Shoestring Film Production through Distribution

[Mitch Gross]

Look at the Best Feature winner at Sundance this year, "Primer": a $7000 movie shot in 35mm film, projected digitally I believe.

Close, shot in Super-16. But still on film, of course.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

It's the year 2050. The 4th word war just ended. Among the survivers is David Mullen, with his omnipresent Russian hand cranked 16 mm camera. Next to him is Mitch who got radiated too much and keeps on turnig the Kinetta crank, bitching that the thing must be out of film or something. There is a fried TV crew nerby. Only their super high definition cameras survived. They are fingernail sized, flying around on micro flying saucers and use mind control of a cameraman to film the action. Unfortunately all the cameramen are fried and the two left keep on cranking their museum camera pieces screaming Film Is Not Dead. John Pytlak, the oldes man on Earth, is fried too, holding in one hand a can of Super 16 mm film with a label Last One - Do Not Use. In his other hand is a sign Long Live Film. On the can it says Stock Made in Korea by Samsung Kodak Corporation. All this is hapening in China, whose southern border in this part of the world is Mexico. ;)

[Rob Belics]

Uh, oh.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's nice to know that by the time I'm 88, I will have finally bought a cheap 16mm camera... and survived a "word war."

[John Pytlak RIP]

Kodak has been around and growing for over 120 years, and plans on continuing to do so. Remember, Kodak is an IMAGING company, not just a film company:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/kodakHistory/index.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht...pq-locale=en_US

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDe...ighlights.shtml

 

Kodak provided the first scanner technology used by George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic, almost 20 years ago:

 

http://hotwired.wired.com/collections/film..._illusion1.html

 

To get around the problems of optical compositing, ILM and Kodak jointly developed a machine that can turn a frame of film into about 20 Mbytes of digital information. In a fine example of industrial altruism (or buck- passing), Kodak calls it the "ILM scanner," and ILM calls it the "Kodak scanner." It's a bulky device that looks like a workbench with lenses on top and computers underneath.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

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.

 

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.

Who wants to pay $10 to see something shot on miniDV projected on a 60' screen at less than 2k resolution? Who wants to do their own distribution and marketing for the screenings? How much of each ticket will they give you and how much does it cost to put into a large theater?

 

People get way to excited way to early about new technology.

 

I should remind you that Microsoft has previously had nothing to do with the film business and what they say or claim should be taken with a large grain of salt. They are jumping the gun, and frankly, trying desperately to catch up to Apple and their MPEG codecs...a company who has been intimately a part of film production for many many years.

[Mitch Gross]

...and now I KNOW who is writing this nonsense.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

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.

Maybe, but those filmmakers aren't making films for business purposes they are making them to be in the movies too.

 

Bottom line, if your script is good enough, you should be able to get money to do it right and not have to resort to consumer equipment and a crew of 'weekend filmmakers.'

 

I hate people who don't actually work in the business repeating what they've read in articles and manufacturer's brochures.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

It's called creative, nonlinear thinking, being young, whatever. Then there is the man that is 100 yeras old or has a mind of a 100 old, or one that always goes by the book. He will always hang on to his 16 mm camera and scream that celluloid is the way to shoot, but his films are not shown in any theaters, or maybe a couple ones that failed. His films can't be made inexpensively, because he uses a high shooting ratio and his fiilm stock is expensive and he needs to make optical prints. He know no other way. He sees no other way. He envies Michael Moore's success and he puts him down. Michael thinks different. Our 100 year man who learned his craft with a hand cranked camera proudly wears his Vote Bush button as he did Vote The Old Bush button and Vote Reagan button and Vote Dick Nix button. Then there is the creative one. He knows that inexpensive cameras are coming. He knows that Prospect HD is coming. He knows that Landmark Theaters will show his film digitally. He knows that soon 250 theaters in England will show his picture digitally. He knows that there are digital theaters world-wide and that their number is growing. He knows that what the old brain man will spend on 16 mm celluloid, he will be able to buy his complete 1080p production and postproduction package for. He knows that it will be 4:2:2. He knows that it will be the same resolution as the Kinetta and he knows that there is no visual difference between 4:4:4 and 4:2:2. He knows he is the winner. His film stock cost is zero; his projection print cost is zero. He knows that his film will look sharper than any Super 16 mm originated film; he knows that it will look sharper than most 35 mm films that were ever made. He is surounded by cute chics, wherever he goes. The 100 year brain DP walks around with his two ton BBW wife named Bertha who can't understand why her husband does not like the BBM (big beautiful man) Michael. The 100 year old brain man has nightmares that he became Michael Moore and that he became famous. He goes to his shrink and he interprets it to him that he does not like BBWs but secretely longs for BBMs. He tries to shoot himself, only is too wako and tries to do it with his 16 mm camera. By that time the 1080/24p HD production and post package costs $10K; it is 2 years from now. He passes a pawn shop in Hollywood, holding his omnipresent 1950's Bollex and sees a last year's model Arri for $5K. He does not believe it and goes to see his shrink. Long live HD for independent production! RIP soon film for independent production. :P

[Jo Laurits Aksdal]

...and then you have the man with many names but one style of writing ...

[Rob Belics]

...who is a wannabee and has done nothing himself...

[Guest J Jukuzami]

Comon guys, what are doing in the HD forum if you all hate HD. Some of your comments are totally ridiculous. Try to have some imagination beyond the negative stock. Think reversal, then say 100x every day: Digital cinema is here today and is here to stay. Film is here today but it's a dying medium. Amen.

[Rob Belics]

Fewer than one percent of theatres have digital projectors. No theatres in my area have them.

[Brad Grimmett]

Comon guys, what are doing in the HD forum if you all hate HD. Some of your comments are totally ridiculous.

We don't hate HD. We hate people who blab on about it and are full of crap. As far as ridiculous comments go.....look in the mirror.

[DanStewart]

You don't seem to realise that you're not saying anything new, you're just being vociferous. This technology is interesting and everyone here is interested in it, but repeating how great it is doesn't make it any more useful to the working pro.

 

Why don't you shoot something and make your point that way? You can always fall back to the marketing if it doesn't work out...

[John Pytlak RIP]

FWIW, Kodak sold a record amount of motion picture film in 2003, and this year is on track to be even better than last year. B)

 

In the distant future, digital cameras will supplant film cameras. Kodak will be part of that evolution. But what you shoot TODAY on film will still produce the best images, now and in the future. Even if all theatres have digital projectors in the distant future, today's films can be scanned and transferred to whatever digital distribution formats lie ahead.

 

A century of film production has found new life in the digital age. The quality of decades-old film images is often stunning. Some old filmed television shows and movies are already being scanned at 4K to get all the quality that resides in those 12-megapixel sensors we coat on perforated plastic. :)

 

,

[Jarin Blaschke]

What is this bizarre link you're making between one's medium of preference and political orientation?

[Nate Downes]

100 years ago there was no 16mm, it was created only 80 years ago. As for being affordable, try and find me the HD rig that can match the cost of my last film shoot:

 

1 Chinon 1206SM Super8 camera, ebay for $20

1 Chinon 806SM Super8 camera, ebay for $6

4 rolls Kodachrome w/ prepaid mailers, $65 incl postage

4 rolls Plus-X B&W, processed by hand, $48 incl postage, chemicals, and the processing tank.

Actors (6) $30 gas money

Viewer/Splicer: $11

Film transfer handled via homebuilt transfer system, $100

 

Total cost: $280

 

Now please, point me to the HD setup that could do this 3 minute music video on the same budget.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I would contend that you could get better pictures out of a (spit, spit) PD-150 than you could out of that, though. Plus, the hi-def will outresolve the Super-8 two or three to one - although for some reason I imagine you'd have better luck persuading broadcasters to take super-8 transferred to hi-def over upconverted DV.

 

On the other hand, by the time you've had your super-8 transferred to HDCAM - ouch! Expensive.

 

Phil

[Nate Downes]

@Phil

 

Better looking is subjective, and there is still the budget issue. As for transferring to HD, that was not part of the arguement, as we were discussing something that was to be projected. One of the reasons I opted for Super8 in this case is because the band wanted something that could be projected cheaply at their shows. To deliver the same with a HDCAM would cost a small fortune.

[Filip Plesha]

He is surounded by cute chics, wherever he goes.

This is so immature. Are you implying that everyone should shoot with digital cameras just to be fameous and have "cute chics" around him?

 

I'm sorry to ask this, but how old are you? Have you finished high school?

 

By the way, that plane you have to catch, was that a metaphore or do you actually have to catch some kind of radio controiled plain in your backyard?

 

And what is with all the names? Do you have split personalities?