Anyone else excited about the future of DSLRs?

[kodjo]

Once again, you miss my point. Instead of calling people "trolls" you should perhaps open your mind to what they have to say.

I do not suggest that stars necessarily make a successful movie. I am suggesting that the fact cameras have become affordable for anybody does not mean the expensive aspects of movie making is resolved. Sets, costumes, actors, and yes even stars cost money. No matter what format you shoot in or what camera you use, what goes in front of the camera costs money... and unless the little fat girl from Ohio has a wealthy familly to pay for her film, she will still be competing against top of the line production design, sets, and the works. And it will always look like a film by the little fat girl from Ohio.

Beyond that, personnally I yet have to see a director make a film without being in top physical condition. I am not worried about the little fat giurl from Ohio yet.

 

[Gary Huff]

Beyond that, personnally I yet have to see a director make a film without being in top physical condition. I am not worried about the little fat giurl from Ohio yet.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I think this is a before picture! I am sure you've seen what he looks like now!

 

[Gary Huff]

I do know what he looks like now. But he's in the middle of making a film when this picture was taken.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I wonder how big he was when he started!

 

[Barry_Green]

Yeah, I was shocked when I was training him on his HVX's, as to how trim he had become. All I'd ever seen was the "before" pictures.

Other directors who weren't exactly in top physical condition would include Alfred Hitchcock and Kevin Smith.

 

[Blaine]

Or Francis Ford Coppola.

 

[daveswan]

I do know what he looks like now. But he's in the middle of making a film when this picture was taken.

Three films actually, all at once :shocked:

And yeah, the little fat girl is already shooting, and polishing her Oscar acceptance speech :happy:

Dave

 

[Finnegan]

...and unless the little fat girl from Ohio has a wealthy familly to pay for her film, she will still be competing against top of the line production design, sets, and the works. And it will always look like a film by the little fat girl from Ohio.

Ok, allow me to clarify for the sake of logical argument your position. You, Kodjo, are saying that without money to pay for production design, sets, and "the works", a film will always look like a film by the little fat girl from Ohio. Is this correct? If so, allow me to retort.

Tarantino - Reservoir Dogs - $30,000 (initial)
Smith - Clerks - $27,000
Carruth - Primer - $7,000
Peli - Paranormal Activity - $15,000
Rodriguez - El Mariachi - $7,000
Lynch - Eraserhead - $10,000
Nolan - Following - $6,000
Linklater - Slacker - $23,000
Hopper - Easy Rider - $340,000
Raimi - The Evil Dead - $350,000
Miller - Mad Max - $200,000
Romero - Night of the Living Dead - $114,000
Carpenter - Halloween - $325,000
Lucas - American Graffiti - $700,000
Hess - Napoleon Dynamite - $400,000

I could go on for hours. A mountain of evidence refutes the claim that you need money to make good movies. All of these listed movies are sub-million dollar films which have either gone on to gross enormous amounts of money or be given the status of "classic" or "cult-classic", some are even recognized by the film industry and film academics to be of significant cultural or artistic importance. Now tell me, Kodjo, do all these films look like films made by a little fat girl from Ohio with no money to you?

 

[Gary Huff]

I don't know where you got your numbers from, but Reservoir Dogs was 1.2mil. Eraserhead was $20,000 (and not a conventional-type movie at all), El Mariachi had a good chunk of money spent on additional post before it was actually released, and a lot of those movies aren't adjusted for inflation, so that actual value is even more than what you would seem to indicate.

 

[Finnegan]

I don't know where you got your numbers from, but Reservoir Dogs was 1.2mil. Eraserhead was $20,000 (and not a conventional-type movie at all), El Mariachi had a good chunk of money spent on additional post before it was actually released, and a lot of those movies aren't adjusted for inflation, so that actual value is even more than what you would seem to indicate.

We're specifically talking about production cost. Not post, legal, or distribution.

 

[Zak Forsman]

some thoughts by Jeff Steele on how cheaper technology has democratized production by a factor of 10x.

http://filmclosings.com/2010/03/cant-catch-a-break/

Budgetarily speaking, $250k is the new $2.5m. That’s right. Due to the down economy, and advances in cheapening technology, you can now create for $250k what was once the purview of $2.5m films. In addition, once your film is complete you don’t have to try very hard to sell $250k+ in foreign territories, so that makes for a pretty good return on a $250k film, even after you net-out the costs-of-sales. So there’s your light at the end of the tunnel.

Imagine taking these microbudget expertise we're all amassing to make $10mm look like $100mm.

 

[Gary Huff]

We're specifically talking about production cost. Not post, legal, or distribution.

If you don't have money for that, your movie goes nowhere.

 

[Finnegan]

If you don't have money for that, your movie goes nowhere.

Again, absolutely 100% untrue. I think like 90% of the movies I listed (which is merely a fraction of low budget films that have gone on to do relatively well) completed principal photography long before a distribution deal or post production work was ever agreed upon by a studio. The one thing studios can't mass produce is a creative, engaging story. And for that reason, studios are willing to pay for all of the legal, distribution, and post work if they can distribute the film and reap profits. Do you think Robert Rodriguez paid for the distribution and post work done on El Mariachi?

Here, check it out I'll work this thing out for you. If you don't have money for post production, then edit it yourself on your laptop in Final Cut Pro. If you don't have money to buy legal rights to things that appear in the film, then don't include such things in the film. There are just as many struggling musicians in Los Angeles as filmmakers, ask one of them to compose something original for the film of which you own the rights to, and like....buy him dinner or something. No money for distribution? Welcome to the age of the internet. YouTube celebrities like Kassem G, Lisa Nova, and Shay Carl generate a couple million views per video that they generate. A small or independent distribution company would at least pay attention to you if you were able to garner a couple million views on the internet. Case in point? The new Mortal Kombat trailer that came out like, a week ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_MqZn7E-mk

My friend was a grip on this thing. The guy who directed it is the same guy who directed the remake of Fame, Kevin Tancharoen. He spent a couple thousand dollars, put together this eight minute teaser project and stuck it on the internet and shopped it around. My friend, who is close friends with Kevin, says that the fact they've generated so many views in so little time is a big pitching point. The point of this is that you don't need money to make a movie. Sure, it helps. Rodriguez will tell you that it doesn't even help, but he's a genius.

 

[Gary Huff]

Again, absolutely 100% untrue.

No, because if no studio had picked up El Mariachi and spent that post money, it would have gone nowhere.

 

[Gary Huff]

And let's go further with one recent, more contemporary example: Napoleon Dynamite. That was a quite a small film, and yet its budget was $400,000. Where do you think a fat girl in Ohio is going to get $400,000? That's a HUGE budget for most of the people on here making films, so I fail to see what your point is.

 

[Finnegan]

No, because if no studio had picked up El Mariachi and spent that post money, it would have gone nowhere.

Uh, ok. I don't see how this helps your argument because the studio DID pick it up, spend the post money, and it went places.

And let's go further with one recent, more contemporary example: Napoleon Dynamite. That was a quite a small film, and yet its budget was $400,000. Where do you think a fat girl in Ohio is going to get $400,000? That's a HUGE budget for most of the people on here making films, so I fail to see what your point is.

My point is and always has been that you don't need a large budget to make something that other people enjoy or deem worth watching. I feel like I have made that extremely clear, and I also feel like there is a quite a bit of evidence supporting that claim. You can pick and choose low budget movies and point out that their budgets are, relative to most people on these boards, pretty enormous sums of money. And that's true. But you can't ignore the scores of movies that have been made for less than $10,000 that have turned a profit, and the handful that have become cult classics or enormous money makers.

All in all, I think people need to stop making excuses about why they can't make a movie and just go make a movie. What makes a movie good? Engaging story? Three dimensional characters? Well written dialogue? Creative camera work and lighting that visually tells the story? These are all things you don't need money to do. Some of the most creative projects I have seen in new media have been done by two guys, an HVX200, Final Cut Pro, and an original song.

Just look at 70% of Hollywood movies. That's one thing all Hollywood movies have is money. And for some reason, a good portion of the movies that are considered to be great works of art, of cultural and artistic importance, or become wildly successful happen to be independently produced "low budget" movies.

 

[Gary Huff]

My point is and always has been that you don't need a large budget to make something that other people enjoy or deem worth watching.

I agree, but it depends on what your definition of "large" is. Generally, if you spend too little on a production, you ultimately have to cut corners enough to where the product will, 99.9999% of the time, suffer greatly, probably to the point of being unwatchable. There's also the point that if you're too lazy/ignorant/whatever to raise the money necessary to give your film a decent budget (and to pay the hardworking professionals that are needed to pull it off), then 99.9999% of time, you're also probably not as good of a screenwriter/director/ect. that you may think you are. I see it all the time, with people who don't have a clue about directing and writers who hand me something that I would be, frankly, embarrassed to ever show another human being.

I feel like I have made that extremely clear, and I also feel like there is a quite a bit of evidence supporting that claim.

Not really. You've given a list that includes a lot of cheap movies (and I still don't know what you mean by Reservoir Dogs having a $30,000 budget initially.) from the past, where, take for instance Eraserhead, was $20,000 in 1976, which means it's about $75,000 in today's dollars. That's still a pretty significant budget.

You can pick and choose low budget movies and point out that their budgets are, relative to most people on these boards, pretty enormous sums of money. And that's true. But you can't ignore the scores of movies that have been made for less than $10,000 that have turned a profit, and the handful that have become cult classics or enormous money makers.

And these are few and far between. You might as well use your $10,000 to purchase lottery tickets.

All in all, I think people need to stop making excuses about why they can't make a movie and just go make a movie. You know what Rodriguez says. "If you can't do it well without money, you'll never do it well with money."

I agree with you here. But people need to stop thinking that their **** is going to be the next Ben Hur or Blair Witch or launch some A-list career in Hollywood. Check out YouTube and see all the positive comments for videos which are completely asinine. There are people who are entertained by pure crapola. So make your film that YOU want to see, instead of some slapped together P.O.S. production that you think is going to launch you into the big leagues and allow you to date famous actresses/actors.

 

[reem12]

Koli, in reference to my past post concerning the red camera needing more man power and budget than a dslr is drawn from the information of other dps I've been in contact who share the same conclusion. I'm not saying it is not possible for you to accomplish what you've accomplished with the same manpower, but I would respectfully argue that you could pull it off at the same budget bracket as the dslrs.

You are right though, I have not personally shot with a red package, but at this point we all recognize that there has been a shift due to the economy, and although It would be nice to shoot with the highest quality tools available, I'm sure a lot of companies are finding it difficult to shell out a $1000 a day for a camera package when they can own one for close to that price. Most consumers will not discern pixel counts or a major quality difference as us techies. This is why I think the client will begin to trim what they deem to be excess fat and opt to embrace this cheaper technology. Keep in mind also, not every client knows of the capabilities of this new technology yet.

 

[Kholi]

Koli, in reference to my past post concerning the red camera needing more man power and budget than a dslr is drawn from the information of other dps I've been in contact who share the same conclusion. I'm not saying it is not possible for you to accomplish what you've accomplished with the same manpower, but I would respectfully argue that you could pull it off at the same budget bracket as the dslrs.

You are right though, I have not personally shot with a red package...

That is the disconnect. You're arguing by the words of other DPs who may not have enough experience with the system to even say this.

That argument is surely unfounded and I guarantee you that you CAN pull off a fullblown RED shoot at the same cost as a DSLR shoot. The weak link is producing skill and contacts.

From working with both DSLRs and RED extensively, the only time I've found a DSLR to be useful is when I just need to run out and grab some shots, need to squeeze into tight places or need to mount without heavy equipment. Everything else entails the same process, both needing the same attention to produce worthwhile results.

I'm sure a lot of companies are finding it difficult to shell out a $1000 a day for a camera package when they can own one for close to that price.

What companies, though? And what do they produce?

Most consumers will not discern pixel counts or a major quality difference as us techies. This is why I think the client will begin to trim what they deem to be excess fat and opt to embrace this cheaper technology. Keep in mind also, not every client knows of the capabilities of this new technology yet.

THis most consumers thing is a bit misleading. You're speaking for a mass audience that absolutely CAN tell when something was shot low budget or an image looks 'different'. They can't say why, how, or whatever but they will say "it has that low budget look" or "it doesn't look like a movie but it was good". On this end, there's already a DSLR backlash happening, you hear this: no, we aren't shooting DSLRs anymore. We want the best quality we can get, we're going back to RED MX.

You're right, the real money men are definitely beginning to trim what they deem to be excess fat, and it's not so much on the CHEAPEST tech but "Cheaper". Where CHEAPEST = DSLR technology, which again requires no less man power to achieve the best results than a RED, which would be the "CHEAPER" solution to film.

In no way am I disarming the system of its capabilities, either. I'm still in on DSLR material for my own agendas and would shoot an entire feature on two or three without thinkin' twice. Well, maybe I would think twice... thrice...

I'd rather people who haven't had any personal experience with certain things just not talk about them. Too much mis-information.