Sample DV Feature Budget

Sort by date Sort by votes
That's an unusual budget.

Only crew getting paid is the camera department. They are shooting 25 total days and paying the DP $12,500 ($500/day) AND they put the camera and "stedicam" in the budget. Pretty sweet deal for the producer. He gets to make his movie and keep the camera and stedicam the investor paid for.

The budget mentions feeding 15 people. Looking at their crew of 20 (17 if you don't feed the producer, location manager or UPM) it looks like there are no actors and 5 pissed off crew. Maybe they aren't feeding the camera department because they're paying them and letting the cast graze in the backyard because of Hitchcock's comment. And there's no script supervisor.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Works fine. You may need the recent acrobat!!!

http://www.dvhandbook.com/NewsAndFeatures/Budgeting/DVfilmbudget.pdf

"Only crew getting paid is the camera department. They are shooting 25 total days and paying the DP $12,500 ($500/day) AND they put the camera and "stedicam" in the budget. Pretty sweet deal for the producer. He gets to make his movie and keep the camera and stedicam the investor paid for."

True. But then for the most part I try and do the same. Given the oprotunity it's often cheaper to buy than rent and it brings down the budget for the next film considerably.

Never said it was perfect but for people looking for an outline of what a DV budget could be I think it's a good start.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mr-modern-life said:
True. But then for the most part I try and do the same. Given the oprotunity it's often cheaper to buy than rent and it brings down the budget for the next film considerably.
Click to expand...
You're right. It's an excellent deal for the movie maker. The financier of the first movie buys all the camera equipment for you to use on subsequent movies. It's even a good deal for who ever finances the next movie.

However it's a poor deal for the person funding the first one. They spend $3,000 to $6,000 on equipment that the movie maker owns. I see this in budgets all the time. I wonder why lights aren't purchased. Or sound equipment. I recently got a proposal that included buying all the editing hardware and software.

This budget, made in 2000 is a really good example of why putting camera equipment is a poor idea. Cameras get better. Now, five years later, the XL-1 on that budget isn't the best camera available to use. So their (hypothetical) June 2006 budget will need to include another camera.

While the line items are accurate the budget itself is terrible. People putting money into movies need a producer who shows great attention to detail. A budget that includes feeding 15 cast and crew and lists 20 crew doesn't show that attention.

After the begining of the year (when I get a little free time) I'll post my low budget templet.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
You're right. It's an excellent deal for the movie maker. The financier of the first movie buys all the camera equipment for you to use on subsequent movies. It's even a good deal for who ever finances the next movie.

While the line items are accurate the budget itself is terrible. People putting money into movies need a producer who shows great attention to detail. A budget that includes feeding 15 cast and crew and lists 20 crew doesn't show that attention.

After the begining of the year (when I get a little free time) I'll post my low budget templet.
Click to expand...

I do agree. Why I posted it is beacuse the line - by -line is a good indicator for someone who has never done a budget before.

His figaures are crap but as far as a simple line by line goes it beats many out there that I have seen.

I'm torn on the buying of equipment thing though. Our XL1s that we bought 5 years ago is only now just being replaced. Technology does move on but if yiou have a company willing to finance the picture WHY NOT purchase items. It's far cheaper than renting (for the most part) and systems like Mac's can be uprated to cope with new software and hardware.

Also when an editing system can cost around £5k (if like in our case your director is your editior) to rent the same suit in a studio can be over £500 a day. Now with our own suit we can edit 24 hours a day. To me that makes sense.

By purchasing we have saved £thousands on rentals and given ourself far more time tow ork on the project.

But hey thats just me!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree with Modern. Since prosumer cameras and editing bays are still renting for hundreds a day, depending on the length of the shoot, purchasing the cameras and editing equip. would probably be cheaper... and at least if the schedule goes over budget and pick-up shots/re-cuts are requested, you don't have to scrounge up more funds to finish the shooting.

Now to convince the investors that....

How about sponsorship? I was going to try sending my business plan (when complete) to Panasonic to see about them "lending" or "donating" some DVX-100b cameras... so my question would be- what would someone need to have to achieve a sponsor?

I remember the winners of the Youngcuts festival mentioned "Paramount" as one of thier sponsors!!! What would I need to get that same kind of sponsor deal going? A name? A record? A plan?

And how would that relate to the budget?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Soem friends of mine got a new Pro Sony HD camera on loan. They sponsored HIM so it is possible. However I guess that on average they get hundreds of these requests a week so its making the best package and deal possible.

be intersted to know how you get on!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
To be clear, I'm not trying to win - I'm interested in what people have to say on this subject.

So the camera and editing system are in the budget as a purchase. After the show is finished you now own this equipment and can use it to make more movies - and saving the next exec-producer a lot of money. Yet the people who paid for the equipment don't get that use. How is that a good deal for the people putting up the money?

What about sound equipment. The production company I work with sees over 100 proposals a year. I never see sound equipment listed as a purchase. A $1,500 set up (mic, boom and DAT) will last longer than the camera.

Same with lighting. Assuming a video shoot - a nice ArriLite kit will cost around $3,000 and can be used for much longer than the camera. I've been using my Omni/Tota kit for video shoots for 20 years. Why not add that purchase to a budget?

Here in L.A. a camera owner/operator (video) can be hired for $250 to $500 per day. On a three week shoot that's $4,500 to $9,000. That's cheaper than buying a good camera, AND you get an experienced DP.

The company I work with currently won't even consider buying equipment for the moviemaker. Since I see equipment purchases so often in budgets I wonder if we should reconsider.

What do you moviemakers think? Is it in our best interest to buy equipment that you keep?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What's striking about this is that it's the DP who can be paid the least because he (outside of the Director, Producer and Actors) has the MOST to gain! And while purchasing equipment might seem like the best option to acquire a small amount of gear for a long period of time, I feel that money would probably be better spent renting the amount of gear you need to do it right. (That's great that you've been able to shoot your movies for years using a lowell kit, but for a majority of filmmakers that is hardly enough to shoot a feature, and it would be extremely difficult to convince a phenomenal DP to come on board with such a set-up.) Ultimately, I find it is cheaper to get people what they need and pay them less.

Also, $117k and shooting on DV!?!?!?!?! Absolutely ludicrous. DV is dead. I'll continue this in a new post called "DV is DEAD"

Cheers!

-Jim
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
What do you moviemakers think? Is it in our best interest to buy equipment that you keep?
Click to expand...

I had a thought for my own business plan, that if the investor purchases the equipment needed to complete the film, upon sale of the film, they would be refunded not only thier back-end percentage, but the full cost of the equipment purchase as well.

I'd be cutting other costs- not paying actors, and only paying permanent crew (DoP/Editor, Sound/Mixer/Boom (that's two people)). Also, being that I would not be paying the actors, they can't quit thier day-jobs; so the idea there is to shoot over a longer period, with breaks between shooting (where editing can be done, to save time later and allow us to see what works and what doesn't before wrapping production and burning the sets/blowing up the production vehicles).

Since the shooting schedule will be broken up, renting the cameras/lights/sound/etc would be triple the cost of buying the basic needs.

Then, when the film is finished, the camera/lights/sound/etc are owned by the production company, and the costs for purchasing those are returned to the investor (or the investor inherits the stuff), before they are given thier back-end pay.

Most of the costs for people will be split between front and back end pay, so ideally, I could pull off a feature for $50,000; if I can't wrangle that, I should still be able to do it for $25,000 (all Canadian funds by the by).

So with that kind of outline in mind, and the possibility of getting equipment houses/manufacturers to donate some equipment in sponsorship, I think it would be at least an interesting-enough variation of the traditional budget to (hopefully) spark an interest.

How does that sound?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
To be clear, I'm not trying to win - I'm interested in what people have to say on this subject.

What about sound equipment. The production company I work with sees over 100 proposals a year. I never see sound equipment listed as a purchase. A $1,500 set up (mic, boom and DAT) will last longer than the camera.


What do you moviemakers think? Is it in our best interest to buy equipment that you keep?
Click to expand...

Ha! I actually made sure we put the purchase of sound in for us!!! For me we have set up Modern Life? to work as an Indepedent. We have people investing and are happy for us to spend that money on equipment. Having teh equipment mean sthat when we do the next film we reduce the budget by 20%+ and we can do coportate work on the side using the best equipment on the market.

So for me it makes sense. To me!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jmac - I think you misunderstood. I was using my 20 year old light kit as an example. I don’t routinely use those eight lights to light my movies. I was asking those that think the budget should include equipment purchases why lighting equipment isn’t included.

Phil - I see your point. Adding equipment purchases to a budget to set up a long term production company is a good deal for everyone. Essential, I would say.

My comments were based on the budget you posted. A producer making one movie over 12 weekends.

Spatula - your plan sounds okay. But let’s say that the movie doesn’t make a profit. I’m in the business of funding films, not producing them, so ending up with a camera doesn’t interest me. And if I’m funding three or four small movies ($40,000 to $80,000 each) at the same time and only one of them earns a profit, I potentially end up with three cameras and three editing systems. Suddenly I’m a rental house and not an investor.

Or would I, the investor, be stuck with paying for equipment that you now own?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
Spatula - your plan sounds okay. But let’s say that the movie doesn’t make a profit. I’m in the business of funding films, not producing them, so ending up with a camera doesn’t interest me. And if I’m funding three or four small movies ($40,000 to $80,000 each) at the same time and only one of them earns a profit, I potentially end up with three cameras and three editing systems. Suddenly I’m a rental house and not an investor.

Or would I, the investor, be stuck with paying for equipment that you now own?
Click to expand...

I think that whole aspect is more just to assure the investor that if the film flops, they will have some collateral at the end- they can choose to re-sell the equipment, rent it out, whatever- I'd think of it more as insurance.

But taking your view (as an investor), assuming the business plan looks good, the film has a niche market potential, and the cost is under $50,000, what is it you would need to feel justified that equipment is bought versus rented; I could just compare rental costs versus market price over the shooting schedule, but I do think there would need to be more justification- so what do you think?

I'm still waiting to be able to market our Macbeth 3000 DVD, and considering we spent $10,000 on the flick, I think we can at least double that number in sales. For $25-50K the profit line becomes a little more tight, but if the script was good, the film marketable, and the plan sound... could equipment purchases be something negotiated? I'd be very interested to hear of people who purchased equipment through grants/investors, and what they had to show/prove to achieve that...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top