Jump to content

All Advice needed


Recommended Posts

Hi, I am completely new to the film world but I have an passion for an area that I think needs to be researched, documented and shown.

 

Since to date no one seems interested to do it, I've decided to.

 

The thing is, I want it to reach the widest audience possible so I'm thinking film.

 

what's the difference between a 35 mm film and a 16 mm one?

 

what's the least expensive, highest quality ratio 35mm camera?

 

how expensive is it to rent a camera?(in Toronto)

 

what are the tools I'll need?

 

 

What is the average budget I'll be looking at?

 

for someone without money, where do I start?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa...give them more than 28 minutes to reply before freaking out. They do have work you know.

 

I am a newbie as well (in the truest sense of the word), but make sure you check the rest of the posts in here so you aren't asking questions that have already been answered.

 

 

 

What is the documentary about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in Toronto and was preparing a reply until I saw how impatient you are.

 

Well answer anyway, :P

 

I called a film rental place called Panevision and they suggested that I should go HD. Is that a good option?

 

Please bear in mind that I want to go to theartre at the end with this film, but I'm currently very low budgeted now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for someone without money, where do I start?

 

Mini DV

Or maybe you start with HDV...

 

1) You need to be more patient :)

2) You should hire a film guy/gal to help you

3) You need to be more specific

 

It's sorta like me asking:

I'm hungry what should I eat?

How would you answer that?

 

Filmmaking takes time, especially documentaries...

It takes lots of research and lots of patience and lots of soul searching

You don't just grab a camera and run...

Think hard why you wanna make a documentary

And when you're done think harder...and then you should start preparing.

 

 

Good Luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mini DV

Or maybe you start with HDV...

 

1) You need to be more patient  :)

2) You should hire a film guy/gal to help you

3) You need to be more specific

 

It's sorta like me asking:

I'm hungry what should I eat?

How would you answer that?

 

Filmmaking takes time, especially documentaries...

It takes lots of research and lots of patience and lots of soul searching

You don't just grab a camera and run...

Think hard why you wanna make a documentary

And when you're done think harder...and then you should start preparing.

Good Luck

 

Actually, I am preparing. My preparation included joining a forum such as this one where I can learn from people such as yourself.

 

I have had this idea for a documentary for years, a passion actually, so thought has been long on this, trust me.

 

research, yes. I am to recieve this book writing, directing and producing documentary films and videos by Alan Rosenthal "http://www.siu.edu/~siupress/titles/f02_titles/rosenthal_writing3rd.htm"

 

hopefully it will help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I am preparing. My preparation included joining a forum such as this one where I can learn from people such as yourself.

 

I have had this idea for a documentary for years, a passion actually, so thought has been long on this, trust me.

 

research, yes. I am to recieve this book writing, directing and producing documentary films and videos by Alan Rosenthal "http://www.siu.edu/~siupress/titles/f02_titles/rosenthal_writing3rd.htm"

 

hopefully it will help

 

That's all good for preparing you for production...

But what about distribution?

 

I read....

You said you wanted to have a theatrical release...

Do you know what that encompasses?

Do you have an agent or someone to help you work some deals?

 

A sucessful low budget documentary can cost anywhere from 25K to 200K.

That sorta money usually is raised through investments, donations, & grants.

Do you know how to raise that kinda money? Do you know the people to go to?

 

I'm not trying to be harsh but there are a bunch of important questions to consider.

And if you don't consider them now you might have problems during production.

 

Making a sucessful documentary is probably even harder

Than writing a senior thesis for a Ph. D. (I'm serious!)

It's not something you just read about in a book

You should seriously find a producer who has had experience with this before

They can be very, very, very helpful.

 

&

The thing about filmmaking is...just because it looks easy doesn't mean it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making a sucessful documentary is probably even harder

Than writing a senior thesis for a Ph. D. (I'm serious!)

It's not something you just read about in a book

You should seriously find a producer who has had experience with this before

They can be very, very, very helpful.

 

&

The thing about filmmaking is...just because it looks easy doesn't mean it is.

 

 

I am beginning to grasp that concept, beleive me.

Actually I was waiting on the book to give me some proper guidelines on preparations first. I baught it online from amazon since I cant find it in a bookstore near me, and it has not reach me yet.

I just thought I'd still try preparing without it.

 

Someone gave me the name of two professors at two universities close to me where i could either seek guidance or have their students work on the cinematography with me.

Do you think that's a good idea to begin with?

I may need to work out control for the film if students grades may be affected.

 

I have thought about grants and the like, but like I said, maybe the book may point me to how I should go about applying for one in a professional manner.

 

what do you think? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There have been documentaries made for a few thousand dollars to over a million dollars; basically how much money you can raise determines how you will be making the movie. If you only raise $10,000, I'd probably stick to consumer DV, show the documentary in video to people and hope you get a distributor interested in a transfer to 35mm for print projection (which is less necessary these days for film festivals.) The majority of small documentaries made these days use personal owned DV cameras -- for example, "Spellbound", the documentary on spelling bees. Someone like Ken Burns, on the other hand, shoots everything in 16mm.

 

There have been some high-end documentaries shot in HD lately like "Fahrenheit 9/11" but you'd probably want to raise at least $30,000 for your documentary for a long-term pro HD shoot (maybe less, it just depends on what deal you can get on renting the camera and over how long a period).

 

I'd first start with a realistic idea of how much money you think you can raise and how long it will take to shoot it before determining format. Some documentaries shoot a low shooting ratio (like landscapes or photos) while some shoot endless amounts of footage (interviews with lots of people) and this will also determine the most affordable format. If your documentary consists of landscape shots with voiceover, perhaps Super-16 would make more sense.

 

We get these sorts of questions all the time and it always comes down to needing to how much money you've got, otherwise the answers are too vague to be useful. You can everything but the money, but if you don't have the money, you don't have the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been documentaries made for a few thousand dollars to over a million dollars; basically how much money you can raise determines how you will be making the movie.  If you only raise $10,000, I'd probably stick to consumer DV, show the documentary in video to people and hope you get a distributor interested in a transfer to 35mm for print projection (which is less necessary these days for film festivals.) The majority of small documentaries made these days use personal owned DV cameras -- for example, "Spellbound", the documentary on spelling bees.  Someone like Ken Burns, on the other hand, shoots everything in 16mm.

 

There have been some high-end documentaries shot in HD lately like "Fahrenheit 9/11" but you'd probably want to raise at least $30,000 for your documentary for a long-term pro HD shoot (maybe less, it just depends on what deal you can get on renting the camera and over how long a period).

 

I'd first start with a realistic idea of how much money you think you can raise and how long it will take to shoot it before determining format.  Some documentaries shoot a low shooting ratio (like landscapes or photos) while some shoot endless amounts of footage (interviews with lots of people) and this will also determine the most affordable format.  If your documentary consists of landscape shots with voiceover, perhaps Super-16 would make more sense.

 

We get these sorts of questions all the time and it always comes down to needing to how much money you've got, otherwise the answers are too vague to be useful.  You can everything but the money, but if you don't have the money, you don't have the movie.

 

Just got me the books I ordered from amazon last week.

 

'making documentary films and reality videos' by barry hampe as a companion to 'writing, directing and producing documentary films and videos' by alan rosenthal

 

Ok, I guess I needed to be more specific. The documentary is about a particular disease that women are more susceptible to than men.

I want interview medical experts along with some women affected. I also want to find out how much the 'man on the street' knows about the disease, treatment or who is the biggest victim.

I dont want the documentary simply to be a talking heads kind of thing, but I want to show graphics. days in the life of female patients and so on...

 

I want this to be in a postion to reach millions of women worldwide so a landscape picture thing is not what i am after, niether is a video thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Y.M.Poursohi

How about watching some documentary films to begin with. You will observe how other people show a story rather than tell. There are many schools of thought in documenatry filmmaking just like fiction, and ultimately it will be up to you which style the film will take.

 

You said you want it to go theatrical. Doesn't everybody want to go theatrical.

 

A few films that come to my head:

Nanook of the north- Man with a movie camera- Night mail- Land without bread- Primary- The war room- The thin blue line- Pet cemetary- Salesman- Close up- Night and fog- West 47th street- When we were kings-Triumph of the will- there are many more but these are some that left an impression on me.

 

As some one else pointed patience is very important, not just in getting answers but also in developing ideas and creating a blue print that will guide your film (prep, shoot, wrap). The thing is anyone with a video camera can call themselves a documentary filmmaker. Wether it's right or not I am not the judge, but in order to raise your work above others you have to study the medium and let the information sink in. I could be wrong, but then maybe not

 

My 0.02 dollars

Yousef

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

"Fahrenheit 9/11" was probably seen by more people than any other documentary ever released theatrically and it was video (pro HD) and "Spellbound" was also very successful as a documentary in the theaters, and was nominated for an Oscar, and that was video (consumer DV). There was also "Fog of War", which was shot in HD.

 

And besides "Spellbound", you had other standard def video documentaries released theatrically, like "One Day in September", which was shot in a variety of formats, posted in PAL video (probably from the looks of it), transferred to film, and won the Oscar. "Super Size Me" was another documentary seen by a lot of people theatrically, and it was shot in consumer DV for little money.

 

Format has nothing to do with how many people see a documentary or whether it gets a theatrical release.

 

There's a reason why most documentaries are not shot in 35mm or larger formats, except for IMAX movies. Content is king with a documentary and image quality is of secondary importance, unless, like I said, you are shooting landscapes or artwork or buildings, and even for those, Super-16 is generally good enough.

 

No one cares if an interview with a doctor is shot on video if the video is good enough in picture quality, and if what he's saying is interesting enough, the audio is more important than the image.

 

It sounds to me like your ego is having trouble accepting the idea of shooting video. If formats are what you're going to obsess about, then perhaps the documentary world is not for you.

 

CONTENT IS KING. Raise your money, shoot on the best format THAT YOU CAN AFFORD with that money and make the documentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Just got me the books I ordered from amazon last week.

 

'making documentary films and reality videos' by barry hampe  as a companion to 'writing, directing and producing documentary films and videos' by alan rosenthal   

 

Ok, I guess I needed to be more specific. The documentary is about a particular disease that women are more susceptible to than men.

I want interview medical experts along with some women affected. I also want to find out how much the 'man on the street' knows about the disease, treatment or who is the biggest victim.

I dont want the documentary simply to be a talking heads kind of thing, but I want to show graphics. days in the life of female patients and so on...

 

I want this to be in a postion to reach millions of women worldwide so a landscape picture thing is not what i am after, niether is a video thing.

 

 

Just hearing the idea...you do realize that's probably going to be nearly impossible to sell and have produced on video let alone theatrical release, right?

 

The thing with docs is that the content has to be interesting, what you described sounds boring as all hell to me.. I wouldn't want to watch what you just described nor would, I think, many other people.

Edited by Christopher D. Keth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my ego??!! oh God no! :blink: :o

I am just rifing through info about types of cameras and since I'm a complete novice, I thought I'd rather not deal with what I see rated(by people with way better knowledge of cinematography than I) at the very bottom of quality: video.

 

what I've read is that video produces the lowest quality for the average tv screen, and I was just imagining how bad it would look on a larger screen. While image is not everything, I want to create a mood and feeling in the viewer's mind and as such, I want something that wont be annoying to look at, causing the message or idea of the film to be ignored.

 

the guy at Panevision told me that Fahrenheit 9/11 was shot on 16mm and blown up to 35mm, you say otherwise...

He suggested I go HD because it will produce good quality for way cheaper than film. He told that 'spy kids' was shot on HD and they blew it up to film.

 

I dont know what a super 16 is. I keep saying I'm a novice. Please bear that in mind when you speak to me. I am here to learn and am greatful for the advice you all offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> at the very bottom of quality: video.

 

That's a pretty sweeping statement. You can shoot 16mm and have it look much less good than HDCAM; you can even shoot digital betacam and have it look worse than 35. It's much more about the people than the toys. I recently shot some super16 and it came out looking absolutely rotten because I'm more experienced in video. The main problem is that it will cost you many hundreds of thousands of dollars to shoot enough film to become good at it.

 

> what I've read is that video produces the lowest quality for the average

> tv screen

 

In what way? You have to be more specific than this. You can telecine 35 to digital betacam and shoot to digibeta straight, and technically they'll look very similar. If the 35 was much faster than 200ASA, the video would certainly be less noisy.

 

> and I was just imagining how bad it would look on a larger screen.

 

Depends on the video, but seen "Star Wars" and "Collateral"? Not awful. Bit soft, but no more so than 35 with a promist on it. "Open Water" looked awful, but that's just a little handycam.

 

> He suggested I go HD because it will produce good quality for way

> cheaper than film

 

This is not necessarily so. If you want to create a film print that you can show in the cinema, it is a cheaper to shoot 16mm because recording the video back to film for projection is extremely expensive. And, if all you're ever going to do is put it on a DVD and show your friends and future clients, then there's not much (there is a little) future in shooting HD - you might as well shoot good SD and save your money for other areas of the production.

 

Anyway, let's face it - unless you have $250,000 to spend you're not making a feature of any kind on any format, so just go and buy a DVX-100 and get good with it. If you're rich enough go to film school and learn film.

 

> I dont know what a super 16 is

 

A modification of 16mm film cameras to use the area reserved for the soundtrack (which nobody uses anymore) to record more picture information. Very desirable.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

> at the very bottom of quality: video.

 

That's a pretty sweeping statement. You can shoot 16mm and have it look much less good than HDCAM; you can even shoot digital betacam and have it look worse than 35. It's much more about the people than the toys. I recently shot some super16 and it came out looking absolutely rotten because I'm more experienced in video. The main problem is that it will cost you many hundreds of thousands of dollars to shoot enough film to become good at it.

 

> what I've read is that video produces the lowest quality for the average

> tv screen

 

In what way? You have to be more specific than this. You can telecine 35 to digital betacam and shoot to digibeta straight, and technically they'll look very similar. If the 35 was much faster than 200ASA, the video would certainly be less noisy.

 

> and I was just imagining how bad it would look on a larger screen.

 

Depends on the video, but seen "Star Wars" and "Collateral"? Not awful. Bit soft, but no more so than 35 with a promist on it. "Open Water" looked awful, but that's just a little handycam.

 

> He suggested I go HD because it will produce good quality for way

> cheaper than film

 

This is not necessarily so. If you want to create a film print that you can show in the cinema, it is a cheaper to shoot 16mm because recording the video back to film for projection is extremely expensive. And, if all you're ever going to do is put it on a DVD and show your friends and future clients, then there's not much (there is a little) future in shooting HD - you might as well shoot good SD and save your money for other areas of the production.

 

Anyway, let's face it - unless you have $250,000 to spend you're not making a feature of any kind on any format, so just go and buy a DVX-100 and get good with it. If you're rich enough go to film school and learn film.

 

> I dont know what a super 16 is

 

A modification of 16mm film cameras to use the area reserved for the soundtrack (which nobody uses anymore) to record more picture information. Very desirable.

 

Phil

 

 

Hi Phil,

 

thanx for responding. Again, I have to say, please use layman's term with me. esoteric words and jagons will confuse me as I know zero about the film world.

 

ok, what is 'SD'? for that matter, what's telescine? :blink:

 

By profession, I'm a software programmer and when I'm explaining certain concepts to clients, I have to speak in layman's term...

 

 

From what I gather, if I'm not mistaken, you are saying that I should be a digital handcam to produce the documentary? why would I do that?

 

Phil, I am not interested in showing a mini movie to a bunch of my friends. I am embarking on a serious move with the hope to educate and inform the public about a serious issue and I came here to seek advice on the most cost effective direction to go, while still able to produce a quality that wont cause the viewer to be distracted.

 

the guy told me that star-wars was shot in HD so that means that it can be of decent quality for a world-wide audience, but if you say that it is extremely expensive to convert to film, what do you suggest is a better alternative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just hearing the idea...you do realize that's probably going to be nearly impossible to sell and have produced on video let alone theatrical release, right?

 

The thing with docs is that the content has to be interesting, what you described sounds boring as all hell to me.. I wouldn't want to watch what you just described nor would, I think, many other people.

 

I am not being specific. I'm being quite general. I have stated nothing about approach or style. hell, I've not even told you the disease. :rolleyes:

 

polictics often bore alot of people, doesn't it?(I bet it bores the hell out of you too <_< ) but look what micheal moore produced.

 

if I said I was going to make a doc about a family of eskimos in the cold alaska wild, you would say the same thing, wouldn't you? have you seen 'nanook of the north' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am embarking on a serious move with the hope to educate and inform the public

Jamaica,

 

I think it's great that you want to make a movie, but here are a couple of notes and suggestions.

 

The people in this forum are not obligated to answer your questions. You are not a 'client' here. If time is of the essence I suggest you hire a DP (that's Director of Photography) to help you shoot your movie.

 

If you have time to learn then I suggest you start with some good books about filmmaking. Some have been recommended earlier in this thread, and there's a whole bunch more at http://cinematography.com/shop/books.asp

 

If you have specific questions relating to cinematography you will likely get comprehensive answers in this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jamaica,

 

I think it's great that you want to make a movie, but here are a couple of notes and suggestions.

 

The people in this forum are not obligated to answer your questions. You are not a 'client' here. If time is of the essence I suggest you hire a DP (that's Director of Photography) to help you shoot your movie.

 

If you have time to learn then I suggest you start with some good books about filmmaking. Some have been recommended earlier in this thread, and there's a whole bunch more at http://cinematography.com/shop/books.asp

 

If you have specific questions relating to cinematography you will likely get comprehensive answers in this forum.

 

It may be frustrating but this is true. I am in high school and disifering the advice I got was tricky. That is what google and other online refrences are for.

 

Dictionary anyone??

 

:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not being specific. I'm being quite general. I have stated nothing about approach or style. hell, I've not even told you the disease. :rolleyes:

 

Well like I keep mentioning you need to be aware of exactly what you're doing

It seems you're more concerned with the film or video camera you'll use

 

Documentaries aren't like Narrative fiction movies...

They are more about the content than the style or technique

(albeit narratives are the same way

but style and technique is more important in a Narrative)

 

I feel you're putting your energy in the wrong direction

Concetrate on your content first, decide who you're audience will be

And how will you grasp their attention, what'll make your movie fun & special

Figure out the editing style, the way your story will play out...have an idea

And just get a cinematographer who'll worry about the video/film camera.

 

I've recommended finding a producer to help you

Someone who's done this before will be very beneficial

You said you've spoken with college professors which is good

Many documentaries are made by college professors

So you'll find a few who done it before and can help you

 

But I keep reiterating the need to plan and plan

A documentary isn't easy (it's harder than a narrative film)

It often involves long periods of time (Hoop Dreams took 5 years to make)

And it'll destroy you if you're not ready

 

I stick by my original advice: seriously consider get a Producer.

This is not a job one tackles alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I am not being specific. I'm being quite general. I have stated nothing about approach or style. hell, I've not even told you the disease. :rolleyes:

 

polictics often bore alot of people, doesn't it?(I bet it bores the hell out of you too <_< ) but look what micheal moore produced.

 

if I said I was going to make a doc about a family of eskimos in the cold alaska wild, you would say the same thing, wouldn't you? have you seen 'nanook of the north' ?

 

 

I hope you can make a good doc that people will enjoy and learn from. I'm just warning you...and for the record politics in that kind of sensationalist way interests many, many people and I know a whole lot of people who were bored to death by "Nanook of the North."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Jamaica,

 

This is what I would do if I were you (I've set docs up that didn't go to be shot for different reasons, but I've been working on it and if people here think I'm talking crap, they will let us know) :

 

- make a full inquiry on your subject. Meet specialists, victims, witnesses etc. "cast" them. Have them writing you letters promising they would agree to work with you if the film is made.

 

- try to build a continuity. Of course you won't be able to write a screenplay like for fiction films, but you should be able to build the whole film "on paper" : sequences, edting project, major content and people's purpose etc.

 

- Find the sets you want to shoot : places for different shots, hospitals, peoples'houses, places for interviews etc.

 

- try to find somebody taking the risk of producing your doc.

 

- estimate the cost of the whole production in different configurations, lets say one dvcam option, one SD digibeta option, one HD option, one super 16 option (I think you should forget about 35 on such a project). This person should help you out on this.

 

- try to earn money support from different founds that would be interested in the project

 

- At one point you'll have to take a decision of shooting or not with the budget you find or not. I would say at some point it's better to forget about a project than trying to do it and waste your time and energy if it doesn't seem to be possible to do it.

 

In this case, and event can make the project born again later, but leave it on a side if it doesn't work. It's important to give you a dead line like 1 year ahead may be or something so.

 

Then, you will have learn a lot when you get to this point, and you will know why you shoot it in one or another format or don't shoot it at all.

 

Have you seen "supersize me" ? Don't know what video format it was shot with, but it sounds to me your project could be based on the same kind of structure.

 

As many here said, the choice of the format is not your point number 1. You'll find it out doing the "developpment" job.

 

Good luck anyway !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...