RIP celluloid for lower end indie production

[Guest J Jukuzami]

To Ashley and other low end indie filmmakers:

 

Ashley,

 

You're talking here to the crowd that is pushing 100 year old technology that is just about to die when it comes to low cost indie filmmaking. And practicvally all the people on this board do mainly low cost indie filmmaking; some actually don't, just wih they did. I've done indie filmmaking for years, but not as a DP, although I've done my own photography once.

 

Here are the new high definition developments that are current or about to be introduced:

-New fast PC's and software based nearly transparent compression

-low cost high capacity hard drives and hard drive arrays for compressed and uncompreaased production and postproduction

-inexpensive 10 bit NLEs

-new low cost cameras

-growing number of theaters with digital projection

 

In a matter of months you will be able to buy a $30K production and postproduction system that will be 1080/24p and will allow the biggest theater screen presentation. It will include one of the low cost HD cameras that are now under development, and Prospect HD. $60K system will at that time allow supper high quality. $120K system will allow the highest quality production.

 

These people here will be talking to you about 35 mm quality and IMAX quality, but ask them what they shoot most. It is DV. Same as Blair Witch Project.

 

See Once Upon a Time in Mexico. That is the quality you get with the $60K digital production and postproduction system. The people on this board will put it down, because they claim that 35 mm is better. Unfortunately the number of them who have ever shot a 35 mm feature is so negigible. Ask who shoots DV. Almost all the hands will go up. Then they will start badmouthing HD. 1080p HD looks sharper than film because of the lack of grain. DV looks like s**t.

 

1080p HD does not have the resolution of film, but by the time you get to optical projection, the resolution is about equal. You will hear screams here that you need to start with the highest possible resolution. With film, yes. But HD is a transparent medium and it does not degrade like film with each generation.

 

These people will scream that you need to show film optically. Ask them what is the percentage of films they made that was successful to have a wide distribution. Close to zero, probably from thousands they made. So it only makes sense not to make optical prints on the beginning but to show your film digitally. Only if it shows a strong potential for a wide release, you need to worry about optical prints. Your distributor will at that time pick up the tab. :D

[Guest J Jukuzami]

I have posted under this name and under Ultra Definition. My girlfriend was playing with the account. She was trying to upgrade it. Ultra Definiton then quit working. I was gone for a while because of a production.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

In a matter of months you will be able to buy a $30K production and postproduction system that will be 1080/24p and will allow the biggest theater screen presentation.

 

My Nizo Super 8 camera is also capable of " the biggest theater screen presentation.", but as Slick Willy once put it, "that depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is..."

 

The fact remains the same, every time something "drops in price" and becomes more accessible to indie filmmakers, there is always the next greatest thing up on the ladder that costs considerably more and that the professionals are going to adopt, and therefore set a new benchmark to compete against. So either way, the dream many digital filmmakers have of one day being able to have a completely level playing field with the high end pro gear is really naive. The moment indie filmmakers will be able to afford 1080 24p cameras, there will be something with twice the resolution and a greater dynamic range that will be the new benchmark - so your 1080 24p images will already be blah in comparison.

 

Manufacturers aren't stupid, they're not going to sell a $100,000 camera for $20,000 if they know they can get away with selling it for $100,000 for a few years still. The reason these prices heavily drop usually is because the next greatest thing is on the way, and when that new product emerges they will price it accordingly - in other words, high - and the older techology/standard will become more affordable. The idea here is that George Lucas and you will never be shooting the same digital camera. He's always got the money for the latest and greatest - and you don't.

 

Either way I wouldn't be caught dead investing in any serious video gear right now. Film has been around for over 100 years and the modern slate of filmstocks really rock. Independent filmmakers can now shoot a film without worrying as much about light as they once had to (I pity those indie filmmakers who back in the 70's tried to shoot on Ektachrome Commercial with its 25 asa rating). I'm editing my 35mm feature right now on the same computer I'm using to write this, with a cheap DV camcorder as my source deck. I can handhold my camera, I can take it into places with little or no lighting, I can do almost anything that a digital camera can do with it. What more can an indie filmmaker ask?

 

To me its obvious - the marriage of the digital and film is still the best formula for success. Digital is great for handling the media (editing for instance) and doing special effects, film is optimal for capturing the images and for projecting them on a large screen. That will change one day, but if Kodak continues to move along with newer emulsions that kick ass, and if the digital techology still doesn't mature to equal even the earlier filmstocks in lines per MM and dynamic range, we will be shooting film, indies and pro's alike, for years to come still.

 

- G.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Your distributor will at that time pick up the tab.

 

Oh sure they will. I don't understand where this conventional piece of wisdom came about, but that's not a rule like many people say it is. Even if they'll "pick up the tab", that often comes at a high cost to you because the distributor is taking an additional financial risk towards your film. You have more leverage and bargaining power if all your elements are in place, or at the very least you have a cut negative, versus waiting for them to say "Oh sure, you have such a great movie we're going to set you all up and give you the best deal..."

 

By the way, it's interesting that your girlfriend is so into this stuff that she also comes here and posts...

 

- G.

[Brad Grimmett]

I've done indie filmmaking for years, but not as a DP, although I've done my own photography once.

 

I'M SHOCKED! I FIGURED YOU WERE A BIG NAME DP.

 

These people here will be talking to you about 35 mm quality and IMAX quality, but ask them what they shoot most. It is DV. Same as Blair Witch Project.

 

FIRST OF ALL, BLAIR WITCH DIDN'T SHOOT ON DV AT ALL. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

ALSO, THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE THAT FREQUENT THIS BOARD THAT WORK WITH FILM ALL THE TIME. I WORK WITH 35MM AND 16MM AND SUPER16 JUST AS MUCH AS I WORK WITH HD AND DV. IF YOU PAID ATTENTION TO ANY OF THE OTHER POSTS ON THIS BOARD BESIDES YOUR OWN, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT.

 

See Once Upon a Time in Mexico. That is the quality you get with the $60K digital production and postproduction system. The people on this board will put it down, because they claim that 35 mm is better. Unfortunately the number of them who have ever shot a 35 mm feature is so negigible.

 

YOU'VE GOTTA BE KIDDING ME! LOOK UP SOME OF THE NAMES YOU SEE HERE ON THE IMDB AND YOU'LL FIND THAT YOU ARE WAY OFF. MANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM HAVE SHOT MANY FILMS ON 35MM, AND CONTINUE TO DO SO. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE ALL THE CRAP YOU'RE SPOUTING, OR ARE YOU JUST A LIAR?

 

Ask who shoots DV. Almost all the hands will go up. Then they will start badmouthing HD. 1080p HD looks sharper than film because of the lack of grain. DV looks like s**t.

 

JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE THINKS FILM LOOKS BETTER THAN DV OR HD DOESN'T MEAN THEY DON'T SHOOT DV OR HD SOMETIMES. SOMETIMES THE LOOK IS RIGHT FOR THE PROJECT, AND SOMETIMES THE PRODUCER FORCES DV OR HD ON THEM BECAUSE OF BUDGETARY REASONS.

I THINK YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT YOU PROBABLY DON'T DO THIS FOR A LIVING AND THEREFORE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE WORK AS IT COMES. SURE, MANY OF US WOULD PREFER TO SHOOT 35MM ALL THE TIME, BUT WHEN BILLS NEED TO BE PAID AND MOUTHS NEED TO BE FED, WE WORK WITH WHATEVER WE CAN AND MAKE THE BEST OF IT.

 

Only if it shows a strong potential for a wide release, you need to worry about optical prints. Your distributor will at that time pick up the tab. :D

 

THIS IS THE EXCEPTION FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

HOW CAN YOU BE SO OBVIOUSLY FAR REMOVED FROM ACTUAL FILM PRODUCTION, BUT PRETEND TO KNOW THE FUTURE? ALL THIS CRAP YOU CONTINUE TO SPOUT ON AND ON ABOUT IS LUDICROUS. BUT I GUESS IGNORANCE IS BLISS. I HOPE YOU SAVE YOUR POSTS AND GO BACK AND READ THEM IN TEN YEARS. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT NOT ONLY IS FILM STILL IN USE, BUT IT'S STILL THE MEDIUM USED TO SHOOT MOST MOVIES.

My response is in bold within your quoted post.

[Mitch Gross]

I have posted under this name and under Ultra Definition. My girlfriend was playing with the account. She was trying to upgrade it. Ultra Definiton then quit working. I was gone for a while because of a production.

Well at least you've finally come out of hiding and admitted it. It would have been easy enough to email Tim and ask him to adjust your account. And you could simply list your actual name at the bottom of each and every one of your posts. But I guess that has nothing to do with your use of these various names and accounts on this and other places on the internet.

 

Tell you what: I'm willing to bet you $1000 cold hard American cash that no feature motion picture is captured and posted in the way you describe with the digital projection in the next year. That's 365 days starting right now, and that movie has to be playing to paying audiences come May 26, 2005. Anything else and it's no go.

 

Your ill-informed HD spouting will never bear fruit in this time. Either put up or shut up. I just had a conversation with someone about shooting a movie on S-16 film for $20,000! Crazy low for sure, but people are shooting film every day. And they're shooting the current state of HD technology every day. And absolutely no one is shooting what you propose unless they're absolutely clueless.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

Why would the manufacturers make $20K HD cameras? They are already and have sold some already. Check the news releases.

 

I never said that I and Lucas will be shooting with the same camera. But I will be soon working on a production with a better camera than F900 recorded to tape.

 

My first camera was Nizo 560. You can compare the final Super 8 mm release print resolution to DV, not even to SD. Add the wow and flutter and hiss of the Super 8. Super 8 is dead for all real purposes. Occassionl us means nothing. Why would someone, or nearly someone, use Super 8 if the DVX is a better choice for most productions.

 

So if Blair Witch was not made on DV, then what, Digital 8? Pretty pathetic either way.

 

If your film is a guaranteed commercial success that a distributor will make good $ on, you will find someone to pick up your release print tab. You can demonstrate that success by showing it digitally first. Soon there will be no other way to think about doing it on all lower to medium budget digital indie productions.

 

$20K Super 16 production? Why not? I think it's better to do DVX production and will use the leftover money to pay for something more than just film stock. But then, each production is different.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

I don't think anyone in this forum should respond to this guy's posts any longer. His sole purpose here is to stir poop up with people whose sole purpose is to make great images in the most appropriate way with the best available tools.

 

STOP RESPONDING TO THIS GUY

 

I do think he should get some balls and share his real name. That way we can all look for mention of his success in the trades.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

Eric Steelberg, I don't care if you reply to my posts or not. But when you post something, try to say the truth, or if you don't know the facts, don't make untrue comments. Most of the people don't understand HD and may believe you. Realize that you are a photographer and that a lot of these issues are engineering in nature and you don't understand them. I work with both DPs and engineers and have a lot better overall understanding of the HD stuff than you. Have to catch the plane; have just received a call. Have a great fun with your Russan hand cranked Krasnojarsk. Don't forget to vote for Bush, the president. Try to see something positive in the Micael Moore film, and in HD too. Maybe one day you will make a successful film with a wide distribution. Until then, pray a lot.

[Mitch Gross]

I don't care if you reply to my posts or not. But when you post something, try to say the truth, or if you don't know the facts, don't make untrue comments.

Interesting, considering all the untrue and innaccurate comments you make. An example from this very post.

 

"Have a great fun with your Russan hand cranked Krasnojarsk."

 

It's not a hand-cranked camera. It is spring-wound. And you spelled it wrong.

[Brad Grimmett]

So if Blair Witch was not made on DV, then what, Digital 8? Pretty pathetic either way.

What's really pathetic is that you spout off a bunch of crap and you don't have any clue what you're talking about.

[Brad Grimmett]

Eric Steelberg, I don't care if you reply to my posts or not. But when you post something, try to say the truth, or if you don't know the facts, don't make untrue comments.

Don't you mean to say, "Do as I say, not as I do"?

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Eric Steelberg, I don't care if you reply to my posts or not. But when you post something, try to say the truth, or if you don't know the facts, don't make untrue comments.

 

SUCH AS?

 

Most of the people don't understand HD and may believe you. Realize that you are a photographer and that a lot of these issues are engineering in nature and you don't understand them.

 

REALLY? I DIDN'T KNOW THAT SHOOTING AND DISTRIBUTING A FILM IS NOW CONSIDERED ENGINEERING. THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP. I WAS WONDERING WHY ALL FILM SCHOOL STUDENTS ARE CHANGING THEIR MAJORS TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING.

 

I work with both DPs and engineers and have a lot better overall understanding of the HD stuff than you.

 

I UNDERSTAND WHAT I NEED TO UNDERSTAND...HD IS TECHNICALLY NOT AS GOOD IN IMAGE AQUISITION AS FILM RIGHT NOW, PERIOD. PROVE ME WRONG WITH YOUR VAST ENGINEERING KNOWELDGE. WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY ALL THE CABLES, WHY ALL THE CALIBRATION AND MENUS, WHY THE SCOPES, WHY NO VARIABLE FRAME RATES OR RAMPING, WHY BACKFOCUS, WHY SUCH SMALL CHIPS, WHY DO THEY SHUT DOWN IN WITH ELEVATED HUMIDITY, WHY IS IT LOUDER (900) WHEN RUNNING, WHY DID MY AC HAVE 4 CAMERAS CRAP OUT ON HIM DURING A SHOOT IN THE DESERT, AND WHY THE HARSH SHOULDER IN THE HIGHLIGHTS?

 

Have to catch the plane; have just received a call. Have a great fun with your Russan hand cranked Krasnojarsk.

 

GOT RID OF IT A LONG TIME AGO. AND IT'S SPRING WOUND...VALUABLE WHEN BATTERIES WOULD DIE. WILL YOUR MYTHICAL $20k HD CAMERA DO THAT?

 

Don't forget to vote for Bush, the president. Try to see something positive in the Micael Moore film, and in HD too.

 

I SEE PLENTLY POSITIVE IN MOORE'S FILMS. UNFORTUNATELY I ALSO SEE HIM DISTORTING SOME FACTS TO FIT HIS OPINIONS.

 

Maybe one day you will make a successful film with a wide distribution.

 

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT.

 

Until then, pray a lot.

 

I'LL PRAY THAT NEW FILMMAKERS READING YOUR POSTS DON'T TAKE YOUR ADVICE WHICH IS BASED ON FICTION.

My replies are in bold.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I'LL PRAY THAT NEW FILMMAKERS READING YOUR POSTS DON'T TAKE YOUR ADVICE WHICH IS BASED ON FICTION

 

Which is the only reason I even bother to reply.

 

Who ever you are Mr. Ultra Def, I've given game to your topics but I see this as a waste of time.

 

My friendly advice to you is to stop posting here and simply go out and shoot your HD masterpieces (or rather, wait for that $30,000 package to become affordable for you). You're obviously happy with it so much, it works for you, so use it. I'd be glad to see you posting samples of your work for us to see how crafty you are.

 

But don't go on a preaching rampage here. We've heard your argument to death, it's recorded in Google history, now leave it alone - otherwise you're suggesting to us that you have no real work and this is your primary means of entertainment.

 

Your knowlege of film and filmmaking seems awfully minimal and seems to have no backing in experience, i.e. using "wow and flutter" to discuss Super 8 images. We can see you talk the talk but it's fairly obvious to all here that you don't walk the walk. Enough said.

 

- G.

[Nate Downes]

if you have flitter with your Super8 I would recommend a) returning your malfunctioning cart to Kodak for replacement (they were having issues with the carts that would cause a flitter or jitter, corrected with the newest carts) or B) replacing your camera with a more modern and high end Super8 such as the Canon XL series. Running the latest Super8 stock with the high end cameras and a competent operator, Super8 is quite remarkable.

 

As for Blair Witch, they show you the cameras used *IN* the movie and you still don't know what they used? Come on man, heres $5, buy a clue. (or a copy of Blair Witch and watch the damned thing)

 

What I see here is someone living in a fantasy world, more akin to an Amiga fanatic than someone that actually lives in the real world. Face up, people here can and do use both film *and* video for their work. Use the right tool for the job.

[Mike Brennan]

This clarification regarding Blair Witch from another forum. Blair Witch 2 used digibeta.

 

And in case you were wondering... there is a common misconception that the video portions of The Blair Witch Project were shot on Mini-DV. Neal L. Fredericks, DoP on the project, sets the record straight:

 

"Not one frame of The Blair Witch Project's(TBWP) video portions was taped on a Canon or Sony mini-dv camera. In actuality the video portions of TBWP were taped on the lowest quality RCA hi-8mm camcorder. The directors specifically wanted the video to look video.

 

The film portions of TBWP were photographed on a Cinema Products CP-16A 16mm motion picture camera."

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Neal Fredericks]

some other interesting facts...Artisan insisted in putting in as much of the 16mm footage as possible to combat the video portions of the film...i must say though the transfer and blow-up to 35mm looked great considering everything...

 

i am still amazed how good the hi-8mm video looks....

 

i DP all the formats but always defer to film...the last 5 features i've DPed have been 35mm (4) and 16mm (1)...

 

i have DPed many features on video and most are at Blockbuster so go check out the final distribution quality...i do feel that the ones shot on film tend to survive the post/mastering madness of distribution...

 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0292864/

 

the ones shot on tape seem to get less attention from the distributor and not much post-quality control is extended...

[Jim Gauthier]

more akin to an Amiga fanatic than someone that actually lives in the real world

 

Hey! I resemble that remark! I actually still have an Amiga in the studio (haven't powered it up in over a year) but just hate to see it go. But then again, if super 8 can make a comeback, maybe the Amiga will too!

[Guest J Jukuzami]

Super 8 is not making any comback; it never died off completely.

[Rob Belics]

I believe Kodak's Super8 sales have increased according to Mr. Pytlak. (Sorry John if I misremember).

[Nate Downes]

more akin to an Amiga fanatic than someone that actually lives in the real world

 

Hey! I resemble that remark! I actually still have an Amiga in the studio (haven't powered it up in over a year) but just hate to see it go. But then again, if super 8 can make a comeback, maybe the Amiga will too!

Depends what you mean by "An Amiga." If you haven't followed up with the current development in the community:

 

1) Amiga, Inc sold all rights it has to the Amiga to another company, KMOS, in order to protect them from being lost in the upcoming bankrupcy. (this move may actually cause the rights to be completely lost)

 

2) The brand name Amiga has been applied to a 3rd party motherboard, rechristened the AmigaONE. The board went on sale 4 years ago, shipped last year (3 years of pre-orders, yes) and is still waiting for an OS for it. (AmigaOS 4.0 was due to be released in Nov 2001, as of today, only an early beta has appeared on developers desktops)

 

3) The designers of the PowerPC accelerator card for classic Amigas built their own PowerPC motherboard called the Pegasos and developed a clone OS, called MorphOS, that runs Amiga applications that don't rely on the custom chipset. (Amiga, Inc destroyed the fabs able to produce the chipset in 2000)

 

So, by Amiga do you mean something from Amiga, Inc, a trademark put onto a motherboard, or a machine able to run Amiga apps? I happen to own a Pegasos, and love the thing. My Athlon collects dust now.

[Rob Belics]

Film never struggles to look just like video.

[Sam Wells]

I happen to own a Pegasos, and love the thing.

You'll edit your movie on it and show it at Landmark Theaters :D

[Nate Downes]

I happen to own a Pegasos, and love the thing.

You'll edit your movie on it and show it at Landmark Theaters :D

Let me first *make* a movie, ok? I'm still not confident enough in my skills, so I have about 10 shorts I'm preparing to make atm.