Why Shoot Film?

[Michael Most]

I'm just going to keep saying this until someone hears it.

 

I am currently in preproduction on a 40-minute drama to be shot over eight days. I estimate that the costs solely associated with shooting film would be around UK£50,000. If anyone wants to give me £50,000 (US$90,000) I will be extremely happy to shoot it on film. Until that time this entire discussion is fundamentally pointless because the choice simply does not exist, as it does not for the overwhelming majority of independents.

 

The constant griping of people who do not have to deal with the complexities of shooting film (in that they're surrounded by dozens of assistants) or pay for it (in fact, tend to get paid a very good wage to do it) could not be less relevant.

 

Phil, I'm about to be as blunt as you usually are.

 

What you call an "independent" is what I call a hobbyist. If a script is not interesting or good enough to warrant financial backing by investors eager to actually make money with it, that usually means that it either isn't good enough to get average viewers interested, or it doesn't have any serious potential as a commercial endeavor. In either case, what it basically means is that the project is being undertaken as a vanity/personal/hobbyist project by those who want to create it for themselves, not as something that might actually wind up being good eonough for commercial distribution. That's the reality of it. The fact is that in one sense, you're right - the existence of cheap video cameras allows such projects to happen (of course, I could argue that 8mm film allowed the same thing, but I won't). But don't fool yourself and everyone else by attempting to tie the conditions under which such projects exist to the conditions for professionally done, commercial projects that have real funding behind them, regardless of whether that's studio money or independent film finance entities. Such projects are not "making a movie." They are personal projects done for the fun of it, and for the artistic egos of those involved. The end result is that those involved can sit around and watch it, and in some extreme cases, get people on the Internet to see it as well and tell them how good it is. This is about ego, Phil, not about art.

 

As for the "dozens of assistants," you know better than that. On any professional crew, there are operators and assistants. And every one of those assistants serves a purpose, regardless of what's running through the camera. The only additional "complexity" in shooting film is in loading and unloading the mags, and that's the part-time job of one of those assistants. In fact, I would argue that if you're going to go the whole nine yards on a "digital" shoot, it gets a hell of a lot more complicated, especially if you're using a standalone recording device. You then have cables to the recorder, remote start for the recorder, cables to sound, cables to the Video Village, a monitor that everyone insists has to be accurate, in all likelihood a tented area for the cameraman, and time code issues. Just because you're more comfortable with it doesn't make it less complex.

 

 

Thanks Marcel,

 

It seems that the small size of a DV camera really frees you up to film almost any place, at anytime.

 

That's a common perception, but it's really kind of nonsensical. An Aaton A-Minima is as small as most "professional" DV cameras. The small size has little to with what you're talking about. What's more relevant is that when people shoot DV, they give up any notion of traditional image quality, both in terms of lighting and pure imaging capabilities. If you want to shoot "any place, any time," you are, by definition, shooting in available light, which means you're not doing any lighting of your own. You're just framing and shooting, and whatever you end up with is what "you wanted." If you're willing to accept the low quality of available light DV images, then yes, you can shoot "any place, any time." The common explanation is that it becomes an "aesthetic choice." That in my mind is a bit questionable. But don't make the mistake that the camera size in itself has that much to do with it.

[Guest]

Hi,

 

I'm just going to keep saying this until someone hears it.

 

I am currently in preproduction on a 40-minute drama to be shot over eight days. I estimate that the costs solely associated with shooting film would be around UK£50,000. If anyone wants to give me £50,000 (US$90,000) I will be extremely happy to shoot it on film. Until that time this entire discussion is fundamentally pointless because the choice simply does not exist, as it does not for the overwhelming majority of independents.

 

The constant griping of people who do not have to deal with the complexities of shooting film (in that they're surrounded by dozens of assistants) or pay for it (in fact, tend to get paid a very good wage to do it) could not be less relevant.

 

It is very, very, very rarely an artistic choice for anyone not to do film.

 

Phil

 

I'm hearing you Phil. Give me your budget and I'll show you how to shoot on 35mm for what you're spending on video. I'll use my own gear, re-canned 35mm, and we'll do the transfer in Toronto where your pound gets you two Canadian dollars. I just got my UK passport so there's no worries about me working in the UK illegally. Your cost analysis is way off, I can do it for FAR LESS.

 

I'll do away with 60% of the costs associated with shooting film.

 

I just wrapped a full feature on 35mm, shot for a small amount of money. The end product looks terrific, I'll post a trailer as proof in a few weeks.

 

I've made you this offer before Phil, and I'm making it again.

 

R,

 

PS: Another poster makes an interesting point about this project, 40 min drama????? What is the commercial viability of such a project? Is this just a festival piece?

 

Why not stretch to feature length and at least go for a direct to DVD deal? Making money is not a crime :)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> What you call an "independent" is what I call a hobbyist.

 

We're both right, we're just in different places. Here, "independent" means something rather different to what it does in the US. There is no such thing in the UK as the $200,000 movie which will make its money over ten years on DVD; it simply does not exist. Doing a Robert Rodriguez, and hoping to sell your 16mm feature to a niche market on DVD is simply not a business model that has any validity. Here, it's either what you call hobbyist (which is referred to as independent moviemaking in the UK) or it is a multimillion American production shooting here. Or, very occasionally, it's TV drama. There is no independent production here, none whatsoever, in the sense I think you mean.

 

> If a script is not interesting or good enough to warrant financial backing by investors eager to actually

> make money with it, that usually means that it either isn't good enough to get average viewers interested,

> or it doesn't have any serious potential as a commercial endeavor.

 

Almost no film and TV work whatsoever in the UK ever has serious potential as a commercial endeavour. Remember that the richest media organisation in the country is nonprofitmaking.

 

It pains me greatly that all of the people I'm looking at to form a camera department on this project would be very well-paid union ACs and grips in the US, with nice houses, double garages, swimming pools, and a gas-guzzling SUV, but in London they're struggling to keep a roof over their heads and pay swingeing road-fuel taxes just to get to work. I am about to take advantage of this situation in a way I hoped I wouldn't be capable of just a few years ago.

 

> In either case, what it basically means is that the project is being undertaken as a

> vanity/personal/hobbyist project by those who want to create it for themselves,

 

Yup. It will never be produced as a TV series becuase TV series of any quality are produced about five times a year in this market. Nothing will ever happen to it; it will sit on the DVD shelves of the people who worked on it and be watched by their friends. Consider how that absolute certainty feels, for a moment, and wonder that anything ever gets made here.

 

> But don't fool yourself and everyone else by attempting to tie the conditions under which such projects

> exist to the conditions for professionally done, commercial projects that have real funding behind them

> regardless of whether that's studio money or independent film finance entities.

 

You're right, and I know that. But that doesn't stop people from that upper end of the industry screaming "shoot film" in my ear anyway - I'm not tying any conditions to anything, I'm just trying to shoot a hobby project, but I will be decried, derided and professionally insulted becuase of the way I am forced to work. I think my response is entirely valid.

 

> This is about ego, Phil, not about art.

 

I suspect you meant it's about ego not money. What's actually the case is that it's about art not money; believe me, when you're working for $200/day or less, ego is best left at home.

 

> On any professional crew, there are operators and assistants.

 

And runners and drivers and lab people and colourists and tape room people.... dozens of people conspire to maintain the illusion that shooting film is anywhere near as easy or cheap as shooting electronically. Too many people presume to give advice having fallen for this illusion.

 

> You then have cables to the recorder, remote start for the recorder, cables to sound, cables to the Video

> Village, a monitor that everyone insists has to be accurate, in all likelihood a tented area for the

> cameraman, and time code issues.

 

You don't have to do any of that. It's disingenuous to posit all of that as a disadvantage when you can choose to do none of it, and it's disingenuous to overlook the work that has to be done because you can't do these things with film. For instance, lining up sync sound take after take is not a free service at most rushes facilities; one timecode box and a tiny amount of work and you get it for free. Or you can do it the old way, and not have the box.

 

It is optionally no more complicated, and it can offer advantages in exchange for complexity.

 

Phil

[Andy_Alderslade]

Phil,

 

I am sure you could get 20 x 400' S16 stock/dev & transfer for well under £10000

 

Stephen

 

I'm not quite sure what the current commercial rates are for stock and lab as I mostly try and obtain some kind of discount, but if you try and keep it strict you could probably do it for well under that, even in London.

 

A 400' roll of film can certainly be bought for under £90.

 

20 x £90 = £1800

 

Dev + Transfer you could probably try and get for under 30p a foot.

 

20 x 400' = 8000

 

8000 x £0.30 = £2400

 

TOTAL (Stock + Dev + Telecine) = £4200

 

Of course 5:1 is a fairly low ratio.

 

The problem with shooting something like that on a tight budget in London though is getting hold of a super 16 camera for less than a standard rental price, which if your an independant/low budget production is perhaps to much. There is of course Arri Media's indepenant/student super16 kit, which is extremly cheap but has a considerable waiting list. Then there are also the odd charity or individualy own cameras that maybe you could rent for cheap or even free. However you need to know or do a lot of research to find out where they are hiding.

 

But still, go on Phil shoot it on film!

[Justin Hayward]

Nothing will ever happen to it; it will sit on the DVD shelves of the people who worked on it and be watched by their friends.

 

Like it was mentioned earlier, forty minutes is too long for a short and too short for a feature. The length alone will make the above statement true. Film festivals are a wonderful tool to get your work out there and open many doors. It doesn't matter where you live or what you shoot on, if you make something competent, you have a 50/50 chance at any film festival, so long as your project is not forty minutes. Short programs are usually about hour and a half to two hours long. If you submit a forty minute film you're expecting them to devote a third of the program to your film alone.

 

In the end, all that matters is story and acting. If it's an interesting story and the actors don't look like they're acting (that's really all you can ask for from non-actors), the rest makes little difference. Get it into a big film festival and filmmaking will no longer be a "hobby".

[Stephen Williams]

I'm not quite sure what the current commercial rates are for stock and lab as I mostly try and obtain some kind of discount, but if you try and keep it strict you could probably do it for well under that, even in London.

 

A 400' roll of film can certainly be bought for under £90.

 

20 x £90 = £1800

 

Dev + Transfer you could probably try and get for under 30p a foot.

 

20 x 400' = 8000

 

8000 x £0.30 = £2400

 

TOTAL (Stock + Dev + Telecine) = £4200

 

Of course 5:1 is a fairly low ratio.

 

The problem with shooting something like that on a tight budget in London though is getting hold of a super 16 camera for less than a standard rental price, which if your an independant/low budget production is perhaps to much. There is of course Arri Media's indepenant/student super16 kit, which is extremly cheap but has a considerable waiting list. Then there are also the odd charity or individualy own cameras that maybe you could rent for cheap or even free. However you need to know or do a lot of research to find out where they are hiding.

 

But still, go on Phil shoot it on film!

 

Andy,

 

I originally wrote £5000, then edited it to under £10,000 giving Phil more choice for telecine!

 

FWIW I have been quoted 12p foot processing or 18p a foot including transfer at a Geoff Boyle's favourite London Lab.

 

Stephen

[Andy_Alderslade]

Andy,

 

I originally wrote £5000, then edited it to under £10,000 giving Phil more choice for telecine!

 

Stephen

 

Cool! when i got such a low figure i'd thought i'd made a mistake!

 

I reckon you could probably get telecine for as low as 25p a foot, and film for £55 a roll - if you make a student buy it for you.

 

Do you rekon a 5:1 ratio is enougth, at filmschools we shot shorts on that, but i do remember a few of the directors crying!

 

Andy

[Stephen Williams]

Do you rekon a 5:1 ratio is enougth, at filmschools we shot shorts on that, but i do remember a few of the directors crying!

 

Andy

 

Andy,

 

It's very tight, but possible, I understand Richard Boddington's film is less than that!

 

10:1 is fairly standard, however I would rather shoot 5:1 if that was the budget limit to shoot film V video. Ok if I could shoot with a Viper, I would take that route, but for the cost of a Viper I could probably shoot 15:1 film!

 

Stephen

[Andy_Alderslade]

That's a common perception, but it's really kind of nonsensical. An Aaton A-Minima is as small as most "professional" DV cameras. The small size has little to with what you're talking about. What's more relevant is that when people shoot DV, they give up any notion of traditional image quality, both in terms of lighting and pure imaging capabilities. If you want to shoot "any place, any time," you are, by definition, shooting in available light, which means you're not doing any lighting of your own. You're just framing and shooting, and whatever you end up with is what "you wanted." If you're willing to accept the low quality of available light DV images, then yes, you can shoot "any place, any time." The common explanation is that it becomes an "aesthetic choice." That in my mind is a bit questionable. But don't make the mistake that the camera size in itself has that much to do with it.

 

Sorry I think i disagree, at least in the context at which Marcel and Michael Winterbottom make films which are drama's slmost made like documentries.

 

An Aaton A-Minima is as small as a DV camera but it only holds 5 minutes of film, so presumably you will be carrying a bag of magazines, not to mention compressed air, orange sticks, changing bag, lint free cloth etc. A DV camera generally needs a few batteries and a wod of lens tissue.

 

Plus if you are making this over several countries and borders, you then have the issue of getting your film back without being x-rayed or badly man-handled

 

I think available light shot 16mm film is better than the DV comparison but if it stops an important story being shot because of it needs, then the idea of traditional image quality becomes irrelivent.

 

Of course if you're going up a mountain with no sources of power, then 16mm becomes your format of choice again.

 

Andy,

 

It's very tight, but possible, I understand Richard Boddington's film is less than that!

 

10:1 is fairly standard, however I would rather shoot 5:1 if that was the budget limit to shoot film V video. Ok if I could shoot with a Viper, I would take that route, but for the cost of a Viper I could probably shoot 15:1 film!

 

Stephen

 

I see, do you think its easier to shoot a film/promo on a low ratio with say a smaller creative unit, ie just a director and DOP or even as in the case for some commercials a DOP who's also director.

 

Since filmschool i've shot the odd short for myself on extremly low ratios, sometimes 2:1 and it never seems as hard as it was at filmschool where you have a director/teacher/sound/DOP unable to shoot on 5:1.

 

Thanks

Andy

[Stephen Williams]

I see, do you think its easier to shoot a film/promo on a low ratio with say a smaller creative unit, ie just director and DOP or even as in the case for some commercials a DOP who's also director.

Thanks

Andy

 

Andy,

 

If you know what you want then a low ratio is easy. On some micro budget 35mm commercials I shot & directed a couple of years ago (I needed showreel material, got somebody to pay the processing & telecine)), I did a rough shoot on DV first, edited to see the shots I really needed first.

 

Stephen

[Andy_Alderslade]

Andy,

 

If you know what you want then a low ratio is easy. On some micro budget 35mm commercials I shot & directed a couple of years ago (I needed showreel material, got somebody to pay the processing & telecine)), I did a rough shoot on DV first, edited to see the shots I really needed first.

 

Stephen

 

I see, so preperation and conviction are the key.

 

Thanks,

Andy

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

My initial reaction was that it is too long, too, but I don't think anyone has any intention of submitting it to festivals (what does that actually, fundamentally get you?). The vague idea was that it was the right length for a TV pilot - shorts can't make money, features won't make money; it's the only format left.

 

Not that I or anyone involved happens to know any TV producers who are gagging for content! Although I am arguing that if we can do 40 minutes in 8 days we can probably do 90 minutes in 18, it would be just as pointless in a commercial sense and cost a lot more wasted money. I'm not going to rock the boat.

 

These threads always degenerate into specimen cost layouts which are largely drivel. Neither camera assistants who work on 35mm shoots every day of every week, or ASC oscar winners, or colourists or gaffers or any of the other "proper industry" people who garner so much respect have any reason to care what it costs to do, and usually don't have any idea.

 

It's actually cheaper to rent 35mm camera gear in London right now. There is a guy who works at Arri who owns a 16mm (SR1 badly converted) package he lets out cheap, but I've had very feeble results from it.

 

> FWIW I have been quoted 12p foot processing or 18p a foot including transfer at a Geoff Boyle's favourite

> London Lab.

 

Yes that's because you're Stephen Williams.

 

Phil

[Andy_Alderslade]

It's actually cheaper to rent 35mm camera gear in London right now. There is a guy who works at Arri who owns a 16mm (SR1 badly converted) package he lets out cheap, but I've had very feeble results from it.

 

There is a London charity which, you may have heard of it that rents 3 super16 kits to low-budget filmmakers, an SR2 (which we shot my sister's wedding on), an SR3 and an Aaton XTR (wich i shot a short on for myself) with sets of super speeds.

 

They are very cheap.

 

So go on, no excuses,

Andy

[Stephen Williams]

Yes that's because you're Stephen Williams.

 

Phil

 

Phil,

 

They don't remember me, or care who I am, I walked into the reception in Meard St. I said I need a price for telecine & neg developement. I was asked if it was a commercial I replied no. Instant answer 12p per foot processing. From what I remember that's what you paid a year or so ago too!

 

Stephen

[Michael Most]

It pains me greatly that all of the people I'm looking at to form a camera department on this project would be very well-paid union ACs and grips in the US, with nice houses, double garages, swimming pools, and a gas-guzzling SUV, but in London they're struggling to keep a roof over their heads and pay swingeing road-fuel taxes just to get to work.

 

You have a really, really strange idea about what US AC's and grips make, and an even stranger idea as to what things like houses and swimming pools cost in Los Angeles.

 

 

For instance, lining up sync sound take after take is not a free service at most rushes facilities; one timecode box and a tiny amount of work and you get it for free. Or you can do it the old way, and not have the box.

 

Any "independent" production that is having a telecine facility do their sound synching is not spending their money wisely.

[Justin Hayward]

My initial reaction was that it is too long, too, but I don't think anyone has any intention of submitting it to festivals (what does that actually, fundamentally get you?).

 

It's really helped me. First of all, it gives you some credibility in the eyes of potential investors. I can now make an independent feature that I won't be paying for out of my own pocket. People with money are suddenly interested in helping me out.

 

I've also gotten the opportunity to direct a fairly high end commercial that will, if anything, lead to more paid commercial jobs. Hopefully at some point I can change my job description from gaffer to director. I just happen to make the most money gaffing right now.

 

Don?t short-change film fests.

[Justin Hayward]

Phil,

 

Do you want to be a director of photography or a director?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

That's a rather odd question - I'm nothing like a director!

 

I would hesitate to take the title "director of photography" either, to be honest. I'm at best a video cameraman acting up.

 

As to festivals getting you in with investors, there are no investors here anyway so it's a moot point.

 

Phil

[Keith Mottram]

Phil, sometimes i think you live in a parallel london. there are quite a few investors in london, plus schemes such as slingshot and low budget production outfits like warp x. the problem i have is creating a script or project good enough to recieve investment. not to say there isn't a load of poop being invested in due to dubious connections, but there is a large amount of money particularly with the city being so flush to be found. i'd go as far as to say that right now is one of the best times in the last ten years to get finance. and as for doom and gloom awaiting no budget projects how about the sub £100,000 london to brighton, which will have made a tidy prophet on its television rights sales even if the minescule cinema release is not proffitable.

 

awaiting your marvin like reply...

 

keith

[Justin Hayward]

That's a rather odd question - I'm nothing like a director!

 

I just meant, what are you doing on this project? Shooting it?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Personally I have very little experience chasing funding (I frankly wasn't aware that there was any possibility of doing so), so I can only go on what other people tell me. I'm not a producer. That said, Mr. Mottram, you seem to have the contacts so please, come, engage, produce!

 

Yes I am, for better or worse, shooting it. Actually I think the operative point here is that if we had any money, I would not be shooting it, so it would all be a bit pointless!

 

Regards,

 

[Keith Mottram]

Hi,

 

Personally I have very little experience chasing funding (I frankly wasn't aware that there was any possibility of doing so), so I can only go on what other people tell me. I'm not a producer. That said, Mr. Mottram, you seem to have the contacts so please, come, engage, produce!

 

Yes I am, for better or worse, shooting it. Actually I think the operative point here is that if we had any money, I would not be shooting it, so it would all be a bit pointless!

 

Regards,

 

 

phil,

 

if i can be of any help at all let me know, am very busy till mid feb (on 'live from abbey road' which has started screening on more4 (fridays) and c4 (tonight) with unsavoury amounts of compression).

 

keith