mercer

one day, but not yet. we recently licensed a micro-budget crime drama titled Down and Dangerous to Paramount for international VOD and all they are asking for is a 1080p/23.976 master. this is about as current as it gets, by the way. worldwide release date is May 18, 2015.

 

​

 

​I agree, but I didn't suggest to make a dozen different low quality films. For an indie filmmaker, who somehow has to master many if not all crafts and arts, it could be efficient to combine some of the preproduction stages that professional filmmakers use (for good reasons). To quote Mercer:

Let me explain. Usually someone has an idea for a film. He writes a synopsis, sells it, then treatments, and when those are approved, he writes a script, then another one, and so forth. Paralelly, a production designer is hired. He discusses the current script with the director and visualizes the scenes, using photos from location scouting, moodboards, paintings. Models of the sets are built (like doll houses), and the preproduction people make up their minds. Costs are being calculated, and the script is being revised again, storyboards are drawn.

One could cut corners by making a low quality version of his first temporary script at an early stage. Seeing the outcome, it would be much clearer where adjustments were needed and where improvisation brought new ideas. 

One could scrutinize the scenes take by take, decide when and why certain things are missing or should not be in the frame, make a list. Where exactly digital tricks (more time and care) could help dressing sets or where additional props were necessary to guarantee production value. Make up, costumes, light, fog (other actors) ...

And then, back to topic again, one has to know what software one really needs and what is best. Color correction only or serious grading with re-lighting and tracked masks? Greenscreen? Serious compositing? CGI? Can one master the tools he has? Do the demands of professional productions apply at all? 

Just one instance. Say, your humble goal is to publish your film on Vimeo. You shoot 8-bit, which limits your options for grading anyway. But you need to have some greenscreen compositing. For that, FCP X could be sufficient (good keyer for 8-bit, because the background colors are used with subpixel accuracy to counteract green spill instead of magenta, easy to use). 

Gunfire? Explosions? Is Hitfilm the right tool for that?

You are an AE old hand? Gratulations, you can obviously add production value on a big scale in post (where old Hitchcock, talking about Rear Windows, needed giant sets or complicated glass matte paintings). Don't know a lot about Fusion (not yet Mac-compatible).

You really are determined to enhance colors and lighting, and you therefore shoot raw or at least 10-bit log? Then of course you have to learn Resolve, in earnest. What is more, if you spent so much time for every individual clip, you can as well edit in Resolve 12, even if the (then allegedly advanced) editing tools still not reach Premiere's or FCP X's. An edit decision is nothing to be done in a hurry anyway.

 

Never heard of "contained thriller", thanks. 

Good further analysis and breakdown. 

I wish I could work with more screenwriters who really truly and deeply understand to the core what it means to make an ultra low budget movie. (because the easiest way to make budget savings is in the script!! Thus why it is so essential the scriptwriter is on board with that)

 

 

 

You're forgetting that:

1) a movie which costs millions *MUST* get fairly mass distribution so as to recoup the costs and then make a profit. Even a film which cost in the tens of thousands needs at least a certain degree of minimal market penetration. Which is no easy task, and indeed the odds are stacked against them for most. 

2) but a film which costs a few thousand, or even just a few hundred, doesn't have the same pressing needs to have such a far reach. Even just an incredibly tiny number of viewers can be sufficient to recoup the financial outlay so as to enable the filmmaker to make their next one. Mainstream distribution is no longer essential for this second category of films. 

So while going for 2) isn't everybody's cup of tea, I do understand and respect those who do choose to take that path instead. 
(but yeah.... why  not at least use lav mics instead of a camera mounted shotgun??)

 

​Perhaps you're right - but aren't those who are doing this, doing so because they are not in a position at this current point in time to be able to make bigger budget films? Isn't the end goal to be able to work with budgets that allow you to do what you want and need to be able to effectively tell the stories you want to?

If so, shouldn't you at least be attempting to make your film in a similar way, and to at least attempt to get to the same kind of standard - that is, if someone one day sees enough potential in you to give you a bigger budget, don't you want to be educated enough, and understand why exactly you're going to have to spend time micing up actors and hiring sound guys, rather than suggesting that you 'mount a mic on the camera and get close enough - I've done it heaps of times before and the audio is perfectly usable'?

Sure - if you only ever want to make small films, then fine. I was simply under the impression that people were making tiny budget films out of necessity, rather than because that's what they want to do.

​

​I was referring to your irritation, that people on this site "look down on you"  for willing to sacrifice technical perfection in order to get a film finished. Whereas I really believe this is the wrong approach, nobody is in a position to "look down on you".

 

Back on topic, which is about the distinction of professionalism on one side and amateurs (or better ambitious indie​ filmmakers) on the other. The whole purpose of this forum, as I see it, is to discuss low-budget means for not having to sacrifice technical perfection. There hadn't been many excuses twelve years ago, when people had DV-cameras with 35mm adapters and some other things. There are less excuses today. You can buy cheap equipment with high image quality, you can even rent it. A BMPC (4k raw), for instance, costs around 50 € a day in my area, if you rent it for 10 days and you are nice, you might even get it fully rigged for that. The software is *free*.  

Designing sound is a whole different chapter, but recording usable sound on low budget isn't, as Jay_Rox wrote. But there should be someone in your *team* who is responsible for that.

 

​And then there's movies like The Room which become popular because of how bad they are.....

​Yes, and then had many thousands spent on it for all sorts of post processes to actually get it to a distributable level, and then in the actual distribution.

Look at the numbers:

http://www.indiewire.com/article/sundance-2015-infographic-most-festival-films-will-land-distribution-deals-20150116

Roughly 2300 films submitted to Sundance. Of that, maybe 100 get some sort of distribution deal. The average budget is nearly $2mil - commercially viable films that just need someone to distribute them.

How many of those films that were picked up had sound from a mic that was mounted on camera? How many have crews that are in the 1-2 people range? I'm going to take a guess and say none.

I can't recall the last film that was made for <$10k with a crew of one that ended up getting picked up for mass distribution - can you? Perhaps Monsters, but then that was ~$25k + 10 times that or so to get it to a distributable level, and then distribute it...

Even Like Crazy had a $200,000 budget and a pretty large crew, despite being shot on a 7D and being a really rather simple, non-extravagant love story.

I'm happy to be proven wrong - I guess I just don't really understand the whole playing the odds of doing it all yourself - you've likely got more chance of winning the lottery; at least someone wins the lottery each week. 

​It all comes down to your goals. What if you want to make a feature? Do you want to make a feature that is able to commercially distributed, especially without needing to convince a studio to spend millions 'fixing' everything for you (especially the sound mix), or do you just want to make something that you can show to some friends, burn a few DVDs and attempt to drum up some interest online to be able to sell DVDs?

Do you want to have a better chance of making your money back quicker? Or do you want to take the risk that you may never make your money back?

It sounds like you've placed a lot of imposition on yourself. You don't want to record dual system sound, despite the fact that for ~$200 you can have a recorder and boom pole that you can have a friend hold and instantly you'll have better sound than simply sitting a mic on the camera and hoping you'll get close enough. Plug the lav into the recorder and hide the recorder in the actors clothes - makeshift wireless lav.

I can tell you that the best Directors consider sound and sound design right from the start, rather than considering it simply a 'pain in the ass'.

I don't look down upon you for doing what you feel you need to do. I just think you've unfarily impositioned yourself and by doing so, you're severely hampering your chances at major success. Now, maybe you don't want major success, and that's fine too.

All I know is I shoot a lot of different projects - and I know many filmmakers I've worked with who are trying to get noticed would rather spent $5k-$10k making a really damn good short with a simple but excellent story, great production values, a good colour grade and proper sound design and mix - send it to festivals and eventually the internet and try and sell their feature script after that... Rather than attempting to make $5k-$10k stretch for an entire feature - as they know that the feature will be mediocre at best, and the production won't be of a level that they're happy having out there as their calling card.

​It all comes down to your goals. What if you want to make a feature? Do you want to make a feature that is able to commercially distributed, especially without needing to convince a studio to spend millions 'fixing' everything for you (especially the sound mix), or do you just want to make something that you can show to some friends, burn a few DVDs and attempt to drum up some interest online to be able to sell DVDs?

Do you want to have a better chance of making your money back quicker? Or do you want to take the risk that you may never make your money back?

It sounds like you've placed a lot of imposition on yourself. You don't want to record dual system sound, despite the fact that for ~$200 you can have a recorder and boom pole that you can have a friend hold and instantly you'll have better sound than simply sitting a mic on the camera and hoping you'll get close enough. Plug the lav into the recorder and hide the recorder in the actors clothes - makeshift wireless lav.

I can tell you that the best Directors consider sound and sound design right from the start, rather than considering it simply a 'pain in the ass'.

I don't look down upon you for doing what you feel you need to do. I just think you've unfarily impositioned yourself and by doing so, you're severely hampering your chances at major success. Now, maybe you don't want major success, and that's fine too.

All I know is I shoot a lot of different projects - and I know many filmmakers I've worked with who are trying to get noticed would rather spent $5k-$10k making a really damn good short with a simple but excellent story, great production values, a good colour grade and proper sound design and mix - send it to festivals and eventually the internet and try and sell their feature script after that... Rather than attempting to make $5k-$10k stretch for an entire feature - as they know that the feature will be mediocre at best, and the production won't be of a level that they're happy having out there as their calling card.

​No worries, mercer, I take my words back too. Try not to worry what other filmmakers think, by the way, all that matters in the end is you, your film and the audience. 

 

 

​Probability says there aren't so many filmmakers around (like folks who can link to something on Vimeo or Youtube that makes people like us shut up). My EOSHD profile reads 'filmmaker', but I have no idea who labelled me so. As an avid cinema goer, I visit the screening room here regularly, and if I like something, I bookmark it. It`s a short list. Maybe you are naive to think you can top these clips, but feel free to prove the opposite.

Thank you for the kind word.

 

 

 

​FYI, there are other C-mount lenses with image circles that encompass an APS-C sensor.  Here's a review of a 25mm, f1.4, APS-C, CCTV C-mount lens of apparently decent quality.

Furthermore, the EOSM can shoot in "crop" mode, so some of the C-mount lenses with smaller image circles might work with the EOSM.  I think that both Magic Lantern and Tragic Lantern offer special cropping in raw mode.

 

 

 

​That's a good point.

 

Another great thing about the EOSM is that it is (was) cheap -- for over a one-year period, EOSMs were selling for USD$200-$250!

 

 

 

​One of the hardest things in scriptwriting is to write a good low budget film. 

 

http://www.scriptmag.com/features/alt-script-five-good-reasons-to-write-a-no-low-budget-script

 

http://www.scriptmag.com/features/alt-script-four-ways-to-control-your-scripts-budget-without-compromising-the-film

No way. In ten years, maybe you'll be able to have a rudimentary knowledge of many disciplines, if you spend the whole 10 years learning and practising your guts out. A comment like this simply shows a lack of understanding of how real feature films are made.​

At the end of the day - even if you spent 10 years focusing on, say, sound and learning how to give your film great sound - if you're going to direct it, you're going to have to give the boom to someone else who probably doesn't have that same knowledge, unless you're paying them.

Garbage in = garbage out. You can try and clean that garbage up, but if you record garbage audio, it's going to be really damn tough to be able to get audio for a full feature film that is even able to attempt to compete on the same level.

The reason feature films look and sound the way they do is because they have teams of the best professionals who have spent at least 10 years (in most cases more) perfecting their one specific craft. Even if you somehow could perfect everything to that same level, it would not take you 10 years and you're still only one man - are you going to write your own script, go and find your own locations, write up your own budget and your own contracts, design and construct everybody's costumes, special props, buy extra props you don't have, get to set, make the actors coffee and breakfast, dress the set, build any special set pieces, set up lights, setup the camera, set up a dolly, mic the actors, set up a boom somewhere, figure out some way to keep an eye on the performance, operate the camera, and ride seperate audio levels for each actor for each shot, while also pushing a dolly... Then load all the footage into your computer, do a picture edit, then compose the music, build a Dolby compliant mix stage for your sound mix, record ADR, record Foley, design the sound, mix the sound, then complete rudimentary VFX, grade the film, produce a cinema compliant DCP, purchase an Arrilaser and master to 35mm for those countries/cinemas that still exhibit in 35mm.

It's impossible - yes many lo/no budget filmmakers attempt to do this all by themselves, but there's no possible way to be able to do it all to the same level as a normal feature film, even if you spent the 10 years learning and then  easily 3-10 years actually making the film.

That's not to mention everything else involved in a film - from gettiing permits to picking up cast at the start of the day and dropping them off at the end of the day.

It's impossible. If you want to make something just to make something, then sure it's potentially achievable, but it will be unlikely to ever be at any kidn of level where it could compete with real feature films. So I guess it depends if you want to make films that are commercially viable, and in a position to be picked up at Sundance, or if you want to make films to show your friends and family.

 

​To be honest, that sounds like what you meant - 'why is there an expectation of me to produce films that are of the same level as everyone else, despite the fact that I don't have the same amount of money'.

That expectations is put on you by yourself. There is no expectation, unless you want to compete in the same level. If you were a hobby car builder, you could pull scrap parts from everywhere and fashion it into some kind of car-like contraption. But if you want to compete in the F1, you have to build a car to a certain standard - including safety features for the driver, and the ability to be able to go. You're going to need people who have more knowledge about cars than you advise you in making choices, decisions etc. about your car. 

It's fine if you don't want to compete in the F1 - but if you do, even if not today, then one day down the track - would you rather try and network with people who can help you get there? Perhaps focus on one aspect of car-making to enable you to be able to team up with other people who are good at other aspects of car-making to be able to make the best car possible to be able to compete in the F1? Or would you prefer continuing to attempt to make that car by yourself, hoping one day that a major car manufacturer will see your car at a local car show one day, or your car's pictures on the internet, and take a gamble on letting you oversee the production of their newest F1 car? 

It's up to you - you've made the choice to be a one man band, rather than honing a specific area of the craft, or teaming up with others. If that's what you want to do, then that's totally fine. But in the same way that a car competing in the race is expected to be able to start - if you want to compete in the race, you're going to have to build a car that can actually start.

If you don't want to compete in the race, then continue on.

@Jonstaf

 

Your EOSM is a great camera, and you can significantly extend its capabilities by loading Tragic Lantern onto it.

 

I use TL on my EOSM to boost the bit rate and to shoot all "I" frames with H264.  Here is an extreme test I did with the EOSM, TL and, mostly, the quirky Fujian 35mm f1.7 CCTV lens.  Although I pushed the EOSM past it's DR limits (obvious FPN and just plain old noise), note that there is significantly reduced compression artifacting.

 

Also, the strange focal plane of that c-mount Fujian 35mm really "pops" with an APS-C camera, such as the EOSM.  Here is a better example of the Fujian's wonkiness on an EOSM (shot by maxotics).

 

Other great things about the EOSM line, is that there is a focal reducer for it that gives almost a 1:1 crop factor (in addition to extra brightness) and that there are tilt and tilt-shift adapters for it, if one desires interesting focus effects or if one merely wants to Scheimpflug.  Of course, with the shallow flange-focal distance of the EF-M mount, there are zillions of lenses that can be adapted to the EOSM.

 

To me, it is sometimes more valuable than 4K and high dynamic range to have the TL build combined with the ability to use these special attachments and a huge variety of lenses.