Given that it would only take a few bucks to make back the processing cost of a two-reeler and that the films were rented out to theaters for a couple weeks before they were shipped by rail to the next venue, you could make back your negative cost on a short film within a couple weeks if it were even marginally successful.

Early production companies had actors on salary, sets built so that they could be used over and over, and costumes that could be modified with a few ribbons or a minute with a needle and thread.

In the earliest days, they didn't even use artificial lighting. Some of the sets were built on rotating platforms so they could follow the sunlight. The location films used whatever light or weather was available, with the added use of reflectors or mirrors or umbrellas when needed. It is said that the great exodus from New York to California was sparked by the availability of sunshine of a greater intensity and longevity. This is only partially true, but I won't get into the economics and politics and crime that also necessitated a move. That's for another entry.

D.W. Griffith was supposedly the first director to build a movie that gobbled up a million dollars. The sets and costumes alone in his historical epics would siphon off half that amount. He also had a tendency to shoot way more film than he actually needed, using second, third and fourth unit production crews to shoot different angles simultaneously or different parts of the script. His use of thousands of costumed extras alone rang up a large food and lodging bill.

Douglas Fairbanks was supposedly the first Actor/Producer to spend two million dollars on a single film, "The Thief of Baghdad". I've seen it recently and I believe it was worth every penny. The sets alone would make David Lean or Fellini green with envy.