Jump to content

Budgeting


Guest Tim van der Linden

Recommended Posts

Guest Tim van der Linden

Hey everyone,

 

I've got my first opportunity to shoot a feature on a decent budget. I've shot several before but they have all had extremely low budgets, under $20k for all of them. Well, this next one looks like it will have a budget in the $450k-$650k range and I must say I'm a bit intimidated at trying to allocate what budget I'll be given. It's easy to put a budget together when everyone is working for deferred pay and you only have $2000 for lighting equipment, but at the amount of money I have to work with now I'm not quite sure how to tackle it.

 

We'll be shooting 35mm, 1:85 and pretty much the entire film takes place in a mall. I'm wondering what sounds like a fair rate to pay my crew (the producer wants me to tell him what they should get) and how much to allocate to camera, lighting, etc. I'm hoping for a 20-25 day shoot.

 

Of course, one complication is that the location is not yet secured so I have no idea what kind of lighting equipmet I'll be needing yet and I have no way of putting together any kind of specific daily equipment list at this stage.

 

Anyhow, if anyone has had experience shooting features at this budget level, I'd love some advice or input.

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

On those really low-budget shoots, generally you'll find that it's hard to go below $100/day for anyone other than maybe the PA's. I've seen salaries for half-mil features that went something like:

 

DP: $300-350/day

Keys (Gaffer / Key Grip / 1st AC): $200-250/day

Electrics, grips, 2nd AC's: $100-150/day

 

I've also done small films where they just paid everyone high and low a flat $1000/wk, usually for a three-week shoot.

 

This is one of those cases where the salary offered is generally an insult, so either you get really inexperienced crew people who need the work, or experienced crew people who have their own reasons for taking the job (want to work for you, like the script, just like to keep busy, like to rent their equipment...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tim van der Linden

Well, luckily my longtime gaffer has already committed to the project and will be joining me, which helps, but it's a road show and I'm not sure where it's going to go so I may need to find some crew in a different city. I suppose we'll see how it goes, thanks for the advice, David. I'll post any kind of progress that happens; we aren't shooting until June so at least I've got some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$450K-$650K ain't that much for a 35mm feature film

At least $300K of that will be going to stock & developing & transfers

And that's if you shoot at a 10:1 ratio...which is difficult sometimes...

 

You might be spending upwards of half-a-mil ($500K)!

So be aware of that.

 

For the budget...it seems more feasible to shoot in S16

You can do a 20:1 ration for around a $100K for stock & developing & transfers.

 

You should be aware of how much things cost to do an effective budget.

 

 

Good Luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I shot one 35mm feature with a budget of $150,000 and several with budgets of $500,000, including "Twin Falls Idaho". Films in this budget range generally shoot 100,000' of 35mm stock and usually spend about $70,000 on stock, processing, and telecine... so I'm not sure where this $300,000 figure comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second the rates David mentioned. Those are pretty much standard. Make sure you get yourself enough guys to work with you. I'm doing a $350k film right now and my Keys are getting $150 and $125/day.

 

As far as putting together a list for G&E, you should be able to give them at least something to get started, with the disclaimer that it will probably change once you do a location scout. Other than that, welcome to the world of indie films!

Edited by Eric Steelberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I third the rate ($150 - $200 /day for electrics and grips).

 

If it all takes place in a mall, it sounds like the kind of show where once you get any pre-rigging done, etc. you can lose a few guys. Without knowing any specifics about the project you could easily get away being 4 to 6 guys deep on either side (grip/ electric) counting the gaffer/ key grip and best boys. (Once again I know nothing about the requirements of your project, so my numbers could very well be off).

 

Kevin Zanit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Good point.

 

I think very few producers realize the time advantage to not only having enough guys to do a job, but to have enough to make it moderately easy on the people doing the job.

 

A project I am in the early stages of prepping has a great producer who actually never questioned the amount of people I wanted, which is quite a few people.

 

For the main shooting unit, 8 guys on each side (16 total) plus two more for bigger night exterior work, a generator op., plus a pre-rigging/ striking crew (depending on what is happening) consisting of 5, and a third crew that will be working with a separate lighting designer to rig some night-club sequences consisting of 3 rigging people, a programmer, and the lighting designer.

 

And a camera department for two cameras.

 

I gave this list in expecting it to get cut, but they said fine. So I am happy . . . wait until they see the final equipment list ; B)

 

What is crazy is to me, is that a lot of people do not consider this a big crew at all. To me its big, at least because the subject matter is not all that epic in scale.

 

Kevin Zanit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Sounds big to me, more like what I'd get on a 4 to 6 million union film, not something made for less than a million dollars. Even on "Shadowboxer", which was at that higher range I mentioned, the producer told me that she budgeted for only five days of second camera and no second unit at all (which didn't work out -- I think we had three weeks of two cameras and one day of second unit, but we really should have had one to two weeks of second unit.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tim van der Linden

Thanks for all the replies, guys, it's been really helpful. I should be able to get away with 4-5 guys on each side as Kevin recommended, that seems to be about the par for most of the more ambitious shoots I've been on. My gaffer is excellent at organizing crew and after working with him many times I have confidence that we can pull it off with that number. I'm 100% sure we'll be using a genny and I'm well aware of the extra help I need for that. One thing that is helping me out is that the entire film takes place at night after the mall is closed so I should be able to get away with a slightly smaller lighting package since I won't be fighting bright sunlight.

 

I'll be sure to keep everyone posted on how things are going, and I'm sure there will be more questions along the way.

 

 

by the way, kevin, you mentioned in another thread you shot a feature with RuPaul some time back, did it happen to be called Zombie Prom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

David:

 

I should mention that the project is a short, but the budget for this short when multiplied out over what a feature would be shot would be in the 4 million range. The reason for the additional crew is it is not a very short short, it?s a bit long for a short schedule, and has a lot of locations, thus all the crew. I will write more about it when it gets close enough to shooting to be relevant.

 

Tim:

 

That was the film. I did not shoot it; Bill Butler did, but about midway through the gaffer had to leave, so I ended up gaffing it for a while.

 

It was a great excuse to watch Bill Butler at work.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$450K-$650K ain't that much for a 35mm feature film

At least $300K of that will be going to stock & developing & transfers

And that's if you shoot at a 10:1 ratio...which is difficult sometimes...

 

You might be spending upwards of half-a-mil ($500K)!

So be aware of that.

 

For the budget...it seems more feasible to shoot in S16

You can do a 20:1 ration for around a $100K for stock & developing & transfers.

 

You should be aware of how much things cost to do an effective budget.

Good Luck

 

You can easily do a 35mm feature for 150k. I recently worked on 2 indie features-both 35mm and both cost around 200k. And 20:1 ratio...who do you work for, Kubrick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tim van der Linden
You can easily do a 35mm feature for 150k.  I recently worked on 2 indie features-both 35mm and both cost around 200k.  And 20:1 ratio...who do you work for, Kubrick?

 

I thought that number was a bit suspicious as well, I know of several 35mm features that were shot for around $200k. As far as shooting ratio, this may sound a bit arrogant but most of the stuff I've shot has come out well under 10:1, more often than not it's been around 6:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

"Funny to hear; my girlfriend, Tarah Paige, had a decent role in that film . . ."

 

That?s great; it is indeed a small world. The entire cast on that film was real friendly and everything. It was all period, so it looked like fun with all the costumes and hair.

 

It was fairly low budget. That said, it was 35mm, usually with two cameras going. We had a 48' grip/ electric truck with twin 1500amp generators, thus there were some toys to get the job done.

 

It was a pretty much all around cool show.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shot one 35mm feature with a budget of $150,000 and several with budgets of $500,000, including "Twin Falls Idaho".  Films in this budget range generally shoot 100,000' of 35mm stock and usually spend about $70,000 on stock, processing, and telecine... so I'm not sure where this $300,000 figure comes from.

 

Actually I f%#ked up.

The $300K figure is more for 20:1...

$150K for stock and another $150K for developing and post

(although that might be excessive but it allows for the works maybe even a DI)

 

If you shot 10:1 you could do it for around 150K...still that's stretching it

The average shoot (from my limited experience) usually shoots at a 12:1 ratio

And if you're doing an action film it might be more.

 

Also keep in mind the price of filmstock keeps rising

So things cost more than they did a few years back.

 

But you're right it's totally possible to shoot a 35mm feature around half-a-mil.

Provided you don't have actors demanding a 250K salary. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can easily do a 35mm feature for 150k.  I recently worked on 2 indie features-both 35mm and both cost around 200k.  And 20:1 ratio...who do you work for, Kubrick?

 

A 20:1 ratio is usually what a standard Big Budget feature shoots at.

& most action films shoot at around a 20:1 ratio...

It's not that big of ratio...

cept in the student film and indie film world it seems like an excessive waste.

 

I'm working on the preprod. of an action feature

And it seems very difficult shooting it with a ratio under a 20:1.

 

Kubrick usually shot at a 40:1 ratio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 20:1 ratio is usually what a standard Big Budget feature shoots at.

& most action films shoot at around a 20:1 ratio...

It's not that big of ratio...

cept in the student film and indie film world it seems like an excessive waste.

 

I'm working on the preprod. of an action feature

And it seems very difficult shooting it with a ratio under a 20:1.

 

Kubrick usually shot at a 40:1 ratio.

 

I disagree, I think standard big budget features are even more afraid of wasting time and money then smaller films. Clint Eastwood does 2 takes. A lot of other big directors keep takes to a minimum, too. I think the new generation of miniDV filmmakers are multiple take junkies but film people are still disciplined. As far as action films are concerned, how many times can you blow up a car or jump off a roof? Action films do multiple camera angles, getting 5 to 6 angles in a single take, but doing 20 takes? Maybe fighting scenes, but Robert Rodriguez does very few takes and he does action films. It's up to the director, there is no formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, I think standard big budget features are even more afraid of wasting time and money then smaller films.  Clint Eastwood does 2 takes.  A lot of other big directors keep takes to a minimum, too.  I think the new generation of miniDV filmmakers are multiple take junkies but film people are still disciplined.  As far as action films are concerned, how many times can you blow up a car or jump off a roof?  Action films do multiple camera angles, getting 5 to 6 angles in a single take, but doing 20 takes?  Maybe fighting scenes, but Robert Rodriguez does very few takes and he does action films.  It's up to the director, there is no formula.

 

The number of takes and the shooting ratio are two different things

The amount of takes will affect the ratio but it doesn't mean it's part of it

 

Those different camera angles add up

if you shoot a scene with 6 camera angles (I know it's excessive)

And three takes each angle

That's around like 18 takes for the whole scene.

 

But rarely anyone does 20 takes per shot cause that be more like a 40:1 ratio.

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...