|
|
Posted by Steve King on 05/28/06 17:34
"jho" <jhogan0101@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148832481.779901.77910@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Well i would like to thank you all for your input. It seems that video
> production is kind of like a car show with regards to who thinks what
> is quality. One thing it seems is definitely a certainty and that is
> 35mm is the highest quality. I think that i will 1. right a script, 2.
> hire an actor, 3 buy 2000 ft of kodak tungston vision 2 line 4. rent a
> camera for the day 5. hire a camera assistant. 5 shoot the film and
> sound in a studio 6 send it to fotochem. 7 get it transferred to dvd
> and hope that it was done right 8 edit add final pro 9 cross my
> fingers. here's what i think cost would be. $650 camera rental. $1210
> film. $250 process. $40 prep. $600 transfer. $500 actor. $300 cam
> assistant. $400 sound. $200 lights. $800 studio. $1000 for final cut
> pro graphics. Total +- $5950. So what do you think i know its not $2000
> but does this sound realistic? 30 second commercial.
I agree with Crowley. I put the odds at you getting a result that compares
favorably with professionally produced commercials at about 10,000 to 1.
Two things in your post above stood out: you plan to hire a camera
assistant but not an experienced lighting cameraman and you plan to transfer
the 35 mm to DVD!!! DVD??? A format with lower quality than that
achievable with a $500 MiniDV camera? Planning on acting as your own 35mm
camera operator makes as much sense as me acting as my own Indy car driver.
As Richard said, 'It's your money.' Good luck from me, too.
Steve King
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|