Butterflies in the Wind in pursuit of happiness

filmman said:
A thread would be great because I could sell a lot of 35mm short ends. LOL

But the short answer is yes, shooting 35mm is a great way to shoot music videos. Rent an Arri 2c (or even better buy one :-) from eBay and shoot all your music videos with it.

200 footers 35mm sell for about 10 cents per foot. The price jumps for longer ends, but I figure around 15 cents per foot you can get a nice package of film to shoot your music video.

Film runs through the camera and projects at 90 ft per minute. So if your music video is 3 minutes, then your finished film strip is 270 ft plus the leader -- say 300 ft.

If you want to shoot a lot of footage, say 10 times more for coverage, you're looking at 2,700 ft. That's $405. Processing is ten cents per foot at DeLuxe Labs. That's $270. Subtotal=$675. Add telecine and you will be still under $1000.

You have $9000 left to play with. Email me if you're serious. vic@felliniesque.com
Click to expand...

Hey Filmman. I started a thread http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1568765#post1568765

The main thing for me would be to convince clients to shot on 35mm.
 
Professional music videos should be shot on 35mm.
Zero budget music videos -- me doing a favor to a band -- I'll shoot with my Sony Z1. I'll do it in one session and edit it in a day or two and it's done. I'll output to whatever format the band wants.

I think digital is heaven-sent for experimentation and learning. It's such a wonderful tool for documentary movie making.

Any other production with a budget of any sorts should be originated on film. I also think that digital can be mixed in with film, because digital has a look of its own too, and it will surely contribute to some aspect of storytelling. Digital is a great companion format to film.

Digital and Film -- brotherly love. Sisterly even :-)
 
filmman said:
Any other production with a budget of any sorts should be originated on film. I also think that digital can be mixed in with film, because digital has a look of its own too, and it will surely contribute to some aspect of storytelling. Digital is a great companion format to film.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree more. Video has come to a point where film is just another aesthetic. Seriously after seeing some of the work such as "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" or "Sin City" these were all huge film and their looks were incredible and they were NOT originated on film. I couldn't imagine going back to film when I can do so much on video. At this point film is simply for people who really like film. The only real purpose it serves is as a delivery format for theaters. If film disappeared today aside from a delivery format the general public wouldn't know it or miss it.

This doesn't mean there's no room for film as almost everything in the theater is still originated on film but honestly this is because it creates a fake aire that really isn't there anymore with cameras like Red coming onto the scene. Film is now simply a choice. I think the fear is if Hollywood started making everything on video it would open up too many doors. Imagine what digital projection would do to the cinemas and for the little guy who knows how to take advantage.

As for music videos there's no reason to NOT shoot on HD at this point in time. Big companies are shooting their videos in HD. (And not because they can't afford film). It's not like in the 90s when you shot HD because you couldn't afford film. HD can actually look like film. (At least to the point no one in the audience will question it).

-Nate
 
Last edited:
There's a great discussion here. The best part of it is that the matter is purely based on emotional appeal.

Film and digital are two ways of seeing. Film is analogue, digital is digital.
They serve different interests.
They are choices for the artist.

What I want to do is use them both, as compatible tools and maybe find the synergy between them.
 
I'd advise you to go for a TV production gig as it's being done already. 24 actually jumps between the two based on what they're shooting. They're mixing Film and 24p HD (they may be doing 30p HD but I don't think so). HDVideo Pro had an article on it and NCIS does so also. I think there may be something for you to look into because it's happening right now.

-Nate
 
That doesn't surprise me, Nate. It's the logical thing to do. The thing is that I'm not very much into digital technology, because it's too complex for an artist like me.LOL I mean, too complex for the artist, period. It's just too much technique and not enough substance. I believe it's a waste of time, especially as I suspect that video is going through an overwhelming amount of transformations -- it has to; it's so new. It's happening as we speak; our TV sets will not work at any moment, LOL, if we don't already go too bankrupt ... to the point of not caring about watching another episode of Sex in the City :-)

I'm talking out of frustration too. The last few days I've been trying to output a flat 16:9 720x405 wide screen movie coming from a 16:9 anamorphic movie (squeazed 4:3 720x480). What a mess!

With film I could just hold up a frame to the light and know what I had. Give me a break!
 
I shot "Wages" in 24p but my DVX is only 4:3 not 16:9. We did a fake 16:9 by taping off the screen with black tape. We edited everything together and output it. I took the whole movie back in then stretched it at the top and bottom then output again, then took it into Compressor and did a DV NTSC Anamophic conversion (under advanced conversions) 16:9 anamorphic. What you're watching when you see "Wages of Sin" on my Vimeo page was orignally 4:3 footage but it shows up as 16:9. All my trailers show up as 4:3 letterboxed.

My point is once you learn to use the stuff you learn to find the work arounds and it becomes second nature. Eventually you'll start to learn all the workarounds and I think you'll start to love video.

The irony here is you stick to film because of ease of use, I stick to video because I love the fact I can work with my images that day and see what they will look like as I shoot. When I shoot the last shot of a film, my work is pretty much done. Once I edit that in, my rough cut is complete. I go back in later, do sound and color correction, add effects, music, make an M&E track (just in case) and output. No waiting for it come back from the lab.

I'm willing to bet there's something small you're overlooking that could solve your problem. Have you talked to anyone about it? I don't see what the output issue would be but someone would know. Are you using FCP? And did you input it as anamorphic? Sometimes I forget to change my settings.

-Nate
 
It was the first time I was using FCP. The G5 and FCP were right out of the box. I had to learn fast. I had never edited NLE before.

I had my feature film telecined as 4:3 Academy, DVCAM, from my 35mm edited feature film. The cost of the telecine was $450.

I thought I was inputting 24 frames per second, but that was a misconception. As you know everyone told me I was now editing in 29.97 frames per second. I nearly freaked out. What! A fraction of a frame? Why is that? Well, the answer still sound ridiculous even after all these few years that have past. I was almost too discouraged to continue but then what choice do any of us have? LOL This is the digital age; we have to deal with a fractured reality.

So, then everybody told me on the user groups: "You must do a widescreen; this is a feature film!" Ok, so I had to learn how to make a mask in FCP, crop every shot to 16:9 (my choice of format rather than 1:1.85 or even 1:1.35), and then make an anamorphic out of the cropped image so I would end up with 16:9 anamorphic for my DVDs.

Now I need 16:9 Flat (non-anamorphic) for the web, but it takes 8 hours render time and another 8 hours it looks like for encoding. I'm up to my eyeballs in digital technology and I'm wondering what I've got myself into.LOL
 
You will be rendering a lot. 8 hours is pretty good time too for a feature, "Wages" took ten because we did all our effects in FCP. From what you've written I assume you have an anamorphic Quicktime. Take your anamorphic footage and play it in Quicktime (I assume you have QT Pro) and go to file and then output it for iPod. This should allow you to upload it to Vimeo or other sites that take that format. But I assume, again, you're doing this for iPod downloads, if so then the QT conversion is all you need to do then see if it plays on your iPod (it should) then you're done. Now you can upload it to the site where people will download from.

-Nate
 
Not yet for iPod. I was asked to make it available for international buyers to look at as a screener. So I'm trying to make a streaming version of the whole movie that looks nice and is 640x360 so the size is decent. I've tried a bit rate of 1200 but that's apparently going to be too high because the resulting movie is now 1.3 Gigs. I'm trying to get it down to 500 MBs and I don't know how of a bit rate that should be. Is there a calculator for final file size?
 
I learned today from some experts that the proper dimensions for a 16:9 anamorphic internet format is 853x480.

I though it was 720x405.

I've been having so much trouble displaying trailers in the proper format. I thought I'd just share this info and see if some of you can shed some light on the various dimensions and considerations for putting up trailers on the Internet.
 
I'm just playing it safe for the time being; I'm going to output all my anamorphic Internet postings in Letterbox 4:3 format.
 
I think compression is the first consideration before beginning production of a feature film. With shorts one can try different compression possibilities after production, but with features a mistake in the capture or editing format could result in months of frustration at output point.
 
With so much interest in my movie BUTTERFLIES IN THE WIND after DVXusers helped me edit a dynamite trailer, I decided to take it down from a couple of Internet sites. By the AFM date, I might take it out as a new movie (I'll have to revamp it a bit) and re-release it as new & improved.LOL
 
There are three people who want me to represent them at the AFM so far. I need another two. I will of course take BUTTERFLIES IN THE WIN and FELLINIESQUE PLAYERS too. I will be selling each movie separately. I don't cross collateralize. email me vic@felliniesque.com
 
If you didn't give away your film to distributors without upfront money, you're lucky. BUTTERFLIES IN THE WIND is still my movie because I wasn't "picked up".LOL

It's different if a major studio gives you $5,000,000 upfront and 40% from distribution after their expenses are recovered, because you're getting $5,000,000.

It's also different if a distributor gives you $50,000 upfront (as did Shapiro Ent. to us with Killzone many moons ago.) We ended up getting a lot more later too.

Today, none of the distributors are paying any upfront money, so you're better off keeping the rights to your movie yourself.

The giving awat of the non-exclusive distribution rights hasn't worked out for me (I've withdrawn my movie BUTTERFLIES IN THE WIND) from two online non-exclusive distributors.

Non-exclusive means they don't pay anything upfront. So they don't risk anything. The only that has worked out for me is Amazon via CreateSpace. They have paid and submitted weekly e-mail reports.

The problem with online distribution is that there is little exposure for the individual filmmaker. You still have to drive traffic to the film listing and promote the movie constantly.

Everybody's film gets lost in the shuffle now that there are millions of digital movies on the web. That's just how it is -- the nature of the beast.

You want to get a fair shake? Distribute your own movie IF you don't get an advance from a major studio, a mini-major or small distributor. There is no justification to giving your film away without upfront money.

If your budget is low or practically non-existent and you just want exposure, ok, giving your film away will establish you as a filmmaker; but aside from that you're better off holding off your movie rights.

Don't ruin the potential of your film by submitting to too many festivals (because the audience for your movie will then have seen your film for free). Of course, the only ones making money with your film are the festivals then. Personally I don't submit to festivals anymore, except for INVITATION. BUTTERFLIES IN THE WIND was invited by the AVA GARDNER FILM FESTIVAL in North Carolina and was screened in the same theater as Ernest Hemingway's THE KILLERS and THE SUN ALSO RISES.

I'm planning to take my movie to the AMERICAN FILM MARKET (AFM). Let me know if you want me to represent your movie. I will give you all the contracts I sign with buyers and if you don't want me to represent you next year, you can have everything back.

Thanks for your help, everybody who gave suggestions to my editing the trailer to BUTTERFLIES IN THE WIND. It made a big difference. This is why I love DVXuser!
 
IMO, what's the use of making movies only to get ripped off :-) It takes a lot of work to make a movie; the filmmaker should at least recoup his/her investment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top