What you should take away from it, per my post above, is that shooting 60i when you really want 24p simply isn't good enough.
filmman launches GOLD DIGGERS on KickStarter.com
- Thread starter filmman
- Start date
- Status
What you should take away from it, per my post above, is that shooting 60i when you really want 24p simply isn't good enough.
filmman
Veteran
great posts indeed!
great posts indeed!
You must admit, Brandon, digital cameras are just as complicated as mystical subject matter :shocked:
great posts indeed!
Some great posts on here going into detail about the technical side of digital filmmaking. Hopefully it helps you see it's not as mystical as it seems
Cheers!
You must admit, Brandon, digital cameras are just as complicated as mystical subject matter :shocked:
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
I disagree here. 24f created incredible images most people simply couldn't tell weren't 24p and 24f acts like 24p. Also the attractive style of the camera with the screen placed upward like the Z1u. The style of the camera was really moving for me. But without 24p I wasn't doing it. Panasonic did run with it before all of them, but Canon did both form and function and I liked the images Canon XH-A1 did right out the box, no offense to Panasonic as they do great imagery and we all can attest to that.
Style wise Panasonic still came out with the same style of cameras plus the pricey P2 cards. (Aside from the P2 thing this is just and aesthetic thing with me and has nothing to do with the function of the camera). None of this matters now as I didn't get either camera and just now got a Canon HG10 which I find to get a really nice image. I'm look at JVC HM100 and the new line of Canons for the future.
For me Canon had great looking 24p HD, I could put on a DV tape (I saw the Xh-A1 a up close at HD Expo), it was an impressive looking camera (I'd give Sony a 10 and Canon an 8 here) and just got a heck of an image, so for me it's completely subjective at this point because these were the things I was looking for at the time. I will admit I still like the tape based workflow. I was used to it, but I'm about to dive into the AVCHD pool now, so we'll see what's up.
-Nate
filmman
Veteran
24p is it then ...
24p is it then ...
That's what I was afraid of. It was 24p all along: the painful final step from 24 fps 35mm cameras to 24p cameras.
And now the arena is open and the slaughter is at hand: which camera will become the Arriflex of digital cameras?
24p is it then ...
That's what I was afraid of. It was 24p all along: the painful final step from 24 fps 35mm cameras to 24p cameras.
And now the arena is open and the slaughter is at hand: which camera will become the Arriflex of digital cameras?
A couple of years ago, there were easy answers to that -- the DVX100 and then the HVX200.
Not as much anymore. Time to explore the rest of the site!
Not as much anymore. Time to explore the rest of the site!
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
Buying is a great philosophy for someone like you. You shoot all the time. And the Z1u isn't obsolete, it's just not great for what you want to do. Don't be afraid to sale it and get something else. A Z1u in good condition can fetch over $2,000 on eBay. That may be a enough to get the pump fixed an get a new camera. In fact if you want to stay with tape-based cameras, grab an HV30, plus this beachtek which I have a version of, and an EnCinema adapter (or other adapter) and you're golden. You'll have what you need for just over $1000 and have money left.
If you get any HD-SLR, which I think would work great for you, make sure it has a stereo mic jack and get the Beachtek DXA-5Da which will let you use XLR mics with your camera. Also with these HD-SLR cameras you won't have to flip the image right side up so that to is a plus.
Be sure to read everything.
-Nate
There's plenty of info on all the other cams elsewhere. Let's not turn this into a "what camera should I buy" thread.
filmman
Veteran
24p in the context of feature filmmaking
24p in the context of feature filmmaking
All the same, David, I'm very pleased that you and Barry engaged Nathyn and me with our concerns for feature filmmaking. I've been on the other topics on DVX user group; they are usually dealing with stills production, music video, animation -- a lot of threads have nothing to do with feature filmmaking.
In those threads that the topic deals with stills cameras, for example, there are too many opinions expressed regarding the differences between Nikon 90D, the 300 series, etc. It gets confusing, and for someone like me who goes over there to look for tips on how to explore the developing stills technologies, it takes a lot of reading to find something useful.
Many times someone will comment, "if all you want to do is shoot features, then stay away from the DSLRs and continue working with your Sony EX-1." And that's when weighing the benefits of the Sony EX-1 and EX-3 cameras for shooting sound movies and working in a normal feature filmmaking environment, it is easier and the technology is more suitable.
But then you have those people who are shooting with these DSLR cameras and they swear by them, and as this thread has had so many examples of seasoned filmmakers turning to DSLRs for artistic reasons.
Anyway, a long thank you ... and now back to repairing my car's water pump :violin:
24p in the context of feature filmmaking
There's plenty of info on all the other cams elsewhere. Let's not turn this into a "what camera should I buy" thread.
All the same, David, I'm very pleased that you and Barry engaged Nathyn and me with our concerns for feature filmmaking. I've been on the other topics on DVX user group; they are usually dealing with stills production, music video, animation -- a lot of threads have nothing to do with feature filmmaking.
In those threads that the topic deals with stills cameras, for example, there are too many opinions expressed regarding the differences between Nikon 90D, the 300 series, etc. It gets confusing, and for someone like me who goes over there to look for tips on how to explore the developing stills technologies, it takes a lot of reading to find something useful.
Many times someone will comment, "if all you want to do is shoot features, then stay away from the DSLRs and continue working with your Sony EX-1." And that's when weighing the benefits of the Sony EX-1 and EX-3 cameras for shooting sound movies and working in a normal feature filmmaking environment, it is easier and the technology is more suitable.
But then you have those people who are shooting with these DSLR cameras and they swear by them, and as this thread has had so many examples of seasoned filmmakers turning to DSLRs for artistic reasons.
Anyway, a long thank you ... and now back to repairing my car's water pump :violin:
Last edited:
taormina
Hates to Rent
There's plenty of info on all the other cams elsewhere. Let's not turn this into a "what camera should I buy" thread.
Furthermore, this thread has devolved into the typical tech discussion with frame rates, resolution, gizmos, and whatnot while forgetting the fact that Vic needs to come up with a sellable, marketable idea so he can get investors.
Vic, I'd rather you shot 35 MOS than get all tied up in the tech of how this is going to go down. You should be focusing on the following to get started:
1. Cast
2. premise and catchy logline
3. Excellent script.
4. Artwork
The rest is all bullshit. Find a DP to deal with it.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Very true!
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
But I think the point was Vic wants to do it all himself including the distribution aspects. He's not interested in big names and all that, he just wants to make the film he wants to make, that's why it got to this point. I'm wondering is he actually thinking about the end product or moreso how he'll market it once it's all done.
-Nate
-Nate
taormina
Hates to Rent
And he can do it all himself. What needs to happen, however, is for him to understand that at this budget level, he will have to make some serious compromises in the technology of his shoot. He won't have the best cameras, sound, editing, effects, whatever. He can't. There's no money!
What he can have however, which is free of charge, is an excellent story and premise. This will go far further than him wasting his time deciding whether he can convert 60i to 24p or whatever.
And when I said "devolved" in relation to this thread, I was pointing out a common flaw I've seen within the last few years....
When in doubt, revert to tech. Tech discussions have their place - namely, between a producer, director, and DP - after you've got the story down pat and it's frickin' excellent.
If you're a one man band, that doesn't relieve you from this...once your story is squared away, then go on and figure out if you can shoot with that Z1U. Until then, you've got nothing.
And this juxtaposition between technology and art is what always made DVXUser so great.....and at the same time, made it a bit of a handicap; a topical reading of these pages will provide technical and gear driven data par excellence, and it almost fools some people into thinking that if they get camera X version 2.0 firmware build Y that they can make a great film....or even one that is marketable.
I see this kind of insanity on REDUser all the time - people plugging their new red primes, dying for a Mysterium X upgrade, waiting for Jannard's latest dispatch, talking about how Epic will blow Red One out of the water....
Curiously absent is all the talk of how to obtain and retain an agent. How to write a killer logline. How to attend a film market and make a presale. How to develop a relationship with a studio - all this needs to be in order before you start fretting over tech!
That stuff is boring to a lot of people...that's why there's far more talk than yells of, "Action!"
shutterspeedfilms
Well-known member
Agree with Adam on this one. On one hand, it makes me wonder why people want to overburden themselves so much with the latest technology instead of grabbing a simple camera and shooting a story well.
But on the other hand I realize this is a tech-natured forum. I'm just glad there's an abundance of practical information to go along with all the tech speak.
But on the other hand I realize this is a tech-natured forum. I'm just glad there's an abundance of practical information to go along with all the tech speak.
Martay
Veteran
Well, I don't know that was entirely his point. I think he was stressing more about HAVING a good story to shoot in the first place BEFORE worrying about Tech stuff.
Shooting A story well is nice, but what if it's not a compelling story?
There's really not much that a forum can do, short of an online workshop a la Zoetrope and others (and those are less effective in practice than they sound on paper). People are going to be passionate about their stories when they shouldn't at times and not confident enough (rarer) than they should be at times.
I think he was pointing to a lot of homework to be done BEFORE any of the great technology that this forum is adept at discussing even becomes relevant.
-M
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
On this I don't think anymore can be said, as you've pretty much covered it. I've been one of the biggest proponents of this kind of thinking, but like Subtleinspiration said, to a lot of people, it's boring. In this forum you have people who want to do feature films using modern tech. On the otherhand you have the wedding/events videographer who only wants the best cam for the job and in fact doesn't care about 24p or filmlooks, and there's the person that's just a hobbyist, then you have the hardcore artist. They want to shoot something and tell a story. I think Vic falls in the hardcore artist category but gets caught up in the tech aspects because what he wants to do cost too much, and at the same time he loves film. His love of film (the tech or aesthetic aspect) gets in the way of him telling the story.
As an example I really wanted to shoot on the Canon Xh-A1 or the JVC HM100. The closest I could get was the Canon HG10. It works, the image is great and it does what I need it to do, so it's on. I have an adapter for deep focus scenes and now I've decided to shoot another story because "Divinity" got too big. But I'm telling the same overall story only in a different way. (And this film is actually, is positioned to sale on story and genre versus cast).
-Nate
Last edited:
filmman
Veteran
cast, premise, logline, script, artwork
cast, premise, logline, script, artwork
1) Cast? The agents say, "Is the money in place?" And we say, "Yeah." Then the agents say, "Make us a written offer; pay or play contract. Ten percent upfront before my talent reads the script."
That was great about the CORRADO thread, you called the agents and secured the talent and showed us how to do it. Only you knew how to do it because you sold yachts! No one has been able to do it since.
2) Premise and catchy logline? You're good at this too. The opening of Corrado is great. I'm not too bad at this myself -- at least the premise part. I have good concepts and great scripts (I didn't write them.) I can write, but I don't have enough skill to fully develop a screenplay -- and it takes me too long; definitely not my forte.
Catchy logline? It takes special skill. Maybe I can even get someone to throw one my way.
3) Excellent script. I don't trust the process of spending years developing a script that I won't be able to shoot anyway, because it will be too expensive, require talent that I cannot secure, and maybe it will be a flop anyway because no audience will be found for it.
Anecdote: a writer had a script that was perfect for Katherine Hepburn. He couldn't get past the agent. He knew where she lived, drove over there and tossed it into her garden. She happened to be watering flowers. She read it and loved it. Canon produced it. The movie flopped. The writer sued. Menachem Golan said to the writer, "You direct it; I'll put up the money (the man has hutzpah), the movie flopped again -- true story (LA Times.)
Most of the time a script is considered great after the fact... You know a great script when it hits: actors fall over themselves to do it or audiences go out in droves to watch the movie.
4) Artwork? Yeah, okay, artwork can be managed ... somehow -- although this time I'm having problems even with artwork.
All excuses? Maybe, but you must admit it's not easy coming up with first rate elements to do a successful movie, or at least one that a distributor will take and advance money on -- what are the chances of that in this economy and with all the digital movies thrown at them?
Great to have a talented and successful filmmaker like you commenting on my thread. Thank you.
cast, premise, logline, script, artwork
1) Cast? The agents say, "Is the money in place?" And we say, "Yeah." Then the agents say, "Make us a written offer; pay or play contract. Ten percent upfront before my talent reads the script."
That was great about the CORRADO thread, you called the agents and secured the talent and showed us how to do it. Only you knew how to do it because you sold yachts! No one has been able to do it since.
2) Premise and catchy logline? You're good at this too. The opening of Corrado is great. I'm not too bad at this myself -- at least the premise part. I have good concepts and great scripts (I didn't write them.) I can write, but I don't have enough skill to fully develop a screenplay -- and it takes me too long; definitely not my forte.
Catchy logline? It takes special skill. Maybe I can even get someone to throw one my way.
3) Excellent script. I don't trust the process of spending years developing a script that I won't be able to shoot anyway, because it will be too expensive, require talent that I cannot secure, and maybe it will be a flop anyway because no audience will be found for it.
Anecdote: a writer had a script that was perfect for Katherine Hepburn. He couldn't get past the agent. He knew where she lived, drove over there and tossed it into her garden. She happened to be watering flowers. She read it and loved it. Canon produced it. The movie flopped. The writer sued. Menachem Golan said to the writer, "You direct it; I'll put up the money (the man has hutzpah), the movie flopped again -- true story (LA Times.)
Most of the time a script is considered great after the fact... You know a great script when it hits: actors fall over themselves to do it or audiences go out in droves to watch the movie.
4) Artwork? Yeah, okay, artwork can be managed ... somehow -- although this time I'm having problems even with artwork.
All excuses? Maybe, but you must admit it's not easy coming up with first rate elements to do a successful movie, or at least one that a distributor will take and advance money on -- what are the chances of that in this economy and with all the digital movies thrown at them?
Great to have a talented and successful filmmaker like you commenting on my thread. Thank you.
filmman
Veteran
Now I think distribution first
Now I think distribution first
You have hit an excellent point. I don't want to make a movie unless I can distribute it. If I can't go to the international markets, then how am I going to sell the movie? I don't want to give it to an agent or a distributor?
Why should I make a movie and give it away? Oh, if they give me $5 million upfront, I will; but without an advance? Forget it. That scenario is literally too old for me.
Now we have seen some great examples of that working out; but when we examine them they are too few and far in-between. I won't even repeat them, because everybody knows them by heart.
So what's the solution? Make self-financed movies. How to keep budgets down? Do everything myself. Are there problems with this approach? Yes, problems galore; but it's how traditional artists have always worked -- I know, not film (film is collaborative); but ... no, even film (it doesn't have to be collaborative) -- it can be done. And I've done it ... and will continue to do it -- until someone says, "Vic, will you shoot a movie for me? I'll pay you..."
rogar-BigGrin(DBG) "Hey, no problem; I'd love to do it."
Now I think distribution first
You have hit an excellent point. I don't want to make a movie unless I can distribute it. If I can't go to the international markets, then how am I going to sell the movie? I don't want to give it to an agent or a distributor?
Why should I make a movie and give it away? Oh, if they give me $5 million upfront, I will; but without an advance? Forget it. That scenario is literally too old for me.
Now we have seen some great examples of that working out; but when we examine them they are too few and far in-between. I won't even repeat them, because everybody knows them by heart.
So what's the solution? Make self-financed movies. How to keep budgets down? Do everything myself. Are there problems with this approach? Yes, problems galore; but it's how traditional artists have always worked -- I know, not film (film is collaborative); but ... no, even film (it doesn't have to be collaborative) -- it can be done. And I've done it ... and will continue to do it -- until someone says, "Vic, will you shoot a movie for me? I'll pay you..."
rogar-BigGrin(DBG) "Hey, no problem; I'd love to do it."
filmman
Veteran
All true, but I asked for tech advice because I was slammed with "impertinent" (LOL) comments about my project, so I had to come up with a diversionary strategy.
And the beauty of it is that I ended up learning some crucial aspects of the digital work flow. I wouldn't go to the extent of the Red camera fanatics, but I didn't even know why my Sony Z1U was not supposed to be the right camera for a web movie or even a DVD movie. It is ideal for television, which I finally understood why.
But now you came up with the four elements to a successful indie movie and how to develop a relationship with the traditional distribution system. I agree if a filmmaker's goal is to enter the "film industry", he or she have to develop these relationships -- otherwise an indie filmmaker will have to sell his or her own movie -- which is okay as far as I'm concerned, because I don't want to be at the mercy of distributors. And I don't want to answer to investors. So the only solution for me is to finance my own movies.... But wait!
Kickstarter! And the lady who raised $1,500 to do a cookie baking project! Funding by Internet Angels! Hey, let me give that a try....
Uh, what? The movie must have the same elements as AVATAR? The funders are producers! Have the Martians landed already? They want to examine what? No, thank you! LOL
- Status