also hoping to hire cheap equipment. And also, the cast of actors i have are great. Very professinal and free and they'll mostly get it right first take. I just want to make my feature on a format that can be played at sundance and at movie theatres. HD sounds good, but i'm thinkig festivals favour film more at present?

However, i think HD is cool. Once upon a time in Mexico was shot using HD video and i was wondering if i'd be able to get a silmialr sort of look to my feature, on my budget?

Finally, what are you two up to? Do you direct? And Mark are you from the UK?

Thanx a bunch, Spielbergo.

Yeah, I'm sure you could shoot it for 10k if you used short ends and a cheap camera, but unless it's the DoP's own camera and you know it's properly maintained, that's a risk too. It will really depend on how much risk you want to take, since your entire movie could come to nothing due to duff stock or a duff camera... or it could be great and cost relatively little.

I'm not sure what festivals do with HD at the moment, as I haven't had anything to enter in them for a while: that's an interesting question. You may find they can project it directly, or you might have to spend 20k on a blowup to 35mm film, which would make it a false saving to begin with.

Yeah, I'm in the UK, but looking at emigrating to Canada at the moment (as my girlfriend moved back there): I haven't directed any shorts for a while, this year I'm writing feature scripts. I've got two now that are fairly decent and two more I'm working on, then I need to come up with one that I can shoot cheaply to convince people to give me money to shoot the more expensive ones. Of course if I do move I'll have to find a writer who can translate them from English to Canadian for me :).

Spielbergo
I film using DV cams and to be honest the video is very good, I edit using Final Cut and the end result IMO is film worthy, and like Ben said the right lighting can make all the difference. I think it could get you the quality that your looking for. My suggestion is to sit down and start planning a budget and break down your options there. Then you can tweak area's of the production to try and make your cost. If you end up determining that you can't make the film you want for the amount that you have, then you'll at least have a monetary goal that you'll need to reach to make the movie you want.

I know this post is actually rather old now so if anything I have to say is a little outdated I apologise.
In my humble opinion your budget for 35mm is going to be a little tight. Sure you can get deals from Kodak on stock (a few years back I bought several rolls of 16mm direct from them and only paid for half) but it's all the extra bits that are gonna kill you.
I worked on a 35mm trailer shoot a while back (which incidentally spent ?5,000 shooting just 3 mins of finished film) and while it looked superb the extra effort required probably wasn't worth the return. If you're shelling out so much on a decent camera and 35mm stock then you need to spend the same on sufficient lighting, a dolly etc all of which costs and then added to that you need the manpower and transport to back it all up. We had a nice little dolly but for one shot we were shooting about 400 yards in the woods and it took six of us to carry the bloody thing, not to mention a van just for that bit of kit itself (gotta watch the suspension).
I think the guy above is probably right. Your first movie aint necessarily gonna be all that hot. I shot my first feature on DV for under ?1000 and it wasn't great, but I didn't spend the earth but at least I proved to myself that I can make a feature length film and I have that knowledge behind me now.

p.s. very jealous... wish I had ?20000 to spend.

elmarachi was shot on film for 7 grand so it can be done.

quote:

---

elmarachi was shot on film for 7 grand so it can be done.

---

Unfortunately both film stock and lab costs are significantly higher in the UK than in the US.

Also Rodriguez had quite a bit of non-financial help from the people who were making "Like Water For Chocolate" nearby, not to mention all the money that Columbia spent on the film to get it presentable.

Ben C.

--
filmmaking.net
(Incorporating the Internet Filmmaker's FAQ)

Please note the opinions expressed here are those of the author only and do not constitute legal advice. The author cannot accept and liability whatsoever for inaccurate or outdated information contained within.
--