HelsinkiZim

wait, what's this?!?!?

actually, on opening weekend, most of the ticket for major and mini-major studio titles goes to the distributor. the longer a film plays, the more the cut swings in the theater's favor. This is why concessions are priced so high. The theater isn't making much on new titles so they have to make up for it in popcorn sales.

wow kewlll!!!!
its coming this year i swear. ill send u a link 
great link, ive been there before but havent spent enough time. this is going in my queue 
lolol ???????
so true
and the ppl who lift stuff from fine art usually look like geniuses to their peers because no one knows the source material
hellz yeah 
for people who have never seen stuff like this before, you should definitely check it out, as filmmakers it might broaden your horizons, in a good way~! the cremaster cycle is kinda like taking dmt in relation to filmmaking (only it lasts way, waaay longer lol)
the thing that amazes me the most about contemporary artists is how unique each respective practice is  
i like bill a lot.
on a personal level, ive been disappointed in the relative reluctance of collectors to embrace video, as they do other media.
i hate to say it, but rich old [white] people want a jeff koons sculpture in their backyard. when it comes to satisfying that need.... ::sigh:: even i have to give jeff credit
i am seriously a terrible resource for this its kind of embarrassing. the truth is, i havent been paying too much attention to the fine art world for the last 5 years or so, ive been learning everything i can about dealing with hollywood and commercial filmmaking
in general, fine artists are terrible at being a community. we tend to not get along well with each other, and we spend a lot of time alone. tbh its very competitive
when i first got into filmmaking i breathed a sigh of relief... its a much more welcoming environment believe it or not. in filmmaking theres this idea of a team, and we all need each other, no one does this stuff alone~!
graduate film students all help each other, while graduate fine art students all hate each other lol

omg ?

 
> seriously tho, Zak is one of the most GENEROUS filmmakers on all of the internets, and his insight is exceptionally valuable because of how goddam talented he is
i WISH i had a team like Zak does. invaluable. i would feel like "this movie [im making] is gonna be amazing we're gonna make a lot of money" instead of "?????!!!!"
lastly, purely in terms of business models, Down and Dangerous is a fantastically educational case study, thanks to the fact that Zak has graciously shared so much information about his process. the trailer itself is so professional it transcends any perception of low budget filmmaking. if i saw the trailer for D&D on television during a commercial break on fox in 2016 it would never occur to me that it didnt belong there. clearly paramount pictures feels the same way
so, fyi: Zak Forsman isnt some jabroni, hes an awesome dude*. thanks for the inspiration, Zak
*and ruggedly handsome i might add

This is officially off topic for all but Kaylee, but-
I would love to see some of your work, do you have anything online?
One of the biggest disappointments for me is not having watched enough video art work at my time at SAIC. Their video data bank probably could be the worlds largest source of inspiration for creative video producers, period. http://www.vdb.org/
Advertising agencies know this, but not many others follow video artists as much as they should. http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160205-when-ads-go-too-far
I remember spending hours in the video data bank screening room (circa 1998) watching Mathew Barney, Sadie Benning, Vito Acconci, and a host of other video artists and being blown away. Although I never really fully explored the creative side of video, and went into corporate and events (weddings), it really was a exciting time in my life making video art and analysing pieces with my peers.
The last artist I remember going mainstream was Bill Viola. I went to his exhibit and it was a whole world devoted to his weird and wonderful snippets, all projected onto walls, canvases, cloth and floors. I would love to experience something like that again. Are their other artists I should look into that are currently doing interesting work besides yourself?
Are there any forums or communities where video artists commune online? if so could you send me some links?
 

around the time of the release of the movie, the total seeds for all the torrents i could find was just over 10,000. i don't know how high it got. The Turkish YouTube upload had just crossed 100,000 views when i discovered it (it had been up for more than a month). A torrent was also likely used to make bootleg Blu-rays that one of my actors found in Hong Kong.
ps - fuck you, you belittling asshole.
 

thank you for your thoughts, thats very insightful commentary, since that is essentially exactly what im doing
my work is kind of like the cremaster cycle, but watchable and entertaining
theres a huge emphasis on important live events that drive my story... and that content will be available online for free
and theres all kinds of stuff in my art practice – from big drawings to sculptures and installations. so in theory one of my shows is gonna have all that stuff. and youre gonna be entertained by some kind of "show"
thats kind of the big idea in the abstract 
if theres one thing that never ceases to amaze me its how endless the audience seems for people willing to PAY for porn
kink.com is an example, and theyre considered p mainstream now, i mean theyre a huge company. my friend just did a scene for them not too long ago and she told me some of their numbers its insane
like, have you ever heard of myfreecams? its a site where you can watch for free or tip the performers
its an option. its the same thing if you watch it for free
however tipping allows you to be interactive and... idk people love it. i know a girl who made like $130k in 3-4 months on that site and selling her own homemade webcam videos through manyvids or a site like that. now mind you she did this by first spending several years amassing a huge audience of 100k+ tumblr followers, giving them FREE content all the time. ...but would people pay for it? especially when it was free the week before? clearly in her case the answer was YES. she paid for 4 years of college in a few months, but it was after years of audience building, and frankly spending a ton of time being interactive with her fans.  it worked like a charm, but shes p smart, thats my point: she planned all this out. thats what we can all learn from. the planning lol
but i digress

Certainly pros need to work in the specialized minutiae and hone their craft, but I do think it's a bit silly when a naive hobbyist with a t2i tries to shoot raw with expensive lenses, and then attempts to apply advanced LUT's to footage --when they can't even yet figure out how to point a light in a meaningful way, frame an interesting composition, or structure a story with any compelling cohesion.
I guess it's just easier to be technical than creative.
Well, I don't 'guess' in my case, anyway.  I know it is for a fact.
 

I'll play! I say something in the toddler zone. Am I warm or way off?
My kid is 2 and I am constantly amazed at the ingenuity of some of you youtubers when it comes to kids videos. A video of a person opening surprise eggs to reveal toys has 223,181,749 views in less than one year. 
Anyways, thank you for your response. I think it sheds light on some other areas of video that people sometimes feel intimidated to explore. For some its easier to imagine making a creative short as creatives are naturally introverted and prefer to work without criticism until final delivery. that kind of continual dialogue with your audience, with comments, instant view counts to measure success and such would shut most people down. But it actuality may be even harder to crack the mainstream path than 'selling out' by following the whims of the audience.

I do think the model will change (is changing), but let's not forget that Louis C.K. earned the luxury of being able to thrive on the vanguard of this new model simply because he established his credentials in the old model.
On the other hand, it's proven that mass media is possible with youtube.

I've managed to build secondary income from YouTube. If I continue to grow at the same rate, I'll out earn my day job in a few years. It's taken over two years (started in Jan 2014.) Managed to do it without running a single ad on my channel.
Is it what I originally set out to do? Nope. But I learned to pivot and "sell out". My first few ideas were idealistic. But they had no market. Totally unviable projects. You have pander, especially to your strengths. I realized an opportunity and exploited it for gain.
The experience has made me humble to be honest. When I hear or read someone's idea, I hope they succeed. There's nothing like grinding out a win. That said, my experience has made me shrewd. I am very critical of my own ideas. I very rarely entertain things that I'm interested in. Instead, I consider projects that know I can outcompete others at. I still expect to fail, but everything I do is so thought out. The work isn't fun, earning the revenue is what I like now.
Business income is damn sweet too. Camera gear, computer hardware and other things can be written off. The money is burning a hole in my bank account, if I don't spend it, I hit a higher tax bracket.
---
As an aside, I started out in video doing real estate spots. High end stuff. Know a few realtors. I shot HDR style for a unique look. Also aped some strobe-like compositing with a motorized slider and head. Was able to do multiple takes and stitch the video together. I burned out after a year of working whenever I had spare time.
Used the earned cash to start a studio. Hit YouTube with a sorta of video pinup girl channel. Stupidly used big IP. Quickly got slapped with a C&D notice. (Don't fuck with big corps, especially if your selling your take on their TDs.)
Sulked. Raged. Considered selling my gear. Learned about monetization. Did some research and found an epic opportunity. Spent a lot of cash up front and slooowly began to earn.

We forget that these days. These cameras are all powerful tools. We dwell in minutiae.

We forget that these days. These cameras are all powerful tools. We dwell in minutiae.

Someone on Quora pointed me to this site https://www.vhx.tv/ maybe its the one you are talking about?
But I still think you would be better off self publishing. I just saw this article today about ebook self publishing and think it holds true to video http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35482345
 
 

i just finished watching the first 2 episodes of Louis C.K.’s new web series. It took a few minutes to adjust to the lower production values and the theater-esque set pieces. But after a while, I was blown away by the powerful acting and at times it was really funny, laugh out loud funny - but also very thought provoking. We throw these accolades around in our industry and he didn’t come up with Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, but Louis C.K. is a bit of a genius.
However, what I think that is important about this show is the business model. Its not new, but I argue it is the most high profile shunning of the establishment thus far in TV.
1. He is filming it week by week.
2. He is paying for it out of his own pocket.
3. He is delivering the content solely on his website in a very simple manner. We all forget that movies don’t have to be ‘hosted’ and ‘streamed’ by some holy authority. We were all wrapping videos in QuickTime containers in 2007, and our only concern was bandwidth, which is dead cheap now. Put up a paywall like any other low cost digital product and voila! You have your very own netfilx. But you have all the power... for niche products... i'll explain:
Over Christmas I became convinced that I see no reason why a filmmaker cannot successfully create a film or web series and distribute it themselves for a small profit with consistent Roi. By successful, I mean recoup the funds of production and make a modest profit. But the more I talked to people, I was given multiple reasons why this would not work. Mostly it was about the difficulty in building a fan base. Louis has a fan base, so he may not need to aggressively market. but I know a lot of internet marketers that have developed fanbases (mailing lists, facebook fans, etc) out of thin air in a couple of weeks/ months - selling MLM garbage.
But I read this article on why most online video distribution companies will fail, and it stresses that filmmakers do not think like IMers and internet marketers do not think like filmmakers. http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2015/02/08/why-most-online-video-companies-will-fail/
I carried on turning it over in my mind and I am still convinced this would work. I really think that if you took a step away from your project as a creative and put on the cap of an (aggressive) internet marketer, you could build an audience cheaply and effectively.
What if creativity is everything, but a well executed sales campaign is just as important. But not a Hollywood campaign, with thumping trailers and mass distribution, but a down and dirty online marketing campaign that only some of you that have tried affiliate/ digital product marketing and SEO over the past 10 years can understand. If you think about it from the audiences perspective, video content is becoming a commodity product and audiences do not care where it comes from as long as it trends to free.
First I would make a web series/ film that targeted a specific niche where people spend money on digital products (the list is endless for niches but something like weight loss, horse racing, swing dancing, get rich quick, etrading... looking at amazon kindle bestsellers in specific subjects is a good way to research niches - go to google adwords and see how many people look up those keywords per month etc). One theme or more would play heavily in the script in the form of a character, cinematic universe or plot device.  
Then I would market the show to that niche traffic (audience) that would lead them into a ‘sales funnel’ that would be unique to the project, but traditional in the IM marketing methods. The funnel would include landing pages to capture emails and I would split testing everything - video content, headers, titles, banners, logos, calls to actions, copy, etc. I would then create a automated email campaign that would build everyone joining the list into a frenzy (behind the scenes stuff, ‘virtual’ emails from the characters, solicited reviews… whatever gets people involved - the goal is to wear both hats as filmmaker and salesman). Apart form the usual social marketing (accounts, posts, free pr releases, blog, articles, seo) I would buy mobile ad views for apps and mobile sites related to the niche, banner ads on related forums and blogs. Split testing all the time, building the list of subscribers who get sent into the email funnel. I would also play a bit with Facebook ads and Adwords to see how they perform. You would think this all costs a lot, but I ran these kind of campaigns and if they are targeted the costs are minimal, for example, as compared to hiring a Red or Arri kit for 2 days. You can test every platform (with maybe a couple of angles) for under 500 bucks on mobile, adwords and facebook to see whats working in different continents, countries, cities... testing tweaking and rolling with angles that stick.
Then I would release the episodes over time, keeping people on my list updated and interested, or have a big release day with the usual 24/ 48/ 72 hours until offer disappears stuff (with timer). I would host everything myself, no need to split costs with anyone else but the merchant service provider - put the stream or download link behind a paywall or email it out as a direct link.
Some IM guys with a loyal list that they promote actual junk to can close on 10% of their list if they have a good funnel. If its an extremely targeted list, even more. Sooo, if you built a small list of 200 loyal subscribers worldwide, and 20 (10%) people of that bought your film/ series for 10 bucks - thats 4 000 bucks you could count on. I imagine you would have probably spent at most a 1 000 in getting impressions or clicks in that niche, so you make 3 000. That is being conservative, it should not be a problem to build at least 10 000 subscribers in a large and popular niche spending around 3 000 in impressions and clicks. I don’t think this method would ever make tons of money, but why wouldn’t it be possible to make 100 000 with a viral series that is marketed well COMPLETELY BY YOURSELF, or perhaps even with a few top affiliates who know what they are doing.
Sorry for the long post but it is an exciting thought for me from a business perspective and I hope some of you actually give me your 2 cents and tell me if the notion is ridiculous or worth being tested out. I don't create narrative content so I can't try it, but I would definitely invest my own money to promote someones video if it fit the criteria. It would be a safer bet than most other stuff I spend money on when it comes to gear and Roi.
Anyways, I know most ideas are nothing without effective execution, and most of my business ideas suffer from all kinds of biases - but I was wondering if anyone has tried this out yet? How did it go?
If not, what's stopping you?

Yes, this is very interesting. I have a couple ideas for horror web series that a model like this would be perfect for. A friend of mine told me a about a site (I can't remember the name) where you advertise and possibly host your series and you can leverage episode frequencies with how many views you receive. So if you get a loyal fan base of 25 people. For episode 3 (or whatever) you announce you will not air episode 4 until you get 50 views. Due to the way the site works, the new views has to be from different people. Obviously, the idea is that you want to use word of mouth of fans to help generate more fans. By holding back episodes until you get more views, you can essentially get a bigger fan base and the loyal viewers are more than happy to help. 
Interesting stuff this world wide webs. 

Mostly pictures of people pretending to be happy and eating food 

Here it is!
We recorded hdmi 8-bit 4:2:2 out of it and went to the odyssey
 
 
skin tones overall are nice!  and stabilization is amazing.
 The camera was interesting to use - especially considering that it's a 200 ASA camera and has moire and dynamic range challenges - sometimes this is interesting to have to maximize something with limitations. It's difficult, but I guess it disciplines you.

Gravity was terrible.  The first 15 minutes were mind-blowing, the rest was a train-wreck.  George Clooney comes back as a Ghost to help keep Sandra Bullock alive?  Is that a plotline out of a soap opera?
I think the film was supposed to have a different cast, but took so long to make, it was compromised.
Another film recently that was a complete mess was Joy.  
I think directors who pump out films too fast make stinkers.  Innaurtu had Birdman, which is amazing, and David O has been pumping out beautiful films really frequently.
I haven't seen Reverent, but the trailer puts me off.  I don't know why - I'm not a fan of the look.  Feels digital.  Wish it was shot on film.  

I am sure there may be a day when I look at The Tree of Life and it speaks to me in ways I could not imagine right now. But right now I preferred Badlands. I was at the School of the Art Institute Chicago and it was the first Hollywood film I was asked to truly 'look at' by our screenwriting teacher. I think it is considerable to, er, consider context when viewing a film. If that film had been Tree of Life, it probably would have been my Mallick fave.
The argument I am throwing out there is this:
Is there a trend in Hollywood towards auteurism, whereby substance is being sidelined for technique?
I don't know, I am just noticing a few Oscar voted films that were nominated for spectacle. Thats not neccisarilly a bad thing, but is this Hollywoods response to the digital age? Its like an anti-CGI. All technique. Like the DOP is saying, 'ok, imitate this bitch!'.
In this regard I am generalising, because I am only thinking of the Revenant and Gravity, but to me they feel similar in how they got the publics opinion.

Does anyone see correlations with Gravity? Technically beautiful, loads of awards... forgotten.
I liked the film, but it wasn't a real film experience, given the heavy subtext I viewed it with. I felt obliged to love it because, you know, I'm just suppose ta. I actually loved it before I saw it. Like a Tarantino movie, and I love his films. But I sometimes feel pressured to be able to quote stuff or talk in detail about shots and scenes. His films, to me, aren't that kind of inspiring.
I like Star Wars. It was fun, and I was entertained. I did also have a hollow feeling, but I get that from Abams films. They are kind of satisfyingly revisionist and twisty, but leave you feeling like you have eaten too much candy. Hard to explain...
Maybe its just taste, I like thrillers, twists and turns. I just watched Results and I had more fun laughing at Guy Pearce than I did being reflective about the Revenant.
Its a movie, I never intended to be a cinematographer, so I kind of just wanted a good story. But I find that I prefer a lot of other revenge movies more (Old Boy, True Grit, Bone Tomahawk, Unforgiven....). For nature survival stuff I watch Bear Grylls. Shoot me. (Edit: The Edge with Hopkins and Baldwin was awsomeness!)
For bear attacks I get my fix with Grizzly Man by Herzog, or Youtube. CGI stuff doesn't feel real to me, ever.
I watched all the vlogs for the Hobbit movies and I find it strange that the director is in control of absolutely everything, until they hand the film over to CGI. Then a bunch of folks (young dudes) seem to make all the decisions about what seems real or gross or scary, and Jackson just kinda signs off on it if he likes it. But no one was pushing them to push themselves. It was like they sent the movie to compositing like they send an actor to make up. To me everything CGI has looked the same since forever... but better than the Matrix trilogies. I digress...
Just my 2c.
... and I actually worked with a director who has recently worked with DiCaprio, so I am bias towards his movies because I feel some kind of 15 degrees of separation. AND my boss at BBC Storyville went to dinner with him to discuss his environmental work. I asked him what he was like and he said he was 'simply charming!'. Even given this... The Revenant was nice, but forgettable. To me.

I bought into the gimbal hype and the footage looks like it was shot by the terminator.
its good if you want to follow or circle something with a quickish walk/run. But all other shots are better on shoulder or with a tripod.
 
About saturation... yeah, I was watching some vlogs, Casey Neistat, and it suddenly occurred to me that the Canon footage is actually more enjoyable to watch these days because it is so refreshing. Not that I don't get a little bit peeved at the sheer vacancy of brain stimulation in most vlogs, but I enjoy the saturated look. I can dig it. Plug n play.

Another reason Teal/Orange works well is that its a natural occuring color from real life. If I look out my window about 3h from now it will be Teal/Orange.
In other words, even if its an artifical look in most scenes the brain wont dismiss it as "unreal" since it at least can look like that sometimes.
Thats why the grade in Matrix when they are inside the Matrix enhanced the "artificial" feel.

Teal/Orange is very popular right now, but it actually has been used for a long time. It adds the ultimate in color contrast with orange hues for skin and teal hues for backgrounds/shadows. Another reason it's effective is that blue in a background creates the illusion of distance when orange/red is in the foreground. If you reverse it, and have orange/red in the background with a blue/teal foreground the distance appears shorter.

No.
It's orange/teal grading, which by a popular philosophy optimizes the color contrast and heightens overall clarity of the image. Background is, that when you grade perfect and vivid skintones (which is really very easy with BM footage, as well in ProRes as in raw of course), turquois is the contrasting color, the opposite on the color wheel.
This can be done with GH4 and A7s as well, only that both (particularly the Sony) can't capture this range of skintones in the first place, so it will never look that good.