John E Clark

There are far more that are not, trust me. Indie budgets are usually based on cast, and therefore the SAG contract they fall under. It used to be common to see films made under the Modified Low Budget - under around $650K; all these I have seen or heard of or been involved in never started IA but I think one flipped around 2005... cannot name it. There is a tremendous amount of business done under the SAG ULB contract which is under $200K. You can find recognizable actors in these films working at $100 per 8 hour day.

There is now also the SAG-AFTRA "New Media" agreement option. Here's a blurb on 'pay', as in when, how much...

----

You are able to defer payment to your performers under the SAG-AFTRA New Media Agreement if your performers agree to the deferral. A deferral in payments means that you agree to make X payment when Y happens. Example: A producer agrees to pay all principal performers $100 per day of work performed if and when the production receives DVD distribution and after the producer recoups production costs of $5,000. When deferring payment to the performer, P&H or H&R will also be deferred until the performers’ payment is triggered.

----

I believe this is the only SAG-AFTRA agreement that allows the performer to 'agree to no pay now'. As I recall all the the other 'low' budget agreements at least require $100/day during actual production, with any other pay dependent on distribution, etc.

A Motion Picture Hospital???????? Seriously?????

And for the aged... though there has been announcements of shutting the facility down over the past several years... I think it is still in operation...

---

The Motion Picture & Television Country House and Hospital is a retirement community, with individual cottages, and a fully licensed, acute-care hospital, located at 23388 Mulholland Drive in Woodland Hills, California. It is a service of the Motion Picture & Television Fund, providing services for members of the motion picture and television industry.

---

But question still persists; how does wanting something, entitle you to having it?

There is a concept of 'adverse possession', and the concept has been discussed relative to 'copyrights'. 'Adverse possession' includes such things as a 'squatters', and there are statutes in various states that if a squatter continues 'possession' beyond some statute of limitations, the property rights pass to the squatter.

In the case of 'copyrights' it may be more on the order of 'abandoned property' for some types of materials. This also is one of the reasons for 'orphan artworks legislation' to somehow address works for which the original copyright holder is either unknown, or no longer able (as in like dead...), to assert their rights.

The point is that 'ownership' is not as clear cut as your question implies. So, yeah, if there is property abandoned, I nave a 'right' to take it, as does anyone else. The procedure for attempting to find the legitimate owner is frought with problems, especially in the are of 'art', of which, 'film' is a subset.

As for civil disobedience relative to 'media' and 'content', I don't think a number of 'innovations' on distribution would have occurred had there not been the threat if not actuality of massive/significant civil disobedience on the part of consumers.

Audio tapes and then video tapes both were railed against by the respective media industries as leading to their emminent demise. As history has shown, no such meltdown occurred. One can point to bad choices on how much to spend on productions, and the complete lack of viewer interest as to why several studios hit the skids, and piracy playing absolutely no part, or only a minor role.

If the 'law' had followed your implicit statement of 'the copyright holder's decisions are inviolate', then you would be paying $100 per blank tape(or whatever the current popular recording media is, say USB sticks or blank BDs), or just not available to anyone other than 'authorized distributors' of media.

As it is that threat/actuality has acted as a competitive element in the market, and as the maxim for capitalist endeavors goes, 'the market determined the lowest price for the highest quality'...

The article specifically states the drop in sales is due to piracy.

 

But question still persists; how does wanting something, entitle you to having it?

I do have the right to buy a DVD, and further view or sell it where ever I want. The Supreme Court has ruled on that.

---

The Supreme Court has ruled that copyright owners cannot legally forbid people who buy their works to sell them in the US, even if the items in question were made outside the US. The decision upheld a geographically unlimited first sale doctrine — a provision which holds that once someone buys a book, DVD, or other work copyrighted in America, they're free to sell or rent it without the copyright holder's permission. In doing so, it created a major precedent for breaking down international sale barriers, granting legal status both to people who simply want to sell items bought abroad and to those who make money by taking advantage of cheap prices outside the US.

---

As for 'piracy', I've been advocating that the 'action' taken by copyright holders is wrong headed if the expectation is that by 'suppressing' piracy by any means, including draconian sentencing, will change their sales picture in the least.

I have further claimed that 'piracy' except in certain cases, does not detract from 'profits' any more than many other types of 'loss', one most significant, is the switch of how people receive content.

DVD 'sales' are either flat or declining because people are changing how they obtain content. Not due to en mass purchasing 'pirate' copies over legitimate copies.

This changed happened earlier in the porn industry than in non-sex content, and one can use certain lessons to apply to what may be the future for such content.

The Music industry has been whining about piracy, all the while growing, all the while offering up more Saint Miley Cyruses as pop icons, etc. But from their tell they are ready for the breadline next year, unless more draconian legislation is enacted.

All the while certain countries continue to have 'robust' pirate industries, which would affect an international corporation's bottom line in a more significant way.

 

The Huffington pose article which mister Drysdale posted, disagrees with your opinion. That's where I got the 50% drop in sales with no rebound data. And no, I do not follow the adult video industry.

 

I don't understand why you're bringing up other issues that have nothing to do with piracy. You seem to be saying that all sources of information do not gybe with what you believe are the benefits of piracy to the media market. Is this not what you're saying?

 

How does wanting something, entitle you to having something?

This is the quote from person who mentions '50%'.

----

Nate Glass, who runs TakeDownPiracy, an organization battling online porn copyright infringement, estimates DVD sales have dropped by 50 percent since 2007.

---

Now, this is a test... where does the phrase 'due to piracy' figure in.

There are any number of 'reasons', but just because the person who runs 'TakeDownPiracy' makes a statement, does not mean that 'piracy is the major cause'.

Further

---

"A mid-level company that might have earned $350,000 a month in DVD sales before that was earning maybe $150,000 to $200,000 when the recession hit," Glass said. "That may have partly been due to the recession, but there hasn't been a bounceback like in other industries."

---

So, with this further quote, again, no 'rebound due to piracy' is to be found.

In the same article...

----

Sapoutzis, (Theo Sapoutzis, the CEO and Chairman of Adult Video News (AVN)), "guesstimates" the industry made as much as $13 to $15 billion during its peak in the mid-2000s, before the recession. He accepts Cummings' suggestion that 80 percent of porn companies are now defunct or struggling, but Sapoutzis sees that as a sign that the porn business is maturing, not dying.

----

So, again, no declamation about the effects of 'piracy'... in fact offers a 'industry maturing' reason for the disappearance of a number of production companies.

And another...

----

Roberts, (Darren Roberts, who was the CEO of AVN between 1996 and 2010), said despite the economic hardships the business has apparently faced in recent years, he thinks things are bouncing back. "I am seeing the light at the end of the tunnel," he said. "DVD sales are coming back from two years ago. It was doom and gloom for a while, but people who put out good high quality product survived."

----

What DVD sales are coming back from two years ago... and according to that industry worker... "people who put out (....) high quality product survived'... hey what a concept... put out a quality product and survive.

I don't know that there is a 'preference', each mode of measurement has its benefits and detractions.

The popluar Sekonic L-758-cine, is incident/reflectance and spot... so for one meter you have all three when needed.

Since I have had spot meters for years, I bought the Sekonic L-308DC for the incident and Footcandle/Lux readout. This is helpful in that most pro lights are listed in terms of footcandles/lux output at various distances, and many articles about 'how a shot was done', in magazines, journals and blogs, list things in fc/lx as well.

Here's what the White House and Federal government have to say on the matter. And I'll add that NO WHERE does it state that piracy "helps" spread the word of material, and thereby "increase sales" and revenue from sales.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/2013-us-ipec-joint-strategic-plan.pdf

Well, if we are to take 'Whitehouse/FBI' pronoucements, we would all believe that Marijuana is as bad as Heroin, or other major opiates... in a word often such reports are more selfserving for 'bigger budgets' than actual 'crime' that has an effect on the universe.

How about making trade agreements with countries that are known to have major 'copy' industries, and allow international review of 'at the street level' of their actual practices.

 

 

No, that's not true. The article especially states that that industries DVD sales has dropped 50% specifically due to piracy, and that the recovery experienced by other industries, that would include legitimate feature film work and DVD and stream sales thereof, has not manifested in the adult video market.

Since you say you haven't 'kept up on the porn industry', DVD sales have been dropping since the advent of better streaming, and 'free' porn. Free porn doesn't necessarily mean 'pirated' porn.

There are people in various articles who don't seem to see the same doom and gloom, and many articles mention the 'condom' rule as being one of the more significant reasons why Chatsworth may be come a porn ghost town in the near future.

I find the 'porn' industry interestig in how it has survived given the stigma of the sex industry, the amount of attempts to regulate it out of existence, such as local ordinances regarding direct sales, attempts to limit internet accessibility, and this all figures into various adaptations on production and distribution.

I use two light meters. One is a spot meter, Minolta Spot (no longer made...), and I predominantly use it to check contrast between objects in the scene.

I use a Sekonic L-308DC, an incident/reflectant meter, for general 'how much light is falling on the scene'.

Since I don't have a camera or monitor that has a waveform display, I have calibrated my Sekonic with an effective ISO value for a given camera ISO setting, to yield a 50% IRE level. This may be 'higher' than some people, and one may see 35-45% mentioned in other articles/threads on the subject. It is dependent on the camera and the available 'curves' or responses that the camera has.

In any case, matching up the meter ISO and resulting levels is required, as the 'specs' for camera manufacturers relative to ISO ratings, has some variability.

I don't know where the porn industry has sorted all this, it seems to have suffered declining sales.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/porn-industry-in-decline_n_2460799.html

The article has various comments about 'why the decline', one of which was 'due to piracy, less incentive'. Other commentators suggest that The Recession, or some number of competitors are 'filtering out' as a result of some form of industry 'maturation'. Other commentators did not specifically mention 'piracy' as the cause, but are looking to diversify their 'products' to other areas. One commentator mentioned 'cosplay modeling' and not necessarily 'adult' oriented content...

Other reasons could be such as 'paying customers want better content'... and so fewer people can get by with just setting up a 'web cam' and upload 'the action' for quick cash.

 

Really jeclark2006 I doubt you would work for free. I know Phil has decried this practice for years now.

 

Yet, you advocate to me the benefits of giving my product away for free. Silly.

 

R,

 

 

 

I get paid for making new things, not defending old things.

Apple I'm looking at you, you're making record profits therefore they should be ordered to give everyone a free computer.

 

R,

You are aware of course, that Darwin is a 'free' verson of the core OS that Apple uses for both the Mac and various pad/phone devices, and that OS is based in turn on a combination of the Mach Micro Kernel, developed at Carnegie Mellon University and was 'free' to the public, and FreeBSD (heck Free is in its name), which was based on BSD, Berkeley Software Distribution, which was given out 'free' by the Regents of the University of California (where I pay taxes...).

Furthermore early on the entire "Macintosh" look was clearlly ripped off of a Xerox system, and because it was not 'worth it' for Xerox to pursue the matter, Apple was able to 'steal' the 'look'.

There is a wide industry these days using 'free' software such as Linux, FreeBSD, other BSD derivatives, etc. that has allowed a number of companies to be successful in selling their spectific 'add on value'.

Further there's also a "Hackintosh" version of the Mac OS that allows someone to run Mac OS on 'any old compatible' hardware...

Furthermore, for my own personal software use, I have always bought Adobe since 2.5 of photoshop. But until the 'cloud' package became available, I would usually wait 2-3 major version before anteing up for a new package. Now that the 'cloud' is available... Adobe gets about $1200 a year for the two seats I purchase.

So, in terms of availability/cost/convenience... Adobe is now getting more out of me than back in the 'olden' days.

The point being, make the material available at a 'reasonable' price and 90% of the market will be reasonable in acquiring the product.

If every new release had a $1-2 iTunes like cost, and all old libraries for which there was a previous DVD and now BD transfer available... 'piracy' would not so much disappear, but it would become a non-issue for most.

That would not end the 'systematic' pirating that is found in certain areas of the world, where 'enforcement' is either ignored, or such activities have become 'institutionalized' at much higher levels than that of the grass roots intheatercopist/DVDripper.

For the talk about the theatrical market, it's important to remember that many film never have a theatrical release, or at most a showcase release. They earn their money in the DVD or the various other means of distribution. You can have a bit of word of mouth fan video extracts being put on line, which do give publicity, but they are rather different to the full film up for download either for free or at low price sites, which haven't purchased such rights.

While not a 'online' or DVD/BD release only, I did look at Linklater's 'Boyhood', and at the moment it is at about $19M for its boxofficmojo sales, with a July 11 and 5 theater limited release, and an August 15 wide, that is 771 theaters, release.

I also checked one 'well known' torrent site, and it has been uploaded on a couple of occasions, where one that had stats, seemed to indicate that during 1-2 weeks that the copy was up, before a take down notice, there were about 1000 downloads.

The film at the time during this torrent's availability, was in 5 theaters... so... In all likelihood those downloaders were not going to choose between go to the theater, and watching a pirated copy... they had no other 'access'.

It is of course a conjecture whether those who downloaded the copy would end up in a theater (near them... perhaps 500 miles away...) or eventually buy legitimate copies of one sort or another later.

And that's the problem... relative to making any realistic estimate about the impact of such activites, and how much effort need to be applied to reduce such.

It also points out the 'problem' with the current distribution system, which for some reason The Studios want to hang on to for dear life.

If 'pirating' were that good and that significant a drain on legitimate profits, then no 'online' site, such as iTunes, or similar would be economically successful in the least.

 

Why you're using the adult video market as an example is beyond me.

 

I use the porn industry as an example of content that is heavily 'pirated', and that it continues and presumably profitably. For all the gnashing of teeth about how 'producers' make the argument that 'pirating' is killing the business, the porn industry is a shining counter example. Since the 80's that industry has pretty much been out of the 'theatrical release' business altogehter, and only survived on moving to 'video' as in 'real live SD video cameras', and tape distribution, then DVD, then online streaming and downloading.

In a word, that industry has had to address the 'pirate' situation far in advance of Hollywood.

What is 'killing the business' in Hollywood has nothing to do with piracy in the least. What is happening in 'hollywood' is moving productions out of LA for many major motion pictures, due to any number of 'labor cost' related reasons. What is 'killing' Hollywood at least for some segment of the 'US' viewing population is a more 'international' product, which has less to do with US 'daily life', and more to do with material that crosses cultural boundaries with 'minor' changes, such as replacing talking robot characters with local language versions.

The 'piracy' argument is a red-herring on 'why no jobs in Hollywood'.

Because you want something does not entitle you to a copy, regardless of what it is. But that's what you're arguing.

 

Can you demonstrate a logical line that shows how that kind of reasoning is correct?

The concept of civil disobedience is quite in line for 'downloading' material that has no currently available option. In the case of "Freaks" depending on how one calculates 'Public Domain Status', it has been in PD status since at least 1988 by the following calculation, 1932 + 28 for the first copyright (you know back before a large "entertainment" conglomeratie lobbied for extending copyrights essentially 'in perpetuity' to corproations. Where as you a lowly mortal only gets Life+70 with the new internationally conforming copyright schedules), and the copyright could have been renewed in 1959 for another 28 at years, so that means "Freaks" is in PD status since 1987-88 or so.

However due to the Mickey Mouse Legislation, there may have been a period where orginal copyright holders could request a 'return to copyright status' of works that were in the PD.

I think this is wrong, and only because a well moneyed lobby pushed through crappy legislation that things are the way they are.

I don't give a rats ass about Sony, Disney, et al., losing a dime. I do feel strongly about an actual person who makes films and being able to enforce their personal copyrights for their material. I don't personally like 'works for hire', which has induced all manner of ills because the actual producing person, often does not see more than a miniscule benefit of their labors.

But there is no real organization for people who actually produce 'content' to go after pirates. The MPAA et al. only effectively address the corporations' interests, and only by some sort of collateral effect, effect individual filmmakers and their rights.

You your self have pointed this out. You have said you submitted information to various sites about 'copyrighted' material with little effect. Put MPAA behind your email... and guess what... things happen.

I have used the porn industry as an example. And for a while the porn content producers will attempting to enforce their copyrights. And while they still do, some are rethinking their approach and looking to produce more 'watchable' content to differntiate themselves and keep viewers interested in what is available via their legitimate distribution channels.

In the case of porn, there is the issue of idiot legislation which is puritanical in its core, which has limited how porn is 'paid for' on the internet which should be dispatched to allow for easy payment of such material. The government can enforce various relguations about age, etc. but as for 'payment' there should be no sigma relative to using credit cards etc for payment. But I digress...

I'm curious why other people do not do this.

Why other people may not 'wait' for a release in their region, because a studio doesn't see a reason to produce a disk for their region?

Since I read/listen/haltinglyspeak German, I can wait till dooms day for Region 1 release of German films in German with German Subtitles...

When I go to Germany I buy a number of disks, and guess what... because some hackers somewhere 'stole' intellectual property I can use VLC to play those legitimately purchased disks in my home town USA location.

Had I 'waited' for The Studios to distribute such versions in the USA (as in not F**Ked up with english subtitles or worse dubbed dialog...) I'd still be waiting.

When HDDVD came out it was 'region free'... guess what format became the industry standard... the regionized Bluray. Oh yeah, there was lots of whining about the 'quality' BD had over HDDVD, one significant feature was the regionalization 'option' which of course US studios have typically take advantage of.

Some countries say that it is 'illegal' to regionalize to the point were a consumer who has purchased a legitimate copy to not be able to play it, and have required the player manufacturer to provide 'code' options, or at least not take legal action against consumers who 'change' their player's region.

Not so in the US.

Then there's the issue of previously released films that for one reason or an other The Studios do not see a sufficient market to rerelease, yet there may be more than one person out there who wants to see it for whatever reason.

Your attitude of 'wait till some maven in Downtown Hollywood sees a market', will pretty much set that there will only be the most recent crap available.

I'll give an example. In 1932 Tod Browning (ever heard of him?) produced a film titled "Freaks". It eventually went into Public Domain status, and I think there's some debate about that... and for some reason, like 'film history', I glommed on to a torrent copy. I saw a DVD copy recently and bought it. The point being, had there been a DVD or 'legitimate' online site... I would have bought that in the first place. I think it is only because of the online 'interest' that someone somewhere saw enough 'market' to produce a legitimate(or at least a professional) distribution.

As for Todd Browning, I'm sure most people have seen one of his other films, "Dracula"(1931)... and was a fairly active director until "Freaks"... but I digress...

As for how effective the 'wait for change' is... I stopped watching Broadcast TV when CBS cancelled "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" (who are these people???). As far as I can tell, my personal boycott has had in absolutely no effect on Broadcast TV programming in a direction that would bring me to resume watching. Since the show was cancelled in 1969, I've been 'waiting' nearly half a century for 'change'...

But back to 'philosophy'...

In my day job I could give a rats ass about 'copying' and 'pirating'. Since I deal in software, this is a popular topic along with either copyrights or 'software patents'. I tend to the 'make new novel items quicker than the patent processing can produce' side of this argument. And in many cases see certain types of patent actions as counter to 'innovation' rather than supporting it. This is now begun to be seen in some legislation in regard to 'patent trolls' where a law firm may pick up a dead company's 'patent assets' and then start sending out patent licensing schedules to everyone who 'looks like' they are producing something similar. In many cases large companies pay up because it is not worth their legal fees fighting such. As soon as someone pays up, that provides more court 'weight' for the troll, and it is harder to break, thus producing more licensing fees.

This on the same order of things as "Freaks" and requiring 'licensing' for use of copyrighted material. Tod Browning is long dead. This film was perhaps the coup de grace of his career, MGM which was an active studio at the time, has died and been resurrected a number of times since, and in some cases it was just for that 'library' as well as the name brand.

In other words 'licensing fees' would not pay the filmmakers to 'make more films' since they are all dead, and the company that sponsored them is dead (resurrections not withstanding).

Well at the risk of labouring a rather peripheral point, it's a drain on mine, or would be if I didn't pursue it, when I collect more in a year from infringement settlements than I do from licensing images.

I can point to a couple of images of mine which were copied dozens of times within hours of publication by the legitimate licensor. I certainly consider that multiple of the licence fee to be my potential loss.

They go onto commercial sites, usually in the Far East or Russia, and I can't touch them.

That to me is the 'real' problem. You can arrest every pirate west of the Ural mountains, and east of Midway Island, and you most likely won't make a hill of beans of difference in actual lost revenue from 'pirating'.

But would the US make trade with China dependent on China internally cracking down on pirating??? Most likely not, because when all is said and done, the bigger part of the pie is trade than worrying about loss from such processes... perhaps on the order of some number of freighters lost at sea, which can be factored into 'operating losses'.

Even with actual seafaring pirates, trade has not stopped in the Indian Ocean, nor in the Strait of Malacca.

Some of the claims about film pirating remind me of the 'anti-porn' propaganda, which would have the 'porn' industry in the 100's of billions, when in fact, it is more realistically estimated to be under 5-10 billion... lucrative enough to continue, but not something that really is outragiously beyond comprehension. This is especially in view of the non-porn film industry estimates of 8-10 billion yearly. (could be more but not by much, as I've not updated my market size estimates in several years...).

Oddly in the case of porn, both sides wanted 'inflated' numbers, the antipornlers for 'how big is the scourge'... and the 'propornlers' for 'look we have such a large legitimate business', so as to be taken more seriously...

For those who are interested in what organization may be holding 'independent film' interests dear:

http://www.ifta-online.org/

From their website, "Expendables 3", "The Giver", and "Sin City" are classed as an 'independent' films... so, if you are making films in that category of independence, I'm sure they will be ever vigilent in regard to your intellectual property rights.

If the Porn industry is any example, there is rampant piracy, and Chatsworth was still able to continue producing product. The biggest recent negative impact on the Porn industry in California is due to regluating 'condom' use, or similar.

 

Quite right, what is the practical need for theatres these days? There isn't one. Since TV came along there has been a way to distribute a motion picture without the need for one to physically go to a movie theatre. Prior to TV the only way to see a motion picture product was go to a theatre.

 

These days of course the options have expanded well beyond just TV with the advent of the internet.

 

It's uncertain if people will even see the value in the large screen and communal viewing experience in 50 years or less.

 

R,

Personally with the advent of digital distribution, I'm hoping for the growth of small chaples of the Eternal Cinema to crop up, rather than Mega Church Metroplexes...

 

Because you aren't necessarily deprived of your source of income.

 

Piracy can be - and often is, I'm convinced - a victimless crime. Not every instance of piracy represents a lost sale. Probably very few do. That money that people think they've lost probably never existed. If the piracy hadn't taken place, they still wouldn't have got any money.

 

Now, of course, I say necessarily because sometimes an instance of piracy does represent a lost sale, but I suspect this is much more the case when websites and blogs use photos unlicensed, or when professional, profitmaking youtube channels rip off music, because some of those people are funded to pay for rights and the money does exist. I suspect, however, that it is vanishingly rare with regard to film piracy.

 

P

I've said this elsewhere, so this should be no news to those who know me.

If content was cheap and available, the 'reason' for pirating would be greatly reduced. There may be some people who get a kick out of 'beating the system', but like underage drinking... after one becomes and adult 'sneaking in to th pub/club' loses its appeal for most.

I'm refering mostly to films that have passed through their theatrical release. So, it could be there would still be piracy of 'in theaters', but I suspect that if viewers were assured of a timely release of 'cheap' access... like Redbox, Netflix, etc.... hey, wait... those entities have not declared bankruptcy due to piracy... anyway, piracy would become a very minimal problem.

Then there's "Game of Thrones"... I for one would definitely pay for a independent-of-cable subscription for legitimate access as the show is broadcast, and have always bought the disks as they have come out.... I'm sure most other viewers would like the same who are not cable subscribers.

But there is another aspect of 'copyright' which affects filmmakers more than perhaps piracy... using say 'music' in a film.

Anyone who has gone though the 'sync rights' process knows this is a byzantine affair. Further, even if one has fully paid for sync rights, often the 'filters' will clamp down on 'your' work, until one goes through a process with the host site on the issue.

This 'system' has to change in some way, and I hope it is in a way that allows for more access by filmmakers to materials, at some 'reasonable' price.

But laud the apprehension and conviction of an in-theater copyist (hey he probably paid for a ticket at least... for 'Fast and Furious 6'...), and think this will make things better.

On a sidenote, Topboy season 1 was shot on Alexa at 2000 ISO most of the times and it looks unbelievably awesome.

Well... just the time I go a bit conservative... someone comes along and tells me I'm being a stick in the mud...

I recently did a shoot with a Canon C100 @ ISO 3200. I was worried about 'noise', since I had no time to 'test'... but I did light the talent for what I thought was a reasonable level, and when I pixel peep on the dark wood paneling in the back ground I can see 'some' noisy pixels.

But otherwise I was fine with the results. But I do advocate testing things before hand, so I would not advocate shooting the C100 that ISO unless someone tests and deterimes it works for their needs.

Hi all

 

All though this topic appeared several times before, I havent been able to find specific enough info on the subject.

 

I am shooting a night scene in a forest, and plan to light it only with the light coming from two practical flashlilghts carried by the main characters (apart from very low-key HMI light for ambiance). I will be shooting on the alexa, and hope to acheive a T stop of about 2-2.8. How much Lumens do I need these flashlilghts to be? is 500 Lumens enough? do I need much more than that?

I also plan to color the flashlights with Storaro Yellow jel which will take up some light...

Using 'lumens' is some what difficult to deal with when estimate 'how much light falls on a particular area'. The reason for it is that the lumen output is usually in terms of the total light 'beam'. So for a flash light beam of say 45 degrees those 500 lumens are spread across such a cone of light. (not to mention some manufacturers just go from 'fundamental principles' rather than actual measured output of their device...)

For Israel, and the rest of the world, the unit of measure to be concerned about is lux, in the US it would be footcandles. This is 'how much light is falling on a particular point'. And is also what meters are calibrated to for reading out the exposure.

Unless the flashlight has a data sheet that lists lux/fc at various distances, you really have to emperically measure it. So, at night, with a light meter that reads out in lux/fc, and some measured distances, you can determine whether there is enough light for your needs.

As for 'night', no matter what the output of the flashlights are and even with some 'low light fill', there are going to be large areas of 'black', in a 'forest' situation. I have read that the Alexa's 'natural' ISO is 800, and I have read some times people go up to 1280 or even 1600. This of course is better than most Film film, but still if you don't want 'blank' blacks, that perhaps shooting just after sun set, would allow for more illumination of the 'background' if that is desired...

From looking into this, the US 'version' may be the Philips F32 T8/TL950. The specs indicate a CRI of 98, Color Temp 5000K, and 2000 Lumen output.

I believe -18 and -20 dBFS are the 'standard levels'. However, one has to consider the actual 'mixing' room that one is attempting to mix in, and set the audio system with that 'room' in mind.

For example, one reads for a 'real' mixing stage, 85 dB-C SPL is the reading one should have at the 'listening' point, for a 1K Hz tone @ -20 dBFS... but if one has a small room, such as a 10x10 'office', one should have the audio system adjusted to have a 79 dB-C SPL.

For ordinary mortals the Radio Shack SPL meter is sufficient, it's about $50.

Since my goal is for 'fest/Internet', I only think in terms of 'traditional' stereo or mono, dialog centered, sound mixing (mono... if Woody Allen can still put out everything he makes in mono, why can't I... and of course Saint Kubrick also went with mono for many of his films...). In order to get 'dolby' or other big league audio formats, the equipment, mix room certifications, etc. is far and away 'overkill' and expensive.

On units... there are a number of dBxxx units. So I'm using dB Full Scale, which is more typical in digital NLE's, and what I use since I don't have external audio meters in the various other units of sound measurement, other than the Radio Shack SPL meter.