Do filmmakers tell the cast and crew where the money is coming from in these cases?

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Just cut down on the number of shots if you don't have enough time, You suddenly seem to have jumped from early 1960s, with the scene captured in scope, with all the actors interacting, to shooting TV type drama. Having 3 cameras is going to restrict shooting that way unless you've got fairly large rooms.

Oh well I thought one of the cameras would still be for the master shot, with all the actors interacting, wouldn't it?

But yes if 3 cameras is too much, then I can just stick with one. But I'm not shooting in scope though. I have decided go with 1.85:1 because I thought it would give me more vertical height for some shots I wanted, plus it would make it so I don't need to have as many extras in some shots, or as much set decoration, if the aspect ratio is not so wide.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

For every reason you can give for multi camera I can give against so at best it's a net zero.

Cons:
1. Expense: You need multi operators, the cost of the equipment will triple, not only will you need 3 cameras, you will need 3 lenses, monitors, memory cards, batteries, tripods, cages, operators, etc. You could easily spend you're entire budget just on the cameras and accessories.

2. Complexity: You will have triple the footage to review and grade. They all need to match in exposure and color. All of the takes and cameras will need to be labeled managed and synced. You'll need to store and backup triple the footage (if its raw that's no joke).

3. Time: you will need to transport, setup and break down triple the cameras for every shoot. Actors need know which is the main camera and you'll need to keep the cameras out of each other shot, you'll also need keep track of 3 cameras for the 180 rule.

So how is three cameras saving you time and money?

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco

For every reason you can give for multi camera I can give against so at best it's a net zero.

Cons:
1. Expense: You need multi operators, the cost of the equipment will triple, not only will you need 3 cameras, you will need 3 lenses, monitors, memory cards, batteries, tripods, cages, operators, etc. You could easily spend you're entire budget just on the cameras and accessories.

2. Complexity: You will have triple the footage to review and grade. They all need to match in exposure and color. All of the takes and cameras will need to be labeled managed and synced. You'll need to store and backup triple the footage (if its raw that's no joke).

3. Time: you will need to transport, setup and break down triple the cameras for every shoot. Actors need know which is the main camera and you'll need to keep the cameras out of each other shot, you'll also need keep track of 3 cameras for the 180 rule.

So how is three cameras saving you time and money?

Oh okay, well I was trying to save time and money cause it means less shoot days and less days to pay people for the extra shoot days. So I still thought I might save more if there is less days.

But I didn't think it would create more footage to go through in the editing though. Because if I used a single camera, I would still be getting all those same shots, but I would just be doing them one at time with a single camera. So I thought the amount of footage would be the same, because you are still moving a single camera around, getting all those same shots. So I don't see how the footage would add up to more. I also didn't think the 180 degree rule would be that hard with more than one camera, as long as you establish the line during the camera placement.

But if multiple cameras does not save you time and money on extra shootdays, then why do productions that use them spend the extra money, when they can save on money then? Why don't those movies that use a 3 camera set up, just one one then to save money? What's the purpose?

Most of your points make sense about how it would be more money, but if it's more money, than why do other productions do it then and not try to save on money?

[Pete Cofrancesco]

The first and most important question I will not research for you is the cost of the equipment. If three outfitted cameras consumes most of your budget then what would be the point of debating the other points? Also include the extra labor of manning them. Get back to us with the cost.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, thanks, good point.

Well how do other filmmakers keep the cost of their first features down so low? If you are forced to, what the ways to do it then? I was watching Film Riot, and Ryan Connolly goes through all his projects and talks about the way he got them all shot on microbudgets is he had everyone work for free, but I really do not see that as a good thing though, and want to pay, if possible.

[Brian Drysdale]

On your proposed budget you can't afford to pay people for the amount of time it takes to shoot a feature, even with 3 cameras. Especially if a good percentage of your budget is being spent on buying kit. I'm working on the assumption that each person will get paid the rate everyone used to get paid on shorts in the Irish Republic - 50 Euros a day. BTW that wouldn't be legal in the UK these days because of the minimum wage.

Good professional actors may want the union minimum, which is higher.

People working for free is the only way you can shoot on micro budget films.

[Josh Bass]

Ryan, dude, there are literally books with titles like "how to make a film for no money". Why not buy one and read it? Hell of a lot cheaper than just about any mistake you might make that'll cost you big. Also Robert Rodriguez has a VERY well-known book, "Rebel Without a Crew", that in excruciating detail talks about the making of El Mariachi and exactly how he did it for very little (post stuff aside). Why not read that?

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. How do other filmmakers get by with spending so much less money, like in Film Riot for example, or how do they convince people to work for less?

[Brian Drysdale]

They manage because the film maker can sell themselves and their project - the cast and crew are investors in the film by working for free. In doing so, People think that it's worthwhile as a credit, experience or this person is on the way up and they may get work on one of their films with a proper budget. The latter tends not to happen because the producers hire experienced people.

[Rainer Listing]

I wasn't going to get involved in this, but, just watch "Bowfinger".

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay well I can try to sell it better to people then and hopefully that will work. I was told before that I need to get better actors and a better DP, so hopefully I can try to do so, but still stick to a lower budget, just by selling it more.

[Brian Drysdale]

"Following" also shows you how to do this for very little money - shooting at weekends with friends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Following

[Pete Cofrancesco]

You seem to perpetually be on the cusp of filming this movie. When are you going to start filming? Back in February you were talking of buying a Black Magic Pocket camera...

It’s not a bad idea to research and read books that describe methods used to save money on small independent films. Obviously just because someone did something, doesn’t mean you will be able. You have to have a desirable project and be a charismatic person to attract people to work for free or share in the future potential profits. But you don’t have these qualities...

You say you’ll hire and buy everything you need then you say you don’t have the money then you’ll get external funding but then you can’t then you find yourself back at square one, film with your friends on an old dslr. You’ve been going around in circles for years chasing your tail. Do you enjoy getting yourself into these intractable problems?

From my observation you seem to enjoy most planning and talking about what you might do instead of actually doing it. The years are flying by. Are you going to be happy looking back when you’re old at all the years spent talking?

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay yes I do want to make it. I wanted to start this year earlier, but then covid got in the way. It's been hard to make it because of that so far, so I thought I would use the time to cut down the budget if possible, as well as script changes to improve.

But I do want to do it, just not sure how with this covid problem lately.

As for shooting with friends on weekends, my friends don't know how to do the filmmaking jobs though, so shouldn't I get people who have experience filling the roles though? I've been told before don't use friends, and past experience suggests to use people with more experience, if that's true...

[Paul R Johnson]

Multicamera is good when you are shooting things that cannot be re-done. Set that gets damaged, explosions, riot scenes, boxing match scenes (as in Rocky type movies) Anything that involves lots and lots of people and things. It saves no time at all on a normal scene because the Director cannot direct Multicam without becoming a TV director - skilled at looking at multiple streams, and then you need a floor manager to get the talent acting to the right camera, otherwise, you end up with three times the material shot, but no guarantee ANY of them captured exactly what you wanted. You then have to plan every shot to cover the movement and requirement of each camera, and then at the end of the shot you need to assess if it worked. If I was a director with no track record, finding it hard, and not having trained actors, then is inc reading workload x 3 a sensible idea? No - not ever!