How much film?

In budgeting for film for say a 30 minute short, how much film would you expect to need? I know the simple math tells me that we would need 1080 feet of film, but how much extra do you usually budget in to cover for extra takes and such?
 
Well, it depends on your budget. Some of the high budget scifi movies use as many as nine times the amount of finished product, or so have heard. But if you plan your shotsREALLY carefully and rehearse, you could probably get away with twice as much. I have done it on DV, except that it was for time constraints and not budget concerns.
Rivet
 
9:1 is a very low shooting ratio. I would panic if that's all I had. I've done it - I once made a short using a 4:1 ratio. You spend much of your time worrying about doing a second take or catching that extra reaction shot than make all the difference in your final film.

1080ft is exactly 30min so you did your math right. But that means you can't do even 2 takes on any shot, nor can you do any coverage. Nor does 1080ft leave even one frame for your slate or camera threading. Every single frame you buy and expose ends up in the final product.

I would say the minimum a first timer needs is 15:1 or 16,000ft. With very careful planning you might be able to get away with 9:1 or 10,000ft. Someone with a LOT of experience might be able to get away with 6:1, but you severely limit yourself.
 
Wow, 15:1 is normal?? I guess now I understand why films cost so much. I was thinking somehting more along the lines of 2:1 or 3:1. Anything more than that and it's out of our budget range.
 
Personally, shooting film, I'd be pretty thrilled with 3:1 or 4:1 shooting ratio. There will likely be shots that don't take more than 1 or 2 takes, giving you more takes on critical shots. You've just got to be a stingy bastard when it comes to doing takes, trust your cam op, and plan, plan, plan.

I listened to a Dov Simmons(sp?) seminar once, and he suggested only budgeting for 2:1, since a low budget filmmaker doesn't have the time to shoot more than that, let alone the stock. Shooting 15:1 isn't just going to jack your film cost, it will affect everything, because you'll be shooting much longer, paying your crew longer, have a longer shooting sched, etc.

Heck, I don't think I've ever shot 15 takes of anything! Not with film or video. Then again, I am a hack.
 
Remember we aren't talking about doing 15 takes.

Take a typical scene of three people sitting at a table talking - say 5 minutes or 180ft. Shooting 2:1 you have 360ft.

You shoot your master - even if you break it up and only do one take you've shot at least 90ft. Say it isn't perfect the first time - all the planning in the world can't keep a prop from falling over or a lamp from blowing. So now you're at 180ft.

Set up your CU on Actor 1, run the scene - one more perfect take. You're now at 360ft and all out of film.

No close ups on the other actors, no OTS, no inserts. One master shot and one CU.

You want enough to cut with in the editing room? Shoot your master - 180ft, your three close ups - 540ft, two OTS shots - 360ft, the middle section from above - 90ft, a cool low angle - 90ft, a couple of inserts on a cigarette being lit, a bottle being set down, fingers tapping on the table nerviously and you can easily rack up another 90ft.

If every shot is perfect - no second takes - you're at 1,350ft or 4:1 for that 5 minute scene. and don't forget a few feet for the marker and 20 or so feet per roll for threading the mag. And THAT'S if every single set up is perfect.

15:1 might be overkill. 8:1 or even 10:1 is going to be cutting it very close. Imagine really wanting to do that cool dolly push on an important line than might be a little soft because the dolly grip was a touch slow, but you can't because you don't have enough film.
 
Dang Zen where did you pick up all that film from!?(if you don't mind sharing, and don't tell us you STOLE it from Kodak's warehouse! ) That would sound plenty to me for a 10min project. But of course the way I shoot I REHEARSE alot before I start rolling camera. I also plan like a crazy man ahead of time. It's true what they say film teaches you discipline. :)
 
I'd aim for 10:1 myself. I shot a 5-minute short at 6:1 a while back and it was tricky to edit around the unexpected problems with so little coverage... a couple of extra shots and it would have been easy.

Also don't forget the unexpected problems on set: I started with an 8:1 ratio, but the film wasn't threading properly in one magazine on the cheap SR2 we were using so we ended up reshooting a few shots because there was no way to be certain the film wasn't scratched until it was developed (as it turned out, only a few seconds were).
 
Last edited:
Sounds like plenty if you shoot no coverage at all. Even a master and 2 CU’s of a 5 minute scene with 2 actors will use about 600ft of film. And that’s 3:1 Add that low angle or high angle or one OTS and with only one take you hit 6:1. And that’s with no second takes on anything.

I don’t mean to labor the point but even with perfect planning, a lot of rehearsals and absolutely no mistakes I don’t see how you could get decent coverage for a 10min show using 2,000ft of film.
 
Hmmm, when shooting on a low budget I usually land around the 6 to 1 ratio. (I think "Horrors of War" came in at just a little above that. Some have gone lower and a few have gone higher. Film is expensive, but you can find deals. Never take the first price. 10:1 would be great, but you just doubled your film stock, processing, transfer and syncing costs. That's an extra day of shooting or maybe a name actor. If you have a good vision and can edit in your head, you can keep the ratio low.

Regarding Dov Simmons 2:1 idea, well that sounds great, but I've never seen that put to practice and it's just crazy to try it and suddenly you run out of film halfway through production because you thought you could pull it off because some seminar guy said it. I could believe that somebody who's made a lot of movies might pull it off, but the people who try stuff like that are usually poor beginners who haven't the knowledge base to make it work yet.


Scott
 
I took Dov S.S. Simmons class & there is definately some crazy talk & impractical advice in his seminars. He calls actors "moveable props". Nice.

Horrors of War came out to a 4.5 to 1 shooting ratio & that is tight tight tight. 5 or 6 to 1 seems like a nice place to be at for a celluloid film shoot.
 
It's great to hear everyone's input... really helps.

The director of Primer talked about shooting his film. He did it 2:1 by storyboarding every shot ahead of time and committing himself to only shooting 2 takes for every shot, no matter what. And he won at Sundance. So anything is possible.

Also, since I'm budgeting for a "documentary" we won't be needing multiple angles of the same shot (master, c/u, ots, etc). So, hopefully 3:1 will work for us.
 
Robert said:
Also, since I'm budgeting for a "documentary" we won't be needing multiple angles of the same shot (master, c/u, ots, etc). So, hopefully 3:1 will work for us.
I've been involved in only four documentaries and none on film.

I helped cut a doc on a nine month hike along the Appilation trail - about 30 hours of tape for an 85 minute movie.

I'm currently editing a doc on a seven week charity event held last April/May - we shot more than 80 hours of tape with four cameras for the 90 minute movie.

It seems to me you need way more film/tape for a documentary that a narrative movie.
 
directorik said:
I helped cut a doc on a nine month hike along the Appilation trail - about 30 hours of tape for an 85 minute movie.

Wow, how weird! Yesterday I started reading the book "A Walk In The Woods" by Bill Bryson, which is about his (extremely humorous) attempt at hiking the AT. I'm only halfway through it, but I recommend it highly.


directorik said:
It seems to me you need way more film/tape for a documentary that a narrative movie.
[/quote]

I agree completely. But, in my case, it is a fake documentary, so every shot will be planned out ahead of time. At least, that's the plan.
 
Back
Top