Where does the budget go?

[Alex]

And HD has several layers of hidden costs. Just wait until you "downconvert" and discover that if you want a good quality downconversion you willhave to spend lots of money to get it. Without the good quality downconversion, your Offline will look real bad and you won't be able to sell your project until you online.

[miker]

I cant understand people who use DV and then blow all their "saved" money on accomodation for actors and food.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">here's my justification of why we are spending money on accomadation and catering, and shooting on DV:

1. comfortable actors are not as likely to walk off set.

2. well fed actors will worry less about their empty stomach and concentrate on acting.

3. DV is very close technically to DVD - a high proportion of an 'average' film's gross is made on DVD sellthru.

4. DV is very close to broadcast quality, it is certainly broadcastable quality - a high proportion of an 'average' film's gross is made on syndication, broadcast, and regional licensing deals.

5. although when blown up to 35mm the DV will look totally inferior, that's okay because we're not targetting cinemas. With today's home cinema setups however we can aim to deliver a cinematic experience to those with the equipment to reproduce it at home.

6. given all the above, workflow (including sfx, colour correction, foley, adr, dvd authoring etc) is far cheaper in the digital domain, especially given I can do it all on a machine that's already sitting on my desk.

7. Believe it or not, it's still possible to make a stinker of a movie on filmstock - it just costs more.

8. a genius is never understood ;-)

[Alex]

Originally posted by Generic Skinhead:
I cant understand people who use DV and then blow all their "saved" money on accomodation for actors and food.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess GS belongs to the school of method acting. "You will look like you are in pain, and suffering, because we won't feed you nor accomodate you!"

The most telling moments on a set are when an actor walks over to the crafts services table. If it is poorly kept with flys buzzing around the few remaining scraps, it actually can affect the actor on many levels, including not being in your next movie and definitely flying off the set the moment you go into overtime and need a break, and they are right for doing that too.

[crookedfeatures]

"You will look like you are in pain, and suffering, because we won't feed you nor accomodate you!"

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">LOL

[Kev Owens]

Generic; the key word is 'big screen', on which film will kick DV's ass! No question.

[img]graemlins/film.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

[miker]

let's not forget that Kif and I are shooting a feature length movie. I think we are using DV less out of necessity and more to shoot within our means (perhaps that is the same thing).

we are obliged to accomodate the actors else they will be commuting from london every day for two weeks (yes movies can be made on the coast)

also we never set out with a definitive budget in mind. we knew it would be a few grand, it'll be interesting to see what the final figure is and if we can make the money back on sales and licensing.

[Generic Skinhead]

I fear I have been misunderstood.

Of course actors need to be well fed, but I try to get good deals on good food, without dining out much if possible. I'm not accusing people on the board of overspending, but I know plenty who do. An example might help.

3 years ago I worked on a shoot for a short. The budget was 6 grand. That went on film, but also on renting a caravan for the actors, hiring expensive locations and full on catering. They even bought the rights to adapt a short story into a film.

Guess what? The film is terrible. So what did I learn?

This year I made my grad. I shot on black and white, mostly in my house and with one exterior. The shoot lasted a week and I bought all the food in bulk at the begiining of the week. Food was my second highest expence behind film stock/processing/telecine. The film cost 2 grand and it turned out pretty good. The actors can sleep in their own house, in fairness. No catering, or trailors, but the actors still told me it was the most proffessional shoot they'd been on.

As for DV vs Film, I still reckon you're shooting DV out of neccesity and then coming up with reasons why that makes sense.

A lot of people in my class shot on the new Sony pd 170s this year and the rest of us used an Arri from 1972. The screening of the clasees films is next week, and it'll be interesting to see what looks good on the big screen.