Film budget impact

[MosesMa]

Hey guys,

Have any of you done a comparative budget, 35mm vs RED? I mean, assume a low budget $1 million film, to be shot in 35mm... and compute how much that same production would cost using RED cameras?

If you have something, please share it with me? It'll save me a bunch of work.

Thanks!

MM

 

[Omada]

Most of the money spent on a full length motion picture goes to salaries, production design, and things like music rights and liscensing. Very little (or at least less than you'd expect) actually goes toward production equipment costs. This surprised me at first because I'd always start with equipment/format when doing my own budgets. Once you get mentored by a pro and see how the money is normally spent, it's eye opening.

As to your specific question, shooting with Red format will cost less than 35mm both in the short term and the long term. But you could shoot either format with a 1M budget. What's more important is who you cast. Getting known talent in your flick gets distribution, and they cost a lot.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If you're shooting an independent picture where everyone volunteers their time. It'll make a massive impact on the budgt. But in the long run if you shoot conservatively film isn't that large of a chunk of a union budget.

The real advantage is that if you want to shoot a quick movie on the weekend with your friends it'll cost you next to nothing for electricity which to me opens up a lot more experimentation and risk taking since I don't have to worry about the financial consequences of every shot.

 

[donatello b]

perhaps one should just look at shooting 20hrs of 35mm vs. 20 hrs of RED ...
and take it to a print ?
i really don't think the crew cost be different ...

everybody's 1 mil budget will spend different in each dept ..

the lower the budget the more percent film stock & related cost eat up ..

the $$$$ on movies today .. guessing - average hollywood studio movie= 80% to actors & above line ....
60-70 persons union crew approx $3 mil per picture then add $40-50 mil to actors .. now add in $20-30 mil to director , producer , writer ..

 

[Tom Lowe]

For pictures in the $200K -500K range, it will make a big difference, especially if you want to shoot a high ratio. The beauty of digital is that, in theory, you could shoot "millions of feet of film" without any real budget considerations. Of course, this assumes that you have the time, crew, actors, locations, food, and everything else in place, to keep those cameras rolling.

To save money on hard drive space, I plan to screen and dump unwanted footage as the shoot goes on, but actually, storage is becoming super cheap these days, so it's becoming less of a consideration.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The beauty of digital is that, in theory, you could shoot "millions of feet of film" without any real budget considerations.

:shiftyph34r: Sesnes "Overshooting rant" coming in 3... 2.... 1.... *ducks and hides*

 

[Tom Lowe]

:shiftyph34r: Sesnes "Overshooting rant" coming in 3... 2.... 1.... *ducks and hides*

Haha. Yeah, I know. That's why I tried to pack my post full of disclaimers about having the money and time to actually shoot that much.

Every time you post something about the benefits of shooting digitally, in terms of increasing your shoot ratio, people will always show up to put you in your place and let you know that "digital technology doesn't solve all your problems and make you a better director, or help your acting".... etc. hehe.