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?

Thanks for watching! :) Did the Revenant have those super close ups? I forget. I coulda done those easily

People definitely allowed to like what they like, most definitely. I sort of had the opposite effect with the Hobbit. I was hoping the effect worked.... and after about 10 minutes in to it, once I got used to it, I LOVED the look of it and thought it was one of the most amazing movies I had ever seen. For me, it was the plot that made it a not so great movie, but the visuals - I thought - were astounding. There will always be the old way, but we can continue into the new as well. :)

so, how can we adjust our age-burnt-in ideas about LOOKS of things, where we admit 24 frames with flashing black in between doesn't look as good as 60 frames with no flashing black, and looking way more "real," and way less "innaccurate"? We're used to "Film Look" and "video look".... why is the video look "bad" to people? It looks so, new, fresh, clear, accurate, real, live, detailed.... I don't get the downside? I feel we should stop thinking "Video-ish" and call it "better", more better of everthing: representing the image in front of our cameras more accurately through the process chain to the end viewer But I know I am the minority in that. :)

posting just for the humor, not caring about clicks. solo film I made last Sunday after watching THE REVENANT. (I'll delete if posting here is wrong) http://www.youtube.com/embed/QhapIgzSZNc

sort of related topical questions: 1. could the "Soap Opera" effect be more about the crazy lighting too? I know the 60i frame rate was high and all, but I always thought the lighting on most soaps was horrible "LOOK! LIGHTING IS IN YOUR FACE AND UNNATURAL" like. TO ME, the LIGHTING was the soap opera effect, not the frame rate. Maybe we need to light differently somehow for HFR? What looks good lighting at 24 doesn't look good lit that way at 48 or 60? 2. 24 in theater USED TO BE projected with black frames inbetween while the film advanced to the next frame, correct? Do they fake that now in digital theater projectors, AND is THIS the big difference people see in HFR films where it is PIC to PIC to PIC without that BLACK slots inbetween? Happens now because it can, where in film it could never. Isn't it BAD that we want to see a blacked out frame tween every frame?

I appreciate 24 and all, and realize the advantage of LESS data, but 60, 120, can't get here soon enough to me. Bring on the clearer, better looking visuals. We've been stuck in the past too long with THIS technology while everything else has advanced.

my noob group claims 30p has replaced 24 for commercial movies... is this the case now? In all the pics i've seen, most were 23.97, and 24.

Thanks, Richard! That is great info. Sounds like you have done this a time or two. What is your background in this? Looks like I am on the right track, but my mixing structure is not that well planned out... something I think I should fix! :) If you find a minute, skip through the video I posted above and let me know some things to improve sonically. There were many audio tracks for dialog, music, and effects, but I compressed it all in the end to sound LOUD on youtube - big mistake I know - but the next one, I'd like to mix for DCP theater playback.

yeah, digital / film no big deal. I prefer the story, and story first. To me, an average consumer, I kinda prefer the cleaner digital over the grainy film. Branching off Aleander's note, there are not as many movies I WANT to see these days... seems like the quality of writing has diminished with the improvements of CG in effects, sets, backgrounds etc... is that just me? I mean, I really like MOVIE movies like Indana Jones, Pirates, even Bond, but lately seems like they are mostly emo-indie, comic books. Even the last Indiana movie felt phoned in to me. I haven't seen a movie I felt like CLAPPING in for a long, long time. I gotta think shooting digital is easier in movies now days, so are they sloppier? more after the fast money grab than making a GREAT movie? Like in the music industry, when the tools became available to everyone, everyone made crappy music and we are buried in it now. Hard to find the great stuff from the average. Maybe this happens in the big productions as well.... Paranormal makes a billion, FAST, so everyone trying to keep up, releasing less than GOOD movies.