Sean--
You seem to be a rational person with a decent sense of communication. If you can't find money for your film perhaps you just haven't tried the right methods.
Have you looked at the Nevada Arts Council?? The Reno Film office?? Have you tried a fundraiser?? Have you written the killer script and put together a truly professional proposal?? Maybe it has less to do with you and more to do where you are??
There are a ton of different funding sources out there--Your pockets are only one. Use the power of the internet to find some that are close to you.
Good Luck
Sean, I made one film once on a one to one ratio.
It took me 50 hours to shoot over several nights.
I had no help on location whatsoever.
I spent more on late night food than I did on the cartridge of film, developing and transfer.
I did budget a couple of hundred dollars for props.
High end film costs a lot of money, bare bones "do it yourself", learn things no one will ever teach can be done for next to nothing, especially with super-8.
There are links to both Fuji and Kodak in the cameras sticky.
Then you can use the internet to find a local lab for pricing on processing.
I did give Tim Partridge a very basic comparison on price between HD and film.
If you can find info about the XL2 then you can find local pricing info on film. If you go to the kodak site it will take you to labs in your area.
Good Luck
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I've seen it argued repeatedly that shooting far more footage than you need constitutes 'lazy' film-making. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I said "can make one lazy", I'm not implying it is lazy filmmaking. The biggest advantage to video, unlimited videotaping, can also be it's biggest disadvantage.Originally posted by richard.fisher:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alex:
Shooting strictly video can make one lazy in the respect of trying to learn how to shoot efficiently and wisely.
From my own editing with clients experience, the family history videos that tend to get made are the ones revolving around film home movies transferred to video. Add a voice track, some music, and they have a very nice heirloom video of their own family history.
Editing 2 hours of film home movies down to 1 is quite doable, sifting through 50 hours of home video requires such a committment of time and money that it is generally those kind of projects that tend to not ever get done.
-----------
A simple way to look at the two formats is video is an audio format first and foremost, film is more of an "acting" and "scenic" type of format.
Video is not necessarily cheap. Capturing one minute of DigiBeta costs around ?1 per minute unless you have a DigiBeta VCR for > ?20K plus the necessary capture equipment. A 44 min tape costs around ?25.
If possible I shoot a draft either on my camera phone (don't laugh) or my cheap DV handheld to analyse the shots and only then film very tight shots on the DVW-700WSP. It would be far too expensive otherwise.
Why don't I shoot on film at these costs? Because video is a smoother medium from a convenience point of view. You can record sound straight on it, tapes takes up less storage space and the gear is very easy to handle on set.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, that Shakespeare guy was a total amateur.Originally posted by Peter_G:
Also, a prolific artist is a shit artist.
-----------------------
[img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img]
I knew that someone was going to cite examples in an attempt to disprove my prolific artist thing. These are what I call the exceptions that prove the rule.
I think that it's often ultimately less effort to work hard, save money and make a film on a reasonable budget then it is to shoe string.
Consider how Robert Rodriguez post synced all of "El Mariachi" himself, on 3/4 inch tape. I remember thinking that for the same effort it took to post sync an entire feature film (Think about the work required to get all of the original cast together months after the fact) he could have worked minimum wage and earned enough to rent a Nagra or something. That way, he would not have had the pace of the editing dictated by what parts of the dialogue happened to sync well with the picture.
If you would rather do a lot of groundwork yourself to save money, fine, but don?t undervalue your time.
Also, a prolific artist is a shit artist.
My advice to The Imaginable Sean Moss: Stop being a fucking cry baby.
Earlier in this thread, I wrote:
"I didn't say video wasn't creative. I was speaking about creativity in terms of reaching other goals - like buying eqiuipment and then returning it, seeking grants, selling stuff you don't use, borrowing equipment, etc."
In the 16mm PROJECTORS THREAD Nigel spoke about how he obtained a 43 million dollar projector for free by intercepting it from a way-too-early resting place in a university dumpster.
Excellent idea.
I called up some local schools, high schools, colleges, libraries and asked if they have any film equipment that they no longer need.
The audio visual department of a local community college was actually getting rid of some projectors. They plan to auction off the ones that still work, but tossing the ones that don't. The auction is a month away, but I snagged a broken projector for free. I'm keeping it for parts as I will now buy the same model at their auction when it happens, or just keep an eye out for it on ebay.
The audio visual department being the dept that provides media for classroom presentations, not the school's actual film / video department. That department is still keeping their equipment. the av dept of course gave some stuff to the film / video deaprt, but they now have a surplus, hence the future auction which I hear will be cheap. Starting bids are like one dollar.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 20, 2005 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Having a Nagra would not have changed Rodriguez' situation. He "post synced" his film because the camera was too noisy.Consider how Robert Rodriguez post synced all of "El Mariachi" himself, on 3/4 inch tape. I remember thinking that for the same effort it took to post sync an entire feature film (Think about the work required to get all of the original cast together months after the fact) he could have worked minimum wage and earned enough to rent a Nagra or something. That way, he would not have had the pace of the editing dictated by what parts of the dialogue happened to sync well with the picture.
And he did not "get all of the original cast together months after the fact." After each film take he would put the camera away, bring out the Marantz and have the cast repeat the scene.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks