What do I need for a feature film

[alven]

Hi everyone!

I am ready to start producing my first feature film (a mockumentary) with my HV30, and I will like to know if there's any more equipment (cam, audio, lighting etc) I should be getting.

I currently have the following rig:

- tripod
- DIY steadicam
- DIY boom
- Rode VideoMic
- Letus mini 35mm

I aim to produce the bare minimum quality fit for theatre screening, so any suggestions will be highly appreciated. Please keep in mind I am still a student, so the more affordable the better.

Namaste!

[omnibozo]

More important than any of the hardware, you need a great script, great actors and you need to have a distribution plan that is already in action!

[Erik Bien]

Hi alven, and welcome to the forum!

While there will probably be many who will encourage you to ditch the Letus, IMHO set-up carefully and employed judiciously, 35mm adapters can add a bit of production value — for your project, I'd probably use it for "formal" sit-down talking-head interviews where the camera is on a tripod and the subject isn't moving very much, and go with the bare HV for all hand-held/steadicam stuff.

You don't have any lights, which rather puts you at the mercy of whatever your locations have to offer in terms of light. I think at a minimum you'd want a couple of reflectors for daytime exteriors, and perhaps some small tungsten or fluorescent instruments to help punch-up and sculpt interiors (remember, for all their fine qualities, the HV series sensors are rather 'slow' — they need plenty of light to perform at their best).

You're probably a bit light on audio equipment, too: for a good mocumentary, you'll need really clear, intelligible audio to catch all the jokes. While recording the VideoMic directly into camera can be "good enough" in many situations, I'd probably also want an inexpensive lavalier mic and a small digital audio recorder to conceal on the talent.

[alven]

omnibozo - I agree that is very true!

Erik Bien - thank you heaps for all that information. Would you also think I would need a wide angle lens since I would like a theatre screening? Cheers

[Fade to inferno]

Would you also think I would need a wide angle lens since I would like a theatre screening? Cheers

How long have you been filmmaking?

W.A lenses and theater screenings have no correlation, It won't affect your ability to put it on the screen. Also in all likeliness you will have to connect to their DCN projector and not their actual digital/35mm projector.


You'll need lights. a good shotgun Mic with boom pole. A crew, Good talent, good script, Storyboard. Be as prepared as possible, have a schedule everyday that MUST be followed

[alven]

Fade - thats good to hear. I've only been making short films for about a year, and the biggest screening I got was television broadcast. So I wasn't sure if anything produced by a HV30 would work in the theater.

[Janke]

anything produced by a HV30 would work in the theater.

Depends. If it's a good story, and the movie is technically well made, the HV30 quality is certainly good enough for a 20+ ft screen. (Can tell that from personal experience with a very high-quality DLP projector)...

[drapeama]

[...] You'll need lights. a good shotgun Mic with boom pole.

Lights +1
Shotgun mic = yeah, but for indoor use i'm using a dynamic microphone from audio-technica (AT650) and another electret condenser (MB4K). They produce better results than my Azden SGM-1x shotgun mic (it's not the best, you got the point...but i couldn't afford more at the time)

So I wasn't sure if anything produced by a HV30 would work in the theater.

In fact, 28 Days Later has been shot with a Canon XL2 and has been shown at theater worldwide.

[alven]

Thanks alot.

Just wondering: has there ever been a feature film shot on a HV30 with worldwide release?

[AJUK]

How many films have you completed so far? I get the impression from your original post that you are just getting started? While I admire your ambition, I think you're approaching this from the wrong direction.

It's really not a case of what equipment you need to make a feature, although obviously you will need to own or rent professional gear to get the results you need. The quality of your film hinges much more on how good your script and cast are. Without a superb script, you wont attract name actors, and without name actors you won't attract financing and so on. The success of your film will depend on the 'hook' that you have set up. There have been plenty of fantastic mock (and real) documentaries over the years that have languished in obscurity.

Being realistic, it is very unlikely that you will get theatrical distribution for a film shot on a palmcorder, even a mockumentary, which is not to say it does happen (blair witch, paranormal activity, open water etc.) but that it is so unlikely that you shouldn't really base your entire business plan on it. If it was easy to do, then there would have been dozens of HV30 movies in theatres already... the camera has been on the market for years.

Rahter than shooting for the moon on your first time out, I think you should start with something more manageable, perhaps a film for the internet or specialist TV channel (Horror Channel, Syfy etc.) and see how that goes. It can still be a full-length project, but simply making a feature length film is enough of a challenge in itself without aiming for worldwide release in movie theatres!

[Palmer S.]

In fact, 28 Days Later has been shot with a Canon XL2 and has been shown at theater worldwide.

COMMON MISCONCEPTION: "28 Days Later" was only partially shot with an XL2, for scenes that required smaller spaces than what a film camera would be able to fit comfortably into, and for instances in which they had a limited amount of time to get in, shoot, and get out. A majority of that film was still shot on...well, film.

That's not to detract from the point however; having seen the film multiple times myself, I still have trouble differentiating when they're using the XL2, and when they're using the good ol' film. The fact that they can make the two look so close, and have both blown up to a 20 foot screen without a problem is no small miracle in and of itself. Even if the whole thing wasn't shot like that.

[TiE_Shepherd]

COMMON MISCONCEPTION: "28 Days Later" was only partially shot with an XL2, for scenes that required smaller spaces than what a film camera would be able to fit comfortably into, and for instances in which they had a limited amount of time to get in, shoot, and get out. A majority of that film was still shot on...well, film.

Where are you getting this information from exactly? According to IMDB the only scene shot on film was the final scene. I would hardly consider everything but one scene "partially shot". Also the cameras are very similar, but they shot on an XL1s. The XL2 wasn't even released at that point.

[drapeama]

COMMON MISCONCEPTION: [...] A majority of that film was still shot on...well, film.
I still have trouble differentiating when they're using the XL2, and when they're using the good ol' film.

1) Read here : only the final scene has been shot on film.
2) If you look closely to the screenshots on the bluray.com review here, you'll notice the difference between the only scene shot on film, and all the others shot on DV.

They did an amazing job bringing that DV source to the big screen and even to BluRay, but it remain s a DV source and it's noticable.

[Palmer S.]

The XL2 wasn't even released at that point.

Yes, my mistake; XL2 was a slip of the tongue. Apologies.

1) Read here : only the final scene has been shot on film.

Yeah...I guess I was wrong. I'd gotten that information from multiple write-ups of the film, from people who weren't necessarily involved in the production. Thus, not all the information was accurate, and I probably should have taken it with a grain of salt (or two).

As for the difference being obvious...it's subjective. To your, probably much more trained eye, the difference between DV and film is painfully obvious. But to me? The average 14 year old WANNABE filmmaker who's eye is a great deal less trained? I thought they shot it well enough to where I couldn't tell. Sorry.

[drapeama]

To your, probably much more trained eye, the difference between DV and film is painfully obvious.

Just pay attention on the definition lines that are noticable on the floor and in his hair here. Also there is some "edge enhancement" due to the standard definition upscaled to high definition in the screenshots, something that it's not (or usually not supposed) present on good transfert (DVD and BD).
Overall, it's one of the best SD to HD transfert i've seen.

[omnibozo]

I still think you are missing a critical point. You are NOT going to get in theaters just because you think your movie is nifty. You must have a distribution deal... and it is not too early to start working on that deal right now. Google "Stacey Parks" and get on her subscription list to learn about the realities of distribution. Try sending email to webmaster@filmspecific.com to get on the list. Call "Killer films" and see what it takes to get on their indie production list. You are still fixating on the gear... and the focus needs to be on the final product and its audience.

[alven]

AJUK, omnibozo - sound advice, I shall look into them all. Truth is I am very much a novice in this field, so I am still doing alot of homework. Thought I would make an technical related inquiry here, and a distribution-related thread elsewhere soon.

Thanks very much for all the suggestions and encouragement though, and any more gizmo recommendations is sorely appreciated!

[DigitalVideo]

The only gear I'd put a big amount of focus on is a decent tripod and a GOOD mic. Sound counts more than you think.

[Palmer S.]

Okay...I'll admit; it's been YEARS since I've seen "28 Days Later". Like, years before I ever even thought of making films. So last night, after the nifty conversation we had, I figured I'd pop it in and watch it again...and yes...it's very, very obviously DV. So not only was I wrong in my argument on the technical front, I was wrong on ALL fronts. My apologies.