GregBest

Anyone know what the real budget was for Steven Soderbergh's "Let Them All Talk" film that HBO bought? People are quoting Streep saying "$.25", but with like 70+ in the crew, unions, travel, lodging, food, I feel it has to be more. [wasn't sure where to post my question]

Thank you Max, Mark, Phil, and David. Great great,helpful info. I'm definitely aiming at the flooded FRIENDS/SEINFELD/FRASIER look, so this is perfect info. Whether we get close on a modest budget remains to be seen. :)

I need to buy about 50 more lights :D

yes, they seemed like a crap ton of lighting overhead. your pics confirm that for sure.

I've googled and read, and watched a few sitcoms.... does anyone have any great info about the best way to light sitcom stage for TV, Netflix or any of those? I'm launching a project beyond my knowledge and want to LEARN. thanks! -gb

ha glad you liked that part! I hated doing it, and the framing could have been way better. Serendipitously, it got picked up for 3 overseas film fests! And I just made it for MY fun! :D

Very true. But what about it pushes them to bother wasting time with those options? Higher frame rates, IMAX, etc? Isn't it that they see a quality improvement? I doubt they are looking to make the quality worse.

thanks for this!

so how about this: when I rotate in my chair (like a pan), before my eyes focus on something at the stop, everything during my pan is blurred. I can however stop my eyes briefly on anything during my rotation and see it clearly, albiet very briefly. At 24, USUALLY (not in every case) our main option is to have that blur during a pan - because it is natural. We don't have the option of stopping our eyes and seeing that detail during that pan because each frame is blurred already (unless filmed with a low angle thus creating choppy pans at 24). If we did the same pan at 60, we COULD have enough info during that we could stop our eyes and see more of the detail, should we, the film makers decide to allow that. Doesn't that bring more creative options to the process than 24 did? I feel more frames bring more creative options. Have you guys seen the TRUMBULL 120 stuff? https://youtu.be/NkWLZy7gbLg?t=1m50s As a side note, I recall going to those motion rides in Vegas and being awestruct by the visuals. This was long before I was into anything having to do with movies... I remember thinking, "This looked FANTASTIC!! Why aren't ALL tv shows and movies made like that? Why does this look so good?" I didn't know what a frame rate was, I just knew it looked so amazing. It wrecked me! :D

well for the VR part, we are handing the reigns over to the view to control the pans, the object of importance... doesn't it get harder to tell a story where "John busts into the room from the left, through a door" when the viewer is looking out the window to the right watching the CGI butterflies, but hears the commotion, but missed it? I dunno... things are getting interesting.

No prob. It gets better with the violent bloody seal attack (ok not "better", but hilarity in its silly unrealism - to some) but, no, it is not for everyone's tastes. :D

Absolutely agree that STORY comes first and always should as that is the only reason to make the darn movie in the first place. Yes, use whatever tools and settings to best immerse the audience into your world. Now there are newer tools than there used to be. I'm noticing many high profile directors using them with decent results: Cameron 3D, Jackson HFR, Nolan IMAX.... (not saying they are good, just high profile)....and this intrigues me.... why are they doing this? Is it only because it fits THAT particular story? I see Nolan using IMAX more and more and wanting to use it on everything because it looks so great if I'm dragging this out, just cut me off, I enjoy discussing this stuff with knowledgable people. :) Someone mentioned VR... I'd read where this could be the "next big amazing thing" in movie production. I think it will be a staging logistical nightmare requiring relearning everything we know about capturing as story to present to people. I doubt it will appeal to the majority to wear a full face helmet and be looking around all over - we do that already with cameras and cuts - BUT, it is a new tool that never existed before and COULD be something as ground breaking as "moving pictures" was. I do think we should all be open to new advances in the tech, like Cameron, Nolan, Jackson All these things didn't exist for 50+ years.... we talk about the best option is having a good story and being able to immerse the audience into the story... most of this new stuff is even more immersive that ever beforer. Talking with the 20 somethings I know (I'm 50) they are very open to all the new stuff and actively seek it out and enjoy it. If they could enjoy STAR WARS 8 at 24 on a 2d screen or 3D VR setup, I bet I know which they would prefer.

David, you've hit on a key point for sure: looks so real, looks like a live stage play. This is so true! Do you think different, and maybe new styles of lighting would help that? Stages are always well lit, OVER lit it seems, so we can see everything... maybe movies with HFR are over lit as well? I wonder how THE REVENANT would have looked with HFR since it was almost all natural lighting? Would it take us there and be even more real? Those darn cheese cubes! hahahhaha I'm hoping more productions start trying it to figure out the new strangeness of it. And hoping someone makes such a good STORY that is so captivating, one never takes time to notice the production behind it. That said, I'm sticking with 24 mostly, 30, and some 60 for now because it is all my computer can handle. :)

You shouldn't. It's not for you. It is silly, stupid fun and the "plot" is the irrelevant part. I really enjoyed THE REVENANT, and decided to go shoot in the freezing cold for a couple hours to empathize with their production. No disrespect of the original, my film is a hobbyists experiment. Don't bother with it. Don't be so serious. :D

I think I do a terrible job trying to explain what I am thinking to people outside my head. :) When we watch actual film projected, a rotating shutter thingy blocks the light while the next frame is shifted into view. So, we have these blackouts 24 times per second along side the 24 lighted frames, blackouts are much shorter, of course.... However, we don't normally SEE blackouts with our eyes live in the world... unless we walked around blinking a LOT, really fast all the time. :) I think geeky science folk say a majority of us can see about 45fps, some more, some less depending on medical condition. With digital, we are slapping up full pics without the blackouts inbetween, or they are so fast, they are not perceptable to us. The screen is always lit up, pixels don't go black while changing colors. So, we have advanced to show us visuals closer to what our eyes see. And isn't that the goal in presenting a moving set of pictures to people? A bunch of stuff to SEE and enjoy for entertainment? To me, it's better to see stuff closer to how the eye can see it rather than in a way dictated by the original, and now older technology of pulled film and blackout shutters. That is what makes it better.... to me. I gotta wonder if HOBBIT was a GREAT Story, would people have not been bothered by the 48fps?