35 feature on the cheap?

[Kevin Masuda]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever made a feature on 35mm, really really cheap? I mean I'm talking almost as cheap as Rodriguez did El Mariachi. Could one do it, if he or she was very careful and had not too much dialog in the film?

 

Kev

[Stephen Williams]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever made a feature on 35mm, really really cheap? I mean I'm talking almost as cheap as Rodriguez did El Mariachi. Could one do it, if he or she was very careful and had not too much dialog in the film?

 

Kev

 

Hi,

 

If you don't pay anyone, use outdated film stock, make deals at the labs then I am sure you could have change from $50,000. If there is really not much dialog and a shooting ratio of 2:1 then it should be easy! LOL

 

Stephen

[Kevin Masuda]

So I guess someone could do it if that person got free filmstock manufacturer direct and a free camera to use for a almost no budget action film? I was just curious if anyone has ever attempted to do a 35mm feature that way.

 

Kev

[Mark Allen]

I would research the movie "Primer" and listen to the commentary on the DVD and then figure you're doing it with 35mm instead of 16mm and make the appropriate calculative differences. He made his film for about as cheap as anyone could have shooting on 16mm.

 

Same method in 35mm would be more expensive.

 

I wouldn't recommend shooting 35mm unless someone hands you everything for free unless you have enough budget to bring the rest of the production value up to the specs of the capture format.

[Rolfe Klement]

I have given this very careful thought in the last couple of months and these are my ideas so far

 

Don't shoot 35mm unless you have free access to the camera kit - 16mm and S16mm will be much cheaper

Sound is going to be an issue - either you need or have a sync sound camera or you are going to spend weeks in FCP doing ADR

Get DVCAM transfers from the post house - so no dailies and no print

Distribute on DVD not a film print

Hold onto neg and hope a distribution deal will buy a film print and audio post

 

Following from that and using RR rules from El Mariachi (costumes, lunch, inserts, etc) - I reckon you could shoot a 90 min feature for £15000 - if you had the camera, used FUJI or old KODAK, got a reasonable deal on DEV and one light (@20 to 25p/ft), assuming you have months of free time and free access to FCP with a DVCAM deck, paid and fed no-one

 

I think with a small 35mm camera (2C etc) you could do some amazing location work - but it would be a case of in and out very very quickly - like made a case that carried the 2c fully loaded and ready to go - so you take your suitcase into (where ever) then open the case, take the camera out and press run (total 9 sec) - film for 2 min then out

 

My response will probablly generate a plethora of responses :ph34r:

 

Thanks

 

Rolfe

[Scot McPhie]

I have given this very careful thought in the last couple of months and these are my ideas so far

 

Don't shoot 35mm unless you have free access to the camera kit - 16mm and S16mm will be much cheaper

Sound is going to be an issue - either you need or have a sync sound camera or you are going to spend weeks in FCP doing ADR

Get DVCAM transfers from the post house - so no dailies and no print

Distribute on DVD not a film print

Hold onto neg and hope a distribution deal will buy a film print and audio post

 

Following from that and using RR rules from El Mariachi (costumes, lunch, inserts, etc) - I reckon you could shoot a 90 min feature for £15000 - if you had the camera, used FUJI or old KODAK, got a reasonable deal on DEV and one light (@20 to 25p/ft), assuming you have months of free time and free access to FCP with a DVCAM deck, paid and fed no-one

 

I think with a small 35mm camera (2C etc) you could do some amazing location work - but it would be a case of in and out very very quickly - like made a case that carried the 2c fully loaded and ready to go - so you take your suitcase into (where ever) then open the case, take the camera out and press run (total 9 sec) - film for 2 min then out

 

My response will probablly generate a plethora of responses :ph34r:

 

Rolfe

 

 

I don't think kind of approach will yield high production values - why not use Super 16 - which is alot cheaper and can be blown up to 35 if needed. He's a thread that might be of interest too"

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=10714

 

Scot

 

Thanks

Edited February 1, 2006 by Scotness

[Stephen Williams]

I have given this very careful thought in the last couple of months and these are my ideas so far

 

Don't shoot 35mm unless you have free access to the camera kit -

Thanks

 

Rolfe

 

Hi Rolfe,

 

Thats why I bought my Ultracams! I think I will be back Uk in the next 12 months, so we should talk!

 

Stephen

[chooser]

well ..... I am trying to doing it, 35mm, 40,000ft and counting, lots of dailogue, shot in two countries, small spooky drama actually. However as with P Jacksons first feature, it has taken a good 14 months plus of part time shooting. Can be done. Did an interview with Mr Jackson back in the end of the 80's, he had vision if not financial means at that time. Alison Maclean got absolutely hammered after Crush at the beginning of the 90's. Nikki Caro shot all her early shorts on a shoe string. All children to a degree of the early Geoff Murphy / Roger Donaldson / Sam Neil punk just do it attitude. Bruno Lawrence deserves a mention here as well. Lee Tamahori, Vincent Ward, Jane Campion (and many more) and a list of new comers, Taika Waititi and Toa Fraser to name a few, look them up on the web / IMDB.

 

Never ever let jaded technicians, engineers and money men say that it cannot be done. If you have the vision and drive and some god given talent you will come through in the end. Not, Never and will ever be easy. Easy is working in an office on salary for the rest of your life. Nothing wrong with that, if you can be happy with it, but if you are, then odds on you aren't reading this tonight, today, this morning ..............

 

Sorry for the rant.

 

ps: own cameras are a major plus

[chooser]

BTW: has anyone seen Alison Macleans short Kitchen Sink. OK it's nearly 20years old, I think I saw it as a short, prior to a Film Festival Feature when I was in NZ as a kid, boy it was an absolute killer ...

[David Mullen ASC]

Generally the cheapest 35mm features I've ever heard of were made for around $50,000.

 

I know George Selinsky here has been making one for a few years now and I don't know what has been spent so far, maybe $20,000?

 

Let's say it were possible to shoot a feature on 50,000' of 35mm stock. My guess is that you could end up spending about $30,000 on stock, processing, and telecine costs, less when you factor in really cheap recan stock, cheap telecine transfers, etc. Maybe it's a 3-week feature and you can rent a 35mm camera package for about $3000/week, or $10,000 total let's say. So you start to get an idea of why it's hard to go below $50,000. But, hey, if you get a free camera and some free stock, maybe it would be more like a $30,000 feature or less.

 

On the other hand, there are no blow-up costs to get a 35mm print. If you shoot Super-16, it may cost $25,000 or more to make an optical printer blow-up.

[Robert Edge]

Does anyone happen to know what it cost to make Coffee and Cigarettes (the ensemble, not just the original short) or Swimming to Cambodia? By cost, I mean basic production and post-production cost, ex fees paid to the creative team, lawyers, accountants, caterers, marketing people, etc.

[Guest ReadyTeddy]

Why not do it in HD?

 

You can get the quality with DVCProHD or HDCAM and edit it on a G5 or Pentium4 PC. With a Varicam or CineAlta, you can definitely come close to a 35mm look. A LOT less hassle, especially if you're packaging for DVD.

 

I would consider buying a second hand Varicam for essentially close to what your film stock, processing and DI transfer costs would otherwise be... then take care not to drop it out of an airplane or a boat and sell it for what you bought it for after you're through shooting.

 

Use Craigslist for limitless supplies of free and slave labor.

 

Zero processing costs and nothing really other than time spent for post. You can also have all the dialog you want and shoot higher than 2:1. If you sell the film in a backroom deal at Sundance or Cannes you can then burn 35mm prints. LOL!

[Stephen Williams]

Why not do it in HD?

 

You can get the quality with DVCProHD or HDCAM and edit it on a G5 or Pentium4 PC. With a Varicam or CineAlta, you can definitely come close to a 35mm look. A LOT less hassle, especially if you're packaging for DVD.

 

I would consider buying a second hand Varicam for essentially close to what your film stock, processing and DI transfer costs would otherwise be... then take care not to drop it out of an airplane or a boat and sell it for what you bought it for after you're through shooting.

 

Use Craigslist for limitless supplies of free and slave labor.

 

Zero processing costs and nothing really other than time spent for post. You can also have all the dialog you want and shoot higher than 2:1. If you sell the film in a backroom deal at Sundance or Cannes you can then burn 35mm prints. LOL!

 

Hi,

 

A few people prefer the look of film, many others think mini DV looks better than 35mm.

 

Stephen

[Dan Goulder]

Does anyone happen to know what it cost to make Coffee and Cigarettes (the ensemble, not just the original short) or Swimming to Cambodia? By cost, I mean basic production and post-production cost, ex fees paid to the creative team, lawyers, accountants, caterers, marketing people, etc.

If you're trying to isolate the film production costs alone on Coffee and Cigarettes, it still may not have been that cheap to film, as I doubt the shooting ratio was very low. Even thought the setups appear simple, there was still a fair amount of coverage. Between the master shots and the closeups, they could easily have run up a minimum 9 or 10 to 1 ratio. The film itself was mastered in D5 HD. The stock, lab, and post-production costs probably did not come in under the six-figure mark. (If so, not by much.) That doesn't include the 35mm film out.

[Kevin Masuda]

Thanks for the insight guys. I would like to shoot on super 16 however, I don't have access to a camera. Can't rent one at this point not to mention that my local rental house I've had some bad experiences with. I do however have access to a 35mm camera and fujifilm wants to discuss my project with me, so that's why I asked. If I could get a free super 16 camera, then I'd go with that...hands down. By the way, I would not be making any prints...just direct to hard drive.

 

 

Kev

 

Oh yeah forgot to mention that I have my own final cut studio edit setup, so no worries there.

 

Kev

[Guest ReadyTeddy]

There is not a doubt in the world that only film looks quite as lovely as film. MiniDV or DVCAM, on the other hand, does not even come close to 35mm in any way that I have seen.

 

For an application going directly to hard drive, as Kev has stated, I doubt there would be any real advantage to shooting in film other than being able to say he's done so.

 

I have heard that Fuji does give away film to promising students. I also understand that Panavision has a program where they let students use one Panavision camera that they have floating around the country. I would suspect the demand exceeds the supply of one, however.

 

Where are you, Kev? East coast? West coast? Red state? Blue state? If you're not far from where I am, I could maybe help you. Drop me a line.

[Mike Williamson]

I have heard that Fuji does give away film to promising students. I also understand that Panavision has a program where they let students use one Panavision camera that they have floating around the country.

 

I shot a feature on 35mm last year that received a generous grant from Fuji. We got a certain percentage of our stock free which may have been dependent upon how much we ordered. The upshot was that we got a fantastic price on fresh stock and there were no restrictions on what stocks we could or couldn't use, which allowed us to get Eterna 500T just after it had been released. I wasn't involved in the application process, but I believe it was a student program (our writer/director) and I think it was fairly informal. Try and contact Lisa Miller at Fuji, she's their student rep.

 

I've heard about theh Panavision grant as well, I believe that's out of California but I'm not positive. I've heard it's very schedule dependent and you can be sure that it's competitive, but hey, somebody's gotta win it...

[Chien Huey]

According to the Panavision website, they have 4 Elaines (S16) and 2 GIIs (35) available. There is a small stipend that they charge for camera servicing between shows.

 

http://www.panavision.com/media/newfilmmak...amguidlines.pdf

[Nate Downes]

What kind of 35mm? ASC? Techniscope? 3-perf? This can change the cost of production. Techniscope I've found comes out about the same price as 16mm, for example.

 

Where are you located? If you don't mind looping, I have some 16mm cams you could borrow.

[Phil Rhodes]

And it is deeply spooky!

[Rolfe Klement]

Basically we can sit and argue either point backwards or forwards until we die without having made a film - so best plan just shoot it and don't spend a single cent - cause once you start - the little hole in the dam becomes a raging torrent of cash OUT.

 

BUT I agree - it comes down to prep and experience

 

Prep for director to be able to know exactly what is needed yet the experience to be able to rejig it - if need be. I think an director with editor experience is better placed than any other...

 

Also correct or good actors who know the tone and story points that need to be hit or can be manipulated by a good director to provide them quickly.

 

Lets take an example - the LEOPARD ballroom scene that took 40+ days to shoot with 500+ people - I truly believe that if you get invited to one of these fancy balls with 2 actors you could shoot the entire thing for the cost of a couple of rolls of film. BUT it comes down to prep - if you watch the ballroom scene from LEOPARD and break it down to shot by shot and try to nail that then you have a fighting chance - if you are trying to come up with a film in the edit room and you have to put 500 people on hold while the lead actress goes off to shoot 8.5 with Fellini every 12 days for 12 days - then you are going to spend money and there is no limit to how much money you can spend on trying to get it just right (Shrub wants to spend USD440B in Iraq!)

 

It is like these S8 film comp with one roll of film and no editing - all cuts have to be done while filming - the guys who win are the guys who spend 2 months shooting it over and over on DV trying to figure out exactly what to do, then re-editing it, then reshooting etc etc - so the true cost of their project is one DV tape and one roll of film (but months of their time)

 

anyway - I will get off my high horse of cheap 35mm features and get back to my script development B)

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Jon Petro]

Hey guys,

 

This thread has been dead for well over a year, but I was searching through stuff and could not resist bringing it back to life because I am pretty much in the same boat as so many other people trying to make a FILM for almost NOTHING.

 

 

I think you can make a 35mm feature for under $15,000 but the biggest key is having a very non-talkie script and doing tons and tons of rehearsal. Once the heads start talking is when the film burns. If you can keep your shooting ratio at or under 2:1 (which is reasonable with very little dialogue) you can do it. Obviously you can't be picky about the stocks you shoot on, a simple formula is the cheapest you can find. It doesn't take much looking around to find 35 for very low prices. You could also rent an older BL and 3 primes for about 2 weeks, and then get a good deal on processing and transfer which is very feasible and has been done many times. I myself have gotten processing and best lite transfer for .20 a foot total on a 35mm feature. If you are only shooting 20,000ft that works out to about 4 grand plus tape stock...

 

 

Another key would be writing a film that is easily made, and by that I mean what you have access to. You can't spend any money on locations or crew or actors. Food and gas is your only expense since you will be shooting it over two weeks. There are plenty of solid actors that will act for free hoping to just get some scenes on DVD or maybe the film will break out.

 

Buy a DAT and some tapes and tape a decent Shotgun to a hockey stick.

 

As far as lighting goes, keep it simple, pre-plan and use home depot like it is Arri CSC, you will be amazed what you can do with painters lights, 200w bulbs and china balls. Don't set your movie outside at night or in other words don't make rented lights a necessity. with 15k you could afford one or 2 bright lights if you need a bit more, but get ready to get creative.

 

And if you don't own a non linear editing system then you should not be attempting to make a feature...Post Production can easily be free and performed at your own leisure in your bedroom.

 

Of course your only option is to finish on video, but if your movie is any good someone else will pay for the print. This is guaranteed, if your film is great you don't need a print...if it sucks you really don't need a print.

 

I haven't thought about 35mm as an ultra low budget feature that much, but it certainly is feasible. Again, the real riddle is the script. Do not write what you can't film for free, simple as that.

 

If you own a camera or any other equipment you are really set then. Over the last two years I have been slowly assembling a super 16mm package, lighting (some cine but mainly home depot style), sound set-up, and a really nice post production set-up. I can do everything except manufacture film and process it. With the right scripts I can continue to make features for around 10k with modest shooting ratios until someone takes notice of my work.

 

Pre-planning is everything, don't shoot to figure it out later, story board your whole movie. Go to the location with the actors, shoot on a small video camera, cut the scenes together, show them what works and what doesn't. Filmmaking is an affordable hobby if you are careful with it. I remember shooting a short in film school with a 1:1 ratio on a bolex and the project came out as planned. Months later it won a festival and another student filmmaker who had shot on video instantly tried to play the...gee if only I had enough money to shoot on film. I told him it only cost $250 and he was in denial about it.

 

I think we can get caught up in everything you learn at film school or read in American Cinematographer, or see on this forum. Filmmaking does not have to be a giant production. I am convinced that money will not help make your film better at all, it will just make it more expensive. Let's face it Uwe Boll will make poop with or without a budget, and Kubrick could have made something great with a K-3. It's up to you and not your wallet.

 

And for all the naysayers. Give me $15,000 and 8 months and I will show you it is possible. Please.

 

Jon

[Niki Mundo]

I fully expect to film my first indie feature on 35mm and under $10,000.

 

A) I own my Konvas 1M

B) I own a G-3 devolping tank (to devolpe the B/W segments)

C) Pay the cast/crew tiny amount like 10/hr and have 'em around for an hour and that's it.

D) Edit at Public access on Final Cut (Seattle) and release on DVD

 

I don't really want to shot on 35mm because it will be a PAIN but it's a superior image and this film needs a superior image.

[sean mcveigh]

I should mention that Adam Frey's 35mm feature "Hunting Dragonflies" was shot on a $10k budget.

www.huntingdragonflies.com

[Adam Frey]

Thanks Sean!

 

In the winter of 2004 we shot Hunting Dragonflies (http://huntingdragonflies.com) for $10,000 - and managed to test premiere it to an audience of roughly 400 people by the Summer of 2005. After getting a lot of great feedback, we went back in and worked on it some more before releasing the DVD.

 

Shot it with recans, which were mostly made up of Kodak 5279, but had a few other stocks in there as well (we ran out and couldn't find anymore 5279), including a batch of K320T. I actually wanted older recans (but not blued), because I wanted the film to have a very gritty look to it - it's an action film that takes place on a deserted farm in the winter. I has a heavy influence from Westerns, and I figured an extremely gritty look would help to sell the total idea better. So the recans I bought were around one to two years old, which means I definitely got the grit in spades, and I also saved money.

 

I was trying for a 2:1 shooting ratio, but it ended up being 200 minutes of exposed footage shot for an 82 minute movie. So it works out to something like a 2.44:1 shooting ratio.

 

Shooting was harsh. It was the winter of 2004 and it was pretty cold in our area - but it barely snowed. Luckily, the film was never supposed to have snow in it (again, going for that "Western" feel - and winter looks pretty bleak), so I was very happy. When it did snow, we'd shoot around it (interiors and such).

 

Post sound work was the absolute worst part about the entire process. Since the cameras were the MOS 35mm Konvas 1M's (check out http://konvas.org for some good info on the Konvas), they were nice and loud and not much was able to be recorded while the camera was running. Exteriors were way better than interiors. Some scenes were shot without sound altogether (on a few weekends, I was the only crew)

 

We shot mostly on weekends and shooting wrapped by spring. We had a rough film edit by early fall, but then we got into sound editing and that killed another 9 months.

 

Altogether - it was shot for under $10,000. It was a great learning experience, especially since it was my first feature - and I'm glad it was shot on 35mm. But I can honestly say it was the hardest work I have ever done in my life. Many times I had less than 4 hours of sleep a night. After carrying equipment, loading and unloading the vehicles, and shooting all day, I still had to feed everyone (to keep food costs low, I'd make a stew in the crockpot every evening), then I had to go load magazines and perform other camera upkeep every night. It wasn't a lot of fun and the lack of stress and sleep isn't good for anyone.

 

So, you can shoot a feature on 35mm for under $10k - I know, we did it. But it would have been so much better if the budget was bigger (even $20k) and we could have afforded a few luxuries, including one really good AD and an AC.

 

Btw: we just finished shooting another feature - this time on HD. There were a few very big drawbacks to shooting HD that I had to accept (film has way more latitude, 35mm has a much higher resolution, etc.), but I have to say, it was much easier than film, in a few key ways: we didn't have to carry a 60 pound camera, we didn't have to change the magazine every 15 takes, and I didn't have to stay up late nights trying to load a stack of magazines. Of course, HD is not film (and I don't even want to get into a film vs HD debate - use the right tool for the right job), but we managed to shoot this last feature in 8 1/2 days (would have been shot in under 8 days, but an actor had a family emergency), which, unfortunately, is something we just could not have done if we were shooting 35mm.