Typical amounts of film used

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Can't say that I have :/ I'm struggling through some Mythology right now and Herodotus I might've reached a point of film-related-book overload recently and needed a quick break.

 

For record, just has a meeting with a student director whose film I'm DPing on the SR3. We ordered the film, budgeted for a 4:1 (though we have extra cash should we need it). approx 3000ft for a 20pg script. 7219, so here's hoping. I can let everyone know how it went 'round 2nd week of Jan, though we won't be doing any scanning etc will early feb (I'll be out of the country and we're going to go directly to "online" with HDCam before it's edited..so they want me 'round for that)

[David Mullen ASC]

One thing that can really throw estimates off is when the scene plays longer than written. I once worked with a director who regularly had actors play scenes S...L...O...W... -- after a few days of 2-page scenes running 4 minutes, I had to tell the producer that the stock estimates would have to be increased. Of course, the first cut of the movie ran very long and they had to cut a half-hour of scenes out of it.

[Dan Salzmann]

It is very important to be objective about what you are getting into when setting out to make a film.

Knowing what you need to make the film is a sign of professionalism. Naiveté has struck many, many "great" minds over the course of history.

Look what happened to Napoleon when he sent his troops to the Russian front in the dead of winter in what amounted to felt slippers and very dodgy supply lines (food and ammunition).

Then Hitler essentially repeated the same mistake over a century later.

Between 12:1 and 16:1 are typical, reasonable, realistic ratios on dramatic feature films.

This changes with errors from cast and crew, uncontrollable sound and weather occurences as well as the use of multiple cameras.

If production can not handle this kind of film expense, do not think you can put a pickle in a Cheerio.

(You can with a very small pickle or a very large Cheerio, but you know what I mean)

Face facts, you can not shoot on film. Shoot digital and use the potential savings to make a better piece (get the images you need, feed the crew, better art direction-set design, wardrobe, make-up, etc.).

As a DP there are few things worse than having to light shoddy looking sets and/or badly styled actors. Having that Panavision and filmstock for a 3:1 ratio is not going to change that.

PREPARATION in all departments!!!!!!!

[James Steven Beverly]

I wish you the best of luck on your project, James. Clearly you DO have a plan, so I hope it works out for you so you can tell us what you learned. Then I can steal some of your ideas the next time I shoot something... ;)

 

Actually, for Blood Moon Rising, I have absolutely NO intention what so ever of shooting it at a 1:1 ratio. :D It's set for a 5 - 7 : 1 ratio ( I was planning on 5 but you kinda talked me into 7 listening to your posts here) and I'm gonna TRY and have it shot within 2 weeks. This discussion/debate is purely academic, HOWEVER, at some point down the road (Probably after our processing lab is up and running and I have a few films under my belt), I would like to get 2 maybe 3 actors at the most, put 'em in the studio with a simple script, rehearse the poop out of the piece and try this. It MAY not work but as an experiment, it would be worth a try just to see what can be done especially if we can keep processing costs down (you know just in case it looks like TOTAL crap we won't have much into it). Like I said, I don't mind the occasional gamble and 2 grand or so for re-canned stock, a student operator and unknown actors hired for a one day shoot, contemporary setting and costumes processed in our own lab. IF it DOES work, we'll have a VERY cost effective production to sell which could be worth the risk if it has the potential to yield a product that could be sold in just a few overseas markets or on direct video sales. If it doesn't, I'm out 2 grand we know it can't be done. :rolleyes:

 

Now as I said Blood moon is NOT going to be that film but on the other hand, I don't intend to completely ignore my own advice. With Blood Moon I WILL use some of the techniques listed such as starting with a script that has limited dialog so major portions of it can be shot MOS on the Konvas and PII, story boarding and meticulous pre-planning, in camera editing where ever practical, cut aways to cover mistakes and save otherwise usable footage, shooting most if not all of the action scenes silent and adding wild tracks with Foley and ADR in post, limiting coverage and takes as much as possible, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, but I just consider that good business practices when you have limited means. A lot of this will be possible because the cast is small, basically 2 main characters, 2 featured characters, a few day players and ONE star (assuming when all is said and done I can AFFORD a star) in for no more than 3 days. I like some of the greats that never let that go to their heads, like Kubrick who preferred a small crew and Corman who was the model of efficient film production. All I'm trying to do is learn from their and other examples, methods to keep production costs low so we can keep our business viable and operating in the black. Please do call me Steve or Steven.....or jerk or moron or idiot..... whatever you prefer, Ol' buddy. :D

[James Steven Beverly]

Has anyone ever read "The Art of Coarse Acting"? It's about the life of an actor in regional theater in the U.K. It's quite funny.

 

I definitely gotta check that one out. Most of my reading for the last 2 years have been confined to technical information on film making and processing. I also like films about theater folk (surprise :rolleyes: ) my favorite is Waiting for Guffman and Big as the sky, I also liked the series Slings and Arrows.

 

I just thought of this, I forgot I DID do something similar to what we're talking about. I direct a shoot for a staged 2 hour original musical a year or 2 ago. It was shot on standard DV and actually a 3 to 1 shooting ratio because we used 3 cameras. I set the camera to the right and left, then I got up in the catwalks with the third camera. We had set a 4th but one of the assistants broke it before we start rolling be forcing the tape in incorrectly AFTER I had asked him if he knew how to load the camera (500 dollar repair <_< ) so it was out of commission for the shoot. We used radio headsets to keep track of what each other was shooting so we could keep from over covering any single element which gave us a great amount of material to work with. There WAS one disaster, the sound was messed up for the first 3 minutes of the shoot and was difficult to correct. I cut the entire thing together and did what I could with the messed up sound. It came out terrific. This despite the fact that we had no rehearsal because the other 2 camera guys didn't show up to the first of the 2 scheduled performances so we could discuss the shoot which was to be of the second performance. That was ALSO very irritating. I however, did go and knew what to expect so it worked out OK. We got some beautiful footage. I guess sometimes you do get lucky. B)

Edited December 22, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[Max Jacoby]

Sorry I'm a bit late in joining this debate.

 

In my experience I would be very hesitant to go below a 12:1 ratio. Because once you factor in waste, blown takes (either by actors or technical glitches like focus, timing, etc...), shots that invariably run longer than anticipated, the time it takes to slate, etc... 12:1 gives you only about a 10:1 effective shooting ratio. So if you start already with only 10:1 you really only have about 8:1 which I don't think is enough for most films.

 

Yes you can rehearse to try to keep the shooting ratio low, but actors are not athletes or trained monkeys that get better the more you practice with them. You don't want to force them to do the same thing over and over again, because the acting will invariably get stale.

 

I've found it incredibly beneficial to let the actors do different versions of a scene (either through different directions, or losing dialogue or even swapping dialogue around where that can be done). For one that keeps their performance fresh, but most importantly, it gives you options in the editing. Because you don't know until you're actually cutting the film what works and what doesn't.

 

This has been confirmed by friends who have more directing experience than I have: the take you like best on the day is hardly ever the one you choose in the edit. When you're shooting you have a tendency to look for something very specific (mostly something technical, like timing of camera and actors) and once you have that, you think that's your best take. But it's only when you watch the rushes, that you really see what you've got and you can pick a take. So it is best for the film if you give yourself options, and that you can only really do if your shooting ratio is high enough.

[Charles MacDonald]

Things go wrong on a movie set. It's a law of nature. Any realistic plan has to accept that.

 

I wish you the best of luck on your project, James. Clearly you DO have a plan, so I hope it works out for you so you can tell us what you learned. Then I can steal some of your ideas the next time I shoot something... ;)

 

Maybe it's just my personality type -- I'm a worrier, a disaster-anticipator, not an optimist... but even I, after all my planning, still have the same feeling on Day One, which usually repeats on every other day: the thing that goes thru my head is "why is filmmaking so damned hard?" It seemed like such a simple shot... With all the hair-pulling, it's amazing I have hair.

 

Sounds like the voice of experience talking to me.

 

If you can anticipate a problem, it generaly can be prevented, the UNanticipated problems are the ones that come home to roost.

 

The more experience one has, the greater chance that one has the "spider sense" to avoid the problem.

[James Steven Beverly]

but actors are not..... trained monkeys

 

I beg to disagree. :D

[Max Jacoby]

Is that what you were told in your acting days? ;)

[James Steven Beverly]

Yes, yes it was. :rolleyes:

 

That reminds me of that line from the Producers.

 

Bloom: Actors are not animals! They're human beings!

Bialystock: They are? Have you ever eaten with one?!!

 

or Hitchcock's scathing satirical line: "I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle."

 

and actually, my acting days are still here. I'm considering doing the lead role in Blood Moon, a tough guy Vietnam vet ex SOG/MACV gunrunner who ends up protecting the girl and fighting the werewolf, I'm just not sure yet it it's gonna be too much for me to handle both directing and playing the lead role on a first 35mm effort. It should be a fun role to do, lotta shooting guns, getting knocked around, Bruce Willis, Sean Connery kinda stuff. What I'll probably do is screen test myself. My DP want's to shoot a teaser on a Sony HDW-900 package (we can rent it cheap) to help raise funds. I would rather shoot it silent with the PII or the Knovas on 35 but no decision has been made yet. Mel seems to think HD will save a lot of time which on the teaser would be a good idea as we'd schedule a 2 day shoot for it. I think 35 shot silent, would be just as fast and the rental saved would pay for stock but we would have to process and digitize though I have someone who owes me a 1000 ft of digital transfer. so I'm just not sure. I don't want to ignore Mel's advice and experience but I just am unsure about the dynamic range of video on this project. Either way though, I could use that as my screen test and get an idea of what I'll be facing on the actually shoot. B)

Edited December 23, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[Paul Bruening]

Max's comment is 100% on the money. You'll hate yourself in editing when you short the ratio. It only takes one bad take in a movie to put your viewers off. I know that's a lot of pressure to put on indie producers. But, that is the principle reason why Hollywood movies are so expensive: No bad takes in the finished product.