Which Initial Equipment To Buy?

[The Psychotic One]

Hey there, I know this question probably pops up all the time, but I have a reasonably serious question to put out there.

To make a life-long story short:-

• I have filmmaking aspirations.
  I live in New Zealand.
  I have the equivalent of roughly $20,000 ($US).

In the past, my plan was to try and get into the New York Film Academy and try out their year-long course, however, the more time passes, the more I'd like to just buy my own equipment and start filming myself. My friends and family tell me I should be doing this ALL THE TIME. The only problem is, I have little idea what kind of equipment I should be buying.

I did a year-long "film & tv" course at a local polytech, but it didn't really help me achieve anything. I did learn a bit of editing and a few camera tricks, but for the most part, the equipment there was sub-par, and the course was merely a thinly-disguised training course for the local TV station (vomit).

I don't want to buy a digital camcorder. I don't know if it's just me, but digital pictures, for the most part, look... tacky. What kind of camera should I be looking at purchasing (even something slightly outside my budget would be fine)? Am I looking for digital cameras? Or should I be going the way of a 16mm/35mm/whatever-mm camera? And if one of the latter, what kind of editing/post-production equipment?

Any help you guys could give me would be most appreciated.

(Is my bias against digital cameras unfounded?)

 

[darkavenger]

You weren't kidding about the MattMcdermitt.com videos. They do look like film, even the ones that didn't seem to be shot in 24p. (some looked like 30 fps)
Awesome stuff. The dvx100 rocks. Had to sell my dvx (along with a car, a bed, and a nice tv) to buy myself a film recorder. That's right - transfers video to 35mm film. I might be able to transfer to 16mm too if I can find a cheap transport. (not the whole rig, just the piece that slides under the oxberry with the little lens). I will rent a dvx100 or a HD camera when I am truly ready to finish a feature and transfer it to film myself. That's a long ways from now, so if anyone has some work for me, email me because I'm completely broke - hopefully the machine was a good investment.

 

[clive]

Firstly, congratulations on being a filmmaker in New Zealand. It's country with a good film scene and superb locations.

Next, I've got to side with the don't buy anything except a good macintosh computer guys. Get Final Draft script writing software and Final Cut (Express will do, HD only if you really love digital editing)

As for camera equipment, hire it, borrow it, but never buy it.

Before you do that though, check out the funding possibilities. You may be able to get funding for your film projects, not only from New Zealand, but also from Commonwealth funding. As most funders require some form of matched funding you could use your $20,000 and double it up to $40,000 or even $80,000, just by spending some time now finding out how it all works.

In the meantime, spend your time developing scripts, working our what is is you want to shoot and only after you've decided on your projects, decide what to do about equipment.

What would concern me about doing it the other way round, is what if you buy a AG DVX100 or even a 16mm camera and then decide that you want to do a documentary style thriller, in low light conditions, which actually would be best shot on High Def, you'd be stuffed.

Different projects need different formats, so instead of tying up your money and also missing the match funding opportunities, hold back, do some research and hire in the equipment you need for each film.

 

[Rogue Crew]

Next, I've got to side with the don't buy anything except a good macintosh computer guys. Get Final Draft script writing software and Final Cut (Express will do, HD only if you really love digital editing)

I might be wrong here, but if you shoot 24p (DVX100/A), you won't be able to edit in 24p in Final Cut Express.

 

[clive]

I'm only talking about shooting drama here

I might be wrong here, but if you shoot 24p (DVX100/A), you won't be able to edit in 24p in Final Cut Express.

You're probably right, but as I'd advised him not to buy a camera, that wouldn't be an issue. Final Cut Express is a good enough programme for cutting mini-DV or DV Cam. To edit a few short films, to get some experience that would be fine.

Anything beyond that, then home editing equipment shouldn't be an option for anything but a rough cut. I can't see the point in editing on a system that won't take the footage in at full resolution. Once you are making films that you want to sell or show at festival, at that point you have to be thinking about editing on a full Avid suite, just to control the quality.

The only reason I'd consider buying in Final Cut HD, is if I wanted someone to quickly cut together rushes whilst actually on a High Def shoot. Even then, it would only be to test sequences where I was trying something visually complicated and I had to be sure that it was in the can, before moving on.

I guess it's a different philosophy. I was brought up in the business with the basic idea that you hire in for productions and post production, shooting and editing on the best format/platform you can afford. That you don't buy, unless you can make money from renting it out to other filmmakers.

I've said this before, I like the Panasonic AG DVX 100, I use it scout locations. I like Final Cut Express, I use it for noodling around on, maybe about twice a year. However, if I didn't have either of those two tools, it would have almost no impact on my filmmaking.

However, if I didn't have Final Draft or my powerbook, I'd be in real trouble.


Like I say in most posts, it's about what kind of filmmaker you want to be. There is nothing wrong in buying low end format digital cameras and editing on your computer at home. It's great way to learn the basics.
However (despite 28 Days Later) there is very little evidence of camcorder movies making the break through into mainstream distribution. However, shooting on Super 16mm, yeap lots of cinema release films on that, lots of evidence of sales to TV or direct to DVD; Shooting on 35mm, well unless you make a dreadful movie, you'll probably get some form of distribution and the same of shooting on High Def.

What this means is that every filmmaker has to ask themselves why they are making films and what they want from it? If you want complete creative control, to shoot and edit yourself and have no immediate commercial aspirations then you are the kind of filmmaker who should shoot on the AG DVX100a and edit at home.

If, however, you are interested in moving onto bigger productions, making commercially viable features and making a living doing this thing then either you have to buy into Super 16mm or you forget buying a camera and hire in your equipment.

And, until the camera companies produce a camcorder that shoots High Definition in a true anamorphic 16:9 ratio, with the ability to shoot with a variety of professional lenses and a matt box, until you can capture the footage from that camera into a home computer a full 1:1 resolution, then that's the way it is likely to stay.

 

[Rogue Crew]

You're probably right, but as I'd advised him not to buy a camera, that wouldn't be an issue. Final Cut Express is a good enough programme for cutting mini-DV or DV Cam. To edit a few short films, to get some experience that would be fine.

If he wanted just a rough cut, then he could do it in iMovie, which would cost him nothing.

Anything beyond that, then home editing equipment shouldn't be an option for anything but a rough cut. I can't see the point in editing on a system that won't take the footage in at full resolution. Once you are making films that you want to sell or show at festival, at that point you have to be thinking about editing on a full Avid suite, just to control the quality.

And yet, feature films are being released all the time by the Majors having been cut on (Academy Award Winning) Final Cut Pro, not Avid.[/QUOTE]

Like I say in most posts, it's about what kind of filmmaker you want to be.

I think he indicated that he wants to be a self-taught student and to do that he needs to have some gear, including a camera.

....there is very little evidence of camcorder movies making the break through into mainstream distribution.

True, but there are quite a number being shown in film festivals around the world, large and small. Even the smallest festivals have provisions for DV projection. Producers from the Majors turn up at these shows to buy product AND to scout talent.

And, until the camera companies produce a camcorder that shoots High Definition in a true anamorphic 16:9 ratio, with the ability to shoot with a variety of professional lenses and a matt box, until you can capture the footage from that camera into a home computer a full 1:1 resolution, then that's the way it is likely to stay.

Several such cameras exist from Panasonic, JVC and others. They start in price at about $25,00 U.S. They are not uncommon here in the States for dramatic feature production by both film studios and television networks. For example, much of NBC's "The West Wing" is shot on HDV.

 

[dudebro]

Here's what I did:

eMac G4 with superdrive $1400
FCP3 $1000
2 Lacie External drive 120 gig $240
Canon GL1 MiniDV $2400
Bolex 16mm $800
super8 camera $10

that's about $5850, so it leaves one with around $14K to feed actors, buy film/lights whatev. Or a new car.

Ensure that camera, emac and lacie all have firewire. most important, have fun.

 

[clive]

Rogue Crew, you maybe right about the equipment issues, after all, low end formats aren't my area of expertise. Feel free to prove me wrong by making a massive hit feature film, shot on a $2,500 camcorder and edited entirely by you, at home, on the software version of Final Cut Pro HD.

However, my overall point is that you don't have to buy equipment to be an indie filmmaker, there are other ways of doing it and before investing $20,000 of hard earned money I think a person has the right to hear that.

 

[Rogue Crew]

Feel free to prove me wrong by making a massive hit feature film, shot on a $2,500 camcorder and edited entirely by you, at home, on the software version of Final Cut Pro HD.

Clive, by holding onto this idée fixe, you are missing the point that there are many, MANY other levels of filmmaking that are enjoyable and even profitable that don't require or result in a "massive hit feature film". I live in a small rural state with a disproportionately smaller community of filmmakers - no more than a couple of dozen. One member (self-taught) has become the Senior DP at the local Public Broadcast station. Another has made several features and his latest has gone straight to DVD at Blockbuster. He concedes that it has earned him something over $300,000 to date. I regularly correspond with forum members on similar websites, who have a number of Emmy awards and one Academy award between them. They're all pros and they all own DVX's or XL1S's or PD170's and they all come home from a long day at work and start making their own movies.

Why do they do it? Why do WE do it? Who knows? We're all crazy I guess. Crazy, but not necessarily stupid. Just before falling asleep a night, we may think of walking up that red carpet for our latest premiere, reading the glowing reviews in the Times, but we also know that it probably ain't gonna happen in spite of the Rodriguez/Tarantino success stories. We do it anyway for some proof to ourselves that our visions are sound; for some recognition from others of our small talents and for the chance, however small, that our work will be seen and remembered by thousands, if not millions.

If we "small" filmmakers had access to more experienced actors and more polished scripts, I guarantee you that Miramax would be knocking on more doors. Even knowledgeable film-goers are forgiving of the underlit scene, or less than great resolution of a film, if it's a story well told.

However, my overall point is that you don't have to buy equipment to be an indie filmmaker, there are other ways of doing it and before investing $20,000 of hard earned money I think a person has the right to hear that.

Of course there are other ways dear boy, and you've made that point repeatedly. But none are so exciting, so COMMITTED as putting your money where your heart is and just doing it.

 

[Demosthenes X]

I think Clive's main point was that that's not neccessarily the most economical way to do it if you plan on doing features...

 

[mylkhead]

wow i just did a search for what equipment to buy when just starting out and I didn't realize how expensive it is. I would love to have something to add to this topic but really I just have more questions. I have no budget. I can't afford the Panasonic AG-DVX100A camera that I keep hearing about. I can probably afford a camera $1000 and under. That's it. I edit on a PC with Adobe Premiere.

I really want to shoot music videos. And I feel I can't really get a start or get noticed without having at least SOME equipment. Most importantly a camera.

My aspirations would be to get some sort of decent camera and ask a band if I could make them a music video. I'd write a treatment and try to make the video more than just a performance video. Do it all for free. And try to get discovered. Try to be original and creative. Get a name for myself locally and hope that would lead to more work. But I don't have any money to start out. Would a $1000 camera even be worth it?

 

[indietalk]

$20K can make a well shot short in 16mm.

That's my 2 cents.