FILM FOOTAGE

Braindead · March 11, 2004

I AM SHOOTING A 90 MINUTE FEATURE AND I NEED TO KNOW HOW MUCH FILM I NEED TO BUY. WE'RE GOING WITH A 5:1 RATIO AND WE DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH MONEY.

THANK YOU

John Pytlak RIP · March 11, 2004

Kodak has a handy Film Calculator on its website:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/index.jhtml

Just enter your running time and format and frame rate , and it shows the footage.

For a 5:1 shooting ratio, multiply by 5. (if you have a complex shoot, that's fairly conservative for a feature).

GeorgeSelinsky · March 11, 2004

I AM SHOOTING A 90 MINUTE FEATURE AND I NEED TO KNOW HOW MUCH FILM I NEED TO BUY.

Too much ;)

Seriously, 5:1 is just about going to make it. I find that it's too tight, I think 6:1 is more realistic. If this is a first time feature it's a catch 22 situation, you need a stronger shooting ratio but you are in the least likely position to afford one.

Try looking into recans and short ends, esp. if you're shooting 35. You can save a huge chunk that way sometimes, esp. with 35mm film (sometimes goes as cheap as $0.11/ft).

Good luck,

- G.

Mitch Gross · March 11, 2004

5:1 is a very low shooting ratio. I reccomend to people starting out to think more along the lines of 7:1 to 10:1. You didn't mention what format you are going to shoot in. 35mm = 90 ft./min. and 16mm = 36 ft./min. 90 min. = 8100 ft. in 35mm and 3240 in 16mm. At a lowly 5:1 ratio, that means 40,500' in 35mm and 16200 in 16mm. But for realistic minimums I would at least bump this up to 50,000' in 35mm and 20,000' in 16mm, and even that is very, very low. You can easily shoot twice that amount.

David Mullen ASC · March 11, 2004

Yes, I've heard of people shooting features in 35mm on 50'000 of film but that's really tight. 70,000 is the lowest I've ever shot for a 35mm feature. "Northfork" shot about 150,000' and "Twin Falls Idaho" shot about 100,000.' Most of my under-1 mil. features budgeted for 100,000'.

But 50,000' is certainly doable.

It's easy to think about it if you round off your script / running time to 100 pages / 100 minutes and say that a 1000' roll of 35mm is 10 mins. (it's not but it all makes the math easier.)

So a 100 minute film that shoots 100,000' of stock used a 10:1 ratio. So half that, 5:1, is 50,000' -- in other words, you're planning on shooting approx. 500' for every page of your script if you want to think of it that way.

Dominic Case · March 11, 2004

I AM SHOOTING A 90 MINUTE FEATURE . . .AND WE DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH MONEY.

With all due respect to "Braindead", I suggest that any amount of film is too much for this project if you have to ask that question.

Nate Downes · March 15, 2004

Ok, now I feel like some kind of overachiever, working on a 3:1 ratio for a 90-minute.

David Mullen ASC · March 15, 2004

You are!

John Pytlak RIP · March 15, 2004

Much depends upon the complexity of the shoot and the action. A one-person monologue with skilled talent (e.g., one of the Bill Cosby skit films) doesn't require much coverage. "LOTR" is another matter. ;)

Nate Downes · March 15, 2004

You are!

Well, that or, the more likely case, just too poor to try for anything more. So, limit the movie to make the budget work. (limited actors, and prepare EVERYTHING beforehand to the point a blind-man can pull it off) For me, it's more a case of learning everything the hard way. I fully expect the final product to end up at less than 90 minutes, but I sure had fun trying, and it will enhance the demo reel which is the important bit.

GeorgeSelinsky · March 16, 2004

working on a 3:1 ratio for a 90-minute.

I set out to make my current film on a 2.5:1 ratio, or at least "try" to do it like that.

I did begin by shooting some scenes 2.5:1, but they were very simple things that didn't require too much emoting. I even went as far as to use a windup Eyemo to shoot them, all post dubbed.

It was really a coffee bet type of thing but I soon realized it was totally impractical (it's a bad idea to gamble when you've gone through the trouble of shooting 35, getting a lot of people together, locations, costumes, etc). I upgraded and bought an Arri IIc, and my ratio ended up at a 7:1 - still low but just useable imo.

I am also anticipating shortening a lot of scenes probably. I've used mostly amateur actors, which has of course cost more film. If I had professionals acting every role and they were rehearsed to death I could have concievably cut that ratio down to about 5:1, but anything lower than that and you 1) either have no coverage, or 2) have to live with poor takes (poor for performance and technical reasons), usually both. You are also forced to edit a certain way without much flexibility at all. That sort of makes the whole enterprise worthless.

- G.

Nate Downes · March 16, 2004

working on a 3:1 ratio for a 90-minute.

I set out to make my current film on a 2.5:1 ratio, or at least "try" to do it like that.

I did begin by shooting some scenes 2.5:1, but they were very simple things that didn't require too much emoting. I even went as far as to use a windup Eyemo to shoot them, all post dubbed.

It was really a coffee bet type of thing but I soon realized it was totally impractical (it's a bad idea to gamble when you've gone through the trouble of shooting 35, getting a lot of people together, locations, costumes, etc). I upgraded and bought an Arri IIc, and my ratio ended up at a 7:1 - still low but just useable imo.

I am also anticipating shortening a lot of scenes probably. I've used mostly amateur actors, which has of course cost more film. If I had professionals acting every role and they were rehearsed to death I could have concievably cut that ratio down to about 5:1, but anything lower than that and you 1) either have no coverage, or 2) have to live with poor takes (poor for performance and technical reasons), usually both. You are also forced to edit a certain way without much flexibility at all. That sort of makes the whole enterprise worthless.

- G.

Depends also on the point of the exercise. As/is, the whole project is just a "get the feet wet" running Super8. I've been discussing some trimming down as well, going to a 30-45 minute short with the same raw-stock. But that's 2-3 projects ahead, have plans for 2 15-minute shorts plus got a training video to produce. By the time to get to the bigger one, I hope to have enough money saved up for added film.

Bill DiPietra · March 16, 2004

Well, that or, the more likely case, just too poor to try for anything more. So, limit the movie to make the budget work.

Hey, as long as you're happy with the end result, you won't care what your shooting ratio was. Just go for it and have fun.

Bob Hayes · March 16, 2004

I just turned down a fairly complex 35mm film where they had 50,000 feet to shoot. It is not enough. If you shoot the standard master close up/close up on each scene that's already a 3 to 1 ratio if you only do one take on each set up. That means you only have enough film to do two more takes per scene. It's so tough for actors and crew to do quality work with that kind of presure on them. As David said 70,000 to 100,000 is the minimum.

Bob Hayes

DP

GeorgeSelinsky · March 20, 2004

(limited actors, and prepare EVERYTHING beforehand to the point a blind-man can pull it off) For me, it's more a case of learning everything the hard way.

I remember one guy on the usenet who really learned things the hard way. If you want to look up his thread on the Google groups, his name was Wonder21. He got 10000 ft of free 5298 somehow, and wanted to shoot an entire feature with an Eyemo.

I chuckled when I read his post because it was similar to what I was thinking of when I started my current project (although I had a higher shooting ratio, and I wasn't lucky enough to get free film).

Anyway, I told the guy, as did everyone else practically, don't do it. So this poor kid went ahead anyway, got all these amateurs to act in it, rehearsed it to death, and for five months shot it all. Then to save money he got all of his film developed at once and guess what? It was all fogged beyond salvation! No such thing as a free lunch...

I think my current project was also about learning the hard way. Beforehand I'd shoot with a higher ratio and I was a bit spoiled. Now I came to the realization through a step up experience what is good and what is not.

I hate the feeling of being limited. If something interesting happens I'd like to be able to roll the camera and not be burdened with thoughts like"I gotta turn this thing off as soon as possible".

I remember when I started shooting film I was using Super 8, and since the filmstock was so expensive I'd do these ultra short takes that were like 2 seconds long. I got back my film and it was all full of these very short takes. It was all home movie stuff so it's not like it so mattered.

Also, there is only so much you can rehearse to death, but when it comes to rolling the camera things never go exactly like you want them to. As they say, a performance can usually be only as good as 70% of your best rehearsal. Or, sometimes the opposite happens, a rehearsal is sour but when you jarr someone into a take, they give it their all. There is a function of chaos that enters the picture.

- G.

Max Jacoby · March 20, 2004

The one good thing about low shooting ratios is that it forces you to think how you will edit everything together. Which on most big budget films were they have tons of stocks to burn isn't the case, they don't get 'shots' anymore, just 'coverage'.

GeorgeSelinsky · March 20, 2004

Yes, but it also locks you into a pattern which isn't necessarily a good thing. A low ratio is discouraging of camera moves and general experimentation. You get stuck doing pretty standard WS, MS, and CU's - anything beyond that and you have to make very careful decisions and hope that it turns out okay in the editing room. And if the actors blow that take, it's either on the cutting room floor or you end up overshooting and buying more film later.

To me a 7:1 ratio is quite low, and I don't care for shooting that way again if I could ever help it. I think it's particularly dangerous for people who have little or no experience shooting and editing at all (who are usually the people who try to shoot on such ratios). It's asking for a disaster and endangering the point of the whole exercise - which is to make something that showcases ability. It's like asking someone to audition for a top music school and giving them for an audition a piece that only very advanced singers with years of professional training can do.

- G.

Matt Pacini · March 25, 2004

Yeah, 5:1 ratio is not much, especially since the more inexperienced you are, the MORE film stock you're going to burn, and I'm not just talking about mistakes.

There are ways to cut down on stock, but I'm not necessarily suggesting this is a good idea.

For instance, shoot ONLY medium shots & closeups, and no master shots, especially if you're going to end up with lots of masters as your main footage, which is a huge mistake (that I have made!).

If you have everyone in the frame, and someone blows a line, or anything goes wrong, you have to shoot the whole thing over... then someone else blows a line, etc., etc.

Shoot everyone in closeups, and they're isolated, so you only need to reshoot that little chunk that's bad, plus it gives you more editing choices.

These are the things that beginners don't think about, and they usually shoot lots of masters, and then they burn all their stock up, and have painted themselves into a corner as far as being able to edit goes.

Matt Pacini

Nate Downes · March 26, 2004

@GeorgeSelinsky

I've been chewing over what you've said, and on triple thought I'll take your advice and instead use the raw footage I was planning to use on a music video shoot for a local band. I need the practice, and it will look good on the demo reel. I'll be doing some test-shots tomorrow using a DV cam first, lining up what I'd like before I break out the celluloid.

*edit* Ok, DV shoot went ok, next week we do it up on 16mm Plus-X.