Aiming for Sundance... Need to upgrade gear

A

arbodale

Hola

I'm an amateur film-maker who's looking to get serious and start working his way towards making a festival level indie feature. I want to get into Sundance within the next 4 years.

I've been shooting with a Nikon D5100 for the past couple of years. It's not great, but I've been able to learn a lot. I'm looking to upgrade my gear this summer. Got about 6000 dollars. Has to include the camera, the basic lenses, the stabilization and support gear and the audio gear. I've been looking at everything from the Mark III to the Pocket Cinema Camera. I'm really intrigued by the GH4.

Got any suggestions?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Let me tell you something you hopeless optimists.

If I upload a short film , shot with T2i which doesn't look all that ''cinematic'' and looks more like an average video shot by DSLR with opened philosophical ending people are going to say - This didn't made any sense whatsoever , poor story , poor film , bad filmmaker , fuck this shit.

If I show the exact same film shot with a Red Epic with a gorgeous looking footage people are going to look for all kinds of hidden messages in the story.

You don't believe me?


Go look at some shitty movies which have won big film festival awards because of how philosophical they are.

Look at the same kinds of movies shot with T3i and 18-55mm and people just hate the movie because ,well Frankly , "there is no story".

Yeah,right,gear doesn't matter.

Why would you buy all the gear anyway?Just invest those 6000$ in renting things and try to use all the connections you have to get as many talented people behind the camera as possible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Instead of repeating what Jax et al have already said I'll just leave this paraphrase from a DP under whom I was fortunate enough to train. He may or may not have been quoting/paraphrasing someone "famous."


The art department does 90% of my job for me.
Click to expand...

Your Art Director/Production Designer ( or both if you have the budget to have one of each) is more important to you indie breakout Sundance sensation than the camera you use. By far. Application of this idea ( or ignoring as the ramblings of a madman on the internet) I'll totally leave up to you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nikola Damov said:
Go look at some shitty movies which have won big film festival awards because of how philosophical they are.

Look at the same kinds of movies shot with T3i and 18-55mm and people just hate the movie because ,well Frankly , "there is no story".
Click to expand...
Do you have specific examples? I suspect those that won awards, vs the crappy "similar" stuff on youtube is more than just gear. Those that won awards probably have a lot of attention to detail in their shots, better framing, etc.

You absolutely can make something stellar with less than stellar gear. But because you're working with a less expensive camera is no excuse to cut corners everywhere else.

Light properly, just as if you were shooting with a 35mm panavision and super expensive primes, even if you're using a little fischer price Baby's first camera. And the result will be infinitely better than just pulling the camera out and waving it around, uploading some poorly cut crap and saying "look! I made a movie!"

The list goes on.. The specific gear is less important that proper use of the gear you have available.


More often than not, though, people seem more interested in how many corners they can cut to rush into production, and rush into post production. The ever popular "How is that camera in low light?" question comes to mind. Turn a friggin light on, yo! :D
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Will Vincent said:
Do you have specific examples? I suspect those that won awards, vs the crappy "similar" stuff on youtube is more than just gear. Those that won awards probably have a lot of attention to detail in their shots, better framing, etc.

You absolutely can make something stellar with less than stellar gear. But because you're working with a less expensive camera is no excuse to cut corners everywhere else.

Light properly, just as if you were shooting with a 35mm panavision and super expensive primes, even if you're using a little fischer price Baby's first camera. And the result will be infinitely better than just pulling the camera out and waving it around, uploading some poorly cut crap and saying "look! I made a movie!"

The list goes on.. The specific gear is less important that proper use of the gear you have available.


More often than not, though, people seem more interested in how many corners they can cut to rush into production, and rush into post production. The ever popular "How is that camera in low light?" question comes to mind. Turn a friggin light on, yo! :D
Click to expand...


I'll try to look for specific examples.

And yes , I do agree with everything you guys say , however APE is right that you have to meet certain standarts when we talk Sundance.

I am really interested to hear why would he want to chose Sundance? ( Outside the ladies ) .
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would also like to add to this thread that when someone asks a question about gear, it is wrong to automatically assume they are not already working on their craft and already don't have the most amazing script in the world.

Just because the OP says they are an "amateur filmmaker" doesn't mean those things aren't true, and maybe the last piece to the puzzle for them getting into Sundance is just upgrading their gear.

People on this forum tend to scare away first time posters because they don't give them the benefit of the doubt.

Why not give a *small* disclaimer about making sure your story is great first, and THEN proceeding to, I donno, actually answer the question they made an account on IT for in the first place! :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
moonshieldmedia said:
I thought I made that clear already :P
Click to expand...

You did. But he asked for lenses, stabilization, camera support and
audio gear, too. Your point that we should actually answer the questions
is a good one. Wondering if you have any suggestions.

Here are mine:

Sennheiser MKE400 - $200
Zoom H4n - $350
Steadicam Merlin 2 - $400
Manfrotto fluid head and legs - $450

Panasonic GH4 - $1,700
25mm f/1.4 - $530
45mm f/2.8 - $720
14-140mm zoom - $630

That leaves about $600 for lighting and grip essentials.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In the interest of being less confusing, the OP needs to get a low cost HD camcorder with auto features that can be turned off and set manually and means to plug in external mikes. Along with a tripod, a set of home depot lights AND a good book on BASIC filmmaking techniques, then you're set.

Combine these with a great script and you can put out something that can match or exceed the works of anyone here entertainment wise.

Steer clear of DSLRs, lens, expensive audio gear, stabilizers and cranes. (This is the gearhead route.)

If I were to splurge, a fluid head would be quite nice.

AFTER you've completed a few projects, you'll be prepared to know which gearhead stuff is worth your $$$ (and quite often, headaches) for your future projects.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
How long do you imagine your shoot going for? It's generally cheaper and easier to rent, though if you imagine it going on for longer than a few weeks, then it starts to become something you need to look at if renting is actually within your budget range.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lots of good advice here already.

I think AudioPostExpert's advice on page #2 was spot on... How many ultra-micro budget features get into Sundance? Very very few... The lowest budget feature I read about in Sundance last year was in the $100k USD range. And that was a USA funded movie. For an outside USA funded movie, the level is very high.

Wonder where the OP has gone? Starts a thread then does not contribute...
.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
GuerrillaAngel said:
... Combine these with a great script and you can put out something that can match or exceed the works of anyone here entertainment wise.
Steer clear of DSLRs, lens, expensive audio gear, stabilizers and cranes. (This is the gearhead route.)
Click to expand...

I'm not picking on you personally GA but this epitomises quite a lot of the misunderstandings which happen on indietalk. It seems to me (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!) that many here: Buy some camera equipment and write a short script (or the other way around), find some friends/collaborators (to hand off some of the filmmaking roles which the filmmaker can't physically or doesn't want to do) and makes some films. As time progresses they improve, they write (or obtain) better scripts, get better at directing/producing/shooting/editing/grading/etc., and get more and better equipment; better camera, better camera accessories, better lighting, better location sound recording equipment and get better at using it all. This progression/road can of course continue ad infinitum.

My point is though, that no matter how far along this road you have travelled or how much further you think there is to travel, the road you are following does not ultimately lead to the commercial quality narrative features which are typical of the top tier festivals like Sundance! The road you're suggesting could do as you say, match or even exceed the average amateur film but it's not going to match the average film at the handful of world's top film festivals. For example, you say to steer clear of expensive audio gear but all the features one is going to be competing against at the top festivals will have used incredibly expensive audio gear. You cannot compete without it and you cannot afford to buy it and even if you could afford it, it would take you years to learn how to use it. In fact, there's only two directors I know of (one currently) who owns their own audio gear and he still employs top professionals to operate it all for him! There's no choice but to rent the audio gear/facilities and learn to script, shoot and direct for those who know how to operate it. This is how more than 99.9% of professional/commercial TV and Theatrical dramatic films are made, they rent the equipment they need and hire professionals to operate it. So it stands to reason as far as I can see that rather than taking the road of forever upgrading equipment and/or one's ability to use it, there needs to come a time when a filmmaker gets off this bandwagon and spends more of their time learning how to script, plan, shoot and direct a collaboration rather than from the point of view of them physically making the film themselves.

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
You did. But he asked for lenses, stabilization, camera support and
audio gear, too. Your point that we should actually answer the questions
is a good one. Wondering if you have any suggestions.

Here are mine:

Sennheiser MKE400 - $200
Zoom H4n - $350
Steadicam Merlin 2 - $400
Manfrotto fluid head and legs - $450

Panasonic GH4 - $1,700
25mm f/1.4 - $530
45mm f/2.8 - $720
14-140mm zoom - $630

That leaves about $600 for lighting and grip essentials.
Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to say something like this (based on current prices at B&H):

Rode NTG1 shotgun - $250
Avantone CK1 cardiod - $150
Tascam DR100 - $220
K-tek boom with internal XLR - $150
Rycote InVision Kit - $180
Sony 7506 headphones - $90
Manfrotto fluid head and legs - $400

Blackmagic Pocket Cam w/ extra batteries - $1000
Sandisk SD card - $100
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 nikon mount - $800
Metabones Nikon - BMPC speedbooster - $490
Metabones Nikon - M43 mount - $140

Total: ~$4000

That leaves just about $2000 for lighting & grip, which is probably more realistic. Personally I'd lean towards putting that into renting lighting & grip equipment as needed, since it'll go a lot farther that way. Or he could pick up something like that new scorpion light kit and a few c-stands, flags & silks if he's set on owning.

With this setup he can also probably still make use of his existing nikon lenses, assuming he's already invested in some.

I certainly wouldn't argue that this is the setup to get someone to sundance "in the next four years", but it should give him the tools to do some good work for the next 2-3 years. At that point if he's really set on sundance (or similar) it's probably time to take APE's advice and pull together a full professional crew.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
APE, it sort of works both ways. Gearheads are going to try to find their way into the business regardless of what I (or anyone else) says. They just want to be in the film business and the actual making of their own feature film is secondary. They'll develop their skills in their areas of interest and with luck, become professionals.

Indie filmmakers, (the non-gearhead kind) on the other hand are people would rather have made their own feature film than actually work on a Hollywood production (maybe except for an above the line position).

Then there are those that fall between these groups, and for those, there's a wide variety of opinions here (including yours and mine) for them to make their mind up with. I'm sure you've convinced more than a few to get into the professional audio game and I've might have convinced a few to ditch the big crew/expensive gear route.

I think the commentary here from everybody -- harsh or not -- weeds out people who aren't going to make it in the business anyway -- whether professionally or as an independent filmmaker.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
GuerrillaAngel said:
I think the commentary here from everybody -- harsh or not -- weeds out people who aren't going to make it in the business anyway -- whether professionally or as an independent filmmaker.
Click to expand...

I don't really know what you're trying to say here, but I feel like it might be aimed at me.

Are you saying people who would prefer to use nicer gear are less likely to make it as a filmmaker? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Talent, hard work, and luck are the determining factors for success, and out of those people, the ones with nicer gear have an even further advantage, that's the way I see it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No. It's not aimed at you or anyone in particular. "Weeded" out people would not have 494 posts!

If you WANT nice equipment and can afford it, by all means, get it. But most filmmakers only have "x" amount of money to divvy up to complete a feature film. If you splurge in one area when you didn't have to, you may find yourself short in another area and if your film didn't get completed, all you'll have to show for it is that nice piece of gear which will soon be obsolete and craiglisted.

Obviously you're the kind of filmmaker that enjoys playing and learning from cool stuff and it doesn't feel like money wasted.

Others like me have an end result from the getgo and will only get the gear that is actually needed to get those results.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
GuerrillaAngel said:
No. It's not aimed at you or anyone in particular. "Weeded" out people would not have 494 posts!

If you WANT nice equipment and can afford it, by all means, get it. But most filmmakers only have "x" amount of money to divvy up to complete a feature film. If you splurge in one area when you didn't have to, you may find yourself short in another area and if your film didn't get completed, all you'll have to show for it is that nice piece of gear which will soon be obsolete and craiglisted.

Obviously you're the kind of filmmaker that enjoys playing and learning from cool stuff and it doesn't feel like money wasted.

Others like me have an end result from the getgo and will only get the gear that is actually needed to get those results.
Click to expand...

Fair enough :)

Actually, to be honest, I'm not a gear nut at all. Constantly trying to learn new technology is so exhausting. I wanted to shoot my feature with my 60D, but my cinematographer showed me some BMC test footage before it was released, and I was sold. It was the first time I realized the aesthetic of filmmaking was really important to me. It's less about the gear itself, and more about having a visual image that evokes emotion, and DSLR / camcorder footage just doesn't do it for me anymore.

Also: I don't think anyone should blow their budget on getting nice equipment, but I also wouldn't recommend sacrificing image or sound quality to save money. I'd much rather cut expensive locations, cut down on crew members, shoot without insurance, etc.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top