HDNet to go 4K [Archive]

TimothyD

05-14-2007, 08:47 AM

The big question is, if we can't get displays that show us the 4k we are editing (yet), what is the likelihood that consumers will be buying 4k TV sets in X amount of years to make the venture worthwhile?

I would have been more/just as excited to just know that HDnet was buying a bunch of Red One's for shooting their HD content, trying to plan to broadcast 4k seems like a pipe-dream to me. But hey, maybe someone here knows more than me about this? But I for one can't imagine consumers who have been so slooooow to buy HD sets coming out of pocket for new 4k sets...

Not trying to rain on the parade here, just trying to figure out how this would even be possible...

Tim

martinnoweck

05-14-2007, 08:51 AM

still possible to downrez to 2k or 1080p and keep the 4k "masters" for later?

martin

donatello b

05-14-2007, 09:03 AM

remember Mark C owns Landmark theaters which had placed a large order of sony 4k projectors a year ago ...
when RED showed reservation holders 4k clips last fall in LA it was at a Landmark theater on 4k projector ...

remember REDs "4k to anything" ...

Billy Summers

05-14-2007, 09:42 AM

4k really is emerging as the digital 35mm...

TimothyD

05-14-2007, 10:10 AM

I don't have any doubt that dowrezzing 4k is going to be a great way to have beautiful HD, I just wonder how they could broadcast 4k and what poeple would watch it on.

To me it seems likely that people will be watching 4k video on computers long before they do on TV sets.

Tim

Craig Schober

05-14-2007, 10:18 AM

To me it seems likely that people will be watching 4k video on computers long before they do on TV sets.

Tim

well if they're already getting all the 4k data over cable and viewing on a computer monitor that doubles as a tv set, are they really that much different? seems that all you need is a little box to convert the data if that "box" wasn't already built into the tv monitor.

TimothyD

05-14-2007, 10:25 AM

Michael Schrengohst

05-14-2007, 10:50 AM

And what is really funny....HDNET was proclaiming that everything
must be shot and edited in 1080i for it's network......I think HDNET is in
a unique position. Cuban owns a theatre chain, has produced many movies,
has many HD shows in production and realizes that if he can now acquire in 4K
and have that chain of production go from 4K distro at his theatres and beyond,
can re-purpose that 4K material (probably in-house) for HDNET and
HD-DVD, Blu-Ray well........

Michael Schrengohst

05-14-2007, 10:54 AM

Well, HD for broadcast is all done with Mpeg2 compression. If I remember correctly Mpeg2 cannot support a frame the size of 4k.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I have to imagine that people who end up watching 4k on a computer will be viewing something that is encoded with H.264 or maybe something else if a newer even more efficient codec comes out.

For people to be able to watch 4k at home they would need a 4k set, and the video would have to be delivered with a codec that is fairly efficient.

Tim,
I don't think Cuban is planning 4K for HDNET, look at the other posts....
Acquire in 4K for your own theatre and then use that master for
a 1080p HD version that they show on HDNET....and you can always
shoot 1080 with the RED.

TimothyD

05-14-2007, 11:09 AM

Tim,
I don't think Cuban is planning 4K for HDNET, look at the other posts....
Acquire in 4K for your own theatre and then use that master for
a 1080p HD version that they show on HDNET....and you can always
shoot 1080 with the RED.

Gotcha,

Now that makes sense. I was confused I guess...

Tim

Tom Lowe

05-14-2007, 12:12 PM

This is amazing and great news, IMO. I have been watching HDNet and Landmark closely for years, and definitely thinking of them as a potential distributor for my first RED feature.

As others have pointed out, home displays at 4K are a ways off, but IMO, probably closer to reality than most people think.

The problem this poses to the indie filmmaker though is clear: Now that there are potential 4K outlets for indie films, we will be tempted to try to finish in 4K, which not match up well with overcranked footage at 1080RGB. For the last few months I have been planning to finish at 2K, for aesthetic reasons, and because I need to overcrank a lot of scenes.

If this HDNet 4K thing is true, it's all the more reason for the RED team to put as much effort as possible into allowing us to overcrank at 4K REDCODE RAW.

Mark L. Pederson

05-14-2007, 12:23 PM

And what is really funny....HDNET was proclaiming that everything
must be shot and edited in 1080i for it's network......I think HDNET is in
a unique position.

Even funnier is that HDNET has had a "SONY ONLY" mandate on feature HD production! (LOL!) 2929 shoots film too.

FYI - HDNET and 2929 are two different companies. They interact alot - but two different companies and agendas. The last time I spoke with folks at each company, they do not have "in-house" post OR production in the traditional sense. I am sure that will change. Cuban is, after all ... a maverick. Yes, IMO he is in a unique position.

Michael Schrengohst

05-14-2007, 01:02 PM

It would be interesting to know what other high profile clients that RED has...
(Besides everyone on these lists of course!)

Mark L. Pederson

05-14-2007, 01:17 PM

It would be interesting to know what other high profile clients that RED has...
(Besides everyone on these lists of course!)

Here we go ... watch this forum turn into Entertainment Tonight.

After all, it's the LOW profile clients that make a revolution .... the big boys sure help, and they get press, and promote industry change ... but the little guys keep it real ....

David Mullen ASC

05-14-2007, 03:44 PM

The movie "Akeelah and the Bee" that I shot was a co-production with 2929 and Lionsgate. It was shot in 35mm anamorphic 2.35 and I never heard about any unique format requirements from Cuban's company. For home video, we mastered the movie to 1920 x 1080 HD-D5 at 23.98P (in 16x9 full-frame, 16x9 w/ 2.35 letterbox, and 4x3 pillorbox pan & scan) but of course there could be 60i versions made from that for 1080i HD broadcast.

It would have been nice to make a 2K DCI-complient master for digital theatrical release but there was never any mention of that as a possibility.

Jeff Kilgroe

05-14-2007, 04:44 PM

Mark L. Pederson

05-15-2007, 07:03 AM

I'll check with HD Net, but I'm tempted to scream B.S. on this one... HD Net really has nothing to do with Mark Cuban these days. In fact, they are entirely based and operated out of Colorado Studios here in Denver. Something about this news bit doesn't add up. ...Needs some investigating.

Investigate away - start here:

HDNET FILMS
A WAGNER / CUBAN COMPANY
122 Hudson Street 5th Floor
New York, NY 10013

http://hdnetfilms.com/news/index.html

And FYI -

The "vertically-integrated" company, collectively now known as Wagner/Cuban Companies, the entity includes all three aspects of the film business: production, distribution and exhibtion, including 2929 Productions (which produced "Good Night and Good Luck"), HDNet Films (which produced "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" and "Bubble"), while on the distribution side, they bought Magnolia Pictures, Magnolia Entertainment, their new DVD label (Magnolia Home Entertainment) launched last year, under the Magnolia Pictures unit, and Cuban & Wagner also own Landmark Theaters, America's largest art-house cinema chain with more than 200 screens.

And I have done work for them, I socialize with folks who work there, and I am also friends with producers of several of their films. So please don't scream ...

Jeff Kilgroe

05-15-2007, 07:44 AM

I don't want this to turn into some lame net argument based on speculation... But I will say that HDNET FILMS is a different entity than HD Net (HD.NET), even though they are both Mark Cuban ventures and related. HD Net (the network) along with their HD Net Movies channel is still based and primarily operated out of Denver at Colorado Studios. The company was originally set up as a joint venture between Mark Cuban and Phil Gavin (Colorado Studios). Since shifting all but a few HR and management offices to Denver from Dallas a couple years ago, Cuban has little/nothing to do with the network or its day to day operations. See www.hd.net.

So now, since the news byte is rather vague... Do we assume it's directed at HD Net the network or HD Net Films? Or both? HD Net Films would be a far more logical place for a 4K application, IMO. But when a news article mentions HD Net, I typically ASSume they're referring to HD.Net the network...

Mark L. Pederson

05-15-2007, 07:50 AM

Safe to assume - HDNET FILMS & 2929. They make movies. And they can be distributed in Landmark cinemas.

HDNet (the network) broadcasts 1080i

Sometimes the WAGNER/CUBAN COMPANIES are just referred to (incorrectly) as HDNET in press releases etc.

krd

05-15-2007, 10:26 AM

Hdnetfilms does have a vaguely defined production requirement -- everything must be shot on "HD". These are feature-length docs and fiction features. Hal Hartley's "Fay Grim" is the latest in release and is being distributed by [naturally enough] Magnolia, another Cuban property.

A reasonable guess is, the Cuban announcement applies to Hdnetfilms, which is apparently the only Cuban subsidiary with an explicit format acquisition requirement. Why would he stick with HD, when a cheaper camera produces far better results, and he already owns theaters where he could project digitally?

Curran Giddens

05-15-2007, 10:46 AM

I have always been a fan of Mark Cuban. I even watched his ABC reality TV show "The Benefactor."

This list I posted a while ago is a little outdated. Graeme should be much higher on the list!

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=753973&postcount=31

Steve Gibby

05-15-2007, 11:00 AM

Could it be that both HDNet and HDNet Films is headed to 4k? In reading the TV Technology article, these two phrases seem to be talking about the television network, not HDNET Films:

"Media entrepreneur Mark Cuban, founder of HDNet says the hi-def network will eventually go all 4K with a mix of 3D."

and

"HDNet currently originates its own material in 1080i and upconverts the rest."

Also, the article was in TV Technology, not a film industry trade mag. Interesting...

A full end-to-end 4k workflow for all their properties may be the intention. Since the article confirms HDNet's reserving of RED One cameras, obviously for 4k acquisition purposes, then RED's announced 4k projectors and 4k displays sure fit nicely into the plans of HDNet, don't you think?

Frankly, the info in this article doesn't surprise me at all. RED has said previously that they couldn't name who, but that the list of reservation holders of RED One includes a "who's who" of motion media industry entities. IMO none of us should be surprised by this.

Jeff Kilgroe

05-15-2007, 11:14 AM

I talked to one of my contacts at HD Net... He knows nothing of such plans, not to say that means anything. But he's aware of RED and while he's skeptical, he's hopeful.

I wasn't trying to be a naysayer or have a bad outlook on the news bit originally mentioned here. I just thought it seemed really odd. Obviously, they would have no way of broadcasting 4K for some time. Theatrical distribution is an option... But I could definitely see Mark Cuban reserving a couple RED Ones for testing as a new origination platform for ENG and EFP. For HD Net to source their own productions in 4K would be a huge advantage for future-proofing their work.

Curran Giddens

05-15-2007, 11:18 AM

Did Cuban ever end up buying those Sony 4k projectors? I remember he was on-the-fence trying to hold out for something better. RED 4k projectors in Landmark theaters?

Steve Gibby

05-15-2007, 11:58 AM

Did Cuban ever end up buying those Sony 4k projectors? I remember he was on-the-fence trying to hold out for something better. RED 4k projectors in Landmark theaters?

I could be wrong, but I don't believe they ever ended up buying those Sony 4k projectors, and if so, yes, RED 4k projectors in Landmark theaters could be a goal. Don't know...

Tom Lowe

05-15-2007, 12:01 PM

So RED is making 4K projectors? How did I miss that piece of news.

RED 4K LCDs have me drooling, though.

Steve Gibby

05-15-2007, 12:06 PM

For HD Net to source their own productions in 4K would be a huge advantage for future-proofing their work.

Some good reasons for their adoption of RED One cameras:

Potential 4k end-to-end workflow for cinema releases

Future-proofing content for eventual 4k broadcast and IPTV downloads

The advantages of 4k acquisition and downsampling to other resolutions for use

The benefit of a 4k footage library

I'm sure there are many other reasons why it made sense to them to reserve RED One cameras. Hopefully they'll say more about their strategy in the near future.

*IMO the most valuable asset of any production entity is their footage library. It can be re-purposed for multiple ancillary revenue streams, including stock footage licensing. Having 4k stock footage licensing capability will be huge for any size entity.

Steve Gibby

05-15-2007, 12:15 PM

So RED is making 4K projectors? How did I miss that piece of news.

I interviewed Ted Schiliwitz at 9:05am on 4/16 at the RED NAB tent, and he gave me the news about the Professional Pocket Camera, and RED 4k displays and projectors. Shortly after that I broke that news via a post on the Studio Daily blog, here on RED User, and subsequently in my RED at NAB, Part 2 article on the Studio Daily web site that day.

On 4/16 I was very fortunate to be the very first journalist to break the news on: the new RED cine lenses (18-50 zoom, primes), the Peter Jackson "Crossing the Line" production, the Professional Pocket Camera, RED 4k displays, and RED 4k projectors

Links:

RED @ NAB, Part 1 (Studio Daily web site, live online at 9am, 4/16/07)
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/7959.html

Studio Daily Blog entry, 4/16/07, 9:41am, breaking news from Ted Schilowitz interview: http://www.studiodaily.com/blog/

RED User forum entry, 4/16/07, 9:51am, breaking news to RED User about my interview with Ted Schilowitz: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1560

RED @ NAB, Part 2 (Studio Daily web site, 4/16/07)
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/7981.html

Michael Hastings

05-15-2007, 12:53 PM

Wouldn't be so strange to have a couple of billionaire entrepreneurs on the same page.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe they ever ended up buying those Sony 4k projectors, and if so, yes, RED 4k projectors in Landmark theaters could be a goal. Don't know...

Steve Gibby

05-15-2007, 12:59 PM

Wouldn't be so strange to have a couple of billionaire entrepreneurs on the same page.

I don't know if they even know each other, but it makes perfect sense to me that they would do business together. In the late '90's when Cuban formed Broadcast.com as an Internet company, and sold it to Yahoo for mega dollars, and then seeing him form HDNet, I remember thinking "That guy really has market timing sense". I think the same could obviously be said for Jim Jannard with both Oakley and RED - not the building of a company to sell, but the sense of seeing a need in an industry and stepping up to fill it.

donatello b

05-15-2007, 02:41 PM

"Did Cuban ever end up buying those Sony 4k projectors?"

from what i recall ...a large order was placed ( 2005?) ... sony had problems delivering ... i believe were 6 installed ... and at one point i recall Landmark was going to cancel ?

from Jan 10 , 2006 - Cinematical.com

"Just a day after Sony's Howard Stringer bragged at CES about bagging Landmark as the first customer for Sony's high res 4K projector, Landmark announced (also at CES) the indie chain is ditching the Sony 4K projector in favor of Barco's 2K projectors. Apparently nobody told Stringer. Cinematech reports that in an email to them in December, Landmark's Mark Cuban said Landmark had installed a couple of Sony's projectors and was "battle testing" them. Guess that didn't work out so well. Landmark's announcement leaves Sony in a bit of a lurch, with zero - count 'em, zero - customers for it's projector, which has been plauged with technical and delivery issues."

Tom Lowe

05-15-2007, 08:38 PM

edited

donatello b

05-15-2007, 08:57 PM

you have stated a dispute bewteen Landmark and films distributor - any theater chain that is having a dispute with a film distributor might pull a film(s) and the indie producer is at mercy of both...

i think if you look to see what films are playing at the Landmark theaters you will see they support indies ( and that is no body indies as well as Bubble types) ...

i have a friend ( a nobody) that is gong to be playing his indie ( no names in it) at a Landmark this year ... today we were checking the 2k scans ( 16mm) on a digital projector ...

i see a bright indie future ....

Tom Lowe

05-15-2007, 09:05 PM

You may be right, and impulse posting has its dangers, and this forum may not be the appropriate place for expressions of exasperation, but on the other hand, this is an exceedingly sore point. As a "producer-driven" medium, American independent film has been a disaster, financial and artistic.

To your point, what about someone like Darren Aronofsky? He's an American indie guy who is doing pretty well. Even though the public did not go out to see The Fountain, I loved it.

But generally speaking, yes, it's true, the American "indie system" sucks as much as the Hollywood system, or worse.

David Mullen ASC

05-15-2007, 10:06 PM

I think the indie scene is in a bit of the doldrums after the initial promise, but it may rise again.

The big problem, if you want to call it a problem, is that the studios have created "indie" divisions to make the sorts of dramas and comedies that used to be mainstream studio fare, but now they have to devote all their time and effort into these expensive event movies like "Spider-Man 3".

So you've seen the rise of the under 10-mil feature made by the indie wing of the studio, and these are crowding a lot of true indie films from the theaters, along with crowding out a lot of foreign films from U.S. theaters. They are sort of "indie-lite" fare, not too artistically demanding, just projects where they got away with paying name actors less money because they wanted to act in a drama instead of a comic book adaptation.

But at the Landmarks and Laemmles, etc., you still see some true low-budget indie stuff, though the movies are so under-marketed that they die quickly and are gone, before you can make up your mind whether to see them.

Although the truth is that a certain large-ish percentage of all movies, studio or indie, are not very good. I'm not sure if the indie crowd is doing any better in terms of the good-to-bad ratio, just that they are wasting less money doing it.

Ralph Oshiro

05-15-2007, 10:09 PM

I think the indie scene is in a bit of the doldrums after the initial promise, but it may rise again.

The big problem, if you want to call it a problem, is that the studios have created "indie" divisions to make the sorts of dramas and comedies that used to be mainstream studio fare, but now they have to devote all their time and effort into these expensive event movies like "Spider-Man 3".

So you've seen the rise of the under 10-mil feature made by the indie wing of the studio, and these are crowding a lot of true indie films from the theaters, along with crowding out a lot of foreign films for U.S. theaters. They are sort of "indie-lite" fare, not too artistically demanding, just projects where they got away with paying name actors less money because they wanted to act in a drama instead of a comic book adaptation.

But at the Landmarks and Laemmles, etc., you still see some true low-budget indie stuff, though the movies are so under-marketed that they die quickly and are gone, before you can make up your mind whether to see them.
So well put, David! As an aside, I can't wait to see 4K broadcasts, only to have its image as bitstarved and artifacted as the rest of the so-called HD programming out there!

Tom Lowe

05-15-2007, 11:45 PM

Sam Druckerman

05-16-2007, 01:09 AM

It seems like a lot of foreign "indies" -- which is most foreign films I guess :) -- are superior in quality to the crap that gets churned out by the indie crowd in the US, most notably all the people in the LA area shooting junk dramas in their apartments. Asia makes some really beautiful small films now.

Do foreign films have a better percentage of good/quality films than the U.S. does?

Or is it that .....

We only see the better foreign films, because they are the ones to get U.S. distribution?

My guess is the latter. But to be sure, we need a hard core movie fan who travels from Europe to the U.S. often and sees films on both continents to chime in.

krd

05-16-2007, 05:05 AM

It would be interesting to know how much bad art house material is produced abroad in countries with established art-film traditions, but the crucial damning factor in the U.S. seems to be (at least from my furious point of view) the absence of public funding, which has turned independent producers into celebrities and arbiters, famous not for making great films, but for finding financing in a medium where nearly everything fails to make money, including their own films. And they determine in large part what gets made.

What other art form has ever prospered under such conditions? Yes, third-parties have always decided what gets distributed and marketed, whether it's books, music, fine art, etc. But in film, these people determine what gets created. Even mass-market publishers don't put their acquisition decisions in the hands of the shareholders and the production people. And yet that's what routinely happens in indie film.

With investment and resources at stake, independent funders and producers will naturally want to make decisions which are rationally defensible, with reference to past successes and behavior. So they look for stars who will work cheap, or scripts with obvious commercial characteristics or easily understood sitcom material. This approach may ensure failure -- the investment psychology is at odds with the desires of alternative audiences -- but it gives everyone involved assurance and cover that they're not doing something criminal or stupid with their own or someone else's money (in fact, they clearly are doing something stupid, because they're going to lose every dime, but that's another subject). The alternative is producing a script nobody much understands or likes, or which has few obvious commercial characteristics (i.e., "original material"), and how explain that to investors, particularly if that film also fails?

And I guess it's necessary to admit that quality art-films from abroad, the kind made in whole or in part with public funds, rarely return much on investment. So, from that point of view, American investors and producers may not be entirely wrong, even if they're sort of right for the wrong reasons and not often enough to justify the calculation; and even if nearly all the commercial successes of American indie film were low-budget, self-produced and the sort of project no "responsible" investor would ever touch. But these "successful" films don't make enough to sustain an industry, or to encourage risk.

Maybe the Golden Age of art film is long over, it never existed in the U.S. to begin with, and the whole thing is hopeless for the vast majority of aspirants, whether it's 4K or .04K, in a country without the public funding which can create a film culture, and ensure that filmmakers, writers, DPs, editors, etc. are productive enough to learn new skills and develop as craftsmen (and may even artists?)? That said, even a quality film can disappear without trace. One thing there's no shortage of, despite all the losses, is movies.

David Mullen ASC

05-16-2007, 08:42 AM

Well, it seems to me that the "indie" scene in other countries is not as healthy as it is here, in terms of many countries not having an investor/banking climate that is favorable to filmmakers -- or more reckless (or risk-taking) if you want to put it that way. For example, in the U.K. many studios were propped up by the fortunes of a few men like J. Arthur Rank.

Whether or not that is because of public arts funding, or public arts funding is trying to compensate for a lack of private financial investment in movies, I don't know. But it seems odd that despite the worldwide distribution of cheaper digital cameras, for example, we don't see more low-budget "indie" movies spring up in the U.K., for example, those made outside the public arts funding or television funding, etc. system. Reading "The Guerilla Filmmakers Handbook" (the original U.K. version) I was suprised that there were not more low-budget horror films being made in the U.K. by beginners like the one the writers describe making -- it goes on all the time here.

I'm actually one of those people who are for publically funded less-commercial art, but one could argue that we seem to have an active private independent film industry here compared to those countries that do publically fund the arts, so the question is what the connection might be, does government funding actually reduce the vitality of the system because demands on indie movies to be more commercial and profit-generating are therefore lessened?

Tom Lowe

05-16-2007, 08:53 AM

krd

05-16-2007, 09:04 AM

I'm actually one of those people who are for publically funded less-commercial art, but one could argue that we seem to have an active private independent film industry here compared to those countries that do publically fund the arts, so the question is what the connection might be, does government funding actually reduce the vitality of the system because demands on indie movies to be more commercial and profit-generating are therefore lessened?

I'd argue that the situation in Britain is too similar to what goes on here, despite completely different financing structures -- in the same way that child welfare is almost as bad in Britain as it is in the U.S., compared to the rest of the industrialized world. Something about the Anglo-Saxon tradition, and its approach to the public good (if we can use that term for movies!).

For art-house filmmaking, I was thinking more about countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and privately financed underground filmmaking in China, where the situation is dynamic, or at least seems to be so from here. Also, sporadically, Europe -- France, Denmark, Germany, and Argentina, etc. Not only with reference to public funding, but the general availability of venturesome venture capital and the tangible human capital available from the cultures as a whole, which don't seem to demand that everything instantly make money, or look like it will make money, at least not to the degree we do. Clearly there is no shortage of American indies, but what happens to make them so bad? Maybe the situation would be more dynamic here, if the films made money more often, and allowed for more speculation and adventure.

I dunno. Complicated subject, no? I largely blame the lack of public money -- films readily producible in other countries would be unthinkable here, and the handful of world-class arthouse filmmakers worth following wouldn't have careers in this country -- but who knows. Even if we figured out the answer, what could anyone do?

krd

05-16-2007, 09:13 AM

While generally I support public funding for the arts, I think one of the problems with public-funded cinema art is: who decides what gets funded? Truly experimental art films are usually pretty far out there in terms of their subject matter and style. Does a committee decide?

Nobody consults me on these questions, but I would envision a decentralized system -- some funding would coming from Public TV partnerships, some from publically funded arts' institutions, some from arts' committees, some from the NEA, some private/public partnerships, etc.

There's no question that public arts' funding is always subject to abuse, insular thinking and nepotism and backscratching (you get your grant if I get mine, etc.) And some of the money would no doubt go down the drain.

It's just that, in my view at least, a publically funded system is demonstrably better than a strictly commercial one. I'd even argue that the American way is incompatible with a viable alternative cinema movement, and cite as evidence the current indie scene. How bad do things have to get, before we make Robert Redford into a hero and people will kill their firstborn to get to Park City? Pretty bad, I'd say.

David Mullen ASC

05-16-2007, 09:20 AM

Certainly we don't lack theater screens in the U.S. -- when the multiplexes first appeared, I figured the only good thing to come out of them is a greater variety of movies could be shown. But instead it just turned into a method of shrinking and enlarging more quickly the number of screens that a Hollywood blockbuster could be shown on.

The problem is partly marketing -- more films on more screens makes it harder to get the word out there to entice people into the theaters. My experience with indie directors who get a chance to make and sell another feature is that the number one thing they demand on their second film being sold to a theatrical distributor is a larger marketing budget. Many filmmakers would actually take a lower sales figure for their movie in promise of a larger marketing campaign to promote the movie, having seen their last movie die in some art house cinema and pulled in only one week.

Now people will argue here that indie films would be better served by being distributed on the internet or something, but some indie directors are still trying to make movies for the big screen, not TV screens and computer monitors. It's harder to impact the common culture, as something like "Blair Witch Project" did, when you don't have the collective cinema viewing experience and your audience is fragmented and scattered.

Plus even indie movies that were released theatrically and died benefit somewhat from the marketing campaigns that were used, even for their later life in home video. People still haven't really figured out how to effectively market material that goes straight to home video.

Jason Murphy

05-16-2007, 09:29 AM

Also, anyone who has taken a look at the current crop of serious art films coming out of Europe and Asia will note that while some of them are publicly funded, very few if any are solely supported by public funding; many have 10-12 different investment companies from all over the world funding the film.

Look at Bela Tarr or Claire Denis, for example. Denis' last movie, The Intruder, which was very aesthetically ambitious (not to mention gorgeously shot), didn't cost very much to make in the big picture of things (a little over a million dollars, if I'm not mistaken). But it was still incredibly difficult to pull the money together, and even after the movie was finished, it took over a year for it to find distribution in France. It's a miracle that Wellspring (RIP) even picked it up for distribution here in the US.

Bela Tarr's current film The Man from London, which shows at Cannes this week, is in much the same boat; he can't get funding for his films in Europe without a 'name' actor (in this case, Tilda Swinton). The movie was set to start shooting several years ago, but when the movie's producer (Humbert Balsan, who also produced Denis' Intruder) committed suicide, all the funding fell through, and it took another two years for him to find funding for his films.

As far as a Golden Age of art films goes, I think it's pretty safe to say that the one Golden Age most people can agree on was the early 1960's, at least in Europe. There was a lot of artistically radical stuff going on, New Wave movements in several countries, and people here seemed to be paying attention to these developments (unlike today, when very few people even working in filmmaking have probably heard of Claire Denis or Bela Tarr). Of course, people were also getting into huge arguments about aesthetics, writing crazy manifestos, and there were major political and social changes happening worldwide outside of the film world. The American avant-garde scene was right in there, but as far as major motion pictures go, the US kind of caught the tail end of it in the late 60's/early 70's, when all the film brats who had been inspired by 60's art films came to power.

Certainly nothing like that has really happened since. But with precious few exceptions, making art films has pretty much always been a time consuming, arduous and money-losing proposition. It still amazes me that many of the best ones even get made.

EDIT: Well, looks like while I was writing this, the conversation jumped ahead several steps. Oops.

krd

05-16-2007, 09:44 AM

Now people will argue here that indie films would be better served by being distributed on the internet or something,

I don't understand that thinking either, even if the bandwidth increased dramatically and delivered DVD quality in real time. It's sort of like that old Groucho Marx joke -- if everyone can get into the club, who wants to join? And who's going to have the time to go through it all?

On the other hand, maybe this is the non-Hollywood future, for the rest of us. Film yes, but none of the glory, prestige or command of resources (or production funds, for that matter) traditionally associated with the work. But if so, 4k sure is overkill.

donatello b

05-16-2007, 09:47 AM

Jason Murphy

05-16-2007, 09:58 AM

perhaps a "indie" group to take a look at is
http://www.indigent.net/

almost all of their projects had 150k budgets , all shot digital , many got theatrical distribution , all shown on cable/TV (IFC)..
take a look at their films and who starred in them ( seems no problem getting STARS to take SAG low budget min) ...
also cast & crew shared profits ( i beleive crew was paid 150 day )

...and I don't know anyone who would consider any of them a great movie. One or two may be of some interest (like Tape, which wasn't terrible, though it's essentially a filmed one set play), but for the most part, sadly, nothing about these movies was remotely memorable.

Which is not to say you can't make a great film on this model, Donatello (don't mean to attack you here or anything). Or that you can't get a 'name' to work for you for cheap. But practically speaking, too often, it doesn't seem to amount to very much, artistically speaking.

Tom Lowe

05-16-2007, 10:03 AM

perhaps a "indie" group to take a look at is
http://www.indigent.net/

No offense to them, but do these people ever get outside of LA or NY??

Jason Murphy

05-16-2007, 10:07 AM

No offense to them, but do these people ever get outside of LA or NY??

That's another real problem, too. The 'indie' community becomes so insular that it stagnates.

Tom Lowe

05-16-2007, 10:14 AM

Yeah. On the few indie pics I have worked on in LA, they were all shot around town, in crummy low-rent "studios" or people's poorly lit apartments. Try to get any LA people to go to the mountains or deserts, and you will get a lot of blank stares. Who wants to see some random "drama" shot in LA? Not me.

Maybe that's why I like small foreign films better: at least the scenery is interesting to me.

Jason Murphy

05-16-2007, 10:22 AM

Maybe that's why I like small foreign films better: at least the scenery is interesting to me.

And I'm sure they're asking each other "Don't any of you ever get out of Seoul?" :)

Seriously, though, I totally agree with you on this. Although it wouldn't be nearly as bad if these movies used the NY or LA scenery in an interesting way, rather than boring establishing shots of city landmarks. There's a lot of interesting stuff that can be done with these cities (and has been throughout cinema history), and I don't think that these locations are necessarily exhausted. But there doesn't seem to be much creative thought going into how to use these locations. It all seems very perfunctory.

krd

05-16-2007, 10:34 AM

The dirty secret about indigent was that you needed celebrities to get them made -- either the director had to be a well-known actor who (if he wanted to) could have financed the production ten times over and never missed the money (Ethan Hawke, for one), or you had to secure a star in the cast in order to proceed (Signorey Weaver, for example). Once those requirements were satisfied, the producers appeared to be indifferent to the material. They weren't marketing movies, but fame.

Which goes back to the previous discussion, and the people who make the decisions in this business. If it's a commercial decision, based on attachments, the material becomes almost irrelevant. The deal is all. The movie becomes an afterthought, and the backstory (not the movie) is what gets marketed.

Finally, I believe Indigent (a division I thinkof IFC?) has gone out of business. What amounted to a celebrity gimmick seems to have run its course.

Tom Lowe

05-16-2007, 10:55 AM

donatello b

05-16-2007, 11:09 AM

i find indigits projects over the years much more interesting then the hollywood norm ...
how they got them made is just something for us to look at how they did it ... some may look at their model and see same ole same ole .. others may look at model and see idea's/hope ... i see success ...

Indigit had a contract to do X projects - they did it .. and they ( individuals) have moved on ( to higher budgets ) to next phase of their life in movies..

perhaps the next model will be from some here ?

IMO 150K is within reach of MANY ....

David Mullen ASC

05-16-2007, 11:54 AM

I guess they figure their "drama" is so great it's fine to shoot in their friend's apartment and get a few shots outside of the LA skyline. Meanwhile, less than two hours outside the city there are incredibly beautiful mountains and deserts. Baja and the Sea of Cortez are only a few hours south, etc.

Director Michael Polish (Northfork, Twin Falls Idaho) and I have talked a lot about this problem, the mistaken notion that some low-budget filmmakers have that they can't "afford" to be visually interesting, that for some reason, interesting locations or use of light and color is somehow something only big-budget movies can afford. It's nonsense -- in many ways, a smaller shoot is more free to travel, to take the time to capture interesting natural light, etc.

When we shot "Northfork" in Montana, we decided to go whole hog in a photochemical desaturation approach, shooting the movie exactly how we wanted to: 35mm anamorphic, heavily flashed negative, smoked sets, painting everything in the frame in monochrome shades -- because Michael said "it's our movie -- who knows, this may be the last time we are free to shoot a movie exactly like we want to, so let's not play it safe -- we don't have to please anyone but ourselves." Which was very liberating, creatively.

But even for an interior drama, as they say, paint is the cheapest form of production design. Find a location that let's you paint the walls.

Tom Lowe

05-16-2007, 12:24 PM

Very much agreed David. That's my philosophy. My first feature will be shot entirely outdoors on RED in the most beautiful locations I can drag my actors and crew to in the American Southwest.

BTW, I am going to get my hands on Northfork ASAP. I was just going through my old ACs from this year when I came across the piece on Astronaut Farmer from a few months ago, and of course the article talks about Northfork. It sounds like my kind of picture! I'm ashamed to say I haven't seen either of these yet, but Astronaut is actually arriving today from Netflix, so I'm excited to watch it.

Jason Murphy

05-16-2007, 12:25 PM

Director Michael Polish (Northfork, Twin Falls Idaho) and I have talked a lot about this problem, the mistaken notion that some low-budget filmmakers have that they can't "afford" to be visually interesting, that for some reason, interesting locations or use of light and color is somehow something only big-budget movies can afford. It's nonsense -- in many ways, a smaller shoot is more free to travel, to take the time to capture interesting natural light, etc.

AMEN to that. Low budget doesn't at all need to mean visually boring. Hell, just look at avant-garde short films made on 16mm for almost nothing; a fair number of them have more amazing visual moments than the majority of large-budgeted movie you might see.

And besides painting (which is a great low-budget way of going about altering the look of a film), using natural light is another highly underrated thing. Many of the best still photographs are visually stunning because the photographer had the freedom to wait for the right time of day to shoot in natural light (there are obvious logistical and technical differences between still photography and cinematography, but the principle here still holds). So if you're shooting your own low-budget film and you don't have producers breathing down your neck to get that first shot of the day off, you can afford (or better yet, even plan) to shoot using natural sunlight. The results usually more than speak for themselves.

C.H.Haskell

05-16-2007, 12:37 PM

What better candle then the sun right...I used all natural light with a DVX for short film shot in CUBA (link (http://haskellfilms.com/showreel.php)) would ask "Is that 35?"

Low budgets can be a blessing in disguise. When you run into problems you will not have lots of money to throw at the picture (ie. Hollywood fx etc)...SO you must problem solve creatively and ultimately challenging yourself and your crew to do something you would have never thought of before and in the end you most likely end up with a better story cause of it. IMHO.

Tom Lowe

05-16-2007, 01:28 PM

AMEN to that. Low budget doesn't at all need to mean visually boring. Hell, just look at avant-garde short films made on 16mm for almost nothing; a fair number of them have more amazing visual moments than the majority of large-budgeted movie you might see.

And besides painting (which is a great low-budget way of going about altering the look of a film), using natural light is another highly underrated thing. Many of the best still photographs are visually stunning because the photographer had the freedom to wait for the right time of day to shoot in natural light (there are obvious logistical and technical differences between still photography and cinematography, but the principle here still holds). So if you're shooting your own low-budget film and you don't have producers breathing down your neck to get that first shot of the day off, you can afford (or better yet, even plan) to shoot using natural sunlight. The results usually more than speak for themselves.

So true! My first RED feature will be almost all natural light and some practicals and firelight at night. I'm hoping to do like David did on Northfork, and shoot all my cutaways on a pre-shoot scouting trip. That way I can dedicate all 30 days of principal photography to shooting my actors during magic hours and under other optimal lighting conditions (in forests naturally silked by tree canopies mid-day, etc).

Of course, to do this the story has to be set outside, which most people cannot do, because their scripts call for homes, restaurants, offices, and so on.

I just figured the only way I can make a picture for 200 grand and have it come out looking like a million bucks is to make it natural light, outdoors, in the most beautiful locations I can shoot in. You just simply cannot make Memoirs of a Geisha or The Prestige or The Departed for 200K.

Mark L. Pederson

05-16-2007, 01:52 PM

Well this thread took a few interesting turns, including some deleted posts.

I'd would just like to express a few personal thoughts and observations regarding the "indie world" - here is my mini-rant -

Filmmaking is an art form.

It is, UNFORTUNATELY, an expensive art form when compared to painting, sculpting, music or just about any art form that comes to my mind. So, people who want to make movies must be wealthy, or have a "patron" who wants to pay for his/her adventures in filmmaking ... or must face ... the BUSINESS.

And unlike painting or writing, which are also businesses that make money, generally speaking, you can't CREATE the movie without the funding first. So you must face the business first.

It's also highly collaborative art form. There are many cooks in the kitchen, most of time, and the original artistic vision of the director is compromised in some way, MOST of time. Usually because of MONEY. Not enought money to do it the way you wanted. Too much money, so too many EXECUTIVES making decisions, comprimise ... compromise ... compromise ....

FORTUNATELY, new technologies make it much easier to make higher quality films for lower budgets. RED is leaping us forward by decade, easy.

Maybe it's just me, but I just don't see anything good at ALL in bashing the "American" indie film movement. Bashing the "decision makers" at the studios, etc.

At the end of day, the film BUSINESS is run by movie goers. They won't make SCARY MOVIE 5 if nobody goes to SCARY MOVIE 4!

I have met PLENTY of people I don't like in the indie film business, but along my journies, I have also met some amazing people that have changed the way I look at the world. Ted is one, and so is Jim.

There are several very famous, successful directors that are "worshipped" on this forum who started by making their own indies, here in ... America.

And for the record, I am NOT a flag-toting "yankee" - as a matter of fact, I look forward to leaving the USA when I finally stop making "indies" ... The South of France. Good food, good wine, good sun. You can find me there in ten years.

Sure, lots of "evil", "stupid" decision makers in your way ... but at the end of the day ... you choose your path ...

The "indie" path is no picnic ... LOTS of easier ways to make money if you are smart ... but I have a pretty damn good time ... everything else sounds so much like a ... job.

Buy a RED. Shoot your own damn movie.

krd

05-16-2007, 03:20 PM

Buy a RED. Shoot your own damn movie.

In a nutshell, and trying to keep it civil: people have been making their own damn movies with the highest hopes since the mid 1980s. And it's gone on with growing frenzy and in greater numbers, ever since.

For whatever reasons -- and I've posited a few in earlier posts, for what little that speculation was worth -- the process doesn't work.

I understand that all the bitching and moaning can become very tiresome, very quickly. Either accept the realities -- that filmmaking isn't cheap, that it requires a mass-audience to be viable, and that it's a business -- or go to dental school or write epic poetry.

But the absence in the U.S. of world-class art-house filmmaking (whether it proved profitable or not) has reasons. The best exhibit here is the complete lack of interest, worldwide, in American independent film, and its reliable lack of profitability.

How much worse could things get, if we tried other approaches, when you can't do worse than lose every dime (which is already happening)? The trouble is, producers and others would have to deny their judgment and instincts, and admit ignorance, to try those other approaches. The other explanation -- that there are no (or few) talented filmmakers in America working outside Hollywood -- would seem more of a stretch.

Maybe, given the nature of American culture, all this is inevitable. And maybe it's not a coincidence that a Bresson, Tarkovsky or Bela Tarr (3 names which have cropped up recently) weren't and aren't Yanks. Our filmmakers, when they succeed and excel, do so in a far more commercial and accessible idioms (no news in that observation). And yet there are realms of accessibility well within the comprehension of audiences which are verboten in this country, simply because they're not familiar to producers and investors.

I know, I'm still bitching, and all this is beginning to sound silly, even to me -- if it's really hopeless, why bother, do something useful instead? -- but as Howard Hawks noted, film is a disease.

David Mullen ASC

05-16-2007, 03:30 PM

BTW, I am going to get my hands on Northfork ASAP. I was just going through my old ACs from this year when I came across the piece on Astronaut Farmer from a few months ago, and of course the article talks about Northfork. It sounds like my kind of picture! I'm ashamed to say I haven't seen either of these yet, but Astronaut is actually arriving today from Netflix, so I'm excited to watch it.

You must mean "Northfork" is arriving from Netflix, since "Astronaut Farmer" isn't out yet on DVD -- unless you mistakenly ordered the low-budget independent movie "American Astronaut", which I haven't seen... but I heard has interesting b&w photography.