Indie Filmmaking Guide

[Adam Rench]

Hey Patrick! I am VERY happy you were able to get the guide! Finally ;o)

I'm going to look at a button that I can put on the site so the link is more prevalent. Thanks again, and I will surely be always be updating the guide. I learn so much in so little time that I'm updating the guide pretty much every few weeks.

Keep checking back for updates. :)

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I downloaded the guide, reading it now, very useful, thanks for putting this up!!

[Adam Rench]

Hey thanks. I'm very happy that it is useful!

[Adam Rench]

Just uploaded a new version 1.7. I just added a few things on lighting that I found interesting.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Hi Adam,

after downloading and reading version 1.6 with pleasure a while ago, I thought of it again, and downloaded the new 1.8 revised version, another thank you from me.
Question: do you still revise your guide from time to time, or are you more busy with other projects?
Another question: maybe if enough people are interested and agree, they could make a sticky of your guide in this board, because it holds much information for beginners.

Best regards,

[Adam Rench]

Hi Mathieu,

Thank you for the compliment about the guide. I do update the guide but have not had the time recently to do so. I'm working on a new short film and that is taking up most of my time these days. After learning a few more good things from doing this film, I will definately be putting up a new version.

My short is slated to be completed by March 2007 so I hope to update it at the very latest at that time.

Thanks again for the compliments.

Adam

[Yasser Kassana]

Adam thank you very much for this. When I become famous I will be sure to mention you in my special thanks credits.

[Adam Reuter]

This post should be a Sticky. I just downloaded the guide and it is a nice refresher/reminder and I learned some things from it!

[Adam Reuter]

Just found an inconsistency in the guide:

Under "Considerations when choosing a camera", page 19

You see – the savings for shooting on digital come from not purchasing film
stock, renting the camera, and lab costs. However the costs start to pile up afterwards when shooting digital – there are transfers, telecine costs, etc…


Then on page 20:


And again, like I said above, when thinking of shooting on film, you MUST keep in mind the costs of
transferring your footage from film and into digital format – this process is called telecine – and this
process costs roughly $250 to $500 per hour (not per hour of footage but per hour that the tech works on
your footage!). Also after editing and going through the telecine process you might also want to transfer
your footage back to film so you can project it in a theater. This also costs more $$ so even though the
camera cost is less than the equipment to upgrade to HD you have other costs that come into play.

--------------------

So, which is it? Does HD cost more to produce a movie on (that will be projected on film) or does film? Because it looks like HD is cheaper (start in HD, edit in HD (no transfer costs) and then transfer to film. With film you need to pay for film stock + lab fees (which is more expensive than tapes/reusable flash cards like P2 or SxS) as well as audio tape stock (although you could use a digital Nagra or cheaper digital solution for audio recording) then pay for a transfer to digital for editing and then pay for the digital to film transfer.



Page 26:

Now, what you would normally do is use your 85mm lens for your
master shots, you would use your 50mm lens for your medium shots, and the 35mm lens for your close up
shots.

----------------------

I think it should be the reverse order. 35 for master shots and 85mm for closeups.


Thanks again for this great guide, Adam!

[Adam Rench]

Originally Posted by Adam Reuter

So, which is it? Does HD cost more to produce a movie on

Hey Adam - It really all depends. If you are going to project theatrically on HD, and you are shooting on digital then it is very economical. You will still need to edit (costs money unless doing it yourself), color correct (costs money unless doing it yourself), and then you don't need to telecine it to get your footage onto film since you are projecting digitally.

If you are going to project on film and you start on HD, then you will need to pay 50 to 100k to get your footage transfered to film and you don't get the best of the best in color correction either this way.

Also, you do have to keep in mind that if you shoot on film, you now look like you are more serious. When you shoot on HD, then people may think that you are taking your parents HDV camera and filming in your back yard. When you say "I'm shooting on 35mm" people know you are investing a lot into this film and that you have confidence in the project.

If you start with film, you get dailies, processing, color correction, and an HD master for around 85k but then you also need to purchase the film in the first place which adds another 50 to 100k. Yeah, it gets expensive! BUT, you are showing your film at festivals on HD, but you've got a full copy on film in your back pocket. And you have a prospective buyer asking about your film and the person's film that is sitting next to you. You have your movie on film and the person next to you has it on HD. The buyer sees a savings if he buys from you because they don't need to pay for the transfer to film! You now have a step above the person next to you.

Originally Posted by Adam Reuter

I think it should be the reverse order. 35 for master shots and 85mm for closeups.

Personally, I use a long lens for my masters and shoot from far away and zoom in, but you can always choose your own style. :)