Butterflies in the Wind in pursuit of happiness

[jls4]

How much time do you devote to this -- in practice? 35mm production technique was better when there was no video-assist. The DP was the only one looked through the camera. The director had his director's finder. Of course, you have the famous pictures of many old time directors looking through the camera as if they were shooting the movie. The fact is, most DPs of the Golden Era hated the director to put his eye on the eyepiece because they wanted it clean.

this practice is an everyday thing for us. I mean on average we'd be shooting 3 pages and doing several setups a day. I don't have time to let everyone check the footage. Its' not importaint for them to check. Its' only impt for me to check. which brings me into my next position.

EVERYBODY STOP TRYING TO CONVERT FILMMAN TO DIGITAL - IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK!!!! LOL

Like 95% of the people on this board, I think Digital is the future and anyone who doesn't see that will go the way of Newspapers (oh didn't you know they'll be obsolete soon, like records, like tape players, like analog TV). I could go on and on about 35 and digital, but it won't matter. Certain people are just stuck on a "look". Over on REDUser (yes I frequent) they were talking about 23:9 Anamorphic and some of the DPs want to put the old Anamorphic lenses on the RED to get the wide oval type of lens flares popular in the 80s and 90s. They claim this to be more... filmic and cinematic.

Have people ever thought about the fact that you believe that way because you've been born with that and literally raised on it? I mean if you lived in New York it wouldn't seem strange not to own a car at 26, but in the Southeast (Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis) that's crazy talk - everyone owns a car. The anamorphic lenses were created to sqeeze info onto an area because of cost and the lack of space on the 35mm negative. The flares were a bad by product. I'm sure in their day, Hollywood DPs were upset and thought they looked like crap, but had to deal with them. Today they are normal.

All this talk. DIGITAL WILL REPLACE 35MM. It's just a matter of time. Like Nathan said, as new younger filmmakers replace older ones, they will adopt new policies. And as technology gets better it'll open the door. The new 5K sensor from RED will be 40% faster (so less rolling shutter) AND will have .5 to 1 full stop more of luminosity so anywhere from 12.5 to 13 stops of light. I think the avg film negative is 12 stops and there are a few at 14 or is it 16? Think about it, do you think in 5 years that digital cinema cameras like the RED won't have at least 14 stops of light. Heck if they put a d#mn curve in the software you could press another 2 stops in now and see the sky! It's just that purist nature, I wish I knew the code cause I'd make a hack. Anyway panavision is working on a camera that will see well over 14 stops of light. It'll do things never done before. Give it up, digital will replace 35mm. Digital is the future. You can't fight Panavision, RED, and every other major company that has basically made the choice to push digital cinema.

I know for me, right now I have no desire to use 35mm EVER! The only reason I would use it is because of the rolling shutter. Once that's fixed and we get to 14 stops of light. I'll never use 35mm. If the Scarlett comes out and has these things, then it will mark the end to the 35mm era and the beginning of the digital era. And if you don't think so go ask the New York Times, I'm sure they thought they'd be around forever, now they are looking for ways to keep their doors from closing.

 

[filmman]

You've been very helpful, JLS4. I sincerely mean that. I would not have learned all this about digital technology if I wasn't stubborn by nature (I'm a Taurus

Please don't laugh, but what is a rolling shutter. I've seen this word used a lot with regard to the people shooting with the Nikon 90D. I know about the Arri spinning shutter, which I'm pretty sure is a different thing, right?

I agree with you that the transition to digital cameras is inevitable; except for those people who like the look of film and will continue to use film as long as it is available. I can see at some point when Kodak and Fuji will not not manufacture film at all, and they in fact have stopped manufacturing some fantastic film stock already (something I still find hard to believe).

However, digital is the best way for corporations to make money in the new world of the thousand channels TV. Believe me I don't enjoy lugging 35mm cases around film markets. A DVD fits nicely in one pocket. On my lap top I can have all the trailers, poster art, distribution contracts and banking information LOL -- one man marketing machine.

I will shoot film as long as it's available, because film is real. Digital is imaginary. You think you have a movie on a hard drive. It's there, I agree, but ... it could suddenly disappear or get "corrupted". I don't even know what the format of the movies I have on a disc are. I have been trying to send a screener copy of my movie to a buyer for one month. It never turns up in the proper format. I shot the movie in HDV 1080i 60i. It's a 16:9 format. It looks ok on my FCP 5.04, but when I encode it as a QT .mov, it ends up on European monitors as a 4:3 vertically streched movie! I've encoded it every which way but it never comes out right. It either looks stretched in a 4:3 frame with black bars on top and bottom or pillared in a 4:3 frame with black bars on the sides. It never looks right. No matter what dimensions I dial in, the results are wrong.

So there are problems in digital -- for me at least. And another thing. This is big with me, but is lost on everyone so far:

There was an atmosphere of sharing in the old 35mm world -- at least in Europe. Filmmakers and film technicians would share information about what was best and what worked.

With digital, experts keep secrets. So, I feel, we'll never know everything about digital technology. First of all, it's possible that it's impossible to know everything because of the proliferation of the technology and the fact that it is so new and so untried and ever changing -- as we speak even. LOL

You're right -- I'm filmman forever

 

[jls4]

You've been very helpful, JLS4. I sincerely mean that. I would not have learned all this about digital technology if I wasn't stubborn by nature (I'm a Taurus

My Rant wasn't toward you, it was toward everyone trying to convert you. I tried like many, but it's inevitable. So you'll convert when you feel comfortable, and that's cool.

Please don't laugh, but what is a rolling shutter. I've seen this word used a lot with regard to the people shooting with the Nikon 90D. I know about the Arri spinning shutter, which I'm pretty sure is a different thing, right?

In CMOS Technology which is the #1 technology used in Digital Cameras. The color is great, but the flaw is the image takes a long time to "read" from the sensor. In the digital world, images are stored in bytes. So what happens is that at the top of the sensor is pixel 0,0 (i.e. Horizontal position 0, Vertical Position 0) and the bottom is pixel 4096,2048(horz 4096, Vert 2048). The pixels are read in sequential order by row, so the first row is read pixels (0,0) to (4098,0), then the second row (0,1) to (4098,1). This process continues until the last row (0,2048) to (4098,2048). Because this "reading" takes time, only a few milliseconds there is a delay in the first pixel to the last. So if the camera is moving what happens is that a "skew" is formed because the pixel reading is slower than the camera is moving. This is called rolling shutter. Right now the phenomenon is very visable and until the CMOS chips are about 5x faster it will be easy to see. A quick pan of a CMOS camera can get you about a 45 degree angle of skew. If the sensors are 5x faster the skew would be

45 -> 22.5 (x2) -> 15 (x3) -> 11.25 (x4) -> 9 (x5). And while 9 degrees is still a lot, it's not much. Especially when most people don't do quick pans like that. The problem is more about medium dollies which about 15% of the skew can easily show up OR if you use flash photography only half of the sensor gets the light.

I agree with you that the transition to digital cameras is inevitable; except for those people who like the look of film and will continue to use film as long as it is available. I can see at some point when Kodak and Fuji will not not manufacture film at all, and they in fact have stopped manufacturing some fantastic film stock already (something I still find hard to believe).

You're right. There are DJs who still use Records and swear by them, I know DJs who carry loads of CDs and I've met DJs who just bring a laptop with about 4000 mp3s. To each their own.

However, digital is the best way for corporations to make money in the new world of the thousand channels TV. Believe me I don't enjoy lugging 35mm cases around film markets. A DVD fits nicely in one pocket. On my lap top I can have all the trailers, poster art, distribution contracts and banking information LOL -- one man marketing machine.

I'm in the one man thing too. I know you know, you've talked on the 24 Diary thread. But it's not just about corps. It's about demand. Film was flawed when it was made, and so is digital. But the difference is the flaws can be fixed with digital over time, it took over 100 years and 35mm is still not fixed. Digital has been a "reality" since around 2000. I say that because the average person couldn't gain access and they were too costly to compete. Now less than 10 years later we have cameras literally 90% cheaper than film cameras that can perform almost like 35mm, in fact in some ways they perform better (less grain, ease of use, access info instantly). In the next 10 years, I'm sure we'll have a perfect RED camera the RED Magenta which will have 16 stops of control, Dynamic range something crazy, no rolling shutter, with over 200fps if desired. We'll have flash harddrives (you know like in your phone) that will hold over 10 TB of data. And computers will run 5 times faster, so editing 5K 14Bit won't seem like a big issue. And all of this will be done in less than 15% of the time it took 35mm Film to get where it is.

I will shoot film as long as it's available, because film is real. Digital is imaginary. You think you have a movie on a hard drive. It's there, I agree, but ... it could suddenly disappear or get "corrupted". I don't even know what the format of the movies I have on a disc are. I have been trying to send a screener copy of my movie to a buyer for one month. It never turns up in the proper format. I shot the movie in HDV 1080i 60i. It's a 16:9 format. It looks ok on my FCP 5.04, but when I encode it as a QT .mov, it ends up on European monitors as a 4:3 vertically streched movie! I've encoded it every which way but it never comes out right. It either looks stretched in a 4:3 frame with black bars on top and bottom or pillared in a 4:3 frame with black bars on the sides. It never looks right. No matter what dimensions I dial in, the results are wrong.

You know I'm one of your biggest fans, but you seem not to know how to encode quicktime properly. I can easily get a letterbox image. On your export settings, you have to define a custom output. That'll fix your problem. As for everything else, as hard drives have evolved, they've gotten more secure. And new media will come around storing data so you won't have to worry. I mean you could shoot 35mm all day and a developer mess up and pour the wrong chemical in at the wrong time and there goes your work. So you only had one shot in the beginning. With digital you can record to 2 and 3 devices at a time, ensuring no loss. And as long as you always maintain at least 2 copies, the likelyhood of you loosing your data is low. In fact, I know when I get to the RED level, I plan on keeping 3 copies! LOL

There was an atmosphere of sharing in the old 35mm world -- at least in Europe. Filmmakers and film technicians would share information about what was best and what worked.

With digital, experts keep secrets. So, I feel, we'll never know everything about digital technology. First of all, it's possible that it's impossible to know everything because of the proliferation of the technology and the fact that it is so new and so untried and ever changing -- as we speak even. LOL

Not true, go to REDuser and even on DVX, people are dropping secrets every day. In the 24 Diary I drop not only how to shoot a movie digitally, but how to do other things like tell a good story and define audio. I recently bought an production audio DVD to aid me in my studies of audio and the DVD only gave me 3 tips that I didn't know. I shared all that info for free online. So if somebody's reading my threads they could save from buying the DVD. LOL So people are giving away tons of info, you just have to sort through it all.

You're right -- I'm filmman forever

And so you'll stay.

 

[filmman]

JLS4 wrote: So you'll convert when you feel comfortable, and that's cool.

I'll convert when they yank the celluloid strip from my stiff jaw! LOL

In CMOS Technology which is the #1 technology used in Digital Cameras. The color is great, but the flaw is the image takes a long time to "read" from the sensor.

It's flawed technology, I tell ya! To be honest, though, I don't even see the rolling shutter, but I don't look for those things. To me it's all about getting the story across; the acting is all I look for, to be quite honest with you.

And computers will run 5 times faster, so editing 5K 14Bit won't seem like a big issue.

Your technical expertise is phenomenal, JLS4!

I shared all that info for free online.

DVXuser is the exception. I've never seen anywhere this level of sharing on any user group. Other user groups, it's all about selling a certain program. They let you twist in the wind until you buy their product.LOL

Thanks, JLS4, your wealth of information and attitude are phenomenal.

 

[Nathyn]

If Kodak still makes film and if there are labs that process it. I think the only thing left will be Magic Bullet and the film look plugins.LOL

I learned on a Bolex running three minutes of 16mm. LOL. I don't think film is going anywhere soon but as people get used to the ease of digital workflows people will start switching. I can shoot and edit my own movie with little to no trouble. This is something I simply couldn't do with film. I had to send it to the lab then wait. Then I had to look through what I had which may or may not be what I thought I had on set.

The fact is within a few years (I'm thinking ten or less), if Hollywood or others don't take steps to block HD, film will simply be an aesthetic and a delivery format. Meaning film may NOT be the first choice of Hollywood especially for the multimillion dollar blockbusters that are already so filled with digital effects. And economy the way it is, I believe you'll be seeing much more video based filmmaking.

Everyone was afraid of drop outs, bad tape, format incompatibility, etc. So far I haven't experienced one significant drop out and maybe about 5 drop outs in all over six years (remember I started in 2003 but it only seems like a two or three years ago). Never had a compatibility issue and I always got the what I saw on the view screen when I spit it out to the harddrive. I go right to editing that night with NO middle man. A rough with basic music and effects is finished a few nights after the last take for the film is shot. Basic comp is done in the NLE, Heavy stuff is done in AE. Trim that sucker down and you're done. Now on to the music.

As with all things the more money you have the easier the process gets and you still don't have to spend anywhere near a million. Even on $200,000 you can get a big budget look and feel plus get pro-sound people to get your stuff tight. See I would love to do the film, then send it out to a sound guy. My friends would do it but I want to pay something. They will do some of the music but to really get in there and make it hot it takes some time - time I should be paying for. Then they could output my M&E tracks too. (All though I know one of my friends likes to score everything LOL, the whole movie would be one long music video).

But let's look at the current tech. Today people are drag and dropping 24p filmic looking files from SD and P2 cards. No waiting for ingest. The beauty is if you have a budget you can cut it, send it out for color correction and sound, then do the rest once it comes back. If you don't have a budget YOU learn to color correct and do sound.

The thing about digital is the lab is in your livingroom or basement. Almost everyone I know does their thing out of their home. Oscar has his studio, John has his Macbook, I have my G4 which I'm upgrading to an Intel iMac but I've done so much on the G4 alone, two films, five books, numerous designs and graphics. Considering the new JVC, aside from speed concerns, I may not even have to upgrade, but I probably will because I can get the computer I want for a good price (and I want to run motion and AE without issues, although LiveType simply doesn't give me problems on my G4).

Film is indeed still relevant but the question is for how long with it be the standard versus simply a choice. Do studio really still get nervous at the thought of shooting HD? Has HD really hurt any films? If I got a gig in Hollywood and I had to shoot on film, hey it's not my money nor budget and I get paid either way, but if I have some say, depending on the kind of film it is, I'm going for a digital workflow all the way, especially if it's action.

I love what they're doing with Crank. I've always had the idea of shooting on a big HD camera and a small one for auto interiors (and I'm talking real interiors not greenscreen) and handheld running and jumping shots. (Check the last action scene of "The Fourth Beast". I was doing this type of thing with the DVX). Stick that small one on a stickypod and stick it on the hood or door, there's all kinds of things you can do with a small HF100 style camera.

I propose that few people really love film, it's the look of film that everyone is in love with and many of the nuances of film can simply be copied today (35mm adapters, Magic Bullet, AE, film grain). I've always wanted to shoot video because of it's immediacy but back then never thought I'd see video look anywhere near film. I remember shocking my first cast with the DVX100 at 30p with the cinegamma on. They expected a highend video look but got a telecined film look. No one thought, "That's not 24p" or "That's doesn't look like film." There was only excitement. The look of the footage bred confidence.

The future is a look that simply may move at 24p but be totally digital. We were talking about this kind of stuff during the start of the affordable 24p camcorder era (one of the first conversations on this site actually). Remember all the arguments people had about how 24p video will never look like film. Then MTV shoots an award show in 24p video and everyone wanted to know how they did it. Many people thought they were shooting film. (People who've shot film knew it was impossible, unless there was some new process and that would still probably have to be digital).

It comes down to this, the viewer simply doesn't know the difference and doesn't care. I've never heard a kid in a theater go, "I really liked it but the HD didn't feel right." If you shoot Red with a 35mm adapter I bet no one will know except people who do it for a living.

And what about all that filmic HMC150 and HVX200 footage. The conversations we were having in 2003 would be laughable now. In 2020 when we're saving 3D S-AVCHD to our data watches and holographic iPods I can assure you film will be still used for acquisition but possibly because someone says, "You know, it would be really cool if we actually shot this one REAL FILM."

-Nate

 

[jls4]

It's flawed technology, I tell ya! To be honest, though, I don't even see the rolling shutter, but I don't look for those things. To me it's all about getting the story across; the acting is all I look for, to be quite honest with you.
Your technical expertise is phenomenal, JLS4!
DVXuser is the exception. I've never seen anywhere this level of sharing on any user group. Other user groups, it's all about selling a certain program. They let you twist in the wind until you buy their product.LOL

Thanks, JLS4, your wealth of information and attitude are phenomenal.

Yeah, most people don't notice unless it's extreme. Extreme stuff you notice. That's the funny part about being on message boards with people who have made a living off of a perfect picture. 90% of the time the avg viewer doesn't care. The things we care about, our customers don't. LOL

As for tech expertise. I doubt that. I only know a little bit because my background is in computers.

DVX is a rare bird. Most sites, you're right, don't care much. They focus on articles, and seminars to make money. So everything is more money based instead of resource based.

 

[filmman]

Thanks, Nate and JLS4, for the extensive sharing of experiences using digital to its ultimate advantage. I'm beginning to warm up to it.

It's just that it's ironic that I sold over 100,000 ft of 35mm short ends last week. All my body is aching from wrapping boxes.LOL BTW, all of it went to oversees. 35mm is still popular among feature filmmakers and a few experimental filmmakers.

 

[filmman]

While most theaters are only equipped with 35mm projectors, more and more theaters are gradually adding digital projection systems. I talked to one of the pioneers of digital projection systems and a young technician who is installing new digital projectors; professional digital projection started at $85,000 per projector. Now that figure is up to $500,000. It will be a few years before most theaters will have projection systems in the US. Overseas, with present world economies, it will take at least ten years. So while digital production allows the artist to work alone or in total control over the medium, film is still the best way to get on the theatrical screen in this and the following decade.

Buy 35mm film now and shoot your epic in 35mm before film is history.LOL

 

[filmman]

I sell short ends at an average of 15 cents per foot. You can shoot a whole 35mm feature film for under $15,000 including film stock, developing and telecine. That's less than a Red digital camera and if you count the 35mm blow up from digital, you'll save $100,000 and end up with a 35mm feature film. How can you beat that?

 

[filmman]

Nate wrote: Even on $200,000 you can get a big budget look

I think you meant $20,000?

$200,000 would be enough for 50,000 ft 35mm film, developing and telecine ($15,000), cast ($85,000) and theatrical four-walling $100,000.

With the right story, you have the chance of making millions potentially.

 

[Nathyn]

Yes you can indeed get a big budget look on $20,000 with a digital workflow but I was talking about "higher-end" lowbudget filmmaking. $250,000 is about average last time I checked for a straight to video release from a Direct to Video company depending on the star) and getting the look of big budget 35mm but without the spending the money for processing and the film itself. The workflow starts digital and stays digital. You'll mainly be paying for labor (meaning color correction and sound work if you don't know how to do all that yourself). If you are bless enough for a big distributor to buy it then they'll do the film print (if needed).

But to add to what you're saying $200,000 would be enough to also get a decent name in the film for a few days (probably a TV actor or a film actor whose on a break but that could cost $10,000 for a day of work) have them shoot as much as possible in two or three days and send them packing, you can probably do this for about $10,000. At this price I would actually go SAG ultra low budget for ultimate freedom to use who I want (I think $190,000 is the cut off). Shoot all digital on the RED (although I'd hire someone who shoots RED, I probably wouldn't buy my own). I'd use my cameras as B camera and behind the scenes cameras.

Let's look at the money trail. The digital workflow may not so much as save money but allow reallocation of money. If I have equipment already and instead of buying film and processing I can get a decent name, better sound or something else to add to the film.

With a $190,000 price tag you could buy all your own equipment (Mac Tower maxed out and all the needed programs). The thing is with film once you buy it, that's used once you shoot the film. But the digital equipment can be used over and over, camera, computer, P2 or SDHC cards, etc can all be used again. This is a BIG factor for me.

Let's say you dropped a pretty penny on equipment. You can shoot several films before having to purchase again. Right now I think is a great time to go HD and start shooting as much as possible. No tape heads to worry about in many modern cameras. I'm looking at a HM100 JVC set up with maybe an HF100 as a B camera. I do have a Beachtek so I can do something as crazy as buy and shoot on two HF100s but I want to hold out for the JVC because of it's ease of use with the Mac. I have to see what kind of image it gets and lucky for me, I'm friends with Mansung at SMS (The Panasonic/JVC retailer here in Chicago) as well as a JVC rep here who will go unnamed. I'll see what the deal is when it all comes down the pike.

By buying this I save money because I don't have to buy a top of the line machine. An older Macbook or MBPro and my current FCP should be able to handle the stuff natively. Switching to laptop editing will be change for me though. I would still rather get the iMac for editing and an older Macbook for writing and field work versus a MB Pro for everything. (I move around with laptops too much).

As you get into digital I think you'll find yourself shooting more often and finishing quicker. If you get with someone whose good with film looks you can still emulate the look of 35mm. Personally I'm a proponent of doing away with film grain unless you actually want it. Crystal clear digital image is fine by me. Digital gives you the option of doing either.

After this film I plan to shoot another on it's heels. I'm hoping to be able to get this all done by AFM time. Once I get the money and posters and such done I can hand this off to you and let you do your thing. I'm in much better shape right now so I think the martial arts will be even better than before (we have 12 fights including three set pieces). And the script is tighter on both a story and a theological level, blending Sci-Fi horror and action. I think you'll be able to make some progress with it.

-Nate

 

[filmman]

To be quite honest it's much easier to sell digital in the foreign market; but it's the theatrical screenings that are still a problem. So I can do quite well with digital features at the AFM. I like your analysis, Nate. And thanks for the info regarding digital thinking.

 

[Nathyn]

Anytime. :beer:

-Nate

 

[filmman]

Nate wrote: After this film I plan to shoot another on it's heels. I'm hoping to be able to get this all done by AFM time.

It's a good idea to be in production and have a trailer at the AFM or even some BTS footage, because buyers like to see more from the filmmaker they're buying....

 

[Nathyn]

The second film probably won't be done until next year or the very end of this year.

-Nate

 

[filmman]

Even a poster would help. You're good with art work. In fact, have an extra poster or two. Of course, the days of selling on the basis of posters is gone; but miracles still happen. One can never rule out an idea catching the attention of a buyer based on a poster. I've been asked before, "When are you making that picture?" It always surprises me....

 

[Nathyn]

Okay, if I have it all planned and everything, I'll do it. Do you think "Wages of Sin" would have a chance out there? http://www.vimeo.com/2761398 (You can see the movie here http://www.vimeo.com/2692704 ) I don't have any way to re-edit but one guy did want to sell it but said his buyers were only interested in films shot on HD(v) and weren't buying anymore DV movies. He did like the martial arts though. And I can do an M&E track. I would of course take it down from Vimeo.

-Nate

 

[filmman]

Wages of Sin isn't too bad. There are buyers for films like that too. I seem to remember it has a good trailer. What do you have it on? Digibeta? I would definitely put it up for sale at the AFM. It can't hurt. In fact, it's better to have more than one film by the same filmmaker represented there. It shows the buyers you will be around to make more movies. The foreign buyers like to develop a following for certain filmmakers. Whatever the genre.... I took BUTTERFLIES IN THE WIND off of FilmBaby and IndieFlix for the same reason. I'm going to take it off Amazon by the AFM. Amazon is still making sales for me, so I don't want to lose out. Nowadays, it seems that you can't hurt a film's potential by selling it in different venues. In fact, ever since the majors started releasing their movies on all media simultaneosly (not waiting 6 months as TV window), the marketing of movies has changed dramaticall. In the foreign market, you can re-edit a movie and do a new poster and sell it as new. Nobody remembers -- for most films. We're not talking of major stories....

 

[Nathyn]

I'll let you handle both then. I'll have it off Amazon and Vimeo by AFM and give you all the posters and stuff.

-Nate

 

[Nathyn]

By the way, I'm doing a new section on the film markets in my book so I may be asking you and some others a few questions.

-Nate