Can we rival the majors?

[jktress]

Hi everyone. As I was struggling to fall asleep last night, I was wondering if we were approaching an era in which ultra-low budget filmmakers could rival major studios in terms of quality.

I'm just starting out in independent filmmaking, so forgive my (probable) naivety. When I watch the footage tests coming from talented indy directors/cinematographers on the RED forums, I can't help but think the answer is a resounding yes.

I know 99.9% won't have name actors, a huge effects budget, or an international distribution deal. But as Newton and Gaspard say in the book Digital Filmmaking 101, the story is one place where we can not only rival major studios, but beat them.

So as a newcomer to this community, my question is - with determination, a great story, and a talented team, can ultra-low budget filmmakers create a movie that 'looks' and 'feels' like it was made by a major studio, and is deserving of the recognition that big budget crap often gets instead?

[Kevin Olsen]

Thankfully, that is what the advancement of technology can deliver.

Because of RED, your able to deliver cinema quality video for far less than you could 5 years earlier.

Expect the gap to narrow year by year. What will set someone apart is their creativity, not the tools.

KO

[Dances With Cameras]

We can come pretty close, I hope.

[MattN]

Money will always have the advantage, but it is definitely getting less and less. I still to this day can't believe how many people it takes to make a huge budget picture these days. I think 10 people is about the max I could handle :)

[Christoffer]

Quality this, quality that... the tool is never better then the user. I have seen stuff shot on Red One that looks like shit and it's because the filmmakers thought that the camera is the key to rival major studios.

It's all in the screenplay and directing. As for cinematography it is NEVER about the camera, it's all about lightning and the right vision. I've seen people make better stuff with their miniDV camera then many with a Red One.

So, yes, the quality of the cameras is getting cheaper, but the quality of the talant and knowledge is getting less in my view. How many people in here has ever held a lightmeter? How many people does even know the basic school for lightning?

If you don't have the knowledge (that comes with years of experience) you will never be able to rival anyone and that is a fact.

[Dances With Cameras]

Quality this, quality that... the tool is never better then the user. I have seen stuff shot on Red One that looks like shit and it's because the filmmakers thought that the camera is the key to rival major studios.

It's all in the screenplay and directing. As for cinematography it is NEVER about the camera, it's all about lightning and the right vision. I've seen people make better stuff with their miniDV camera then many with a Red One.

So, yes, the quality of the cameras is getting cheaper, but the quality of the talant and knowledge is getting less in my view. How many people in here has ever held a lightmeter? How many people does even know the basic school for lightning?

If you don't have the knowledge (that comes with years of experience) you will never be able to rival anyone and that is a fact.


100 % true.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

When so called majors came with crap with cgi make-up all over the place...

Hmmm, yes I'd say a pretty big fat red loud yes.

[Dances With Cameras]

When so called majors came with crap with cgi make-up all over the place...

Hmmm, yes I'd say a pretty big fat red loud yes.


100 % true.

:).

[Jaime Valles]

Story is everything. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[Dances With Cameras]

Story is everything. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.


100 % true.

:happyhappy:

[Tim Hole]

In content we can rival the big boys...in Marketing...not a chance in hell!

The amount of money it takes to market a film is ridiculous and I know from working in a cinema people aint gonna watch it if they aint heard of it. the only genre of film that sells tickets without prior big marketing prowess is horror. People will always watch horror. They can't get enough of it.

[Tim Hole]

Christoffer...

Thats a little video for IndiEvolution alone.

THE USE AND IMPORTANCE OF A LIGHT METER

[Cedric_Akins]

In content we can rival the big boys...in Marketing...not a chance in hell!

Also true. But creative web marketing can do huge things. I don't have any experience in this field though.

[Yannick Hagman]

Yes, story all over, but indie doesn't mean better storytellers, in fact I haven't seen or read so much brilliant indie scripts.

[MattN]

Yeah, I'd say our ratio of bad productions is right on par with the big boys, we can definitely rival them in that.

[Peter Majtan]

Good one Matt ! :D

[Yannick Hagman]

I hope. Any news on the German taxissue for your indie-venture, Peter?

[Peter Majtan]

Still waiting to hear back from the embassy - will keep You posted... :D

[Stefan Christou]

Remember the Blair Witch Project? That was low budget, picked up by a major distributer, a box office smash hit and rubbish. It proves every point made so far.

[Ameer Azari]

While the skill behind the camera is good...I can actually advance my film making by using a Scarlet and a Steadicam as oppose to my current SD Sony Handycam...

I hope to produce Internet Episodes of "The Scarlet Guild" (no joke)

[Cedric_Akins]

While the skill behind the camera is good...I can actually advance my film making by using a Scarlet and a Steadicam as oppose to my current SD Sony Handycam...

Yes that is definitely true.

I hope to produce Internet Episodes of "The Scarlet Guild" (no joke)

Can't wait to see them.:thumbsup:

[Craig Ryan]

I think the OP meant matching the quality of the footage, not the story. While the technology of Scarlet is certainly going to level the playing field in alot of ways, there are still other areas that seem to be ignored; several have been mentioned already including lighting and composition. Those are the basic tools a DP has available to him aside from the tool used to acquire the footage.

But, the other key aspect which I think really gives the big boys the edge is the fact that the DP's aren't the only ones responsible for the images we see; makeup artists, and the production design are just as important in the overall look. If your lead actor is pasty and plain looking, you might want to throw on some bronzer, and a little grease to give him some character; likewise, if you're shooting against a plain wall, you may want to get the carpenters in for some quick painting, and talk to the costume designer about spicing up his jacket collar. Basically my point is that the big boys will just always be the big boys simply because they are working with the best in the business, and to us have seemingly unlimited resources that we aren't used to.

Is it possible to match the quality of a 35mm feature Hollywood film with Scarlet? My hunch is a resounding HELL YEAH. But it's not going to be a cakewalk.

Here's another way to look at it: if you took the same exact camera system from a major Hollywood production and pointed it at YOUR OWN scene, and shot with it along side a Scarlet, my guess is that the footage would be pretty close meaning that Scarlet will probably be capable of producing what the 100k systems can, but there is no shortcut to achieving the images we see in the cineplexes.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Craig, that's a well put observation.

The "big boys" have hired professionals to think about EVERY aspect of a film, and not just money to spend on high quality camera and high quality gear.

And, better thinking... Is it really that hard to think about every aspect of a film?
We just need to start planning with this in mind and of course knowing our limitations.

[acoelho1]

If you are a talented filmmaker, your film will not only rival the majors but surpass it. Check out this short done on a HV20 that I came across. Scarlet will give us another tool in the shed to become kingmakers.

http://www.vimeo.com/1333375

[Cedric_Akins]

Damn that was really good. :) Thanks for the link acoleho1.

[Yannick Hagman]

It doesn't matter that much, apart from enhancing changes for distribution how good something looks.

What still remains are the closed down/unavailable distribution channels. It still hope that Jim not only focuses on cameras but would consider a revolutionary distribution model over Video on Demand. Such a platform should be operate on a profit by 20% of each sold film (given that the hoster could advertise his hosting services for instance). If filmmakers get 80% this would be somewhat revolutionary. Not just for films, but also for shorts and good musicvideos or series. I would have no problems paying 5$ for an HD-copy of the above short after watching it in low resolution. All that by keeping the rights in the handy of the filmmaker.

Now do your math. The filmmaker of the short stated it did cost him about 1'000$ to make (he had already most of his equipment). It would take 250 downloads to recover his expenses for this short. And probably 1000 to pay all of his equipment back (as he used worklights and an hv20).

This is similar as to how Steam works, a multiplayersite for games-on-demand. But they pay only 60% to producers of games.

[Dances With Cameras]

Why not keep the content free and let the advertisers pay the bill by putting their banner on a full-quality download page? :)

[Stefan Christou]

We pay about £7.50 in the cinema over here in the UK. I suppose that's what allows for all the big budgets. It costs about £1000 just to print each copy of the film to be shown in the Cinema so it's not easy to break in if you don't have a really commercial product.

But enough of this. In terms of picture quality we can already rival the majors, we can already surpass TV and it REALLY IS about storytelling.

In the end I think we all want to work on big budget projects, so no need to wait. Make ur film/show/doc and get it out there. U may have to work your way up, but it's a great industry. Just remember it is an industry like any other, like construction or finance or making TVs.

So make ur films for the love of the art and get a job with a production company or start your own. Just remember that a house or a car isn't all built by one person. So take help from others and work as a team to make some movies we can all enjoy.

:grouphug:

[Yannick Hagman]

Why not keep the content free and let the advertisers pay the bill by putting their banner on a full-quality download page? :)

They won't pay 5$ per download of a short.

In the end I think we all want to work on big budget projects, so no need to wait.

In commercials yes. In film no. :)

[Dances With Cameras]

They won't pay 5$ per download of a short.


Yeah, but if you reach 100 000 views\downloads, I think they [the advertisers] will happily pay something like 5 or 10 cents per view. And that is a minimum.

100 000 downloads means their ads\clips have been certainly viewed by 100 000 people. That isn`t a small deal. That is a marketing\advertising niche.

And I think it's fairly obvious that if the content is free of charge, the audience could become 10 times bigger, cause they'll have nothing to lose. Only the ads that will be flashing above the download links.

If you charge 5 $ or even 1 $, there's still a psychological barrier [payment, transaction, credit cards]. If it's free, there is none.

Do you think that youtube would be that successful if they charged 1 $ per view? No. They wouldn't even exist.

At 5 cents, you will receive 5000 $, which is not bad :), especially if your short cost 1000 $ to make. :)

At 10 cents, you get 10 000 $. :)

At 0.25 $, you get 25 000 $.

And if your short is successful, its viewcount is likely to continue rising, not stop.

Internet audience will be growing exponentially in the years to come.

The Internet will kill\absorb TV and radio as we know them.

Sometime in the future, we're looking at a situation where 1 billion people will be sitting in front of the computer, looking for nice films to watch. Or downloading shorts directly on their iPhones, while they're on their way to work. Shorts will be hot, because of iPhones and people's lack of time.

We're not there yet, but that's the direction things are going.

I have no doubt.

[fde101]

All,

The story outweighs the equipment.

A good story presented well with quality acting and directing will quickly transcend the quality of the image/effects that are used in presenting it.

While a good camera and lighting can substantially enhance a good story, they will never turn a bad story into a good movie.

[fde101]

I'd rather watch Buck Rodgers reruns than see most of the modern movies that are being made, and some of the effects are BLATANTLY obvious in that series...

For example, zooming in on a still image for an establishing shot...

(and no, I didn't need to look that one up!)