filmman launches GOLD DIGGERS on KickStarter.com
- Thread starter filmman
- Start date
- Status
taormina
Hates to Rent
Hey Vic,
I was directed to this post by one of my people - been gone for a while. I thought it was important enough to comment on - to set you straight as it were, in case anyone reads it from an advice standpoint.
Firstly, what the film is shot on has no bearing in the marketing of your film, and it will not guarantee a release in any way, shape, or form. If you like to shoot on 35, do so for the aesthetic.
Where it pertains to Corrado, 35mm would not have added one iota of value to it, and I'll tell you why....
At this level, the sales a film will achieve are based solely on cast and genre. Period, end. Oh, you'll come up with a handful of examples of breakout movies that had no one in them, but that is what those are, exceptions.
At no point during the marketing of Corrado did anyone ask whether it was shot on film, or what kind of camera, or what size the chips where, or whether it suffered from rolling shutter, or whether it had the latest firmware build. People need to stop obsessing over technology and realize the capture medium is unimportant as long as the film meets a certain quality standard.
As for the 60k, it wasn't the distributor, it was some guy trying to sell me a pay your own way theatrical release for 60K - where I paid for my own release. And it was going to be projected digitally. It was then and continues to be a stupid deal.
I was going to shoot hangar 14 on 35mm, but it was because of aesthetics solely, not having anything to do with marketing at all. 35mm is much easier to shoot than HD if you have the right DP. Just my opinion.
Also, Corrado's budget was 300K, and there was no way to shoot 35mm, nor would it have advanced the project, as I stated earlier.
As to the territories, Corrado recently has sold to the territories you've mentioned, and they do pay the numbers you quoted......for a $5M film! You're numbers are way off, Vic. Japan is like a 20K territory for Corrado.
The DVD market has gone to hell and they are now paying 250K for Japan for a $5-8M film with 2 solid B listers in it.
Vic, I always liked your quirky work but you need to dispense with the persistent fantasy that the capture medium is a marketing plug.....just like all the RED fanboys also need to lose the idea that just because they bought red primes and are using the latest firmware build they are automatically going to make a great movie.
Not so, my friend.
filmman
Veteran
It is my opinion too. And I've talked to many camera operators and DPs and they all say the same thing. The 35mm cameras are now smaller (!) and easier to grab and shoot impulsively. The digital cameras, especially the Red, I've heard, takes a couple of hours or more to set up (on certain types of sets and lighting conditions). And that's what you're probably talking about also: digital is harder to light!
Now, I admit, I haven't seen much production with digital cameras. And I don't really go to see movies much these days (one every two years average last twenty years).
I do like digital cameras though. I've shot a feature (THE RED QUEEN) with my Sony Z1, and I plan to shoot more features with it. I actually like the look of the footage (1080i60i). I don't know too much about the technical side of the camera though; for example, you and a number of people on DVX user group know tons more about digital cameras and digital technology. So for me it's an aesthetic choice as well, to shoot certain types of subject matter with the Sony Z1. I really like the look of the HVX 200 too. I read some negative remarks about the "noise level" of the camera being too high -- I guess that is like "too grainy" for film? Anyway, I don't see it myself. The images look smooth and the processed final look of Corrado for example looks very film-like (blacks are black and the colors are subtle -- my definition of what I like about film.)
I'm also very appreciative that you came back and straightened out my foreign market figures (because I'm planning to go into the foreign market to distribute movies again -- very soon I hope. I like the foreign market.)
I agree about the name actor in a B-movie concept to boost sales of a movie (and in most cases if a movie will ever find a distributor); that hasn't changed in 30 years. Movie distribution has always been driven by star power -- with very few but notable exceptions. (I think a breakaway movie can make stars of everyone.)
With respect to 35mm I don't agree. If you shoot 35mm, it will be much cheaper to release in 35mm. Going through DI stage is too expensive later. Theaters with professional digital projectors are still too few. I think over 90% of world theaters only have 35mm projectors. Digital projectors are $500,000. And now they might have to install 3D projectors, which are even more expensive. But it remains to be seen if 3D will take off this time. AVATAR took in $2 billion internationally! Not bad for a digital movie -- oops! what am I saying? LOL Well, it is 3D... But they shot the opening and closing scenes in 35mm -- just to play it safe
Thanks again, Adam. I really enjoyed reading your threads before. They were full of honest to goodness information regarding some very important aspects of the movie business. I know you enjoyed writing your thread as well; it helped you stay on course and develop your ideas. It acted as your filmmaker's journal. I wish I could write like that; but you're right, I'm a bit too quirky. LOL
taormina
Hates to Rent
Yeah, they're easier because a film camera has VERY few settings....once you've selected the appropriate stock, you more or less have to think about setting aperture and frame rate.....not much else happening on those cameras at all. Very simple, and gorgeous pictures. Film cameras really haven't advanced much in the last century, really.
This is where I disagree with you - for the simple reason that ALL productions these days essentially do a DI! Think about it for a moment....
You go shoot a feature on a RED, edit and color correct digitally, then the very last step is to film out and strike a release print. Total cost of film = the release print only.
OR
You go and shoot a feature on 35mm film. You telecine the footage, color correct, etc, then the very final step is you strike a film release print. Total cost of film = Film shot during the production (100K plus feet), plus telecine, plus film out.
Your presupposition that it's cheaper is based solely on the assumption that you will color correct photochemically, which basically no one does anymore. Not on any decent budgeted film anymore. Oh, you'll see John Bailey, ASC crowing and waxing sentimental about photochemically finishing a film in American Cinematographer - but he's a backwards curmudgeon.
Basically all films these days undergo a digital process during post for editing, color correcting, and effects, which negates the savings of 35mm.
If you simply shot 35mm and edited the footage by hand on a moviola and then had the footage color timed photochemically, you might have an argument for cost savings, but it's simply not like that anymore.
Whereas I would prefer to shoot 35mm from here forward, I also realize it always represents a budgetary increase, never a savings, but that's okay, because you're paying for a look.
And in my situation you can't use all the typical tricks like buying tons of cheap short ends, etc. We'd never maintain schedule like that. As it stands, you tell the studio you need 25 days they give you 22, so we can't be reloading every 200 ft.
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
I agree partly here. If you have NO name actors, what you shoot on can become a factor, but film isn't it. If you have some names you can practically shoot on VHS to sale foreign. But a distributor told me flat out, "Everything is HD now." So if you do a horror film, action film, etc and you have no names and it's on DV, it can be an issue. Why? They have tons of No Name starring films and something is going to be comparable or better than what's being offered and shot on HD.
This is what's great about it from the standpoint Adam is talking about, if you shoot on the HG10 or Red or 35mm it doesn't matter if the names are there and they think it can sale, but companies are looking for HD at least. There was a distributor who really like "Wages of Sin" but he said his markets wanted HD (his markets were Eastern Europe and I think Japan) simply because so many films were being shot in HDV they didn't see a reason to pick up a martial art film with no names that was shot on DV. This doesn't mean no DV film will ever make it again. Who knows, but "Wages" was a victim of too little too late.
-Nate
filmman
Veteran
Well, there are companies that are offering release prints from the DI. But that's one at a time release prints with sound track printed directly on the print -- they cost about $10,000 each. I got some offers from the Far East labs for a little less.
This is okay for making one or two prints for festivals. And then if distributors want to do a wide release, they pay for the prints. However, if the distributor makes the prints, they still need to make the Inter-positives and Inter-negatives to do 1000-4000 prints. And if that's a mini-major distributor, all that money comes out of the revenues first.
However, cutting the 35mm negative and making an answer print will cost about $10,000 plus another $3,000 for the Optical Negative; but now you have the potential to make ten or so prints at $1,500 each. And when you need 1000-4000 prints it's going to cost you $30,000 for the IP and Dupe Negs and the prints will be $1,000 each. Most professional labs will throw in the IPs and Dupe Negs for free when you go over 1000 prints, because obviously that's a million dollar just for the 1000 prints, and $4 million if you go for 4,000 prints -- we should all be so lucky. LOL
This is a valid point. There is so much more a filmmaker can do with color correcting, green screen, CGI, etc. and for the right type of film this process is the way to go, and then 35mm to 35mm printing (like the good old days) isn't practical at all.
However, there are many stories and movie projects that are done which don't need the computer manipulations and enhancements. And if the filmmaker is disciplined in shooting 35mm and 35mm style filmmaking, it makes more sense to shoot film and, yes, even edit on film, whether Upright Moviola or flatbed (I have a 6-plate Cinemonta). So, for me it's easier and more cost effective to stay with 35mm all the way -- if the story doesn't warrant a lot of computer effects and the budget is over $25,000.
And, yes, I do use a lot of 200 footers; but I can also shoot 400 footers and even 1000 footers for not much more. But then I sell a lot of 35mm short ends and long ends, so I can get my film well below the cost of other filmmakers.
Another point that should be raised, and this is against using short ends, and that is with movie projects that are financed by investors and backed by completion bond companies -- the liability issue makes it impossible to save money on film stock. Someone will always get fired or sued for any problems that might result from the use of short ends, even when it's not true (if a roll is flashed; it will always be blamed on the short ends.) So I can use short ends on my own productions and save $50,000 on a feature film simply because I run my own safety checks on the film stock (testing it and reading the densitometer RGB numbers, making sure the film is consistent and good.)
On a $3 million picture or bigger, it doesn't make sense to save $50,000 on short ends. But on a $300,000 picture, it does make sense to save $50,000. If it's one's own money. Otherwise the investors will say, "Don't take any chances with 35mm short ends; shoot digital." And to be honest, if I were shooting a feature film that was financed by investors, I would consider shooting with the Arri Alexa -- as soon as it comes out
Why would I want to do all that work on 35mm when I didn't have to pay for the camera rental and for the extra lighting and the extra crew.The last point that you raised is also very valid because of the way you like to shoot -- to save money and time with name actors, etc. I know that you ran two cameras on most of Corrado, because you wanted to have the close ups and the medium shots at the same time, and I think you used the same angles on the set ups, so it wasn't that you were trying to get two over-the-shoulder-shot angles at the same time. And, yes, of course that would double your 35mm film usage -- from 50,000 ft to 100,000 ft. I can see you've done your calculations already.
Well, let me know when the time comes. I'll be happy to quote you on long ends and factory sealed 1000 ft rolls as well as short ends.
I wanted to ask you, Adam -- because I've been asked to DP a 35mm feature film. I'm not going to do the editing, but the editor wants to work with digital files and go to a DI. I have never been in this type of work flow situation before. So I need to research it a bit more.
I need to know the best work flow from 35mm to digital to DI and to 35mm prints -- I want the latest info. I know the general process, but there are always newer and better methods to do these things and I want to do the best job on cinematography without having to compromise at the last printing stage. Thanks again for taking the time to reply to my thread.
taormina
Hates to Rent
Vic,
Easy deal. You shoot the film on 35, then you have the footage telecine'd in to something digital. Once upon a time, it would be telecine'd in to digibeta, but obviously that's no go these days, really.
Here's the rub: Budgetwise, you have a dilemma on your hands. Remeber that old Hollywood term...."Cut.....Print!" Well back in the day they used to only print their best takes. You're going to be faced with telecine on the WHOLE film or PARTS of it. Telecine is not cheap, so you have to be very judicious. That's another benefit of HD - for all intents and purposes - it all gets printed!!!!
Steps:
1. Shoot the movie
2. Telecine in the footage at 2K or HD - whatever your $$ can support
3. Have the post house downconvert to a smaller, lo-fi file so you can cut it easily
4. Edit the film all the way to final cut and picture lock with the lo-fi files.
5. Send the EDL (or other file depending on how you edit) to the post house. They will then assemble the 2k or HD master
6. Color correct the HD or 2K master, put in effects, etc. Layback sound and score, titles...etc.
7. Now you have a hi-fi master of the completed film all done, probably on a HDCAMSR or D5 tape. If your film is direct to DVD - you're done.
8. Film out, if necessary.
That's it!
filmman
Veteran
Thank you, Adam, for outlining the steps in the work flow. I'm going to go to the post houses in Burbank and Hollywood and discuss the options regarding 2k, HD, 4k and the low resolution options for Final Cut Pro, which is the program I have been using up til now. I'm curious about the new Adobe Premiere and even Sony Vega (especially about encoding Blu-ray discs.)
And, Nate, I think it's not too late to do an up-rez on Wages of Sin. It's a lot of work you put into that movie. When are you regaining the rights to your movie? You can revamp it and release it again with new art work (I'd be willing to help you with that. LOL) You know, another perspective
I really think it's important to make movies all the time and not wait for ideal conditions. If Kickstarter doesn't pan out for me, that doesn't mean it was a bad experience or that I should give up filmmaking.
One of the issues this experience has clarified for me is that I don't want to necessarily make movies that others feel are worthy of funding. I won't be able to develop my own vision or pursue the type of films I have been gearing up to make. I'll end up getting derailed. Now, I'm not saying my art work is great It is tentative at best, and I may or may not have a chance to go out and do a "proof of concept".
One of the things I learned from this thread is doing "proof of concept". I think it is something that should be tested. Before "proof of concept" was adopted by the new genre filmmakers, there was doing a "trailer" to raise money. Remember those good old days? LOL
And, Nate, I think it's not too late to do an up-rez on Wages of Sin. It's a lot of work you put into that movie. When are you regaining the rights to your movie? You can revamp it and release it again with new art work (I'd be willing to help you with that. LOL) You know, another perspective
I really think it's important to make movies all the time and not wait for ideal conditions. If Kickstarter doesn't pan out for me, that doesn't mean it was a bad experience or that I should give up filmmaking.
One of the issues this experience has clarified for me is that I don't want to necessarily make movies that others feel are worthy of funding. I won't be able to develop my own vision or pursue the type of films I have been gearing up to make. I'll end up getting derailed. Now, I'm not saying my art work is great
It is tentative at best, and I may or may not have a chance to go out and do a "proof of concept". One of the things I learned from this thread is doing "proof of concept". I think it is something that should be tested. Before "proof of concept" was adopted by the new genre filmmakers, there was doing a "trailer" to raise money. Remember those good old days? LOL
taormina
Hates to Rent
taormina
Hates to Rent
Anytime Vic.
Also remember one thing...if you shoot it on film and ONLY plan to release on DVD (no theatrical), then a scan in at HD rez is just fine and will save you lots of money, and the final product, even though not a film out, will still look like film ('cause it was shot on film!).
Also, if you can use Final Cut Pro, then stick with it. To be perfectly honest, I think Sony Vegas is a better program and just as powerful as FCP. I cut Corrado on Vegas.
Problem is, Sony has severely handicapped the software because of politics. I know in your case you like to shoot MOS and then loop the dialog, but for those that shoot sync sound, Vegas DOES NOT allow the export of .OMF files.....this is the standard by which all sound mixers work off of.
In my case it meant I could not easily export the sound (with handles and individual clips) to ProTools. It took a month and thousands of dollars to provide a work around in order to do this.
I recently helped Faith (Deuce of Spades) accomplish the same task. Vegas is a great piece of editing software but again, hamstrung by company politics so that it cannot function in concert with other industry standard products that pros use during post.
Sony COULD make it right......they just choose not to for whatever reason.
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
Actually it's not that different. It's a trailer basically but with a little more added that really shows the intent of the film and things like that. People are a lot more visual now days. If you can explain the movie in a video versus on paper, people prefer that.
I thought about it but I'm moving on to HD now. I wouldn't even try to uprez an old DV movie or put a lot of work into it without knowing where it's going. I'd rather give it to York for distribution just to get my mug out there LOL. I know if nothing else it will play in the emerging markets. $5K wouldn't be a lot to pay for that if it allows me to get more credibility.And, Nate, I think it's not too late to do an up-rez on Wages of Sin. It's a lot of work you put into that movie. When are you regaining the rights to your movie? You can revamp it and release it again with new art work (I'd be willing to help you with that. LOL) You know, another perspective
I'm definitely on board here. Once I get a new computer I'll be all over it. Right now I'm doing some photography work with my consumer Kodak, LOL. It's only 6mp but I'm having fun and the ladies are happy.
Not true. Someone will like what you're doing, but you have to let them know WHAT you're doing. And it has to be professional. When I first did "Fourth Beast" I sold my first few copies on the street just. This is even before York repackaged it. People liked what it was about, it was packaged professionally and they bought it.
-Nate
taormina
Hates to Rent
1920 x 1080
filmman
Veteran
I think that's a great idea. I stumbled into this marketing concept myself. Ten years ago, I had a movie that I sold in the foreign market myself and made some money, but I couldn't find a domestic buyer for it, so I took it to video rental stores one by one. I sold about $2,000 worth in one month. This was in a small area, and I thought to myself, "this is a much easier way to sell a movie and make money." Of course, this is not what I want to do with my time
You mean there are post houses that will telecine a 35mm movie to HDV? By 1920x1080 do you mean anamorphic 16:9 format?
Or do they scan it to a flat 1920x1080 (Is there such a format?)
taormina
Hates to Rent
HD by definition (well, 1080 HD anyways) is 16:9 and 1920 x 1080. You can scan it in at any frame size you want, but it will cost you all kinds of money. Stick with plain old 1080 HD, or pay more (lots more) and get a 2k scan and crop the final picture from there.
16:9 is not anaomorphic....that's 2.35:1 and up.
- Status