Javier Calderon

David, I hear the Kras is a decent starter camera, but - admitting that I've never used it - I've heard that some of them can have pretty bad registration and your film will look pretty darn jumpy. I don't think it would be the greatest sound sync camera either as they might be somewhat noisy. As I mentioned above, the Eclair ACL is reputed to one of if not the best cameras for sound sync in the 2-4 thousand dollar area. Anything else (Arri, etc) you'll be looking at $10K and up. A LOT of movies have been shot with Bolexes . . . but I hear they sound like lawn mowers . . . Obviously, however, it's possible to shoot features w/them, since it's been done so often.

Okay, Ole. This russian Kinor, from your description of it, sounds almost too good to be true. How does it sound? Is it quiet enough to do sync sound with? Is it loud? Does it sound like a tractor? I'll do some more research on this camera myself, but if anyone can corroborate some of this information, that would be great. It seems that, for the price, the Eclair ACL II is reputed to be the best sound sync camera around. I don't know what the exchange rate is between euros and dollars (how many dollars is 850 euros?), but it sounds like a lot less money than the $2-4K that one would have to spend to get a decent ACL. Any further info would be appreciated. :)

"I think he's whole things was, I made a movie, I won an award, moving on!!!" It certainly seems that way, Martin (I'm out of town presently, by the way. Will contact you when I return). I think, however, that if this was his way of doing business, it seems to really have come back and did some karmic damage to him because, again, it seems to in some way or the other be holding him back and possibly preventing him from making his next film. It seems a good rule of thumb is to simply start off doing things correctly - even if it takes a lot more time. It might benefit you in the long run.

Wow, John. That's quite a somber perspective, but I absolutely thank you for putting it in the proper light. It's always better to have a good realization of what you're getting yourself into initially than to find it out on the back end. It seems than that the initial, 50/50 ost breakdown estimates were either 1) pretty darn close or 2) optimistic!

Thanks for the response, Walter. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, however. Are you, therefore, saying that one CAN see external video from the G5 to the JVC monitor by going Computer>DVI to VGA adapter>VGA to RGB cable>JVC monitor?

Thank you for the response, Phil. No, no, I have no interest in extending this DV project to HD areas. None. My computer is not capable of doing that (in and of itself) anyway. I'm trying to figure out how to connect it as SD from the computer to the jvc monitor. I just found out that my Sony converter deck has S-video out, and that, this being superior to my rca/composite connections, might be okay. I wonder, however . . . is an S-Video connection going to the JVC monitor suitable to perform critical color correction? - even on a DV project? Thanks again for responding, Javier Calderon

Hello everyone. I'm getting ready to begin color correction on a DV feature I've just finished audio post on. I have a Macintosh dual 2Gig G5. It's an early G5 that has PC133 slots, however, and is NOT HD compatible or ready. I cannot use an HD video card (AJA, etc) or an HD monitor for cc - and simply cannot afford an AJA IO - so I'm going to work with SD. In the research I've done it looks like the JVC DT V1710CGU - a 17" monitor that is said to have decent critical color correction capabilities is what I might purchase (here's a link to one) http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...s%3Den%26sa%3DN How would I be able to get my video out to the monitor using my G5? The reason I ask this is because, simple as I thought it was, when I went to purchase the actual monitor and the tech tried to use it to see video from his laptop . . . it didn't work. He plugged from the computer to the JVC monitor using a DVI to VGA adapter connected to a VGA to RGB cable (the DVI end of the adapter being connected to the computer) and connected that RGB end of the cable into the JVC. He tried a lot of different monitor formats in his laptop to try to conform the computer's signal for the JVC, but nothing seemed to work. I myself have a Sony DVMC-DA2 analogue to digital media converter that I used to get video from the G5 to view on an external television set. The media converter is connected to the G5 via fire wire, and then connect to the tv using RCA cables, but the tech said that you DON'T want to connect the JVC monitor using RCA cables (composite . . . right?). He said use RGB cables (component). Does anyone know, again, how to be able to get the JVC DT V1710CGU to output video from my G5 (Final Cut Pro specifically)? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Javier Calderon

A 35mm for THIRTEEEEEEN???? Oh man . . . I'm not even gonna TOUCH that one. :) That's awesome. Good for him/her.

"so how rich do you think his home run made him?" Well, of course, and as you yourself said, the point here is definitely not how much you make monetarily, but how far your film allows you to go as far as making the NEXT film possible. All the same, and although I was certainly not trying to make the point that Primer made Carruth some MAJOR money, I absolutely see your point - better even now that you broke down the 50/50 perspective. Regarding your comment about putting the other script I have "out there", I do agree with you, Alex, but I actually FIRST really want to have something under my belt so that I'll have more leverage when I say "AND on top of having written the script, I can actually make the movie myself. So give me the reins AND a budget." "so Shane Carruth might not be a bad omen, but certainly a cautionary one. Once you've been given a great chance, you've got to make something of it." Ab-sooo-lutely, Alex. I agree. That almost seems like common sense though doesn't it? In ANY profession - not just film making. Don't let the fruit of your success rot on the proverbial vine - especially if you're just starting off. "there's just no way you could have sound/postprod included in that number which would barely cover film stock/processing... " Man . . . You know what? I JUST got back from TV Pro Gear here in LA because I was just about to buy a JVC DT V1710CGU for color correcting and, while there, the tech who was going to sell it to me - SUPER nice and cool guy - happened to be a real film aficionado who's shot for years in the medium . . . and although (believe it or not) he pretty much was saying something similar to the gentleman at DRCO (i.e. DON'T shoot on film. Use video all the way), and on top of that he was kind enough to do some breakdown cost analysis of film stock, development, etc . . . the fact of the matter is that 1) like we've shown here, although it's possible for the costs to get up around the 50-70K range, it IS somehow possible to do a film ON film, for around 10-20K, and 2) the HD/film comparison footage he showed me (as if I needed any more evidence) wasn't even CLOSE. Even the ugly, gritty shots using film were farrrr superior to the video he showed me - which was beautiful, clean, clear, picturesque and pristine. Which, of course, brings us back to the conclusion I already drew quite a few threads back . . . film might be more difficult and expensive . . . but I think I might be sinking my teeth in it all the same.

Oh . . . and Alex. One last reply to your post: "I don't like what this portends for indie filmmakers." You mentioned this regarding the Primer/Carruth scenario . . . But you know what? I don't think that this scenario is indicative of the kind of success that an indie film maker can expect if their first film does well. Again, and although I know NOTHING personally about Carruth, I would venture to say that the reason why he hasn't done anything in the past four years since Primer's release ISN'T because of lack of willing backers/investers, but becuase Carruth himself my not have the product ready (script, idea, etc). I say this because all one has to do is take a look at directors like Robert Rodriguez, Darren Aronofsky, and Christopher Nolan, to name just three. Aronofsky did Pi. Pi did great. Next thing you know - and not TOO long afterward - he blasts one out of the ballpark with Requiem For A Dream; a film that had a budget of 4.5 million. Christpher Nolan. He premiers with his first feature - another black and white indie named "Following". Did pretty darn good. Next film? He gets the go to do Memento - another sophomore film with a budget of 5 million - and, again, BLASTS it out of the ballpark. Now he can write his OWN checks (presently working on the Batman Sequal - The Dark Night). Heck what about Joe Carnaghan? His first feature "Blood Guts And Octane" was so so as far as I know . . . What was his very NEXT feature, however? the 7.5 million dollar power house indie "Narc" w/Ray Liota and Jason Patrick. He's another one that's "made it" at this point and isn't at all hurting for work. I think the point that I'm trying to illustrate here is that the going scenario seems to be this: KICK TAIL on your first feature. Do it on your own with little or no money. Show Hollywood/the world that you DON'T need it or it's money to be a good creator/artist. If you do that, then it seems that you get thrown a "small" 2-7 million dollar budget so that you can make your first "real" movie. If THAT one does well . . . Well then . . . your playing ball now. Heck as far as I'm concerned, if one gets to the point where one can acrue a 4-7 million dollar budget . . . they've already "made it"! So I think that, again, the fact that Shane Carruth hasn't done much of anything lately is not a testament to the climate or forecast for the indepndant film maker, as much as it's saying something about Shane Carruth. What, I'm not sure (I'm not hear to badmout him or anyone. Maybe he just doesn't WANT to make another film. It may be as simple as that). but I don't think his scenario is a bad omen for indie film makers. :)

Absolutely, Martin (by the way, I emailed you. Did you get it?). You have to wear ALL the hats sometimes in order to get something done! If the film cost between 30-50K, however, that sounds more like what I would have expected a film like that to have cost. That's about how much Daren Aronofsky's "Pi" cost, I believe. I don't recall offhand how much Rober Rodriguez's "El Mariachi" cost, but I, although like you said, one can make a film ON film for between 7-10K, it's probably more realistic to have to spend at least 20-30K. And I've been saving up!! :)

"i'm led to believe that Carruth probably didn't even make that much $$$ on Primer..." Well, Alex, although you may have a good point, the numbers.com - http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2004/PRIMR.php - has Primer listed as having grossed over 1/2 a million dollars so far . . . so let's hope Shane got/is getting at least a LITTLE bit of that. "what you're SUPPOSED to be doing is positioning your next paid/backed project." DUH!!! lol . . . That's what I'M saying! Heck, I wrote a script a few years ago that I think is beautiful, really strong, and has the potential for making a lot of money, but I also know that it's going to take about 4-7 million to make it right. Therefore, given the fact that I didn't have enough work to speak of, I decided to spend the next few years making a full feature and making it look/be as good as possible with NO money (or practically no money). THEN if that film has any success, and anyone asks "Well, now that we've seen what you can do with no budget, what are you wanting to do next now that we're willing to invest a few bucks on you?" that's when I pull out the already completed script that I had from BEFORE I even begun THIS project. And we're off and running in no time - this time with a budget. :) Well . . . that's the plan anyway . . . We'll see what happens. Again, gotta shut up and finish this darn film first.

"seeing the (lack of) progress he's made since winning Sundance... can't say that makes me feel great." Exactly, Alex. I read blurbs here and there about that particular plot line he's working on. I also heard elswhere that Steven Soderbergh had taken an interest in him and that there was a possible collaboration of sorts. Yes, yes . . . that's all good and well. But what is point? The point is that it's been, again, almost four years and there is NO word "on the streets" about ANYTHING he's doing now. Nothing on imdb/imdbpro. Nothing in a google search. Nothing. Now, believe it or not, I spend very little of my time thinking about these particular things since I have my own work and career to contend with. However, and since we're on the subject, it simply makes me shake my noggen because there are soooo many of us that are slaving away to be where he is at. And - Martin's inside scoop aside - Shane seems to have gotten where he's at legitimately; i.e. by making a quality product that impresses and moves people. I don't know him, don't know his mindset or his reasoning, and don't know if he actually wants to be a career film maker or not, but if he does . . . then his having been handed the great opportunity that he got handed, and yet NOT striking w/another film while the iron of his success was still hot is a bit beyond me. Anyway. Well, at least he got one good film done. :)

Hey - awesome, Martin. I'm PM you very soon. Believe it or not I went to your Blog and discovered (through you) Michael Masley. Awesome. Best of luck with that production. Regarding the Primer story . . . Holy cow! That's really too bad. And I was actually wondering what on earth this guy had been up to since then. I mean Primer was screened coming on four years ago and he doesn't seem to have anything in production (or even pre), so I was wondering - is he a one trick poney or what? The world was pretty much handed to him in a silver platter with the success of Primer. If I were him, I would've had my next production out and running (with a real budget at this point) in no time! Anyway . . . enough of that. This isn't a Primer thread - nor do I want it to be. :) I'll PM you soon. Thanks! Javier

Awesome, Martin. Awesome. THAT'S what I'm talking about. The "Shut Up And Film" philosophy. Thank you so much for posting your opinion and perspective. Very valuable here. The going word on Sean Carruth's 2004 16mm feature film debut - the Sundance Grand Jury Prize-winning film "Primer" - was that it was shot for around $7,000. While I don't even know HOW he accomplished this (if he even actually did and it's not just marketing babble) I think that anything even AROUND this amount of money spent on a full, feature length film on 16 is insanely industrious and really sets a standard for what can be accomplished w/the medium; and while I only saw the film on youtube (of all places), the images look stunningly professional and the DOF is breathtaking. I'm looking very much forward to 1) finishing this particular feature I'm on (I've been working on it for long enough, so I'm ready for it to be completed!), and 2) gearing up for the attack on 16! Oh . . . and thank you so much for looking at the trailer, Martin, and the kind words. Te lo agradesco muchisimo!

Thank you very much, Will. I appreciate your looking at it. For the moment it's back to work for me. Gotta get this film DONE. Thanks all, Javier Calderon

Thank you very much, David, for the insight. and "Ha", Will, to your writer's strike comment. Heck I still haven't even begun the color correction on my DV feature yet (January's the start date on that). I should be done with the entire work by early/mid '08 . . . THEN I'll start really doing the practical, hands on work with 16mm. Right now, I'm just trying to get a better theoretical knowledge of what to deal with, and expect - monetarilly and otherwise - so that I can make the best decisions possible with what little money I have to actually spend. Hopefully for all the guild writers out there, the strike will be long over well before I'm finished with my next feature (lol). Oh . . . and by the way . . . just for grins (little show and tell), here's a link to a quick teaser trailer put together for the feature I'm presently working on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5W81h7hVBk

Man . . . thanks so much for the thorough explanation, Will, of why one would want/need an actual colorist to do the coloring on your film in Telecine as opposed to you yourself off of the video daily in FCP. That really helped me understand much better. What else can I say? This has been a very educational endevour for me - reading everything you guys have had to offer. I know there's much, much more, but the information I've gotten so far is helping me in ways I hadn't surmised before. Yeah, unless video/HD can make even more leaps and bounds than it already has and come out with something amazing in the next year - which probably won't happen since The Red One camera has just been released already and that will probably be the best to offer for at least a little while - I think 16 will be the medium for my next feature. I was over at DRCO just a day or two ago, looking at professional color correction monitors to get, and David Riddle - owner of the company - who was an AMAZINGLY helpful, giving, and nice man, just sat me down and pretty much gave me a quick class on film and video technology, began by telling me that "film is dead." - something he repeated with relish a few times over before continuing on. I felt my heart sink a little because, although I did feel that this couldn't possibly be 100% true, here was this incredibly knowledgeable man with tons of experience IN film, who's worked with just about everyone in the field (and had the photos and the Emmy to show for it), who was telling me that "film is dead". Convinced as I felt I was beforehand of the possibility of shooting my next feature on film, I started climbing back on that proverbial fence . . . and that's part of why I posted this thread on here. Thanks all again, for the help and perspective. Film is film. And video - awesome as it is in it's own way - just hasn't gotten there yet.

Wo, Adrian. $750 a day for a month (which I can't imagine shooting a feature for less time than this) runs around $22,500. That's definitely out of my price range. I know Vincent mentioned not being able to find a good, feature ready S16 package for under $15K. I'm basically looking at an overall budget of between $20-40K for the entire enchilada (that is, for pre pro, production, and post). I already have most of the gear for post (G5, 2Terabytes of space, Final Cut Studio, Logic Pro, etc, and am probably going to be getting a 17" JVC DT V1710CGU for critical color correction). I just need the camera . . . I think I'll work with what a lot of you guys have already helpfully suggested on here and getting a good, solid, but relatively inexpensive camera and running tests w/it. Although Adrian's suggestion of a Bolex or something around the $250 range would work, I'd possibly like to see if I can get ahold of a solid ACL and perhaps use that for more than just test shoots. I just got in contact w/George over at Optical Electro House, and he was very cordial in his response, so we'll see what turns up there.

Ahhh . . . I just found out what a one light transfer is. :) "...a “One light / Content” transfer starts with an initial color and exposure correction from the first shot and that color and contrast are toned down to allow for inconsistencies in other shots. ...the film is then run through to the end without any further adjustments to the color, exposure, contrast, focus, sound, etc." neato. :) I feel my filmatic i.q. expanding by the minute.

Thank you, Will, for the step by step. It's beginning to give me a better idea of the ins and outs of the process. Regarding the "go back with the best Colorist..." part . . . Help me out on this one . . . Isn't the coloring/color correction something that I would be able to do on my own in FCP? On the one light edit, I WOULDN'T do any color correction? . . . I would cut the film, and THEN take the edl to a colorist and let them do it? Again, I know I'm missing something. I wouldn't take the EDL to someone to do an assembly on HD, and THEN take it back to my own place for cc? I'm sure you're shaking your head and slapping yourself with just how ignorant I am regarding these things. Thanks for the help everyone, Javier ps - and heck, Joshua, I think that that should be a vote of confidence that you unknowingly posted the correct answer! :)

Heck, Joshua, it looks like you just read Will's post word for word, so it would seem that you're on the right track (not that I myself would know. That's why I posted this thread:) ). Um . . . what's a one light transfer? (here I'm trying to abide by the "there are not stupid questions" philosophy and hope I don't get railed for not knowing what that is). I'm asuming it's a "low res" or quick manner of developing your film so you can begin quickly editing? I did a google search, but the results were a bit to voluminous for me to get a good handle on what exactly it is. Thanks

Adrian, No, I don't have a deck to injest into FCP. That I might rent. "Shoot film, you can trust film." Well . . . isn't this one of the biggest beefs AGAINST film? That you CAN'T trust that what you shot during production is what you'll see when you get your footage back? I'll trust what you said, however, in terms of the success of your film shoots as a good omen for my own future shoots. :)

Muy bien, Rolando. Con eso creo que estoy en acuerdo. Gracias. :)

You're absolutely correct in that aesthetic consideration, Adrian. I guess it depends on what's artistically being attempted. Interesting thing, however, is that if you shoot on film, you can always "muck" it up to look like video. I believe I read that such was the case with Brian De Palma's new war film called "Redacted". It's supposedly got a very video feel - and the footage is all very video looking, very documentary-esque . . . but it was all actually shot on film and then later made to look like video in post. I don't believe you can shoot on video and then later make it look like film in post. For this reason, it seems film gives a little more flexibility here as well.