The Camera Decision

I own theJVC HD250 - it might be out of your price range so check out the HD110. It's well worth it. One thing that's very important to me is an interchangable lens which the Sony doesn't offer.

The JVC HD100 series are the ones I'm looking at...amazing footage that I've seen.

I'm not going to recommend a particular camera because I bought an HV20 and have yet to be dissapointed, but then again I am not trying to go for what many others are in terms of day to day production.

But I would say that I highly compliment you on going HD. Don't get me wrong, there are great features on some SD cameras out there and there is nothing wrong per-se with their look, especially well shot. But the difference we have seen between films shot on HD and SD is night and day. The level of details is just no comparison. But in that same token, that means your team is going to have to work extra hard on costuming, makeup and set dressing to make sure it really feeds the extra res some eye candy.

Also, make sure you have the computer to handle the post.

I got a heck of a deal on my XL1s. It came with another $1500.00 worth of equipment. I added everything up at retail prices, and I would have paid close to $8000 for what I got, and I only paid ~$2400.00. And I bought a $1700 16x manual lens for this camera for only ~$500. I got it primarily as a learning tool. There are still plenty of markets for SD material. Now my dream camera is still the Red, but if/when I get an intermediate camera I'll be looking at the XLH1. I'm already seeing those coming down in price (sub $7000). I prefer the feel of the manual lens - more control. Not many affordable cameras (even HD) have that level of control nor can you change the lenses.

I've watched a lot of upconverted standard definition DVDs lately, and they still look pretty darn good on my 73" DLP TV. Granted, they don't look as good as the Blu-ray movies, but they're still enjoyable to watch. I believe I can still make a fairly decent narrative piece with this camera despite its resolution deficiency.

directorik said:

I own theJVC HD250 - it might be out of your price range so check out the HD110. It's well worth it. One thing that's very important to me is an interchangable lens which the Sony doesn't offer.

Click to expand...

I am looking into the 110 and it seems like a good deal for the money. Thanks!

EddieLeonardo said:

I am looking into the 110 and it seems like a good deal for the money. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Is anyone concerned with the 720p native resolution of this camera? I was looking more towards 1920x1080 native. 720p still looks good, especially compared to SD. I was just curious.

Coupled with the Redrock Micro M2, this definitely looks like a very nice setup for the money:

http://jvc.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=108795

I just scratched the Canon XLH1 off my list because I found out it doesn't do true 24p. I'm not looking for another camera yet, but when I do I'll definitely look at this HD110.

If native 1920x1080 is important to you then the JVC 110 isn't the camera for you. What I like
about the pro JVC cameras is that you don't have to use a lens add-on like the Redrock. You can
rent excellent, top of the line lenses.

For me, that was more important than 1920x1080. The market for my movies is DTV, so that
has never been an issue. But on my current movie we are renting a Fujinon lens that costs nearly
5 times what the camera costs.

EddieLeonardo said:

I am working to purchase a camera (6 days a week 12 plus hours a day)....


4)I want it to last as far as technology can last - Meaning I do not want to buy something that will be known as an old camera in two years, I want it to out last my competition. (I realize that this is hard to predict, so it is not mandatory) Also, just to give an example, if I were to get an Canon XL or a Panasonic 100b camera when they came out it would seem I would still have a good camera even though HD is taking off. People know those cameras.

Click to expand...

...I have to agree there, that's what I was thinking when I purchased my camera, it was top of the line, it still is, however, 6 months later there was an upgrade. Grrrrr! Well, anyway, the Cannons and Panasonics are in the price range you were looking at and they both have the HD versions.

....so, now I have a question that may seem dumb, but its not. There are some who are saying that the RED camera is something that they are looking at. I've looked at it as well, its beautiful. What are you going to do with it? RED is a $20,000 dollar camera. The cameras used at television stations are $20,000 dollar cameras.

I realize I am coming from the stand point of a person who is always broke but is a camera like that practical? I'm not passing judgement or trying to rain on anyone's parade, but it seems that if you are looking into a camera like that, you are already making a living in video, not working your filmatic aspirations in spare time. Would it not make sense to purchase one of the cameras E.Leonardo was looking at and spend the remaining $16,000 on your next project?

....just asking......

-- spinner

Spinner: what type of camera did you get?

I think the red camera is a nice dream for any of us filmmakers. I believe it will be an option for rental and I believe that is what is going to make it so cool. Besides I have never seen a broadcast camera do what this red claims it can do.

I think a spending budget on a camera is proportional to the rest of the equipment (sort of) If you spend 20,000 dollars on a camera, what kind of money on dollies, tripods and camera supports will you have to buy.

I think many of us are not rich (read: Broke) But I also think that many of us are pretty smart when it comes to spending our money. Living within our means, not spending money on frivolous things. So when and if the RED camera comes out I don't believe many of us will be running out and tapping whatever credit we have to purchase it. That camera won't make us better filmmakers.

Just my opinion on the RED camera thing.

...oh, I didn't mean to imply that it is a frivilous purchase. It looks like an incredible camera. I am reasonably sure that broadcast cameras can't do a fraction of what the RED camera can do. I am coming at it from the 'can I afford this right now?' angle. If you can afford this camera, I suppose you should get it.

The kind of cameras that news videographers use are $20,000 dollar cameras. The studio cameras, I think, are more than that. But broadcast cameras are used everyday all day by people who are making a living from their video work. And they don't own those cameras and for the most part, they are not allowed to use them for their own projects. There's no "Hey, can I use this camera to shoot my 5 minute short?" Management would scream bloody murder....that is, if they knew....

A spending budget is a good idea, I just mean that if you have a day job to support your film aspirations, maybe your priority isn't to buy a camera that is that expensive. When we all become rich and famous, we can only hope then I see someone spending that kind of cash.

...the camera I purchased was a panasonic DVX 100a. It is in your price range. And one day when I can afford it, I'll get the HD version...or whatever the best choice will be for this series of cameras....

-- spinner

As you point out, for people who earn a living from their camera a $20,000 purchase seems pretty
reasonable. I earn more than that each year as a shooter. For someone working on spec, who can
only afford a $5,000 camera RED seems pretty unreasonable. Cameras (like everything else)
change rapidly. If you keep holding off until the next version comes out you may never buy a
camera.

As all of us here know, the camera is only one of the many tools needed to make a movie people
will pay to see. Or even to make a movie to be proud of. An excellent script, good sound,
interesting actors and great lighting are all more important. I'll bet any of us could make a good
movie if we had all of that and then shot it with a Hi-8 camera from 1980.

directorik said:

An excellent script, good sound, interesting actors and great lighting are all more important. I'll bet any of us could make a good movie if we had all of that and then shot it with a Hi-8 camera from 1980.

Click to expand...

Well, at least The Blair Witch Project had the Hi8 camera... But then again, they had a $60,000 budget grossed $248,639,099 worldwide. Yes, was the exception to the rule.

Loud Orange Cat said:

Well, at least The Blair Witch Project had the Hi8 camera... But then again, they had a $60,000 budget grossed $248,639,099 worldwide. Yes, was the exception to the rule.

Click to expand...

Really?!?

...you know, it occurs to me that it might not be a bad idea to figure out a way to maybe talk to some indie filmmakers, and ask them what they spent the money on. This isn't a slam on Blair Witch, I liked that film. But where did $60,000 dollars go?

I think that might give alot of people an idea of what the practical costs of some independent films are. I know I would love to know. Some indie films are great with a budget, some are great with no budget. I would love some perspective....

-- spinner

I've heard all sorts of stories about the budget over Blair Witch, but the only one that sounds legit is the majority of it was for the video to film conversion.

From what I hear (and I personally have not investigated it, although many have said to me) that it's expensive as hell.

Can anyone provide links to companies who provide this type of service? I just wanted to get a general idea of what 90 minutes of DV to 35MM conversion would be.

In a blog by David Lynch himself, he cursed up and down how the cost drained him (or his production company) for converting the three hours of DV he had for Inland Empire to film. Oh, just an FYI: Inland Empire was just released on video. Whee!

spinner said:

I think that might give alot of people an idea of what the practical costs of some independent films are. I know I would love to know. Some indie films are great with a budget, some are great with no budget. I would love some perspective....

Click to expand...

Assuming a 12 day shoot - 12 hours per day and that you will be paying people:

5 actors at $100 per day (that's about $7 per hour): $6,000
A tiny crew of 12 at $100 per day: $14,400
Food (a walking breakfast, 1 hot meal ($7 per person) and a craft service table - $20/day): $1,500
Insurance: $2,500

We're at $24,440 and you haven't shot a foot. And if consider paying experienced, skilled people even half their usual day rate you're looking at double that. You'd be at $28,800 for salaries alone.

Props, costumes and set dressing. Most of the time these items cost very little. But there are several things to think about: are they any special props in the script than no one owns? Rental or purchase? Costumes are often neglected. Do the actors provide all their own wardrobe? What about cleaning? Loss and damage? Is it maybe best to buy a double set of clothes for each actor? And don't forget makeup.

So lets' say $1,550

$500 for costumes
$750 for props and set dressing
$300 makeup

Equipment: do you already own everything you need? Will you have to rent? Will you have to rent from an owner/operator? A grip who will give you a good day rate if you rent his equipment truck - a DP who will rent the camera as part of the deal? What about specialty equipment. A dolly (with track), a gib for a day, a StediCam operator?

$2,000- fully equipped, small grip/lighting truck
$300 - expendable
$750 - dolly with track
$550 - full sound package

Locations: many times you need to rent a location or two.

Transportation: something to consider. A small gas allowance for runners. Maybe a van for props, costumes, set dressing, makeup tables, chairs, the coffee maker. That way you know where everything goes at the end of the day.

$1,000 gas allowance
$800 van rental

That brings us to about $31,000. And I've left out a lot of little things that add up.

Stock. Shooting DV stock is a minor expense. Shooting film or HD adds a lot.

Post production is where money can really add up. A full time cutter working for 6 weeks at half their normal rate will cost around $8,000. Add an assistant and you're looking at $12,000 in salaries alone. Then comes color corrections and all the lad work if shooting HD or film.

Post sound can get expensive. Foley, ADR, mixing, music recording and mixing, transfers, M&E tracks, dubs and transfers. Many "do-it-yourself" filmmakers never take these expenses into account. This can easily cost $15,000 on a very low budget show.

So I think it's pretty easy to see how fast you can get to $60,000 to $80,000. Chance the 12 day to an 18 day or a 20 day and you can get well over $80,000 quickly. Add a few more actors, a larger crew and a little longer post time....

Robert - check out
http://www.posthouse.com/
http://www.bonofilm.com/home.asp
http://www.alphacine.com/

A serious indie feature ballpark can be shot for 40k-250k digital, and I wouldn't even attempt to shoot 35 for less than $250k.

Things being left out of budget above is the whole publicity dept., prints, insurance, etc.

Those numbers above could be comprimised depending on how "guerilla" you are as a filmmaker, but I would suggest as little "guerilla" as possible, and more experienced reliable people who are used to working quickly.

Plus 10% misc too don't forget.

Except for insurance, which is included, I agree that there are many items missing from this
ballpark budget. It's so difficult to do a ballpark budget for all the reasons you mention. There is
no way I could bring in a movie for less than $125,000 shooting here in Los Angeles, paying
people for their time and including all the items I left out of this simple overview.

Well....

I could. But I'm at the stage in my career where I am tired of asking professionals to work for free
and I don't have the energy to make a movie with an all newbie crew.