Jump to content

35mm short


Geovane Marquez

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

 

$7,000 for two minutes? It doesn't make any sense.

 

10:1 shooting ratio, 2000' rawstock, $1300. Processing, $200, telecine $1000, camera rental- one or two days, sync or MOS?, $1000 to $4000. Insurance? Sound?Crew? Sets? Permits? Crane/dolly? G&E package/truck? Editor/Post production?

 

$7510 sounds like a bargain, even if everyone works for free (and you still have to feed 'em).

 

I just finished shooting a 2 min 35mm commercial, 10:1 ratio. I own the cameras, dolly, jib, G&E, locations, etc. No paid production crew, my son and I did it ourselves. Rawstock was left over from another project, so no cost there. I expect to spend about $3000 to get it finished.

 

It might be helpful to do some budgeting on your real costs before embarking on this project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10:1 shooting ratio, 2000' rawstock, $1300. Processing, $200, telecine $1000, camera rental- one or two days, sync or MOS?, $1000 to $4000. Insurance? Sound?Crew? Sets? Permits? Crane/dolly? G&E package/truck? Editor/Post production?

 

$7510 sounds like a bargain, even if everyone works for free (and you still have to feed 'em).

 

I just finished shooting a 2 min 35mm commercial, 10:1 ratio. I own the cameras, dolly, jib, G&E, locations, etc. No paid production crew, my son and I did it ourselves. Rawstock was left over from another project, so no cost there. I expect to spend about $3000 to get it finished.

 

It might be helpful to do some budgeting on your real costs before embarking on this project.

 

Thanks my dude! =D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

10:1 shooting ratio, 2000' rawstock, $1300. Processing, $200, telecine $1000, camera rental- one or two days, sync or MOS?, $1000 to $4000. Insurance? Sound?Crew? Sets? Permits? Crane/dolly? G&E package/truck? Editor/Post production?

 

$7510 sounds like a bargain, even if everyone works for free (and you still have to feed 'em).

 

I just finished shooting a 2 min 35mm commercial, 10:1 ratio. I own the cameras, dolly, jib, G&E, locations, etc. No paid production crew, my son and I did it ourselves. Rawstock was left over from another project, so no cost there. I expect to spend about $3000 to get it finished.

 

It might be helpful to do some budgeting on your real costs before embarking on this project.

 

I have to disagree. In my experience the costs of shooting an indie short are way different than shooting a commercial.

 

I'm basing these numbers on what it would cost here in Toronto. It's Canadian dollars, but there is little difference in the Canadian/US dollar these days so it should be the same or slightly less. You can probably get better deals in LA than in Toronto as well.

 

Also this is just the cost of shooting/post so all the other expenses of the film you will have to figure out based on the content of your script.

 

It also depends on how you finish the film. You have options ranging from an HDCAM finish to an HDCAM-SR DI with film-out, or a full fledged 2k DI. An HDCAM finish is cheapest, but if you are going to major festivals a 35mm print has a lot of benefits.

 

 

 

Film/processing:

 

Buy short-ends. Find a good SE reseller (easy to find in LA) or talk to people you know working on big 35mm shoots, they can often steer you in the direction of who to talk to to get left over film from that shoot. Short-ends usually cost about $0.18/foot but can be as low as $0.05-$0.10 if you find a really good deal.

 

Depending on the camera you are able to get you could shoot 4, 3, or 2-perf. If you are shooting 1.85:1 then shoot 3-perf unless you get a deal on a 4-perf camera that makes up for the difference in stock costs. If you are shooting 2.39:1 then 2-perf is a good option to consider if you can get a 2-perf camera.

 

4-perf:

10:1 shooting ratio = 1800 feet = $0.18/foot = $324 for stock

process 1800 feet = $216

 

3-perf:

10:1 shooting ratio = 1350 feet = $0.18/foot = $243 for stock

process 1350 feet = $162

 

2-perf:

10:1 shooting ratio = 900 feet = $0.18/foot = $162 for stock

process 900 feet = $108

 

 

 

Camera:

 

If you need a sync-sound camera you can expect to pay around $1500-$1700/day for a complete kit (in my experience anyway). If you know somebody at the rental house or they take pity on you or something it could be less. This will likely be an older camera like a BL4 or a SuperAmerica but it's just fine for what you are doing. An Arricam ST or a Panavision Millenium is just luxury you don't need. Your film will still look just as great when shot with a BL4 in the hands of a good DOP.

 

If you don't need sync-sound the costs can drop considerably. Check out film co-ops as well as the regular rental houses. There is one here in Toronto that rents a great 35mm MOS for around $50/day (I know it sounds too good to be true but I kid you not).

 

 

 

Post:

 

Telecine to HDCAM will probably cost about $350/hour in the suite. For 20min worth of footage you are talking about 1 hour (they usually give you an estimate based on 3x the running time). This will include your colour grade so no extra cost for that. Worst case it might be 1.5 hours.

 

Then about $125/hour X 0.5 hours ($75) to get the HDCAM tape captured to a hard drive as Uncompressed 1920x1080 Quicktime files. You can cut the whole thing in Final Cut and do your VFX work on the QT files (or convert them to DPXs). Then take a QT of your finished film back to the lab to get the whole thing dumped back to HDCAM for $150/hour X 0.5 hours.

 

If your destination is DVD/Blu-ray/TV or you are satisfied with screening at festivals from HDCAM this is a nice cheap solution. If you want a 35mm print it will raise the cost quite a bit, but not as much as you might think. Here is a good article on a cheaper alternative to a 2k DI that still produces high quality results: http://motion.kodak.com/CA/en/motion/Publications/In_Camera/Next_Generation/beautifullyEsther.htm

 

All of these numbers are based on my best guess as to the deals rental houses and labs will give you as an indie filmmaker. If they know you or your DOP knows them or something you may get better deals. But I think it's likely to be in this ball-park based on my experience. To get any kind of an accurate picture you will need to investigate the options available in your area and get actual quotes. Then of course budget the rest of your film.

 

 

 

I wouldn't shy away from 35mm. It usually ends up being a lot less expensive than you think. I know guys who regularly shoot great looking music videos on 35mm with total budgets in the $5000-$7000 range. So I can't see a 2min film being MORE than that. And stay away from RED. The reality is that RED tends to actually cost MORE for a small project (like a music video or a 2min film like yours), and it's safe to say that it will look better with 35mm.

 

And of course in all of this it has to be said that you need to get yourself a good DOP. If you are shooting 35mm you want somebody who knows how to utilize it's potential to make your film look great.

 

Also it couldn't hurt to get a good post supervisor on board to work out all the workflow details for you and talk to the lab. For a low budget thing like this you will probably need to woo him or her into working for free, but you never know. Pitch them your script, if they find it interesting they may be more than willing to help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a two page short I would like to shoot on 35mm. What would be the cost? There is some CGI.

 

BTW, why don't you elaborate on your film a bit. It would give a better picture of what you would need to pull it off. Is it a quirky little art film that can be shot at one location with a minimum of cast/crew? Or is it a huge sci-fi epic packed into 2 min?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and it will look like it cost $4.

 

 

Not really. Honestly I was joking, hence the smiley. I am a 'film' guy. I've shot all of my films on actual film. 1 on reg 16 and 2 on 35. /film street cred

 

If you have good lenses, say zeiss primes and know how to light for a particular DSLR it assuredly will NOT look like it cost $4. I wish I would've shot my last movie on a 7D, it would've saved my about $1000 of my own money(I could have a really tricked out Magliner for work :) ) You use whatever tools you have and try to make the best images possible, be it a 7D, an HVX-200, or some Lowell tota kits(eww).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you recommend any place in particular? I know raw stock in NY closed. I was sad, I got really good short ends and recans from them.

 

Here in Toronto Certified Film is a good place: http://www.certifiedfilm.com/ I believe the owner of Certified Film is actually a member of this forum.

 

As for New York/LA I don't know places specifically because I'm in Toronto, but I know some DOPs here who buy large amounts of SEs from somewhere in LA on a regular basis, not sure of the exact company though. It's true reselling film isn't the business it used to be but it seems the top 1 or 2 operations in each city are still around and doing alright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. Honestly I was joking, hence the smiley. I am a 'film' guy. I've shot all of my films on actual film. 1 on reg 16 and 2 on 35. /film street cred

 

If you have good lenses, say zeiss primes and know how to light for a particular DSLR it assuredly will NOT look like it cost $4. I wish I would've shot my last movie on a 7D, it would've saved my about $1000 of my own money(I could have a really tricked out Magliner for work :) ) You use whatever tools you have and try to make the best images possible, be it a 7D, an HVX-200, or some Lowell tota kits(eww).

 

Well to each his own, but I think DSLRs are great in theory but are not that great in practice. Every time I see the same DOP shoot something on 35mm and then something else on 7D, the 35mm thing always looks WAY better. Yeah it's kind of comparing apples to oranges because they may have been going for a different look for each of those shoots, but there seems to be a consistent pattern in favour of the 35mm.

 

I don't think DSLR is in any way a substitute for 35mm (DOF is not the only thing that makes a look). Look at the drastic difference in the 'House' episode that was shot on DSLR compared to the rest of the series which is 35mm. And they were using high ends lenses, etc., etc., and I would bet they were pushing DSLR as far as it would go.

 

That being said DSLR does have it's appropriate uses. Camera Music is a good example: http://www.aux.tv/show/CAMERA-MUSIC/ It's just a guy hanging out with musicians and the DSLR gives it an intimate look. It doesn't look like 35mm though. But that's cool, it's it's own thing in this case.

 

As for saving you would save $1000, I look at it like this: When you are making low-budget short it is usually as a calling card to get you bigger projects. So I think it's the worst time to cut corners. That $1000 was money well invested in my opinion. Shooting on 35mm not only makes your film look it's best but it says you are serious about filmmaking and that you are out to make the best quality product you can. I know the temptation is there to just jump in and do it, but I think it's worth it to wait and save up the extra cash to make it a better looking product. You will be wasting a lot more that $1000 if you make something that looks like you cut corners on it.

 

I know DSLR is having a huge popularity fad these days, but I think people are too quick to assume that DSLRs are a going to look like 35mm or that 35mm is out of their price range. A while ago there was a huge onslaught of bands requesting that DOPs shoot their music videos on 7D, but then they saw the results and now most of them are asking for 35mm again, and willing to pay for it because it's money well invested. 7D actually seems to have scared them away from anything digital.

 

Anyway, that's just my two cents on DSLRs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ dude. I DO NOT think DSLR footage is a substitute for 35mm. I don't know why you are on such a crusade. Shooting on a 7D compared to 35mm doesn't necessarily mean you are cutting corners. And honestly I don't need you preaching the benefits of 35, I've shot it, I love it. But it's not a great solution for every indie filmmaker out there that wants to make a short.

 

In TODAY'S world, as a cinematographer, you have to be able to use a number of high-end digital cameras, 16mm and 35mm, prosumer video cameras, as well as DSLR's. Sometimes you have to use camera's you don't like.

 

Am I glad I shot 35 instead of 7D? Yes, but if I shot 7D I'd be able to throw that money towards a feature(which will most certainly be shot on a 7D. If money wasn't a factor I'd shoot film every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ dude. I DO NOT think DSLR footage is a substitute for 35mm. I don't know why you are on such a crusade. Shooting on a 7D compared to 35mm doesn't necessarily mean you are cutting corners. And honestly I don't need you preaching the benefits of 35, I've shot it, I love it. But it's not a great solution for every indie filmmaker out there that wants to make a short.

 

Ok, I was just trying to give some helpful advice to somebody who WANTS to shoot 35mm. You were making it sound like he could just shoot 7D with no consequence. I simply responded with my opinion based on my experience with DSLRs and 35mm. I thought I made it quite clear that it was just that, my opinion. This is not about YOU. I am not invested in what format YOU shoot on, and quite frankly I think it's kind of egotistical to think that response was all about you. I stated that if I was in your shoes I would see the extra cost of 35mm (if there even was one) as a worthwhile investment. If you don't see it the same way then fine, go and shoot all your projects on 7D from now on. It's you choice. It doesn't affect me or anyone else on this forum.

 

I'm really not interested in a 7D vs. 35mm debate and I'm sorry I walked into that. So before this thread gets hijacked lets refocus to what this thread was about. Somebody (not you) said they wanted to shoot their short on 35mm. This is his thread and If any of us have some advice that might be beneficial in regards to helping him do that, let's post it. But lets not start telling him he should just go and shoot something different, and tell him that it's too expensive when that's not necessarily true. Lets help him find a way to shoot the format he wants. In my experience it is quite possible to shoot a low-budget short on 35mm and it can in some case prove to be cheaper than digital formats.

 

If you want to debate DSLR/35mm there are endless threads in which to do that. I'm sorry I participated. Let's keep this on topic. And the topic is what would it cost to shoot a 2min short on 35mm. NOT should he shoot it on 35mm or DSLR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, you say there's a co-op in Toronto that rents 35mm MOS stuff for 50 bucks a day? I live in Edmonton and the only place is FAVA. Unfortunately, their 35 III is broken and doesn't do variable frame rates any more. Not especially helpful being that most MOS cameras are used for things like Music VIdeos which often employ variable frame rate stuff. Whats the name of this rental house? Cool! Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, you say there's a co-op in Toronto that rents 35mm MOS stuff for 50 bucks a day? I live in Edmonton and the only place is FAVA. Unfortunately, their 35 III is broken and doesn't do variable frame rates any more. Not especially helpful being that most MOS cameras are used for things like Music VIdeos which often employ variable frame rate stuff. Whats the name of this rental house? Cool! Thanks

 

The place is called LIFT (http://www.lift.on.ca/). It's a co-op not a rental house. You join as a member and put in a small number of volunteer hours then get access to lots of equipment and great rates. Not to mention everybody who works there are filmmakers and artists themselves and are more than helpful. But I'm guessing it's a similar deal with your place.

 

I think you can rent without the volunteer hours but the rates are much, much lower if you are a member. I don't know if they would rent to somebody out of province or the logistics of that, but it's certainly worth calling them and asking about it. They might even be able to point you to somewhere closer that is an alternative to FAVA.

 

They have an Arri III that is in great shape. It's in the $300-$400 range per day. The $45/day (for the whole kit) camera is a Konvas 2M. I've seen plenty of footage from both cameras and there isn't a real noticeable difference in quality. The Konvas has more gate-weave than the Arri III so it wouldn't be my first choice for a VFX camera, but that being said I have worked with plates shot on that camera. For anything other than VFX the gate-weave is not noticeable.

 

The big advantage to the Konvas is that it is much smaller and lighter than the Arri III. However if I remember LIFTs Konvas doesn't have a video assist (although many 2Ms are retrofitted with them). That may or may not be an issue depending on how you are shooting.

 

Actually here is a music video shot with LIFT's Konvas:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, their 35 III is broken and doesn't do variable frame rates any more.

 

Come to think of it I think LIFT's Arri III had a issues a few years ago and had some repairs done. I'm not sure if Karl fixed it up in-house or if they sent it to somebody, but it might be worth suggesting to the people at FAVA that they see if LIFT can point them in the direction of where to get it repaired affordably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you recommend any place in particular? I know raw stock in NY closed. I was sad, I got really good short ends and recans from them.

 

Film Emporium still has a NY location. I'm sure there are others. Even if not, you can always have it shipped, wwiith a liberal application of DO NOT X_RAY stickers. Winter is the best time of the year for shippign film anyway :-D

 

 

Adam, I am a 35mm Diehard, but you can't say Michael is full of sh** for pointing out a budget alternative, especially when the original poster thinks $7500 is too much. I highly doubt you'd be raising such a fuss if it were S16 pitched instead. I personalllly hate the look of digital images in many many circumstances, but some people don't. What if this project is for an interrnet viral or even standard definition? Would you still be advocating 35mm? You point out budget alternatives that are only available to you (there might be a co-op he can join and use, but almost certainly not with a camera for $50 per day).

 

And he probably isn't shooting MOS anyway, so right there is the potential for $1500 to 3000.

 

 

You act as if it is 35mm or nothing. And that anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot. That is simply naive. As an aside, I would try to begt borrow cameras, find cheap/free stock, etc. But some people don't have those connections/skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, I am a 35mm Diehard, but you can't say Michael is full of sh** for pointing out a budget alternative

 

Seriously, read my posts. I never said he was full of s**t. Ever. It wasn't even really directed at him, I just gave an opinion. He took it WAY, WAY too personally for some reason.

 

 

 

especially when the original poster thinks $7500 is too much.

 

Yes, he thinks $7500 is too much. But I don't think it will cost him that much. My point is he needs to be presented with realistic numbers not responses like "a lot", "too much", etc. etc. I also recommended that he actually budget things carefully and get some actual quotes before making a decision.

 

I see it all the time, people just give up on shooting their short on 35mm because other people discourage them from doing it. Sometimes based on realistic considerations, but more often than not, assumptions that are not true.

 

 

 

I highly doubt you'd be raising such a fuss if it were S16 pitched instead.

 

Well it depends on why he wanted to shoot S16. If he said something like "I'd like to shoot 35 but it's too expensive so I'd like to at least shoot S16" I would have suggested that 35 can actually be the same or cheaper than S16 (due to more abundant short-ends available in 35).

 

I was actually approached by somebody not too long ago who said "That looked so good, was it 35", "I wish we had the money to shoot 35 but we could only afford S16". But after comparing numbers the 35 short actually cost less. My point is people jump to the conclusion that 35 is too expensive without actually investigating it.

 

 

 

What if this project is for an interrnet viral or even standard definition? Would you still be advocating 35mm?

 

You miss the point. I'm not advocating 35. Look at the title of this thread. The original poster WANTS to shoot the project on 35. That was what he asked about. I didn't step in and say "No, no, no, you have to shoot on 35". I just tried to answer his ORIGINAL QUESTION of what it would cost.

 

Somebody butted in and started advocating DSLR instead of 35mm. Not the other way around.

 

I made this point before and I will make it again. The topic of this thread is "What would it cost to shoot a 2min short on 35mm" not "Should I shoot it on 35mm or DSLR". I think we should give Geovane the best info we have on that subject, and present some options for lowering the price while still shooting the format he wanted. If after that he decides it is still out of his price range we can help him explore alternatives, but throwing inflated, over-reaching numbers at him (like $7500) and then advocating DSLR is not helping him. It's just scaring him away from 35 unnecessarily.

 

If his short costs $7500 it will be because of the other expenses of shooting that he will incur regardless of what format he is shooting on. I don't see you guys advocating that he should forego lights, or don't feed his crew or something. We are talking shooting format here. As I and others have pointed out he needs to budget the rest of his film as well. And that is the bigger part of the pie and DSLR is not going to save him money THERE.

 

 

 

You point out budget alternatives that are only available to you (there might be a co-op he can join and use, but almost certainly not with a camera for $50 per day).

 

Do we know there isn't? I didn't know there was in my area until I looked for alternatives. Maybe there isn't a $50/day camera, but then again maybe there is. You don't know until you look. He's in LA for god sakes, chances are there is BETTER resources than here in Toronto. At the very least he can probably find a co-op that has a better deal than the rental houses.

 

And besides the camera, what else did I propose that is not available to him? In fact I said that I was trying to give numbers that they are likely to give an indie filmmaker. I pay less than those numbers, but only because I have made connections. If he has connections he can get deals too, but if he doesn't have connections he can still find prices better than the book rates. That's what I was trying to show.

 

 

 

And he probably isn't shooting MOS anyway, so right there is the potential for $1500 to 3000.

 

$3000 is just not a realistic number. If for some reason he insisted in shooting on a much newer camera that was overkill for a short he might pay $3000. But I guarantee if he looks around he can get a sync-sound 35mm camera for around $1500. Maybe $1700, but I would be shocked if it was more than that, and I guarantee it's not $3000. And that's from a rental house. If there is a co-op that has a sync-sound camera it will likely be much less.

 

 

 

You act as if it is 35mm or nothing. And that anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot. That is simply naive. As an aside

 

Ok, seriously. Why are you jumping on me like this? When have I ever said that everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot? When?

 

I am advocating not dismissing 35 outright until you have an accurate picture of the actual cost. I am not saying that it's 35mm or nothing. I said that for me personally I see shooting on something like DSLR purely to save money as cutting corners. But I realize that others may not agree and it's up to them to make those kind of decisions about their own projects.

 

Look, this is where I am coming from: I know so many people who are dissatisfied with how their short looks. Often it is because they hired a not-so-talented DOP, but often it is that they shot it on HDV or DSLR or something to save money and now are unhappy with how it looks. Some are unhappy with S16. And with many of these people I advocate shooting the next one on 35. Their initial reaction is "no, no, we can't afford that", but once you help them through the actual numbers it ends up not costing anywhere near what they had assumed it would. In fact just recently I helped somebody crunch some numbers on a short to be shot on 35 and the camera/post budget ended up being LESS than what they spent on their last short shot on an HVX200. Now I know that is an unusual circumstance, but my point is that when you actually price things out the picture is often different from what you had assumed.

 

 

 

If somebody wants to shoot 35 but just doesn't have the budget for 35 then they can't. It's unfortunate, but it's reality. But hopefully they came to the conclusion that it was out of their budget based on realistic numbers and not assumptions. It's unfortunate when I see shorts that actually could have afforded 35 but went with a compromise prematurely.

 

I'm not saying DSLR, RED, or the like are compromises for everybody. If you legitimately WANT to shoot RED over 35mm or DSLR over 35mm then go ahead and do that. But I know many people who shoot those format as a COMPROMISE because they wanted 35 but thought they couldn't afford it. It's just unfortunate that some of them actually could have afforded it but were scared away by other people telling them it was too expensive so don't even look into it.

 

 

 

 

Ok? That's what I am advocating here. No calling, anyone an idiot. No "35 or nothing", more like "don't give up on 35 if that's what you want".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he probably isn't shooting MOS anyway

 

For all we know there is no dialog. 2min is pretty short, the odds are in favour of there not being a lot of dialog. Maybe it's an art film with none. We just don't know so that's why I asked about the subject matter of his film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, thanks for picking every Single SENTENCE of my post apart.

 

 

No, you didn't say "You're full of sh*&," or "You're an idiot," but that's the net effect of what you said to Michael, even when he was agreeing with you with only a few [practical] exceptions!

 

You have plenty of examples where 35mm is cheaper than everything else. That's fine. But an HDSLR can be free. 35mm can't beat that unless you work at a film lab and have a buddy that bequeaths you a whole bunch of free film.

 

 

And since the original poster has reconsidered shooting 35mm, there is absolutely nothing wrong with informing him of the other options.

 

 

I notice you quote a bunch of numbers for your cheaper 35mm costs, but don't add them up. Looks like they're somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000, which is $1,500 a minute. We're assuming that he can get all of his lights, crew, talent (far more important than filmstock) for free.

 

I looked at your co-op website. If you want to rent extra lenses, a focus assist, a synch camera, sound equipment, anything like that, it much more expensive.

 

 

It's better to cover all the bases for necessary production equipment than to shoot 35mm on a micro budget like this, even if that means HDV! If all your shots are static, outdoor exteriors with no fill, no camera movement, that all has to be dubbed in later, how good is that going to look? 35mm is the best, but it isn't magic, and it can see a lot deeper into a total lack of production design, art direction, makeup, and lighting than other methods, even with its shallow DOF. Hard to shoot at F/2 outside with the only ends you could get for cheap, 500T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Geovane, I just noticed it says you are a 2nd AC. Do you work on a lot of 35mm shoots? I know a 2nd AC who was recently working on a studio picture and asked about getting some short ends from the shoot. The producers basically said: if you take them home with you right away you can have them for free. I guess they saw that as easier then having someone take them to a reseller.

 

Anyway, he scored enough film to shoot his short. So if you are on those kind of shoots ask around, worst they will say is 'no', but chances are good somebody is feeling generous or sees it as easier than a reseller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 2 minute short could mean anything and could cost anything from $100 to $100,000 - depending on content, production team, cast script etc...

 

The price of film is pretty easy to budget, work out your shooting ratio - get quotes, same with labs etc...

 

No one can really help give an answer because the question gives no real information other then shooting format and running time.

 

To be honest shooting format is not the most important thing when it comes creating the budget of a film anyway and typically should only account for a percentage of the budget. If you overspend in the camera department your going to cut corners in other areas.

 

Also you can't compare the budget of your film easily with that of others - as all films are different and different people are able to get different things for different prices.

 

There are no short cuts to writing a budget: breakdown your script, produce a shooting schedule and start getting prices and put it all in Excel - plenty of good budgeting templates and guides on the internet.

 

Other the other approach to budget is start with the amount you have to spend and work backwards and come up with the most cost effective way of shooting you film for that money the best way you can afford. That approach means you don't up front decide on 35mm but work out if 35mm works on your budget - based on real quotes rather then guess work.

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...