All film-making involves a fight against the limits of money and of time—which usually amount to the same thing. At some point in the production process every film-maker—except perhaps for those lucky few who can indulge in documentary making from their own resources—will be faced with committing to paper, and perhaps to contract, a legally enforceable costing of the production. Getting this right is of course essential, not only to ensure that all costs are covered and that the film-maker gets some financial recompense for the time and effort expended, but also to arrange for there to be sufficient money left over at the end to invest in developing future projects.
Since the sums involved are often very large, sometimes exceeding one or two million dollars or even pounds for a series of films, there is a natural tendency among those not well versed in business culture to regard the fine details of costing as unimportant. The difference between £100 and £105 seems very little when viewed in the light of a £300,000 budget. But in filmmaking the old adage is never truer: take care of the pence and the pounds will take care of themselves. A meticulous attention to detail is the first requirement of proper budgeting, no matter how dull and boring it can be. Working out costs accurately may be rather less glamorous and a lot less fun than getting out on location with a camera, but accuracy in budgeting contributes as much, perhaps more, to the success or failure of the project as do the overtly artistic and creative processes.
A particular difficulty which comes up right at the start of drawing up the budget is that the needs of the entire production process must be predicted and defined in advance—usually before the full details of the film are known to anyone. The budget will define how much time research will take, how many days’ filming will be booked, how much stock will be shot, how much the contributors will be paid, what the cost of bought-in stills or film will be, how long the editing will take, what special visual effects will be needed. Since such details simply cannot all be known in advance, the art of budgeting relies on accurate estimation of likely costs.
To be able to make an estimate with the necessary accuracy, a very full outline, and possibly treatment, of the entire production must have been worked out first. As a description of the completed film, it will imply all the elements which will be needed to bring the project to the screen. It is true that experienced documentary makers often work out budgets in advance of that kind of full preparation. But they depend on knowing how much similar projects have cost in the past. It is also true that producers and directors working on the staff of broadcasting or production organizations are often presented with a budget at the same time as the title and subject of their next assignment. The consequence of this, however, is that the film will be developed to match the available finance, rather than to follow and perhaps to do full justice to its subject.
Even estimating costs from a full outline depends on experience—there are professional cost estimators who do nothing else—and a film-maker starting out on his or her career will find this rather difficult. Consulting other more experienced documentarists is, as always, a great help. There are few filmmakers who would be unwilling to give advice and assistance to younger or less experienced colleagues. But the best advice for a film-maker preparing a budget is to be rigorously methodical.
As previously suggested, there is a great temptation to underestimate production costs. To repeat: this is invariably a mistake. Putting in too low a budget in order to ensure getting a commission is a recipe for financial disaster. If the production goes over budget, the film-maker may well be expected to suffer the loss personally, at best cutting onto his or her own remuneration, at worst actually having to pay money out of his or her own pocket. The sums involved can become very large and involve a filmmaker in serious financial difficulty.
Though some broadcasters and production companies may be prepared to vary the costs slightly in the light of unforeseen circumstances, many will not recognize that circumstances can be unforeseen—demanding that every eventuality has been allowed for. Clearly there are some events which are so unexpected that nobody could have predicted them: serious illness perhaps, or midsummer snowstorms, but in general, the production process should be so organized, and budgeted for, that most of the things that all too often go wrong have been thought of.
There is a precedent for this. In four-camera or five-camera television studio work, it was always demanded of the studio director that script preparation must include full contingency plans: if one, two or even three of the cameras cease to function—not an uncommon event—the recording must still be able to continue. A similar fall-back position should be in the back of any film-maker’s mind when working out how much a documentary production is likely to cost. ‘What happens if this goes wrong’ is a question which should be applied to every category of expense.
The best way to tackle the compilation of a budget, and to make sure that nothing has been forgotten, is to work from a check list, going through each category of cost in turn and attempting to imagine the production process in as much detail as is possible at this stage. Most commissioning organizations for whom a filmmaker may be producing a documentary will have their own budgeting forms, including every possible detail and often running to forty pages or more. Following such a form through from start to finish guarantees that each possible category of cost has been at least considered. If the film-maker does not have access to such a form, or if the project is still in the proposal stage and before any discussion of terms of contract has taken place, it is advisable to work from a personalized list. On the next page follows a—rather simplified—checklist of personnel, resource and other costs, which makes a suitable starting point for the calculations.
PRODUCTION STAFF
Executive Producer
Producer
Assistant Producer
Director
Researcher
Production Manager
Production Assistant
Secretary
Other Staff Fees
CONTRIBUTORS’ FEES
Artists Fees
Walk-ons and Extras
PRODUCTION EXPENSES
Production Transport
Home Travel
Home Subsistence
Foreign Travel
Foreign Subsistence
Excess Baggage
Hospitality
Miscellaneous
PRODUCTION OFFICE
Office Rent
Stationery
Telephone
Postage
Legal Fees
Accountancy
Miscellaneous
PURCHASED MATERIALS
Purchased Footage
Purchased Stills
Consultants
Copyright
Repeat Fees
FACILITIES’ COSTS
Rehearsal Room
Home Facility Fees
Overseas Facility Fees
Location Catering
COSTUME AND MAKE-UP
Costume Designer
Costume Materials
Dresser
Make-up Designer
Make-up Materials
SCENERY
Design Materials
Scenic Designer
Scenic Materials
Scenic Workers
Scenic Transport
Scenic Storage
Atmospheric Effects
PROPS AND VISFX
Prop Buyer
Props Cost
VisFX Materials
VisFX Designer
Armourer
SHOOTING
Film/Video Photographer
Film/Video Assistant
Film/Video Equipment
Film/Video Stock
Grips
Grips Equipment
Special Facilities
SOUND
Sound Recordist
Sound Assistant
Sound Equipment
Sound Recording Stock
LIGHTING
Lighting Personnel
Lighting Equipment
EDITING
Cutting Room
Film Editor
Assistant Film Editor
Film Editing Materials
Negative Cutting
Off-line Equipment
Off-line Editor
Video Editing Suite
On-line Video Editor
Video Effects
Autoconforming
Commentary Recording
Sound Dubbing Mixer
Sound Dubbing Theatre
STOCK AND DUPLICATION
Film Processing
Film Printing
Film Opticals
Video Tape Stock
Film-to-tape Transfers
Tape-to-tape Transfers
Standards Conversion
GRAPHICS
Graphics Designer
Graphics Assistant
Graphics Materials
Rostrum Camera
Stills Photographer
Stills Assistant
Photo Studio
Photo Processing
Caption Operator
Computer Graphics
MUSIC
Composer
Musicians
Music Recording Studio
Some of the cost categories in the checklist—travel costs, for example, or bought-in still photographs—are absolute cash outgoings, independent of time and duration. But most—staff costs, filming days, editing—are costed by time: by the hour, the day or the week. So to calculate a budget from a checklist, the film-maker must first have drawn up an accurate time schedule for the entire production process. Naturally this can prove difficult at the earliest stages, before the full dimensions of the work have been recognized and filled in. At the proposal stage, it is very unlikely that the film-maker will have a complete idea of what the finished documentary will be like in detail.
Unfortunately this can lead to a purely monetary classification of films: the cheap, the medium and the expensive. A documentary maker with a particular subject may need to decide in advance which category of production cost to pitch for. Subsequently that category, rather than the needs of the subject, will tend to determine the way the documentary is made. If the documentarist suggests too high a cost, the production may not be commissioned, if too low a budget, the film-maker will be forced to operate within too tight a financial strait-jacket.
There is no way around this problem except experience: the gut feeling that such-and-such a film, about such-and-such a subject and treated in such-and-such a way, is likely to cost such-and-such an amount. But the clearer the idea in the mind of the film-maker, the clearer the schedule becomes and therefore the clearer the costs.
The production process is usually thought of as divided into stages: development begins with the idea and ends with an outline or treatment, pre-production is the stage of planning and organization, production is the shooting and recording of the material, and post-production begins with the editing and ends with the delivery of the completed work. To be able to calculate the costs of each stage, its length must first be decided. Time in film making translates to money, so the first step in budgeting a production is to draw up a firm schedule.
The development stage of a documentary film can take as long as a few years, some months or as little as a couple of weeks. Since development begins with the first formulation of the idea and can involve a great deal of reading around the subject, visiting locations and talking to experts, often while occupied with other work, it is sometimes hard to decide at what point serious development has actually begun. For the purpose of a schedule, and of costing, the commonly accepted starting point is when all other work is set aside and the film-maker’s full attention is concentrated on the documentary in question. At that moment too, others may become involved in the work—a partner, an assistant or a researcher may be engaged.
How much of the preliminary work will be allowed for in the production’s budget depends greatly on the commissioning organization and the size of the project. A producer developing a single half-hour film will obviously be allowed less time than if working on a six-part series of hour-long documentaries. For such a major piece of work, as much as six months preparation may occasionally be paid for. Usually, however, it is rather less. There have been examples of a broadcaster paying a producer for as much as a whole year’s thinking and ruminating time. But this is very uncommon, and probably only happens when the producer is a member of the broadcaster’s permanent staff. To specify the development period for the purpose of scheduling and budgeting, the film-maker will mostly need to negotiate the time allowed with whoever is putting up the money.
Not everyone involved in the development of the project will be working throughout the entire time. Specialist researchers may be taken on for short periods to provide the film-maker with briefings on subjects outside his or her expertise. It may be thought advisable to engage other production staff, a second or assistant producer perhaps, to undertake some of the other preliminary work so as to shorten the development period. The schedule will specify for how long these collaborators will be contracted.
Pre-production is where the practical work begins in earnest. It is the stage of researching, planning, selecting and visiting events, locations and contributors as well as deciding on and engaging the film crew who will shoot the material, and the editor who will work on it after that. Planning will involve further research to fill in all the gaps left in the film outline and to make concrete any parts of the treatment in which pious hopes substitute for practical proposals.
The time allowed in the budget for pre-production varies far less than that for development—usually between two to six weeks, depending on the complexity and length of the documentary, though some regular specialist television strands only give the producer a week to plan and organize the filming. The beginning of pre-production is where serious spending on overheads usually begins: an office is set up, its equipment bought or hired, and office staff—secretary, telephone receptionist—may be engaged. A production manager or co-ordinator, if one is to be taken on, will usually start work at this time, as will a producer’s or production assistant—the job title varies. If there is to be a director as well as a producer, he or she will join the team at some point during the pre-production period, allowing enough time to become familiar with the subject, the treatment, and to help plan the shoot. It is not a good idea—though it happens quite often—for a director simply to be taken on at short notice just before the filming commences. Directing the shoot is a major creative contribution to the film and whoever performs this task should take a large part in the collective thinking of the team.
Towards the end of the pre-production period the producer and director, if there is to be one, will ‘recce’—reconnoitre—the locations, preferably together with the film photographer and, if possible, the sound recordist, to decide on any unusual requirements of the shooting: location sets, visual effects, script prompting machines, special lighting, lenses or camera equipment, in fact any facilities needed beyond the bare minimum of a standard shooting crew with their gear. Stills may be taken at this time for reference.
To sum up: when scheduling pre-production time, the documentarist will decide how long it will take to plan and organize the casting, location finding, shooting and post-production, bearing in mind that the money-clock has now been switched on.
This is the stage at which the material which will make up the film is shot. It comprises the filming and sound recording days. The number will depend on the number of locations, the complexity of the shooting and the time needed for travel.
The length of time the camera is running, that is the period between switching on to start the shot and cutting at the end, is far from the main consideration in calculating how much shooting time will be needed. Unless the locations are all in one place, travelling may take up large part of the shooting day and travelling time includes unloading and setting up the equipment at the start, and clearing up and loading the vehicle at the end. Allowing as much as an hour to clear up the previous location and as much as another hour to get ready at the next, suggests that to add two hours to the travelling time between locations may not be an overestimate. Film crews are mostly contracted to work twelve-hour days, perhaps allowing for an hour’s travel to the location from home, and an hour for the return journey. Film-makers must remember that a cine-photographer will have to spend quite a lot of time loading the equipment into the shooting vehicle before setting out, and unloading it at the end of the day’s work.
The crew must also be given time to eat. For the sake of good relations between the film-maker and the crew, if at all possible an hour’s meal break should be included in the middle of the day, rather than expecting everyone to work continuously while grazing on sandwiches or hamburgers as they do so. The British tradition is for everyone to repair to the nearest pub at lunch time. Each documentarist will have to decide for him- or herself whether the maintenance of good team relations is worth the potential slowdown after the consumption of a pint or two of beer.
Most film-makers pride themselves on leaving a location exactly is they found it. Filming can be an untidy business: the furniture in a room may need to be completely reorganized to allow the camera space to work, windows may need to be covered by black card or coloured transparent gel, cables may have to be routed through doorways and taped down, fuse boxes may require tapping or bypassing to avoid blowing domestic circuits. All of these changes demand the property owner’s good will, which must be repaid by a meticulous concern to put everything back at the end as it was before the filming. Film crews all too often arrive at a location to find that previous shooting by others had been an unpleasant experience and had left chaos behind, making the householder extremely wary of allowing the crew freedom to alter the arrangement of anything. Time and effort must then be spent in trying to assure everyone concerned that this occasion will be different. Every film-maker owes it as a professional duty to others in the future to make sure that the next crew which comes along will be made welcome.
The time taken to set up each shot and—if an interior—to light it, will depend on its nature. Some shots can be organized relatively quickly while others take what seems an age to a director who has little to do but stand around biting his or her nails. For interior shots which must be lit, allowing an hour to set up and light is not necessarily too liberal. Clearly the speed at which each individual cine-photographer works must be taken into account—some are quite fast, others are famously slow. But even simply moving the camera to another angle in the very same location and setting up and re-lighting the shot can consume quite a few minutes. Allowing too little preparation time is a common failing which the film-maker drawing up the schedule will try to avoid.
A rule of thumb often used in television documentary work is that it is usual to collect enough material for between three and six minutes of cut film per working day. Since shooting ratios—the difference between the amount of film shot and the length used in the edited film—vary between a minimum of some 5:1 through a preferred 12:1 all the way to about 30:1 for some observational films (200:1 in some exceptional cases), this may seem to be an over-definite figure. Clearly the kind of shots being taken—action, description, interview, interior, exterior—all have a bearing on how much of the day’s work is likely to appear in the completed film. So does the average length of shot in the film. The faster the average cutting speed, the more shots will be needed and therefore the more shooting time will be taken.
Shooting ratios tends to be inversely proportional to the difficulties of getting the shot. A sort of Parkinson’s Law of Filming seems to operate here: the amount of footage exposed grows to occupy the time available in which to shoot it. Thus material which is difficult to capture will often achieve a low shooting ratio, while that which is easier to get will make the ratio expand. A short action sequence may take a long time to prepare but not occupy very much film or tape, while great lengths of interview are often recorded in order to make sure of the few moments which will be included in the completed documentary. As a result between three and six minutes of cut film per day turns out to be a reasonable estimate.
On these figures, a thirty-minute film will on average need a minimum of five days and a maximum of ten days shooting depending on the kind of material to be gathered. But every film is in reality different. Your mileage, as they say, may vary.
What is worth struggling for is to make the production period continuous. That is to say, the filming and recording days should, wherever possible, leave no gaps between them. Unless the filmmaker is also the cine-photographer and is working from his or her home, dead time in between shooting days is a costly luxury. Obviously, if filming away from base, unused days in between shooting mean either unnecessary hotel bills or extra travel costs to and from the area of the locations. It may be also be difficult to find a film photographer who is willing to split a booking into separate days without charging for the non-working time. If the gap is too long, there are psychological consequences: partly because those working on the production may lose impetus and energy, but mostly because a kind of team spirit soon develops in the course of shooting, which can add much to the quality of the work, but which can equally quickly dissipate when not invoked daily.
Some non-shooting days cannot, of course, be avoided. Longdistance travel must be allowed for in the shooting schedule. It is unreasonable to expect people to spend more than a few hours in a car, train or aircraft and then immediately set to work without having had time to rest. Continuous working for more than a week is also not likely to produce the best results. In scheduling for television production it is usual to allow one day off for every six days worked. Though a seven-day stint is just about acceptable, few film photographers or sound recordists would be prepared to shoot for a fortnight without at least one rest day included.
Once the shot material is in the can or on the cassette, post-production begins. This stage will take the film through the composing and editing process to the final mastering, copying and delivery of the work to the body which commissioned it. There is a great deal to do and much of it must happen at the same time. The film-maker becomes an orchestrator and conductor of complex resources. Time, yet again, is money, and a documentary maker will try to make sure that nobody on the payroll is sitting around doing nothing because the next operation cannot begin until some other has been completed first.
One aspect of post-production is concerned with the gathering of extra material:
• commissioning, execution and rostrum photography of graphics and still photographs;
• creation of film opticals and video effects;
• translation of any foreign language dialogue and preparation of subtitles;
• creation and preparation of identification captions;
• collection of missed and extra shots and sounds.
The other aspect is the assembling of the work. Some of these processes are common to both film and video, even though the technology used may be different:
• picture and sound editing;
• track-laying of sound;
• sound dubbing.
From then on the process divides for the two media.
For film:
• negative cutting, answer printing, grading, show printing.
For video:
• ‘on-line’ editing or conforming onto a master tape.
Both film and video may finally need to have video cassette viewing copies made.
Most film-makers will try to begin the gathering of graphics, stills, and other extra materials as soon as the need becomes apparent. Editing cannot of course be completed until all required elements are available to the editor, so having everything ready from the start avoids unnecessary delay. This is one of the reasons why to prepare a full treatment of the work before starting production is an advantage. However, shooting does not always go as planned and the need for the extra images or sounds is not always recognized until some way into the editing process—sometimes even only right at the end. Such delay carries a time and therefore a money penalty.
Broadcasting organizations allow on average a minimum of two weeks to edit a thirty-minute, and four weeks to edit a fifty-minute production. Productions of quality can take considerably longer. Editing time is not strictly proportional to running length, as some overheads and some processes always take about the same amount of time, while variables such as the shooting ratio also have an impact on the duration of the post-production stage.
If the shooting ratio is large—as previously mentioned, certain kinds of documentary can be shot at a ratio of anything up to, believe it or not, 200:1—the viewing of the rushes, always the first stage of editing, can become a very extended operation. Rushes (the raw shots straight from the camera) must properly be viewed in real time, so if the shooting ratio is 12:1 for a one-hour documentary, this stage cannot be completed in less than 12 hours. The rushes for a series of six fifty-minute films shot at 20:1 cannot be viewed in less than 100 hours. As there is a limit to the length of time a person can usefully concentrate on screen images, 100 hours of rushes cannot realistically be viewed in under two to three five-day weeks.
The physical process used to cut film was once very different from that used to edit videotape—video-editing used to be a comparatively crude technique, involving much copying from one tape to another. But the development of technology has brought the two close together. Film is now regularly transferred to tape for post-production on ‘non-linear’ or ‘virtual’ computer editing systems. ‘Non-linear’ because unlike in previous video editing techniques, material can be removed from, or added to, anywhere in the production. ‘Virtual’ because the computer strings together the shots at the designated cutting points only during replay, simulating an edited film without any actual edits being made. This allows the editor to work as if on film but with the speed and convenience advantages of the electronic medium. Progress with the technology is continuing. It will soon become the norm for the editing computer to be the platform for all picture and sound operations, beginning with the raw footage and ending with the delivery of the completed film as a digital signal to be recorded directly onto the final master tape. The same is true for the recreation and mixing of the film’s sound.
But this change of technology will not necessarily greatly affect the time a film-maker needs to set down for post-production—except for those documentaries produced on such a low budget as to make high quality assembly and editing an unaffordable luxury. (Electronic editing and mastering does avoid the wait for prints to come back from the laboratory. Film editors often had to view and check them when already engaged on the next project.) A documentary maker will still allow between four and eight weeks of post-production for a fifty-minute film.
The very final stage of post-production after delivering the work should allow time for clearing up the production office. Invoices need to be paid, ‘thank you’ letters to be written, documents to be packaged up and stored. If the documentary is for a broadcaster, contributors need to be informed of the scheduled transmission time, or if none has yet been agreed, they need to be told how to get the information later on. This is an integral and essential part of post-production and should be budgeted for. How long this stage takes clearly depends on the documentary’s complexity, but for a fifty-minute film, a week is by no means too long.
What follow here are some notes and pointers to help in drawing up the budget. One proviso should be borne in mind from the beginning. Many broadcasting organizations maintain union agreements—covenants which regulate the pay and conditions under which staff involved in a production are expected to work. Such agreements may regulate the employment of actors and musicians, of cine-photographers, sound recordists, editors and other technicians. Different organizations, in different countries, set up widely differing agreements, which may well override whatever deal the documentary maker may try to draw up with his or her chosen collaborators. It is essential to discover whether any such agreements apply to the production in question, and if so, how its provisions affect the engagement of staff and craft workers, before the budget becomes part of the legally enforceable contract between the film-maker and the client.
Some film-makers work primarily on their own or just with friends. Even so, everyone working on a documentary deserves to be paid at a rate appropriate for the job. These rates are usually well known to anybody working in the industry. To repeat: in many countries trade union agreements or agreements with a film-makers’ association lay down what the pay for any category of production staff should be. In other places the pay will depend on an adhoc arrangement for one production only. In some films the executive producer—the person carrying overall responsibility for overseeing the work—is supplied and paid for by the commissioning organization. In other projects, the executive producer is part of the production team and must be costed accordingly.
Given that the rate for the job is known, whoever prepares the budget will have to decide how long the production process is going to be and for how long each member of the production team will be expected to work on it. The producer will of course be working right through from beginning to end. So will a production manager, if one is included. A director may be brought in later in the pre-production stage and may leave before the clearing up process at the end. A researcher may be engaged just for the development and pre-production period, may also be required to attend the shooting locations, or may possibly be needed for even longer, until after the commentary has been written.
Other staff may occasionally be engaged for shorter periods to perform specific tasks. If filming in foreign locations, there may be a need for an interpreter or a local fixer to work on a particular shoot. Sometimes and in some places security personnel must be recruited to look after unattended equipment. In some countries taking on a government minder at the production’s expense is a non-negotiable condition of filming. Whenever working in a foreign country is envisaged, the advice of other film-makers who have recently worked there should be sought.
Most people in most places expect to be paid for taking part in a film. The sums are not necessarily very large but they must be allowed for. Even where participating in a film could be regarded as part of a person’s job—spokespeople for organizations or government departments for example—financial recompense may be insisted on. Where the film-maker wishes to take advantage of a person’s special knowledge or experience, that person may expect to be paid rather more than the film-maker believes to be reasonable. This often happens with university professors and lecturers whose normal salary does not match their idea of their own importance. When one academic expert was asked why he was demanding $1,000 for a half-hour interview, he pointed out that the fee was in payment not for half an hour of his time, but for twenty years of his experience. Even in some cases where the film-maker’s purpose is to support or to publicize a cause, those involved have been known to demand fees on the grounds that ‘you are getting paid for making the film, why shouldn’t we get paid for being in it?’
Presenter’s fees will normally be agreed in advance with the person being asked to appear in that role. Sometimes, however, the commissioning organization will have its own rates for presenters which must be adhered to. Some broadcasters, for instance, wish to make sure that the fees paid to particular personalities are part of a general payment policy, taking account of experience and level of exposure and ensuring that the artist maintains a steady progression of rising fees over time, rather than an unpredictable switchback of greater and lesser remuneration. The only way to discover if this is the case is to consult the broadcaster before discussing money with the artist.
Actors, professional walk-ons and extras are part of the world of fiction film-making and are not normally used in documentaries. However, the older rigid distinction between documentary and fiction conventions is dissolving. Many documentaries now being made include scenes featuring actors, often in costume and sometimes even speaking prepared lines. Actors in documentary work are usually engaged by the day and do not require rehearsal time. Union agreements may be in force which set a minimum fee for any actor appearing in a production funded by the documentary maker’s client.
Walk-ons and extras in documentaries are different from actors, since they are not, in practice, required to be professional performers. Many contributors to a film may be classified as walk-ons. Circumstances often arise where a film-maker wishes a member of the public to appear in a shot for artistic reasons. An example might be where a street cleaner is required to carry on his work in the background of a scene. Such people often wish to be paid and if their contribution to the image is important it may be worth spending the money.
This is one of the categories most often underestimated. It is very easy for such costs to get quite out of hand. Production expenses relate specifically to travel, food and accommodation both at home and abroad. Home and abroad are divided so as to make currency conversion calculations easier.
Camera crews and production teams usually supply their own transport when on their own turf, the cost of which is included in the travel expenses they submit to the production. Production transport refers to those cases in which vehicles need to be hired so that the entire team can travel together—for instance when working in busy city streets with no parking facilities.
Excess baggage, often quite a large amount, refers to the cost of air transport of the filming equipment. This may be difficult to calculate accurately in advance, as the exact weight of the equipment needed cannot be known until the precise details of the filming have been worked out. Most airlines allow a certain weight of baggage per ticket. When travelling by air, it is usually most cost effective to pool all the baggage of both the crew and the production team and set the total weight against all the flight tickets together. In this way, each person’s allowance contributes to the whole. This cannot be estimated in advance either, so it is best to calculate what the excess baggage cost might be if the crew were taking a standard weight of equipment and there were no baggage allowance at all. In this way, the budget is likely to be over rather than underestimated.
Hospitality is a cost usually associated with expense-account staff of a broadcasting organization or major production company. However, while including a large amount for hospitality in the budget may be a questionable practice, film-makers will quite often find themselves in the position of being expected to buy someone a drink or take them out for a meal. There is no reason why the film-maker should be out of pocket as a result.
In some places also, palms need frequently to be greased in order to assure co-operation from officials, bureaucrats, even from policemen. An allowance should be made for ‘lubrication’, if working in a country in which this practice is accepted as the norm. It may not be morally admirable, but it may be essential if the documentarist is to succeed in filming at all.
Here are collected the overhead costs relating to the setting up and maintenance of the production office. How elaborate the infrastructure needs to be varies between both documentarist and project. Some film-makers, particularly when making one documentary at a time, are happiest working solo, operating entirely from their homes. Others with larger projects prefer to have the support of a team and rent an office to go to in the mornings.
Telephone, postage and photocopying costs as well as stationery and other consumables always need to be included. Charges for heating and lighting are often extra to the office rent and should be allowed for. Legal and accountancy fees may need to be paid to professionals responsible for advising on contracts and for auditing the accounts. These are unglamorous aspects of film making, but documentarists, particularly those with little experience, are well advised to seek professional assistance when dealing with their clients, who will nearly always be so represented. Such costs are legitimately part of the production budget.
A documentary film does not necessarily consist of footage shot in its entirety by the production team and containing no other elements. It is often necessary to buy in extra material, sometimes archive film, sometimes scenes from old movies, sometimes amateur videos. Even the recordings from surveillance cameras are occasionally put to use in documentary productions. Such material can vary in cost between next to nothing: duplication costs only, and hugely expensive: moments from Hollywood studio productions.
Historical documentaries often make use of old photographs or reproductions of works of art. The rights to show such images must almost always be purchased. Even when a famous painting, for example, is centuries out of copyright, a photographic reproduction of the work, made by the museum or gallery which owns it, will probably not be.
Anything written especially for the film comes under the heading of copyright costs. If the film-maker engages a writer to produce the commentary, this is the place to include it in the budget. Bought-in briefings on specialist subjects belong here too, as do translations, if any of the scenes are in a language foreign to film-maker or the intended audience.
Shooting film or video is often an intrusive activity, particularly when taking place in a private home. A film crew’s work can also carry a financial cost for the property owner, resulting from the use of electricity for lighting and of the telephone or other facilities. Occasionally damage can also be caused, in spite of every effort to be careful. It is customary to pay a—usually—small fee in compensation for the cost and disruption. Damage must, of course, be fully compensated. Commercial premises will usually levy a charge for the privilege of filming. Even filming in the open air on private land or in a public park may carry a cost. In some countries and cities permits must be purchased if there is to be any filming in public at all.
Costume and make-up, scenery, props and VisFX
Pure observational documentaries have not traditionally needed to budget for any of these facilities, which are more commonly associated with theatrical presentations. But as factual television programmes, particularly on historical subjects, now increasingly include dramatized scenes, costume and make-up are beginning to find a regular place in the documentary budget. Budgeting for drama is, however, beyond the scope of these notes, and documentarists who find they need to work with actors will be wise to consult film-makers experienced in fiction.
Dramatized scenes are not the only circumstances in which expenditure on costume and make-up turns out to be necessary. Presenters, for example, may wish to buy clothes specially for the production. In contrast to the usual gender stereotype, women presenters often supply their screen clothes from their own wardrobes; it is frequently the males who demand an expensive visit to the outfitters. Women fronting documentary productions usually look after their own make-up, while a male presenter may need the attentions of a professional to powder a shiny nose or spray-set unruly hair. The way a presenter looks on screen is the responsibility of the film-maker. If a particular image is wanted, the production may have to pay for it.
While props and visual effects (VisFX) are principally needed only in educational productions or for technical demonstrations, location scenery sometimes features in documentaries today. Films which include much interview material may prefer to have all contributors shown inhabiting an identical-looking set. Rather than bringing many interviewees to a single place—which may not be possible or financially feasible—one option is to take a single set to many locations. The word ‘set’ of course, covers a wide variety of possible constructions, from the simplest kind of plain backing to elaborate trompe-l’oeil scenery. While simple drapes can easily be erected on location by the production team, more complex constructions may need expert setting and striking by professional scenic crews.
A more common eventuality is the use of the blue screen technique—also known as CSO (Colour Separation Overlay) or Chromakey—which makes it possible to insert any desired background into blue areas of the picture during post-production. Many documentaries now use this technique to provide interviewees with a setting appropriate to the subject of their contribution. Some film-makers own their personal rectangle of blue felt, which they take on location with them. Great care needs to be taken to set up the blue screen without wrinkles or shadows, which would interfere with the later electronic switching of the image. If seriously large areas of blue screen are needed, the documentarist should budget for scenery professionals to do the work.
The filming schedule will say how many filming days will be included in the budget. The nature of the shooting will determine the size and the composition of the filming team.
The absolute minimum size of a video shooting crew working to professional standards with synchronous sound is two: one person to operate the camera, the other to control the recording of the sound (recorded onto the same tape as the picture), as well as to assist the camera operator when necessary. Unless the location sound is intended to be no more than a guide to the editor, a documentary will not use the sound automatically recorded by a camera-mounted microphone. On the other hand, for simple setups, lighting can often be undertaken by the photographer without the need for extra lighting personnel. Almost all video cameramen and -women as well as sound recordists will have and use their own equipment—camera, a simple lighting kit, sound mixer—for which they will charge a daily rental fee.
The minimum crew size needed for working with film is three. 35mm film, a very expensive medium, is now very rarely used in documentary work—and only for the most prestigious productions—but even shooting on 16mm film is a more elaborate enterprise than working on video. Given the greater cost, 16mm film is generally reserved for projects which aim for a higher level of production quality than video shooting. The operator of the camera will need an assistant, an extra pair of hands to load the camera magazines with film stock, operate the clapper-board, look after lenses and filters and undertake various other tasks which working in the medium of 16mm film rather than video demands. 16mm film sound is mixed and recorded onto a separate tape-recorder synchronized with the camera. The photographer may well own the camera itself, and the sound recordist the tape recorder and microphones. They will charge a daily rental fee. Extra equipment demanded by the shoot—special lenses, for example, or unusual filters—will need to be planned for in advance and hired from a specialist source, usually at a daily rate.
Should the shoot need special filming facilities—tracks perhaps, or other unusual camera mounts—an extra crew member, called a grips, must be budgeted for, together with the necessary gear. And some shoots may demand even more elaborate and expensive organization: a camera crane may be required, or even a helicopter or light aircraft.
It is exceptional for the project’s own photographer not to do all the shooting, though when shooting on film, a lighting cameraman or -woman may delegate to the assistant the actual operation of the camera. But certain kinds of filming may need extra camera staff. When the event to be filmed is large scale, complex and unrepeatable, it can sometimes be cost-effective, or even essential, to shoot with more than one camera at a time. While an assistant film photographer may be able to work a second camera for short periods, if such filming is to be extensive an additional operator will need to be taken on. The same applies when certain camera mounts are involved—the Steadycam, a stabilized hand-held camera mount, for example—which needs particular expertise to use. Slow-motion, highspeed, photomicrographic, infrared or other out of the ordinary techniques of shooting may need an experienced specialist to be added to the team.
Daily hiring rates vary widely among photographers and sound recordists, and all special or extra requirements will affect the filming costs. As with other staff, trade union agreements may be in force which limit the film-maker’s flexibility in striking a deal. A minimum rate may be specified as well as a maximum number of working hours per day; work beyond the union agreed limits may be subject to overtime payments. Documentarists will need to consult the proposed cameraman or -woman before drawing up the shooting budget.
This short word covers all the processes which take the raw footage captured by the camera through to the completed work. Editing inevitably comprises a series of highly technical processes, which the documentarist must understand to some degree in order to be able to work out this section of the budget. Calculating editing costs is further complicated by the differences between working on 16mm film or on videotape.
If editing on 16mm (or 35mm) film, the producer will hire a film editor, usually an assistant film editor too, and a cutting room. Many editors own or rent their own cutting rooms and work with one preferred assistant. They mostly offer an inclusive price per week for the complete package. If editing on video, the editor will almost always work solo, since most of the film jobs of synchronizing, logging and filing are not required.
The editing budget should include time for editing preparation. The necessary processes for 16mm film are the synchronizing, rubber numbering (printing code numbers along the edge of both picture and sound rolls, to help maintain synchronization) and logging of picture and sound rushes. For video edited by the ‘offline’ technique, no synchronising is needed, but the master tapes will first have to be sent for copying onto working cassettes with time-code visible on screen (‘burnt-in time-code’—BITC) or encoded as a machine-readable signal at the top of each frame (‘vertical-interval time-code’—VITC). Editing by the ‘non-linear’ or ‘virtual’ computerized method, spreads the preparation time throughout the editing period, as the video-tapes must be ‘digitized’ (transferred as a digital signal) onto the computer’s hard disk as and when the material is needed. Though the capacity of computer hard disks is continually increasing, few set-ups can today hold more than about twenty minutes of material at any one time. Thus non-linear editing may involve loading completed sequences onto permanent storage of some kind—writable video-disks are often used for this purpose—as well as digitizing rushes into the computer. Some editors engage an assistant to carry out this work overnight as, with current technology, these processes can only be done in ‘real time’; in other words, a one-hour tape will take one hour to digitize. Many non-linear editors also have working copies of the master tapes made before undertaking any other operations, to preserve the originals from possible wear and damage in the playback machine.
When editing on 16mm film is complete, the edited rushes (the ‘cutting-copy’) are sent off with the original negatives for negative-cutting. A specialist editor, again often working overnight, cuts shots from the rolls of negative and sticks them together exactly to match the cutting-copy, frame for frame. This edited negative is then sent to the laboratory to make the print. Edited film negatives are printed through a set of coloured filters, to allow shots made at different times and in different places to match in brightness, contrast, tone and hue. This process is called ‘grading’. The first ‘answer’ print returned by the laboratory is viewed by the film-maker and editor; any colour defects are noted and communicated to the lab. The grading of the next print is adjusted accordingly. Depending on how long the laboratory takes, perfecting the final ‘show’ print can stretch over many days, sometimes weeks. Some payment to the editor for this work, though it does not represent a continuous engagement, should be allowed for in the budget.
When working with video, the purpose is to create an ‘edit decision list’ (EDL), a list of the time-code at the start and at the end of every shot. If the off-line method is used, the list can be prepared manually—going through the edited tape and noting down the numbers on the screen (BITC). This list constitutes the instructions to the ‘on-line’ editor, who copy-edits the camera master-tapes onto the final master, a process known as conforming. One can buy computer software with which to record the list onto a computer floppy disk, which is then used to control the process automatically—auto-conforming. Preparation of an EDL can be achieved without human intervention by means of a device which reads the time-codes from the coded information at the top of the screen (VITC) and outputs the list onto a disk as well as onto a printed hard copy. An EDL on a disk, holding the instructions for autoconforming, is also the final product of non-linear computer editing.
All conforming must be done in ‘real time’ plus the time it takes to change from one source tape to another. If the conforming is to be done by a human on-line editor, each edit point must first be found, then rehearsed, perhaps adjusted and rehearsed again, then the edit made and finally reviewed. Creating the final master by this means is a time-consuming process; eight hours for a simple half-hour documentary is not too much. Some documentary makers prefer to work this way because it gives them the opportunity to make fine adjustments up to the last minute. Autoconforming reduces the time needed by at least a half and usually more than that, though having manually to change the source tapes between shots inevitably delays matters. It can sometimes help to speed the process, if material from a large number of different source tapes is copied onto a few compilation tapes first.
Methods of dealing with the production’s sound also range from the physical cutting of magnetic tape to the application of the latest digital electronics. Whichever path the film-maker chooses, the production’s images will be accompanied by a sound track, created by a dubbing mixer in a dubbing studio or theatre, from anything up to twenty-four or more separate sound tracks running in parallel. The tracks will carry the synchronous sounds of the shots themselves, all extra sound effects needed—some of them may well need to be specially recorded—plus any music which accompanies the pictures. Preparation of these tracks is called ‘track-laying’ and sufficient time must be allowed for it to be perfected, either by the main editor, or by a separately contracted sound editor. Once the production has been track-laid, a dubbing chart—instructions to the dubbing mixer relating to the bringing in, fading out and mixing of the sounds—will be drawn up. By tradition, commentary is recorded last of all and only added to the sound mix on top of the music and effects track (M and E) at the very end.
The editing and mastering of a documentary is a highly technical procedure and is yearly becoming more so. As the processes get ever more technological their requirements change; it is hard for film-makers to keep up with the latest developments. All documentary film-makers, not just those with little experience, are well advised to consult an editor before committing an editing budget estimate to paper.
This category of costs includes many which are often forgotten or can mount up quickly beyond expectation. Where the difference between a modest profit, breaking even, or making a loss on a production is small, stock, duplication, transfers and other such processes can easily swing the balance from plus to minus. Unfortunately, though there is little difficulty in estimating the total amount of stock to be used in collecting the material for a documentary—either rolls of 16mm film or video tapes—the number and kinds of transfers which will be needed are often hard to predict in advance.
The amount of shooting stock can be calculated using the projected shooting ratio: a half-hour documentary shot on 16mm film at a ratio of 10:1 will use roughly thirty ten-minute rolls of film—the standard load of a 16mm camera magazine. Developing the shot material and making the first rush print are, like almost all film-related processes, charged at a cost per foot of film. A foot of 16mm film represents 1.6 seconds of time. (Unfortunately a 35mm foot is different, running at 0.64 seconds per foot because, of course, it carries fewer, larger frames per unit length. To complicate matters still further, some 16mm film machinery only measures in 35mm, rather than 16mm, film feet.) Thus a more exact calculation shows that a thirty-minute production shot at 10:1 will in fact take 11,250 feet of 16mm film, which is just over twenty-eight 400-foot rolls. Answer prints and show prints, opticals and other effects are all calculated per foot of film. So is making duplicate footage (‘dupes’), such as are commonly made from the cutting copy (‘slash dupes’) after the editing is complete so that work on the sound may continue while the cutting copy itself is sent off for negative cutting.
Videotapes come in different lengths, though not all equipment is able to use all sizes. It is very much cheaper than 16mm film and, of course, needs no processing but allowance must be made for the production of viewing copies, usually on a domestic format of some kind, VHS for example. If incorporating tapes from other countries, a documentary maker should be aware that the way the colour signal is encoded on the tape varies from country to country. Three forms of encoding are currently in use: PAL as used in Britain, SECAM as used in France, and NTSC as used in the United States. Conversion from one standard to another can be expensive.
Under graphics are classified those elements of a documentary that put images on the screen derived from sources other than location shooting with a film or video camera. Some kinds of graphics work, however, particularly those used for opening title sequences can involve the shooting of models, sets and sometimes even live location action by the graphics designer rather than by the film-maker responsible for the overall production. The graphics designer is often given the task of looking after all aspects of the production that relate to its graphical style.
Graphics work is often very expensive. Title sequences can occasionally cost almost as much as the rest of the film put together. The designer’s fee is usually calculated by the day, sometimes by the hour. Additional costs run up by the graphics design process—illustration, model building, special film or video effects—are charged separately. Graphics artists are well used to working to a given amount of expenditure; the graphics budget is best discussed directly with the designer before settling on a figure.
If still photographs of a location are needed for inclusion in a documentary, the stills photographer will be booked by the day to accompany the shooting crew. Stills have to be recorded onto tape or film before they can be edited into the production. The procedure is undertaken with a rostrum camera, a camera fixed in a rig which can be controlled, zoomed, moved in and out or side to side, with great precision—these days mostly by computer. This is necessary as still photographs, either prints or transparencies, are physically small in size yet may be required to occupy the whole screen. It is not advisable to try to save money by shooting the stills with the main location camera, as manual operation does not provide the required control.
Screen captions made up of letters or figures—for use in credit title sequences or for the identification of speakers—were formerly created as optical effects on film but are now almost invariably generated by caption generating machines and superimposed on the screen image at the last stage of video-editing. A production all on film will usually be recorded onto videotape for this purpose. A specialist operator, who is familiar with the particular machine in use, will also have to be booked. Most editing suites have a caption generator permanently installed, but an additional charge is commonly levied for its use.
Computer graphics, where required, can be the most expensive of all production processes. Computer animation, particularly if photo-realism is called for, occupies expensive hardware for long periods of time. Such animations are designed as wire-frame images, showing only the outlines, and then filled in or ‘rendered’ as the final process. With current technology this monopolizes the computer hardware for many hours, sometimes even days. As with so many other categories in the budget, the only way to estimate the cost of computer graphics work with any degree of accuracy is to discuss the needs of the production with a computer graphics facility company before committing to a figure.
Music for a documentary can come from commercially available recordings or it can be specially composed. Many familiar title themes have been taken from commercial recordings. All such recordings, whether specially issued for use in films (‘mood’ music) or released into the general entertainment market, will have to be paid for at some time—often by the broadcaster as part of an annual payment to an appropriate rights organization. This, of course, shifts the burden of the cost from the documentary budget to the commissioning organization.
Specially composed music has the advantage of originality and being created to fit exactly to the documentary’s various timings and atmospheres. It is, however, relatively expensive.
If music is composed for live performance and recording, musicians will have to be engaged and a recording studio hired together with its staff. If only one or two musicians are involved, there are few complications. If more players are needed, the usual procedure is to engage a musical director (the conductor) who takes on a ‘fixer’, who in turn selects the individual musicians making up the band. Musicians’ contracts for productions to be broadcast on television are in most countries subject to union agreements. The number of hours which constitute a session are generally rigidly adhered to. It is commonly forbidden for music from a single session to be used in more than one production; in the case of a series, each episode must have its own music recording session. Such agreements change all the time and a film-maker should make enquiries as to the present situation before committing him- or herself to the budget.
The music is recorded with the musicians—or at least the musical director—watching the pictures, so that exact timings can be maintained. Not surprisingly, a number of attempts may be needed to get this right. A common estimate for music of any complexity is that a two-minute title theme takes a single four-hour session to record. Incidental music, which may need slightly less precision, can be accomplished in rather less time. But if the music involves a number of musicians, is in any way difficult, or needs any kind of adjustment, five minutes of finished recording is all that can realistically be expected from a four-hour session.
An alternative approach is to commission the score from a composer of electronic music, who will create the entire sound (or sometimes just most of it) using an electronic synthesizer or sampler, and will record the mixed and layered result directly onto a digital audio tape. This can then be synchronized to the picture during the sound dubbing process. The advantages of absolute accuracy and relatively low cost may be offset by the synthetic sound quality of the result, though this may be entirely appropriate for some kinds of production. Care should be taken since in some countries union agreements require that a single electronic composer taking the place of five live musicians must be paid five times the single session performance fee.