Benson Marks

Thoroughly confused by all things HD. Can anyone tell me in simple terms what 720 and 1080 refer to, and which is better to shoot on ?

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help

The most common notation used to describe a format is:

-The number of active horizontal lines per frame (say, 480 or 1080)

-Followed by 'P' or 'I' (for progressive or interlace)

-Followed by the number of scans per second (the frame rate or field rate)

So, a format indicated as 720p/24 tells us that the frame has 720 horizontal lines, scanned at 24 progressive frames per second.

As for which one is better to shoot on, there really isn't one that's better than the other. Some experts argue that 1080i is better because it has more lines of resolution. Why does that matter? As the number of lines goes up, so does the ability to record fine detail in an image, allowing for a sharper, clearer picture. However, other experts argue that 720p is better because 1080i uses interlace, but 720p uses progressive scan, which is considered better than interlace. The problems with interlace include, for starters, that you're seeing only half the lines at a time, which means lower resolution. Interlace creates various artifacts (flaws or irregularities in the image). One artifact is that diagonal lines in the scene can end up looking like jagged stair steps on TV. This is called aliasing. Another artifact called twitter happens when thin horizontal lines appear to vibrate or flicker as they move up or down in the frame. This is often visible in the text of a credit roll at the end of the movie. If you really want to know which one is better, do a comparison between the two formats if you can afford it and decide which format you like best. The question isn't 'Which one is better?' The question is 'Which one is better to you?'

Wow. So wrong, Benson.

 

When Sundance is referring to "directing" (as it relates to casting, and as Theatre Directors refer to it), they are talking about the responsibility of the director to obtain a dramatically effective performance from an actor.

 

Yeah, directors have to worry about coverage and coordinating the talents of everyone on board the project, but a HUGE part of directing is working with actors. Directing actors is probably one of the most difficult and intuitive processes on the set. You can't learn it from reading a book or from figuring out many feet of 35mm film equates to running time as you've illustrated for us.

 

For a movie to be dramatically effective, it must have good performances. For a movie to have good performances, it needs to have good actors. You catching on yet?

 

Do you know what beats are? Action verbs? Do you know what drama is? Acting? You clearly don't if you think directing is only about "covering" a scene.

 

Do you have a film in Sundance? Or anywhere?

Wow. So wrong, Adam.

Sure, directors have to worry about actors, but they're only a piece of the director's job compared to things like staying within the budget, making sure you're on schedule, having cutaways and reaction shots in case an actor doesn't act right, not breaking the 180 degree rule, and, of course, getting the shots. Directing is not simply casting everybody.

Besides, a good movie is always about the script, never about the actors. Contrary to what you just said, for a movie to be dramatically effective, it must have a good story. For a movie to have a good story, you need a great script. Screw performances. You could hire Steven Spielberg, Jerry Bruckheimer, Will Smith, Vittorio Storaro and all the greatest actors, producers, directors, cinematographers, and filmmakers alive and they wouldn't be able to do diddly if the script is awful. Take 'Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull' as a prime example of just that. On a different note, 'Napoleon Dynamite' didn't have the greatest directing, cinematography, or acting in the world, but it still became successful. Why do you think that is? Because of its storyline. Oh, you say it's plotless? Look again, the movie has its structure rooted in classical romantic comedy. Or take 'Toy Story.' I wonder what the future of children's animation would've been like had the storyline been terrible for that movie.

As far as Sundance is concerned, let me be honest with you. Have you ever made a single must-see film that actually got loads of cash at the box office and was very well received by audiences everywhere?

One example of a film that is shot mainly for artistic merit that has no coverage whatsoever is 'Songs from the Second Floor'. Each scene is comprised of one wide, static shot. The production value is in the consistent aesthetic, precise framing, blocking, elaborate set decoration, composited elements, and visual slight of hand. Some of Tarkovsky's films, despite the massive amount of film used to create them, weren't shot with coverage. 'Stalker' is a good example. There are several shots that last six or more minutes that incorporate precise framing and dolly / zoom movement to capture the action and emotion in a scene.

So? Who in the world has seen 'Songs From The Second Floor' anyhow? Let alone 'Stalker?' Almost no one. Let me also take the last two films I briefly joked about in my last post. 'Stranger Than Paradise' and 'Clerks,' both of which used extensive coverage and were more successful than any of those two movies you mentioned. Find me a movie that was successful (like 'Casablanca' or 'Pulp Fiction'), and maybe I'll believe you then.

And let me be honest with you on your director thoughts. Who is this Tarkovsky guy anyway? Cause I've never heard of him before. Hitchcock or Kubrick probably made better movies than he ever did, whoever he was.

I heard a couple of times at Sundance this year that 90% of directing was casting. Do others agree?

I sure don't.

Let me just give you a basic overview of what directing is, in my humble opinion, and as short as I possibly can. Let's assume you're about to direct a one-page scene and your budget permits a three-week shoot with 50,000 feet of film. To make a long story short, this allows you 20-25 minutes per shot. In these minutes, you rehearse and shoot the scene with a master shot, exposing 90 feet of film stock. You're on schedule and on budget, and if you're Jim Jarmusch working on Stranger Than Paradise, or Kevin Smith working on Clerks, you are done. Now let's think art (aka coverage) and get production value. You've scheduled 120 minutes and budgeted 550 feet of film and have only used 20-25 minutes and 90 feet. You now have 460 feet and almost 95-100 minutes left to create art with a selection of medium shots, close-ups, cutaways, over-the-shoulder shots, etc. If directing on a 6:1 shooting ratio, you could get the master shot six times (six takes). Or you could get the master shot with one take and use the remaining budgeted film to get five different shots (master and coverage) with one take each. Does that look like a casting session to you?

Seriously, if Sundance actually believes that 90 percent of directing is casting, no wonder they've become such a joke. In fact, most of the film festivals and award nominations (including Oscar) have become a joke these days. The Reader is one of the best movies of 2008. Yeah, right.

Hi there,

 

I'm not quite a newbie but to this day I still get confused as to what a shooting ratio is (eg when people say 15 to 1 or something like that).

 

Could someone fill me in?

 

Thank you,

Ash.

Film runs through the 35mm camera, and the projector, at a speed of 90 feet per minute (16mm film runs at a speed of 36 feet per minute). Therefore, your final 35mm movie, if its running time is 90 minutes, will be 8,100 feet long (90 feet/minute X 90 minutes).

To determine the amount of film you will purchase to commence your shoot, multiply the first number of the shooting ratio (the ratio between [A] how many feet of unexposed film you purchase to start your shoot and the number of feet of film there is in your completed print) that you have budgeted for by the number of feet in your final print.

For example, if budgeting for a 3:1 shooting ratio (three takes of a single shot or three shots of one take each to make a scene) on a 90-minute film (8,100 feet), you'd probably purchase 24,300 feet of film (8,100 feet X 3).

Shooting ratios can vary greatly between productions but a typical shooting ratio for a production using film stock will be between 6:1 and 10:1, whereas a similar production using video is likely to be much higher.

I was talking to a lab person yesterday who told me that for television production, 16mm footage counts dropped by 2/3's in 2008, nearly 70%, compared to amounts processed in 2007, with the same number of TV shows shooting in town. That's pretty dramatic.

Yeah. I heard that somewhere too, but I can't remember where at the moment. I don't know if this adds to the topic or not, but I've also heard rumors that film is becoming extinct in the still industry. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is... That's quite a whammy!

IF you had the chance, what movie would you like to remake, redirect or re-envision?

How about absolutely nothing?

Really, I'd much rather leave "It's A Wonderful Life," "Where Eagles Dare," "Metropolis," and even "The Stranger" alone. Yes, I like Orson Welles (Who doesn't?), and I enjoy Frank Capra's work as well. But let's face it, we could all learn something from "Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid," and that something is you gotta adjust to the times. This is the 21st century, after all.

Mr. Marks.. pros won't reveal their budgets.. it is becomes counterproductive during the 'selling' phase of a Films life.. and if you do hear a number it usually is a lie. Remember El Mariachi was done for $10k :blink: ... ya right!

Confound it! How did I forget that?

I might as well tell the guy what to do. Michael, if your budget is low, you can't really do such fancy shots without going over budget. That includes across-the-street shots like you were describing. I hate to tell you this, but if your budget is low, all you can do is just have the camera facing the actors and hope you have a good soundman who has good microphones. That's really all you can do.

If your budget is larger, you can just simply do an ADR like Steve just said (It should cost about $2,000-$3,000 american).

Hope this helps you, Michael.

As far as I'm concerned after reading this thread, the only good commercials are the ones you see during the super bowl. ;)

I disagree with the subtitle of this thread, "No one goes to listen to a movie". Bad sound will undemine a movie every bit as much as bad cinematography. In fact, bad sound tends to be the hallmark of amateurish productions.

I second that. Just because movies are visual doesn't mean you should get lazy with sound. It was only about a year ago I heard someone say "I finally saw a digital film that I could hear." Just as bad music can ruin what could've been a great movie, so can bad sound. If you can't hear it, it's awful. It's even more important that you pay attention to sound if you're shooting a movie on digital video (or HD), because while the video quality may be good, the sound that comes from that camera stinks.

Anyhow, I need to ask this. What is the budget for your film, Michael?

Is 2.35 the same as anamorphic, or is there a difference? What about Super35?

As everyone has already said, they're different. Anamorphic 2.40 is basically where an image with a 2.40 aspect ratio is squeezed to half it's width, resulting in a 1.20 aspect ratio on the film frame. When the film is released in the theaters, the projectionists will use a special lens that will stretch the image back to the original 2.40 aspect ratio the film was intended for.

The Super 35 process does not involve such lenses, but rather it involves framing the picture to fit the ratio of the screen. The top and bottom are matted out and removed from the picture completely, resulting in a rectangular picture. Super 35 movies are filmed using flat (or spherical) lenses, so like David was saying, you can frame it to any ratio you prefer. Just remember that if you're matting to 2.40, that the film should go through an anamorphic process before your film hits theaters (Of course, you may know that already).

Actually, yes. Nightmare is going to be remade by Michael Bay's production company.

Well, on the bright side, once Bay ruins Nightmare, I'll probably start sleeping better! :D

Sweet dreams Freddy!

In response to Max's post, I'm not really surprised over the DI. Over here in the US, it seems that DI has pretty much taken over. Very few movies tend to be done photochemically these days. Then again, I could be wrong.

DI aside, Friday The 13th just convinces me even further that Hollywood has almost no creativity whatsoever and now can only come up with remakes of other movies. What is Hollywood going to ruin after this? A Nightmare On Elm Street? Unless somebody points a gun to my head, you're gonna have a hard time picturing me investing in a ticket for this.

I said I want to work with the best of everything, and film, my dear friend, despite being hard to use and incompatible with USB, is still the best.

Looking at the past, that statement seems to be getting rather old.

About 9 or so years ago some kids decided to make a movie. It was shot with an RCA camcorder and was shot like a documentary, even though it wasn't a documentary.

That movie was titled "The Blair Witch Project."

It's been only 9 years since that movie came out, and look where we are today with digital. We now have HD, 4K, Digital Cinema Cameras (Like the Panasonic DVX-100), and now, the Panavision Genesis, and this is all in nearly a decade. If we continue to see more advancements in the next decade, film probably won't be the best for long. Besides that, with the economy in the shape it's in (and if "Benjamin Button" does very well), you're probably going to see more movies shot on digital video than we have in the past. Indeed, video is in a great position right now.

As for your comment on the best movies being shot on film, the reason is because there wasn't any digital technology back then. I also looked up the number of celebrities that have shot their movies on digital video. Some are strong supporters, and others declare that it depends on the particular movie. The celebrities include Robert Altman (A Prairie Home Companion), Tim Burton (Corpse Bride), James Cameron (Aliens of the Deep, Ghosts of the Abyss, and, possibly for his next film, Avatar), Francis Ford Coppola (Youth Without Youth), David Fincher (Zodiac, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Mel Gibson (Apocalypto), Anthony Hopkins (Slipstream), Peter Jackson (Crossing The Line), Spike Lee (Bamboozled), Frank Miller (The Spirit), George Lucas (Star Wars Episodes II & III), Sidney Lumet (Before The Devil Knows You're Dead), David Lynch (Inland Empire), Greg Mottola (Superbad), Robert Rodriguez (Sin City, and Planet Terror), Ridley Scott (The Company), Martin Scorsese (Shine A Light), Steven Soderburgh (Che), Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), and The Wachowski Brothers (Speed Racer). Even if most of them say it depends on the movie, that's still a lot of movies I just listed. Also, if what I'm hearing is true and that "Avatar" is being shot with digital 3-D cameras, it makes me interested to see how Cameron will pull it off. Who knows what that movie could do?

With respect Benson, as I like you a great deal, now you're pulling out Appeal to Authority, as it is so oft called.

 

I remind you that Tarantino also shot the entirety of "Pulp Fiction" on EXR 50D. I think of the three people you mentioned, only Altman had actually decided to abandon film in favor of video, as it fits his documentary style of long uninterrupted takes.

 

Once again, there is this perceived barrier that film imposes. It isn't film, it's money. Digital is not going to change that.

 

The reason why these threads engender such incredible hostility is not that there is a fear of digital, it is that there are many people who work very hard to get into this field (as I am doing), and we don't/didn't work hard to get here to only shoot "good enough."

 

I packed my bags and moved 500 miles away from my home to work with the best. That's why I get angry when I read posts like yours.

Yes, and I admire you too. But, with respect also, I wasn't pulling out Appeal to Authority. I was just simply replying to Georg Lamshoft's question on why "Benjamin Button" was shot digitally when it could've been shot on film. So, I was taking examples of movies that were shot digitally yet could've been shot on film.

But since I'm involved in the argument, I think I'll have my say on this. I have to agree with Brian on this one, Karl. Digital also requires work. If it requires more knowledge and control over the tools, wouldn't that make it harder to work with than film? I also think digital can be money. Digital video requires a very expensive 35mm blow-up when it goes to the theaters. The same costly blow-ups that had to be used for 16mm are also needed for video. I've even heard that this blow-up could actually make a digital movie more expensive to make than a 35mm film (You'll probably need a distributor to pay for that costly transfer, and even that isn't simple, either).

With respect Benson, as I like you a great deal, now you're pulling out Appeal to Authority, as it is so oft called.

 

I remind you that Tarantino also shot the entirety of "Pulp Fiction" on EXR 50D. I think of the three people you mentioned, only Altman had actually decided to abandon film in favor of video, as it fits his documentary style of long uninterrupted takes.

 

Once again, there is this perceived barrier that film imposes. It isn't film, it's money. Digital is not going to change that.

 

The reason why these threads engender such incredible hostility is not that there is a fear of digital, it is that there are many people who work very hard to get into this field (as I am doing), and we don't/didn't work hard to get here to only shoot "good enough."

 

I packed my bags and moved 500 miles away from my home to work with the best. That's why I get angry when I read posts like yours.

Yes, and I admire you too. But, with respect also, I wasn't pulling out Appeal to Authority. I was just simply replying to Georg Lamshoft's question on why "Benjamin Button" was shot digitally when it could've been shot on film. So, I was taking examples of movies that were shot digitally yet could've been shot on film.

But since I'm involved in the argument, I think I'll have my say on this. I have to agree with Brian on this one, Karl. Digital also requires work. If it requires more knowledge and control over the tools, wouldn't that make it harder to work with than film? I also think digital can be money. Digital video requires a very expensive 35mm blow-up when it goes to the theaters. The same costly blow-ups that had to be used for 16mm are also needed for video. I've even heard that this blow-up could actually make a digital movie more expensive to make than a 35mm film (You'll probably need a distributor to pay for that costly transfer, and even that isn't simple, either).

I'm sure it looks nice, but is this ("nice", "sharp enough", "not too much higlight clipping", "almost like film"...) really the right perspective for an extremely expensive Fincher-film with marvelous production-design? When a 4k DI from 35mm would be no problem at all and even bigger formats seem reasonable?

Quentin Tarantino shot "Death Proof" with a Panavision Genesis camera even though he could've just as easily shot it on film.

Robert Altman shot "A Prairie Home Companion" on a Sony HDW-F900 digital cinema camera. He could've shot that one on film.

Even the great Francis Ford Coppola shot "Youth Without Youth" on a Sony HDC-F950. He could've shot that one on film, couldn't he?

Quite honestly, I think the average person could care less whether their favorite movie was shot on digital video or 35mm. As long as that person liked it, it doesn't matter.

So I see the MPAA has rated my feature film.

 

http://www.mpaa.org

 

Type "Dark Reprieve" into the box.

 

How I got an R is beyond me? Not a single swear word in the entire movie.

 

Oh well at least my indie film will not have to bare that "not rated" stigma on the back cover of the DVD.

 

In any event I made a movie rated by the real ratings board, the American one! That must be cause for some form of celebration?

 

R,

I haven't seen your movie, but the rating reasons are "for some violent and disturbing content."

Anywho, I don't really depend on ratings that much. Let me just be blunt here. Rating systems (in my opinion) are totally unreliable.

Here's the long list of criticisms brought up by the MPAA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_rating_system (Click on "Criticism of the MPAA rating system" after it's done loading.)

It all depends on if you see a wide image as merely a gimmick or having an artistic value. If it's merely a gimmick to you, then of course you are going to be cynical about the whole process. If it is artistically interesting to you, if you feel it serves the nature of what you are shooting, then it won't seem like a useless gimmick to you.

 

Sure, you can frame group shots in a square frame, it's just that you have to frame looser to do it. Look at how many master shots in small rooms in old movies play out head-to-toe. Now that can be an advantage if you've got some interesting architecture above their heads, etc.

 

But in regular meat-and-potatoes filmmaking of people talking in small rooms, I always found it easier to stage and compose them for 1.85 versus 1.33. Two people sitting at a dinner table, for example -- often to hold the two of them in frame, you back up in 4x3 and end up seeing a lot of the tabletop and even their laps below the table, and often you find yourself looking for the tiniest table you can get away with to push them closer together, so you can get the tightest two-shot possible and be able to use that for cutting more often than singles. As the frame gets wider, it is possible to hold multiple people in one frame and stay tighter on them.

 

Now of course I can also come up with scenarios where a squarer frame is more applicable, or more aesthetically pleasing, but for the most part, I find both 1.37 Academy and 2.40 anamorphic to be more "stylized" aspect ratios that require you deal with an awkward shape (too square or too wide) in an aesthetically interesting manner, whereas with 16x9 (1.78) or 1.85, it seems easier to stage and compose ordinary scenes in a subtle manner. It's an easy shape to compose within, though 1.85 is borderline too wide in that respect -- 1.66 to 1.78 is a little more natural-looking to create a balanced "classical" frame.

 

The advantage of more extreme frames like 1.33 or 2.40 is that the awkwardness lends itself to interesting compositions, but they are harder to achieve, take more work to be effective.

 

But I certainly don't think of 16x9 in video as a gimmick, more like something that was a long overdue!

 

Truth is that rather than 4x3 making a comeback theatrically, I see the greater likelihood of 4x3 disappearing from television.

 

But for people who spent their whole careers shooting in 4x3, I can certainly understand why now composing for 4x3 would seem natural to them. I came more out of still photography in college (1.5 : 1) and features out of film school (mostly 1.85 : 1), and love shooting 2.40 anamorphic, so I haven't done much 4x3 framing in my lifetime, though I love old 1.37 Academy movies.

 

Certainly some of the most beautiful compositions in cinema history were from the 1.37 Academy days, I grant you that. But that was partly because that was the only aspect ratio being used -- I'm sure if 1.85 were the only option for filmmakers shooting from 1900 to 1950, there would have been some lovely 1.85 compositions being made. It was the nature of the times -- those people were great craftsmen.

Good points, David.

The last paragraph is especially interesting. It makes me wonder: If you just stuck with one aspect ratio (For example, let's say you only shot 2.40 anamorphic for the rest of your life), could you possibly create some amazing imagery (With some time and experience) as well, or were those guys in the old days just so good at what they were doing that everybody today would just make poor compositions? It is something that leaves me curious.

I, too, think 16:9 has a good opportunity to be artistic as well. It's just that the way things are right now, it looks like a gimmick. If I were to make a prediction, though, I'd say 16:9 will eventually become the new full-frame, considering how commonly it's used with television and newer TVs (And I don't mean that it will replace the other two widescreen formats, it's just by television standards). But if it creates an opportunity to be artistic, who knows how great the format will be?

Yes, we need widescreen. Mainly because I like it. To sit in a big movie theater and have a huge landscape open up to you on a wide screen, that's magic for me. Go see "Lawrence of Arabia" or "2001" in a big theater and tell me that it would have been just as impressive in Academy 1.37.

 

Anyway, why is a more horizontal frame "cramped" and a more vertical frame "open"? Seems like you could easily make the argument either way. If you've ever staged multiple actors in a small room in 2.40, I think you'd find it liberating to have that wider space for the actors to move around in -- it would feel the opposite of cramped.

 

Unless 4x3 projection is really huge, like with IMAX, it's hard to not feel that things are being crammed in to fit within the narrow width sometimes. And it's hard not to feel the same thing when you're trying to compose scenes for 4x3 sometimes. One actor fits fine inside 4x3, but three actors in a medium shot? It gets harder...

 

I'd be more than happy though to have the option of making and showing movies in 4x3 -- one more variation would be fun to play with. But not need widescreen? I don't agree at all. Even the Golden Rectangle of art is widescreen -- 1.61 : 1 I believe.

 

Do you seriously think there is any worldwide movement in cinema towards squarer screens and movies? Some audience need for square images that is screaming out to be satisfied?

 

To make movies immersive experiences, the images have to be big and sharp. It was easier to expand movie screens horizontally within the architecture of theaters than to expand them greatly both vertically and horizontally, which is why Fred Waller made Cinerama a wide screen process, compared to the later IMAX process, which required its own theaters to be built to accommodate a 50' tall screen. It's a lot easier to make a 50' or wider screen. Waller knew that to make a movie an immersive experience the image had to be large enough to excite your peripheral vision, and he knew that engaging the horizontal periphery was a priority if he couldn't just make the image much bigger in all dimensions (his early experiments involved five projectors in a sort of pyramid shape before he settled on three projectors side by side.)

 

Even today, most (not all) theater screens have a fixed vertical height, so scope movies are projected larger horizontally than 1.85 movies.

 

It's only on home video that scope movies are shorter than 1.85 movies.

 

In fact, this sort of sentiment wondering if we need widescreen movies anymore seems to me to most likely come from someone who watches movies mostly on a TV set, who hasn't had the same wonderful childhood experiences in movie theaters seeing great widescreen movies in 70mm on a big screen and thrilling when the curtains rolled back, and back.

Paragraph #1: Sure, I've seen "Lawrence of Arabia" before. Have you seen "Gone With The Wind," of "The Wizard Of Oz?" Those films had some amazing visuals too.

Paragraph #2: I was referring to the spherical lens formats. Usually when you remove the top and bottom of the frame, the image tends to look rather claustrophobic in nature. If you wanted to make your image look more open but were stuck with a spherical lens format, that would be hard to pull off.

Paragraph #3: Back to "The Wizard Of Oz." I can't count the number of shots where all the main characters (Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tin Man, and even the Lion) were all in the same frame, including Toto.

Paragraph #4: With the 1:1.66 format beginning to disappear quickly (The format closest to the golden rectangle), I'm not sure the golden rectangle argument really works.

Paragraph #5: Of course not. Is it just me or are you just jumping to conclusions because I was questioning whether widescreen really is necessary?

Paragraph #6: If the idea that the images have to be big and sharp in order to be immersive were true, we might as well have been shooting everything with 70mm film.

Paragraph #7: No comment.

Paragraph #8: Of course.

Paragraph #9: Again, I think you're jumping to conclusions. I did not say widescreen was bad (In fact, I admit I like it), I'm just saying that because it fulfilled its primary purpose (Keeping people in the seats of theaters everywhere), and that the majority of movies would still look fine no matter what format it was shot in (Nobody really cares what format a movie is in anyhow), I have to ask, "do we really need to use it anymore?" I warned you this question may be tradition-challenging.

Besides, with the economy the way it's in, it's not like we'll be seeing the next "2001" or "Lawrence Of Arabia" anytime soon.

Sorry if this is the wrong forum to discuss this (and if this sounds a little too tradition-challenging), but I just have to ask myself this: Do we really need widescreen anymore?

Where do I begin? First off, one of the most common problems with widescreen includes the claustrophobic or cramped look of the 1:1.85 spherical format and Super 35 after the image has been matted to widescreen, which may not be good if you want the image to look open instead. The best way to avoid this is probably to matte to 1:1.66, but because that ratio is rarely used, it's better not to do so. That would leave us with anamorphic 1:2.39. Unfortunately for those of us who are just beginners, the format would be too expensive to use.

Second, the primary reason for widescreen was to save our theaters back in the old days because of TV. Now that HDTVs are going widescreen, and now with widescreen dominating almost everything (In fact, my computer is already widescreen), the significance of a rectangular image on a large silver screen is much less so than it was back in the '50's and '60's. On a side note, Stanley Kubrick never wanted a widescreen release of any of his films during the time of VHS (I don't know what he would say about that today, considering he died before HDTV, DVDs, and Blu-Ray Discs became well-known).

Finally, most movies don't really need to be in widescreen. Many of the best movies aren't in widescreen (Citizen Kane, for example), and most of the greatest movies after full-frame are usually in 1:1.85 spherical anyway (Including "The Godfather," "Chariots Of Fire," "Psycho," and many others).

So I ask you again, do we really need widescreen anymore?

It's already being nominated for 5 golden globes.

This should be good. :)

"Rope" is only 10 master shots, had only 5 edits, took place in almost entirely one room, and was even based on a stage play. So even for a studio feature, it was pretty cheap to make. As for Brian's thoughts on Stewart and Hitchcock, consider this. Hitchcock was still learning the process at the time (I once saw a featurette on Hitchcock which said that he didn't use the editing style for "Rope" again after it was done, so he was still learning back then), and "Rope" came out before "Rear Window," "Vertigo," "Psycho," and many of Hitch's best works. As for Jimmy Stewart, sure, he was in "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," and "It's A Wonderful Life," but it's possible he worked on "Rope" for half (maybe even less than half) his salary. If you look at the film, Jimmy Stewart was the only big name in the entire production back then. Do you know any of the other stars in the movie? Because I don't. Besides, there have been many low-budget films with at least one big name (Antonio Banderas in "Desperado," or John Travolta in "Pulp Fiction," for example).

Whatever the case, "Rope" was still a cheap movie to make. Sure, the amount of money is more than it was yesterday, but it's still probably very inexpensive anyway (I'd say Karl's $50,000 is about right, which is still pretty low-budget).

Hello I'm new here so hi everyone!

 

I'm planning to start a couple of self funded projects to start filming in the 1st and 2nd quarter 2009, and would very much like these to be done on 35mm. The shoe string budget is £2k for a short 12 minute film and £10k for the 90 minute feature. Is this possible? or preposterous? apparently the film 'Table 5' was a 90min, 35mm feature made for £278.38

 

I imagine to achieve these kinds of expenses you have to buy equipment you need and sell it once the filming is finished, instead of just renting everything.

 

It will be a 2 perf widescreen format, dolby stereo soundtrack, minimal location changes

 

anyone heard of these kinds of figures? (sorry if this has been asked before)

I know that Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" was shot for 5,000 USD, which would probably be around 3,350 GBP. That movie was shot in 35mm. I'd check it out to see how Hitchcock did it.

Robert Rodriguez shot his first movie "El Mariachi" for 7,500 USD, which would probably be around 5,020 GBP in your area. It was shot in 16mm.

I should note that both films are about 80 minutes long.

So yes, I think it's possible to make a 90-minute feature on film for 10000 GBP, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's very hard to pull off. With "El Mariachi," Robert Rodriguez rented a camera for a week, purchased some film and tape, paid for gas, got his friend to act, went across the border, bought some tacos, and shot the movie - he shot it for 5020 GBP (7500 USD). He didn't pay the lab. It wasn't edited. He had no music. It wasn't even 35mm. He didn't finish it.

As you can see, this route is difficult. In fact, I'd probably shoot a digital feature shot in one or two weeks with a three-chip Mini-DV camera and a five-to-eight person crew if I had 10000 GBP to make a movie.

That's all I can say about the 90-minute feature. Hard? Yes. Impossible? No.

??

Confused? Let me explain it as best I can.

Let's just think of it this way. We tend to view the director as being the artist for a movie, right? Thus, it's worth thinking about art and the creative aspect of things, hence my argument on taste.

But I'm assuming the main part you were confused by were the last two paragraphs, so I will try to get you to understand what I was getting at as best as I can. I was basically trying to set out an example that a great director is probably great because of their intelligence. A work that was made out of green frog clay could be considered more intelligent than just a green frog made out of clay. Just as creating a painting using paint made by grinding up pieces of sad clown paintings could be considered more intelligent than a velvet painting of a sad circus clown.

If you're still confused, I'd be more than happy to respond as soon as possible.