That's... That's actually a damn good time conversion. Damn good. Heck, the rule of thumb for just editing is that a highly competent, experienced, professional editor can produce one minute of finished product for every three hours of work.
It's like said- it's not a very complicated script. One actor, one location. If we're lucky and we don't get any tech hiccups (which we will), we should be able to get all the filming done in it three days.
I'm going to be directing, filming, and editing it (as well as having written the script; it
is an independent film, after all) and while I don't know about "highly competent, experienced, professional editor", I DO have experience in all of of those aspects. I want to finish the script by next weekend, and once I've filmed it, I'll probably spend the next week after that editing it. If nothing unexpected happens, I want to have it finished by the end of September. If you watch what it's based on, "Prebloc", you'll see why it can be done so quickly. After all, Prebloc was the winner of a 72-hour short film contest. (As in, they had 72 hours to write and produce it. Although my take on the idea is going to take about as much time, it's going to much more spread out.)
And, honestly, I'm sure I low-balled the time estimate. I always do. It generally takes me 10-15 hours to write, shoot, and edit one minute of screen time, but given the simplicity of the script it won't quite be that time-consuming.
Just for your general nerd-knowledge, I'll be editing on my
laptop, using
Adobe Premiere CS5 (I don't have a Mac to get Final Cut Pro, or I would) and shooting it with
this beauty.