oswald shonner

Any time you transfer from one format to another, or even to the same format, you are "losing a generation" - the question is whether you are "losing quality". When you transfer from BetaSP to miniDV you are absolutely losing quality - and in particular, in the area of color. MiniDV is a 4:1:1 color space - betaSP is an anolog format, so it can't really be expressed in the same way, but the color space is better than that of mini-DV. So primarily, if you are transferring from BetaSP to mini-DV you are LOSING color information. The amount of color information lost, may not be perceptable to the average viewer however. When you are "cloning" from min-DV to mini-DV you are losing practically nothing. The quality is 99.9% the same. In that case, you would not be losing any color or res quality and therefore, transferring DV to DV via firewire is considered a "lossless" generation (if that makes sense). However, going from an analogue format to a "lesser" digital format means quality loss. If however, you were transferring BetaSP to Digibeta, which is 4:2:2 colorspace, then you are talking practically no quality loss, but perhaps a slight shift in "look". Oswald.

And on top of everything, you have that whole fox hunt issue that is turning the country upside-down. >>On the upside I may be able to spend some time over there this year and possibly shoot some more stuff there - even if I pay book rates, with the exchange rate the way it is, the costs will be at least two thirds lower. But I won't kid myself that it'd be for anything more than my own artistic amusement.<< I can respect that. Have you considered shooting on 2-perf 35mm? - Just joking. Oswald

Okay, Phil. Time to move on. We'll keep making our films on film and you keep telling us that we "shouldn't be". The advice you are giving is based on numbers and situations that don't apply to the indie world. You're not willing to look outside that frustrating, industry box you find yourself in. >>I have never attempted to produce anything I couldn't finance personally<< The key wordshere are "never attempted". I'm beginning to wonder if you have any experience producing anything that involved doing the legwork for getting deals. I don't think you have. Have you? If you haven't then how can you have an informed opinion on this? And I'm not talking about a 16mm film test or a three minute short. I'm talking about a longer short, like 20 minutes or a feature. Have you ever even attempted making a film of that length for next to nothing? Based on your outlook, I imagine you never have, or, if you have, you must have given up rather quickly. >>Independent spirit exists in the UK as a bunch of ability-free losers with PD-150s.<< LOL! You're hysterical! Clearly you're not part of any independent spirit - and so I am beginning to understand your perspective is so conservative. Knowing how to spell "lens" is one thing. Knowing anything about the battles and victories of indie filmmaking is another thing. Oswald.

Christopher Nolan's film FOLLOWING was made for under 20 thousand pounds in London, UK. So I don't know what you're talking about. It's about drive, a belief in what you're doing and an unwillingness to take "no you can't" for an answer. I'm sure that independent spirit exists in the UK just as proven with films like FOLLOWING. Do you honestly think that there aren't any workable camera packages in the UK for under 500 pounds? Come on! We're not talking BOOK RATES Phil, We're talking about and INDEPENDENT FILMMAKER who does the leg work to get DEALS. There are many reasons to shoot film, even if you are going to finish on Video: 1) you might prefer the look of film to video. 2) If you are going to finish on Video for festival release, then you might want a film-negative for a possible film-finish blowup if the film is picked up by a distributor. Don't these reasons make sense? This isn't an argument AGAINST shooting video. I like the look of video for certain projects. I'm just saying that it makes perfect sense to shoot film even if you finish on video as many TV shows do. Just like it makes perfect sense to shoot color negative even if you're going to finish in Black and White. It's all about what look you are going for and whether you want to cover yourself. >>you're going to spend an extra $100k just to get back to exactly the same DVCAM you'd have had with an SDX-900? I can't imagine an investor in the galaxy would buy it.<< Sorry Phil, but I think you are totally out of touch with how things work in the ultra-low budget indie film world. "Investors"? Don't you know that "Investors" who "Invest" in a ultra low-budget film don't really concern themselves with format? They concern themselves primarily with an interesting story and the filmmaker him/herself. Do you think the "investors" who threw some money towards Smith, Aronofsky, Nolan or Carruth really cared that their films were being shot on 16mm? Or that the image might be "soft?". Or that it might make "more sense" or be "more logical" to "just shoot on video?". Even in mid-range low budget projects (under a million), the investors don't get all huffy and puffy about format or the logic of post-production flow. You're not making a lot of sense on this one. Surely you can't honestly believe that in the UK filmmakers aren't making ultra-low budget films whereby they use borrowed equipment or get excellent deals from equipment houses and post-facilities, and shooting on film. There are a lot of UK filmmakers that would find you somewhat uninformed. Oswald

And this is from colorlab: http://www.colorlab.com/services/dailies.html Look at the total at the bottom. Now if you can manage to get camera rental, gear, crew, actors, food, equipment for under 30,000, then you're talking about getting your film made for festivals for under 55000. But with a lot of creativity and favors you can do it for less! Here's a budget for best-light anamorphic or 4:3 video dailies, creating a BCSP with synced sound for Avid editing. 40,000' = 1,112' minutes = 18.5 hours 40,000' S-16 processing, leader, prep, ultrasonic clean .16/ft 6,400.00 40,000' Best-lite anamorphic Rank dailies (each new set up color corrected) .24 9,600 49 Reel change charges 20.00 980.00 50 BCSP 30's 30 1,500.00 36hrs Audio sync 3:1 of approx 65 rolls of sync material 80.00 2,880.00 Total: $21,360.00 Or $.53/ft

With all due respect, Phil, I think you're a little out of touch with the indie filmmaking scene (which is a little suprising considering your experience). Very few indie low-budget features have a 20:1 reatio. Regardless of of what Hollywood does. And by the way, an average hollywood show has a ratio of more like 30 to 40:1, not 20:1. Your original statement was "Plus $150,000 to feed your 16mm camera for a feature shoot" - So, as I mentioned (and others), you're estimate was a litte high, to say the least<g>. You've included all kinds of costs that do not factor into idea that you'd ave to put "$150,000" through the camera. But lets factor in all the equipment anyway etcetera etcetera: Now let's have a look at my numbers: Shoot the feature at a 10:1 ratio (pretty liberal for ultra low budget, but hey, let's pretend). So, lets say the feature is 2 hours (longer than the average low-budget indie, but let's pretend that too). So, get recans and shortends. 2 hours X 10 = 20 hours which equals 1200 minutes. So lets say the production has decided to get 44000 feet of 16mm film. Now lets say the production shoots on recans at 25cents. That means filmstock will cost: 11,000 Processing at cost with video prep: 9,240 One-lite transfer to mini-dv (get a deal at $250/hour): 9000 (based on a 1.5x) Edit on your friend's editing system for free or buy your own system for: $6000. Do a basic sound edit and mix on the same system. The do an output back to mini-dv -start dubbing to VSH or DVD and send to festivals! Now about camera rentals: 500 pounds a day!? Are you kidding me? No ultra-low budget indie show pays that kind of dough. Get a cheap SRII that has been converted or whatever for no more than 200 DOLLARS a day and get it at a three-day week. I could go on and on but my point is this: So many successfull indie-features would not have been made if they were to take your advice, phil. It's just not the way things are working out there. PRIMER was shot for 7000 US dollars and then only when it was accepted to Sundance was it blown up. Clerks, Pi, Borther's McMullen, have you heard of the film "Following?". Shot on 16mm for very, very cheap. Filmmaker went on to make some very popular films. All of these films were made by filmmakers who did not allow the "industry" to tell them what was "right or wrong". They just went out and did it. They begged, borrowed (I won't say they stole... but<g>). They didn't get a camera package for "500(pounds!)" a day. They didn't pay book-rates for lighting. They didn't pay book rates for editing. etc. You can shoot your film on Super 16mm for very cheap and even get it to a projectable format (ie Video) for most festivals. Then after that, if it gets into a biggie, then find the dough for a reasonable looking blowup. Soft and cheap? You mean soft and cheap the way Primer looks? Or Pi? Or Clerks? That kind of Soft and Cheap? Or do you mean the soft and cheap in the "Aviator" kind of way? No, the ultra-low budget world is NOT hollywood. And we're thankful for that both in the prevailing attitude and the stories that are being told. Even if they are little "soft and cheap". Oswald.

Thanks for the reply and info. By the way: shooting color for a black and white final is industry standard right now. Especially for commercials where client/agency wants fallback capabilities and of course in music videos. In my case, I'm doing it because I happen to have 12 thousand feet worth of 35mm color recans/shortends and it will be cheaper for me to shoot that stuff than purchase black and white raw (which would have been my preference). Oswald

Many features have been shot on a ratio of 5:1. 5:1 is not uncommon in the ultra-low budget world. I'm not sure where you got the 150,000 figure - did you add a zero by accident? Also: most indie ultra-low budget features will likely not be using entirely new stock. Lots of recans, favors, etc. My advice is this: If you're going to make a feature and you don't have a distributor etc etc (like most indies) and you REALLY want to shoot on film because of the look - then shoot on Super 16mm, transfer to DigiBeta or if possible HD. Cut the thing and start submitting to festivals. MANY festivals will project your film on Video - only transfer your "film" to 35mm if a BIG festival requires it. Otherwise, don't bother and save the dough. A prime example (sorry about the pun) is the film PRIMER (check the Imdb) which won Sundance in 2004. This was a Super 16mm film that was shot for 7000 I believe on borrowed equipment and favors. That's how to make a film. Don't worry about all this DI stuff for a feature right now - especially if you don't have the money. Do what you can to get it in the can and edit it and at least get a cut on a standard def video format to submit to festivals. then see what happens. If you're lucky, a distributor will pick up your film and pay for the blowup and the sound mix as was the case with Clerks. Other films that have gone this route successfully: Clerks, Pi, Borther's McMullen, Oswald

Thanks all for the 1.37 info. In addition to that. I am also going to be losing the color information from the original 35mm color negative. If I do this, does it affect the file sizes for the DI process? Oswald

Thanks for the reply. The 1.37 is an artistic decision for this film. We are currently looking at our options for a film out since as you said, so few theaters project that ratio. Pillar boxing seems like the best bet (although I must say that in my many years of festival experience, almost all the application forms (even now) indicate a 1.37 option for projection). About this: It seems to me, though, that a 2K scan on a 1.85 film will cover more area on the print (and screen) versus the 2K scan of a 1.37 film since that 1.37 film must be compressed down for pillar-boxing. Sure, both formats have the same horizontal pixel count (2K), but doesn't the 1.37 pillar boxed cover less area (ie compressed more) on the print and therefore have a significantly improved resolution as a result of being a compressed smaller image? The "2K" part refers to the Horizontal, no? It seems to me that reducing that 2K scan onto a 35mm pillar box should significantly improve perceived resolution because the 2K covers a significantly smaller part of the final print frame (screen). Yeah, I suppose Super 35mm Full would be great - unfortunately, the camera we have does not have that capability. Oswald

I was thinking of pillar-boxing the 35mm print - and that's where the extra resolution thing comes in. If I scan the whole frame of the original neg and reduce it down so that it is pillar-boxed within the 1.85 frame on a print, am I wrong in assuming that the "perceived" resolution of the printed image will be better than that of a standard 1.85 DI? Thanks again, Oswald

My apologies if this has been covered - but I couldn't find it in any of the previous posts. From what I understand, most films that go through a DI are scanned at 2K with the idea that the final projected image will be 1.85:1 or 2:35:1 My questionis this: If I shoot my film at 1.37 (35mm) and I want to go through a 2K DI route for a final output at 1.37, will I be losing information as result of scanning LESS information from the sides as compared to a 1.85 shot film, or do the scanners ADD information as a result of a larger negative area on the top and the bottom? Also: With a 2K workflow, to what format is the 35mm material transferred initially? Or do we do a basic, one light transfer to, say, mini-DV and then use edge-coding to do a special color corrected 2K transfer? Thanks in advance, Oswald

Has anyone had experience with shooting color negative, say for example, 5279, going through a DI, doing a 100% desaturation at the DI stage, then outputting to 35mm? Are colors rendered in greyscale the same way as if I was to, say, take a still shot of a color-chart and do the same thing in photoshop? I know that the results would not be the same as if shooting on true black and white neg - but are there any red-flags when going through the color negative route? Thanks in advance, Oswald.