[Archive 2008-04-11] Wikinews interviews Jeremy Hanke, editor of MicroFilmmaker Magazine

Historical archive — originally published 2008-04-11. This report records what was known on that date. It is not current news; subsequent events may have changed the situation. Wikinews closed in May 2026.

Wikinews held an exclusive interview with Jeremy Hanke, editor of MicroFilmmaker Magazine. The magazine, which is free to read online, was started as a resource for the low budget moviemaker and features book, independent film, equipment and software reviews as well as articles on film distribution, special effects and lighting.

When asked if films made on a shoestring budget can really compete with those made for millions of dollars, he replied, "no…yes…and absolutely. Allow me to explain." And so he does in the interview below.

((Wikinews (Joseph Ford))) Why was MicroFilmmaker Magazine started? How does it help the thousands of independent filmmakers out there with big ideas and little cash?

Mr. Hanke: As a budding low-budget filmmaker at the beginning of the new millenia, I found that it was very hard to find anyone who had practical articles on making films as professional as possible with little money. Most of the video and film magazines would talk about equipment that could range from $10,000 - $30,000 apiece, which clearly was out of the $7K budget for my first film, which had come from scrimping and saving while working as a commissioned computer salesman. As I did more research, I discovered that statistically, as many as 70%-80% of all Indie films were being made for less than $30,000, which, obviously, my first film’s budget definitely fell into. Hollywood considers anything below $100,000 to have such a low budget that it’s considered a no-budget film. Because of that low regard, no one was wasting their time making magazines or websites designed to help these less-than-no-budget filmmakers, despite the fact that they were (and are becoming even more) the majority of filmmakers in the world.

With no publicized help, I made my first two feature films over the course of four years with XL-1s and other equipment borrowed from local colleges, utilizing helpers that were of extremely varied experiences and drive. In the process, I learned a pile of things through hard knocks.

After these films were mostly completed, I remember looking online for any new sites that might have cropped up devoted to low-budget filmmaking. That’s when I found some devoted to microcinema—a boutique-style of video-making that’s largely composed of home videos and short parodies that are meant to be shared with friends and neighbors. The term originated in San Francisco and was designed to be similar to the micro-brewery movement, which encouraged home brews that were shared in communities. The concepts of a community of sharing and the emphasis on low-budgets were an encouragement for us, but most microcinema never tried to look professional or strove for high standards, so it fell short of the sort of help I was looking for.

Shortly after that, I found a company called Redrock Micro, which had built a 35mm lens adapter for less than $1K which allowed low-budget filmmakers to get film-like depth of field from $2000-$4000 cameras and SLR lenses. This was about 15 times cheaper than the closest competitor from P+S Technik. Not only that, but they had such a passion for low-budget filmmakers, that they were offering kits with plans and a key part so you could build your own 35mm adapter for $45. I was so blown away by an equipment manufacturer caring that much about low-budget filmmakers that it inspired me to create the first magazine aimed specifically to help other ultra-low budget filmmakers who had to struggle as much as I did.

As you can imagine, the name “MicroFilmmaker” came from a combination of the word “Microcinema” (with its low budgets and community approach) and Filmmaking (which we specifically chose over “videomaking,” because we feel that filmmaking is able to be accomplished with any medium, since “films” are a product, not a recording medium).

As I inferred, I wanted to connect low-budget filmmakers via a feeling of community, as many low-budget filmmakers often compete so viciously against one another in film festivals for coveted “shots” with Hollywood, that they can quickly forget their similarities. (We also wanted to remind them that low-budget filmmakers actually substantially outnumber their counterparts in Hollywood, which can be an amazing source of power if we all work together, rather than in isolated groups.) The best way we saw to do this was by providing a vast resource library of articles on low-budget filmmaking with a serious eye for stretching a dollar, in-depth reviews of software and equipment specifically evaluated from a low-budget perspective, DIY tutorials on building helpful equipment, listings of special readers-only discounts of different products, and an area for finding fully deferred musicians and score composers for your films.

Of course, one of the most unique things at MFM is something no other magazine offers: in-depth critiques of current low-budget films by trained low-budget directors and producers to help filmmakers become better at their craft. This last piece of our magazine’s offerings is the only thing that we charge any money for, because it is so specialized to a specific filmmaker’s film. (Although there is a charge, the amount is no more than the cost of a submission to a film festival with shorts running $25 and feature-length films running $50, which is used to provide a small reimbursement to the critic for their hard, detailed work and is substantially less than the $300-$500 most film analysis companies charge.)

Source and licence

Text adapted from Wikinews interviews Jeremy Hanke, editor of MicroFilmmaker Magazine by Wikinews contributors under CC BY 2.5. Paragraphs have been selected and abridged, and formatting adjusted. Contributor history.