quote:

---

Originally posted by questioner1

I was wondering how much it costs to do a retake when filming a feature film, and which specific things would determine most of that price.

So my question is, how much does it cost to film an extra minute on set?
Is the actual film expensive? (the 35 mm film they use in professional feature films). are the actors usually the most expensive part? (depending on the actors of course) or renting the studio?

I mean excluding everything that has to be done only once, such as building the set, casting, etc.

---

Time does equal money in a very big way.

Look at it this way. Say you plan on shooting one scene in a particular day. The Director plans to have ten shots in that specific scene. A standard crew works for their rates on an 8-hour day, meaning that as soon as you shoot longer than eight hours, you're in OT.

So, if you wanted to NOT go into OT to save money, you'd (more or less) divide that eight hours by ten shots. That's roughly one-hour per setup. A setup is all the time it takes to block, setup (camera, lighting, props, wardrobe, makeup, hair, set dressing, sound).

Now, you need to realize that a great deal of that time will be spent setting up the master and that subsequent coverage won't take as much time, so doing a simple division of time/setups isn't entirely accurate.

So, it takes a bit of experience to really get a sense of how long setups will take, as in, the master may take 30 minutes to setup while moving in for coverage will take 15 or so. After that, it's guesstimating the math on how long everything takes.

Another way to look at this is that if you have ten hours to shoot ten shots without going into overtime, then in general you have one hour per setup. Now, lets say that hypothetically, you "waste" five minutes per setup in some way, that's five minutes times ten setups which equals an addition fifty minutes onto your day that is "unproductive" time. Unproductive, as in, time not spent actually working toward getting film in the can. Fifty minutes could equal an additional hour if the rest of the "productive" time is spent making the movie. But if the day went slow (due to longer rehearsals or longer than expected setups), then that additional fifty minutes puts you into an hour or more of OT depending on just how much additional time was "productive."

So, it's not enough to just ask how much an additional "minute" of filming costs. There's no way to really quantify that as the definition of "productive time" can vary. But assuming that "productive time" means that your First AD is keeping the machine moving constantly at peak efficiency throughout the day, then any additional costs incurred wouldn't be due to "wasted time," but rather due to the desire on the part of the "filmmakers" to create the best project possible.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Imagine for a minute that the crews are paid for an 8 hour day, you've run 7 hours and you are basically done for the day but the director wants another take, I don't see how the extra shot will really cost any money at all beyond the cost of film and DAT tape.

I guess what I'm saying is it is impossible to really put a value on each shot since there are a lot of variables. If you go into overtime its huge, but if you still might make your day an extra shot that doesn't require setup changes might not cost, but if that same shot pushes back the next setup it could cause problems.

And how much does it cost to have twenty takes, none of them usable for various reasons. Coming back later has got to be significantly more.

RJSchwarz

I see from your reactions that i was indeed thinking too simplistic about it.
But for example, how much does 1 minute of 35 mm film cost? Just the material itself i mean.

And let's say you've set up all the camera's and the set is done and the actor's have rehearsed, etc. I know it depends on the movie, but can you estimate the cost of one extra minute of film time, compared to the cost of setting up the set, makeup etc, if it's not during overtime? I know now that it's not that easily expressed in a number, but I just want to get a better image of what part of shooting a film costs the most money and thus what you have to be careful with spending.

So ofcourse you can't name a certain number, but could you make an estimate?

quote:

---

Originally posted by questioner1

I see from your reactions that i was indeed thinking too simplistic about it.
But for example, how much does 1 minute of 35 mm film cost? Just the material itself i mean.

And let's say you've set up all the camera's and the set is done and the actor's have rehearsed, etc. I know it depends on the movie, but can you estimate the cost of one extra minute of film time, compared to the cost of setting up the set, makeup etc, if it's not during overtime? I know now that it's not that easily expressed in a number, but I just want to get a better image of what part of shooting a film costs the most money and thus what you have to be careful with spending.

So ofcourse you can't name a certain number, but could you make an estimate?

---

In hard costs (the last time I checked), it comes to roughly a dollar per foot of film for raw stock and processing. Then there is printing and telecine and DI and distribution prints.

I'm really trying to quantify this hypothetical cost per minute that you're asking for, but it's really not as easy as that. I mean, as I've said, you can take the total hard cost of the crew for eight hours and divide by eight to find the "per minute" cost of crew. But how much film rolls through the camera in that time is the variable. And that is determined by how long setups are plus how many takes it takes to get the take you are happy with. Some setups might be done in one or two takes. Others might require ten takes. And of course length of takes vary greatly. Some are fifteen seconds from "Action" to "Cut" while others can easily go an entire magazine (ten minutes).

There are too many variables involved to say definitively that one-minute costs "this much." I suppose at the END OF THE DAY, you could do some math to figure it out (using info from the Production Report) and then maybe you could estimate what your tomorrow might cost, but since every production is different, there's no way to really tell. The best you can do is to guesstimate what it SHOULD cost to shoot the entire project... then you get the funding you can... then budget for that real number you have in hand and do your best knowing the compromises you know you'll have to make.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

The standard way a movie is shot is the camera is brought up to speed before the Director says action. That means film is running through the camera and being used before the actors even start. How much is burned is highly variable depending upon the sound guy being ready and the actors and the Director of Photography. So your minute of film might have a little extra tagged on as well for each different take. Probably not much to be honest but its worth considering as well.

Film is expensive which is why it is being replaced bit by bit by DV. I think Brian's guess is probably the best you'll get.

RJSchwarz

Film is expensive, but so is the workflow for HD. Plus, electronic cameras are not good for everything in every situation. Film cameras are still better at high-speed and in extreme temperatures.

The upfront cost savings with HD often are lost later on down the post-production workflow so that's another think to consider.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Wow, I didn't know it was that complicated.
That makes me wonder though, if the director is on a low budget, how does he decide whether to do extra takes if he's not completely satisfied with what he's got? Does he just have to follow his guts? Or is it easier to know how much things cost, if you know the movie you're working on?

Don't Film shoots usually go over budget anyways?

quote:

---

Originally posted by masterspud

Don't Film shoots usually go over budget anyways?

---

Not always. The benefit of having an experienced UPM and First AD is that they can generally estimate a reasonably accurate schedule based on an detailed script breakdown. By knowing the requirements of the project (after the script breakdown, extensive discussions with the Director, the Production Designer, the DP and any other key Department Heads, and coming up with a realistic schedule), a realistic budget can be estimated before they ask for money from a studio or investors.

Of course there can be overruns due to scheduling issues caused by weather or problems in not getting setups finished quickly enough during the days, but in general, there is a 10% contingency built-in so account for the unexpected.

I recommend these books to help with scheduling and budgeting:

http://www.amazon.com/Film-Scheduling-Long-Shoot-Movie/dp/0943728398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264428007&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Scheduling-Budgeting-Workbook-Filmmakers-Library/dp/094372807X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264428007&sr=1-3

http://www.amazon.com/Film-Budgeting-Much-Shoot-Movie/dp/0943728657/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264428007&sr=1-7

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by questioner1

Wow, I didn't know it was that complicated.
That makes me wonder though, if the director is on a low budget, how does he decide whether to do extra takes if he's not completely satisfied with what he's got? Does he just have to follow his guts? Or is it easier to know how much things cost, if you know the movie you're working on?

---

Like I said, experience will tell you how long setups should take. Complicated and/or large sets combined with complicated blocking and camera moves generally means longer setup times. But, usually the longest setups of the day are the masters and additional coverage generally just means altering the camera angle/lens/move with slight tweaks in the lighting.

So, if you go into a day with an idea of the specific shots you want, you (or the AD) should be able to estimate how long each setup should take and then you'd just do the math from there to know how much time is left over in your day for the actual take.

Now, having said that, it isn't advised that a Director walk away from any shot until he's satisfied that the performance and other technical goals are on film. You've just put all this effort and money into getting everyone and everything there and set up so it doesn't make sense to not get what you want on film.

Of course, that said, most people don't have a blank check so there are limits on how much film can run through the gate and how long you take for each setup. When you've got a wishlist of ten shots for a day, you can't realistically spend half your day on just one or two of those shots. This is where your pre-production efforts come in to save the day. By hiring competent crew (and enough of them) and skilled talent (and having rehearsals before physical production begins), you should be able to show up on set and move through each planned setup with ease and get the take you're happy with within five takes or so. In general. 🙂

While the schedule and budget will be very real factors weighing on a Director, it is generally advised to never walk away from a setup until you know you have it because you'll have to live with it forever. It's not likely that you'll ever be able to reassemble the elements necessary to reshoot if you're not happy in the edit bay. So, do your homework and preparation properly in Pre-Production so that when the day comes to shoot a scene, most of the guesswork and unknowns aren't even there and you can relax as you put time and energy into getting the performances you want instead of worrying about money and schedules.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

You might have noticed that low budget movies occasionally appear to be of inferior quality. That is often because lighting setups can be rushed or non-existant and the director is forced to move on and accept a mediocre take to keep on budget.

If you budget and schedule correctly (and have a screenplay that is forgiving of both by having limited locations for example) you should be alright. Low budget movies often really cut the time and budget to the minimum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by questioner1

Wow, I didn't know it was that complicated.
That makes me wonder though, if the director is on a low budget, how does he decide whether to do extra takes if he's not completely satisfied with what he's got? Does he just have to follow his guts? Or is it easier to know how much things cost, if you know the movie you're working on?

---

RJSchwarz

Thanks very much bjdzyak and rjschwarz. I'm learning a lot here.

I'm wondering though, for example in choreography scenes, is it normal to do the entire choreography completely in detail before shooting, or do director's decide certain changes depending on what they see on camera when they're shooting?

quote:

---

Originally posted by questioner1

Thanks very much bjdzyak and rjschwarz. I'm learning a lot here.

I'm wondering though, for example in choreography scenes, is it normal to do the entire choreography completely in detail before shooting, or do director's decide certain changes depending on what they see on camera when they're shooting?

---

If you're talking about DANCE choreography, in most cases, the choreography is worked out and practiced extensively in pre-production so that when the performers get to the set, the focus is on getting it on film. Ideally, the Director will be attending some of the rehearsals and/or viewing recordings of the rehearsals so that any changes/suggestions are made at that time.

Once the shoot day(s) come, wide masters will shoot the performance as practiced. That said, once you get into coverage, repositioning of the Actors/Performers will happen to accommodate lights, cameras, crew, and various angles.

Of course the Director CAN decide to change anything he wants to "on the day," but there are definite ramifications if those changes are significant. Having the Performers and Choreographer have to work out the changes on the set while the rest of the cast and crew sit waiting cuts into your day and will likely result in longer hour and more overtime payments coming out of the budget. OR, to avoid longer hours and/or OT, you'd have to CUT shots or scenes because of the time you've spent altering the plan.

In most cases, fight sequences run roughly the same way, though changes to the plan are not quite as extensive as a large dance number could be.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

I've directed a few musicals and many music videos that used
dance choreography. It is normal for the dance numbers to
be completely choreographed before the shoot day. It's very
rare for changes to be made.

Very much like fight choreography by the time the director is
involved most things are set in stone. It becomes the directors
job to capture the dancing in the best way, not to change
the choreography.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)