Studio Feature in Short film package.

February 22, 2005

Thanks for those taking the time to indulge me,

I'm directing a Short film in April, located in Los Angeles. We've got a limited budget(that's a change) and I'm looking for advice on how to make the production look as "grand" as possible, without SPENDING a grand. I have a DP, who is also our editor/ post-production supervisor, but I'm thinking we might want to get someone whose only focus is the art of cinematography. We also need a steadicam w/ operator for one day. We've got a few name actors "doing favors" for us and haev been extremely fortunate with locations. I figured this would be the best spot to find the right answers.

Thanks.

Josh Waller

David Mullen ASC · February 22, 2005

I figured this would be the best spot to find the right answers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, if you give us more info and have specific questions.

DavidSloan · February 22, 2005

I'm looking for advice on how to make the production look as "grand" as possible, without SPENDING a grand.

Let me know, when you find out.

Andrew Sachs · February 22, 2005

I have a DP, who is also our editor/ post-production supervisor, but I'm thinking we might want to get someone whose only focus is the art of cinematography.

Are you looking for a DP? or a steadicam operator? or a gaffer? I know there are many talented people here who would be eager to jump on board, given more information/requests. However, if you have already asked someone else to be the DP, and they are still on board, there is all the more reason to be very specific about who needs what, and to be clear with all parties involved.

February 22, 2005

The specifics are as follows:

It's a 7 day shoot, possibly an 8th separate from teh rest of the shoot. One day with a steadicam and operator. One day in the desert with martial arts sequence and motorcycles shot on trailers.(lots of dolly track needed for this day.) The other sequences are highly stylized, and color will be a major part of the look in post. (This film is bigger than the other ones that I've done, so I hope I'm answering some of the questions. By the way, NORTHFORK is a gorgeous film.)

I'm trying to get my hands on a crane, boom, etc. Everything you might see on a Studio Film, except with a Short, for the least amount of money possible. Easy enough, yes?

Let me know what else you need to know.

Rik Andino · February 22, 2005

Well if you place an ad on Mandy, Craig's List--is shooting people available in LA?

Anyways place an ad looking for a Stedicam operator...

You should also place the amount of money willing to spend on one

So you don't waste your time and their time

Talking to someone who's rates are way over your budget.

About the equipment you're asking

You should just ask your DP or Gaffer about what equipment you need to rent...

And he/she should tell you what and where to rent it...

I dunno about the rest of what you want--do you need a DP?

Do you need a gaffer?

It seems like you need a good Producer...

He/She would help you with some of these questions

We can't really answer the unspecific questions--we're not mind readers

I'm sorry...but you need to be a bit more specific...

What advice are you looking for--and give us the details...

Anyways my best advice to you is to get a producer

If you have one put 'em to work--ask 'em these questions

And talk to your DP as well...preproduction is a team effort--work with your team.

Good Luck

DavidSloan · February 22, 2005

Can you give us a rough budget and what format you plan to shot on? I recently worked on a short film with special fx, and tons of gear, and the producers were able to pull it off for about 10k...lots of favors, and freebies.

Edited February 22, 2005 by DavidSloan

February 22, 2005

Ours is about the same. We have an 11k budget, and like the one you worked on, I'm trying ot most off by pulling favors. We're shooting using the Panasonic DVX-100(we have 3), and I'm renting a HD for two days of the shoot. Post-production is already covered, so the entirety of the budget is being sunk into whatever I can't get for free. One of the main problems is that I didn't want to be producing this, and I'm being forced to do exactly that. It's still early in the game, so I know it'll all happen, but the teeth are being ground in the meantime.

DavidSloan · February 23, 2005

Shooting on a DVX will definitely not make your film look very "grand." The project I worked on was shot S16 on a slow V2 stock, and went through a telecine job, so it looks quite professional. But the moment you say DVX, and even S16 in most cases, you're usually talking student level. You should really think about 35mm, or HD, if you want a higher quality product...and telecine is a must.

David Mullen ASC · February 23, 2005

Seems like a waste to spend all that money of cranes and Steadicams, etc. and shoot it on a DVX100 -- you'd almost get more production value shooting static shots in 35mm if you know what I mean.

I'd FIRST look into shooting with better imagemaking technology (pro 24P/480 like the Panasonic SDX900 DVCPRO50, or HD, if not Super-16 or 35mm).

Jayson Crothers · February 23, 2005

I don't wish to sound negative, but typically when a production is trying to make itself look bigger than it really is (especially shorts and student films), it's a bit of a failure. By that I mean that so much attention is paid to "production value" that things like story get put into second place - and since you ARE low budget, invariably your big budget attempt seems like just that - an attempt.

That's not to say you shouldn't be aiming to cram your film with as much production value as you can - simply moving the camera (in appropriate times and places) adds immense perceived value - the last feature I shot just sold and the company who sold it was able to get a fair amount for it because the "camera was moving a lot" and that equated to a bigger budget; go figure.

I'm just cautioning to not lose sight of the story and how to best tell it; focus on that and how you might do that WHILE adding production value, rather than how to make the movie seem big and making telling the story second to that.

For me, the two biggest things that make a film seem low budget are poor lighting and bad sound (sound can really make or break you - be good to the sound crew!). Philippe Rousselot once said (very wisely in my opinion) to a boom op. friend of mine "If it's [the lighting] bad for you, it's bad for me." He was referring to putting sound into a position, lighting wise, where they might not be able to get good sound (ie, excessive top light, etc).

Mark Allen · February 23, 2005

Just some thoughts on your basic question.

1. Do NOT shoot in standard def video if you really really most want that studio feel.

2. Don't overlight - it will end up looking like television. (Other people more qualified here can go into the details there.)

3. Get an art director who really knows how to dress the sets. Even if you can't get someone with experience. Get someone whose apartment is really amazing - someone who understands textures and how to fill a wall without it seeming too planned. Properly dressed sets with appropriate yet full texturing is a real student film trademark.

4. Good location Sound... get good sound. Bad sound more than a grainy image is the mark of a home movie - 'cause there's no reason for it - grain might be style - bad sound is a mistake.

5. Design your shots well in advance - enough time in advance to realize that your first boards are not so good and redo them to make them even better.

pkbissen · February 23, 2005

if you want to have a professional looking short spend your money on the image. camera, lenses, post, etc.

and how long is your script? a 7 day shooting schedule should mean you're trying to shoot a 20-30 min short. i don't know what you're goal with this short is, but i might think about shortening it if you're want big production values.

also, i would concentrate more on being able to tell a good story. nobody cares if you have a crane shot in your short.

February 24, 2005

Fortunately, the script and story are tight. The feedback has been nothing but positive on that front. The script is only 15 pages, but the length of shooting is only due to the amount of locations and the distance they are from each other. When we shoot, I'll focus on the storytelling, but for now I need to get all of this stuff locked into place. And, yes, I agree, that the crane is not necessary. In fact, I'm probably going to axe it.

Because of all of the feedback from you guys, I'm doing an iintense search into the world of super16. I'm trying to see how much more it would be to shoot on it.

Right now, I have all post paid for. A multimedia house with full Avid and everything is doing all of it. They also do color correction, CGI, everything I need. That's the main reason why I was shooting DV. BUT, if I DO the film on super16, how will that affect my post-productions costs? Would I still be able to take the 16 negatives and transfer it to digibeta so I can still do it through the same post-production facilities? And, (I know this is basic), can someone explain to me "Telecine"

Mark Allen · February 24, 2005

And, (I know this is basic), can someone explain to me "Telecine"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Telecine is the process of transfering film to video. Search these forums on discussions on how much telecine might cost or the ratio it takes. (off hand, imagine it takes 2.5:1 without audio and about $300/hr once you talk up a deal).

So, yes, you could transfer your S16mm to Digibeta and finish on that. You could also transfer it to HD which would give you a nice 24p starting point in a larger format, but if your multimedia place has no D5 machines and you're never going back to film, probably stick with digibeta.