Best price you've gotten for a 35mm package for a week?

[Guest razerfish]

I'm shooting some spec spots for my application to group101spots.com soon, and my DP found a weekly rental for $2500 for a BL3 or 4, I believe.

 

Is there any place out there that might be cheaper? I'd love to figure out a way to keep in an extra day or 2 (like a holiday), but it seems like that's a myth (renting one day and getting the weekend for free as long as you return it on Monday). Everyone I talked to charges for 2 days on the weekends.

 

Any ideas, or is $2500 for a basic package a good deal?

[Stephen Williams]

I'm shooting some spec spots for my application to group101spots.com soon, and my DP found a weekly rental for $2500 for a BL3 or 4, I believe.

 

Is there any place out there that might be cheaper? I'd love to figure out a way to keep in an extra day or 2 (like a holiday), but it seems like that's a myth (renting one day and getting the weekend for free as long as you return it on Monday). Everyone I talked to charges for 2 days on the weekends.

 

Any ideas, or is $2500 for a basic package a good deal?

 

 

Hi,

 

If there are any DP's with there own package you might do better. I bought an Ultracam 35 package from Arizona last year. The previous owner rented it out for $1000-1500 week.

 

Stephen

[Guest razerfish]

Hi,

 

If there are any DP's with there own package you might do better. I bought an Ultracam 35 package from Arizona last year. The previous owner rented it out for $1000-1500 week.

 

Stephen

 

Not that I've found. I know of two. One is so busy he doesn't get back to you. The other has an old camera Arri 2C and he wants 750 per day.

 

The rental houses in town want $1500 per day, weekends count the same as regular days. No real discounts.

[David Mullen ASC]

The rental houses in town want $1500 per day, weekends count the same as regular days. No real discounts.

 

Well, counting a 2-day weekend as one-day technically is a discount... I'm surprised to hear that they are calling that a 2-day rental.

 

Most rental houses count a weekly rental as 3 days, sometimes 2.5 if you're lucky. If they cut you a deal, it's not in the per-item rental price, it's in how many days they count for a week rental.

 

Also depends on the size of the package, how many lenses you are renting, do you need a video tap, etc.

[Guest]

Well why don't you just buy one?

 

If your shoot is MOS you can buy an Arri IIC for cheap on ebay these days. The guy who wants to rent out his IIC for $750.00 a day is crackers, you could buy one for two days rental.

 

Or there's the Konvas 1M, going on ebay for under $500.00 quite often, and it works great for MOS jobs.

 

I bought a great running BL2 off ebay. It was already converted to PL mount and has a colour video assist. The cost to rent it for as long as I needed for was going to be about $25,000.00. So now I own it for far less and I can always stick it back on ebay when I'm done with it. If I did that I would effectively get the camera rental for free, but I'll most likely keep it. Still cheaper to own than to rent. Plus you have the convenience of having the camera handy when ever you need it.

 

If I want to take the BL2 to Africa for three months & shoot wildlife I can do that and not worry about the horrific bill I'm racking up as a rental.

 

There is a ton of good used 35mm gear on the market. Some DPs hit slow patches and need the money fast, their loss could be your gain.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

If he's planning on spending $2500 or less to rent a 35mm sync-sound camera for a project, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try and buy a 35mm sync-sound package for a one-time shoot. He certainly isn't going to be able to buy an Arri-BL3 or 4 with a set of lenses for $2500... and he's hoping to spend even LESS money than that.

 

Generally renting is cheaper, not buying, FOR THE SAME LEVEL OF EQUIPMENT -- I'm not comparing buying an Arri-2C versus renting an Arri-BL4, but even then you could rent a high-end 35mm package for a few days for the cost of buying an Arri-2C plus lenses & accessories (tripod, etc.)

 

In your case, a shoot spread out over time, with just yourself or a tiny crew, yes, buying probably makes more sense. But a short sync-sound 35mm movie shot in a week? That's a very different situation than spending months in Africa, don't you think?

 

A typical feature shoot, let's say, or shorts or commercials, is made within a confined shooting period, partially because you're not only paying for camera equipment rental, but lighting & grip equipment rental, plus you're paying crews, actors, feeding them, etc. -- all of which create an incentive to limit the period of shooting. And if the shooting period is limited, and even more so, if it's a one-time event, then buying the camera gear doesn't make a lot of sense -- you can generally rent a better-quality camera and set of lenses than you can ever afford to buy. I can afford to rent a half-million dollar Arricam & Zeiss UltraPrime lenses for a short film shoot... but I sure as hell can't afford to even buy one of those lenses!

 

If you've got a budget of, let's say, $10,000 TOTAL to make a 35mm sync-sound short film with, it doesn't make a lot of sense to first spend almost all of it on buying some cheap MOS package.

[Guest]

Over all I disagree with you David, but then again that's nothing new.

 

The other thing he has to take into consideration is production insurance. No rental house will rent to him with out it. Have you ever paid for production insurance out of your own pocket before? Even for a short shoot it can easily add $1000.00 or more. Some rental houses allow you to purchase the insurance from them for the number of days you need the gear, but many have stopped this practice because if you do break some thing it's a claim on their insurance.

 

What I don't get is why would he consider an Arri IIC or a BL4? They are in a totally different class. The IIC is strictly an MOS camera, the BL4 is a pin registered synch sound camera. So maybe the original poster can explain that part.

 

If he is considering the IIC then buying certainly makes more sense. Check the prices on ebay and do the math. Have a look at item 7628768046, currently at $892.00 with one day left. It's a clean IIC that will get any MOS job done well. My guess is it will sell for under $2000.00 if the reserve is met. Alan Gordon has sold many nice IICs with a PL Mount front for $2100.00. Even if you could get a IIC for $200.00 a day rental, at a total cost of $2100.00 that gives you 10 days use of the camera. Then you can always re-sell it.

 

If you're talking the synch sound class of camera then you're quite correct, if it's a short job renting makes the better financial sense. If it where me and I thought I needed a $80,000.00 older BL camera to shoot a feature with I would buy the camera, shoot the film, and the re-sell it. It would be like getting my camera rental for free. I could stick the entire thing on my credit card and have it sold off again before the bill came. Even if I lost 10% that would be less than the cost of renting. I've done this a few times with various pieces of gear and never lost a dime.

 

Now that's just me, and since I pay my own bills I always think about these things. When some one else is covering the camera rentals then why would the DOP care? He probably wouldn't.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

You're not mentioning the cost of buying decent lenses in all of this...

 

Don't you think that if the buying a 35mm sync-sound camera and reselling it at the end of feature production was the most efficient and cost-effective method, it would be the standard practice for both indie AND studio production? I mean, if you've got 100 million to make a movie with, why not buy a dozen top of the line Arricams and Zeiss lenses and sell it all to the next 100 million dollar feature?

 

If I had a set amount of money to make a feature with -- let's say, $100,000 -- there would have to be a compelling reason to dump a large percentage of the budget into buying a 35mm sync-sound camera package and set of lenses, accesories, etc. when I could spend less on renting the package for a typical 3 or 4 week shoot and have more left to spend on the production.

 

Like I said, you can generally rent a better camera and lens package than you can afford to buy. Sure, I could buy some really basic, old piece of equipment and make due with some old lenses.

 

Yes, with very cheap equipment, it can be simpler to just buy it. We bought a DVX100 to shoot video clips on "Astronaut Farmer" and I think someone bought it off of the production at the end of the shoot. Probably the rental of such a thing would have been about the same cost for that two months.

 

Besides, equipment you own of any value will probably need to be insured. Plus it will probably need maintenance plus an initial check-up, maybe repair work, testing, etc. Plus a camera package is more than a camera.

 

Do you really think that it's because I don't care that I spend so much of my time trying to advise people? Making movies is EXPENSIVE and I've seen too many friends spend their money unwisely over the years on indie features. And the cost of things, how they affect the budget, whether because of renting or buying, IS one of my concerns as a DP because it affects my work. The quality of the camera, lenses, and film stock affect my work as well.

 

I think this notion of buying a lot of film and editing equipment up front as a basis to making a feature to be one of the more foolish notions that keep floating through the indie world. It only makes sense in very specific situations -- one of those is a long-term project with an off and on again schedule, like a documentary. The truth is that people drop a lot of money on buying equipment because it is the EASIEST aspect of making a movie -- much easier than writing a decent script, getting a decent cast for it, raising the money for production. All of those seem like such huge obstacles that people start with what they CAN do -- spend their own money on equipment. The truth is that getting the equipment should be the last thing you do when making a feature -- it's probably the easiest thing to do at the last minute.

 

Besides the long-term project with an indefinite schedule, the other reason to own equipment is either to make a lot of small projects for yourself, maybe as a learning tool (so you need something simple and cheap to use) or because it's part of your regular business, so you can fairly accurately predict how much shooting work will come in over how much time, for how much money, and can make a good estimate about the financial sense in investing in equipment.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm going to throw out some numbers, from a rental catalog, for a basic Arri-35BL3 package with a set of Zeiss standard speed lenses and one 20-100 Cooke zoom: $400/day for for camera, $225/day for the set of Zeiss primes, and $150/day for the Cooke zoom, so $775/day. So let's round that up to $1200/day for the rest of the accessories. And let's factor in a typical 3-day week rental, so $3600/week. And let's make this a typical 4-week feature shoot, so $14,400 for the rental, not including production insurance etc.

 

Now tell me where I can buy a used Arri-BL3, set of Zeiss Standard Speeds, and a Cooke 20-100 zoom, for $14,400. It's hard to find prices on the internet for used 35mm sync-sound gear, but one I could find listed is:

 

http://www.cinevision-ny.com/salesinfo/35BL3/BL3.html

 

which lists at $55,000. Arri-BL3 that comes with the Cooke zoom but not the set of Zeiss primes. Now even if that is a high figure and you can find the same package for less, I doubt it will come down below the $20,000 mark, especially if you still have to add the Zeiss lens set.

 

Now you can make it an Arri-BL2, make it a cheaper zoom, older primes, etc. but now you're not buying the same thing you are renting to make a comparison as to which is the cheaper route. Like I said, you can generally rent something higher-quality than you can afford to buy. I could go out and rent a $100,000 Sony F900 for this weekend if I wanted to, but I'm sure not going to have the cash to go out and buy one.

[Guest Ken Maskrey]

Thru a local connection I got a BL4S, high-speed Cooke primes, two zooms, vid tap, mon, filters, and FF for $1000 for a 4-day weekend. Also, I got a 13-day equipment-only insurance pkg for about $500.

[Stuart McCammon]

Well-put David)

[Guest]

"Don't you think that if the buying a 35mm sync-sound camera and reselling it at the end of feature production was the most efficient and cost-effective method, it would be the standard practice for both indie AND studio production? I mean, if you've got 100 million to make a movie with, why not buy a dozen top of the line Arricams and Zeiss lenses and sell it all to the next 100 million dollar feature?

"

 

Actually there are more and more productions using this method vs renting because it works and it can cut costs way down. The studios may not use this method very much because you're right on a 100 million dollar production why would they care about the cost of rentals. But many indie people are using the "buy and sell" approach to cutting the costs of rentals. To many indie people they view it as a lot of extra work to acquire the camera and then have to sell it, so they'd rather rent. But to others this method works well. As you look at camera auctions on ebay you'll notice that many of the sellers point out that they got the camera for a feature shoot and now they are selling it. So obviously there are people out there using the buy and sell technique.

 

As for lenses, those can be a rental item as they are pretty cheap to rent. Standard Zeiss primes rent for $85.00 CDN a day from Production Services in Toronto, if you need them for three to four weeks they'll make you a deal.

 

As for your BL3 equation, I think you help support my position with your own numbers. You say you can rent the package for $14, 400.00 or buy it from cinevision NY for $55,000.00. Did you forget that if you buy the camera for $55,000.00, NOW YOU OWN IT. So after your three week shoot, sell it and get your money back, even with a 10% loss you'd sell it for $49, 500.00. I've seen excellent prime lens sets in PL mount sell on ebay for $7000.00-$10,000.00, you could buy a set like that and easily get the full value back by putting them back on ebay when the shoot is over if you wanted to. In this situation I would actually rent the lenses, I think most people rent too many lenses any way, on a lower budget 35mm shoot you can get away with fewer lenses. Renting gear is a lot like well....renting a place to live, your monthly payment is gone into some one elses pocket and you can never recoup it. Now renting a place to live in some cases works out better for some people rather than owning.

 

My ideas are presented as an alternate approach to the high cost of camera rentals, it's not for every one, but you dismiss it out of hand as a silly idea and that just isn't correct.

 

You can also get a BL4 from Visual Products for $39,500.00, $15, 500.00 less than the package you found:

 

http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProduct...5&Cat=2&Cat2=14

 

Don't forget your BL3 price and the BL4 price I found are from retailers. You can get some amazing deals when a DOP is under pressure to sell his gear for one reason or another, you watch ebay on a regular basis and you'll find the bargains. That BL4 could end up on ebay direct from the seller and go for $25,000.00 or less if the seller needs quick cash.

 

I bought my great running BL2 below the $14, 400.00 mark, and it came with PL mount and the colour video assist. Lenses I already owned.

 

As for not having the cash....don't use your own, use VISA, or a low interest secured line of credit against your home. Currently at about 5.75% in Canada.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

I've photographed about thirty feature films in the past 15 years, most of them considered to be "indie"... so it's not like I'm somehow not clued-in as to how people are making movies these days. And I know directors and other cinematographers who make indie features, many of them smaller in budget than the ones I now shoot. I have a good sense of this field. Maybe you've secretly shot fifty features or something, or directed & produced several, I don't know, but my impression was that your primary area of expertise was in shooting stock footage.

 

Sure, there have always been a percentage of people who buy and then sell an equipment package, but it's not the most common or popular method of making 35mm features. And sure, you could buy $50,000 worth of gear and sell it for $48,000. But that means you need to be able to spend $50,000 at the start of your production, plus have all that money go into that purchase, leaving the rest of your production cash-poor until you sell the equipment after the movie has been shot. Maybe that makes sense... or maybe you'll be wishing you had that $30,000 cash left over after your $15,000 camera rental to pay and feed the crew, or rent a location, or a bigger lighting package, or get a certain actor hired.

 

You belong to a very small niche of independent feature makers, those who want to shoot in 35mm on a micro-budget, yet have enough cash to buy equipment or already have a certain amount of equipment. Believe me, it's not the norm for people making features in budget ranges of $50,000, $100,000, etc. to go about shooting the movie in this way (and it's very hard to go below $50,000 due to the costs of 35mm stock, processing, and telecine, forget the camera issues). If they want to shoot in 35mm, the more common scenario is to buy recan stock, get a killer deal on a basic camera package rental, and shoot the movie on a short schedule. There are far more examples of that approach than buying and reselling a 35mm Arri-BL package for a feature.

 

Your method makes sense partially because you already shoot 35mm for a living, so you're more expanding your equipment to shoot a feature, versus buying everything all at once for a one-time project. Plus your project is long-term, so owning makes more sense.

[Guest]

"I have a good sense of this field. Maybe you've secretly shot fifty features or something, or directed & produced several, I don't know, but my impression was that your primary area of expertise was in shooting stock footage."

 

Actually David I've produced far more projects than you have. Did you actually raise the financing for any of the films you've shot, or paid for any of the production expenses out of your own pocket? I was under the impression your primary area of expertise was being a "hired gun" as a DOP on films. You come in as a crew member and your job is done when the shoot is over. How much film stock and camera rentals end up on your personal credit card?

 

I've actually produced over a dozen projects, where I was the guy that raised all the financing, paid the bills, and got the final product into distribution. That's how I earn my money, residual income from by previous projects. So I feel well qualified to talk about a different approach to filmmaking than the normal process of renting gear. Since I'm intimately aquainted with the financial side of things, it's why I take the approach I do. (These are projects that used a cast and crew, etc etc etc)

 

Yes I'm involved in the stock footage business, that's another area that generates residual income for me. I'm all about doing the work once and getting paid for it over and over again. This gives me immunity from the whims of others and the need to find more work once a particular job is over. It's also why 5-6 DOP types a month ask me, "geez how do you do it?"

 

And as I stated, my approach is not for every one, agreed. However, there are those who are looking for a non-traditional approach to filmmaking.

 

R,

[Stephen Williams]

"I have a good sense of this field. Maybe you've secretly shot fifty features or something, or directed & produced several, I don't know, but my impression was that your primary area of expertise was in shooting stock footage."

 

Hi,

 

I think Richard has a good point about owning kit. I bought and paid for my Mitchell with the first shoot I did. So its basically free to use as and when I want now.

I have bought 2 Ultracam packages very cheaply. Again the first commercial I shot (3 days) paid about half the costs of 1 package v renting a 'proper' camera!

I can also shoot tests whenever I want, wait for perfect weather and get background shots whenever I want.

 

Richard lives quite a distance from any rental houses, so renting can be a major pain.

 

Stephen

[David Mullen ASC]

OK, I'll back down on this point, but I still think someone asking how they can spend less than $2500 to rent a camera for a week doesn't need to be told that he should actually buy a camera package instead, probably for at least 10X the amount.

 

I've mentioned all the reasons for owning equipment, which fit into the way Richard or Stephen do business. I don't thing they are wrong on this point. People who shoot regularly and get paid for it are prime contenders for equipment ownership. People planning on making a feature over many months and over multiple parts of the globe should consider it too.

 

The issue is the more general one of making feature films in 35mm and what makes the most sense financially, and I just want people to know that rental is by far the more common approach for reasons I have stated.

 

If I've over-argued this issue time and time again, it's mainly out of a real concern for people, that they not spend their money foolishly and go into extreme debt under the mistaken notion that they must own the means of production before they can start making a movie.

 

And just because I don't pay for things doesn't mean I don't have conversations on the topic with producers and line producers who do. The main reason most of them don't buy and then resell a camera package for a feature is a cash flow issue -- they'd rather have more money at the start of production for other things, like getting name actors -- than have to spend a lot more money on equipment and then wait until the package is sold at the end of production to get it back.

 

If I am just a gun-for-hire working in indie production, you would think in fifteen years I would occasionally be hired by a producer who wants to buy the camera package or already owns one, if it's really a great idea -- but it's only happened to me once out of thirty features, and I've only interviewed for maybe two other projects where the camera was owned already (and one of those was an Indigent production using DV cameras that they bought. The other was a straight-to-video company that bought two UltraCams.) Oh, and there was a third incident where a company (Concorde Pictures) owned an Arri-III for shooting B-roll and second unit. And I admit that regional filmmaking, farther away from rental houses, may have a different strategy. But again, for the typical one-time feature production, starting out by buying everything you need up front, especially for a 35mm sync-sound production (as opposed to a cheap DV production, let's say), well, there would have to be unique logistical reasons for that to make more sense than renting.

[Arni Heimir]

The problem with owning your own cameras and lenses is that you are limiting yourself with that equipment.

[David Mullen ASC]

From a historical standpoint, I do find it interesting that studio production used to favor owning equipment, and even after they stopped doing that for features, the TV shows working on their stages continued to use the studio's camera equipment. All the studios had huge camera departments.

 

It all petered out in the 1970's or so, maybe the 1980's for some TV shows, after which rental became the norm.

 

And it has always struck me as somewhat wasteful that, since movies are all made independently from each other, even in the studio, that every production starts from scratch, finding offices, putting in phone lines, fax machines, etc.

 

A lot of the reasons has to do with reducing overhead, not carrying costs over from production to production, therefore not having to maintain a studio camera department, maintain equipment, update it (which they were loathe to do.) I think the other reason is accounting / legal, i.e. keeping the structure of each feature as a new and isolated legal entity.

 

The cash flow issues I mentioned also come into play -- budgeting is strictly compartmentalized, so money saved or spent in one area like production can't easily be slid over into post-production. This has been the sticking point on D.I. work. You tell them that they are going to spend over $50,000 on mastering the movie to HD anyway for home video distribution, and if you combine that with savings from shooting in 3-perf, you can pay for part of the D.I., but they'll tell you that video distribution is another division of the studio (like Warner Home Video versus Warner production) and they can't move costs or savings from one back to the other.

 

So telling them that they could buy a camera package for $50,000 and sell it at the end of production has limited appeal to them when they are trying to find a way to pay for a certain star's salary demand up front, and they can't get the movie made without that star or a similar one, so it's pointless to tell them about the money they'll get back later if they need the money up front just to make the movie happen in the first place.

[Stephen Williams]

The problem with owning your own cameras and lenses is that you are limiting yourself with that equipment.

 

Hi,

 

Yes if you spend too much that is true.

 

For the price I paid for my 3 35mm packages I could not get a respectable Arri SR2 S16 with PL mount, video assist and just a Cannon 8-64 zoom! I tried.

The local rental house charged me $800 for a 2c, 4x Canon K35's with clip on lens hood with 4 ND filters and that was just for my own tests for 1 day!

 

Stephen

[Hal Smith]

The cash flow issues I mentioned also come into play -- budgeting is strictly compartmentalized, so money saved or spent in one area like production can't easily be slid over into post-production. This has been the sticking point on D.I. work. You tell them that they are going to spend over $50,000 on mastering the movie to HD anyway for home video distribution, and if you combine that with savings from shooting in 3-perf, you can pay for part of the D.I., but they'll tell you that video distribution is another division of the studio (like Warner Home Video versus Warner production) and they can't move costs or savings from one back to the other.

The direct result of MBA education that stresses that every individual general ledger item should be analyzed as an individual profit center. The large broadcasting corporations that I deal with in my business from time to time can be some of the stupidest "penny wise and pound foolish" outfits you can imagine. Cheap Channel went for years refusing to hire real engineers, laying off assistant engineers, etc. Only recently have they figured out that in the long run a good engineering staff saves them money. My individually owned and managed station clients rarely have deep pockets - but they do understand real economies of operation.

 

You and Richard are a hoot to follow - I respect you both hugely but you have real trouble communicating - in essence I think that the real difference is you're the modern day equivalent of the studio contract cinematographer and he's a wildcat - out there drilling holes and praying for a gusher. Obviously if he's supporting himself off residuals he's hit a few. And your name is on movies that millions of people see.

[David Mullen ASC]

Richard's approach makes sense for Richard and his business. I think we can all come to some consensus as to obvious good reasons to buy rather than rent 35mm equipment for feature production, even if we can't agree as to when to rent rather than buy. I can list a few:

 

1) The feature is just part of an ongoing professional production business that regularly shoots in 35mm

2) The feature is just part of an ongoing career by a cameraperson shooting regularly in 35mm

3) The feature will be shot over a very long period of time, maybe in intervals, maybe in multiple locations around the globe

 

And when I say "ongoing" I don't mean "in the future", I mean that the business or career is established and the level of near-future shooting activity can be accurately gauged as a basis for making purchase decisions.

 

The reasons I think for renting are:

1) When the feature is a one-time event shot over a specific and limited period of time

2) When the feature needs to use a particularly expensive item that is not affordable / when the most efficient (and therefore most cost-effective) camera system for the production is not affordable for purchase

3) When more production budget has to be allocated to other non-camera items up front, therefore not be able to take advantage of money from reselling the equipment

 

As for the notion of being a studio contract cinematographer, my response is "I wish that happened more often" and "that's a recent phenomenon if it were true". It's not like a few recent studio films makes one forget the past decade of shooting low-budget indie movies. Too often people have some sort of image of successful career people (which I barely qualify) as somehow being born into that position, not that they rose into that position over time. I'd also say that there have been more simularities than differences between my $100,000, $500,000, 1 mil, 3 mil, and 6 mil features -- mainly what changes is just you get more of the same: more crew people, more shooting days, more equipment, bigger locations, etc. A lot of the production problems are the same, only scaled differently. I'm a little saddened to think that my decade of shooting small-budgeted stuff now seems to not be considered a valuable experience to share. I shot nearly 20 short films in 16mm in film school alone, not to mention dozens of non-union features under the 1 mil mark. In fact, I have an under 1-mil feature shot in HD, non-union, called "The Quiet", that I shot in 2004 and should get a limited release in August.

[peter bartle]

The truth is that people drop a lot of money on buying equipment because it is the EASIEST aspect of making a movie -- much easier than writing a decent script, getting a decent cast for it, raising the money for production. All of those seem like such huge obstacles that people start with what they CAN do -- spend their own money on equipment. The truth is that getting the equipment should be the last thing you do when making a feature -- it's probably the easiest thing to do at the last minute.

 

David,

 

A very true statement!

 

Well said...

[Guest razerfish]

And what does this got anything to do with the best rate you've found for a 35mm package for a week?

[Stephen Williams]

And what does this got anything to do with the best rate you've found for a 35mm package for a week?

 

Hi,

 

Richard thinks it's virtually free if you buy a camera and then sell it after the shoot. That sounds like the best rate you will find to me!

 

Stephen

[timHealy]

One can receive fairly good rentals depending how well you know the people in the house, or how much you beg, or how you sell the film to them, or if they have some sensitivity to no or low budget work, or if they just like you, or if they are slow and have plenty of gear on the shelves. Or any combination of.

 

I had the support of a reputable rental house in NY, where they gave me a 535 package, a Fischer Dolly, and a small light and grip package for a short film for $2000.00 for ten days or so. They have known me a long time and the filmmakers previous film won all sorts of awards at film festivals around the world. They also know with that kind of support,(or perhaps investment) in my career and the filmmakers career, the work will come back them.

 

best

 

Tim