Jump to content

35mm short


Geovane Marquez

Recommended Posts

Seriously, read my posts. I never said he was full of s**t. Ever. It wasn't even really directed at him, I just gave an opinion. He took it WAY, WAY too personally for some reason.

 

I didn't read your whole post. You wrote a book on my one paragraph, disected sentence by sentence. But first you say this above, and then you say that, below. . .

 

Ok, seriously. Why are you jumping on me like this? When have I ever said that everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot? When?

 

 

And, no, I'm not saying that a reasonable 35mm camera kit can cost $3000 a day. I'm saying there's plenty of sh*& that can happen to prevent one from completing an outdoor exterior short, even a 2-minute one, in one day. Then you need an extra day's rental.

 

And, as I said above, there is far more cost, HOPEFULLY, than a camera and a film workflow to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, thanks for picking every Single SENTENCE of my post apart.

 

I just responded to each separate point. It seems my previous posts have been misinterpreted as something they are not, so I was trying to be as clear as possible.

 

 

 

No, you didn't say "You're full of sh*&," or "You're an idiot," but that's the net effect of what you said to Michael, even when he was agreeing with you with only a few [practical] exceptions!

 

No, no, it simply wasn't. I gave my opinion. It was not directed at him. I was not telling him that he was stupid for shooting his short or feature on DSLR. I used the hypothetical "you" a few times and if that made it sound like I was telling him what to do with his projects then I apologize for the unclear choice of grammar. I would like to point out though that I used "my opinion" several times as well.

 

Just because I disagree with Michael does not mean I think he is an idiot. I don't. I don't know how I can make that more clear.

 

 

 

 

You have plenty of examples where 35mm is cheaper than everything else. That's fine. But an HDSLR can be free. 35mm can't beat that unless you work at a film lab and have a buddy that bequeaths you a whole bunch of free film.

 

I think this is a stretch. And before we go on, I want to make it clear that I am disagreeing with you, not calling you an idiot. I think it's a stretch because you either have to own the DSLR already or borrow it. It takes favours to do it for free.

 

Maybe it's easier than doing 35mm for free, but that all depends on what connections you have. I know people who have done 35mm with a 2k DI for free. But that's certainly not a deal everybody can get. Just like not everybody can shoot DSLR for free.

 

And again we are ignoring the fact that shooting format and post are only a portion of the cost of a film, so even if he is able to borrow a DSLR and do post himself it doesn't mean his film will be free.

 

 

 

And since the original poster has reconsidered shooting 35mm, there is absolutely nothing wrong with informing him of the other options.

 

He mentioned RED as a cheaper alternative based on somebody giving him a very high estimate on 35. And he said "RED would be like $1000", which is not going to be the case. Let's let him weigh in on that.

 

And fine present other options. But how about we present them realistically. Saying that DSLR will be $4 or 'free' is not realistic, neither is that 35 will automatically cost him $7500. In fact I'm pretty sure the person who just said "Approximately $7510 – give or take…" was joking. It was a friendly jab at the the Geovane saying "how much would my film cost?" without really giving us an details about the film. That's why when I gave some numbers I tried to make it clear that I was talking camera/post and not the film's entire budget.

 

 

 

I notice you quote a bunch of numbers for your cheaper 35mm costs, but don't add them up. Looks like they're somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000, which is $1,500 a minute. We're assuming that he can get all of his lights, crew, talent (far more important than filmstock) for free.

 

More like $2500, and that's assuming he can't find a better deal on a camera. Most of that cost is the camera, which yes, when you have to rent the camera by the day it makes the per minute rate look high, but you could shoot a 20 min short in a weekend, pay for 1 rental day and have a fraction of that for your per minute rate. That's just a way of making it sound high.

 

You bring up the point of all the other expenses (which FYI I mentioned several times). How in gods name does that go in favour of DSLR? Those expenses are the SAME regardless of what he shoots. Well hopefully the same. Some DOPs say you need more lights to light for DSLR. But let's put that aside for a moment. Say his short does cost $7500 to shoot on 35mm. Well only $2500 of that was camera/post, so he spent $5000 on all that other stuff you mentioned. We even if he shoots it on a DSLR he gets for free and does post himself for free (which is not always a good idea, but that's for another thread) the short still costs him $5000, not $0.

 

Now whether of not he may feel that spending only $5000 instead of $7500 is worth a COMPROMISE on image format (and in his case it is because remember he wanted 35 originally), is his call. He may see that as a worth-while savings. Or, alternatively, he may be like me and say "yeah and extra $2500 is nothing to laugh at, but I think it's a worth while investment in my project because, after all, this is my calling card and I want it to pay off in the long run".

 

And again all of this depends on him getting a DSLR for FREE. Which may or may not be possible in his case.

 

 

 

I looked at your co-op website. If you want to rent extra lenses, a focus assist, a synch camera, sound equipment, anything like that, it much more expensive.

 

Did you? Because the Konvas kit includes lenses, a matte box, mags, etc., etc. It's a kit. Their ARRI III has a base-rate with only a zoom lens, but adding the extra does not make it "much more expensive".

 

They don't have a sync-sound camera so that's a mute point (although rumor is they might have one before long). And as for sound equipment that is in the 'other' category. You need good sound equipment if you are shooting DSLR. Your not going to use it's built-in mic with crummy audio compression are you? And when it comes to the 'other' category co-ops have those things too. You can get all that sound equipment, lights, and other stuff from them as well for better-than-industry prices. They cater to filmmaking, not just cameras. In fact if you were going to shoot digital, they have digital kits as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for being some much more rational than the rest of us Phil. I mean that.

 

Other the other approach to budget is start with the amount you have to spend and work backwards and come up with the most cost effective way of shooting you film for that money the best way you can afford. That approach means you don't up front decide on 35mm but work out if 35mm works on your budget - based on real quotes rather then guess work.

 

I think we are basically on the same page here. But I don't start with the amount I have to spend. I budget for the ideal. Shooting 35mm, paying full-rates to all the crew, whatever locations I want, all the amenities, etc. Now this almost always ends up being more than the budget I can afford, but it allows me to work backwards from the ideal. I start by finding places where I can save money while still doing the same thing (like short-ends instead of fresh stock), what deals I can get with labs, on equipment, etc.

 

Usually it's still too high, so then I need to start making compromises. Do I really need all the equipment I would like? Usually the answer is no. Save some money there. Do I need as many shooting days or as many locations? Save some money there.

 

The last two things I compromise on is crew and production value (which includes shooting format). I want to pay crew what I can. A lot of these people are my friends, I respect them and want to treat them with respect. But I feel that fighting for a high-end product is for their benefit as well. It's an indie short, as much as they should be paid something they are not in it for the money. They are in it for the credit and something great on their reel first and foremost, in the hopes that it will help them get bigger jobs in the future.

 

Now, if at this point it's still above my original budget I need to ask myself something. Should I sacrifice things to shoot it on what money I have now? Or is it worth it to wait a bit and either save up more of my own cash, or look for other funding sources so I can make the film without sacrificing things?

 

 

 

And as for my crew, It's an indie short. There is no way in hell I will ever be able to pay them full rates. And they don't expect to make full rates working on indie shorts. So I look at ways to give them VALUE for their work. First and foremost that is a well-written story, but other things that add production value like shooting format do enter into it.

 

If I shoot in on 35mm it will be a much better product than if I shoot it on DSLR. These people get offered low-pay gigs on DSLR shoots all the time, but quite often they find it not worth their while because the end product is not something that helps their demo reel. So I have two options: I can slash the shooting format budget and spread that around to the crew, but the reality is it only bumps their pay up a little bit to a point that is not really any more attractive than what it was when shooting on 35mm, and sacrifices a lot of the quality of the film. It's a balancing act. What benefits the film the most? What benefits the crew the most? Usually it ends up being the same thing.

 

When it comes indie shorts, a filmmaker is often only able to pay their crew what is really a pittance. And the money alone is not worth their while. I think most of them would jump at the chance to work for free on a 35mm short rather than be paid a small amount on a DSLR short because they know the 35mm short is more likely to be a higher-end product and has a better chance of getting more exposure for everyone involved. I think most of them are looking forward at where they are going in their career. Their ambition is not to work on indie shorts for the rest of their life.

 

Other people may not see it the way I do, but people need to way their options carefully. Yes, filmmakers shouldn't 'sacrifice' other aspects of their film to shoot on 35mm or whatever format. But they should weigh those options carefully and ask themselves what is really going to benefit the film and the people involved. Ok, I could pay my costume designer enough put towards 1/10 of her rent this month, or should I give her the chance to showcase her talented abilities on 35mm at one or more major festivals. And yes, she has to make the decision if it benefits her to work on the project, but I think a lot of crew, see it the same way. A calling card is more important than a tiny amount of money. That's not to say though that the ideal isn't to both pay them AND put money into the film's production value, but I just don't think it's a good idea to sacrifice production value automatically.

 

 

I just see slashing the production value of the short as a disservice to my crew. I realize not everybody will agree with me, but again it's my opinion and how I operate. It may not apply to others, but that is their choice and I certainly don't think they are an idiot for simply having a difference of opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, no, I'm not saying that a reasonable 35mm camera kit can cost $3000 a day. I'm saying there's plenty of sh*& that can happen to prevent one from completing an outdoor exterior short, even a 2-minute one, in one day. Then you need an extra day's rental.

 

Oh, ok, I misunderstood I thought you were talking $3000/day. I fully agree that it could run more than one day, although I think in most cases that can be avoided and should be avoided at all cost for reason much more problematic than the camera rental.

 

If he needed an extra day he has to consider what else he needs for that day, not just the camera. Is that second day more dialog scenes? In which case he needs all of his actors and crew back, all the equipment back, access to his locations, etc. The camera ends up being a minor detail. If on the other hand he is just shooting establishing shots or 'second unit' type stuff he only needs a minimum of crew, and could do with an MOS camera just fine for the second day. But he may not even need to worry about that because a lot of rental houses will give you a camera for the weekend for a single day rate. This is something he would need to investigate. If he planned to shoot on Saturday he could have Sunday as a buffer. But again that would only apply to the camera and maybe some of the other equipment rentals.

 

In my experience if you run over your shooting days, it's not equipment that kills you, it's getting crew back. They are either booked on something else or you can't afford to pay them for the extra day.

 

 

 

And, as I said above, there is far more cost, HOPEFULLY, than a camera and a film workflow to consider.

 

We seem to agree on this. But the same applies if he shoots a different format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...