Shoestring Film Production through Distribution

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Production:

 

Varicam, downconverted to 24p, loses 60% of its bit stream, leaving an effective bit stream of 40 Mbps. The compression codec is basically the one developed by Sony for DV. MPEG2 is more modern and efficient codec. HDV is MPEG2 and the bit rate is 19 Mbps. So everything being equal, HDV 720/25p quality would not be too far from Varicam's 720/24p. Good HDV camera with quality MPEG2 processors should deliver pretty good quality pictures. It is not available yet, but I'm sure that it will not take long Sony or even Canon to bring one to the market.

 

 

Postproduction:

 

There are ways to edit JVC HD10 footage. I don't know much about it, but there are. I'm sure that Sony will be coming out with good Vegas Video editing package when they deliver their HDV camera.

 

 

Distribution:

 

No optical prints are necessary. Read the following:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2...kTheatresPR.asp

 

 

Some more details are here:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...s/vip/film.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...italcinema.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...dcinemaapp.aspx

 

The Landmark digital projection system is not 2K, but it has quality that is basically equal to Varicam, which looks sufficiently good on medium size screens. Landmark will allow you to show your digital print in all major US markets and your digital print can be anything, 24p, 25p, 50i, 60i.

 

Once your film is a commercial success and you'll need wider dietribution, you should not at that point have a problem to have a distributor pay for optical prints. You can print 24p and 25p directly, with digital sound pitch change on the 25p master. Both 50i and 60i transfers to 24 fps nicely.

 

Completion of the digital conversion at Landmark may take some time; quality low cost HD camcorders may not be available for months. But the time is getting near that low cost production through theater distribution will becomes feasible.

 

Until a good quality HDV or Blu-Ray camcorders are available, you can shoot with Panasonic DVX100a and show your movies at Landmak. By now they should have decent amount of screens converted. I think that Russian Arc was distributed digitally to some Landmark theaters.

[Mitch Gross]

Production:

 

Varicam, downconverted to 24p, loses 60% of its bit stream, leaving an effective bit stream of 40 Mbps. The compression codec is basically the one developed by Sony for DV. MPEG2 is more modern and efficient codec. HDV is MPEG2 and the bit rate is 19 Mbps. So everything being equal, HDV 720/25p quality would not be too far from Varicam's 720/24p.

 

Not true, because, well, everything ISN'T equal. There are so very many reasons why this is such a huge leap between these formats, not the least of which is that they are connected to vastly different quality levels of cameras. And MPEG2 is NOT better than DVCPro100 no matter how much that signal is cut down (and it is not chopped the way you say, not even close). There is vastly more information in the Varicam's signal, and what's more, if you wish to edit or even worse color correct the MPEG2 datastream the signal falls apart far quicker. The quality of these signals is incredibly far apart as an aquisition format. That's fact, not blurred stats.

 

Good HDV camera with quality MPEG2 processors should deliver pretty good quality pictures. It is not available yet, but I'm sure that it will not take long Sony or even Canon to bring one to the market.

 

Good, but not nearly as good as the Varicam or the Cine Alta. And not that good once you start to try to manipulate it.

 

 

Postproduction:

 

There are ways to edit JVC HD10 footage. I don't know much about it, but there are. I'm sure that Sony will be coming out with good Vegas Video editing package when they deliver their HDV camera.

 

Yes you can edit it, but it means disassembling the MPEG2 signal and re-digitizing it, which distorts the signal. This is unlike other formats that can be editing natively so that there is no re-digitizing and signal degradation. This CANNOT be done with MPEG2, so the already slim, heavily compressed HDV signal will always be degraded in editing. Fine for home movies or finished material; lousy for real production. That's why HDV is good as a distribution format but not as an aquisition format.

 

 

 

Distribution:

 

No optical prints are necessary. Read the following:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2...kTheatresPR.asp

 

 

Some more details are here:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...s/vip/film.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...italcinema.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...dcinemaapp.aspx

 

This is a vast distortion of the realities of the industry as it stands today and is likely to stand for some time. It just doesn't work this way. I know--I actually work in this business and don't just talk about it. I've photographed 18 feature films (two in HD, btw) and have sat with many distributors and exibitors and film fest organizers and I do know what the realities are. This does not reflect reality.

 

 

The Landmark digital projection system is not 2K, but it has quality that is basically equal to Varicam, which looks sufficiently good on medium size screens. Landmark will allow you to show your digital print in all major US markets and your digital print can be anything, 24p, 25p, 50i, 60i.

 

Once your film is a commercial success and you'll need wider dietribution, you should not at that point have a problem to have a distributor pay for optical prints. You can print 24p and 25p directly, with digital sound pitch change on the 25p master. Both 50i and 60i transfers to 24 fps nicely.

 

Once you win the lottery, you won't have a problem getting a loan at the bank. Life just doesn't work this way. For every film that finds success in this fashion there are literally thousands that do not. That's because they are the exception that proves the rule. Distributors do not pay for filmouts, you do. In the rare case that a distributor does cover the costs, it is only as a loan that you have to pay for out of the proceeds of the distribution. Which means you'll never see a cent. Oh, and 50i & 60i transfer pretty poorly to 24fps, with tons of motion artifacts.

 

 

Completion of the digital conversion at Landmark may take some time; quality low cost HD camcorders may not be available for months. But the time is getting near that low cost production through theater distribution will becomes feasible.

 

Until a good quality HDV or Blu-Ray camcorders are available, you can shoot with Panasonic DVX100a and show your movies at Landmak. By now they should have decent amount of screens converted. I think that Russian Arc was distributed digitally to some Landmark theaters.

 

Even successful distributors have to fight and negotiate endlessly to get their titles to play at the theaters they want. Good luck on some self-distributed DV movie getting into ANY Landmark theater. Landmark has to turn a profit, and it's not like their waiting for Joe Shmoe to coming walking through their door with a DV tape. This year Sundance had something like 3000 feature film submissions for 26 slots. That's the reality of the marketplace.

[Guest Chainsaw]

Thank you for the Kool-Aid, Reverend Jim... :ph34r:

 

 

Mitch Gross wrote:

So I have an easy answer to the situation--I propose that we all completely ignore this person and any of his posts. Simple, clear message.

 

 

Mitch ~

 

Of the entirety of the knowledge and professional guidance you have provided to this site over the years I believe the above quote may be your most potent and salient insight to date. Domains such as this should be used for the sole purpose of the furtherance of professional learning, information, and techniques. Not to post some ridiculous and poorly researched manifesto.

 

This poster and his bottomless void of senseless Technocracy remind me of any given redneck who sits on the tail-gate of his '86 F-150 -Pabst in one hand, Marlboro in the other- and endlessly prattles on about how truly epic and perfect and better than all others America is, when it is plainly obvious that this individual did nothing to make it that way. Having an original idea or concept is fine, but it is unforgivable when the words and works of others are twisted and plagiarized and misquoted to purport an ideology that was not their original intent. I shan't even address the disgusting grievance parlayed to Mr. Mullen and one of his posts. Such was a stupidly shameful act of hubris.

 

I may be somewhat new to posting here but I am a longtime reader and student of this forum. Even if I were not I would still feel eminently qualified to point out that yes, the Emperor is indeed naked. All this person seeks (for whatever reason) is an audience. I think if we all deprive him of that this will be a richer, more fruitful, and perhaps less frustrating environment.

 

Mitch - as to your quote above, words to live by...

[Guest Ultra Definition]

MPEG2 and MPEG4 are more dificult to edit, but you can still do frame accurate edits once you decompress. Like it or not MPEG, and in the future even more compressed codecs, are becoming and will become the standard for acquisition. CineAlta SR uses MPEG4, IMG uses MPEG2. Why don't they use single frame compression? Because at the format's transfer rate the MPEG compression looks better. You need smaller stream of data for MPEG2 and even smaller for MPEG4. If you'd use MPEG2 on DVCPRO50 you'd get close to Digital Beta quality, which is 90 Mbps.

 

Varicam is 4:2:2, HDV is 4:2. At the HDV bit rate and the more efficeint codec you will bave same quality luma and a to a certain extent worse colors. So the picture should project to the same size as Varicam's, only it will not be as good color-wise.

 

THe new HD formats will mean revolution for the low end independent filmmaker. (I am not talking here about the JVC HD10. It is a joke.) The independent filmmaker will be able to use inexpensive equipment and show the picture on a medium size screen. The Landmark conversion to digital will work in synergy with this revolution. Still these are just couple of factors in creating a theatrical release film. First comes the script, then..... Well, the Landmark theater comes in the last. We all know that.

 

All I'm doing here is showing the student and low end independent filmmaker that the tools to make a movie that will project well to a lot larger screen than DV are becoming a working reality. As we can see from the responses on this board, few are aware of it. HDV is not bad. It is good. The Landmark digital projection is not bad. It is good. It may not be tha quality that the pros would like to see, the ones that are used to work with a lot more expensive formats and systems. It is however all good for the low end independent.

[Rob Belics]

Isn't this just off topic for the whole forum? Isn't this forum more about how to shoot, art, new equipment, etc. and not producing, distribution, etc.? I personally get put off by the, seemingly, dv vs film attempts.

[Tim Tyler]

Isn't this just off topic for the whole forum? Isn't this forum more about how to shoot, art, new equipment, etc. and not producing, distribution, etc.?

I suppose you are correct, however I don't think this conversation is that off-topic, and the Cinematography.com forum has always been a community that allows the freedom to be a little off-topic.

 

DP's often play a decisive part in determining the film or video format that a project originates in, so a conversation like this one can be important.

 

Also, FYI... I have received several "report" requests to remove posts that criticize UltraDefinition's position. As the forum administrator, I do not think this necessary and I'll not remove the posts.

[Mitch Gross]

Also, FYI... I have received several "report" requests to remove posts that criticize UltraDefinition's position. As the forum administrator, I do not think this necessary and I'll not remove the posts.

This is very troubling to me as it is indicative of a type of behaviour that has not been a part of this forum in the past. I think that the forum's new format that opens it up to Google searches and the like has perhaps also opened it up to propagandists with particular positions to tout. Because those positions come with a form of "pedigree" of an open discussion they are perhaps lent a certain false credibility, a credibility that the propagandist may seek to maintain by attempting to have any opposing positions removed. I cannot say that this is the case in this situation and I am not making accusations, but the repeated filing of such requests is a troubling one. The new forum design has only been up and allowing "reports" for a couple of months, but I'm guessing that other than in reference to this poster they generally come few and far between.

 

I would also like to note that having representatives from manufacturers or distributors of cinematography-related gear participate in the forums is a wonderful resource. In particular I have found John Pytlak of Kodak to have been a tireless and invaluable fountain of information about his company's products and in many other areas that do not have anything to do with Kodak or its products. Representatives from other companies have occassionally chimed in with pertinent information as well. Of course they also clearly identified themselves as such.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I concur with Mitch 100%.

 

I think that this forum was always great because it was a controlled and comfy environment that was unlike the Usenet, which is anarchy land and has some real lunatics posting. Anyone who's heard of Eric James Neimi ("EJN", who has annoyed people so much that they began writing rather gruesome stories about him on misc.writing.screenplays ) or Matrixx Entertainment knows what I'm talking about, not to mention the countless trolls and poor Robert Morein who keeps getting his posts forged under his and his deceased mother's name by some lifeless immature moron with a permanent axe to grind. I must say however that the Usenet is also a very valuable resource as well - I often search Google groups together with this forum's archives.

 

I enjoy it when people like John Pytlak come by, and wish others came along as well, i.e. camera manufacterer reps and lab reps. It really rounds out the forum and puts a human face on the companies we depend on for products and services.

 

- G.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'll concur with the above, and add once more that I feel strongly that a name and at least a rough location should be a requirement for posting here.

 

As for this particular guy, I think it's only necessary to point out that he simply doesn't know more than the basics of his subject. Claiming that MPEG-2 is a "more modern and efficient" codec than DVSD betrays a complete misunderstanding of the purpose and design goals of each. MPEG-2 is a pretty horrible intra-frame codec at more than about 3:1.

 

Phil

[Guest Ultra Definition]

All I asked was to have posts with personal attacks to be removed, not the ones that disagree with my views. But I don't care, if one has no technical knowledge to argue my views on inteligent level, let him resort to personal attacks.

 

Of course MPEG2 is more efficient codec than DV codec, and MPEG4 is more efficient codec than MPEG2. If some cameras, e.g. HD10 have poor picture is not because MPEG2 is a bad codec but because the MPEG2 processors used are poor, plus there are naturally other factors why HD10 is not a pro product.

 

IMG cameras are using MPEG2 and not 1-frame (similar as DV) type codec that is used by Digital Betacam. Why? Because it is more efficient. CineAlta SR is using MPEG4 recording. Why? because it is even more efficient.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm not going to engage in further discussion with this person if the standard of knowledge is going to stay at this level.

 

> DV type codec that is used by Digital Betacam

 

Digibeta doesn't use anything even remotely like a "DV type codec." The compression uses a Huffman prediction alogrithm, which is essentially lossless (the loss is in the RGB to YUV conversion, mainly) but limits compression to around 2:1 (I believe the implementation in Digital Betacam achieves around 1.8:1 after the UV plane subsampling.)

 

Go. Read. Learn.

 

Phil

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Both Digital Beta and DV use single frame compression. Digital Beta is 2:1, DV is 5:1. MPEG is not single frame and therefore is more efficient and that is why future systems are moving in this direction. In the past it was impossible to do MPEG2 or 4 compression in real time, economically, and in small physical space. The times have changed. Of course DV and Digital Beta is easier to edit; you don't have to decompress them / recreate individual frames. And of course uncompressed is the best, but too expensive and hard to work with.

 

I rest my case.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> MPEG is not single frame and therefore is more efficient and that is why future

> systems are moving in this direction

 

Drivel! All MPEG implementations for tape-based recording, such as Sony's IMX format, are intra-frame only. They don't use the conventional fifteen-frame group-of-pictures structure; all frames are I-frames, so the temporal compression aspects of the codec are overlooked.

 

If you apply even the tiniest amount of thought to this, it becomes extremely obvious why this is the case. You will realise that since the VTR transports tape at a constant speed, it is not possible to have a variable frame size as inevitably results from the GOP structure. It works on a DVD because the mechanism can choose to read ahead and buffer data, then stop and restart at a later date. Tape transports can't do this.

 

There are other reasons, principally to do with interoperability, to use the MPEG-2 codec for tape-based recording; also, it supports 4:2:2 colourspace natively, which DVSD does not (4:2:2 extensions to the DV standard, such as DVCPRO-50, are proprietary.)

 

Phil

[Guest Ultra Definition]

example: HDV uses 8-frame groups and HDV media a tape

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Sure, but you absolutely cannot use 19 or 25-megabit MP@H-14 compression as an argument for the use of MPEG video streams in professional hi-def imaging.

 

For those unaware of this palpably obscure format, it's that used by that awful little hi-def palmcorder that JVC make. It isn't used by anything else at all - as far as I know there isn't even a VCR for it.

 

Phil

[Guest Ultra Definition]

I agree that the JVC camcorder is worthless. JVC already announced a VCR for it, portable, with built in monitor.

[Joe Sexton]

Hi,

 

I am finishing a feature length movie that I shot in HDV and thought perhaps I could lend some insight in to this discussion. I used the JVC camera and would agree that as a professional tool it is a joke however to call it a palmcorder and say its worthless I feel is an overstatement. The camera performs very much like a GL-2 or a PD-150 so for those who work with mini DV cameras of that caliber it might be worth taking a look at.

 

That HDV format its self does however show some potential, certainly not for projects intended for the big screen, but what it will offer is independent film makers an opportunity work inexpensively, and possibly gain recognition. Also the format works well for recording dailies via a D-VHS deck. Editing can be performed efficiently by using Cineforms Connect HD to convert the file stream to AVI which allows you to use Premier or Vegas, However when you convert from MPEG2 to AVI you are loosing some information and doubling the file size.

 

In conclusion I think that the HDV format will never find a home in the high end professional world. When the intended goal is to make a movie and sell it to the public you need the highest possible acquisition format, but if your a no name film maker with a great idea looking to prove your ability then HDV has the potential to become ?the next best thing? and so for a lot of filmmakers that don?t have someone to bank role their project then they must use the best that they can afford which is where I think HDV will find its home.

[Nate Downes]

I am totally confused by this thread. Is it about using HD cameras for shoestring budgets, or about hawking some kind of product package?

 

Then again, I don't do HD.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

The new uncompressed cameras, the Prospect HD codec, the large Landmark Theaters chain that allows digital projection, the other theaters in other countries that have digital projection that will too accepts verious formats... all these are making celluloid yesterday's story for the low end indie filmmaker... and making the equipment budget go down and film stock budget goes to zero.

[Rob Belics]

Landmark is not there yet and has a while to go. Feature films will be shown on film for quite a while still.

 

As others have mentioned here, of course if you are shooting video then "film stock" will go to zero but not your costs.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3714937.stm

 

250 art house screens in England are going digital

[Mitch Gross]

Joined today and there are already 19 posts. The ressurection of Ultra-Definition?

[David Mullen ASC]

"all these are making celluloid yesterday's story for the low end indie filmmaker..."

 

"Ultra Definition" used to say things like that, despite the evidence to the contrary. And "Jerry Springfield". The other ones before them. You guys must talk to each other to get your words to match.

 

Quite a number of low-end indie filmmakers are shooting film still. It's far from being "yesterday's story." How many years can one keep saying that "film is dead", "celluloid is history" etc. and keep being wrong yet keep repeating it? On the hope that eventually they will be right and no one will remember all the times they were wrong in the past?

 

Why not wait until it's happened to say it? You shoot with the tools you can afford. People are shooting both digital and film right now and will be for years. I don't get this obsession that some digital people have for hoping that film dies -- they can shoot all the digital they want to NOW. It's an exciting time to be shooting digitally. You can discuss all the new technology you want but what's the point in slipping in a comment like "celluloid is yesterday's story"? You just negate any of the good points you make by sticking a dumb comment like that into the text. Now people are going to have a harder time taking you seriously. And I would assume you WANT to be taken seriously.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

Low end indie filmmaker -- that is what I said. If he can shoot and project in digital, that will save him a lot of $; that is progress; it is a guy who can't afford F950 and optical prints. It is a guy on a shoestring budget. New lower cost equipment and digital projection may redefine what low end indie filmmaker is. The progress should be aplauded.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure it should be applauded, but what has that got to do with film being "yesterday's story?" Look at the Best Feature winner at Sundance this year, "Primer": a $7000 movie shot in 35mm film, projected digitally I believe. There's no reason why using film can't also be an OPTION for the low-budget indie filmmaker even if he finishes the project on tape and only projects it digitally. Film doesn't have to die for the low-budget independent filmmaker to be liberated from high costs.

 

There will always be some low-budget indie filmmakers who will want to work with film at some level, whether in capturing the image or projecting the image. So celluloid is hardly "yesterday's story" for anyone, including those on a small budget.

 

Maybe you meant to say "the requirement for 35mm prints will soon be a thing of the past for low-budget independent filmmakers" -- THAT could be a valid argument although hard to prove for now. But saying that "celluloid is yesterday's story" is too sweeping a statement to have any validity.