$6000 budget!

[biggip]

I have a 6000$ budget for a 30min short film i´m making. Do you think it is possible to shoot this on 35mm on a rented camera for this amount, or should I rather consider to buy a Canon DV XL2. If so wich should I buy the PAL or NTSC version for possible Film 35mm blowup because I want to send it to various Short Film Festivals.

 

best regards

[Tim Tyler]

So is the $6k just for production, or does that need to get you the 35mm festival print(s) too?

 

Are you the DP? Do you know a DP with a camera package who'd work for cheap?

 

In order to get a comprehensive answer, you'll need to be more specific about your project.

[K Borowski]

Do you think it is possible to shoot this on 35mm on a rented camera for this amount, or should I rather consider to buy a Canon DV XL2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think that 35mm would be feasible unless you can get things done with a very low shooting ratio. If you were going to do everything in one take like porno (yeah right) it would cost $360 just for the raw stock (assuming color is what you'll be shooting). Normally people are shooting at 8:1 or even 10 or 12:1. At those ratios, even with short ends, by the time you get back from the lab you'll be over that budget already. You're skipping over 16mm though. If you're careful, using short ends only, you might be able to get a decent production going with 16. What is your subject matter? It all depends on what you're shooting too. And entering into a festival means that you'll need to make expensive prints and do color timing as well. I don't know of any festivals that won't accept 16mm though (except maybe digital-only festivals ;-) ), so don't shy away from film just because you can't afford 35mm. I hope this helps.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[DavidSloan]

30 minute short on 35mm for 6k is never going to happen. Even if you shoot on the XL2 you wont be able to afford a 35mm blowup considering you're going to rent lights, have a crew and feed people. Why so eager for 35mm...believe me just because your short is on 35mm won't guarantee you a 3 picture deal anytime soon; there are dozens of 35mm shorts that go no where except the director's fridge.

[David Mullen ASC]

I photographed a ten-minute short in 35mm anamorphic that got into Sundance and won an honorable mention, and it had a $10,000 budget, but this required a lot of free stuff, like the cameras from Panavision, some of the lab work, some rolls of donated stock (the rest was purchased), and three days with a crew where no one was paid. So $6000 for a 30 minute short in 35mm is pretty much out of the question unless a lot of things are free for you. I'd say $20,000 as a minimum would be more reasonable. If you want to shoot in 35mm, make it MUCH shorter.

 

Why buy a DV camera to make one short when you can rent one for a few days for a few hundred bucks? Or do you live outside of a rental market?

[GeorgeSelinsky]

If you bought short ends at say 0.12/ft, got it processed for 0.13/ft, and transferred one light at 0.075 per ft, you'd end up with just under $5K for a 5:1 shooting ratio for stock alone, which is a pretty low ratio (I'd say just BARELY acceptable). If you got to borrow a camera you'd just barely get it in the can for $6K, and probably a little over.

 

I agree, 35mm for a short is a waste of money. 16mm is an option I'd consider because you'll get to make a nice film print versus going video projection (although the sound man/sound designer/composer will hate you for it).

 

- G.

[Laurent Andrieux]

Super 16 is a very good alternative for low budget short films, if you consider shooting film and not video. The result will be pretty close to shooting 35 after blowing and will be defenetly much nicer than shooting video (unless you can afford HD...)

[DavidSloan]

Btw, you don't need a 35mm print for short film fests. Those days are long gone, man. More then half of the films in festivals, esp short fests, are DV. 35mm blowup means nothing.