"Corrado" - A production blog

Status
Not open for further replies.
1000 frames per second? You mean like you'd shoot a drama at 1000 fps? And project it at? 24 frames per second? I don't understand. Please tell me, are you kidding me? :)

"Dated thinking"? 35mm has a beautiful look, which digital movie makers try to imitate. Even if it's a dated production style, there is the practical side to it, which has been mentioned earlier: most theaters have 35mm projectors and it's expensive to project digital right now. Maybe in 10 years digital projection is going to be just as available and cost effective. Or it could be that one 35mm projection could be sent via satellite to thousands of theaters at the same time? I really don't know what's in store for us technologically in the future, but right now 35mm is still the best format for theatrical release.

As for DI -- 16mm to DI and then 35mm dupe-negs for release makes sense, but 35mm to DI, no, that doesn't make sense, unless the whole movie is full of effects, like a science picture movie -- a Star Wars type movie, which then makes sense to go through a DI, not so much to reduce the cost of printing but rather to maintain the effects generated with plugins and filters, etc.

I don't think "dated thinking" is a valid argument, if we're talking about a standard Hollywood movie, a drama or comedy. If we're talking complicated or highly manipulated imagery, ok, but that falls under movies that cannot be done on 35mm because of the expense associated with high ratios or bluescreen and optical effects.
 
I'm beginning to wonder if you've seen a Hollywood movie in the last five years.

complicated or highly manipulated imagery
Click to expand...

... describes the vast majority of action, thriller, fantasy, adventure, sci-fi, and many other films made today. The 35mm-to-DI process is common (if not de facto) at this point*– the major exception being movies that are acquired digitally to begin with!

I have no problem with 35mm. It's a beautiful format. But your financial justifications simply don't hold water (neither, frankly, does the allegation that 35mm is not suitable for effects work, which is also blatantly untrue).
 
filmman said:
1000 frames per second? You mean like you'd shoot a drama at 1000 fps? And project it at? 24 frames per second? I don't understand. Please tell me, are you kidding me? :)
Click to expand...

No i am not joking. Seeing a feature in super slow mo would be great and probably make the running time a good week or two ;) Talk about EPIC!
 
filmman said:
Kidding aside, if the budget is over $500,000, the cost of the 35mm isn't a factor and therefore the production should be shot in 35mm.

There are exceptions, however.

1) If the shooting ratio is over 10:1, especially if it's over 20:1.
Click to expand...

20:1 ? Jesus. Who's shot for this ratio asides from Kubrick ?

2) If the movie needs a lot of green screen. Blue screen in 35mm is very expensive.
Click to expand...

35mm is expensive period. Blue Screen has nothing to do with it, does it ?

Many films have been shot on blue and green screen using 35mm

300, The Perfect Storm, King Kong ... Are productions really embracing digital purely for composite work ? Maybe with the advent of 4K and onward; oneday.


3) If the movie is heavily improvisational and requires a lot of quick setups.
Click to expand...

(Arricam LT, Arriflex 235 or 416, Movicam Sl, etc)


4) If there are a lot of locations all over the world, requiring a huge amount of 35mm camera rentals.
Click to expand...

If it's a Bond film, they probably have it under wraps.


5) If the cast requires over 90% of the movie's budget.
Click to expand...

90% of the budget ? What the f*** ?
 
I can help!

35mm turns me on!

yeah sure digital is cheaper and can be just as good....

but 35mm film turns me on! very sexual.



and that is why 35mm is better than digital.
 
zombies_anonib.jpg


If I had a choice ?

35mm anyday.

Now I just need to have that choice.
 
JR, you had me scared; you're a filmmaker! I panicked :)

You do have a choice -- 35mm is cheap! Are you willing to shoot 5:1 ratio?

Are you willing to shoot short ends? One camera? Do you know what you're looking for in a take? Then you'll be happy with printing circled takes only? Is 15 cents per foot for rawstock and 10 cents per foot for developing reasonable for you?

Are you willing to yell, "Cut!" when your actors blow a line? You don't let them do their Marlon Brando with impunity?

If you're answers are yes then you have a choice.

About the 90% for actors in a budget. If you're budget is $500,000 for example and you're shooting digital (especially if you already own the camera, the editing equipment and/or have your own lighting and grip truck :) you should be able to shoot your digital movie with $50,000. (assuming you're not doing an epic :)

What's wrong with paying $450,000 to your actors? You'll get some decent name actors, can't you? You should be able to get a couple of stars for a few days each for that kind of money, no? So, my point is that digital is good for something :) And, yes, why not, by all means buy your own Red Camera and join the club. LOL
 
Corrado is the perfect execution of everything the indie filmmaking revolution has achieved. My vote is to continue giving it prominence. The best part of this thread is yet to come -- the payoff :)

I for one would like to see Corrado go to 35mm film and open theatrical.
 
Shooting digital or film... that debate can go on for years...

I used to know a guy who could convince you to shoot 16 and go to 35 for release... then he turned around and convince you... it was cheaper to shoot 35 in the first place...

Bottom line is... just go out and shoot it... was his final statement...

It really comes down to a good story... good production values.... and a few known actors...
 
The thread was unstuck due to no other films in this section having this luxury. We just want a fair approach to the showcase and pimping of user's films.

It is nothing personal but only in the best interest of the forum and its guidleines.

This thread will not suddenly go away and be buried. It is quite popular with a huge fan base and interest, and that is what should drive a thread in this section.

Thanks for the understanding.

Okay, back on topic please.
 
J.R. makes sense why you'd unstick the thread and I agree it's of no danger to get lost within the next year, but eventually I'd think it would. Might I suggest a "hall of fame" section being added like i've seen on other sites (ok, I'll admit inspired by the permanent thread section of Tucker Max message boards....) for threads in a blog style over 500 posts.

Just an idea.
 
Hey, Doug, I'd like to go back to that point you raised regarding heavily manipulated imagery in modern movies:

... describes the vast majority of action, thriller, fantasy, adventure, sci-fi, and many other films made today. The 35mm-to-DI process is common (if not de facto) at this point*– the major exception being movies that are acquired digitally to begin with!

I've always been interested in experimental movies; I'm a graduate of SF State Film Department and we started the whole thing :) I ought to pull some of the student films from my archives and revamp them for Youtube *shudder* LOL...

Anyway, it's a great justification for shooting digital -- the potential for making "Modern Movies" ... again? Ah, let's call them Neo Experimental.

Do you want to tell me a bit more, Doug? Which are some of the new movies I should see to catch up with this new trend? You're right, I haven't been to the cinema for some time. To me it's been very disappointing. I wish the experimental films of the past would come back, only not as shorts (which is all we could afford to shoot in the old days) but entire feature films shot with a lot of flair. And someone rightly said the digital vs. film debate is getting old; however, it has lead us to this. This is an exciting topic.

Thanks again, Doug, for bringing this up. With respect to Corrado, which I'm assuming is a standard Godfather type movie -- what could Adam have done to make Corrado more trendy? I know he's giving the movie a look, the colorist has been working on that. I think the movie is almost done, according to the last update Adam gave us here.

But in the shooting phase what should a filmmaker do so the movie could be further enhanced in the digital phase of post, to allow for more creative compositing effects, for example?

Any advice in this regard will be highly appreciated.
 
Okay. I haven't heavily researched this list, so maybe I'm actually wrong about some of them. Feel free to let me know. But here off the top of my head are some visually stylish films from the past few years that originated on film.

The Spiderman trilogy
The Lord of the Rings trilogy
The Bourne trilogy
Amelie
Black Hawk Down
2046
Band of Brothers
The Matrix
Children of Men
Fight Club
Munich

I think you'll agree that all of these films were heavily treated in post, and none of them were visually limited by the shooting format!

And with regards to a point John brought up: sometimes productions shoot 35mm specifically because the camera bodies are smaller and easier to work with in tight spaces! Scenes that take place in cars, for instance.
 
Gohanto said:
J.R. makes sense why you'd unstick the thread and I agree it's of no danger to get lost within the next year, but eventually I'd think it would. Might I suggest a "hall of fame" section being added like i've seen on other sites (ok, I'll admit inspired by the permanent thread section of Tucker Max message boards....) for threads in a blog style over 500 posts.

Just an idea.
Click to expand...

I thought of this idea a while ago. Good idea !
 
I've seen a few of these -- mostly on television; but you're right, they had a look that is more easily arrived at with digital manipulation than film printing experimentation. First of all the labs would never allow a filmmaker to go into the Hazeltine room and play around with "looks" :) I did it once because I knew the lab owner.

But, if a feature film doesn't rely on a very modified look, 35mm is adequate for the job. So it's not necessary to make an DI for the great majority of 35mm releases -- in my opinion.

However, I like experimental filmmaking and therefore I will definitely use the digital medium for my felliniesque movies. At this point, my felliniesque movies are ultra ultra low budget. If you know what I mean.

I will use 35mm only for the standard type of films that I will be doing in the future, the ones with budgets over $50,000. I have all the 35mm production and post production equipment, and I like the look of 35mm for standard type movies.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm happy you like 35mm too. Let me know should you ever decide to use short ends. I can get you a fantastic deal on 35mm film stock. You know where to find me -- felliniesque.
 
taormina said:
... I won't be checking or posting on this thread any longer, and I will not be checking my PMs.

Back to your lives, citizens, talk amongst yourselves....


Taormina....out.
Click to expand...

Sorry to read this. If I'm reading this correctly this means Adam is leaving the forum completely. Seems to me to be senseless and counterproductive. There's a huge following of supporters here for Adam and his project.

Adam, if you do happen to read this, I'd respectfully urge you to amend your position. You can continue the discussion on your site, but simply because so much of the membership spends time here it is inevitable that posts will continue on your thread and I'd think you'd be interested in continuing to interact with them (even if on a limited or infrequent basis).

More importantly, I'd hope you would be interested in projects by some of the other users here. I just feel like your departure is tinged with some spite that isn't warranted no matter what differences you may have with some members.

Lastly, I thank you for all the help, friendship and assistance you've given me. I'll look forward to following your progress and I'll happily visit your blog as well. I'll just miss you here and hope you might think differently in a bit.

Mark
 
Back to your lives, citizens, talk amongst yourselves....
Click to expand...

I definitely don't want to burn any bridges here because I personally don't know more than 2 people on these forums and would love to meet and work with anyone on dvxuser. Also, let me preface this by saying that I have found this thread to be incredibly informative and priceless and will probably check in from time to time on the new Corrado blog. However, comments like this make it sound as if you are talking down to the rest of us readers and I'm not going to lie, it's a huge turn off.

Are we just mere citizens that just sit around and talk? I'd venture to say that almost all of us are fellow filmmakers who may be on the brink of our own Corrado or we may be just starting off making our first "d*ckhead zombie hunter 5 short" (and I'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt that that has no reference to Brandon Rice's new "Scorpion 5" thread, because even though I don't know Brandon personally, his participation and support among these forums are exactly the type of thing that keeps DVXUSER going and I can't imagine you would talk trash on that). Regardless of where we are in our career everyone in the user films section wants the same thing: promotion for their film and to receive and offer help and DVXUSER has graciously offered that to EVERYONE who registers with the site.

I don't want to go overboard in my ranting, but I doubt your blog would get 2,300 replies and 170,776 views without the generous and free help of DVXUSER.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top