How many minutes of film would you need to make a 90 minute feature?

Jonathan Dzwonar · November 23, 2015

If you're making a feature film aiming at a 90 minute length, how much film should you plan on using? Disregard extra needed for stunts or massive special effects. I know the shooting ratio is generally 3:1 but you should have plenty of feet ready for shots that just aren't working or when actors really have difficulty with a scene. How much would you guys need to feel comfortable?

Giray Izcan · November 23, 2015

3:1 is a pretty conservative ratio - I'm not saying it can't be done but will be pretty limited. It depends on the film too. I wouldn't go below at least 5:1 but 7:1 or 10:1 is more ideal for sure.

Brian Drysdale · November 23, 2015

Very few feature films would have a shooting ratio of 3:1. Something like 10:1 or 12:1 is more realistic with modern fast cutting, if not higher.

You can get lower shooting ratios if you've got a John Ford style and very experienced actors who can give a performance and have a highly developed sense of timing,

Bill DiPietra · November 23, 2015

3:1 is a pretty conservative ratio - I'm not saying it can't be done but will be pretty limited. It depends on the film too. I wouldn't go below at least 5:1 but 7:1 or 10:1 is more ideal for sure.

Totally agree. Plus you have to account for flashed rolls, technical issues (e.g., a light blowing out in the middle of a take,) actors flubbing their lines or the director just wanting to try different things and doing multiple takes.

Jonathan Dzwonar · November 23, 2015

So 1200 minutes for a 90 minute feature seems reasonable?

David Mullen ASC · November 24, 2015

I've always started with a 10:1 figure, it makes the math easier!

In 35mm 4-perf, a good rule of thumb is a 1000' roll for every page of script.

Jonathan Dzwonar · November 24, 2015

The 10:1 makes the most sense. Definitely gives everyone a chance to improvise a bit.

David Mullen ASC · November 24, 2015

I've gone as low as 7:1 on a feature and I know one guy who managed a 5:1 ratio, so it's possible but at that point, you are almost doing only one take of many set-ups and cutting a lot in camera. On the 7:1 feature we only shot what was storyboarded with almost no overlapping coverage but we did multiple takes.

Tyler Purcell · November 24, 2015

Well believe it or not, if you do proper coverage, the minimal ratio would be 5:1. The moment you add one flubbed line, you increase that ratio. So a conservative ratio on a scripted feature would be around 8:1. I always budget for 10:1 and a lot of my friends feel 10:1 is conservative, but I don't feel the same way. If you have good actors, storyboards and a tight shooting unit, you can shoot 10:1 without a problem.

10:1 ratio would be 900min of stock:

4 perf 35mm = 80,000 ft (80 rolls of film)

3 perf 35mm = 64,000 ft (64 rolls of film)

2 perf 35mm = 40,000 ft (40 rolls of film)

16mm = 32,000 ft (81 rolls of film)

Kenny N Suleimanagich · November 24, 2015

10:1 ratio would be 900min of stock:

4 perf 35mm = 80,000 ft (80 rolls of film)

3 perf 35mm = 64,000 ft (64 rolls of film)

2 perf 35mm = 40,000 ft (40 rolls of film)

16mm = 32,000 ft (81 rolls of film)

It should be noted that for these numbers the 35mm rolls in question are 1000' rolls and 16mm are 400'

Edited November 24, 2015 by Kenny N Suleimanagich

Bill DiPietra · November 24, 2015

A 400' roll of regular 16mm is about 12 minutes in length. Therefore, 75 400' rolls would give him 900 minutes...not 81. Or were you just figuring in contingency rolls?...