Tyler Purcell

First thing, outside of news and multi-camera studio shows like game shows, everything on television is colored, just like a feature. I haven't once delivered a show for broadcast without critical color being done and that was working for Discovery and TLC. It's just part of the delivery requirements and most of that is due to matching broadcast spec (which is a requirement). The neat thing about the blackmagic cameras is that they shoot in three mods; CinemaDNG Raw (like camera negative), Flat Pro Res (which is watchable) and Rec709 (which looks normal). So if you're doing a rush job, you can shoot in Rec709 mode and deliver exactly what you shoot. If you're doing something that you can work with in post, then you shoot in the Flat Pro Res mode. Edit the show, apply a LUT afterwards over the whole project, make a few tweaks and be done with it. If you need a wider dynamic range, that's when you shoot in CinemaDNG. Indoors, you don't need to shoot with anything special. However, if you run and gun, documentary style, having that dynamic range will help considerably in post. When you make a mistake with exposure, you can fix it in post. Having shot with standard REC709 ENG cameras from Sony and Panasonic for 15 years, it was nearly impossible to have the sky exposed properly and our subjects as well. With the blackmagic you can and in most cases have even more dynamic range then necessary.

He's a lawyer… he probably has rich friends as well. I mean money talks and it's easy to pay someone to fix up a screenplay and decent crew to make your film look good. You watch his trailers, nothing has real cinematic vision, just cheap tricks that are used over and over again. I'm sure his budgets are in the $250k range and it's pretty easy to make that money back if you have the right connections.

Well, if you make a good product, you should be able to make money off it. Maybe not in a conventional way, but surly something will come back from the investment. To me, the investment is more about proving my ability to write stories that are entertaining and have a strong directors vision. It would be something my crew and I would do on our spare time, weekends and nights after work. We all have industry gigs, so it's hard to commit otherwise. Getting people to take time off from work is nearly impossible, especially four of my actors. So I write a script around that problem, making it a lot easier for production. This particular film is going to be tough to make however, it may take two months of shooting every weekend and a few nights during the week here and there. However, with a dedicated crew and most important, cast… it's all doable. Gotta start somewhere ya know? If you don't move forward, you might as well give up.

It's ok… I won't have any of my own money invested, so if I can't sell it, who cares. People are so dead-set on theatrical distribution and making money, but I'm not. I don't have any "investors", so there is no reason to make anyone happy but myself. I will give the film away for free if I need to, just so people can see the work and be entertained. Everything pay's off in the end… this film WILL boost my career, even if it's simply through IMDB and cutting a better demo reel. The only real way to make a good theatrical film is to spend around 1.5 - 3M. I'm already writing my $1.5M script and I already have interest from investors, PLUS a top producer who wants in. Having a meeting about it tomorrow actually. So from my perspective, you either make the products and prey someone will watch them, or you don't make the product and sit at home pretending to be a filmmaker. I'm kinda tired of the latter, I'm ready to make the product. Maybe someday I will make money off one of my films, but until that day, I'm perfectly happy giving it away and showing people it's possible to do a lot with very little.

If you're a filmmaker who owns all the equipment necessary for making a film. Who doesn't need "support" outside of actors, it reduces the complication substantially. Small crew of friends, all getting something out of the creative process, it can be done and it can be a good product. You just need to produce a product that's marketable, that's it. Over simplification? Sure… but when was the last time you saw an ultra low-budget indy that even tried to make a normal every day movie? I haven't seen any. All of them try to do something crazy. Studios can make 50, $13M films each year, they just need filmmakers capable of telling a story for cheap money. Everyone makes overly complex stories, which require lots of production and post production work that inflates the budget. They have big crews, which require permits, insurance, crazy schedules, unions. Cut all that out, select all and push the delete button. You don't need any of that to make a movie, you just need a good story, good actors and some luck. I've done it with shorts and now I'm going to do it with a feature. Here's hoping it comes together!

Thanks! :) Yea, I shoot motorsports stuff with my cameras constantly, so they're dropped, covered in mud, getting wet from rain, dust like you wouldn't believe and super hot, practically melting the rubber grip. That's why I invested in cheap glass, so when I damage anything, it's no big deal to replace. I've destroyed my wide angle lens already, it got splashed with salt water from one of my shoots and it dried leaving salt crystals behind which destroyed the coating. Didn't think that could happen on modern glass, but it caught me off guard. A LOT of my work is near/on the water, so I've gotta be conscious about cleaning. Man do I love that kit… honestly, I wouldn't even use an URSA mini to shoot what I normally shoot, too much camera, too risky!

" Yep, so that begs the question, what is the formula for success? I felt pretty honored to have a standing ovation at the premiere of my last film. The BBC calling it a "must see for anyone who loves cinema". I mean, it's not a great movie, I could do a lot better if we had three pennies instead of two. However, it's toured the world; Germany, France, UK, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Canada and the United States. Tens of thousands have seen it, we've even had it play at some pretty big theaters like the Arclight in Hollywood, yet I haven't made a single penny off it OR received work from it. You hobnob after the screenings with Hollywood elite, they ask for your card, you wine and dine, but nothing comes of it. After a few days, it's all forgotten and you've moved onto your next project. So if that three year experience hasn't helped at all, what does it take to be successful? Well, I've posed that question to so many filmmakers and I've hit so many road blocks. I have so many friends who are on the verge of success, yet haven't cracked that nut. When I ask them why, they don't really have an answer because they don't understand either. Heck, one of them was on "Breaking Bad" and hasn't worked a day since. You'd think being a camera operator on BB would be good for yee'ol resume, but it wasn't because it's "TV" and feature guys want "feature" operators and nobody wants a 35mm operator. I mean seriously? I've been pigeonholed the same way for years, doesn't matter how good your reel is. One thing I did was stop giving people my reel. I simply made a few short films and send people the links. They can see my directing, shooting, editing and coloring skills in 3 minutes with a complete story. So far, anyone who has watched my shorts, has hired me. However, getting them to sit down and watch, it's kind of difficult. Demo reels can be seriously inflated as well and honestly, I could produce a highly inflated "editing" reel as I've worked on shows for Disney and Fox. However, I don't do that and I think people appreciate getting a picture of what your capable of doing, IF it's good work. If your short film is some experimental piece or a slasher/horror genre, good luck. I also stepped my website up a lot, including my producers on the list, so there names will show up in google attached to my company. I think the big step is really simple and straight forward. I'm tired of pussy footing around, making shorts that go nowhere and having people come to my house to see them in decent quality because the internet looks like poop. The only solution is features, make something good and cheap (it is possible), and self distribute. Get it up on the big screen, get people to review it, show people your capable of doing the work and have passion for cinema. Go to the screenings, meet people, hand out business cards, promote the living poop out of your work and most importantly, sell it when your done promoting. If you can prove success, even if it's super limited, doors will start to open. Telling someone "my last film is on Netflix" really helps. Finally… keeping your ambition low is so important. Writing a film that could be rated PG, that has a good message, no violence, no special effects, no car chases, sticking to a great script that's shootable for under $50k, that's the ticket. It's the most important thing people forget and it's why so many low budget films just flat-out suck, they try to be overly creative and in the process, fall flat on their face. Sun is cheap/free, shoot outdoors! Desert is cheap/free, shoot in the desert! Friends are cheap/free, not much dialog! get it? Now all ya gotta do is be creative with those elements. :) Dang… did I give too much away? HA!

I agree Adrian, I find MOST of my work comes from my network. I put feelers out there and friends hook me up. I posted a little blurb about needing work on Facebook and honestly, even that helped considerably since a lot of my friends didn't even know I wasn't working full time. However, I haven't been able to take much film related work, been doing more IT stuff, post production consulting. I spent a month re-building the render farm at a local post house, because I know how to do it and needed the work. I'd be screwed right now if I didn't have other expertise. Justin kinda hit the nail on the head, you've gotta dedicate and be passionate about it. Heck, I went all out and bought a bunch of camera and post production equipment so I'd have no excuse. It's been a great enabler and pushed me to learn new things like Avid and how to shoot with modern digital cinema cameras.

Thanks :) The camera buried! Find the headphone cable… it goes to an iPhone looking thing in the middle. HA! Glass is everything anyway. ;)

I too am looking for freelance gigs and it's just impossible to find good ones. There are so many top people out of work due to the industry downsizing over the last 6 years, it's hard to compete. You either get stuck working on horrible "Zombie killer bunnies from hell IV" and get paid $1000 bux for 16 days or you sit in an office working 12hr days contemplating running your car off a bridge as you sit in 2hrs of traffic going to and from work. Talented people don't have a chance to succeed without investing money in themselves and it's hard to do that when your working freelance. You've almost gotta have a full time job, shoot every weekend and pray whatever you make, turns people on. :sigh: I'm currently prepping my first directorial feature right now, literally as I type this. I'm budgeting to have enough money so everyone gets paid. I can't imagine doing a feature film, being on set with a reliable crew and not paying them. Good pay? Probably not… depends on what you bring to the table ya know? I'd rather have 6 exceptional well-trusted people on the ground then 12 people running around with there heads cut off, like most low-budget/no-budget shows I've worked on. All I need is 6 people… (gaffer, grip, camera support, camera assistant, AD and Sound operator) We can all "double-up" roles and make shooting that much quicker. Anyway, yea I hear your rant about no-pay… just check out the editing jobs that are no pay, it's crazy! Ohh and Adrian, we'll be talking soon! If I do this film, I could use your help for sure. ;)

Whole rig weighs less then the FS7 body. Records for 110 minutes on a 64gb card and cost me around $5k to build, including 5 lenses, wireless audio, tuns of cards and batteries.

That's correct, I was agreeing with you earlier. The camera shoots in both formats. I just download several XAVC samples this morning and the LONG GOP versions worked fine, the intra frame versions didn't work at all. Avid, Premiere, Final Cut 7 or Final Cut X. Now, I read FCPX added support in this most recent version, but it's not a free update, so I don't have it. Quicktime has no idea what the files are, so Avid can't AMA link them either. Premiere and Final Cut 7 can see them, but when you double click on them in the bin, it won't recognize. I have the XAVC plugin installed, it allows the XAVC Long GOP file to playback perfectly on both my systems. I can't download the updated plugin because it requires Mavericks and people who work in the industry on stable systems, can't constantly be updating operating systems because a camera manufacturer makes them. I physically can't move to Mavericks or Yosemite because they break FCP7 and Avid 7 has major glitches. So no, XAVC Intra Frame is not natively supported by Avid, Final Cut Pro 7, Final Cut Pro X or Premiere. It requires special software to function and I tried for two hours to make it work and it flat-out doesn't work. Pro Res is built-in to the operating system. All versions are quicktime native allowing drag and drop editing on Avid, Premiere, Final Cut Pro 7, Final Cut Pro X and DaVinci without any importing or transcoding. Plus, Pro Res is backwards compatible down to Mac OS 10.6, so there is no reason to update/upgrade anything for it to work. I've been using my pocket camera like an ENG camera for almost two years. I've done tuns of run and gun shooting with them, using my shoulder rig, follow focus and matte box. The kit works fantastic. I keep an ND filter on the front all the time and pulling it out is easy. The blackmagic cameras have focus tools, histogram and zebra's to help make sure your shot is perfect, without resorting to zooming in and out. It's not an ENG camera, but who said you need to shoot with an ENG camera? If you're a good cinematographer (this is the cinematography forums) then you can use any camera and still get a good image. I only recommended the URSA Mini due to the quality, but since he's going broadcast, I'd change my mind and focus more on a 1080p camera. The Pocket camera is very "decent" and having shouldered the Ursa Mini, it's more then decent. I'm a filmmaker, so I shoot and edit mostly. It's my business to understand technology, that's where I make money. People ask me all the time what camera to buy and I hand them my pocket and they're blown away by the ease of use and results. I'm a steadfast blackmagic devotee, their workflow IS the future. You may not think that, but with Arri adopting the identical workflow, (pro res/Davinci) that's the current film industry standard. It will take time, but eventually that workflow will make into broadcast because they're about 5 years behind. Frankly, I refuse to own any Sony products after owning and working with them for two decades. I don't like the processing they use, it's overly crisp and over-exposure highlights clip harshly, even on the FS7. It's a problem Sony's always had, they focus on specification rather then a good looking image. To me, image is everything, thats why I don't shoot ENG anymore because it doesn't matter what the stuff looks like. I care about image quality and thats why I shoot Pro Res with Blackmagic cameras.

Yea, Long GOP is the efficient codec. XAVC Intra Frame isn't nearly as efficient and on the FS7 it's limited to 4:2:2 10 bit encoding. In fact, standard Pro Res 422 is nearly identical in efficiency for file sizes. Pro Res was developed at a time (2005 - 2007) where uncompressed 10 bit was the only real solution to get quality in post production. It knocked the bit rate by 1/5th, retaining identical quality. It was never developed to be a capture codec. It was meant to be a editing/finishing codec. MPEG has been around for decades, Pro Res was first introduced in 2006. This is a cinematography forum, not a broadcast news gathering forum. I shot ENG news and produced live news programming for 8 years. Quality wasn't even a consideration, camera's shoot, stuff is edited quick and put on TV. In fact, most TV is "disposable" and absolute quality doesn't really mean anything. They were the last to convert from analog tape to digital, they were the last to convert from linear editing to non-linear and they were the last to upgrade from standard definition to high definition. Up until that switch from standard definition to high definition, MPEG formats didn't even exist in the world of "television". Now MPEG owns that world because they're stuck broadcasting in that format and licensing MPEG is a lot cheaper then Pro Res. So cameras are less expensive and camera companies can easily make proprietary formats like DVCPRO-HD/AVCHD (Panasonic) XDCAM/XAVC (Sony), .r3d (Red), which require special workflows. So you just don't like anything new and different. Blackmagic designs has struck gold with the URSA mini (which isn't even out yet). FS7 is a 23.6 x 13.3 sensor Ursa Mini is a 25.34x14.25 sensor FS7 captures at 4096 x 2160 max (using external recorder) Ursa Mini captures at 4608 x 2592 (max sensor use) or 4096 x 2304 (16x9) FS7 records XAVC at 10 bit 4:2:2 at best (can capture 12 bit raw with lots of money) Ursa Mini captures 14 bit 4:4:4 3:1 CinemaDNG RAW at best FS7 records at 60fps @ 4k and 180fps @ HD Ursa Mini records at 60fps @ 4k and 120 @ HD FS7 has a rolling shutter Ursa Mini has a global shutter, switchable to rolling for lower light situations. FS7 uses special XQD memory cards (128gb $689 USD) special reader required Ursa Mini uses standard CFast card's (128gb $369 USD) no special reader required FS7 uses special Sony E-mount lenses (requiring adaptors to use any normal glass) Ursa Mini uses standard cinema-grade PL mount lenses with EOS/EF option. FS7 has dual 3G-HDSDI outputs and no timecode or reference Ursa Mini has a 12G-HDSDI output, timecode input and reference input. Plus industry standard 4 pin 12v in and output. Plus industry standard battery connection mount. It also has built in 1/4 rail mounts. FS7 retails @ $7999 body only Ursa Mini retails @ $4999 + $1499 for OLED viewfinder + $395 for shoulder kit = $6893 body only Sure, the URSA doesn't have the low-light capabilities of the FS7 or A7S for that matter. However, all the other functionality is either close, equal or better in many ways. Plus, when I'm done shooting with the blackmagic cameras, I can AMA link the files and edit many video layers in real time, without even batting an eye. Throw the final piece into DaVinci for color and send to the client without having to render anything outside of the final output for delivery. Pro Res is a great workflow, no it's not as efficient as MPEG, but neither is film and it's still unrivaled by digital.

Sorry, I did mistype, it's MPEG4, same as H264. Here are the problems with MPEG files: MPEG files don't have "frames", they have sequences of frames. So the software has to interpolate what any given frame looks like. This interpolation is done via the CPU, making it extremely processor intensive because MPEG is a very complex mathematical equation. Imagine having cut's which land on non-frames? Then imagine doing a dissolve between those areas and expecting it to maintain resolution, it just doesn't. On 4k 10 bit 4:2:2 XAVC, the difference may not be perceptible, but trust me, it's there. Pro Res is a 1:1 codec. That means it's inherently lossless throughout post production. When played back, it uses the GPU through open GL, which means there is ZERO CPU being used. When you edit, the codec doesn't need to be unpackaged, there is a literal 1:1 moving of the data into the render files. When you export again, there is a 1:1 bit for bit moving of the data. So camera original will have IDENTICAL quality to the same codec delivery file. There are lots of other problems related to MPEG files as well, more then I can get into. My point is, why strangle your production being stuck to MPEG files? There is no reason for it when Pro Res is such a better codec.

The URSA Mini has either an EF mount (canon still glass) or PL mount. I personally like the EF mount because the glass is a lot cheaper, you can buy cheaper zoom lenses for still cameras as well. I personally use EF primes because I'm not a fan of slow glass, I need fast glass because I'm always doing low-light stuff with my cameras. The GoPro's work great, but they're a speciality camera, really designed for certain shots that you need. They don't mix well with any camera because they have an 8 bit 4:2:0 color space. I think capturing 10 bit 4:2:2 as a minimal, is very critical when working on bigger shows. The moment you get into post production and start coloring, it makes a huge difference. Just a side note about the Blackmagic cameras. I've worked with them since the very first 2.5k cinema and have used all of them besides the URSA because it just came out and I can't afford it. People complain because they expect perfection from a new company developing an all-new type of product. Blackmagic had some issues with firmware, their 4K camera wasn't ready for prime-time when it came out and now it works great. I've shot some stuff on the URSA Mini at a recent trade show and it's an amazing package. I did all the tests I could to insure it worked and it performed outstanding. The URSA mini has excellent low-light capability, it over-cranks as well, two things people complained about with the older cameras. The FS7 is a good camera. It's a little bit more ENG then the Blackmagic URSA Mini as well, with filter selections and easy to access programmable side switches. However, it records in 10 bit 4:2:2 MPEG 2 files which Sony calls XAVC-Intra. These are highly compressed, low bit rate files and have a lot of loss. In contrast, the URSA Mini records in 12 bit 4:4:4 Pro Res files. These files are native to OPEN GL, so unlike MPEG2 files which are played back on the CPU (requiring a powerhouse computer to work) the Pro Res files use the GPU to play back, they don't load the CPU. Plus, XAVC files need to be transcoded to edit. I know FCPX will play them native, but good luck with doing multiple layers and effects, the machine will be rendering non-stop to catch up. In my view, you should shoot the same format you deliver in. This way, there is no generation loss between shooting and distribution. Since the highest quality single-file distribution format today is Pro Res 4444, it seems logical that should be your workflow from start to finish. There is no need to shoot in raw with the URSA mini, they have a "film" mode that puts RAW dynamic range into the pro res file. Then you edit the show, export an EDL from FCPX and color it through DaVinci. It's a great workflow, I use it every day (though not with FCPX, I'm an FCP7/Avid guy) and it flat-out works. Not great if there is a client over your shoulder, but you can apply a basic color pass to the whole project in FCPX today since it finally has LUT's in it's coloring tool on the new version.

Only one real choice for that kind of money and that style of shooting… Blackmagic URSA mini. It's whole purpose is as an ENG cinema camera. So shoulder mount, run and gun, with standard audio inputs and video outputs. It's really a versatile package and when you add V mount batteries on the back, it's not that bad to carry around for the day. You can buy the EF version of the 4.6k sensor, more standard glass and add on's for around $12k. Heck for the remainder of the money, buy one or two pocket cameras as "B" camera's. So when you need something that's not so expensive and maybe in the elements, you can use that and since it's similar color science, it matches pretty good to the URSA mini. The best thing about the blackmagic cameras is that they're quicktime native pro res output files. This means you can edit immediately in FCP/AVID/Premiere without doing ANY transcoding, unlike MPEG2 or RED code cameras, which require MASSIVE pre-editing processing. If you're a shooter/editor like I am, this is really the only way to roll! As a side note, I use my pocket cameras for everything and I've not yet found a situation where they won't past broadcast standards. Maybe not the best for recording critical audio, but that's a cheap issue to fix considering broadcast is 1920x1080. All that extra "bulk" to get 4k or higher resolution, I mean… what's the point of NOBODY will ever see that extra res? I just finished a film shot with the original 2.5k cinema camera in 1920x1080 mode, on the big screen and it looked like any other big expensive camera.

There was a re-shoot after Foster had her pregnancy and I think Khondji was already booked on another shoot and couldn't come back, so Conrad Hall Jr stepped in and finished the re-shoots.

Cool stuff David, thanks for posting that. I didn't know other hollywood films had experimented with it before. On the "Seven" Criterion Laserdisc liner notes, they mention using a bleach bypass print to make the HD master. It looks entirely different then the overly clean, green/blue tinted DVD and BluRay produced by Criterion much later in time. As a side note, it's amazing to see the movie ON film. I had an opportunity to see it projected in 35mm last year and it still blows my mind away at how well it was made for a photochemical film.

Very cool Bill, thanks for sharing. Jaws is quite an amazing film and it was one of the first blockbusters and one of the last studio films distributed in mono. So the restored version has a wonderful 5.1 mix with William's magnificent score for the first time in stereo. I've heard there is a Dolby Digital 35mm restoration print working its way around Los Angeles during the 4th of July week. I'd see it in 4k, but we don't have very many 4k theaters and the ones that do exist are playing 1st run films unfortunately. I will keep an eye out thou, never know what pops up on the schedule! :) Ohh and it's one of my all-time favorite films and one of the first in my laserdisc collection when I was a kid.

Seven is one of my favorite photographed films. When it came out, I was just a teenager and was blown away with the look. Khondji pushed it even further with Panic Room, which pushed the limits of grain and black levels on 35mm to a level I had never seen before. I'm personally not a fan of underexposing like that, but it left a lasting impression on me and opened my mind to what was acceptable. It's unfortunate true pieces of cinematic art like Seven, don't get the credit they deserve in the main stream awards. Ohh and yes, I believe Seven was the first to make a hand-full of bleach bypass prints.

Yep, I just saw this thread and Robert is right. I've had lots of problems with the SR's if the loops aren't big enough. It's a common problem on that particular camera because you can't check the loop's when it's running like manual thread cameras. My guess is whoever loaded the mag's, didn't leave enough film hanging out for good loops OR didn't have enough slack on the return side of the mag.

Yea kino for sure, there is a lot of kino in Fight Club. Notice the guy sitting in the background, he's got light on his head as well. So there was a lot more going in that shot then meets the eye. I thought Jeff did a fantastic job with Fight Club, his first big narrative film, having been a camera operator for Fincher on The Game and Seven previously. Photochemical finish as well, so kudos' for making such a stylistic look in-camera. Fincher pushed the format to it's limits for sure, hence the reason he shoots digital today.

It's so cool these guys are putting in the effort. I really hope when things are running, they can find some return on their investment. Been following their story ever since the online fundraiser. Setbacks like this are totally normal and should be expected. The steam power thing, that's just crazy to me!

It's hard to get a true B&W image off a color telecine machine. Most of my B&W 16mm scans look sepia because nobody really adjusted the telecine machine before transfer. The original pice looks like this: First thing I did was make the whole piece match a plus X film stock in DaVinci. Then I threw that output into FCP for matting. I took some clear B&W film scan's and matted those ontop, which gave the grain AND scratches/dots. Then I added the tone and splices. I didn't want to re-edit for "film look" I was just doing a test. It doesn't mass my scruples though, there isn't any gate weave… :(

The whole current distribution program is about to be invaded by Quentin Tarantino and if his program is a success, my program may take off. Theaters currently pay for the right to exposition films AND only make a very small margin off those screenings. The more screenings they have per day, the more money they make. Theaters make their money by selling food/concessions and that's the world their stuck in. What if you changed that paradigm, what if you started a distribution company who's goal is to make high-end feature narratives, big cast, lots of marketing and present them in smaller single screens, with the theater owners splitting the profits 50/50 and only a small up-front cost (for the print). Theaters with decent film projection equipment would be more then happy to entertain that kind of deal and big distributors could care less about small houses. The goal would be to release films two months early in those "specialized" venues on film. Perhaps only 60 theaters across the US and 20 or so in Europe, so we're talking very limited run. Only screen the film twice daily for two months straight. Even if you only get 250 people per day on average (which is way low) the profits after 2 months would be around 5 million (assuming $10 ticket price). This helps investors get back a huge chunk of their money up front, allows art house theaters to run a big movie AND once you're done with limited distribution, you can base future digital distribution on the success of the initial run. By my calculations, if you made the right kind of movie, something for all audiences that was marketed throughout the "art" community, you could easily make these numbers happen. Forget about general audience, forget about cineplexes, focus on the millions of people around the world who want to see real "art". The idea is to bring back the 10 million dollar film. No special effects, just an excellent, well-told story, that's more about pulling the audience in through it's beauty rather then blowing their minds away with explosions. You can do A LOT for 10 million dollars, even if you shoot on 35mm. Heck, I'm budgeting a fantasy/sci-fi film with no VFX, shooting on 65mm and a pretty good cast, for 12M. Honestly, I have no idea if my concept will work. I see so many great films come and go because nobody knew they even existed. Because their marketing/trailers made them look like crap, because people couldn't relate to the story, because the rating was to high for the "family" to go. When you write a story, you have to take demographics into account, you can't just do anything you want and prey it will come out. For this "artistic" filmmaking program to work, it's all about drawing a crowd because everyone is intrigued and there are no stumbling blocks to keep them from coming. Then you whack them with an amazing piece of art, which is not only visually stunning, but shows the power of the medium in a way people haven't seen in years, maybe even decades. The program I propose hits on so many levels and sure it's constrictive for the filmmaker because it needs to draw an audience, but that doesn't preclude them from making real works of art in the process. This is a visual medium, some of the best films made don't have oscar winning screenplays, but they all of them have unbelievable visual presence. Anyway… sorry for the rant. I'm very excited about my program and I'm focused on writing and pitching currently to a wide range of investors, in hopes of drawing them in to my program and with successful producers and cast attached, hoping to get into production early next year on my first film, which I'm currently budgeting at 2m.