mercer

I just don't understand where some people believe there is negativity because someone writes a post that states, "you don't need a new camera?" Oh the travesty. How dare he!?

I would imagine, especially with VOD, that the cheaper it can be made the better, so if you can get away with good 1080p then that should be good. I assume there isn't much money in VOD anymore, the last I read, you're lucky to make 5 grand off a Netflix deal? Is that true?

Zak, assume I make a microbudget, horror movie that I am proud of, what is the best way to get it into the hands of distributors? I know festivals used to be the best way, but now with such a crowded field and since I have heard that some films already have distribution before they even hit the festival circuit. Also, is there a market for screenplay sales on a microbudget, VOD level? Thanks.

I think the point of this post is very simple... It is very easy to get sucked into the next best thing, especially during this digital revolution but there are cheap cameras available to the masses that are more than capable, tech-wise, to make a great film. A good filmmaker can make a great movie on a low end camera, and a bad filmmaker can make a bad movie on an Alexa.

I thought Ed's video looked great. I wasn't fond of the music choice, with the imagery, but that style is very en vogue right now so I get it. However, I do wonder how this video would play with different music. I would love to see if laying Carmina Burana or some strange Omen choral music over top of the track would give a more debauchery feel to the "fun" images.

The fz1000 would get my vote over the lx100 for the simple reason of mic input with manual audio controls. The shure sounds great, I'll have to check that out.

Looks great.

I think this idea is interesting. As you said, it's about making a rough draft first and then analyzing what works. This is kinda my plan. Except my intent is to shoot a short version of a feature, or a short that ends at the 1st act plot point. If the footage is good and the idea has legs, then it can be expanded or even reshot into a feature. I may realize it works great as a short, who knows? I recently was out shooting a lens test for my newly acquired Minolta MC 35mm 1.8... A lens I have been lusting over for months and months and months. Anyway, while out shooting and testing, the normal ubiquitous shots, I had an idea for a weird rack focus shot. It looked cool. Later when I was looking at the footage and started editing it, I felt it needed some other shots, just to add a little tension in between. After thinking about that, I thought of a story that may fit into the confines of that location and those shots. Now, due to a simple lens test, I have an idea for a little short. But that short could also be the prologue to a feature. I'm writing the script now and hope to have it shot by the end of the month. so, we'll see. I could end up with the beginning of a feature, it could be a cool little short I enter into some festivals, or maybe it will be a good installment for a web series? The point is that sometimes you need to explore an idea to see if it has potential. And maybe various drafts/versions of an indie film isn't a bad idea. I've said this before, making movies is hard, it is like trying to move a mountain with every damn thing you attempt.... Sometimes you have to accept the realistic limitations of what you have, other times you fight tooth and nail to get the shot/scene/film exactly how you envision it. And sometimes, you just realize the material or product isn't working and you either have to start from scratch, or tweak where needed, or just scratch it altogether. If I were to put together all the screenplay ideas I scrapped after being 10, 15, sometimes 30 pages in... I would probably have 3 or 4 extra scripts... Albeit nonsensical ones.

Hey Ironfilm, contained thrillers are a great story device for indie film. Budgetary concerns are born into the concept. Saw is a modern example of this, but one of the earlier examples is Rear Window. If you can create a taut, riveting thriller idea, set in one room, or one house, or a subway car, or a school bus, or whatever you have access to... You could be well on your way to a successful indie film concept. I think no film school may have an article about the contained thriller if you google it. I've been reading a little about Joe Swanberg, a director that came to rise during the Mumblecore movement of the mid '00s. He used an hd video camera with xlr inputs and a shotgun mic... Probably an eng mic I assume. Anyway, he was a darling at SXSW film festival for years and would debut his movies there every year. In the past decade he has made something like 20 movies. He made them as cheap as he could, sometimes using his apartment as the major set. Since the distribution model for indie films has so drastically changed since the death of the video store and the emergence of Netflix, the direct to video possibilities, although still available, aren't as lucrative as they once were. Swanberg uses a quantity model, his 20 movies may make him a couple grand a month each, so with his catalog of films he has been pulling in about 500 grand a year. Of course, you need material and a fan base for his model to truly work and now he makes Hollywood films. Now I am getting a whole lot of flack for this shotgun mic method... as if I am the first and only person to conceive such a thing. I mean, the Rode Mic is designed for such an application. Surely someone must be using it? Another consideration is this... I have a zoom h2n, I could easily lav an actor with it. Or attach it to a boom pole with a good condenser mic. But the hardest part I have found with making movies, with no budget, is scheduling. It is difficult to get all the actors you need to film a scene together on the same day and same time, so much so, that it's sometimes necessary to film their sides separately. So it is equally hard to get a few hands to help with sound. I have heard decent, usable sound with a Rode mic plugged into the camera. Also, it saves a ton of time in post. Now this topic, at its heart, is about pro vs amateur. Pros don't use zooms. Pros have a sound mixer on set. Pros have a dedicated boom pole operator that is trained in the exact proper placement of the mic and how to track with actors. And then a good percentage of the time, those tracks aren't used anyway and they ADR the dialogue in studio. So, is this a discussion on kinda pro vs amateur? BTW, my mic rant isn't really directed at you... It's just easier, from my phone, to type this all in one comment and it isn't solely about sound, some posters just want to grasp onto that one idea. My argument has been that to make no budget films, the filmmaker has to make sacrifices. But in realizing that indie filmmakers come from the many disciplines of the process, certain time saving, or money saving, necessities will be different for each filmmaker. I am a screenwriter first, and a visualist second. For me, sound is way down on the list. For others, the list may be different and sound may be number 1 or 2.

Is that what you took from our discussion?

Axel, I honestly don't care if they do or don't look down on me, I just find it curious why people care. Now Jay said he was being helpful, maybe I am naive but I try to take what people say at face value, if he says he is trying to be helpful, then who am I to say he isn't. But I agree let's get back on topic. You are right we have many options to shoot with. Rental is always an option and an inexpensive one if you're working with a scheduled shoot. I would rather own a lesser camera and have the freedom that affords. As you know, it isn't always easy to get actors together. When you own the camera, you have the flexibility for scheduling. You also have the flexibility to do b shots, insert shots, etc... On your own time. Obviously, money is an important factor in amateur vs professional but time is just as important. When I was a younger man and my father was teaching me carpentry, he would tell me I was wasting time doing something a certain way and I thought... I have all the time in the world... It wasn't until I was older that I realized time is money... Time is a commodity. So, what can a filmmaker cut to save time while not sacrificing quality? I can only speak for myself and for me it requires developing projects that fit a certain paradigm. 1. Few locations, but great locations. If you can steal a location, guerrilla style, to add a little production value... Do it. It's better to get the footage and be scolded, then ask permission and be told no. If you can shoot the scene outside, shoot it outside. 2. A small cast with little dialogue. Film is a visual medium anyway plus this rule solves two problems... The small cast alleviates potential scheduling conflicts. Little dialogue frees the audio production while allowing beginner actors, which I can afford, the ability to really nail their character and dialogue. No monologues and little exposition. Those are really the only rules I put upon myself when conceiving an idea. But to make myself clear this all theoretical because I have never made a feature film. I am a screenwriter first and although I understand the filmmaking process, I only recently decided to make a film. To Be Continued: Necessary Equipment.

Like Ed Wood said, you don't like this one, wait until you see my next film. Paraphrasing.

Yeah, if there was a paint by numbers method of making a successful indie film, we would all have movie deals by now. Look at the Mumblecore movement. Swanberg makes his features for about a grand and he was the darling of sxsw for years. I don't love his films but the man figured out a way to have successful festival showings... Could be the full frontal by all his cast members though.

You can't really use Sundance as a metric for true indie films. Very few true indie films go to Sundance. It's not like it was 20 years ago. And I am not arguing with you, I think people should spend their time and money however they want. If they want to spend 10 grand on a short film... By all means. More power to them. If I want to spend 10 grand on a feature... More power to me. In the end I think story will prevail over technical perfection. But if I had the means, I would choose both.

But you make some good points and worth thinking about. Btw, have you heard of the recently released horror movie called Memory Lane? If not, Google it, the guy made it for 300 bucks. The reviews say the best thing about the movie is the story. The sound and mix is supposedly horrible. The acting is adequate but the visual style and writing propelled this movie to being released and got him an agent and a movie deal. Just something to think about.

Yes, the short vs. feature argument. I know it all to well. Back in the 70s and 80s directors made shorts to promote themselves, usually USC, or UCLA students who utilized their situation to develop a "calling card" short. In the 90s when I first became interested in filmmaking, it wasn't in fashion to make a short, or go to film school... You used that money to make a feature. Making any movie is hard work, akin to moving mountains... The thought process was why should I spend a crap load of money and time on a short, when I can spend a crap load of money and time on a feature. Remember El Mariachi was shot for 7000 bucks and that was shot on 16mm film. So, I think I am still in that mindset. But distribution channels have changed, so the short film has once again become a viable way to market yourself.

I watched that Rodriguez video a long time ago. I should watch it every day. Thanks for posting it.

Thanks mtheory. I don't. Obviously, I didn't go to film school. In fact, I haven't made much for the amount of time I have been self schooling. I come from a screenwriting background, only the past year or two have I seriously considered directing something. I have a lot to learn and a lot of bad footage to shoot. But movies are my life and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the process with others.

Axel, sorry but I think something is lost in translation. Correct me if I am wrong but I thought we were arguing the same point? Unless, I misunderstood your comment. If so, sorry.

Yeah, I actually have that 25mm aps-c lens. I used it in my nex a bunch but haven't tried it my eos-m yet. And I can confirm it is a nice little lens. I like it better than the Fujian. It has a more clinical look as opposed to the dreaminess the Fujian often renders. And yes I got in on that deal... I think I paid $190 for my eos-m body. Best 200 bucks I ever spent. Now if only I was smart enough to buy the BMPCC when it was 500 bucks last year.

This is an excellent point. Back in the 90's when there was a big indie movement, you would specifically design your story around one or two locations. Today, the concept still exists, and in fact, was very popular a few years ago as the "contained thriller." But in the 90s, most indie filmmakers were still shooting 16mm, and even if you used short ends, the cost was enormous. Now with the simplicity and availability of digital, the restrictions are less, but you still need access to locations... which a lot of people don't have. So, you have to design your script around the locations you have accessible to you. IMO, you also want to write a script with the least amount of dialogue possible... good actors are hard to come by, sound is a pain in the ass, and writing quality dialogue is a craft in and of itself. So, you're left with a story with few locations, a small cast and little dialogue, which is why horror has always been such a popular genre amongst indie filmmakers. Well, that and the marketability of horror without needing known stars to sell tickets in fact, having a big name star can hurt a horror film. It can take the visceral feeling away from the project because Tom Hanks, or whoever, is starring in it. But sometimes limitations can spur the most creativity. If you were told you had to create a story that takes place in one location and has 5 or less actors. What could you come up with? To take it a step further, add specific props that would have to be used. You would be surprised what a creative person could come up with.

Mtheory, first I want to apologize. My comment was unclear and it was rude and immature of me to suggest you couldn't read. Yes, you can make a short. Obviously. But what if you want to make a feature? My point is that a filmmaker does not need to follow every filmmaking method the pros do to make a good product. For instance, I don't record double sound. It is too time consuming of a process and requires extra crew I don't have access too. So, I mount a shotgun mic on the top of my camera, or cage, or sometimes just plug a lav directly into the camera, sometimes through a preamp. And I make sure I do a couple takes as close as I can to the actor. Is it as good as double sound, obviously not, but I usually get a decent track that is usable and if not... ADR... Which is what Hollywood does the majority of the time. So, I think the original point I was trying to make is that, for me, as a no budget filmmaker, I have to make sacrifices where I can that will have the least amount of impact on the overall product. I thought a lot of indie filmmakers do this, but the more I read this site, I realize I am definitely in the minority. But what I find amazing is how much a lot of filmmaker's look down on me for that.

First off, sorry about all the quotes, kind of new here and I have no idea how to quote specific parts of people's comments. Thank you Axel, this is very close to my original point. I'll use the BMPCC as my example. When that camera came out I was excited to see the feature films that were going to be made by low budget filmmakers. I am so low budget, I couldn't even afford it when it first came out, but I was very interested to hear filmmaker's experience with the camera. When I went over to the forums and read that people are rigging up this camera with rails, and matte boxes, and follow focus machines, and screens. What? The camera is called a Pocket Camera, it is designed to look like a consumer camera. Why in God's name would someone rig up that camera? Imagine the possibilities of taking a legitimate cinema camera into a restaurant, or a bar, or a hospital... And people think you are holding a point and shoot? Your production value would rise incredibly. I don't own the camera but I now understand that it needs stability to function well, but do you really need a full, professional rig, for every scenario? We, as filmmakers, are in such an amazing time with this digital revolution. A cheap, consumer camera can be used to make a very good looking movie. I mean Blair Witch was partially shot on a Hi-8 video camera ... Surely a better film could be made with this new technology. But if you're going to hold stringently to how the pros do it, you probably will fail? So what do you do, if you have little money, little crew but a big desire to make a movie, with a good concept and a great script, or vice versa? To Be Continued

I think my point is still being misconstrued. Obviously, I am not making myself clear enough.

Hey tupp, maybe it's your subject but I didn't notice the artifacts. I think it looks great. Hmm. I really may have to give ML/TL a go. How is the focus peaking with it? I also have a NEX and the focus peaking really is great with manual vintage lenses, but I just like the iq of the eos-m much better and I need to raise some money, so the NEX must go.