I have a script for a short film I want to make but I want it to both look and sound completely professional and not like something youd find on vimeo or a "short film" on youtubeHow much all in would it cost me to create something (via either renting or buying the equipment myself) that looks 100% professional and like something you would go to a movie theater and seeYes I know you can shoot a movie on iphone or whatever they say but it looks bad how much does using good stuff cost
>>219413207Don't worry about how it looks in the first draft, just film *something* you can submit online to a festival (such as on FilmFreeway) and if it's any good you might find more funding for a definitive version after you win one. Most short films on the festival circuit are low quality anyway.
>>219413328this. Unless it's some "epic" you're completely out of your depths to even attempt, there's no scenario where not doing at all is ever better than doing a rough version. If anything you'll likely work out narrative kinks that will result in a better final version doing it yourself.more to your point, though, a "movie theater movie" is going to need an entire team of people doing specialized jobs in order to look the way you want. I can't imagine anything less than 100k would get you anywhere close to what you're wanting, and even that's considered a completely shoestring budget.
>>219413207I would go to a few indie film festivals first. Half the time the director is there taking questions and mingling with the audience and you can ask them questions about the process. I've been to a few but was too autismo to talk to them but the seemed friendly and open to the audience.
>>219413207I'm gonna let you in on a secret, anon. The camera doesn't matter nearly as much as the framing, staging, and lighting. Cameras are important, but too many filmmakers think that a good camera is all you need.
>>219413207you can shoot professional video on an iphone with a couple adapters and lenses for certain techniques. sound is the hard part. you need pro equipment for pro raw recording and you need pro editors to edit and mix it all together. this is why literally every youtuber uses editors.
$50 million
The camera doesn’t matter, literally just use an iPhone. Lighting and sound are way more important, and possibly costumes and sets depending on what you’re making. It also heavily depends on your talent as a photographer. You could film on an imax camera and it would still look like shit if you don’t know how to light a scene and frame a shot.
it's less about the gear and more about your experience and knowledge.It's gonna look and sound amateur no matter what because you haven't done it before, so just buy cheap gear and make it.First short films aren't judged the same by the people that matter anyway.
>>219413207my first porno-short cost me $12k including everything so I'd say around that or so
>>219413207Renting is the way lad, i used a red komodo 6k and one multi focal lens being my first short and all, the next time i will rent various lens
>>219413207Don't waste your time. Anything you shoot on digital will never be a "movie" it will be a youtube video at best. Unless you can shoot on 16mm and blow it up to 35, you're just making the equivalent of a cat video on youtube.
>>219414369
>>219413982assuming I roll the cost of hiring experienced people to work with me on it, are those people relatively easy to find in a big city? obviously it depends on the city but are there any hoops to jump through regarding me needing to be part of a union or anything like that?
>>219414507>posts capture of a film recording
>>219414507you know it's true. it's one of the main reasons nothing modern resonates with audiences or endures for longer than a week. it's all disposable digital garbage.
>>219414591
>>219414652theres been plenty of garbage shot on filmsee: anything RLM watches on best of the worst
>>219414652Claiming that the sole reason modern cinema doesn't resonate with audiences is because it's not shot on film stock is complete horseshit and ignores the systemic problems with the industry. The shitty lighting, the shitty production designs, the shitty color grading, the shitty cinematography, the shitty writing, the overuse of shitty visual effects - it's all just symptoms of the same overall problem: The rise of films driven by studio executives rather than directors led to the industry getting lazy. Everyone adopted an attitude of "that'll do" and "we can fix that in post" and people stopped putting any effort into planning, writing, framing, shooting, etc. movies. Shooting a pile of shit on film doesn't make it a gem, and shooting a gem on digital doesn't make it a pile of shit.
>>219414917>Claiming that the sole reasonlearn to read, fag. i said "one of the main reasons" and every lazy thing you just listed is downstream from normalizing digital cameras.
one cut of the dead cost 18k to make
>>219414990It's not even the fucking main reason, anon. It's not even *one* of the main reasons. It's practically the bottom of the goddamned list. All the problems I listed are things that started becoming noticeable 25+ years ago - before digital cameras started being widely adopted.You're picking format because like every retarded faggot with a hot take it's easier and lazier to boil down the problems with modern cinema down to a single thing than to admit the whole system is fucked.
>>219413925>It also heavily depends on your talent as a photographer. You could film on an imax camera and it would still look like shit if you don’t know how to light a scene and frame a shot.if im just getting started with it and all I have is a script/storyboards with general ideas for the shots I want, could I hire a DP with experience that has an idea on what the best way to go about actually producing those shots would be?
>>219413207>How much all in would it cost me to create something (via either renting or buying the equipment myself) that looks 100% professional and like something you would go to a movie theater and seeWell first things first, no one goes to the cinema to watch short films. You should know this. And if you don't, as a wannabe filmmaker, just ask yourself what the last short film you watched in a cinema was (hardmode: it can't be an animated pixar film that they showed before their main feature).You'll only see short films in the cinema at film festivals.To answer how much it'd cost, there are a lot of other issues. It's kind of like saying "I have an idea for a painting but I want it to look good and not like some comicbook artist's portfolio from when he still had ambition. How much would it cost to paint something that looked completely professional like you'd see in the national gallery?"You have to accept that the first short film you make will be shit. Much like the first drawing you doodle will be crap. The only way to get around this is to pay someone else to make it for you.But if you're a trustfund kid who has a script that isn't shit, you're looking at these sort of fees and organisation:>2 days shoot>3 actors at $100/day: $300>2 locations at $150/day: $300>hiring a decent sound recordist, $200/day: $400>hiring a half decent decent DP with their own equipment. $175/day: $350>2 assistants on set for whatever crap, $100/day: $400>props/costumes: $150>insurance, travel, misc: $200>hard drives for storage (price recently skyrocketed): $350Total: $2450That's assuming you have a half decent computer, editing software, and know how to edit. That also doesn't factor in festival fees (if you want to submit it at a fancy film festival), marketing (if you want fancy festivals to take you seriously) and all the other post production shit.
>>219415374it's not just a change in format, digital is a fundamentally different medium. your brain processes it differently than celluloid. female "leadership" at the studios and DEI and franchise fatigue have all contributed, but we don't have a Miramax indie competitor making original films on celluloid anymore. the most successful indie prodcos are A24 and Neon which have been pumping out pozzed digital garbage nonstop, and ruined most of their credibility. Hollywood signed its own death warrant the day they stopped buying spec scripts and making original films on celluloid.
>>219416363>Well first things first, no one goes to the cinema to watch short films. You should know this.thats true, but producing and making a short film sounds a lot easier with no experience than a whole feature filmthe idea is making a short first so I get at least some idea of what it takes and then expanding to a feature later
>>219413328This is some of the worst advice I've seen written. The short film scene is unbelievably competitive because every wannabe filmmaker is in that space.Getting a short film into a big festival almost definitely requires both a ludicrous budget ($10k+) and connections. If you have a recognisable actor, that will also help your chances.You're not filming some melodrama about whatever dumb shit (or even cool shit) and getting straight into sundance.Worse, even if you *do* get into sundance or somewhere similar, the age of random producers/investors picking up-and-coming filmmakers and giving them bundles of cash to make something are long gone. You want funding? You *need* connections. Nepotism all the way.>Most short films on the festival circuit are low quality anyway.This is objectively just not true. They're mostly shit, I'll grant you that. But they aren't low quality. They're almost all have large professional camera teams and sound mixing, combined with far too many people helping out, for a well-made product about being a 20-something experiencing grief or whatever emotion while their quirky best friend makes sarcastic comments about social issues.
>>219416509>thats true, but producing and making a short film sounds a lot easier with no experience than a whole feature film>the idea is making a short first so I get at least some idea of what it takes and then expanding to a feature laterTrue. But the point is that you're not starting at the top. You can't just make a quick short that's of amazing quality and tells everyone you're the next Kubrick before making your masterpiece of a first feature.It doesn't work like that.Filmmaking is a skill. If you haven't done it before, you need a lot of practice before you'll get good at it. And you don't seem to accept that your first film will be shit.Again, it's like saying you want to paint on an a4 sheet to get an idea before you go on to paint a sprawling mural on a church ceiling.
>>219413207>using good stuffAre you going to hire someone that knows how to use it? You probably do not.
>>219416701>And you don't seem to accept that your first film will be shit.even if it is inevitably shitty doesnt it make sense to hire some people who do know what theyre doing so they can at least give me some idea of what it should be like versus trying to do the whole thing myself and going in completely blind?
>>219416788yeah along with hiring actors, audio people, a DP, lights, etcall in im wondering how much that costs
>>219416837>even if it is inevitably shitty doesnt it make sense to hire some people who do know what theyre doing so they can at least give me some idea of what it should be like versus trying to do the whole thing myself and going in completely blind?Depends. Do you want to learn how to make films? Or do you want to hire people to make it for you?Look, if you actually make it as a filmmaker you'll almost certainly rely on other people to handle most of the technical stuff for you. But you'll be a far far greater filmmaker if you understand yourself how it works and how to make it better. It will also mean you can avoid being scammed.You want to know what the difference between a 35mm and 70mm lens is. What the difference between aps-c, full frame and medium format is. The benefits of 32-bit float and why sound recorders make you hold for room tone.You want to learn how to make films. And it's better to learn at the start instead of at the end.Case in point, your op is a pic of a red raptor, implying that that's needed (or a similar camera) to get a 'professional' look. People like you are why videographers are able to double their fees if they add a red komodo to their kits.
The internal components of those cameras really do make the image pop.
>>219417084okay, good pointsin that case would it be better to approach it from sort of a minimum viable product perspective where it at least looks and sounds okay even if not totally professional but also isnt an all out professional production?basically something watchable at minimum
>>219413207Most people make absolute garbage, ever been to film school or any art school? Some people can't even edit properly and they're in fucking art school, and plenty of those people are loudmouth retards too You won't know until you do it but if you have some artistic sense in you then you'll do well, like others have said, the camera is not important what's important is lighting, framing, etc. Just saying if you ever feel like you're not good enough there's people who are far worse submitting shit on festivals
These are good to start with, several visually beautiful films have been shot with them. You need lenses though.https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera
>>219413207If you have to ask this question then you don't have the experience or ability to execute on your plan.
>>219413207>I know you can shoot a movie on iphone or whatever they say but it looks badIt already looked good enough for this kino in 2015
>>219417952>how do I do this thing>if you have to ask then you dont know how to do the thing
>>219418037The naive question about budget is but one aspect of a large and overly ambitious plan, which OP is clearly too retarded to execute on.>"I'm planning on benching 1000 kgs tomorrow but I haven't done much weightlifting, any tips?"
>>219417404>in that case would it be better to approach it from sort of a minimum viable product perspective where it at least looks and sounds okay even if not totally professional but also isnt an all out professional production?>basically something watchable at minimumEveryone's different.I would recommend you buy a shitty dslr/mlc for $500 (lumix gh5 isn't a bad starter camera) and a mic/recorder for less than that (zoom h1n or whatever model they're on now works), get a couple of friends, and recreate a scene or two from a film you really like. Doing that will instantly make you understood what it takes to make a film work, where your natural strengths are, and where your weaknesses are.Alternatively, write a very simple short that you aren't banking on getting into festivals, and doing the same thing. Bottom line is that you need to start making stuff. You make stuff, you learn by doing, you're exposed to all the things you don't know.Gear you (probably) need to start:-camera (and lenses)-tripod-mic/recorderThat's it. Tripod is technically not even needed. Other two can be replaced with your phone if need be.Then you just need actors, locations and props. You probably also want lighting of some variety.But this is just for production. You also have to sort out editing. To be completely honest, you need to learn how to edit yourself. It takes way too many hours and you can't afford to hire someone to edit all your crap while you're learning filmmaking in general. So you need a half decent pc, download davinci resolve (it's free) and watch the tutorials.And this isn't an exaggeration. Unless you're prepared for your film to be limited by how much money you can pay an editor (who *will* be less passionate than you) to keep revising your film, you need to be able to do it yourself. That's just indie filmmaking in the modern day.
>>2194132071.Film several shorts on crappy equipment 2 learn how to draw even badly you have to have your ideas an clear and make all mistakes on paper not the day you film3 actors are extremely important you won't get anyone to watch anything if they don't feel right
>>219413831This. You can film some pretty impressive stuff with a G85 and 3 or 4 lenses, all of which you can get on eBay for like $900.
>>219416465I don't think I agree the format change has had as big an effect as you say. There are still plenty of movies each year that come out and touch my heart. And there are plenty of movies shot on film that are released every year that are really, really bad. I agree with that other anon, format change is the least of our worries.
>>219418010I didn't think it looked great. Then again, I need new glasses.
>>219418010>tranny apologist>kino
>>219413207People have filmed full length movies on iPhones with boom mics
>>219419325>There are still plenty of movies each year that come out and touch my heart.(You) are gay.
>>219413207hire a videographer, maybe 600 a day. Could take multiple days to shoot, actors can work cheap depending. Videographer could ask for light/sound help if you're really serious. In general, expect 1k per day of shooting. If it takes 5 days, that's 5k.
>>219417623>You won't know until you do it but if you have some artistic sense in you then you'll do wellThis is the most important advice, you either have an eye for visual and aesthetic or you do not. The other important aspect of film making process is being adaptable to changing things up on the fly, and being able to communicate what you need out of a scene to your actors. Also having a team that 'gets it' along with you. If you're starting out you have to already have been in some sort of artistic space like set design or theater performance to get a crew together. All the early film people came from theater/vaudeville circuit anyway. And you'd be suprised how eager and available most actors or designers are to do something with you if you just ask. It's hard to break into film so most actors will accept a volunteer or very cheap position or role on a short film to get reel footage, as well anyone in production (props/scenic/costume) to get resume credits. Will your first couple shorts even be accepted to some of the more mid-tier/toptier film festivals? Probably not, but they likely will get pick up at smaller, local film festivals. For example, my friend had one picked up at a festival in Portland, OR and it got him noticed and a job working entry level production on an Apple TV show. No he isn't a famous director now but he's actually IN the industry working. But you have to start somewhere, sitting around online bitching about the state of TV and Film isn't how you change anything. You have to go out there and put your money where your mouth is.
>>219420613What's the point of film then? All art at it's best is a cathartic experience that teaches and edifies you as to the human condition. There's no other point in making a movie if it doesn't touch the audiences heart.
>>219413207>one really good camera lens>decent audio>actual cinematographer doing lightingIt's more the Help than the gear. Free actors is a big factor, and whether you can edit and/or score it yourself. And guerilla no permit location shooting. Crowd funding is a thing. 5-12k low, 45-120k high. Watch Dogville and read the Dogme95 Manifesto.
>>219413207https://share.google/aimode/HKomLEyTgeR5Gc0HV
spend all your budget on a sound guy or none of it matters
>>219421425>unironic copy pastes from ai programthe internet is dying.
>>219421618no it’s just indians
idk why everyone is recommending getting a cinematogropher. Some of the greatest directors/cinematographers figured it out themselves. If you don't have an eye for framing and visual in what is pretty objectively THE most visual and aesthetic artform ever, you just shouldn't even bother.
>>219421519Horrible advice. You can only really appreciate sound in a theater with a professional sound system anyway. Film is a visual medium first and foremost, what matters is the framing and lighting. Next imo is production: set, props, and costumes. Next is the story/acting. Sound is like the least of a beginners worries, although I do agree they need an external mic and know how to mix and edit.
>>219421744a good system is required to get the most out of it but if it recorded on a potato and mixed in a bathtub it will sound like shit and not at all professional.
>>219422054For a short film it's pretty basic sound design: if there are outside scene's in nature, like in a forrest or a field, you need to already have prerecorded sound of wind ruslting through the trees, birds chirping, creeks trickling, etc. You capture that seperately by walking around a wood and listening carefully. Then you layer that over whatever actual scene you have and adjust volume levels from there. I've never even filmed a short or been on a film set and this is pretty obvious to me: only a complete idiot would try to capture all of that live during the actual take.For more complex scene's like an action sequence with cares and explosions yeah you are going to need some god-tier sound design work but a short film won't or at least shouldn't be that ambitious.
>>219413207You've already screwed up because you're asking how much things cost.It's not about how much it costs, you can throw infinite money at something and still have it look like shit.You need a cinematographer and an editor who know what they're doing. People who know what they're doing can get shit to look good no matter how cheap the equipment is.
>>219423539If you're first starting out you have to pretty much do the cinematography and editing yourself, or with a friend who shares the same vision. As many anons have said in this thread, you either have an eye for it or you don't, and you develop that eye by watching good and creative film makers.
You need to put the script and idea for the movie away for a while, pick up a camera, and learn what photography is. From the absolute ground up. You need to understand inside and out what shutter speed, aperture and ISO means and what it does. You need to know what lighting does and doesn't do, what light is capable of and what shadows do as well. You need to be able to light a subject with the basic three-point lighting set up confidently. A subject can be anything; a flower, a bowl of fruit. What you should then do is shoot people. Learn how to pose them. Learn how to interact with and direct them. Learn what poses and what lighting makes them look flattering and appealing in ways selfies simply can't.If you want to know anything about film making, you need to understand and have a grasp on photography. You have to have that tangible experience of arranging a shoot, preparing and packing your gear, lugging it to location, setting it up, ensuring that you have adequate light to work with, fighting with the elements, walking away empty handed, all of it. Its not doubting your idea; its being realistic about what this undertaking is on the most basic level.
