Jim Keller

My brother used to work for Kodak. My sister-in-law still does. Let me explain one thing about the current Kodak management: Think about any business situation. Imagine the worst decision a company could make in that situation. That is exactly what Kodak will do. While I agree that Kodak should both be investing heavily in super 16 and developing its own digital cinema line, I doubt they will do either. They've instead adopted the "finger in the dike" business model.

If the title isn't exactly the same, you should be fine. However, make sure your key art in no way resembles they artwork for the older film, because similar design might be used as a basis for a marketplace confusion claim. (The exception to that being if you're making a satire of the original film, which falls under what's known as "fair use." If this is the case, though, consult a lawyer because court holdings have been very inconsistent as to what is and is not fair use.)

I actually did a fair amount of research on this issue a few years back. I can only speak to U.S. law, but the upshot is this: There is nothing copyrightable about a title. In the eyes of U.S. copyright law, titles may be used and re-used an infinite number of times. However, there may be a trademark issue. The first person to use a product name in the consumer marketplace can assert trademark rights over that name. George Lucas took the time and money to register "Star Wars" as a trademark, effectively banning anyone else from releasing a product (including a movie) using the same name. He was able to do so because he was the first to release a product called "Star Wars" and/or he was the only person with a product by that name in the consumer marketplace. The litmus test for trademark violations is what is known as "marketplace confusion." Specifically what that means is this: would a typical consumer mistake your product for the one they intended to buy. For example, Honda Computers won the right to continue to use its name, because the courts believed no one who is looking for a car is going to buy a computer by accident. So you can, for example, make a movie called "Adobe" despite the fact that it's a trademark, because no one is going to go see your movie while intending to buy software. However, if you make a movie called "Star Wars," you have created marketplace confusion, because people might mistake your movie for the Lucas one. The gray area is if you make a movie that would appear to be a cross-over of another product (such as making a movie called "The Green Lantern," which reasonable viewers might assume is related to the comic books), so it's wise to avoid doing so unless you're prepared for the fight. In the "Monopoly" case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that owning a trademark does not prevent others from using the word or words in your product name in other products. The specifics of that holding allowed another game manufacturing company to continue to produce a game called "Anti-monopoly" in which players pretend to be trust-busting crusaders. So, while you can't sell a movie called "Star Wars," it would be perfectly legal to sell one called "The War for the Stars" (with the caveat that Lucas could still file a suit claiming marketplace confusion, which you would probably win, but which could cost you time and money anyway). It's important to note that trademark claims can be made (though they're much harder to prove) even if the name has not been registered. So you will probably want to avoid calling your movie "Lawrence of Arabia" even though the trademark has not been officially filed. However, with common words or phrases, such as "Crash" or "Virus" or "Two for the Road," you're probably fine. You're also fine if the product is not currently available in any form in the consumer marketplace (in which case it is considered an abandoned trademark, though, again, be prepared for a fight if the trademark is still owned by someone litigious). So, to sum this up in plain English, if the title has been used before, you're probably fine unless the movie is very famous.

Yes, FX films are perenially popular, but the caveat is that the specifics of the market can be very hard to predict. (If it weren't, we wouldn't need distributors.) One of my co-workers has been making his first feature in his spare time, and just discovered that right now the distributors are saturated with low-budget horror films, so they're starting to get choosier about which ones they pick up. Luckily, my co-worker's movie is an old-fashioned sci-fi piece, which is looking very good to the distribution houses simply by virtue of being different. It really wasn't much more expensive for him to make than a horror, because he just rented a leftover set and then did the spaceship shots himself (and if you're not picky about quality, you can do that). I'm told that physical comedy is currently popular again, and that the international market is straying away from single-star pieces. (I say all this with the proviso that I don't do features, so I could be dead wrong in all the trends I'm citing.) The most important thing is to set your budget based on what you can realistically sell it for, and then make the best film you can make on your budget, regardless of genre. If you make the film for less money than you sell it for, you make money. If you make the film for more money than you sell it for, you lose money. If your goal is to get a first film made so you have something to show and you don't necessarily care about selling it, then make whatever film you want, in whatever genre you want, but do your best to spend nothing doing so. I spent less than $5000 when I did my "showcase feature," including the $3500 camera I conned my father into buying so I could shoot it. It's not marketable (and you won't find it in IMDB as a result), but by doing a low-key drama on digital, I could do it for the cost of food, tape, and insurance. I wound up with a nice piece I can show people to prove I know how to direct. Rather than saying "start with a horror film" I'd suggest a different approach. Start by assessing your own capabilities. Are you good at makeup effects? Then horror is a great place to start. Do you happen to be a decent animator (like my co-worker)? Start with something that uses that. Are you a musical prodigy? Avid ball player? You'll be much better off if you make what you know the first time out.

The motor that's on this camera isn't intended for sync sound work. Though its 24fps should be accurate enough that you won't visually perceive any timing issues, if you record sound simultaneously you'll find that your sound recording device and the camera motor actually run at slightly different rates, which will cause the sound to go out of sync. Even a one-frame difference is enough for an audience to perceive a sync problem. You'll need a crystal sync motor (which will easily cost you another $1000) to get the accuracy you need, and even then you need to be careful about using a DAT for the recording because the speeds can still vary slightly, especially if you're editing on video. One thing you could try, and I recommend doing so with a much smaller camera (you can pick up a cheap hand-crank camera on eBay for less than $100) first, is what the old "Spaghetti westerns" did: shoot MOS and have the actors come in to record the dialogue afterwards. This isn't particularly easy to do (especially for novice actors), and you want to keep dialogue to a minimum (especially in closeups), but it's an option that has worked for some very famous films.

I think I concur that this is overpriced. I've been seeing a lot of theoretially production-ready Arri 16's on eBay for half that, and not selling. I just sold mine -- which I think is in comparable condition though I wasn't willing to certify it production-ready since it hasn't been used or serviced since I bought it -- and I only got $1200. While this is a great camera, the advent of affordable HD has rendered it a lot less popular and by the law of supply and demand, that means they're depreciating, not appreciating in price.

That's exactly what I was thinking should be possible based on the literature I was finding. Thanks! I'm glad to hear you've been happy with the single-chip color. I hear people argue both sides, and in the end there's no way I'm going to know what I think of it until I've shot with it. I've never been big on the "this camera good, that camera bad" arguments. Everything depends on how you use your equipment. Most cameras have some things they're very good at and some things they're not. The trick is to learn and then work with the equipment's idiosyncracies. From what I'm reading, it sounds like I'm going to need more even lighting than I'm used to using with my current Sony equipment, but that in exchange I'm going to get a spectacular clarity and resolution that DVCAM can't touch, and will never need to de-interlace again. Since everything I do allows to me to control the lighting and the production design (I'm not shooting documentaries), I expect I can compensate for any of the "shortcomings" I've heard people complain about. At the end of the day, I can get a new HD1 or a used HD10 for about $1300, and the cheapest progressive-scanning SD camera I've been able to find run about twice that. That's a significant difference on my "spit and chewing gum" budgets. And besides. I'm producing for the internet. The video codec will erase any subtlety of color anyway. :)

I wish I could find it now, but I remember reading an article on exactly this a few years back. The upshot of which was simply that if you're keeping your shots short, you should be fine as long as your camera truly does run at 24 fps. If you're planning on longer shots, you want a motor that can do 23.98. Either way, you're probably going to need a crystal sync motor as opposed to just trusting the tach on a 40-year-old camera :) All that said, a great many films have shot MOS and done all the dialogue recording in a massive ADR session. So, if you're just experimenting, I say go for it! Let us know how it works out.

I've gotten to the point where when somebody is posting on eBay asking me to contact them rather than bidding or using the "Buy it now" option, I assume it's fraud. There are some great deals to be had on eBay, but when it seems to be too good to be true, it probably is. When I decided to buy my first 16mm camera, I looked at an old B&H 240EE in a camera store here in L.A. for $500. I then hit eBay and bought two identical cameras, plus a super-8, for $150. I resold the super-8 and effectively got to start tinkering with 16mm for the cost of film and processing. But, those cameras were bought through the proper eBay channels, which are designed to keep you from being ripped off. Always engage brain before buying. If the deal won't be there tomorrow, it's not real.

Many of the world's greatest films were made by people who didn't know what they were doing. Don't let it stop you. There's really no right way to do anything (though if you're working with the unions, they may disagree). Heck, if I did everything the Hollywood-approved way, none of my projects would ever have gotten past the storyboards. There are, literally, hundreds of books on the subject. Most are decent, though I will admit I'm not familiar with the crop that's currently in print. I personally learned a great deal from Michael Wiese's books, though they're a bit hard to read. It won't hurt to pick up a few books, read them, and see what the commonalities and differences are. Take from them what you think will work for you and your situation. Leave behind the rest. It's very true that every set is different, and IMHO that's a good thing. The one thing that will make all the difference in the world, though, is this: Be up-front and honest with everyone you're working for. Tell them that this is your first production and you're still trying to sort out a workflow that works for you. Listen to their opinions and respect them (though remember, you're the one in charge and the final decision is always yours). If you keep the experience positive, fun, and experimental you'll learn far more by doing than you ever could by reading, trolling forums, etc. That's why the best film schools are the ones that have you produce. You've gotta do it to learn it. Break a leg!

First off, I'm a newbie in the HD world. I produce almost exclusively for the internet, where SD is plenty of resolution. However, the desire to get a true progressive-scan camera (again, because I produce almost exclusively for the internet) led me to discover that the JVC GR-HD1 -- probably by virtue of being an older and single-chip model -- is significanly less expensive than any progressive-scan SD camera on the market and therefore the only one in our price range. So it looks like I might be blundering into the HD world after all... In reading the specs of the camera online, it appears that the HD1 records 30i by shooting 60p. Is this true? If so, does it truly record the 60p, and if it does can one capture (we use Final Cut Pro) the 60p? The reason I ask is because I've never been happy with interpolated slow-motion effects, but if I can get 60 frames per seconds and then have the software re-interpret the frame rate to 30 frames per second, I could create a true slow-mo. Would this actually work? These are idle musing at this point, because I don't have a project that needs it, but it would be good to know I have the option if we go with this camera. Thanks! --Jim

I know this is going to seem like an oddball question, but I can't believe I'm the only person who's ever considered this, and if it's a terrible idea I'd love to know before I try it... I'm currently developing a new video project that is going to be very audio-intensive, but which needs to be recorded live. Needless to say, my camera's two built-in audio inputs are not going to be sufficient for recording the audio. No matter what we do, we're going to have to have a number of mics going into a mixer to get the audio we need. So, my question is this: Has anyone out there ever attempted recording your audio directly into your Mac while simultaneously shooting video for later sync? I'm assuming I'd use my old film slate and synchronize the video and audio start times the old-fashioned way, but I'm wondering what hardware/software you've used (I normally edit in the Final Cut Studio), how the sync is over long shots (we're expecting 7-10 minute takes), and what things I haven't anticipated that I should be watching out for. And, if this is a terrible idea, I'd love to know if there's a better way to approach the "get a good, editable recording of many voices/intruments for video" problem. Thanks!

Dummy that I am, I don't have any power for the camera. This wasn't a big deal when I bought it, as it had been recently serviced and had just finished shooting a feature, and I was planning to imminently replace its (25 fps) motor, and could buy batteries and cables then. However, life intervened and as a result I've never even turned it on. The upshot of all this is that someone is going to get an amazing deal, since I can't in good conscience say that I'm certain it's production-ready. I know what I'm doing when I buy video equipment. Honest. :) Thanks for the help, everyone!

I've got a IIb (I think) that I'm getting ready to sell -- bought it with the intention of giving up video and working in my preferred medium, but that never materialized. :( There's a six-pin DIN connector on the back of the camera, and I'm wondering if that means this is one of the Pilotone cameras, or if it does something else altogether... My searches came up empty and the manual I found for the camera doesn't think any such connector should be there. Does anyone out there know what the blue six-pin connector is for? Sadly, my knowledge of film cameras (and dual-system audio) is extremely limited. Thanks! --Jim