Theoretical Question: Cost of 90min 35mm Feature.

[Max Jacoby]

Check with Arri Media, they have 2 perf movements for their Arricams ( as well as 435 and 235 if I recall correctly)

[Nate Downes]

You know, Nate, I respect what you do and all of what you say. BUT, 3:1 is good only for crew and budgets. From a director's, editor's, producer's, and distributor's standpoint 10:1 shooting ration is about the minimum. 3:1 gives you "a take that can be cut in". 10:1 or higher gives you "a GOOD take that can be cut in". At 3:1 you can't hope to have a solidly and cleanly acted set of cut-able takes. Generally, it takes 10:1 and that's with competent, professional actors.

 

High shooting ratios make me grimace in budgeting. Getting into the editing booth and having only a pile of crap to cut is way, way, way worse.

I was quoting a 5:1 ratio, actually. I find in my experience that I've not gotten any better performance on take 10 than I had on take 3, but I also add for overages of key sequences, and such.

[Nate Downes]

post locked while I was editing.

 

I was going to add that I'd hoped I'd made it clear that I was using my own workflow, where I use a low shooting ratio for some segments, more in others, giving me an average of a 5:1 ratio. Now, if he used the 2-perf setup, he'd be closer to my costs in film, but with an added cost for some post services, so likely $40k-$45k for his total cost, my guess.

 

I'd go 2-perf if you could. I really need to look into modifying my DeVrys to 2-perf sometime.

[Freya Black]

I should add I'm in the UK, so I suppose whatever it costs in the States I can probably double or even triple it here.

Any Londoners?

 

Yes double the price at the very least, and for some parts of the process probably triple. That sounds about accurate.

 

I've just been to a lab recently and the price I was quoted for 35mm processing was a real shock which hit me hard. It looks likely that it will end up sinking my latest project.

 

If you are considering going to the expense of a 2k DI, it may be worth thinking of shooting Super16 as 16mm is much cheaper than 35mm here in the u.k. and I get the impression people are much better geared up for it too.

 

Personally I'm seeing a great deal of transatlantic travel in my future.

That or a DVX100B

 

love

 

Freya

[Bruce Taylor]

Hey Bruce: what is the link to the place you posted lately to get short ends from?

Thanks!

 

Hi Saul,

 

I've been away for a few days, so I just saw your post.

www.reelgoodfilm.com, 323 876-5427 on Sunset Blvd in Hollywood.

The last stock I picked up was fresh 5279 at $.06 a foot, 200' lengths. Unbelievable. Their Vision2 stocks go for $.10 a foot.

 

And to 2 perf Paul Bruening, you'ld probably fit right on Santa Monica Blvd ...after 9pm in front of the Kodak building...

 

-Bruce

[Bob Hayes]

It is very tough to make a film on less then a 10 to 1 ratio. I will usually turn down projects that don?t have at least that ratio.

 

You will loose 10% to waste. That leaves you 9 to 1 ratio. You will loose 10% to slates and miss cues. That leaves you an 8 to 1 ratio. If you do the standard Master close up close up style of film making that gives you two takes on the master and three on each angle of coverage. Most actors, camera operators, and boom men feel pretty comfortable with three chances to get it right. Limit it to two takes and the stress to get it right will adversely affect the mood on the set.

 

2-Perf is a great way to go if you are concerned with budget and want wide screen.

[K Borowski]

I was quoting a 5:1 ratio, actually. I find in my experience that I've not gotten any better performance on take 10 than I had on take 3, but I also add for overages of key sequences, and such.

 

Nate, I think you and Bob and Max are all talking about different things. I used to think the same way that these guys are talking about shooting 10 takes of everything. In actuality, what they mean by 10:1 is 10 minutes of footage (roughly) for every 1 minute that is actuallly in the movie.

 

So you shoot a master shot and close up coverage with the same line of dialog that is taking place at the same time in context of the movie to give the editor choices in the editing process to jump back and forth.

 

So while it is referred to as 10:1, there's usually only about 3-5 takes of everything, but there is repetition of the same lines of dialog from different camera angles and distances.

[Nate Downes]

Nate, I think you and Bob and Max are all talking about different things. I used to think the same way that these guys are talking about shooting 10 takes of everything. In actuality, what they mean by 10:1 is 10 minutes of footage (roughly) for every 1 minute that is actuallly in the movie.

 

So you shoot a master shot and close up coverage with the same line of dialog that is taking place at the same time in context of the movie to give the editor choices in the editing process to jump back and forth.

 

So while it is referred to as 10:1, there's usually only about 3-5 takes of everything, but there is repetition of the same lines of dialog from different camera angles and distances.

Actually I was thinking 5 minutes shot for every one in the movie. I tend to work with the director and editor to pre-edit the movie somewhat, reducing the amount of takes I'll need.

[K Borowski]

Actually I was thinking 5 minutes shot for every one in the movie. I tend to work with the director and editor to pre-edit the movie somewhat, reducing the amount of takes I'll need.

 

OK, so you're basically saying that for one angle out of every three you shoot, you'll be able to get it right in one take, and you won't need to shoot a safety, which is dangerous and irresponsible since you can't always catch scratches and hairs in the gate.

 

It's nigh near impossible to pre-edit a movie to ensure perfect continuity, eye-lines, and enable every master shot to match perfectly with closeups and other cut-in shots.

 

It's pretty standard procedure on budgeted shoots to have at least two good takes of everything.

 

In fact, if you have negative insurance, it is often stipulated that they will only cover reshoots if you have multiple takes and you check the gate after every shot.

[Paul Bruening]

It's the freakin' actors, man. I've directed only one, one-take-wonder (I was in awe of this guy). All the rest, my wife and I included, weren't worth the bullet it would take to off them. AND it's not just slates, end of roll waste, dirty gates, blown focus pulls, bad pans and tilts, mis-rolled dollies, actors missing their marks, blowing their lines, glancing at the camera or director, extraneous noise, peaked levels, bad boom coverage, mic in the frame, crew mumbling or laughing and the thousand other smaller things that eat up shooting ratio... it's that actors can't get the shot quite right. It's ok-ish. It's close. But, it's not really quite it. The actor didn't quite nail it. An when it cuts together the scene just isn't right. The emotion isn't on the mark or the mood was off or the performance was so inconsistent that the scene emotionally oscillates. So, you try to avoid this by getting another take. And another. And another. And another. And another...

[K Borowski]

So, you try to avoid this by getting another take. And another. And another. And another. And another...

 

Exactly. It isn't the fault of film; there are relatively few hairs in the gate or scratches. The last film I was on I can't recall a single one, unless the one take they forgot to check the gate for before rolling again had it. . .

 

 

Any operation involving a human being is prone to human error. And, like resolution loss with a lens, the equation is multiplicative, not additive.

 

You're not going to get a high-quality product shooting only two takes of something, and not having all the dialog from multiple angles. You just won't.

 

Why do you think they shoot sitcoms with multiple cameras? There's no other way to do it in front of a live audience with few, if any, retakes and have it all cut together flawlessly.

 

And yet they still do have to do retakes, because even shooting from multiple cameras in real time, with days of rehearsal, actors and crews STILL GET IT WRONG.

 

So multiply the difficulty of trying to perform the same take, the same focus pull, the same camera movement, exactly the same way multiple times in a row.

 

It's like trying to take the same photograph of an outdoor scene a day later without locking off the camera and marking your spot and taking note of the time when you shot the scene.

[Nate Downes]

You assume that all shooting is with the actors in dialog, no backgrounds or scenic shots, no pure action shots...

 

That is how you get the ratio down, by not limiting yourself to just a dialog recordist. Yes, for heavy dialog I'll get to 10:1, 15:1, even 20:1 ratios. but dialog is not the entire movie (in most cases).

[K Borowski]

You assume that all shooting is with the actors in dialog, no backgrounds or scenic shots, no pure action shots...

 

That is how you get the ratio down, by not limiting yourself to just a dialog recordist. Yes, for heavy dialog I'll get to 10:1, 15:1, even 20:1 ratios. but dialog is not the entire movie (in most cases).

 

You're right, with a background shot, or a shot of a sunrise, it'll be 1:1, but even here, a lot of shoots will use a couple of cameras for safety's sake, lest they have to rebuild a house and go through the expense of $1 Million because the only camera shooting was loaded wrong.

 

There are some films with little-to-no dialog, but look at your typical big-budget film and I'd say 90% of the shots have someone speaking in them.

 

There are a couple of establishing shots that don't have people in them, and maybe one shot out of twenty where no one is speaking that can be shot from one angle or one setup, such as a shot of an actor gazing out of a window, or a shot with an actor walking down the street with a city skyline in the background.

 

I guess Indy movies deviate more from the norm in that they can have far less dialogue than a standard studio film, but look at all the criticism films like 2001 and Bladerunner and The Thin Red Line get for being too vague to understand or nonsensical. For every person that praises them, there's another condemning them for not making any sense.

[Paul Bruening]

I really, really love the dynamic on a shoot. The actors are doing their thing. Anywhere from a few to a few dozen crew are standing around and watching the take with intensity. If the take blows because of a tech thing then everyone takes a breath and sets it up for another take. When the take is clean every single person watching will be a silent director and decide if they think the shot was a keeper. When the director calls for another take you can see in everyone's eyes whether they thought the previous one was the magic take or if the next one is justified. It's funny to see. I love that.

[Nate Downes]

You're right, with a background shot, or a shot of a sunrise, it'll be 1:1, but even here, a lot of shoots will use a couple of cameras for safety's sake, lest they have to rebuild a house and go through the expense of $1 Million because the only camera shooting was loaded wrong.

Whenever I start working on million dollar features I likely will be doing such worries as well, but I'm on sub-micro budgets, so I focus on saving money first and firemost for now.

 

This is a very good discussion of film production techniques from two different angles I feel.

[K Borowski]

Whenever I start working on million dollar features I likely will be doing such worries as well, but I'm on sub-micro budgets, so I focus on saving money first and firemost for now.

 

This is a very good discussion of film production techniques from two different angles I feel.

 

I am not saying these are million dollar techniques. The [good, professional] shoots that I have been on all employed them. It's still very doable to budget for 10:1 if you are shooting with ends and you have a realistic budget.

 

I was on a shoot with a forum member here for a day back in January, and it was I think 4-5K and they shot it in exactly the manner I described here.

 

I was actually quite impressed with the deals that Craig worked out on his shoot for such a small budget. It was a real pleasure to work with someone that took it so seriously.

 

Hell, even with a 10:1 or higher ratio, you still see shots that don't quite match all the time on TV, even in movies, so if you drop below 10:1 you'll probably have it happen at least a dozen times in your movie, which really takes the audience out of it. That's not something I could live with.

[Nate Downes]

I am not saying these are million dollar techniques. The [good, professional] shoots that I have been on all employed them. It's still very doable to budget for 10:1 if you are shooting with ends and you have a realistic budget.

Of course it is. (more than easy enough, infact. For the feature I'm developing I'll have a 12:1 ratio in the end, yet the film cost will be under $500)

[K Borowski]

Of course it is. (more than easy enough, infact. For the feature I'm developing I'll have a 12:1 ratio in the end, yet the film cost will be under $500)

 

Yeah, IIRC, the lab bill for the feature I was on was in the $700s, figure something similar with their 16mm short ends.

 

I'd say that anything below maybe 7:- or 8:1 is nuts.

[Nate Downes]

Yeah, IIRC, the lab bill for the feature I was on was in the $700s, figure something similar with their 16mm short ends.

 

I'd say that anything below maybe 7:- or 8:1 is nuts.

it really depends on the movie itself I find. Rodriguez did a 3:1 on El Mariachi, for example. I remember one russian that shot on a 1.5:1 ratio which was facinating to watch.

 

Sometimes tho I think people need to stop worrying about the amount of film so much and instead think on how to use the film they have to it's best.

[Alain Lumina]

I'm inexperienced, but there may be factor like playing live music-- when you KNOW there's only one chance, that may hurt-- but also can IMPROVE-- performances--

 

This is IT. Here and NOW.

 

Like real life.

 

It sure focuses me, when I play a musical gig.