Gordon Prince
Well-known member
ah ah ahAshG said:
RED thoughts
- Thread starter Emanuel
- Start date
" also pointed out that in 2005 they (kodak) sold over 10 billion feet of movie film stock"
that is the 1st ft figure i've ever heard of about kodak movie film .. in their SEC reports they lump movie film in "Film and Photofinishing Systems Group" (FPS) and do NOT show any separate movie film sales ...
according to their aug 2006 Quarter report FPS earnings are down 54% & net sales down 23% in that catagory ...
sales for motion picture film are down 5% ...
looking at history of Kodak stock .. high peak 1997 - been on it's way down since ..
that is the 1st ft figure i've ever heard of about kodak movie film .. in their SEC reports they lump movie film in "Film and Photofinishing Systems Group" (FPS) and do NOT show any separate movie film sales ...
according to their aug 2006 Quarter report FPS earnings are down 54% & net sales down 23% in that catagory ...
sales for motion picture film are down 5% ...
looking at history of Kodak stock .. high peak 1997 - been on it's way down since ..
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
before you was :violent5:burnt to ashes by Robert Jackson.. now is Mathieu Kassovitz..AshG said:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=534582&postcount=43
«We will see. Will the coexistence of movies like Superman, Click, Flyboys (all done from Genesis) be the PROFF of the film vitality? Panavision . . . don't forget. Bien sur, the things are changing. And it's not only for the exhibition where the world will be different. Acquisition also. It seems Davis is owner or user of a F900. And aside for the surprise of much, there are people from the filmmaking side crossing these boards . . . Why will it be? Even if this movement will be more important for the independent production or the european cinema than within an industry where one hundred of thousand of dollars is less than the price of catering.»
well, you have a gift.. at least, they read you and you can fight against famous people.. :evil:
edit
later.. he carries on: «Because we need to know if we'll straight the language to a large audience or if we can go forward, free of major restrictions. That's the key of the filmmaking business.» great quote!.. and a great lesson to all of these apprentice filmmakers here.. maybe that's why he is who is.
Last edited:
nenaD
Member
What do you think of my business model prospects to break through? As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind it being copied, improved or teamed up. It seems to me already proving alright, but this needs a bit of introduction.
I've been a movie lover all of my life and practically got engaged in film making accidently. It's a video production, miniDV to be even more precise. A friend borrowed me a camera to shoot a documentary. I came back with 3 1/2 hours of material. I did it practically all alone and the people that held the camera beside me, were ones I picked on the spot.
When I edited the material, I squeezed good 10 minutes out of it, and actually it was story that the audience liked. It was a festival's proposition to make it no longer than 10 min and it got accepted! I made DVD copies and the movie sells.
My DVD is a benefactor project that backs up somebody else's project solidarity project, so that customers' 10€ actually go to two projects with no intermediate what so ever. This is a back bone of my future company.
I'd make it International, since the other person is on the trip around the world, and it's actually a friend of mine. I would be selling DVDs in the first world countries in order to have him giving away copies for free in the third world countries.
DVD is here the gem. We never had so far a way to make inexpensively such a wide spread and quality media to distribute audiovisual contents. It could actually be a hybrid video DVD containing DVD-ROM data and DVD@ccess.
FireWire, DVD, miniDV, FinalCutPro, second hand iBook G3 and a rented car and friends who helped had the key roll in my movie making. Shooting was done withing 24 hours and after months of thinking, editing was completed within a week. It's cost was close to nothing to make it happen and literally cost me nothing to have it multiplexed and get the first 1000 copies wrapped up to ship.
Within a month it reached the rentability 0 and the duplication was paid. After 8 months on the market, having been sold in a single shop where I work in Barcelona on the stock there are 369 copies left. I have it done in 5 languages on this pilot DVD and the number piled up to 11 by now, expecting to get it done with 25-30 languages spoken in some 50 first world countries in the first phase. Eventually the series would grow to 5 episodes, per continent each and would hopefully grow to full featured films, using RED one day
In the next phase which would go in parallel, with edition of the next episodes, all existing will be translated to local languages of the continent and the pilot episode before others, keeping on the introductory role. Eventually it should become the most translated audiovisual work and a time capsule witnessing that other businesses are possible not just the exploiting type.
The beauty in the project is that since everything has been done with favours of the friends, when the money comes, it would be friends who share it, because I think of distributing it among friends. So I thing of continuing making documentaries, since life is more surprising than any fiction and dedicate to fundrising audiovisuals which will end up being artistic as well.
The money splits as 24% to a benefactory act, 24% for the International, 24% for a distributer, 8% gifts of a distributer 8% to the author, and 12% for the cost of duplication of 1000 DVDs. With the whole scheme operative in 50 countries, these 12% might decrease substantially.
1000 DVDs x 50 countries x 10 € x 5 episodes x Re-editons = landmark in movie industry + exceptional humanitarian and social and cultural contribution + and why not important money maker in order to provide other peoples' work being fomented and broaden it worldwide.
Isn't it the way we could organize ourselves, starting from DVXusers in order to make our movies get international attention and team up so each time these audiovisual works improve in their overall qualities? In my opinion, sky is the limit.
I've been a movie lover all of my life and practically got engaged in film making accidently. It's a video production, miniDV to be even more precise. A friend borrowed me a camera to shoot a documentary. I came back with 3 1/2 hours of material. I did it practically all alone and the people that held the camera beside me, were ones I picked on the spot.
When I edited the material, I squeezed good 10 minutes out of it, and actually it was story that the audience liked. It was a festival's proposition to make it no longer than 10 min and it got accepted! I made DVD copies and the movie sells.
My DVD is a benefactor project that backs up somebody else's project solidarity project, so that customers' 10€ actually go to two projects with no intermediate what so ever. This is a back bone of my future company.
I'd make it International, since the other person is on the trip around the world, and it's actually a friend of mine. I would be selling DVDs in the first world countries in order to have him giving away copies for free in the third world countries.
DVD is here the gem. We never had so far a way to make inexpensively such a wide spread and quality media to distribute audiovisual contents. It could actually be a hybrid video DVD containing DVD-ROM data and DVD@ccess.
FireWire, DVD, miniDV, FinalCutPro, second hand iBook G3 and a rented car and friends who helped had the key roll in my movie making. Shooting was done withing 24 hours and after months of thinking, editing was completed within a week. It's cost was close to nothing to make it happen and literally cost me nothing to have it multiplexed and get the first 1000 copies wrapped up to ship.
Within a month it reached the rentability 0 and the duplication was paid. After 8 months on the market, having been sold in a single shop where I work in Barcelona on the stock there are 369 copies left. I have it done in 5 languages on this pilot DVD and the number piled up to 11 by now, expecting to get it done with 25-30 languages spoken in some 50 first world countries in the first phase. Eventually the series would grow to 5 episodes, per continent each and would hopefully grow to full featured films, using RED one day
In the next phase which would go in parallel, with edition of the next episodes, all existing will be translated to local languages of the continent and the pilot episode before others, keeping on the introductory role. Eventually it should become the most translated audiovisual work and a time capsule witnessing that other businesses are possible not just the exploiting type.
The beauty in the project is that since everything has been done with favours of the friends, when the money comes, it would be friends who share it, because I think of distributing it among friends. So I thing of continuing making documentaries, since life is more surprising than any fiction and dedicate to fundrising audiovisuals which will end up being artistic as well.
The money splits as 24% to a benefactory act, 24% for the International, 24% for a distributer, 8% gifts of a distributer 8% to the author, and 12% for the cost of duplication of 1000 DVDs. With the whole scheme operative in 50 countries, these 12% might decrease substantially.
1000 DVDs x 50 countries x 10 € x 5 episodes x Re-editons = landmark in movie industry + exceptional humanitarian and social and cultural contribution + and why not important money maker in order to provide other peoples' work being fomented and broaden it worldwide.
Isn't it the way we could organize ourselves, starting from DVXusers in order to make our movies get international attention and team up so each time these audiovisual works improve in their overall qualities? In my opinion, sky is the limit.
I read that quote about film sales in an industry magazine, also saw it on the net somewhere. Also, I would hardly say I was burnt to ashes because he listed 3 movies out of hundreds released this year. MK and I generally agree BTW, I just dont think RED will make the same in-roads (if you can call it that) as Genesis, etc. My "gift" is networking like crazy and working my butt off for the last decade which has got me respect in most circles, a wealth of knowledge and a black book full of heavyweights (not the disney movie =o)
Head over the the cinematography.com boards and see what the attitude is there. Since 2000 they have been hearing that film is dead, first the F900 was supposed to kill it, then Genesis, Dalsa, etc. etc. and now RED.
The people who love and shoot film say it may never die... the people who never or rarely shoot film say it is dead or on its last legs... the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
ash =o)
Head over the the cinematography.com boards and see what the attitude is there. Since 2000 they have been hearing that film is dead, first the F900 was supposed to kill it, then Genesis, Dalsa, etc. etc. and now RED.
The people who love and shoot film say it may never die... the people who never or rarely shoot film say it is dead or on its last legs... the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
ash =o)
Jannard
Red Leader
In many ways the still industry has lead the way. Because they could. Getting incredible images at 3 frames a second was MUCH easier than 24 (or 60!) fps. The move to digital in the still world can be described as an "exodus". But the movie world has been a much different story. To capture 24fps and maintain the same quality has been challenging to say the least. The data flow is monsterous. And sensor design did not (up until now) allow the same still quality at such a frame rate. It isn't rocket science to believe that if someone could figure out how to get 1Ds quality at 24fps, they would have an industry mover. 60 fps of the same quality would be the ultimate. That has been our goal from day one.
Jim
Jim
Nice take Jim, I just hope you dont become the "Tucker" of the digital video camera. Fortunately, I think we are in a day and age where you can work around "the man" with direct marketing, which IMHO is THE thing you have really gotten dead on so far. If you can deliver on the camera, you got us lined up already...
ash =o)
ash =o)
Gibby
Red Savant
AshG said:
The line is in the 500's now and after the 4k footage screens at IBC it should get longer very quickly. If you're going to get in line, and you want a camera in 2007, you may want to make your move now...
I viewed your Strong Enough to Break trailer. Nice work! That genre of music documentary is an area I've produced, directed, and shot many times. Talk with me by email. I'd like to network with you on some ideas in that genre.
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
i got the hint gibby.. as you see i'm your reader.. and yours too AshG.. sure, i'm joking with you but always in a friendly way.. i know you have the due respect not only in most circles but in my own.. even if i disagree with you in 51% of the cases.. read better MK posts and you will agree with me that him too, as me: 51%..
Gibby
Red Savant
filmmaker1977 said:
I'm trying to share with everyone and learn from everyone. I enjoy the posts of almost everyone here, including you. We're all in the same worldwide motion media production family, no matter where we live or what our style of production is. I've clashed with others at times, but at some point we all need to get beyond the choice to fight and embrace the concept of simply learning from each other. That's not to say that if I'm directly attacked I won't defend myself. Those familiar with my post history know that. We each need to have a strong opinion artistically and technically to survive and do well in the motion media industry. If we don't, we're in the wrong business. Networking and alliances are the heartbeat of this business. We should all keep open minds and realize that opinions are like noses - everyone has one. By the way, I really like MK's posts and his work!
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
Last edited:
Thomas Mathai
Active member
filmmaker1977 said:
Who is he exactly?
Gibby
Red Savant
Thomas Mathai said:
Mathieu Kassovitz
Link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0440913/
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
MK is a jack of all trades and generally forward thinking, not thinking about fitting into the system. In my experience, there are those like me, that see the monster (huge catering budgets, lazy union guys, overpaid and undertalented producers, etc.) and see an opportunity to push the monster over the cliff it is lumbering toward. The other people are desperately trying to become the monster. One of my best friends (I wont name him but his movie made $60 mill at the box office) who finally "made it" seemed more affirmed by the catering food and obnoxiously large crew than by the box office numbers...
My personal wish for Hollywood would be that they would make twenty 5 million dollar movies, instead of terrible 100 million dollar movies. Lions Gate is starting to figure that out. They made two Tyler Perry movies for $11 million TOTAL and they grossed over $110 million at the box office.
ash =o)
My personal wish for Hollywood would be that they would make twenty 5 million dollar movies, instead of terrible 100 million dollar movies. Lions Gate is starting to figure that out. They made two Tyler Perry movies for $11 million TOTAL and they grossed over $110 million at the box office.
ash =o)
Gibby
Red Savant
Thomas Mathai
Active member
It's amusing to see such a desire for film to die out.
It's a high quality medium, that unfortunately has always been expensive to produce and use.
If shooting film was as inexpensive as shooting digital, the interest in shooting digital wouldn't be as high.
Unfortunately it was never in Kodak's best interest to make motion picture film affordable.
Kodak built Cinesite, and developed the Cineon system and the Cineon file format (still being used) back in the 90s. So at least back then, I suspect they were more than a little interested in a digital future.
I can only guess to the hows and whys that a decade later Kodak is on the defensive instead of being a leader in digital cinema.
It would be nice if in the future, some innovative company comes out with an affordable way to manufacture and process film stock. We'll see if it happens.
Just as now, the mavericks are pushing digital aquisition to the forefront, I bet in the future, when digital aquisition is the norm, there will be mavericks who decide to shoot film, if nothing else just to be different.
I also think you can't look at the consumer markets the same way as the professional markets.
Formats that consumers have shunned, have lived much longer in the pro markets ie: Beta, DAT, Mini Disc, Super 8mm, 16mm, tape cartridges, etc
It's a high quality medium, that unfortunately has always been expensive to produce and use.
If shooting film was as inexpensive as shooting digital, the interest in shooting digital wouldn't be as high.
Unfortunately it was never in Kodak's best interest to make motion picture film affordable.
Kodak built Cinesite, and developed the Cineon system and the Cineon file format (still being used) back in the 90s. So at least back then, I suspect they were more than a little interested in a digital future.
I can only guess to the hows and whys that a decade later Kodak is on the defensive instead of being a leader in digital cinema.
It would be nice if in the future, some innovative company comes out with an affordable way to manufacture and process film stock. We'll see if it happens.
Just as now, the mavericks are pushing digital aquisition to the forefront, I bet in the future, when digital aquisition is the norm, there will be mavericks who decide to shoot film, if nothing else just to be different.
I also think you can't look at the consumer markets the same way as the professional markets.
Formats that consumers have shunned, have lived much longer in the pro markets ie: Beta, DAT, Mini Disc, Super 8mm, 16mm, tape cartridges, etc
I think it generally stems from people who think that if film dies out, then Hollywood becomes more accessible, which could not be further from the truth. Alternate distribution, over-saturation of mediocre product and the american public demanding en masse, better movies will be the only thing to change Hollywood.
ash =o)
ash =o)
AshG said:
Isn't amazing how many people are willing to take a chance on Tyler Perry, now? More "indie" filmmakers should check his story out; it's inspiring, to say the very least.
I also agree about Lion's Gate and their machine-gun release plans. Not a lot of cash spent on bad movies and, at the same time, not a lot spent on their good movies that see a decent profit.