Implications of having affordable HD production?

Movies like November, Lost in Translation, and Lonesome Jim are really indiewood films....
Not to be confused with independent or hollywood. They are somewhere in between...
 
Yea, not to be cycnical or anything, but... I've never seen anybody who actually has "the gift" feel the need to tell me has it. I'm not saying you don't, cause, how do I know? But it's always the hacks that have to keep telling you how great they are. Let your work speak for it's self and your "gift" will be self evident. You also won't have to put up with assinine posts like this one.
 
Oh man, I can't tell you how much cake makeup they wear. That's all going to show up on HD. Plus all them pimples will show up in fabulous clarity :laugh:
 
Where the indie filmmakers may have an edge in the future is because profits are, in fact, so small. The studios don't care if they can make 150k films that gross 800k. That's too small for them to even care about. Whereas an indie filmmaker might find this very attractive.

November got made because the Greg got Courtney to be in it, and Greg has a studio contract which pays him big bucks to sit around on the lot. He's got a 40 mill project in the hopper that is in limbo, and he's trying to keep his sanity while waiting around.

Sometime Studios will fund 2 mill and under projects even though they might not make money or even get off the shelf just to keep directors happy so they can work with them on their 50 mill projects.
 
What I'd like to see, made possible by digital projection and digital distribution, are numerous small (very small) independent theaters, all over the place, showing independent and foreign films.
 
adaml said:
What I'd like to see, made possible by digital projection and digital distribution, are numerous small (very small) independent theaters, all over the place, showing independent and foreign films.
Click to expand...

You and me both bro'. I just would not hold my breath for it. The cost of quality(2k at least) digital projection is still very cost prohibitive. Also, the theatrical business is in almost chaotic state as we speak. Check out recent news about consolidation, and the possibleity of concurrent theatrical and DVD releases as proposed by Disney. Even with other avenues of revenue (trendy food and booze) a theatre, especially a speciallty one, would be hard to get financed. IMO.

It would be cool though.

I still go with Barry and think that the best hope for independents is going to be the internet.
 
... which is where the Internet comes into play again. With the internet you can FIND an audience for your film.

You can't expect to just slap it out there and everyone come rushing up with their $12 to stand in line to watch your great epic. Doesn't happen. But if you make a documentary about people who can't stand to let their favorite TV series die, and then you target your marketing towards internet discussion groups for FireFly and Beauty and the Beast and Star Trek, and you raise awareness in those groups... well, maybe you can do okay. And the internet's pretty much free.

Read Gary Kurtz' book about the making of the first Star Wars film. Fascinating tale of the studio thinking they were stuck with an "unmarketable" film. Kurtz went to the people, and took the film to them. Toured the country, went to every comic book store, sci-fi convention, D&D group, everyplace they could find and did the groundwork to get the people amped on seeing the picture. Fox was convinced they had a bomb on their hands, and Wall Street was predicting that this over-budget sci-fi movie might bankrupt them. But on opening day, there were lines around the block.

Kurtz identified his audience, then went to them and made them aware of the product.

The Internet makes this so much easier -- you don't have to travel, and you can reach people in your city, your state, your country, and around the world. And they don't have to wait for the theater -- they can buy your product right now, using Paypal -- for about the same as it would cost to go see it in the theater!

So the task of the indie is to a) make a great, great, great film, and b) get the word out. If you can reach enough people, you can probably make your money back. And word will spread -- for good or for bad, word will spread, so that's why it's important to make a spectacular film.

Sell 5,000 copies at $10 apiece, and now you're talking about making some of your money back -- that's fifty grand right there. THEN you go tell the distributors that you have this hot little movie, and you've already sold five thousand copies of it on your own -- and THAT will get their attention. If they believe there's a strong audience out there, they'll buy it from you and give it a national push.

But it's all up to you. If you wait for them to come to you, you'll be waiting a long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long time...
 
Wow Barry, I think I am going to print your post and stick it to my bathroom mirror!!

I did not know that about Gary Kurtz, but I rember when it came out. I went and stood in line (First day, First showing, Fourth in line) because of a series of McQuarry paintings I saw in "Starlog". You are right, I was target marketed.

The point that independent flimmakers need to understand is that making the film, a great film even, is just the starting point. We need more posts about indie marketing!
 
2 cents...
I think we need to work on a whole new model of filmmaking, from conception to distribution and marketing.

I'm a non-film school trained filmmaker, making films far from the center of traditional filmmaking. So I read as much as I can, and break the rules as needed.

There are hordes of talented writers, actors and musicians here in Boston. But they aren't film people. So I just work with them however make sense - I think in theater, actors and writers are more central, so I have a very collaborative approach with them, I don't use shot lists, I have long takes that are almost like filming plays. Then I shoot other footage on my own time to edit in later. I think the performances are much more natural that way.

I think indie filmmakers may be too wrapped up in trying to be break into the big monopoly business plan. Trying to get into huge distribution deals, major theater chains, etc, is probably not a good use of time. It seems to me better to take advantage of replicating your own dvds, showing films in small art house theaters, even renting big projectors and showing your films one evening in a local art galleries are a better bet.

Reminds me of a book on art direction in film - the first films were like filmed plays, because theater was the only imaginative reference point. It time for people to realize all the new things you could do with a camera (it moves!). I think it'll take time, imagination and risk taking to figure out just what you can do with the new tools of the digital world.
 
Another thought on HD....

Is there something to be said just to have a better quality image? I betray my ignorance, but I read somewhere an HD picture on SD monitor can look better than an SD-recorded image, even if you don't see full HD.

I've read some advice to indie filmmakers (bad advice in my own opinion) that people will forgive less than perfect quality if you have great story, actors, etc.

That is true to an extent, but a bad attitude to have. I've seen more examples of people saying 'nice idea for the plot, but what's the deal with the sound?' I went to a film festival with a non-filmmaker who just said she liked the plots of the films but didn't understand why the audio and video was so bad. Clearly it all just took her out of the film.

I'm considering going HD partially to try and be ready for the day (which might never happen) when HD rules the world.... but even then, anything that adds to the quality of my productions, I'm all for it!
 
Frankly sometimes HD downsampled to SD can look awfull. I shot a TV show on the Varicam and it looked fantastic in HD but by the time the downconverted it it was ver soft. The B unit DVX footage seemed sharper. But they went back and did a higher quality down convert at a post house for the Online and it looked much better. However not better than an SDX900 would look straight out of camera.
 
Hmm. That's interesting. I was reading.... I think Adam Wilt's site on a review of the Z1U and I thought he said he found the Z1U's HD looking good in SD.

But then my knowledge level on this stuff is far from perfect... so I've probably mangled Adam's words, or missing some important caveat.
 
yes HD can look really great downconverted to SD. as evinsky pointed out the quality of the conversion makes the difference. as i've had it explained to me the better signal to noise ratio of HD cameras lend a bit to making their SD versions look better.

from experience i can say that i have been able to fool some seasoned viewers in the video engineering world by showing downcoverted HDtoSD video on a HD display. only when i show them the original HD source on that same display do they begin to see the difference.

but it is still rather subjective since the best test would be to have several cameras of HD and SD capabilities shooting the exact same shots played back on various other displays. oh and lets throw in varying levels of HDtoSD conversion quality. after considering that maybe you can see why there is no definite answer.

but i'll say that SD from HD source looks fan-friggin-tastic, especially when captured from 2/3"chip or film source.

but i also think that uncompressed SD looks fan-friggin-tastic. it really is a shame that we will never see SDI gear and content delivery in the home. if joe schmoe watching a fuzzy cable or compressed satellite TV feed only knew how good the Digibeta source looked coming from the broadcaster there might not be so much hype about HD.
 
Just have a few minutes and haven't read through the entire thread, but in response to the first post, regarding HD being much cheaper than 35mm...

I heard someone talking the other day how it may actually not be too much cheaper. I wasn't involved in the conversation and I didn't hear a ton of details, but this person's main points were that after the transfer from mini dv to a print including coloring, and even with a cheaper film stock, HD is still going to be almost quite as expensive as 35mm. I personally don't have experience in comparison of the two, but this guy has had experience and usually knows what he's talking about. Does anyone have any thoughts or does it really just vary depending upon the project and how many feet of film are used?
 
Oreo137 said:
Just have a few minutes and haven't read through the entire thread, but in response to the first post, regarding HD being much cheaper than 35mm...

I heard someone talking the other day how it may actually not be too much cheaper. I wasn't involved in the conversation and I didn't hear a ton of details, but this person's main points were that after the transfer from mini dv to a print including coloring, and even with a cheaper film stock, HD is still going to be almost quite as expensive as 35mm. I personally don't have experience in comparison of the two, but this guy has had experience and usually knows what he's talking about. Does anyone have any thoughts or does it really just vary depending upon the project and how many feet of film are used?
Click to expand...

The importance for some of the indie filmmaker variety might be that they never have to pay for the film print at all. If they shoot on HD, they can stay away from film until it's time for distribution, and then the distributor can pay for the print.
 
Interesting thread. I agree that technology is helpful and a great tool, but it doesn't make the filmmaker. I saw a Sydney Pollack about Frank Gehry at the Toronto International Film Festival ("Sketches of Frank Gehry"). Gehry designs his projects with tools such as pencil and paper, then moves on to cardboard models. I have all this stuff at home but that doesn't mean I can design the next Guggenheim Bilbao. I don't have Gehry's kowledge or talent for architecture.

His staff does use complex computer modeling, but it's Gehry's sketches and models that really matter. For filmmaking, you better have a solid screenplay.

Cheers,

Josh
 
I wonder about this HD to film cost comparison as well. I have seen figures, but my guess is that just based on one feature (as owning the equipment saves if you make several), the cost of HD camera (prosumer) vs. film stock and camera rental can be close for initial acquisition and developing, but you must save on editing and post work.
 
>>So the task of the Indie is to a) make a great, great, great film, and b) get the word out. If you can reach enough people, you can probably make your money back. And word will spread -- for good or for bad, word will spread, so that's why it's important to make a spectacular film.

Sell 5,000 copies at $10 apiece, and now you're talking about making some of your money back -- that's fifty grand right there. THEN you go tell the distributors that you have this hot little movie, and you've already sold five thousand copies of it on your own -- and THAT will get their attention. If they believe there's a strong audience out there, they'll buy it from you and give it a national push.

But it's all up to you. If you wait for them to come to you, you'll be waiting a long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long time...<<

Barry speaketh the truth! He sees the future.

If success means theatrical release... we should all pack up our cameras and go home... the odds of that happening will be like one percent or less. But is theatrical release the only way?

I don't speak for everyone, but I've only seen one theatrical release this year: Revenge of the Sith. It's a tribute to George, that sort of thing. I've been reluctant to spend my ten bucks on a lot of other releases, big budget or not, big name director or Indie production. Mainly because the content didn't particularly excite me.

Target audience is important. I'm a sci-fi/fantasy nut, and is always hungry for stuff in that genre. Yes, I've sat through many a (gag) Godzilla rerun. I'm awaiting the next generation George Lucas to blow my mind. If he shows up as an Indie filmmaker, I'm all eyes.

It's not about making money (there are better ways of making money), it's about making enough to keep doing the thing you love.

The problem right now is that we only see one distribution model... theatrical release... the only measure of success. And with it the enormous funds which the average Indie doesn't have.

The paradigm needs to change: a new way of thinking and a new way of distribution is required. And as Barry suggested, the Internet will prove critical.

I'll throw in a couple of possibilities off the top of my head: Amazon.com, EBay (yeah, why not?}, Blockbusters, DVXuserdistrubutors.com etc (I made that up) .... and many other avenues we have yet to conceive of. Hell, I was amazed to see video product (apparently Indie production) in a couple of Dollar Stores in Canada. No, I didn't spend the two bucks.

If your product is exceptional enough, or unique enough, there will be a market. All the HVX has done is given you a terrific tool to work with. But if you've skill and talent, you will be noticed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top