Budgeting for film

[stevesanacore]

Hi all

 

Although I am not really a beginner, it's been a while and need some advice. What would you budget (in dollars), for shooting a 90 minute theatrical film in 35mm? Would a shooting ratio of five to one be prudent? All shots are dramatic with rehersals and some action and some stunts.

 

I will want to do a rough cuting on digital video (Final Cut Pro or Avid). So this will have to include; Raw Stock, developing and transfer to video.

 

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

 

Steve

[Mitch Gross]

Boy you're asking a lot. Focal Press has some budgeting books, you may want to start there as a guide. 5:1 is a very low shooting ratio, I would pick 7:1 as a minimum with 10:1 being more prudent. 35mm will run you about $.75/ft. to buy rawstock, get it developed and transferred to video so you can edit it. That's $67.50/minute or about $60,000 for your entire feature at a 10:1 ratio. Remember that's just your film stock budget, not crew, equipment, food, lighting, insurance, actors, and everything else.

[John Pytlak RIP]

As others have said, you can economize by considering Super-16 origination, using recans and short-ends (some risk if they are outdated or improperly stored), finding a lab willing to support lower budget filmmakers (you may need to work with them off-hours, and won't get the "ace" timer or colorist), etc.

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/index.jhtml

[Leon Rodriguez]

For those bargains using the lab off-hours and off shift colorists that John mentioned, you can save a lot of surprises for yourself by shooting your gray card with your slates as often as the light changes or you change the camera position. Don't forget to remove your 85 if you're using it. (easy to do in a rush)That way the colorist will have a common reference for every shot regardless of who he or she is. Kodak makes a Gray Card Plus that also has a black and white reference as well for even further accuracy. The colorist will dial in the IRE levels based on that card. They'll use the recommended IRE settings from the film company. It's also a consistent way to jimmy the scale across the different rolls of film if you decide to shift from the norm. The point is that it's calibrated in a sense. That's worked well for me anyway. I've never used the fotochem color card, I think they're kind of pricey, but if you could afford it, it's got the additive and subtractive primary and complimentary colors for rock solid consistency.

[Joshua Turner]

For those bargains using the lab off-hours and off shift colorists that John mentioned, you can save a lot of surprises for yourself by shooting your gray card with your slates as often as the light changes or you change the camera position. Don't forget to remove your 85 if you're using it. (easy to do in a rush)That way the colorist will have a common reference for every shot regardless of who he or she is. Kodak makes a Gray Card Plus that also has a black and white reference as well for even further accuracy. The colorist will dial in the IRE levels based on that card. They'll use the recommended IRE settings from the film company. It's also a consistent way to jimmy the scale across the different rolls of film if you decide to shift from the norm. The point is that it's calibrated in a sense. That's worked well for me anyway. I've never used the fotochem color card, I think they're kind of pricey, but if you could afford it, it's got the additive and subtractive primary and complimentary colors for rock solid consistency.

 

We use a nice digital camera and a Mac with Aperture on set that is calibrated to the printer. During each setup, I snap off a few photos, color correct them to the desired look, and print them. The DP makes a few notes of what he'd like to see and then they're sent to the lab so our dailies color correction tech has a hard reference of what the scene should look like. A good color chart can save a lot of time and money in the lab, but I'm sure someone on your crew has a Mac and a decent printer. Aperture will let you demo it for 30 days as well. If you don't have access to a chart, this can be an inexpensive way to communicate with your colorist. Even if you do have a nice chart, again, it will save you time and money.

[Frank Barrera]

you should look into shooting 3-perf 35MM. you'll save about 25% on stock, proccessing and transfer.

[Ryan Barton-Grimley]

Why is 3 perf 35mm cheaper?

[David Mullen ASC]

Why is 3 perf 35mm cheaper?

 

It's cheaper than 4-perf 35mm because it's one-perf less tall, so you use & process 25% less film stock. Trouble is that it's not a format for theatrical projection, so you have to go through a conversion step to 4-perf, usually a D.I.

[Guest]

Using re-cans you can get your raw stock 35mm down to .30-.40 a foot.

 

I certainly would not buy new stock from Kodak or Fuji. Use Fuji re-cans and you're away. Give these guys a call:

 

http://www.thedrgroup.com/Film/Filmstock.htm

 

The 5:1 is low, as others have mentioned. Think of two people having a conversation. If you shoot a single of each and a two shot with no mistakes or re-takes that's 3:1 right there. That doesn't include any close ups, dollies, OTS, or any thing like that.

 

R,

[David Sweetman]

you should look into shooting 3-perf 35MM. you'll save about 25% on stock, proccessing and transfer.

He's probably already figured it out some time in the last three years...

[Algis Kemezys]

I don't know why I am pushing HD but if it was my first. Shooting HD would actually give you very good ratio's because you could shoot alot ,if you have the time and willing subjects. Superb coverage of scenes is so rewarding to the eye and mind. With HD you more or less can afford to shoot all angles a few ways and even get experimental.A 5 to1 ratio to me would mean so much preparation, story boards and what not the fun would be over quite quickly. With new camera and sophisticated software and a good dop you can make the look of t6he video seem like film with targeting key moments from beginning to end to have extreme out of focus subjects. Who wouldn't want to shoot on film knowing the image is actually etched onto the geletine surface...

[Tim O'Connor]

He's probably already figured it out some time in the last three years...

 

Three people just looked at me because I laughed out loud when I read this. You usually don't see

such a dry delivery in print.

[NormNelson]

I'm afraid I agree with the $60,000 estimate given. We just did a stock footage shoot with 6 rolls of 35mm film shot

and processed then transfered to Digital Betacam. After we saw this wildlife documentary style eagle flying footage

we realized we did very well as far as waste goes and we send it all in to be transferred to HD. Best light.

So we figure we are in the $3,500 range for all this. We shot Daylight Vision 2 so we had lots of

depth of field with this fast moving bird on the wing. Our ratio was actually in the 5:1 area but we were

very careful turning on and off and being set. Realistically thought 5:1 is low but possible, read about

Clint Eastwood s approach to filmmaking, he reheases, and then rehearses, when he gets on the set he

shoots and moves on...he's pretty proven.

Hey atleast you're shooting film, you're thinking about film, you know you want film, thank god there's a

few of us left as the HD Digital cloud is moving fast in our direction and it's no cheaper in the long run than film.

Good shooting

Norm