"You've argued that it's a waste of time to make significant filmmaking efforts, if you don't have the top gear. It was a waste of time for you, but it hasn't been a waste of time for me, and it hasn't been a waste of time for the great number of small-time filmmakers I personally know, who are working through their own struggles."
First of all, thanks for that well thought out reply,
I think I under-explained my base topic in a way that gives a different slant to my meanings. I'm always talking from within the context of self sustaining film efforts. To me if a film doesn't pay for itself and it's crew's salary, it's a failure. Free crew and untrained friends working spare time will only get you so far.
That said, I'm definitely not condescending to the poor. I'm poor. How is that possible with all this I have going on. Simple, I spend everything I have, literally, on providing advantages to the film. Large sums of the money come from the creation of outside offsets through other businesses. I recruit, and the recruits recruit. I'm a lot more "guerrilla" than my posts make me sound. I think I have 68 dollars of spending money left for the next 30 days, but I have my film bases covered. Even when we start filming the demo, I'll only be paying myself as much as the grips, which is below the poverty line in my town.
the first thing to understand is that you shouldn't have to spend your own money. You think many directors bankroll their own 50 million dollar films? Investor relations is a huge part of the process. Maybe not a fun forum discussion, but huge nonetheless.
Part of the strategy here is to embrace the economy of scale. When you go for marketing investments, the rule of thumb for those investors is to add in the budget of your film again in marketing dollars. This varies of course, but if you have a solid film it's around an even split. It's like buying additional sides of a dice you're about to bet on. The other aspect is what I call "driving up the minimum bet". I just started by saving up 10k, and then went out talking about investment in that denomination. "I've put 10k into this, do you want to put 10k in?", that sort of thing. It gets angel investors to see what you've personally invested in the film as a denomination relative to that deal. The marketers later see the total as a new denomination.
If you're making films only for fun, then basically none of what I say applies to you, even though I also find films a fun community experience. So no offense intended towards recreational filmmakers.
@walter, yes, it was a timelapse film like Chronos, using all still frames at around 3k, and often 3 frame HDR.
Thanks for the reply. I didn't mean to say that I thought your post was condescending. I only meant to say that sometimes what we're working with, equipment-wise, is just the reality of the situation.
You mentioned investors -- I would LOVE IT, if we'd have a conversation about that. Filmmaking, I'm kinda good at that. Finding investors -- I'm at a complete loss, no clue where I should even start. If you'd like to start a thread on that subject, I'll definitely join the conversation.