Must have equipment for first film

zackleazer

zackleazer

An older article on this website provoked me to start this thread. It was 10 essential pieces of equipment for first film. I am making a 10 minute narrative short film. I have done a decent amount of research, and here's what I have so far:

Canon T2i
50mm 1.8, 28mm 2.8, and 2 other zoom lenses that it came with.
Zoom H4n
Rode Videomic
tripod
2 32GB transcend cards
DIY handheld rig (built off cheesycam.com)
MDR-7506 headphones

I'm reading about china balls, defuser sheets, blondes, redheads, etc. My question is what other equipment should I have, what does it do and where should I buy it from. I'm very new to lighting and audio. Thanks!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I would see "coffee maker" and raise you an ice chest. Water, sodas, even fruit. Keeping cast and crew hydrated and snack-happy does, indeed, go a long way. With that and a coffee maker....you wiil be the envy of all...

Assuming you are going to be doing this long-term, of course. If you are just doing one or two projects, borrow borrow borrow.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
HedgesPictures said:
I would see "coffee maker" and raise you an ice chest.
Click to expand...
Excellent call.

The minimum equipment I would suggest having on hand is:
a tripod
6 lights with stands
2 china balls
8 extension cords
6 power strips
black wrap and gels
2 bounce boards
a good external mic
a boom with extension cables
gaffers tape
a bunch of C-47’s
a coffee maker
a cooler
a slate with marker
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Syncing sound is a tedious but simple job if you have a reference track - as you will if you use a DSLR or any other digital video format. And with softwares like PluralEyes the job is partially automated. The "hard" part is scrupulously maintaining your organization - assuring proper audio sample rates, slating EVERY shot, keeping detailed video & audio logs and following correct import procedures. And, BTW, if you ever work with film it is EXCLUSIVELY sync sound without a reference track. If the budding filmmakers goal is to make well budgeted projects doesn't it make sense to develop the habit of proper protocols from the very beginning?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just not a believer in multiple cameras for anything but event shoots and stunts. If you're doing it correctly (lighting the scene and blocking it to look good for both cameras), then it saves you exactly zero time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
finderskeepers said:
"You'd have a noob deal with sound sync issues the first time out? Bad idea."

I'm confused on what the "Bad Idea" is?
1. Using DSLR period?
2. Using more than one DSLR?
Click to expand...

Using more than 1 camera. Getting everything correct (lighting, blocking, exposure, framing, mise en scene) for one camera is tough enough. trying to do it for two is way more trouble than it's worth in my opinion. It doesn't save one bit of time.

EDIT:
You're complicating the lighting, you're complicating where the sound guy can be, you're complicating everything.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's possible that's true. However, I seemed like we saved a lot of time and have lots of coverage. I guess I'd have to film the same scene twice with one camera then 3 cameras and test which method is quicker. I personally like multible cameras and will use them when I can. But then again maybe I should test this theory out some day and see if one camera is better. :)

Gonzo_Entertainment said:
Using more than 1 camera. Getting everything correct (lighting, blocking, exposure, framing, mise en scene) for one camera is tough enough. trying to do it for two is way more trouble than it's worth in my opinion. It doesn't save one bit of time.

EDIT:
You're complicating the lighting, you're complicating where the sound guy can be, you're complicating everything.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well besides the time, the results you get.
Did you get good sound having to keep your boom op out of the frame of two or more cameras as opposed to one? Does the lighting look great from all the angles? etc... etc....

Like anything else, when you are totally focused on making sure one thing is as close to perfect as you can get it you'll usually get better results than trying to juggle 2 or 3 things at once.

There are times multi-cam makes sense. Quick back and forth dialogue scenes, stunts, practical effects, etc.... Just not (again IMO) a good method for majority of stuff.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
Using more than 1 camera. Getting everything correct (lighting, blocking, exposure, framing, mise en scene) for one camera is tough enough. trying to do it for two is way more trouble than it's worth in my opinion. It doesn't save one bit of time.


You're complicating the lighting, you're complicating where the sound guy can be, you're complicating everything.
Click to expand...
I'm on a two camera shoot right now and one camera always gets the short end of the stick with lighting. Before, I really didn't have an opinion, but I'm with Gonzo for now on with this situation.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
Just not a believer in multiple cameras for anything but event shoots and stunts. If you're doing it correctly (lighting the scene and blocking it to look good for both cameras), then it saves you exactly zero time.
Click to expand...

It might not save MUCH (if any) time, you do have to light differently and what not...

Where multi cam does come in handy is editing. You can ALWAYS cut shot to shot on a good take, versus having to find cover and cutaways to make the edit work because the actor's hand is in a slightly different place, etc.

Multi camera is harder sometimes, but worth it if you ave the people and gear to pull it off. We shoot with 3 cameras sometimes. Not every shot needs a crazy light setup or a move that you can't do with another camera in the way. When it does, we shoot one cam. Other times, fire up the other guys. More coverage on a second, even if the lighting isn't as perfect as you might be able to sculpt it fot the main camera, is still more coverage.

Another way of doing multi-cam is shooting the same angle at two different focal lengths. Two cameras almost side by side, one shooting tight the other medium or wide. Then you get you custom crafted lighting and it doesn't take much more time if any. In fact, it saves time because it saves takes.

Multi-cam is the way to go IF you can do it. I'm fortunate to get to work with a stellar DP and great camera ops and all of us come from a video/TV background where multi camera is the norm. It's second (or first I guess) nature to us.

Short story: Yes, multiple cameras take longer IF you don't have the crew that can do it. If you do have the crew, it doesn't take much longer at all and get's you two or three times the coverage in one and a quarter amount the time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've stuck the IMO in repeatedly because that's what it is. A different strokes kind of thing.

The cliche is there's no such thing as too much coverage, but I think there kind of can be too much coverage (IMO). If I've done my job correctly in visualizing the film, storyboarding, shot listing etc... Then except for some cutaways for safety I shouldn't need to shoot anything that isn't in my storyboards. That's how I work, not saying everybody else has to.

We should probably get back on topic. :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm editing now so I LOVE having the extra coverage. We were fortunate to have the crew to pull off 3 cameras. Also, with wireless mikes and good boom ops we didn't have too much trouble with keeping the sound people out of the shot. And our production was somewhat "TV Like" so it may have been appropriate for the multi-camera set-up. I have to admit with a small crew and complex set-ups one camera might be better. It all depends on your situation. So it probably wasn't good "general" advice. :)

PaulGriffith said:
It might not save MUCH (if any) time, you do have to light differently and what not...

Where multi cam does come in handy is editing. You can ALWAYS cut shot to shot on a good take, versus having to find cover and cutaways to make the edit work because the actor's hand is in a slightly different place, etc.

Multi camera is harder sometimes, but worth it if you ave the people and gear to pull it off. We shoot with 3 cameras sometimes. Not every shot needs a crazy light setup or a move that you can't do with another camera in the way. When it does, we shoot one cam. Other times, fire up the other guys. More coverage on a second, even if the lighting isn't as perfect as you might be able to sculpt it fot the main camera, is still more coverage.

Another way of doing multi-cam is shooting the same angle at two different focal lengths. Two cameras almost side by side, one shooting tight the other medium or wide. Then you get you custom crafted lighting and it doesn't take much more time if any. In fact, it saves time because it saves takes.

Multi-cam is the way to go IF you can do it. I'm fortunate to get to work with a stellar DP and great camera ops and all of us come from a video/TV background where multi camera is the norm. It's second (or first I guess) nature to us.

Short story: Yes, multiple cameras take longer IF you don't have the crew that can do it. If you do have the crew, it doesn't take much longer at all and get's you two or three times the coverage in one and a quarter amount the time.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Most of my inside work has been in studios so use 3 to 5 cameras. Due to set up lighting isn't a problem. While have used 2 cameras for outside, I prefer one for a lot of work.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have found that I can have much more control over the lighting
when using one camera. Lighting for two or three cameras requires
too many compromises in my choices. Often where I want a light for
the CU is different than where I would place it for the master or
the two-shot. Lighting both CUs at the same time (along with the
master) means I must have more lights - something I can’t always
have available.

I think that it can save time - a master and two singles in one
set up. But I know from experience that I must light differently
and not always to the scene but the three camera set up.

And it depends on the scene, doesn’t it? A scene with two
characters sitting at a table talking might save time, but a scene
with three or four people moving around a room is nearly
impossible to light unless you have a grid overhead.

And then there is the cost. When you aren’t paying people having
three camera operators might be fine - four to six extra meals a
day might be doable. But when paying even $100 per day that adds
$200 per day to my budget. Even if I could save a few days on an
18 day shoot I don’t know if the extra cost is doable. A weekend
shoot with friends is different than a ULB feature shooting for
three weeks.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Make a 30-60 second short, with the equipment you have. Keep learning and building from there.
Click to expand...

This is the best post of the thread. The poor guy hasn't even made one film yet and already your talking multi-camera shoots...wait...listen...I think I just heard him sell all the equipment he already has to buy a surfboard and forget about filmmaking altogether!

:lol:

Just use what & who you have and make films... that is how you learn.

I'm a 'one-man-band', here's a very short film I made that took about an hour to shoot (all natural light). Me, the actress (her first film), a friends car (needed a a car with a trunk), camera and a clip-on Shure lav mic, my ZazaSlider & jib: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=33625
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top