Using Film 20x More Expensive Than Uncompressed HD

[Guest J Jukuzami]

MAKE FILMS AT 2 TO 15 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR!

 

I am talking about film stock, equipment, post studio rental costs, etc.

 

Taken from another thread:

 

GeorgeSelinsky Posted: Jun 1 2004, 07:45 PM 

 

Just to have a comparison here is how low you make a film in 35mm.

 

Buy a Russian Konvas for $2000, comes with a complement of lenses that are pretty good (can even go anamorphic if you want).

 

Get a used tripod for about $1000

 

Get about $1000 worth of lights and practical lamps.

 

Get a cheap DV camera for reference recording and dailies, for $600.

 

Go to a raw stock company and buy 100,000 feet of Kodak 500 asa color negative film for about $11,000. That's a healthy 18 and a half hours of film.

 

Go to the lab and tell them you're bringing in 100,000 feet of 35mm film for negative and transfer for your low budget feature. That will cost you about $17,000.

 

Shoot your movie. Incur other expenses.

 

Go to the video transfer suite after your final cut and about $8,000 later you have a finished master on tape for distribution (SDTV, which most people still watch).

 

Gear, materials, and lab thusfar are $40,600. If you want to shoot sync it would be about $51,000 if you wanted to buy all of your own equipment, which would still be good ten years from now.

 

For negative conform and a print, add about $30,000 (if you want an internegative, add $26,000).

 

You could do all of this for less if you wanted to.

 

- G.

 

That comes to $96,000 for everything through a release print. I excluded costs for purchased equipment. George is going the cheap route. One could also spend $300-400K shooting 5,000'/day for 20 days, renting equipment and postproduction studio time. One could also spend less shooting in Super 16.

 

LET'S ASSUME $100K AVERAGE FOR FILM BASED PRODUCTION. HERE IS AN IDEA ON HOW TO DO IT FOR 2 TO 15 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR USING HD. FORGET FILM, FORGET DV, FORGET SD. WELCOME HD!

 

MAKE FILMS AT 2 TO 15 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR!

 

George talked about owning your equipment. Fine. But you don't use your equipment all the time, so your equipment is underutilized and to make it cost-effective, George selected to buy the least expensive Russian camera. If he would have bought top notch equipment; his equipment costs would have been many times higher. I ignore that. I give him extra points by allowing his equipment costs to be zero.

 

How about a group of people, a school, bunch of filmmakers, DPs, etc. buying their own HD equioment together and utilizing it effectively? I did some calculations on 3 systems. The first system would have CineAlta quality and would utilize Sony HDC-X300 cameras. The next system would be 10 bit uncompressed with the same cameras. Third system would use Thomson Viper cameras that have native Cinemascope aspect ratio and would use CineAlta SR portable recorders. All systems would use a separate camera and a coax link to the recording equipment.

 

Each system is based on 6 camera weeks, 3 weeks of online post and 18 weeks of offline post. That means 2 cameras for one online NLE. So I based the calculations on such systems:

 

All systems would use one new HD zoom lens and 35 mm P+S type adaptor, but of a different brand, that according to my information is to be released this year at a fraction of the cost of the P+S Pro 35. It would include Nikon mount lenses for use with the adapter. While the 1st system would use $2K worth of used 35 mm lenses, the 3rd one would use $22K worth of new Nikon lenses for the two cameras. Similar ratio would go for viewfinders, lighting, etc. Each sustem would use NLE offline editors. The first system would use $12K worth of offline gear; the other two systems $30K.

 

The cheapest system would record uncompressed via HD SDI link. It would be converted to 8 bit 4:2:2 and compressed 6:1 using Aspect HD. All footage would be double saved to two separate hard drive arrays.

 

The middle system would be 4:2:2, 10 bit, uncompressed.

 

The third system would use extremely low MPEG4 compression for acquisition so for all practical purposes it would be equal to uncompressed. It would include the following Sony CineAlta SR equipment: 2 portable VTRs, 2 MPEG4 processors, studio VTR.

 

The first system would include 48 hours of compressed storage; the second system 108 hrs of uncompressed storage and the 3rd one 123 hrs, plus the CineAlta SR tape storage.

 

Costs are per camera and are based on life cycle of 4 years. At that time the value of the equipment would be about equal to maintenance/repair cost. As I am not including these costs in the figures, I am making the end cost zero.

 

The figures are for complete production and postproduction equipment and are listed in the for system one / system two / system three:

 

Cost per camera: $60/170/480K

Cost per movie: $1.8/5.1/14.4K vs. $100K for film-based production. So with HD you'd pay 2 to 15 cents on a dollar, compared to film.

 

If we assume 50% utilization, that means that the equipment would sit on the shelf 1/2 of the time, the cost per film would double.

 

Films would be distributed on digital prints via Landmark Theaters, or other theaters with digital projection. Only when wider distribution would be needed, optical prints would be made.

 

Sure it is more convenient to use a camcorder than a camera and a separte recording gear (either a VTR with a separate processor or a computer), but studio productions have done it, so why could not the indie filmmaker do the same.

 

This post is aimed at someone who is open minded and is looking for highly cost effective way to a film production that will allow big theater screen projection. It is not for those who have been striked by lightning and are mumbling all day long, 365 days a year: "Film is the only way. I would rather shoot Super 8 than HD. I do not want any innovative approaches. I hate electricity. I want my hand cranked Potemkin camera."

 

The new wave is HD. Film for low cost production will soon be a history, except when a certain production would require it, or the DP will persuade the producer and the director that it is the only way to go, hiding the fact that it is the only way he knows, or knows well enough.

 

Why is film becoming history now? Because now is the time when new HD technology makes digital cinema production a lot more cost effective than in the past.

 

Slow motion with HD? Shoot 60i, deinterlace to 60p and slow down as needed. The quality is excellent; is enough for 95% situations. If you need slower motion or better quality? Use special HD or a film camera for that sequence.

 

This posts is to help the young indie filmmakers make better decisions and see other options; unfortanetely it is in a forum where DPs learned film the old way and in most cases their record got stucked in one groove that says: "But I still hate talkies!" munchig on a Fatburger or choking on a Wienerschnizel.

 

MAKE FILMS AT 2 TO 15 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR!

 

If someone does not like my figures, I suggest he does his own. I've done some calcs to determine feasibility. There are million ways to configure such systems and there are other options. You may want to spend a little more than the cost of the 1st system and encode in Prospect HD, rather than Aspect HD, creating 10 bit images, etc.

 

Remember guys, this is HD forum, not "I Hate HD" forum. Let's be objective.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

My comparisons to film are based on a scenario where you'd have to buy the HD equipment vs. you'd get the film equipment for free. (I'm giving the film people a slack here.) Or you could lease the HD equipment.

 

The least expensive equipment I described is 1080p and for what it costs, if you'd go the conventional way, you'd only buy 480p. But the conventional way would be an established way of doing things, the way the manufacturers are recommending it, and which allows them to make a lot bigger profits, because their approach to 1080p is a lot more expensive.

 

So you have a choice at these costs (my system No. 1 cost): Shoot the New Wave HD, shoot SD, or if you want to shoot film, shoot Super 8. There are no other choices at these per movie dollar figures.

[Rob Belics]

You could do it with VHS, also and the price would drop dramatically. Look at what Blair Witch did with H-8! I'll betcha you could get it down to under a penny to the dollar!

 

Film would never strive to look like HD.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

My new standard reply to Ultra Definition:

 

I really don't know why you're wasting your time proving these things everywhere. What possible benefit is it to you, and ultimately, WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SHOOT THEIR STUFF ON ANYWAY? It's really their business. We can discuss here what is better and what is worse, what is more ergonomical and suitable for a situation, and what is less efficient, what aesthetic choice is best, etc. But what mostly matters is how something WORKS FOR YOU INDIVIDUALLY.

 

If I want to shoot my feature film in Super 8, and I love that look and it's what I want, it might cost me more than to shoot in 16mm (especially if I use Pro8mm), but if it's what I want, it's what I'm going to use so long as I can raise that money.

 

If you like owning all your own HDTV gear and that's a very critical thing for you, fine. If you like the format, fine. Go BUY THE STUFF ALREADY! It's obvious to everyone here that you're not going to go buy an Arri or Konvas or Mitchell or Movie Cam or whatever - and it's NOT LIKE WE CARE THAT MUCH. There is NO NEED TO ADVERTIZE YOUR CHOICES, especially once you've made your point 10,000 times.

 

The whole point of being a DP/Director/whatever is to MAKE SOMETHING, not just TALK SOMETHING. That is what we are all about. If you're a gear junkie start your own equipment engineers forum.

 

GO MAKE YOUR OWN FILM, HAVE A NICE TIME! USE YOUR TIME PRODUCTIVELY, NOT HERE TRYING TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE TO DEATH AND IRRITATING OTHERS.

 

Thank you,

 

- G.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

Rob Belics Posted on Jun 3 2004, 05:10 AM

  You could do it with VHS, also and the price would drop dramatically. Look at what Blair Witch did with H-8! I'll betcha you could get it down to under a penny to the dollar!

 

Film would never strive to look like HD. 

 

Here we go again. A man who wants to shoot Super 8 and thinks that he gets better quality, because it is film. With my least expensive system you get the same image quality as on Spy Kids 2 and Once upon a Time in Mexico. With Super 8 you get something that is closer to Blair Witch. With my system No.2 you get full 35 mm film quality. With any of the tree described systems you get no grain that has always been a major problem with film, plus you'll get higher subjective sharpness.

[danny bartle]

yeh 2 steak & eggs 3 large chips & a scoop of blueberry choc chip thanks.....

[Filip Plesha]

I wouldn't call film grain a problem in every case.

Too much of it is a problem, but no grain is allso a problem sometimes.

Some people don't want their films to look superclean and without any texture.

[Nate Downes]

Rob Belics Posted on Jun 3 2004, 05:10 AM

  You could do it with VHS, also and the price would drop dramatically. Look at what Blair Witch did with H-8! I'll betcha you could get it down to under a penny to the dollar!

 

Film would never strive to look like HD. 

 

Here we go again. A man who wants to shoot Super 8 and thinks that he gets better quality, because it is film. With my least expensive system you get the same image quality as on Spy Kids 2 and Once upon a Time in Mexico. With Super 8 you get something that is closer to Blair Witch. With my system No.2 you get full 35 mm film quality. With any of the tree described systems you get no grain that has always been a major problem with film, plus you'll get higher subjective sharpness.

Have you ever shot Super8? I have. Have you ever shot HD? I have. Fact is, quality has little to do with the camera or format and mostly to do with the person behind the camera. Shoot, you keep spouting off Blair Witch and yet, someone else has already corrected you about what, in fact, Blair Witch 1 and 2 both used. And neither used Super8. And for your No 2. system, you'd be spending more than you would on a Super8 shoot. So they're not even in the same league.

 

So please, point me to the $6 video camera that can compete with the Vivitar 84 I picked up at a flea market for $6.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

Answer to Windman's post:

 

Of course grain may add to the effect. You can add textute in post, superimpose grain, etc. It is also a matter of taste that is changing. People were originally upset with D. W. Griffith and other innovators, because they used closups, etc; did not show the whole figures. So one day grain and 24 fps motion artifacts may not be acceptable at all, except for some nostalgic look.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

downix Posted: Jun 3 2004, 06:04 AM 

Have you ever shot Super8? I have. Have you ever shot HD? I have. 

 

I have too.

 

Anyway, what I am posting here is information on new way of filmmaking, for less $. It is a new option. It may help someone who is directing or producing a movie or a DP who is open minded. That is the only purpose of my posts. There are too many filmakers out there who don't have large enough budgets. Doing an acquisition with a computer and working inexpensively with a new codec may be exactly what they are looking for. It is not about film vs. HD. It is about "Can I afford that or not?" My suggestions may allow the indie filmmaker make a lot higher quality film, or make he can make the same quality film for less money. That is all.

 

Have to get back to my project.

[Nate Downes]

If that was your purpose, you have failed miserably. Instead, you've come off crass, boorish, and overbearing, and if I had only you to go by on weither or not a HD shoot was worth it, I'd never try it. You've shown a complete lack of understanding of the business with this confrontational attitude and by spouting off opinions as facts. That you've shown a complete lack of understanding of a producers job does not help, with budgets that border on the ludicrus. When experienced DP's correct you, even those pro-HD, you react as if we just told you that we'd run over your dog with a lawn mower, then backed up to be sure what we'd hit.

 

Not a good way to win an arguement. Even worse way to convince people the pros of HD.

 

In short, your "information" is not information at all, it is marketing hype. If I wanted hype, I'd call a salesman. I come here to discuss features, capabilities, and experiences with the various systems available. You act as if the *only* way to get a low budget is to use HD. Yet there are filmmakers out there beating your HD budgets with film gear, some of them very successfully. Face it, HD is just another option, and not this magic bullet for indie filmmakers.

[Rob Belics]

Downix is correct. Then your video would have to compete with film for screen space.

 

Of course, it's still video. Film never strives to look like video.

[Filip Plesha]

I wouldn't call 24fps motion, an artefact. I haven't really heard anyone complain about it. Most people associate it with film-look. In fact it is a major part of film-look. Smooth motion feels like you are watching news or a TV drama or something.

24fps motion feels like you are watching fiction, fantasy.

Most people will tell you that it affects them this way. In fact many video shoots

use either 24fps or the "show shutter" option to look more like film.

 

People are used to it. But it goes beyond that. It works hypnotically on human brain

(the slight strobing effect). And hypnosis means attention. In a way, psychologically speaking, when a person is watching a film in cinema it is in the state of somnolency (a mild hypnosis). And 24fps effect enhances that. This is

one of the reasons why film-look sells better.

 

And for people that come to watch TV in cinema, like you ;) , there is still hope.

If you read the specifications of DCI, the future standard would support both 48fps and 24fps so you can choose to shoot your film at higher frame rate and project it like that.

[Jeff Tanner]

35mm film has been High Def for decades (16 or 17 megapixels if my memory serves...John Pytlak, is that about right?). It's nice that video companies are finally trying to catch up. Give HD cameras a few more decades and they should be approaching today's 35mm standards. Of course in a few decades 35mm will be much improved as well so I doubt that HD will catch up but I'm not an expert such as yourself.

 

It all is really pretty simple to understand. Film is superior for image capture, period. And do you actually think that being less expensive is what matters most to cinematographers? Sorry, but you are mistaken.

 

In the late 70's/early 80's people just as yourself said "film is dead! Video tape will bury film." They were wrong. Then in the mid-late 80's they said "Film is dead! This time it's for sure, Video camcorders are here to stay. Sell your film equipment, it's a broadcast revolution!" They were wrong again. Then a few years ago those same types of people said, "Now we mean it. Film is officially dead! HD is the new wave and will kill film once and for all." Guess what. Wrong again.

 

Have you tried to book time in a telecine suite lately? It's tough to get in the door not because they are understaffed but because they are so busy. Have you talked to any camera rental houses lately? It's not easy to get a film package because of all of the work out there (worldwide I might add).

 

I only wish that Arriflex and Kodak had someone as knowledgable as yourself on staff to save them the huge embarrassment of releasing new products such as the Arricam and the Vision2 filmstocks when the death of both companies is so close. It's such a shame that all of these working professionals are so in the dark about their livelihoods. Thanks for bringing your wealth of knowledge to the downtrodden cinematographers of the world. We owe you.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

OK guys. But if you can buy 1080p HD production and post package for $25K and you have high shooting ratio and low budget and you want it to be shown in theaters, what are your choices?

[Christian Appelt]

J Jukuzami, Ultra definition, or whatever your name is:

 

Usually I skip the HD Forum, but then I stumbled over your various posts.

I get the feeling that you are trying to prove something, and your behaviour and speech is quite aggressive and immature.

 

If you want attention, there are other ways to get it.

So you think you know anything better than everybody on this forum?

Obviously, you have not even bothered to read a great number of threads, otherwise you would know that the people on this forum work with a wide range of tools from low end video to 35mm film. Especially on the 16 & 35mm forum, you would have noticed that some cinematographers work with both film and HD, and you could learn from what they have to say about the different tools and their use.

 

I would like to know what your experience in film, television or any other kind of moving image production has been up to now. You are trying to force your personal impressions on others, but what have you done to prove that you know how to do it right (or even better)?

 

BTW, when you claim that Rodriguez' MEXICO film looks as good as 35mm, so HD is good enough for theatrical films, I assume that you cannot tell a just OK image quality from excellent. And as for examples, take a look at Robert Altman's THE COMPANY, shot in glorious HD, looking worse than even mediocre Super35 with out-of-range highlights and almost no dynamic range in many scenes!

 

If you feel better telling other people they are idiots to use their "old-fashioned" tools, go on. (If you have a car, look under the hood some day: EEK! Technology more than 100 years old!)

 

If you knew anything about real life film production (maybe except animal photography), you would know that film stock is mostly a rather small cost factor compared to salaries, transportation, insurances, post production, sound mixing and whatever - even on Low Budget!

 

IMHO, you are trying to prove something to us that we do not care about. I believe we would gladly hear about any experience you had with HD gear, even if it were just a music video or short film. But who needs that senseless film bashing?

Get a life, make your own movie and learn how to behave on a public forum.

 

Thank you.

[schnozzle]

While I love HD (anybody see "Russian Ark"?) there's a big downside to digital, which is that all of my friends who think they're filmmakers are now making 120-minute-unwatchably-boring-monstrosities instead of 10-minute-unwatchably-boring-monstrosities, just because they can.

 

Anybody gone to a student film festival (or even a smaller regional festival) lately? OH GOOD LORD. Somebody stop these people! Or at least force them to do some more editing and pre-production! Or ANY editing and pre-production, for that matter. Just because you can afford to shoot more doesn't mean you should! Arrrrrgggghhh!

 

I've also noticed that with so many shoestring-budget indie films and music videos now being shot on digital, anytime someone pops up with a project that was shot on film, even Super-8, it kinda stands out. Especially when projected.

 

This reminds me of my cousin berating me for shooting black and white medium-format still negatives on my Rolleiflex while he cranks out 15 million billion overcompressed jpegs on his Coolpix. Then again, I'm trying to emulate Alfred Eisenstaedt, and I think he's trying to emulate the guy who shoots highschool yearbook portraits at Sears. Sigh.

[adrianwhite]

I came across yet another camera the other day.

 

SPECS: model IPC2M30HC

2 megapixel 8/10 bit HD camera

progressive scan 16:9

1920*1080 resolution

camera link interface

Programmable: resolution, framerate (will do 24p), electronic shuttter, long intergration, external trigger, pre exposure, strobe output, gain and offset!

(seems versatile!)

frame rate is programmable from 15-60 fps although it can only manage a max of 33fps at 1920*1080.

 

Uses a 1 inch progressive scan interline transfer ccd

can utilise C of F mount lenses

 

check it out at www.imperx.com

 

Please post you're opinions.

 

 

p.s. what does J Jukuzami think?

[Max Jacoby]

Usually I skip the HD Forum

Same here.

 

The amount of useless information that people like Jukuzami post here is amazing. Shame, because the occasional interesting and informed discussions by people who actually know what they are talking about tends to get drowned in all this nonsense.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

adrianwhite Posted: Jun 4 2004, 09:01 AM 

 

I came across yet another camera the other day.

 

SPECS: model IPC2M30HC

2 megapixel 8/10 bit HD camera

progressive scan 16:9

1920*1080 resolution

camera link interface

Programmable: resolution, framerate (will do 24p), electronic shuttter, long intergration, external trigger, pre exposure, strobe output, gain and offset!

(seems versatile!)

frame rate is programmable from 15-60 fps although it can only manage a max of 33fps at 1920*1080.

 

Uses a 1 inch progressive scan interline transfer ccd

can utilise C of F mount lenses

 

check it out at www.imperx.com

 

Please post you're opinions.

 

 

p.s. what does J Jukuzami think? 

 

Finally some down to earth person with normal train of thought. Otherwise this forum was hijacked with mainly split personality disorder patients who shoot DV during the day and then live in the dream world of 70 mm comeback at night, here in this HD forum.

 

I glanced over the specs. It looks good considering the price is reasonable. It will probably cost around $4K, I expect. Do you have the actual price?

 

There is another model with 12 bit resolution.

 

I think that the 8 bit is perfect, afer minor corrections for Aspect HD NLE, and the 10 bit mode is perfect, after minor corrections of the output, for Prospect HD. Aspect HD will handle 1440x1080p, 8 bit, 4:2:2 stream. Prospect HD will work with 1980x1080p, 10 bit, 4:2:2 stream. It may even work with 4:4:4 stream. Maybe you could check on this.

 

So the cameras I was talking about are finally here. They are filling a vacuum in the HD marketplace that was created by the greedy Sony and Panasonic who devided among themselves HD between 720p and 1080p, creating monopoly in each of these.

 

Who makes the CCD? If it is Sony, great.

 

This is the HDV killer, the Kinetta killer, and the Varicam killer for indie filmmaking.

 

Did you check for some HD lenses for this? What is F-mount? C-mount is a 16 mm camera mount I think.

[Filip Plesha]

Why do you keep saying that these people shoot only DV?

A lot of people that you spoke to had shot 35mm 16mm and HD in the past.

If you bothered to read other forums beside just the HD forum you would notice that. And if you haven't heard, David Mullen, who has allso responded to your posts is now in the ASC.

 

p.s. By the way,people, is there anyone else from ASC here?

[Guest J Jukuzami]

Hey Filip, You're right. But the way the people treated me any time I tried to describe something new in HD or digital cinema projection, what do you expect. I had some time now so I posted some new information that may be useful to some people. There is no reason to put down anything that is not celluliod based. Not everyone walks around with shutters over his eyes.

[adrianwhite]

F.A.O J Jukuzami,

 

I don't have a firm price price on the camera, I imagine it's around $4,500, though I shall be calling them soon. I seem to be only person interested in these cameras in the UK & one of the only people interested in this forum. I was quite surprised at the level of criticism you recieved after you're earlier posts. My desire is to be an owner/operator of my own HD solution. Since i have limited means I'm duty bound to explore every other possibility. If there is a strong objection to posts of this nature I would be grateful if members (who may be higher up the HD/Film food chain) would make this clear. In that case i would stick to forums such as Dvinfo.net

 

Any responce is welcome.

 

P.S. For J Jukuzami, would the use of a 1 inch ccd have benefits with regard to lenses and depth of field compared to a 1/2 or a 2/3 chip? Bear in mind i am from a non technical background.

[Alex Ellerman]

Personally, I'm interested in Jukazami's HD posts, not as an instrument to convince me to shoot HD rather than film, but as a reportage of the HD industry and latest camera developments. For example I like to hear the trends in 8 bit, 10 bit, 12 bit and what the latest HD camera is offering.

 

Now, if he'd be a little less antagonistic with his subject headers, he'd probably get less gruff. But he's no more an HD zealot than others are film zealots, and this is the HD forum. If the mods are worried about his handles, they should ban any excess IP addresses that may (or may not) exist. Otherwise, I can't imagine why he shouldn't be invited to post his thoughts. Like I said, his posts don't convince me to pick a format, only to keep learning.

 

Best,

tt

[Jason Rodriguez]

The imperix camera is $4,600.

 

But I wouldn't call it a Kinetta killer.

 

How in the world will you mange to store and keep track of hours worth of footage on hard-drives without any associated meta-data.

 

Just because you have some RAW files on a disk for cheap doesn't mean that you're going to have fun posting them. You have not claimed any accurate way to do any match-back or anything with the terabytes of data you're planning to record.

 

Frankly the Kinetta is the killer camera IMHO so far. It has built in color correction, up to dual-link HD-SDI 4:4:4 outputs, can archive to RAW, SD, HD, etc., tons of meta-data stored in the DPX files it outputs, real-time Bayer de-mosacing algorithms from high-speed FPGA's, 12-channels of 24/96 audio, and nice and light/portable to boot. Don't have to lug a computer around with me that might crash, etc (especially if it's windows based).

 

I think you're living in a dream world here Mr. J.

 

People are listening, in a few short months you'll have the Kinetta, the Dalsa, the Arri, etc. What more could you want? Easy to shoot, designed for a highly stressful production environment-I don't think you're thinking about production here, it seems as though all your solutions are only suitable for the lab.

 

There's a reason why I spend the money on Sony gear. It works. It'll work in the rain, the cold, the heat, etc. I'll have a tape at the end that I know has my info on it (even it if it is compressed). When I adjust the settings on the camera, I know what I'm getting, I have an accurate preview on a monitor. I have accessability to the best lenses. There's not much guess work.

 

Frankly what you propose is quite preposterous when you talking about thousands of dollars on the line for your little toy to totally screw up and flush your entire shoot.

 

Cam Op/DP: "Mr. Juzkukumakukamkia, we're ready to shoot, is this the shot you want"

 

Mr. J.: "Well, I don't know, I mean I can't really see. Wait, let me grab a frame on my PC back here and render out a RAW file to something I can see. Oh wait, Photoshop is now launching. Okay, no, that's not quite right, could we have it a little more to the left?"

 

Cam Op/DP: "Sure, moved. Is that the shot?"

 

Mr. J: "let me see, it'll take me just a minute."

 

Actor: "It's hot out here, my make-up's dribbling down my face, you're not paying me enough to go through this h***"

 

Mr. J: "Don't lose your motivation-think cool, calm . . . wait, Photoshop just crashed, ugh, I'm not sure if that's the shot-sure could use a monitor on set :huh:"

 

Cam Op/DP: "The sun's going down, need to fire up the HMI's"

 

Mr. J.: "Okay, when you're done with that we'll take a shot of the scene and be good to go"

 

<15 minutes later>

 

Actor: "I need my make-up redone, no shooting till that happens"

 

Mr. J.: "He's almost done with the lights"

 

Actor: "So how're we going to block this scene again? We've been 'almost ready to shoot' for the last half-hour"

 

Mr. J.: "You walk over there, grab the door handle, open the door, think angry, you were too 'not angry' last time, I need more 'angry'"

 

Actor: "I don't understand"

 

1st AD: "We need another hard-drive-I have no idea how to install one, Mr. Juzukamakazi, you'll have to put it in"

 

<siren blasts from street>

 

Police officer: "Who's in charge of this? Do you have a permit?"

 

Everyone (point to Mr. Juzukamiaakiaiie): "HE IS!!!"