I have $100,000 of my own money to spend on making a low-budget film.
What should I divide the assets on?
I'm thinking the priorities should be
>DP/cinematographer
>camera rental
>sound guy
>lighting
>actors
>location rentals
Thoughts? The screenplay is already written and I have the locations scouted out.
>I have $100,000 of my own money to spend on making a low-budget film.
No you don't.
Also all the crew you just listed should be the standard even if you have like a thousand bucks. You clearly don't even know what film production is, stop pretending.
see how much shit costs
make budget
hire someone who knows what hes doing
why would you ask here
I haven't made a film before, you fucking faggot. I invested in ethereum early and made insane returns, which I'm funding my movie with.
Then please just find a local director you like and become an executive producer, why would you spend $100,000 on something you don't even know the basics of?
The lighting alone can cost like 10 bucks or 10 thousands dollars depending on what you want or need, going in an industry with that much money and zero knowledge is like asking to be ripped off.
And what about post production, who will edit it, who will edit the sounds, who will mix the sound, who will color grade your film, is there a soundtrack?
If you REALLY want to make your own movie, then first go ahead and make atleast a dozen of actual low budget films (like 100-500 dollars) because no matter what you know or do, the first films you make will always be shit no matter what.
Spend enough on the camera to get 4K 120fps. That way your movie won't be automatically considered trash after about 10 years when the anti-progress "film look" dinosaurs die off. And you can easily convert to 24fps by frame dropping or blending to appease the retards who think all movies should look like shit.
>And you can easily convert to 24fps by frame dropping or blending
lmao no you can't, you're talking out of your ass, then everyone would just shoot at 120fps and change the frame rate later accordingly
I bet your script is shit. None of the rest will matter even if you had 10 million dollars.
But in my experience in filmmaking, the priorities are in this order:
1) Locations
2) Wardrobe and makeup
3) Lighting
4) Actors
5) Location sound
6) Editing
7) DP camera
Shooting at 120 fps requires about 6 times as much light as 24 fps for a proper exposure. Congrats, you just tripled or quadrupled your lighting and crew budget to obtain a look that is retarded and everyone hates.
>you can't
Unlike low framerate 24fps, 120fps looks fine with fully open shutter angle. This means you can easily simulate a traditional looking 24fps by blending 2 or 3 out of every 5 frame.
>then everyone would just shoot at 120fps and change the frame rate later accordingly
They wouldn't, because it costs more. More expensive cameras, brighter lighting, more disc space. 24fps is more profitable.
burn the money. that would be more entertaining than funding a film school indie
or go to /biz/ and learn how to invest in crypto
It has to be a multiple of 24 to convert to 24 later. 120 is not a multiple of 24.
You would need to shoot 48, 96, or 192 otherwise you will have weird motion artifacts that will resemble dropped frames.
About 2.5 times as much light (5 times as much for 5 times the framerate, but half as much for double the shutter angle). And LED lighting with good CRI is easily available, and it's much more than 2.5 times as efficient as the traditional incandescent lighting, so this complaint is invalid.
>120 is not a multiple of 24.
24 * 5 = ?????
This is the mind of the "film-look" cuck.
>or go to /biz/ and learn how to invest in crypto
Hey /biz/ what should I-
Bitcoin! Don't even think just buy bitcoin!
Nope.
The scale is exponential, not linear. Learn f-stops retard.
Who the fuck said anything about f-stops? We're talking exposure time here, which is linear.
You are not understanding. You have to double or half in frame rate or f-stops to be a multiple of.
24x2=48
48x2=96
96x2=192
120 falls in the gray area where you won't be able to drop every other frame 3 times to get down to 24.
Stop being retarded.
I honestly wouldn't advise you to ask anyone here, none of the people who post here are going to have any good advice to give you.
>Linear
No, it's not. Learn photography
>because it costs more
I'm pretty sure the todays hundred million budgets would allow a few 120fps cameras on set if they are so valuable (which they aren't)
It's not exactly 24 frames, it's 23.976
Some people go to school for a couple years to learn how to properly finance an independent project. You should at the very least read a book over the weekend, rather than relying on fa/tv/irgins to tell you what to do.
I see your point but I don't think you should try to create mystification about that information, OP will already know about all that stuff and how to get people to do it, and the director he hired would not neccesarily know if he was used to being a hired hand and not an indie.
>Who will color grade your film
He can Google "color grading post-production" and find out.
I have been an indie filmmaker for 9 years, concentrating in camera and lighting. Have written, DP'd, edited, and everything in between. I know what matters. Camera is low down. A camera is there to capture a scene, not make one. You have to have a good location, good wardrobe, good props, good lighting and good sound ... and of course a good script. If you don't have those, and ALL of those, your film will suffer. A director and DP will enhance that scene through their choice of camera angle and camera movement, etc, but it is way down on the list of priorities. People always want to reinvent the wheel, camerawork wise, but that is the last thing they should be concentrating on.
Drop 4 out of 5 frames and you convert 120fps to 24fps with perfectly regular frame timing and a trendy modern closed shutter look. Or use a mix of blending and dropping for a more traditional look. There is no gray area except for people too stupid to understand integer multiples.
Even with obsolete film technology it's linear under normal operating conditions.
>It's not exactly 24 frames, it's 23.976
It's exactly 24fps on all modern formats (BluRay, DCP). 23.976 is a hack dating back to how color television was made backwards compatible. And if you want a DVD release just slow it down very slightly, like every other DVD release.
>Drop 4 out of 5 frames and you convert 120fps to 24fps with perfectly regular frame timing and a trendy modern closed shutter look. Or use a mix of blending and dropping for a more traditional look. There is no gray area except for people too stupid to understand integer multiples.
Give it a shot and see how good it looks. KEK
>>Even with obsolete film technology it's linear under normal operating conditions.
It's linear, but in an exponential way. For each f stop you open your lens diaphram, you are doubling your exposure.
2x, 4x, 8x, 16x, 32x, etc...
NOT 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, etc...
Why do you think hack Jackson filmed Hobbit at 48fps? It is so he could drop every other frame and get a normal 24 fps for blu-ray, dvd and streaming.
That's what I told him, to be the producer of the movie, but I'm pretty sure OP wants to be the director
>f stop
You are the retard user. Aperture != exposure.
>Hobbit at 48fps?
Because it's cheaper than 120fps, and because DCI projectors already support 48fps.
>he could drop every other frame and get a normal 24 fps
Yes
And he could have shot at 72fps and dropped 2 out of 3 frames. Or 96fps and dropped 3 out of 4 frames. Or 120fps and dropped 4 out of 5 frames. Or 144fps and...
Any integer multiple of 24fps can be converted to 24fps without problems.
>Drop 4 out of 5 frames
Are you now just baiting?
Show me a single example on this planet of someone doing this and it not looking like atrocious chopped up stuttery dogshit.
You must be baiting.
Assuming you don't blend any frames, it will look like 24fps shot with short exposure time, which is common in modern action movies. Of course it's stuttery dogshit, it's 24fps, 24fps is always dogshit. If you would prefer "blurry dogshit", you can instead blend 2 out of 5 frames and drop the other 3 (or blend 3 out of 5 and drop 2). This gives you the traditional 24fps look. This of course assumes you shoot the 120fps content with maximum exposure time, which you probably want to do anyway because it makes the lighting easier.
I repeat, show me one single example of someone doing this and it looking just like normal 24fps.
There's only one 120fps film: Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk. I don't know if it was ever shown in 24fps, but if somebody had missed the point badly enough to want to do that, it would be technically possible.
>More expensive cameras
Google 120fps cameras, they are all way cheaper than an Alexa or RED.
They are mostly used in sports and shooting slow motion
OP what are your foreign sales projections?
nigga just use a simple digital home video camera and a decent mic
the best movies are made with the lowest budget
Name some of them. Movies not cameras and mics.
trash humpers
The original dude said 4k 120fps. Why is slow motion so hard for cameras? Iphone can shoot 1080 at 240fps, so why cant cameras like gh5 do this? Gh5 shoots 4k at 60fps so it definately could handle the data for 240fps at 1080, whats the hold up?