As I pointed out before, I know that my own approach may not be the best for someone else (and may not even continue to be the best for me in the future).  For example, getting the highest possible image quality for a production would really require shooting it on film.  (High definition video is starting to arrive, but for now only someone like Mr. Lucas seems able to afford it.)  At the other extreme, if you can get along with a "home video" look (such as Blair Witch used to advantage), maybe even High 8 would do. 

The point is that you don't want to blindly try to duplicate someone else's success.  Everyone has different circumstances, different goals, different resources.  A better idea is to find out why someone else used a particular method, and then see if it might work for you, considering what you have available.  And once you have some ideas, you can try them out in an experiment or two - the more, the better! 

Nothing illustrates this better, I think, than the way Robert Rodriguez shot El Mariachi.  He took stock of his resources - a 16mm camera he could borrow, a ranch, a guitar, a turtle - and then made his movie around them.  Thus he maximized his use of what was available at little or no cost, and minimized necessary expenditures (primarily for film).  He also built on a considerable base of experience in making short films - he knew what would work, what wouldn't, and could devise his own unorthodox (but feasible) methods.  He estimated that if he had shot his film the "textbook" way (with synch sound, edited on film instead of videotape, etc.) it would have cost closer to $20,000 than $7,000. 
  
The Long Haul 

While we're on the subject of money, it's a sad fact that movies, even micro-budget movies, are expensive to make.  So it might be wise to take into account the possibility of failure.  In other words, you might not want to plow so much money into your first feature that you won't be able to try again for a long, long time - if it should happen to crash and burn. 

I realize that might seem defeatist.  But is it really?  I know of all kinds of movies shot for $15,000, $20,000, $30,000 and up (far up), each made with every hope of success, maybe even getting some good showings at festivals - which end up never being heard of again.  Just consider Blair Witch; the general reaction to it at Sundance was not exactly favorable, and when Artisan Entertainment bought it for a million dollars, most insiders thought they were crazy.  The commercial end is so fraught with uncertainty that a movie can sink without a trace or do $100,000,000 at the box office. 

So if you want to be in it for the long haul, you might want to plan for taking a failure or two in stride.  And unfortunately, first movies most often seem to be failures.  (There's a lot more to making a feature than a camera and lights; little things like acting and a storyline, to mention a couple, and it might take some practice to get them right.)  If you lose a thousand or two on a movie, you'll probably be able to try again in short order; but will you have the resources (or maybe even more importantly, the heart), if you lose $30,000? 

Just something to keep in mind. 
  
Ad Astra 

Still, no matter how unlikely success is, no matter how long our shot ... we're going to try.  Aren't we. 

For whatever reason (and there are probably as many reasons as there are movie makers), we have no other choice.  We have to get our visions up on the screen. 

Because it's the most glorious thing in the world. 
  
The best of luck to all of us!  
  
--MAS