I believe I read somewhere that Tommy Wisneau shot the film in "Hi-Def" and "Standard-Def", which in itself isn't odd, but he purchased the actual cameras he used to shoot the film. Apparently, they (the cameras) are very, very expensive pieces of equipment. The article stated that most directors rent their cameras for a fixed period of time to cut down on costs.
I still find it hard to believe (especially in light of the generous use of "B" roll, even though Tommy is in some of the shots) that The Room cost six millions dollars to make. I think Tommy probably spent some dough on marketing and sent a little cash overseas to gather "interest"...
Yeah, like I said, the more I read, it seems that he just failed miserably. I mean for a movie, 6 million isn't that much and is actually a pretty good budget, however he certainly way overpaid for the product he got. According to the Wikipedia article (referencing an interview with either the guy who played Steven or Mark, I can't remember at the moment), he bought a "complete director's kit" along with a $30,000 digital camera and then used the 35mm camera he bought in the kit and the digital camera both to shoot the entire film. He also had a huge crew that he shuffled in and out people from (I think I read there were 3 shake-ups of the offscreen crew). It also apparently paid very well as the guy who played Steven said the checks were quite good and weekly. The reason I guess the acting turned out so poorly is just that you can't do anything with what was written (some of the dialogue was rewritten on set because the previous lines were "unsayable"), and Wiseau was a very demanding director but couldn't explain what he wanted other than "do it this way," which I guess didn't come across that well...
So anyway, I can see him spending that much just because he didn't really know what he was doing and didn't know what it would turn out like (in which case he probably could have taken the millions he earned in jacket importing and invest it in something more successful)...