Ryan Kaercher

Hey guys. Greg Irwin just cleared up the issue. He said they shot about 9,600 ft per day which comes out to 336,000 ft of 2 perf on "American Hustle." That's with two cameras. And originally the LP thought I needed two cameras the entire shoot. So there in lies the confusion. The LP would have been right on the money if we were a two camera show the entire run. Thanks again guys. Cheers.

Thank you so much for clearing that up for me and looking in to this! I really appreciate it. He thought we were a two camera shoot the entire time but I just need two cameras for 6 out of the 35 days for the really complicated sequences. Otherwise I think we'd prefer to work single camera. Do you find it more or less efficient when shooting 2 cameras? Do the actors seem to like it better or can you tell a difference? Does it seem to cause issues for lighting a lot? Thank you again Greg. Cheers PS. I saw you worked on Valentine's Day. That was the first big film I worked on right out of school. I was one of the office PAs. Chuck Minsky was a really cool guy to chat with and Gary was such a nice and genuine man.

Yeah the film is a true crime story that takes place in the 70's. It involves a lot of locations and many of them being rugged and some even wet, muddy, etc. as some characters are on the run. I am shooting film because of the story, setting, look I want, and durability of the process. I've shot digital many times and film on occasion. I also work in camera and G/E a lot when not directing. I definitely do not want a DIT and his cart along for the ride in these situations. I want to take a single camera, mainly handheld like an Arri LT or something small and shoot the real environments and put the actors in real situations, while mainly just enhancing the natural lighting if needed. I need two cameras for 6 of the 35 days due to wanting to capture the actions and natural blocking taking place in a hectic environment and for a couple complicated stunt sequences. Otherwise it's a single camera, spherical shoot. I typically don't shoot many takes 5 to 1 should be fine but I think I'll go 10 just to be safe, after all it's 2 perf and half the cost of 4 perf. We've budgeted to cast really good actors so there shouldn't be a problem with that side of things, hopefully as long as we can get the caliber we want on signed on the picture. But it's one hell of a story that you don't see everyday that's for sure and I don't think we'll have an issue getting talent. Thanks again for all the info guys. Happy shooting to ya'll. Cheers.

Pav: Why do you keep referring to this as a short or bringing up short? Its stated from the first post that this is a feature and short was never mentioned.

Oh it's a 129.5 hour mini series. I didn't tell you that... Yeah I'm aware of the way it breaks down and I know it seems absurd. I also agree about the film vs. digital expenses as well. It just can't cost that much more to shoot film. I'm just wondering why he thinks we need this much like I said he really knows his stuff and this is the only red flag I've seen really. If there were prints needed that I'm unaware? But I've been researching it and I cannot seem to find a reason why we would possibly need that much stock. Have you done a DI before? I always thought that you edited the telecined footage in an NLE and then got an EDL. Then you go back and do a DI on your EDL based off of the keycode numbers. Is that not how it works? Do you need to have a negative cutter to make a final print, then do a DI on that? Even then that would only add an additional 8000ft at most. We should be more than fine with 150,000ft I think. Thanks for the input!

Greg: I was wondering how many feet of film you guys shot for "American Hustle" I have a very experienced line producer budgeting a feature for me right now that I intend to shoot 2 perf 35mm with a 35 day shooting schedule and he's got us budgeted for 350,000 feet. This seems really high to me. I did the film footage calculation and it comes out to around 5400-6300 ft at 2 perf and 8100 to 9450ft at 3 perf if it were to run 2 to 2hr20min (if it ran really long). I had a meeting with him about it and he said that he will budget whatever I want but if he drops it any lower than 300,000 feet that we'd be getting some very nervous DPs. We aren't processing that much, just budgeting for it. We're processing circle takes and doing digital dailies. The guy has been around for a long time and done a lot of movies, many that were shot at studio levels on film so he definitely knows his stuff. I'm just a bit confused by that number. He basically said that to shoot film all in it will cost about $350,000.00 more than if we were to HD such as Alexa. All those lines for film, processing, telecine, prints go to zero when HD. I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you for your time. Cheers

Thanks for the input guys. I had a meeting with him and he said that if he drops it any lower than 300,000 feet that we'd be getting some very nervous DPs. He'll put in what ever I want but in his experience on 35mm feature films in the 8-10 MM range and up he has always budgeted that amount. We aren't processing that much, just budgeting for it. We're processing circle takes and doing digital dailies The guy has been around for a long time and done a lot of movies, many that were shot at studio levels on film so he definitely knows his stuff. I'm just a bit confused by that number. He basically said that to shoot film all in it will cost about $350,000.00 more than if we were to HD such as Alexa. All those lines for film, processing, telecine, prints go to zero when HD. I see it as worth it and a story that needs to be shot on film. Although I think I can get those numbers to come down with creative solutions. Cheers.

I am looking to shoot a feature film (35 day shoot) on super 35. Either 2 or 3 perf. If I was to budget for a 5 to 1 shooting ratio and my final film would end up with a 120 -14 minutes run time how many feet of film should I budget for? I did the film footage calculation and it comes out to around 5400-6300 ft at 2 perf and 8100 to 9450ft at 3 perf if it were to run 2 to 2hr20min (if it ran really long). I'm working with an experienced line producer that really knows his stuff and has done some big films who has us budgeted for 350,000 ft of film. How does that make sense and why on earth do we need so much film? I know you have to budget for printing and what not but I'm not planning on film dailies and not many theaters are wanting to exhibit in film these days anyway so a DI and 2K out is kinda the plan. Even if that was for 4 perf and we went to 2 perf an cut in 50% that is still 175,000.00 ft of film... The story and period are the reason that it's being shot on film. But as of now the stock is going to cost us around $175,000.00 or $87,500.00 at 2 perf (if not already) which seems really high to me. If you guys have had any experience with something like this I would love to hear some insights. Thank you for your time. Cheers