Sundance?

i have to agree with a lot of what people are saying. i personally know lairhair and think that his phrasing got him into a little trouble here. I think he was trying to say that he has some great tools available: Steadicam op, great cinematographer, access to professional equipment, and knows good actors. Not only that, but wants to work on something with the potential to send into Sundance (knowing full well it's a pipe dream). Knowing that, the story is always what makes a film great - and the ability to bring whats on the paper to the screen and beyond in tandem make films what they are. I think initially he was really hoping to find out whether or not you had to be selected from another fest or you could just apply to be considered. The answer: anyone can enter with a copy of the film and enough money to enter.
Perhaps because of Sundance's strict WORLD PREMIERE policy, he could submit this film as a pipe dream, and if it is selected great. but if not then he can submit it elsewhere as (I believe but do not take my word for it) other festivals have slightly less strict premiere policies.
 
Another recipe for getting your film into Sundance: make a really good short film, submit it, and hope for the best. If you get accepted, have a feature length screenplay based on the short ready to go, and then apply to the Sundance Institute Labs. Having your short at Sundance helps you get in here. Now find funding for your feature (should be a little easier after your Sundance experience) and you will have a much better shot at getting the resulting film into Sundance, as it is a "homegrown" product.

This is how a friend of mine got his feature into Sundance this year, even though the actors are not big-time stars and they shot on an HVX + Letus Extreme. Even the indies that you would think came from open submissions have a connection.

Obviously the first part - getting your short into Sundance - is way easier said than done. But it is a good place to start for most of us. Making a feature with no stars, little budget, and no Sundance connections and then hoping to have a world premiere in Park City is a very tall order.
 
People forget it's just a festival. You pay an entry fee and you are in.
Proper exposure being the point, one still has to market screenings.
This goes for any festival, not just the ones with the worst parking.
 
lairhair said:
Just wanted to clarify the reason I think RED is an advantage is because it's easier to project then something shot on a cell phone.
Click to expand...
"easier to project" meaning ? Meaning that it'll hold up its image quality to projection better than a cell phone would have? Or that getting cell phone footage onto a projector would be harder than getting red footage to a projector?

Because, frankly, the process is all the same. Shoot footage, edit it on the computer, and dump it to DigiBeta or HDCAM tape or transfer it to film because that's all Sundance will exhibit off of. So whether you shot on VHS or a cell phone or a Red, it's all going to have to go to HDCAM in the end.

Yes, Red footage will be sharper than cell phone footage, especially when projected. But does that really matter (as to whether your film will get in?) Our film is the opening night red-carpet premiere short at Slamdance, and it was shot on an HVX200. Not even a 200A, the original 200. And a Letus Extreme, not an Ultimate. There are people here who would freak out because "an HVX only uses 960x540 pixels" (like that matters, or like they even understand what that means...) but again, our little no-budget short shot in a garage on an HVX is the first thing people walking the red carpet at Slamdance are going to see. (yes, projected on the big screen). Now, of course, an HVX200 is infinitely better than any cell phone, but it's not a Red. Did it matter? Of course not. Did Slamdance even ask what we shot on? I don't think so... Jack filled out the submission papers, maybe he remembers, but I doubt they ever even asked.

I guess the point is: shoot Red if you've got it, sure, because "better" is always better, but don't think that it'll have any bearing whatsoever on whether your film gets into the festival or not.
 
You obviously havnt read the previous posts where I clarified that I dont expect to get into sundance based off of a camera. I was simply saying that I think 5k would look a little nicer projecting 5k than an HVX. Every small in perfection is magnified in a theater projection.
 
lairhair said:
You obviously havnt read the previous posts where I clarified that I dont expect to get into sundance based off of a camera. I was simply saying that I think 5k would look a little nicer projecting 5k than an HVX. Every small in perfection is magnified in a theater projection.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he read it, as his post doesn't seem to contradict anything you posted.

Resolution is only part of the equation for projection. Odds are the highest res they can project is 1080, so the actual projected pixel for pixel difference between something shot at 1080 or shot at 4K (Not 5K, unless you are waiting for the Epic) is non-existent because you will have to down res to 1080 for your master.

Lattitude is a different story.

As far as small imperfections, they show up far more readily the higher the resolution.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from shooting on the RED. It's a great camera, and I have used it before and will use it again. But it's just a tool in the toolbox, and not nearly as important as a great script, direction, performance, lighting, audio and production design.
 
I am almost positive (98% sure) they used 2k projectors last year (yes, I am fully aware that it is only slightly larger than 1080), which makes little to no difference.
Jim, those are the most important tools absolutely, however a RED is in the cards at little to no cost to his group.

I think this thread was just simply a checking to making sure someone wasn't forgetting something, and became very intensely about cameras and resolution. Now I know threads will turn into what they will, but just coming at someone for seeking advice (this being the way it seems to me) is a bit absurd.
 
I watched that case study about "The Tribe" (That Zak mentioned in anther thread) and she ( Tiffany Shlain) mentioned something about getting paid by Festivals for screening your short ... How does that work? What is the criteria for that kind of deal?


DogDay.
 
DogDay said:
I watched that case study about "The Tribe" (That Zak mentioned in anther thread) and she ( Tiffany Shlain) mentioned something about getting paid by Festivals for screening your short ... How does that work? What is the criteria for that kind of deal?


DogDay.
Click to expand...

asserting yourself. that's it.
 
Is it, submit film and if excepted demand=charm=assert=manipulate and say what? I want money to show it (The Short) give it to me?

Don`t they have to NEED you to fork out cash? And arent they afraid that the other short film makers will get a wiff of this arrangment and also make this demand?

What could you have as leverage in that situation?


DogDay.
 
toward the end of IFHY's run, when it would get accepted, I would say "thank you, my screening fee is $100". only one festival paid it. others offered to pay toward travel expenses instead. others who legitimately had no money, said they couldn't pay it and I screened with them anyway. the value you have is they intend to make money off your work. you DESERVE a cut even if it's the exception to the rule. doesn't hurt to ask.
 
banksie312 said:
I think this thread was just simply a checking to making sure someone wasn't forgetting something, and became very intensely about cameras and resolution. Now I know threads will turn into what they will, but just coming at someone for seeking advice (this being the way it seems to me) is a bit absurd.
Click to expand...

After going back and re-reading the thread I can see how it would be taken that way. I apologize if any of my comments came across as an attack, as that was not my intention.

I just know that I have seen so many people put way more effort, time and resources into what camera (or microphone, or lights, etc) they use than the script and direction. I think that is largely because it is almost always easier to get your hands on gear than it is to write something that is really excellent. As for direction, the overwhelming majority of people who call themselves that have almost no understanding of the crafts of directing or acting. So, as a group I think we tend to compensate for those things by using better gear, thinking that is what will make the difference.

Again, I'm NOT saying that is what's being done here (lairhair states early on that script and performance are high on his priorities), I'm just trying to explain my reaction.

Then again, I've seen people take it to the other extreme as well, with equally unwatchable results.
 
Agreed 100% with Jim. We're just trying to answer the question, and not let people get off track with thinking that the equipment is going to be what makes or breaks them, and point them towards the thing that will most assist in getting them in. Getting into any worthwhile festival is never easy, getting into the biggies is nigh unto impossible. At that level, what seems to count more than anything else is the director's voice. Of course you want everything else to be as professional as possible, and better is always better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top