Azmyth
Veteran
Not when you want people to give you money lol.
filmman launches GOLD DIGGERS on KickStarter.com
- Thread starter filmman
- Start date
- Status
Not when you want people to give you money lol.
filmman
Veteran
There is a digital conspiracy against 35mm!
There is a digital conspiracy against 35mm!
I beg to differ
35mm is more beautiful.
But I have nothing against you shooting digital.
I think the whole DI work flow for 35mm is a bad idea, a very bad idea. What's the point of shooting film at all then? Might as well keep shooting 24p using the silly 35mm adapters and get some blurry backgrounds and call it the film look.
But hey different strokes for different folks, right? :violin:
There is a digital conspiracy against 35mm!
I beg to differ
35mm is more beautiful.But I have nothing against you shooting digital.
I think the whole DI work flow for 35mm is a bad idea, a very bad idea. What's the point of shooting film at all then? Might as well keep shooting 24p using the silly 35mm adapters and get some blurry backgrounds and call it the film look.
But hey different strokes for different folks, right? :violin:
filmman
Veteran
Nathyn, thanks for the comments -- very interesting; but can't talk about them here. I agree that I have to do more in order to get funding from such sources as kickstarter. I'm going to try and use kickstarter for another project after this one blows over.
http://www.felliniesque.com/woman_at_the_well.html
http://www.felliniesque.com/woman_at_the_well.html
Loki
Veteran
I beg to differ
But I have nothing against you shooting digital.
I think the whole DI work flow for 35mm is a bad idea, a very bad idea. What's the point of shooting film at all then? Might as well keep shooting 24p using the silly 35mm adapters and get some blurry backgrounds and call it the film look.
But hey different strokes for different folks, right? :violin:
Coming from the guy that shot on the Sony Z1U I believe?
I think this thread all but confirms you are all Talk filmman (or Vic). You talk and talk and talk and have no work to back your name up.
Care to prove me wrong? (and not a link to your "Red Queen" dvd site..)
El Director
Veteran
What do our actions have to do with our names? My name is El, but I'm not Hispanic in any way shape or form. Just because he owns a Sony doesn't mean that he doesn't prefer film. The beauty of what we do is that there is no right or wrong way to do something. Everyone comes up with their own workflows and is free to change them at any time. There are no rules. And names have nothing to do with it.
Loki
Veteran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGGhLihDmFk
Incase that reference 'flys' over your head too..
His name has nothing to do with why I think he is a poser...
Azmyth
Veteran
I agree that art has no bearing on the tools used, but most of us also don't go around making sly remarks about the tools we don't use. If someone plopped a video up shot with a flip camera and it had a great story and great lighting and pulled me in to watch it.. I'd give a crap what it was filmed on. The biggest qualm with film man is that he only agrees that Digital is ok on a strictly "amateur, you'll never do anything serious with it" level. Which we all know is ridiculously incorrect. Other than that, I don't care.
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
I beg to differ
But I have nothing against you shooting digital.
I think the whole DI work flow for 35mm is a bad idea, a very bad idea. What's the point of shooting film at all then? Might as well keep shooting 24p using the silly 35mm adapters and get some blurry backgrounds and call it the film look.
But hey different strokes for different folks, right? :violin:
Okay Filmman, it's time for real talk. At this point I have to think you're having a laugh. Seriously you're having a go at us right now. You didn't even know about the DI work flow until Adam told you about it. So everything you're seeing is done this way whether you like it or not and no one (viewers) knew or cared. I'm wondering would you even know the difference between 24p HD with a good filmlook and actual film. I'm thinking you probably wouldn't.
As for your film, even you admit this isn't going to be easy to sale because it's not a genre film. So how are you going to distribute this awesome film? DVD or some form of digital download right? So no matter what, even you have to go digital at some point. You want to shoot 35mm and need $25,000? You can shoot this film on $5000 or less, with your Z1U. Or do yourself a favor and buy an HG10 like I did. Fact of the matter is this isn't a hard film to make and if you're into the Felliniesque style then this doesn't even have to be a period piece. Let some Church groups know about this and get some Christian actors and crew (they'll volunteer for a few days if you feed them) and you got your film. And HG10 + a silly 35mm adaptor = about $600. Do a modern day version of the woman at the well.
As far as your views on HD, half the things you're saying go beyond opinion, their not even making sense. And I'm sure a lot of people on this forum shoot 24p HD and get great material and you wouldn't even know it's not film unless you were told. When I saw the JVC HD100 projected on a screen (the guy made some kind of makeshift lens adapter) I couldn't tell the difference. Also the last two "Star Wars" movies, "Paranormal Activity", "Sin City", "Collateral" (mostly shot HD) "Benjamin Button" and others were all shot on HD. How do you account for these ametuer filmmakers (like George Lucas and Michael Mann) making the hit movies on HD. Obviously either these are all flukes or you're simply wrong.
When you make some of the statements you make about HD you simply ignore what's going on around you. I don't even know if you watch movies. Maybe you don't because you don't want to see what's going on around you. At some point your film will go to a digital workflow. You're hanging on to something because of it's emotional appeal, but that all. And if Fellini was alive I believe even he'd be shooting digital 24p, because it would simply work better with his style.
Also why are 35mm adapters silly? Because they make people using 24p HD able to emmulate the look of film for much cheaper and you don't like it. In fact people who know how to shoot film, would shoot in much of the same way and not just shoot a blurred background and call it the film look. Then again I've been watching a lot of films lately and I'm seeing a lot of out of focus backgrounds while people in the foreground are in focus so I don't know what you mean.
-Nate
Last edited:
filmman
Veteran
Welcome back; I always enjoy reading your terse remarks 
Welcome back; I always enjoy reading your terse remarks
I told you digital has a place in the documentary world, I really do. THE RED QUEEN is a compilation work shot over 2 years and edited after a 6 month period of gestation when I didn't even know I had a movie there. It was originally entitled FELLINIESQUE PLAYERS; but I realize most Americans don't know what that is -- and that's okay; Fellini movies only played in art houses -- a handful...
But I like the style; it appeals to my sensibilities :-Dum(DBG):
If I want the film look, I'll shoot film. If I want the lush and beautiful look of the Sony Z1, I'll shoot digital. To be quite honest I like the look of both mediums. I've been watching some of the David Lynch Youtube video clips talking about he like to use the video camera as a tool of his cinematic palette, so it's legitimate. He's a painter, a visionary director, and frankly I've always enjoyed his movies (the few that I have seen). He's an artist in my opinion. So it's not like I'm out to insult people. I'm just opinionated :violin:I dance to the tune of my own music :smile:
By the way, THE RED QUEEN is the first feature I shot with the Z1. I've learned quite a lot from the user groups regarding the digital format. I believe I'll be shooting better with the digital format now. Whenever I have an unscripted project, I will shoot in digital ... and especially when I'm working no budget.
Kickstarter woke me up to another opportunities. A lady got funded on kickstarter for a project banking cookies, for heaven's sake. I thought why not shoot a nice story from the Bible with funding from these kind people that will even support an artsy cookie baker? Well, I was wrong about that :bath:
Thanks for getting back to this thread, Loki. I think you come up with some helpful ideas once in a while. How are your projects coming along by the way?
Welcome back; I always enjoy reading your terse remarks
I told you digital has a place in the documentary world, I really do. THE RED QUEEN is a compilation work shot over 2 years and edited after a 6 month period of gestation when I didn't even know I had a movie there. It was originally entitled FELLINIESQUE PLAYERS; but I realize most Americans don't know what that is -- and that's okay; Fellini movies only played in art houses -- a handful...
But I like the style; it appeals to my sensibilities :-Dum(DBG):
If I want the film look, I'll shoot film. If I want the lush and beautiful look of the Sony Z1, I'll shoot digital. To be quite honest I like the look of both mediums. I've been watching some of the David Lynch Youtube video clips talking about he like to use the video camera as a tool of his cinematic palette, so it's legitimate. He's a painter, a visionary director, and frankly I've always enjoyed his movies (the few that I have seen). He's an artist in my opinion. So it's not like I'm out to insult people. I'm just opinionated :violin:I dance to the tune of my own music :smile:
By the way, THE RED QUEEN is the first feature I shot with the Z1. I've learned quite a lot from the user groups regarding the digital format. I believe I'll be shooting better with the digital format now. Whenever I have an unscripted project, I will shoot in digital ... and especially when I'm working no budget.
Kickstarter woke me up to another opportunities. A lady got funded on kickstarter for a project banking cookies, for heaven's sake. I thought why not shoot a nice story from the Bible with funding from these kind people that will even support an artsy cookie baker? Well, I was wrong about that :bath:
Thanks for getting back to this thread, Loki. I think you come up with some helpful ideas once in a while. How are your projects coming along by the way?
filmman
Veteran
El Director to the Rescue!
El Director to the Rescue!
Thank you for backing me up, El.
I see a distinction in the way film was shot in the 70s and the way film is shot today. The disciplines are different and drifting apart every day. Directing digital is so different now that it bears less and less resemblance to the classical style of filmmaking altogether. This is not necessarily a bad thing. As you say everyone comes up with their own work flows now, and, yes, we can go back and forth between many styles of filmmaking.
For example, Adam was shooting a lot of set ups with two cameras. It wasn't so he could save time by shooting two over-the-shoulder angles at the same time. He discussed this aspect in his CORRADO thread. He pointed out correctly that lighting two over-the-shoulder shots simultaneously was not a good idea. No, he used the two cameras shooting from the same angle, with one usually on a medium and the other one on a closer shot or even a close-up. So in editing he sometimes preferred one over the other one.
El Director to the Rescue!
Thank you for backing me up, El.
I see a distinction in the way film was shot in the 70s and the way film is shot today. The disciplines are different and drifting apart every day. Directing digital is so different now that it bears less and less resemblance to the classical style of filmmaking altogether. This is not necessarily a bad thing. As you say everyone comes up with their own work flows now, and, yes, we can go back and forth between many styles of filmmaking.
For example, Adam was shooting a lot of set ups with two cameras. It wasn't so he could save time by shooting two over-the-shoulder angles at the same time. He discussed this aspect in his CORRADO thread. He pointed out correctly that lighting two over-the-shoulder shots simultaneously was not a good idea. No, he used the two cameras shooting from the same angle, with one usually on a medium and the other one on a closer shot or even a close-up. So in editing he sometimes preferred one over the other one.
filmman
Veteran
Soon two art forms altogether different
Soon two art forms altogether different
I took up this point later...
You're right, we need to make a digital master in order to sell DVDs and post on the Internet or sell streaming and DOD.
Again you're right, personally I don't need $25,000 to shoot the movie on my Sony Z1. And I will shoot it with my Sony Z1 if I had the location, the costumes and the actors. I'd probably shoot it in a weekend and post it on my website for people to see for free.
I wouldn't need the HG-10 (I don't even know what type of camera that is, but I know you talked about it and it apparently even does 24p). I don't like to work with total amateurs for actors, but the idea of doing a modern version felliniesque really appeals to me. Thanks for suggesting that.
Luckily I work with both mediums, but I like to keep my head clear as to which I'm working in; because, even though digital has been desperately trying to mimic film, I don't want to be caught up in the thinking that film and digital are the same medium and that the language of cinema is the same. For me it will never be the same. Film will always be film and digital is soon becoming its own separate art-form.
There are people putting five pound lens adapters on their poor digital cameras to make them shoot film-like images, I say why bother? Shoot digital. There is nothing wrong with the digital look. Depth of field is a tool of story telling; you don't always have to have out of focus areas in every scene. But, I agree with El Director here; everyone is free to do what they want. If you like your digital camera and enjoy making it shoot your version of what film looks like, fine, nobody is stopping you. This remark is not directed at you personally -- none of this is personal, Nate.
What I forgot to address is the trend to do DIs. Yes, there are a lot of special effects, filtering, plug-ins, and looks to be achieved in the digital stage, what with such wonderful programs as FCP, AE, Shake, Smoke (on and on), so it's easy to get sucked into making all these wonderful corrections and manipulations of imagery through digital, and then the DI is the only solution.
So DIs are becoming common when people without proper training in 35mm filmmaking, education or skills in 35mm filmmaking, are entering the field -- and some people by choice, like you mentioned George Lucas and let me throw in James Cameron -- of course, they could shoot any format they choose, but if they want to do something that only digital can do, for them it's not a choice of saving money but more likely saving time and achieving certain effects in the process. So I agree with you somewhat, but not entirely.
Soon two art forms altogether different
I took up this point later...
You're right, we need to make a digital master in order to sell DVDs and post on the Internet or sell streaming and DOD.
Again you're right, personally I don't need $25,000 to shoot the movie on my Sony Z1. And I will shoot it with my Sony Z1 if I had the location, the costumes and the actors. I'd probably shoot it in a weekend and post it on my website for people to see for free.
I wouldn't need the HG-10 (I don't even know what type of camera that is, but I know you talked about it and it apparently even does 24p). I don't like to work with total amateurs for actors, but the idea of doing a modern version felliniesque really appeals to me. Thanks for suggesting that.
There is a shift toward digital. Some movies are best shot with digital. Film and digital are two different ways to work. Soon these two mediums will have little to do with each other, the way film and theater are different, the way radio and TV are different, and the way painting and sculpture are different -- they're all related, yes, but very different from each other.
Luckily I work with both mediums, but I like to keep my head clear as to which I'm working in; because, even though digital has been desperately trying to mimic film, I don't want to be caught up in the thinking that film and digital are the same medium and that the language of cinema is the same. For me it will never be the same. Film will always be film and digital is soon becoming its own separate art-form.
There are people putting five pound lens adapters on their poor digital cameras to make them shoot film-like images, I say why bother? Shoot digital. There is nothing wrong with the digital look. Depth of field is a tool of story telling; you don't always have to have out of focus areas in every scene. But, I agree with El Director here; everyone is free to do what they want. If you like your digital camera and enjoy making it shoot your version of what film looks like, fine, nobody is stopping you. This remark is not directed at you personally -- none of this is personal, Nate.
I don't watch many movies, as I've said before; but that's because I really don't have a lot of time -- too many projects going at once. And, yes, I've fallen behind in the digital technology. For me it is not essential, however; I'm comfortable with film for serious work and I don't think in the end film is more expensive than digital. Of course, this assuming that the film will get released. If a movie doesn't get released, then of course it is better to have shot it in digital. There is no loss then, and there is the Internet to dump it on -- maybe even make some money.
What I forgot to address is the trend to do DIs. Yes, there are a lot of special effects, filtering, plug-ins, and looks to be achieved in the digital stage, what with such wonderful programs as FCP, AE, Shake, Smoke (on and on), so it's easy to get sucked into making all these wonderful corrections and manipulations of imagery through digital, and then the DI is the only solution.
So DIs are becoming common when people without proper training in 35mm filmmaking, education or skills in 35mm filmmaking, are entering the field -- and some people by choice, like you mentioned George Lucas and let me throw in James Cameron -- of course, they could shoot any format they choose, but if they want to do something that only digital can do, for them it's not a choice of saving money but more likely saving time and achieving certain effects in the process. So I agree with you somewhat, but not entirely.
Maybe you have a point here. I'm sore because all those lenses I want on eBay are selling for $5000 each because some kid wants to put one on his camera and shoot digital that looks like 35mm. They are buying all our lenses!
filmman
Veteran
Digital is another art form
Digital is another art form
There are all kinds of art forms. Digital is a new art form. However, many digital filmmakers are assuming they are making film. Some are but most aren't; I'm just drawing a distinction.
Digital is another art form
There are all kinds of art forms. Digital is a new art form. However, many digital filmmakers are assuming they are making film. Some are but most aren't; I'm just drawing a distinction.
filmman
Veteran
It's time to buzz the tower
It's time to buzz the tower
Thanks for making me laugh, Loki. LOL
It's time to buzz the tower
Thanks for making me laugh, Loki. LOL
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
$5000 lens? I hope you're being facetious. The fact people want these lens do drive up the price, but lens most of us buy cost between $75 and $500, $1000 at best. If we could afford $5000 for a lens in itself then that person is already shooting on highend cameras. The beauty of digital is that it can mimic film and instead of paying $5000 for a lens the whole set can be achieved for that price. Even a high end Canon can be bought for around $3500.
The HG10 is a Canon palm camera that does 24p and has general filmic settings like the HF10/100 and HF100/200. With an adapter (about $150 - $500 depending on what you buy) and a $100 (or less) lens you can get basic depth of field for shots you want it in, then take it off and shoot the rest without it. In fact Cr2nk didn't even bother with the adapter for most things and they shot with all prosumer cameras. The HG10 does 1080p and you can print to film like others once an HD master is done. Almost any modern Canon HD camera can do this. I know you have a Z1 but, the Z1u does a poor quality 24p that loses resolution. But it's fine for shooting a 24p look if you're going straight to DVD. I suggest the HG10 because of price. The HF10/HF100 or HF200 may be better for you.
When distributors ask about deliverables, the first thing they ask about (in my experience) is the HD master. It used to be DV, digibeta, or HD master. They don't even mention a film print and you'll shock them if you do. Once they have an HD master they can do what they want. The whole point is you don't have have film to do a serious project.
There's a lot of things I want and don't have but I've learned that if I'm always waiting, I'll never shoot. Give me a camera, editing system and a mic and a some money to travel and feed my actors and crew and I'm on it. No more wasting time for the thousands of dollar worth of things I want when I can use the things I have. I've been bless with a lighting kit, greenscreen, I just need to to get the proper editing set up (and get my script tight) and I'm ready to go.
If you want to shoot film that's fine, but no matter what you're going to have to go out there shoot something and show it to people for funding or you're going to have to fund it yourself. I say get a camera, adapter and shoot it yourself and you wont have to worry about all the money. And again if you put something solid together and can sell people on the style someone will probably be open to giving you money or at least loaning you the things you need.
-Nate
Last edited:
Monte Hellman just shot his last feature film with a canon 5dmk2. He loves film as much as the next guy (Two Lane Blacktop, Cockfighter, Exec.producer "Reservoir Dogs"). Hes not an amateur. Just thought I'd throw that out.
I'm still supportive of you shooting film but the realities should at least make you take a hard look at other options. Good luck with your project in whatever medium you shoot it on.
I'm still supportive of you shooting film but the realities should at least make you take a hard look at other options. Good luck with your project in whatever medium you shoot it on.
Azmyth
Veteran
Again, the question here is not whether shooting on Digital is better or worse than film. Its that filmman makes out like there is no other option for anything "professional" which we've proven wrong over and over. I guess it all depends on what your definition of professional is. To me, if I can buy your movie on a store shelf or from a national marketplace, then you are doing "professional" work. If you want to shoot on film and you have the means to do it, then do it. Just don't tell us that we aren't professionals based on what medium we shoot on. At least we are out there shooting!
filmman
Veteran
It depends on what you mean by professional too.
It depends on what you mean by professional too.
Thanks for the comment, Azmyth. You made me aware that "professional" in this day and age could also mean that a digital filmmaker is aiming for a Youtube premiere.
Then the next stage in the digital ascendancy would be to shoot for a cell phone premiere ... and finally a worldwide premiere on hand-held devices in the next decade perhaps.
But I think TV will make a comeback through the Internet and there is no telling what a premiere will be like when you can watch any movie at any time ... by anyone anywhere in the galaxy!
It depends on what you mean by professional too.
Thanks for the comment, Azmyth. You made me aware that "professional" in this day and age could also mean that a digital filmmaker is aiming for a Youtube premiere.
Then the next stage in the digital ascendancy would be to shoot for a cell phone premiere ... and finally a worldwide premiere on hand-held devices in the next decade perhaps.
But I think TV will make a comeback through the Internet and there is no telling what a premiere will be like when you can watch any movie at any time ... by anyone anywhere in the galaxy!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Is this necessarily a bad thing?
When someone makes an application that causes the iPhone to "break wind" -- and sells $250,000 worth of it IN THE FIRST WEEKEND IT'S AVAILABLE... that shows that cell phone users are a pretty big market.
Latest line of HTC phones all have 800x480 screens, that's higher than DVD resolution.
I guess it all comes back to: what's the point of you making your work? If it's so that it gets seen, then... what would be wrong with a cell phone premiere? But if the point is to get the "prestige" that goes with a theatrical release, then yeah, I can see how a cell phone premiere might be disappointing.
filmman
Veteran
The Rise of the Shlockmeisters.
The Rise of the Shlockmeisters.
Thanks for opening up this subject, lambert. We could call it the Rise of the Schlockmeisters. I can see how there might come along a new generation of filmmakers using whatever cameras available to create the new wave of ... er, I don't know what to call these repressed B-Movies -- C-Movies? I know the term has not been widely used, but we have to come up with some way of identifying them.
Personally, I think it's a legitimate movement.
The Rise of the Shlockmeisters.
Thanks for opening up this subject, lambert. We could call it the Rise of the Schlockmeisters. I can see how there might come along a new generation of filmmakers using whatever cameras available to create the new wave of ... er, I don't know what to call these repressed B-Movies -- C-Movies? I know the term has not been widely used, but we have to come up with some way of identifying them.
Personally, I think it's a legitimate movement.
- Status