Low Cost HD System

[Guest Pete Wright]

Thanks everyone for their input. All this is spread over too many threads with my and Jokozami posts. Let me try to recap.

 

Red Lake camera is using 2/3" Kodal CCD with microlens. The camera comes with a control box. Together they cost $6,500.

 

Mac Computer with FCP HD and 2 hours of uncompressed recording will use 2:1 compression for storage. $11,000

 

15 hr of separate storage of 10 bit, 4:2:2, 2:1 compressed will be $12K

 

MPEG4 backup storage, encoded by FCP HD, on a separate drive, will be $6K

 

Lenses. I'll use the Nikon or Canon to C-mount adapter. Sigma and Tokina lenses will be $2000.

 

I'll use a high contrast high definitopn super wide C-mount German industrial lens for $1,000.

 

I'll use a German high resolution C mount macro lens and will make my own 35 mm adapter per dvinfo. $1,000.

 

Viewfinder $1,000

 

Monitor $3,500

 

Glidecam $500

 

Tripod, $500

 

Truck battery on a dolly/cart and a converter to 12V $1,000

 

mics, mixer $3,000

 

Lights $2,000

 

Misc. $2,000

 

TOTAL is $53,000

 

What I will have is a 1080p 10 bit system recorded in 4:2:2 (after conversion), with 2:1 comprersion. The system will record off of a camera. It will convert, compress, and store the footage. Then I'll use the same computer for editing.

 

I'll be able to replace the camera with a better one or with a camcorder in the future. The same goes for the lenses, etc.

 

If I bought the upcoming pro JVC HDV camera, I would pay $20,000 for the camera, $20,000 for the 2/3" HD lens, and would have 19 Mbps 720p HDV. It would be easier to use. The quality would be awful.

 

I see the above system as an interim system. My lenses and 35 mm adapter will cost me less than one HD prime so if I'll end up throwing them away, or sell them on eBay for 1/2 price, no big deal. The camera and controller will cost me 1/10 the cost of Varicam. My NLE will be used to record from the camera.

 

I know it will be inconvenient as hell to use this system. But I am not a pro filmmaker. I only shoot my own movies, in a slow pace.

 

Could you guys give me some feedback as to what else do I need. What do I need to include? How can I improve the performance while keeping the total close to $50,000.

 

I would appreciate only comments as to how to make this system work, not comments that it cannot be done.

 

Also any information as to how to convert the camera output for something I cam work with in FCP HD would be appreciated.

 

Thank you,

 

Pete

[David Mullen ASC]

If I had a script and $50,000 cash and the end goal was to make a feature, I'd take off three weeks from work and shoot it at one go with rented equipment.

 

You have to remember that you also need money to make the movie with outside of the camera equipment, so why have so much of your budget taken out by investing so much money in gear before you can even begin?

 

I worked on a film where the director spent over $100,000 on an HD package and editing system because it gave him the freedom to shoot whenever he wanted and as many features as he wanted. In the end, we shot the movie in 15 days straight and he hasn't made a second feature with the camera, two years later. So was it really the most cost-effective way to make an HD feature when he could have rented a package for a month for $10,000?

 

Just my two cents.

 

Anyway, your plan may work, not factoring other production costs. But it's risky to have to be a pioneer and make a feature at the same time. You have to ask yourself what your goals are -- is it to have a feature at the end of the process? If so, have you chosen the most cost-effective route in achieving that? Or are you trying to hard to be clever rather than choose a more traditional route?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I have seen many budget examples of low-budget movies and the point at which it actually seems to become worthwhile - as in you have enough money to make it, and enough money to make a stab at selling it - seems to be around £200,000, or US$350,000. I would not attempt to make a feature for less than this - it seems as pointless as making a short which you -know- you won't sell. The most successful example I can think of spent around £75k shooting the movie and £125k promoting it. It sold a little. They didn't break even and don't expect to. This "you need a million dollars to make a movie" line seems ever more reasonable.

 

Ho hum, looks like I'll never make a feature!

 

Phil

[Mitch Gross]

Red Lake camera is using 2/3" Kodal CCD with microlens. The camera comes with a control box. Together they cost $6,500.

 

Mac Computer with FCP HD and 2 hours of uncompressed recording will use 2:1 compression for storage. $11,000

 

HOW WILL YOU VIEW IMAGES IN REAL TIME WHILE YOU SHOOT TO KNOW WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE? WAIT FOR THEM TO RENDER ON THE COMPUTER? IF THERE IS ANYWAY YOU CAN LOOK AT A REAL IMAGE IN REALTIME, THEN YOU SHOULD SPEND THE MONEY ON THIS.

 

15 hr of separate storage of 10 bit, 4:2:2, 2:1 compressed will be $12K

 

MPEG4 backup storage, encoded by FCP HD, on a separate drive, will be $6K

 

Lenses. I'll use the Nikon or Canon to C-mount adapter. Sigma and Tokina lenses will be $2000.

 

AND IN HD WILL LIKELY LOOK VERY POOR.

 

 

I'll use a high contrast high definitopn super wide C-mount German industrial lens for $1,000.

 

AGAIN, OR VERY DUBIOUS IMAGING QUALITY AND LIKELY VERY DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH. CAN ONE EVEN PULL FOCUS ON SUCH A LENS?

 

I'll use a German high resolution C mount macro lens and will make my own 35 mm adapter per dvinfo. $1,000.

 

AND THAT WILL REALLY DEGRADE YOUR IMAGE. UNLESS YOU SPEND A FORTUNE GETTING A VERY HIGH QUALITY GROUNDGLASS AND FINDING A WAY TO ACCURATELY ADJUST IT'S FLATNESS, CENTERING AND DEPTH BY MICROMETERS, THE IMAGE WILL BE VERY POOR, ESPECIALLY IN HD RESOLUTION.

 

THE OPTICS ARE SO IMPORTANT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING AN HD CAMERA SYSTEM AND THEN DESTROYING THE RESOLUTION WITH LOW-QUALITY OPTICS. I PERSONALLY THINK YOU'D GET CLEANER, SHARPER RESULTS SHOOTING IN STANDARD DEFINITION WITH SUPERIOR OPTICS THAN WITH SHOOTING HD BUT WITH SUCH LOW-QUALITY OPTICS.

 

Viewfinder $1,000

 

WHAT VIEWFINDER WOULD THIS BE AND HOW WOULD IT WORK WITH YOUR BOX CAMERA? I DON'T KNOW OF AN HD FINDER FOR THIS LITTLE, PLUS YOU'D STILL NEED A DRIVER BOARD ON THE CAMERA TO EVEN CONNECT IT. YOU MIGHT BE BETTER OFF WITH A HIGH QUALITY ONBOARD LCD SCREEN SUCH AS THE PANASONIC 8.4" HD UNIT, ALTHOUGH I STILL DON'T THINK YOU CAN SIMPLY PLUG IT INTO THE CAMERA.

 

Monitor $3,500

 

AN HD FIELD MONITOR FOR ONLY $3500? WHERE DO YOU PLAN ON BUYING IT, BEST BUY? I FEAR THAT ANYTHING YOU PURCHASE IN THIS PRICE RANGE WILL BE WHOLLY INADEQUATE AND A MONSTEROUS PAIN TO ATTEMPT TO USE IN THE FIELD. LOOK INTO A SONY 9' HD FIELD MONITOR (BE PREPAREDFOR STICKER SHOCK). IF YOU GET THE PANASONIC LCD AND CAN USE THE APPLE WITH THEIR CINE DISPLAY TO DO PROPER DECENT CRITICAL MONITORING FOR COLOR, CONTRAST AND FOCUS, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH IT. BUT IT WILL SURE BE AN ANNOYING WAY TO WORK.

 

Glidecam $500

 

YOU COULD NOT CONNECT A $500 GLIDECAM TO THIS CAMERA SETUP. THE CAMERA RIG ITSELF WOULD BE TOO HEAVY AND YOU'D NEVER BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT, PLUS EVEN IF YOU COULD YOU DON'T HAVE A PROPER MONITOR TO SEE YOUR FRAMING. AND YOUR PLANNED SETUP CONNECTING TO THE APPLE COMPUTER MEANS A TRUNK CABLE CONNECTING IT TO THE CAMERA WHICH WOULD MAKE THE GLIDECAM IMPOSSIBLE TO OPERATE. I QUESTION HOW WELL YOU COULD MAKE SUCH A RIG WORK EVEN ON A $60,000 STEADICAM. I WOULD FORGET ABOUT THE STEADICAM FOR NOW AND PERHAPS BUY A DOORWAY DOLLY OR JIB ARM.

 

 

Tripod, $500

 

AGAIN, I QUESTION IF YOUR CAMERA & LENS RIG WILL BE SMALL ENOUGH TO USE SUCH AN INEXPENSIVE TRIPOD. THIS NUMBER SHOULD LIKELY AT LEAST DOUBLE IF NOT TRIPLE.

 

Truck battery on a dolly/cart and a converter to 12V $1,000

 

GREAT, MORE CABLES. HOW EXACTLY IS THIS SUPPOSED TO WORK WITH THE GLIDECAM?

 

mics, mixer $3,000

 

THAT'S DO-ABLE.

 

Lights $2,000

 

FOR A BASIC STARTER KIT, BUT THAT'S ALL.

COMMENTS IN BOLD IN THE QUOTE.

 

I really question how useable this system would be. I fear you might gather the pieces only to find that they don't work properly or even decently together. You might find that it takes another $20,000 in boxes and cards to get them to talk to one another. I just don't think this is a smart move in your budget range. It's a lot of money to dump into a hole that may never return on the investment.

[Valeriu Campan]

Beware of CMOS chips and dust. I call them a glorified vacuum cleaner; there is a BIG love affair between them. Unless you have some filter protection for the sensor, changing lenses will be a big problem. Also, extreme wide angles might produce a "chromatic aberration" effect, unless the sensor has microlenses, but even so it will still be there.

[Max Jacoby]

If I had a script and $50,000 cash and the end goal was to make a feature, I'd take off three weeks from work and shoot it at one go with rented equipment.

Same here.

 

Really, what is the point of buying all this equipment and not even being sure it works? It just seems a really bad investment, because rental is still cheaper and gives you better quality and more reliability.This camera you are describing will become obsolete in a couple of years (if not earlier) because it starts with inferior components. You will never make your money back, because it is highly unlikely that besides your own shoots anyone will want to rent it from you, since much better gear is available.

[Guest Pete Wright]

Thank you everybody, especially to Mitch.

 

Changes per comments:

 

I'd use the Sony $15,000 POV camera that was talked about in this forum. It is model HDC-X300. The Canon HD lens is $7,000. Yokozami talked about the remote for setup. Does anyone know if it's needed? I'm adding $5,000 for it. Total addition to the cost is $16,500. I will not have a 35 mm adapter. You're wright. It's probably impossible to make it right in HD.

 

Viewfinder: Panasonic with vectorscope $10,000? Additional $9,000

 

Apple Cinema Display $2,000

 

Sony Monitor: http://promax.com/Products/Detail/7563 no extra cost. Is this monitor good enough? I will also have the Apple monitor and the Panasonic viewfinder. I'll be using the same monitors for both production and post.

 

Tripod add $1,000

 

 

http://promax.com/Products/Detail/6214 Steady Tracker Extreme instead of Glide cam. No extra cost. Does anyone know anything about his product. What would be the least expensive alternatives to the Stedicam? The Sony camera weighs 2 lb, 10oz or 1.2 kG, without lens. The CCD chipset is 1/2" so the Canon zoom is not that heavy. The Steady Tracker extreme is good for up to 8 lb cameras.

 

Total addition to the cost is 28,500

 

Total cost $ 81,500

 

Now, the Sony camera. I checked the Sony site completely on the camera nad the remote control. It seems to be a good camera.

 

I see the major problem with the Red Lake camera its inability to turn off dead pixels. I've read all the info on their site. I don't think that they address this issue. That alone makes the camera worthless for film production. I wonder if anyone knows how is Kinetta addressing this issue.

 

Just for curiosity, what do you think of the updated system?

 

What do I think? Looking at the total, you guys were right. Too much money for too inconvenient system. Rental is a better option. In couple of years prices of HD will come seriously down anyway. I got too excited here by the Yokozami posts and posts at dvinfo. Anyway, at least I tried to add the costs up. You guys were a great help in helping to configure the system and bringing me back into reality.

 

Maybe there is a way to configure such a system inexpensively. Maybe those Boxx computers with the software on-the-fly compression that Yokozami talked about are good. Maybe the German industrial lenses are better than we give them credit for. You can use an adaptor to any brand lens with the C mout. There are excellent SLR lenses out there. And for the C mount wide angle lens, the follow focus may not be an issue at all. But I don't want to be the one to try it first and get burned.

 

If Red Lake comes out with a complete solution for the independent filmmakers, fine. If they would list enough information to build a complete system, fine. Sony will configure your system. Panasonic will too. That is why people buy their stuff. Unless Red Lake and the others do the same, they will not see any worthwile sales. They would also need support geared towards indie film production.

 

If the Red Lake camera would be a camera with standard industry connection, like the HD SDI or the Firewire 800, maybe it would sell. You need plug and play type of system. If anyone from Red Lake is reading this, maybe he could comment.

 

You can't make a camera that may be as good as the Kinetta unless you make it user friendly. Just because it costs 5x less does not mean anything in this case. Am I right?

 

Pete

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I don't know why people instantly reach for LCD monitors. CRTs are generally cheaper and much better. Remember that every computer monitor is essentially a hi-def CRT, and if you can scan-double it up to 48Hz or more, most of them will display it quite happily. Some of the Sony flat trinitrons are outstanding CRTs, and available in 16:9 aspect.

 

Phil

[Jason Rodriguez]

You can't make a camera that may be as good as the Kinetta unless you make it user friendly. Just because it costs 5x less does not mean anything in this case. Am I right?

 

Pete

Yep, you hit the nail on the head.

 

I really don't understand all the animosity towards the Kinetta by Jukuzami (and now I guess he's going by another name on the dv boards), when it's going to be a fabulously constructed direct-to-disk system. Frankly as of right now, unless the Aaton XTERA magically appears out of the middle of nowhere, the Kinetta will have this uncompressed direct-to-disk market totally wrapped up because it's going to be so stink'n easy to use. File managment, color corrector, HD-SDI/Dual-link HD-SDI/or uncompressed DPX output, metadata, etc., there's nothing you can simply pile together with off-the-shelf parts that's going to have this level of integration in it's price range (especially if it's around $40,000). Also if it costs that much, that means you'll be able to rent for at least $600-$700 a day w/o lens, I'm hoping more towards the $600 range. A full set of Zeiss primes is $300 per day, and with a three-day week you could be shooting with one of the best cameras out there for a little over $3000 per week. If it's a feature-length movie you wanna shoot, then you're looking at 3-4 weeks, and that'll run you around $12,000 in rental.

 

There Mr. J, there's your stupid FEATURE FILM in the can for $12,000 (plus the additional expenses of hard-drives to store your 10-bit uncompressed DPX files, and assuming that you're not going to pay anybody), and with all the control that the Kinetta's going to give you, it'll look a whole lot better than your taped together mess with a dual opteron blow-dryer (talk about MOS) dragging behind you-plus, and this is nothing to sneeze at, you'll be getting more done in less time because the equipment will be that much easier to use.

[Guest Pete Wright]

How much would a least expensive system cost that would allow you to record, edit, etc.?

 

$4K Summix camera

$1K set of used 35 mm lenses, used incident light meter and a set of filters

$3K storage and back up storage of Aspect HD compressed material, good for a total of 30 hrs.

$2.5K imexpensive viewfinder and monitor

$.5K battery, charger, inverter and filter

$4K cheap mixer, mic(s), lighting set and chaep additional Home Depo quartz lights

$1 Tripod with fluid action and a Glidecam

$8K computer for shooting and editing

1k misc.

______________________

Total is $25K

 

This is just to remind everyone how much Jukuzami thought that such system would cost. Certainly made me excited! Wow! I really wanted that! CineAlta quality for $25,000, complete with NLE! Then I aded it up and it was more than double. I then thought, maybe, just maybe, couple friends and I could buy and use it together. Now, at over $80,000, it is a totally different story. It was a nice dream though. At least I've learned something. I will not waste my time reading the dvinfo board. That is for sure.

 

Pete

[Nate Downes]

Hey Pete, there is still a lot of useful information here. Just remember to check on who you are getting the information from. Take myself for example, 5 years since I've done anything commercially. My figures would then be biased more toards older methodologies, and not totally accurate (unless you're using these older systems, I could point out how to shoot a 16mm film for your $50k budget for good example).

[Jason Rodriguez]

What gets me is everyone is yapping about this Summix camera being such "great quality". Has anybody seen the current Summix offerings?? They look horrible!!!

 

Now unless they decide to use a different chip, like the new Altasens, then maybe they have a chance. But there's going to have to be a lot of internal electronics inside that camera to marry those three images (at 150Mpix/s for EACH chip!!) and then get them down a dual-link 4:4:4 HD-SDI pipe, and I don't think they're going to make those specs for $4K. Sure, they might make a camera for that much, but it isn't going to be 12-bit uncompressed RGB data, not unless they use a camera-link interface which isn't quite motion-picture friendly.

 

Frankly I think this all looks great on paper, but when you really sit down and think about how much it's actually going to cost to get something PROFESSIONALLY useable, things get quite murky pricing-wise. And as Mitch pointed out, Mr J.'s setup is filled with many, many holes.

[Guest jack parker]

Hey Pete,

 

How you're doing? :) I have a bunch of comments here:

 

 

The concept Jukuzami brought out are perfectly valid. Maybe not for a pro DP, who wants efficiency, but someone who was until now denied the right to make a large screen production, and who is more or less an amateur, what Jukuzami described is perfect. But the guys in this forum are used to different type of work, so they disagree.

 

The 25,000 system. What is it's centerpiece? A PC made to work with HDV. The software it uses is Aspect HD. It is the light version od Prospect HD. Prospect HD is 10 bit, Aspect is 8 bit. Besides that, for your purpose -- no difference.

 

Prospect HD was demonstrated at NAB to record on PC directly from Viper and it encoded in real time. Excellent codec. Compression on the level of HDCAM, DV, DVCPRO HD.

 

The 25,000 is very doable. You will use Sony 19x10 computer monitor with 1920 horizontal pixels. Refurbished costs a few hundred dollars. For what are you doing you can get a good tripod for couple hundred dollars. Don't believe the figures they're throwing at you. Just go to a few stores and you'll be amazed how sturdy and smooth tripod for couple hundred can nowadays be. But select wisely. And remember, your camera weighs almost nothing.

 

The Summix camera will be better than the Red Lake camera. It will have the same chip as Ikagami uses but with Bayer filter.

 

For 25,000 you have a choice buying DV, HDV, or this. How does it compare? DV looks like s**t on a theater screen. HDV is 19 or 25 Mbps. Your compressed system will be about 200 Mbps. That is larger recording stream than CineAlta.

 

Dragging a computer and batteries to the set? No big deal. You normally drag a large monitor anyway, so the extra computer is nothing. You normally bring with you so many things that this is nothing.

 

The 25,000 for CineAlta quality is real. Don't let these men tell you otherwise.

 

As to the lenses, don't believe that Tokina and Sigma are inferior to Nikon, Canon, or HD zoom lenses. Check Century Optics. See what they're modifying. It is Minolta, Canon. Check Popular Photography and see their tests to find out which lenses are best. Then use them. The good ones will resolve well beyond what you need. 1080p cameras normally resolve only 1000 lines horiziontally. That is nothing. Industrial 2/3" HD lenses are excellent and resolve 100 line/mm and your chip resolves only about 1/2 of that. If someone tells you that follow focus with a wide angle industrial lens is a problem, think of the lens' DOF.

 

If you were a pro, I'd say, no! This system is worthless. You're not. You said that you work slowly. The system is then perfect for you.

 

35 mm adapter made at home is nondoable? Of course it is doable! The people at Dvinfo.net are getting there and their results are astonishing. Rodensack is a well known lens brand among large format photographers. 2/3" Rodensack macro lens for 1000 with high definition specs? Among pros Rodensack has the same reputation as Zeiss. They would think twice to use Fuji. But Rodensack is always a go.

 

So yes, buy your 25,000 system, when the Summix or a similar camera becomes available. Or wait until the guys at Dvinfo.net start buying it first.

 

Don't believe that you can't show your film digitally. There are already so many digital screens in the U.S., and the number is growing fast. It is a porfect place to start. Talk to Landmark; don't talk to a distributor. Distributor comes in later after your film proves to be success.

 

If you shoot for TV, use DV at these prices; if you shoot film, just go for it. If you can afford to spend 25,000, do it! The CineAlta quality is definitely there. I've seen the NAB presentation of Aspect encoding in real time. It works!

 

Have a great fun making your movie for less, a lot less, and the next movie, and the next. You would not use Minox or 16 mm Minolta camera for pro photogrphy. Not even 126 or 110 film. You would use 35 mm at least. Why? Because no one would be interested in your low resolution work. The same goes for DV, SD, and HDV.

 

Have fun,

 

Jack

[Nate Downes]

@Jack

 

The problem is that JJ posted an unworkable $25,000 system. People that actually do this work for a living poked holes through it. And then pointed out that his base theory, that $25,000 would not allow for a film shoot, was flawed as well by people that have done it.

 

HD does open up new options, but it will not give a filmmaker that could not shoot a movie the opportunity to. If the filmmaker wanted to do it before, he could have done it. I mean, shoot, A Polish Vampire in Burbank was shot on film for 1/10th the pricetag of the HD setup, and has found a good sized audience.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

I don't think people take into account how much it wil cost them to screen their movie digitally in all of these Landmark theaters and what chunk of admissions the theater is going to take out of these tiny non-distributed films. It'll probably end up costing as much as if not more to screen the film for a week than it did to make it.

 

Just because HD can be more affordable than film doesn't mean everyone can make a successful (sold) film. And this is what "JJ" didn't understand.

[Sam Wells]

Rodensack is a well known lens brand among large format photographers. 2/3" Rodensack macro lens for 1000 with high definition specs? Among pros Rodensack has the same reputation as Zeiss. They would think twice to use Fuji. But Rodensack is always a go.

If you're going to argue the professional qualities of Rodenstock optics, spell it right.

 

I don't know anything about this line of Rodenstock lenses. Try before you buy. Mitch has covered the issues. (Nikon makes printing Nikkors, it does not follow the lenses in their

pocket cameras are of the same quality. etc)

 

 

"Jack Parker" this week ?

[Mitch Gross]

I find it heartening that with less than a week's interest and research you've come to the accurate conclusions as to the viability and financial realities of these concepts. In time these prices will come down and will be far more accessible to all, but not yet, not in any workable fashion. The value in the offerings from companies like Sony, Panasonic, Kinetta, Dalsa, etc. are not simply the hunks of technology. It is in the engineering and software to make them integrated and functional in some reasonable working maner. The first generation of HD cameras were criticized for being too ENG video style in design, but that was the functional system that the manufacturers understood and were comfortable with. Now the next generation is arriving with a different form of functionality that is more film-production like, from companies such as Dalsa, Kinetta and Arri. And likely the generation after that will somehow merge the best qualities of both and add new functionality as the medium evolves. But all that takes time and engineering, and frankly that's what you're paying for when you buy or rent the HD cameras of today. Not for a nice chip with a decent DSP and recorder behind it.

 

I liken it to the simple movement of a film camera. It is basically a Singer sewing machine. And I supposed that I could rig together an old sewing machine along with a lunchbox and mount a still camera lens on the front and with enough time and effort could even get an image out of it. But it would be terrible to use, not deliver the greatest image in the world and probably cost me much more than if I just rented or even purchased a regular camera.

 

I know this is the HD only board, but I think I should note that given the $80,000 budget breakdown or even the $50,000 one, one could easily make the financial argument for shooting in Super-16 film, even including the cost of purchasing the camera. Additional production would be at the expense of filmstock and transfer, which would take a lot of shooting to rival the costs you found. Comperably, you could also rent the current HD cameras for additional savings. But to put things in perspective, I'm soon to shoot back-to-back S-16 features that will cost LESS than if we had done them in HD. And that's with a penny-pinching producer running all the numbers. These are the current realities in costs, and they will of course continue to evolve.

[Guest Pete Wright]

Mitch,

 

I really appreciate the time you took to help me open my eyes to reality. It may be possible to build a cheap system that will be difficult to work with. At this time I don't want it. If a few people do so and it works, great, I may follow. I don't want to be a leader if it would cost me $25,000.

 

Thanks everyone,

 

Pete

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

If I had a script and $50,000 cash and the end goal was to make a feature, I'd take off three weeks from work and shoot it at one go with rented equipment.

 

You have to remember that you also need money to make the movie with outside of the camera equipment, so why have so much of your budget taken out by investing so much money in gear before you can even begin?

 

I worked on a film where the director spent over $100,000 on an HD package and editing system because it gave him the freedom to shoot whenever he wanted and as many features as he wanted. In the end, we shot the movie in 15 days straight and he hasn't made a second feature with the camera, two years later. So was it really the most cost-effective way to make an HD feature when he could have rented a package for a month for $10,000?

 

Just my two cents.

 

Anyway, your plan may work, not factoring other production costs. But it's risky to have to be a pioneer and make a feature at the same time. You have to ask yourself what your goals are -- is it to have a feature at the end of the process? If so, have you chosen the most cost-effective route in achieving that? Or are you trying to hard to be clever rather than choose a more traditional route?

Yep! And then how will you feel 1 film and 1 year later when you have $80k or even $25k of HD equipment sitting around listening to manufacturers talk about how much better the new stuff is than yours which is only a year old. Use the computer industry as an example. Don't buy gear unless you want to be in the business of renting and maintaining it.

[danny bartle]

"Jack Parker" this week ?

haha

 

Well spotted.. there are also other names on here he goes under... replies to himself under different names to seem like he has friends on here.

 

Sorry to go OT...

[Mitch Gross]

Don't buy gear unless you want to be in the business of renting and maintaining it.

This has been my mantra advice for years now.

[Nate Downes]

@Jack

 

Before I forget:

 

The company I work for handles professional processing of film. Never a week goes by when 110 and 126 film does not cross my desk. Just yesterday I handled some 110 slidework for a customer. Beautiful work, dates back to the 1960's.

[Guest jack parker]

It is $25k only and you can use it for all yours and your friends' pictures. One time equipment charge. No film stock to buy, no lab fees, etc.

[Nate Downes]

@jack

 

Other than more hard drives, right?

 

Also, by the time you're finished with production and post, the next "must have" technology will arrive, rendering this solution obsolete and thereby a white elephant.

[Tenolian Bell]

Or are you trying to hard to be clever rather than choose a more traditional route?

Thinking of politics in movie distribution. There is a different dynamic between NY and LA cultures.

 

In NY there are so many opportunities and avenues to have your small no budget, no name cast film screened. There is even the possibility of theatrical distribution, its not easy, and would be mostly religated to NY, Chicago, San Fransisco. But it is possible for your small no budget, no name cast film to be seen by a wide audience in NY. If the film community and arts community at large really like it, it can recieve a lot of attention from NY press which is akin to national press.

 

From what I've seen in LA you really need to have known actors in your film for it to receive attention. LA is not really geared at all towards the small no budget, no name film. The best hopes for most of the people I know who make those types of features in LA are video rental. But if you don't have something going for you like a known producer, actor, director, there is very little to no chance your film will recieve much publicity, recognition, or distribution.