Hardware 17 500 $ vs Software 30 K $ [Archive]

Thor Wixom

10-04-2007, 08:55 PM

Till,

I think it is only a matter of time until we have a color grading system that is as powerful as Scratch, or more so, for 3k or less.

The question is, will Scratch (Assimilate) get caught with it's pants down the way Avid did with FCP?

Will some upstart software come along and do to Scratch what Red to (insert name of overpriced camera manufacturer here: Sony, Panasonic, etc. etc.)?

Or will Scratch see the writing on the wall and BE the Red of color grading systems?

Or, then again, maybe they already are considering that their price is so much lower than many other telecine/color grading packages.

But once again, it's not a question of if we will get such a powerful system for under 3k, but when. Assimilate? Maybe. A company we've never heard of before? Perhaps. Wait a few weeks...a few months, maybe even a few years. It will happen.

One thing is for sure...we live in exciting times, and techology is wonderful thing. I'm just glad to be one of the beneficiaries.

-Thor

Edit - One more thing this future color grading will offer for 3k or under...DCI compliant output. Why not? It's only one and zeros! Or maybe we'll all luck out and be able to upload a Cineform 444 file to our local theater. It could happen.

Jason Murphy

10-04-2007, 09:19 PM

Edit - One more thing this future color grading will offer for 3k or under...DCI compliant output. Why not? It's only one and zeros! Or maybe we'll all luck out and be able to upload a Cineform 444 file to our local theater. It could happen.

While no doubt this will eventually happen, DCI compliant is hardly trivial at the moment. It's a ridiculously complex specification.

Also, for the DCI output to be at all useful, it'll need to be tested on DCI-compliant hardware (i.e. at the very least, a DCI-compliant 2K projector that has been correctly color-calibrated in a DCI-compliant theatre, running off a DCI-compliant server, etc). At about that point, the software may be under $3K, but you're out of the range of being able to do this at home at any point in the near future. Now maybe you could output a DCDM/DCP at home, and then take the results to a post house for final testing, but not sure you'd want to do that without getting stuff like the color correcting done in a proper DCI space.

Regardless, I'm sure you'll be able to do it at home eventually. But it'll be awhile, and I'm not sure that it'll be the best use of time/money.

Paris Remillard

10-04-2007, 09:28 PM

>it has some hefty requirements on the high-end for 4K processing.<

It seems to require less than I would have thought based on this thread:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5045

To quote Lucas from Assimilate: "You can grade 4K and output 4K on a laptop. I do it on mine... R3Ds playback in realtime at 1K Preview quality on my laptop at 4K resolution, and I can then switch to 4K High quality for rendering."

David Kirlew

10-04-2007, 09:53 PM

I have looked at and or demoed some of these color grading systems and (correct me if I'm wrong) I do not know of any 4K color grading system under $3K. I have demoed Scratch and will definitely implement it into my workflow on an upcoming feature. From what I know most of the 4K grading systems are $300,000 and up and require specialized dedicated storage. For what its worth I think Scratch is a phenomenal piece of software for the price performance. Sure it is not $3,000, but I do think it is worth it.

Dan Blanchett

10-04-2007, 09:53 PM

Why would an indie even need realtime 4k? Export lowres proxies, edit in fcp, and output an uncompressed 4k master. Then do cc and effects in AE and output to whatever your final delivery format is. Or is it not possible to output 4k from fcp at this point?

You should be able to go back to the 4K source footage after doing an offline/proxie edit in FCP. And you can export your sequences (meta data) to AE manually or using a tool like Automatic Duck and do a slower form of CC but with lossless output. But I'm thinking 2K is going to be plenty for the near future.

laguun

10-04-2007, 10:04 PM

due to Apple Color, there will be hundreds of thousands of DI-capable systems in the market soon.

that will fold this market space within the years to come.
talent will be crucial. not systems.

remember, even uncompressed a 1 Terrabytedisk for ~200 euros contains ~20 min f4k ootage.

RivaiC

10-04-2007, 11:48 PM

Gavin Greenwalt

10-05-2007, 12:38 AM

I want my scratch to come with a colorist. I've never seen that software option.

--

When it comes to high end grading my projects will use whatever the operator likes best.

Curran Giddens

10-05-2007, 01:05 AM

Scratch costs 30 K $ for the software?

uh oh ... not this again....

David Kirlew

10-05-2007, 04:55 AM

Even though Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere and others lowered the pricing of editing many still hire editors. Why? Just because the software is affordable does not mean people will produce quality material. That's why even after the democratization of editing software there is still a market for post houses. They have experience and talent many people lack. Cheap software won't help make any material better in the hands of an inexperienced person. Same goes for 3D. 3D software is pretty affordable today but there are still several large post production facilities still around. Yes are alot more boutiques than large post production houses though.

Jason Murphy

10-05-2007, 05:21 AM

I don't know. I don't quite like what Apple did. It's good that they bring HD system down to indies, but for DI and all that ? It's somehow ruining the market. At the end of the day, if most system becomes very affordable, there will be a very unhealthy competition. While most people will hooray, but the big and proper post house will suffer. Sometimes, i was thinking what is the big pictures that i should look at ? There doesn't seem to be one

My 2 cents

Billions of people around the world can use a ballpoint pen or a word processor to write. Not all of those people are great novelists or poets.

Technology doesn't make the artist. And seriously, while some of the smaller post houses may well suffer, having access to a DI suite doesn't make you a good colorist, any more than putting a video camera into the hands of everyone makes them great cinematographers.

This isn't unhealthy competition. It's just competition, and it's in this case a good thing. More people will learn to do good color correction. Post houses will still need to make sure that they are doing a top-notch job, and providing good value for money. They'll also have access to hardware (like high end DCI compliant systems) that will be necessary for proper finishing of features, and won't be within reach of your average person.

And Youtube will look marginally better, and more colorful. Maybe.

RivaiC

10-05-2007, 05:22 AM

Well, depend where you're coming from. I see different things here. There're clients who is extreme money oriented, they will squeeze everything.

Moir

10-05-2007, 05:39 AM

To what extent are good colourists talented artists or accomplished technicians who know how to use complex tools? Writing a novel or painting a picture has no constraints: you start with a blank sheet and you are limited only by your talent and imagination.

Is computerised colour correction really comparable? Are colourists not generally individuals who can achieve a look they have been asked to create because they know how to navigate their way around a complex and expensive piece of technology?

Rob Lohman

10-05-2007, 06:34 AM

I find these threads a bit strange (maybe it's me?)....

First, Assimilate has been very open and clear about what they do and how things work with them. If you want to get a quote for the Scratch system you want/need, just contact them off-list. Simple. Couldn't be more clear.

Second: Lucas has clearly stated that the price can be a lot lower depending on what you need. No need to keep banging away at this. Jeesh.

Third: you can't compare one business to another, especially if they're not even doing the same thing. Even if they are, it's hard to compare things. Just look at RED versus other camera manufacturers. Completely different companies and business setup. Software isn't the same as hardware. And software doesn't "just" come on a "CD". There's a lot more to it (like support, fixing bugs, cranking out updates).

Now it's cool if you want a DI tool for a lower price. That's where other packages come in like Color, After Effects, etc.

Just accept that there are different products with different levels of functionality, prices and pricing structures. If one doesn't suit you, look at another.

I don't see anyone talking about Lustre, Pablo & DaVinci prices needing to be lower?

M Most

10-05-2007, 06:38 AM

Even though Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere and others lowered the pricing of editing many still hire editors.

Editors salaries in general today are considerably lower than they were a few years ago. This is, without question, directly attributable to the lowering of the price of the equipment, as the general perception of the value of anything in this business - especially in post production - always seems to be very tightly tied to the street price of the equipment involved. Lower equipment costs = lower cost of the person running it. If you don't believe this, you haven't checked around. It's true, regardless of how many times those here and elsewhere want to deny it. While talent is still valuable, only a very small percentage of the pool - those at the very top, working on substantially budgeted projects - really benefit from that. The rest - the ones that have been "democratized" - not only get lower salaries when they work for others, but they are often expected to throw in their own equipment for free (or close to it) when they do it. That's the real result of "democratization." The sad part is that so few of those coming up in the business and experiencing this decline seem to realize it.

That's why even after the democratization of editing software there is still a market for post houses. They have experience and talent many people lack.

That's true, but post houses today are primarily finishing houses. Creative editorial is done elsewhere. What post houses do - and do very, very well - is final conforms, color correction, and creation of deliverables. And the reason this will likely continue for a long time is that the creation of acceptable deliverable products is beyond the technical and practical capabilities of individuals, who are mostly concerned with creative decisions. Editing is not finishing. Creating a cut piece in Final Cut doesn't magically give you a technically acceptable delivery element, and color correcting in Color on an Apple Cinema Display doesn't magically give you something that looks right when it's recorded to film and projected on a large theater screen. Nor does it give you something that has a convincing, story-enhancing sound track. Nor does it give you something that a studio or a distributor will accept for mass duplication. All of these things have technical requirements that are stringently checked by those who are buying them. Just as being a good shooter doesn't make you a good editor, being a good editor doesn't make you a technical expert in creating delivery elements. That's what post houses do. And that's why they're still a vital part of the industry.

Ben Feuer

10-05-2007, 08:48 AM

Mmost -

What you say is true, but it is also water under the bridge. If the market has corrected itself to no longer overpay editors, instead of being upset about the shift, you should say to yourself, "It was nice while it lasted".

Things change, the old becomes new. Longshoremen and freemason's unions used to bestride the world like a colossus. The Knights of Columbus (god bless 'em) were a cultural institution. And editors who spent long nights snipping little pieces of film with pinpoint precision and splicing together 'edits' were highly trained, highly paid professionals.

But thanks to their hard work, the process of editing became intuitive. We 'get' editing. And now, thanks to digital technology, we can do it. Not all of us. But enough of us. Is it fair? Maybe not. But it is life -

Just remember - when one door closes, somewhere another one is opening.

liquidigital

10-05-2007, 09:08 AM

Just as being a good shooter doesn't make you a good editor, being a good editor doesn't make you a technical expert in creating delivery elements. That's what post houses do. And that's why they're still a vital part of the industry.

This is one major major concern of mine. I want to make sure that I prepare everything properly to make the job of the post house efficient/easier. I don't want to be the guy the comes in with a hard drive, and after I leave, they say "Jesus, he really mucked this up." Then get the call that basically says, this is going to cost you thousands to fix or re-do.

mmost, do you have any reads/tuts you could recommend for this? Example, when I was working on a graphic novel, I read "Digital Prepress for Comics" and it was invaluable, brass tacks, exactly what I needed to not muck up when I go to the post house. Recommendations?

Chris Kenny

10-05-2007, 09:31 AM

Every time commoditization of technology hits a new market, we hear the same sort of stuff from some of the folks already established in that market. It'll destroys people's livelihoods, it'll ruin the quality of the work that gets done, etc. Of course, dozens of markets have undergone this transition, and none of that ever actually happens. Not in creative markets, anyway.

Look at the graphic design market. There are still graphic designers making very good money. Probably many more of them than there were 30 years ago. And while I won't say the very best stuff now is necessarily better than the very best stuff then was, the average quality of professional graphic design has certainly gone up. This is despite the fact that any 13 year-old can get their hands on (probably pirated) copies of the exact same tools that professional graphic designers use.

Is there tons more horrible graphic design in the world because of the easy availability of graphic design tools? Sure. But almost none of it has actually replaced the stuff professionals do. It's almost all stuff that's done in situations where hiring a professional was never an option on the table in the first place.

M Most

10-05-2007, 10:12 AM

What you say is true, but it is also water under the bridge. If the market has corrected itself to no longer overpay editors, instead of being upset about the shift, you should say to yourself, "It was nice while it lasted"...
But thanks to their hard work, the process of editing became intuitive. We 'get' editing. And now, thanks to digital technology, we can do it. Not all of us. But enough of us. Is it fair? Maybe not. But it is life -

A. I'm not an editor. It was an example, not a personal complaint.

B. Editing is only one skill. The point I was trying to make is much broader than that. If you look at the entire industry, such technology is affecting salaries at many levels. When editing technology is cheaper, the editors are less valuable. When cameras are cheaper, those who use them fall into the same category (not something people here want to hear, but it's absolutely true). When sound equipment is cheaper .... well, you get the point. If you want to make a living in this business as anything other than the owner of a studio, a director, or a producer, you need to examine this and understand where all of it is going - because the living you thought you were going to make is likely to not be there. Equipment isn't the only thing becoming commoditized these days.

Joel Kaye

10-05-2007, 10:43 AM

Equipment isn't the only thing becoming commoditized these days.

Anything that can be outsourced will be outsourced. We're in a long tail world where more products make less money so you're going to reign in costs everywhere.

In the same way editing movies and recording CD's has moved to home studios with great success so will color correction. Color correction for prepress moved home just fine due to Photoshop, Quark, color calibration devices and improved monitors. That's going to happen with video and RED.

The layoff to the final output device will stay at the post house just like the negs and plates are printed by the prepress house. But everything else is headed home. Color correction isn't rocket science. The software and hardware to do it is becoming more and more available.

Patrick Tresch

10-05-2007, 10:51 AM

[QUOTE=Rob Lohman;94342]

Just accept that there are different products with different levels of functionality, prices and pricing structures. If one doesn't suit you, look at another.
QUOTE]

Very true... But the whole issue is about getting REDCODE RAW democratized!

So all your customers can do their work according to their budget/needs on all solutions available. Not only 1.

You know that the KEY of the post production of REDONE footage is the acessablility to its codec REDCODE RAW and not going back to """outdated""" intermediate space/processor consuming formats (dpx, tiff, tga, QT...).

PLeeEEeeaaase liberate REDCODE RAW!

Thanks!:w00t:

We love you!!!

Pat

Joel Kaye

10-05-2007, 10:59 AM

PLeeEEeeaaase liberate REDCODE RAW!

Because RED isn't really RED without RedCode Raw - it's absolutely integral to getting the best result from the camera - RedCode RAW needs to get out there. It sure seems like RED made a deal with Assimilate to write RedCine and part of the deal was some amount of unique access to the codec.

Maybe that was a good move, maybe not. Putting the raw codec in the hands of one vendor who's main product costs much more than the camera itself seems precarious to me. I'd like to see what Adobe, Cineform, Speedlight, RedGiant and everyone else would do with it. And not in 6 months or a year.

RivaiC

10-05-2007, 11:09 AM

Chris Kenny, are you sure by saying none of it ever happened ? Have you seen medium post house closed because of this alone ? Nowadays producer or director have their own macbook pro and edit on their own.

If you never seen, i have seen them, altho it's not me. But it happened around me. The fact is things change like most agreed, and investing stuff like expensive SGI or AVID stuff maybe isn't a good idea anymore if the phase of changes is faster than anything else. How many clients exist who actually can paid for thousand bucks an hour. Not so many.

Chris Kenny

10-05-2007, 11:53 AM

Chris Kenny, are you sure by saying none of it ever happened ? Have you seen medium post house closed because of this alone ? Nowadays producer or director have their own macbook pro and edit on their own.

I'm not saying industries never change structure. They do. But in creative fields, they rarely do so in ways that prevent talented people from making money.

Again, go back to graphic design. If you wanted high-quality page layout done, you used to have to hire a design firm that had all sorts of equipment, access to a darkroom and possibly typesetting machinery, etc. Some of those firms went out of business as a result of desktop publishing software.

But there are still design firms that a graphic designer can work for, plus graphic designers can now work freelance, which was much harder to do in the days when specialized equipment was required. I seriously doubt that the number of graphic designers who can earn a living doing graphic design has gone down in the last 30 years.

In fact, I strongly suspect that it has risen quite sharply. Because desktop publishing software has increased the productivity of designers and eliminated the overhead of all that specialty machinery, graphic design services can now be much cheaper -- which means many more customers can afford them -- and none of that cost reduction has to come at the expense of the designer's income.

kmikami

10-05-2007, 01:26 PM

In fact, I strongly suspect that it has risen quite sharply. Because desktop publishing software has increased the productivity of designers and eliminated the overhead of all that specialty machinery, graphic design services can now be much cheaper -- which means many more customers can afford them -- and none of that cost reduction has to come at the expense of the designer's income.

I totally agree. I think that the spread of cheap and accessible color correction tools will only mean that more time and money will be spent on color correction as more people start to think about it and realize what they can do with it. Think of some little no budget indie shot on 16mm that in the past would have had the lab do whatever color timing was fastest and cheapest. Now they can afford to actually spend some time making color correction part of the creative process and this can only mean more jobs for colorists at all levels.

M Most

10-05-2007, 03:49 PM

Color correction isn't rocket science. The software and hardware to do it is becoming more and more available.

Except that color correction isn't done by software and hardware. It's done by a colorist in a proper environment. I'm not disagreeing with your basic point, but there are reasons why certain steps in the process can be made mobile. Basic editing doesn't require a specialized environment, it only requires access to something that can play the picture and the sound. Music recording greatly benefits from a proper environment, which is why a lot of home recorded tracks wind up being either re-recorded or at the very least mixed in a proper recording studio. Like I said earlier, there is a big difference between editing (or tracking) and finishing (or mixing and mastering). One requires only basic equipment. The other requires a purpose built environment, which hobbyists and do it yourselfers are normally not going to invest in. Even most professionals won't.

Joel Kaye

10-05-2007, 04:54 PM

The other requires a purpose built environment, which hobbyists and do it yourselfers are normally not going to invest in. Even most professionals won't.

But so does color correcting for print. Tons of photographers are doing that.

Let me give an example. A friend of mine decided to start a magazine a few years back. They didn't know anything about magazines. In about 4 months they had figured out enough layout, design, photography, color correction etc... friggin' everything - to actually produce a real professional quality magazine that got into Barnes and Noble. It was basically 2 guys. Plus they had a website online taking subscriptions.

No magazine pros would consider that possible. In fact, a bunch of pros they asked told them so.

Another friend of mine built an audio recording studio in his house. He works full time at (big name chip company) but he's a jazz musician who has 2 acoustically treated rooms in his home. One is a vocal and drum booth with a window in the wall with talkback with the control room. About $150k of gear too. I think you could argue engineering audio is an art. So are musical instruments. But he's very knowledgeable about all of it. Is he a hobbyist? A pro? He's thinking of buying a RED too and doing music videos. Crazy?

Compared to what these guys did correcting the colors in a movie is nothing IMHO. Not only that, of all the variables I'd argue the color "look" is the most subjective and forgiving. At least for your own projects. Writing, Editing, Sound, Acting, Story... all that stuff is tougher than creating a cool color look and matching it shot to shot. Especially with so many photoshop pros out there that already get the basic concepts.

I don't think most current movie industry pros consider what we're about to see from the next wave of filmmakers possible. It's like the 4 minute mile. They'll believe it when they see it. The studios will just keep buying the best products so they aren't in danger. It's all the really expensive people that are making their living off of connections and currently expensive machines but not true talent that are in danger.

I give it 5 years for really good low budget fair to arrive en masse. I give relatively cheap (under $10k) and accurate color corrections solutions about 90 days. When will those be fast too? A year?

Craig W. Bickerstaff

10-05-2007, 05:00 PM

The problem with the industry is there's too many people that say "no you can't do this" or "no you can't do that".
When Cinemascope first hit the scenes there where directors who refused to shoot it because you "couldn't do fast cuts" apparently it would have been too jarring on the eyes. Turns out that concept was nonsense.
5 years? son that app is already here and it's called "Color".

Joel Kaye

10-05-2007, 05:09 PM

5 years? son that app is already here and it's called "Color".

No 90 days on Color etc... but maybe you're right. Color with a $5k monitor and a $2K card and you can get most of the way through color correction right now.

I think 5 years to see a lot of good, complete low budget movies with marketable ideas and compelling storylines.

M Most

10-05-2007, 06:10 PM

It's all the really expensive people that are making their living off of connections and currently expensive machines but not true talent that are in danger.

I give it 5 years for really good low budget fair to arrive en masse. I give relatively cheap (under $10k) and accurate color corrections solutions about 90 days. When will those be fast too? A year?

I should have known better. How foolish and naive of me to suggest or even think that experience, knowledge, and talent are actually worth something. Or that having proper environments for critical work evaluation are worth anything. Or that professionalism in general should be valued, or even (shudder) respected. Or, worst of all, for thinking that a number of people I know who happen to turn out nearly flawless color correction work on DI's for top studio pictures are anything but talentless hacks who only keep their jobs because of "connections."

I won't bother to post such stupid ideas here again.

Hrvoje Simic

10-05-2007, 06:32 PM

Great tools don't make you an artist or being automatically capable of using their full potentiall.
Having reachable great tools provides a chance of understanding them and learning how to use them.
All the complexity of any tool is nothing compared to true love to creation, to pure power of expression.
An artist will master its tool.

Mr. Paul White

10-05-2007, 06:46 PM

Right. Why can't we go with the Cineform for 4k online editing and the Premiere for color correcting and grading? It is a cheap solution.

Jason Murphy

10-05-2007, 06:58 PM

I don't think most current movie industry pros consider what we're about to see from the next wave of filmmakers possible. It's like the 4 minute mile. They'll believe it when they see it. The studios will just keep buying the best products so they aren't in danger. It's all the really expensive people that are making their living off of connections and currently expensive machines but not true talent that are in danger.

I give it 5 years for really good low budget fair to arrive en masse. I give relatively cheap (under $10k) and accurate color corrections solutions about 90 days. When will those be fast too? A year?

A couple of things. Technology isn't what's holding back the quality of films. Far from it. Really good low budget fare isn't going to be significantly better over the next 5 years. What's in front of the camera and who's behind the camera is much more important than the camera itself. (Or in the case of color correcting, the raw image and the colorist are far more important than the equipment it's done on). You might get a number of better looking crappy movies, as everyone who's shot a DV feature gets their hands on a RED, and you'll get a lot of crap with more aggressive color correction once that becomes the norm.

Also, Mike Most knows what he's talking about, and you ignore him at your peril. He's not being a naysayer just for the hell of it, or to protect his job. Getting a theatrical deliverable of all your low budget RED-shot fare is going to be really problematic, technologically speaking (completely disregarding the financial side of things, or getting distribution at all). Yes, prices are dropping. Yes, the industry is getting more democratized. But let's be clear: getting a magazine published is much easier than getting a movie finished and distributed. A 35mm theatrical deliverable (from RED) will set you back at least $30K. A 4K DCI compliant package will be significantly more, most likely. It's NOT something you'll be able to do at home.

Sure, you could burn something to Blu-ray. But you'd be taking a pretty big image quality hit, and that's certainly not DCI-spec. Or you could just master your own DVDs, which is certainly do-able at home. But that's a different matter. It's a whole different world if you're seriously trying to get your movie into theaters.

Mr. Paul White

10-05-2007, 07:34 PM

I give it 5 years for really good low budget fair to arrive en masse. I give relatively cheap (under $10k) and accurate color corrections solutions about 90 days. When will those be fast too? A year?Why not from now?

Joel Kaye

10-05-2007, 11:12 PM

I won't bother to post such stupid ideas here again.

I specifically said talent was the single thing that would win out in the end. My point was people with expensive gear and mediocre talent are the ones in danger. If that doesn't make sense to you then I guess we can agree to disagree.

Joel Kaye

10-05-2007, 11:49 PM

A 35mm theatrical deliverable (from RED) will set you back at least $30K. A 4K DCI compliant package will be significantly more, most likely. It's NOT something you'll be able to do at home.

I feel like I'm the misquote Twilight Zone here.

I never said you'd be able to do those things at home any more than magazine people have a million dollar Heidelberg press in their living rooms. To go to 35mm film you're going to need post help. I've never said anything different than that. So I guess we agree despite your desire to disagree.

Did I ever mention theatrical though? Theatrical loses money for the filmmaker and doesn't make fiscal sense in many instances. A couple hundred movies do it and maybe 10 make money after all the P&A is taken out.

The new thing will be self distribution that actually works. I think it'll take a while for that idea to permeate the business. Amazon will already sell your movie for a 20% fee if you fulfill it.

I heard from one distributor that about once a month now he finds a self distributed movie that has sold over 10,000 units. A couple movies like that a year is a viable low budget business. No traditional distributor needed. Internet sales rights retained. I think that's where it's going on the low end.

Current industry pros (writers/actors/directors/marketers) that are multitalented but have been throttled by the studio system are the ones poised to best take advantage of all this new technology and are most likely to create and sell the good content in the coming years. But there are a lot of contracts in place that may keep that from happening quickly. Or perhaps just the idea of alienating themselves from the studios will stop these people in their tracks.

Or I'm wrong and literally everyone with talent has already made it as far as they can and there are very few good movies to be enabled by the continually lower cost of shooting and posting. The studios system works well and elevates the best movies into production. Or you can't make a good movie without hundreds of people and a lot of money and RED is irrelevant. Maybe that is true.

I don't think people with talent and good networking skills are in any danger either way.

Jason Murphy

10-06-2007, 05:33 AM

I feel like I'm the misquote Twilight Zone here.

I never said you'd be able to do those things at home any more than magazine people have a million dollar Heidelberg press in their living rooms. To go to 35mm film you're going to need post help. I've never said anything different than that. So I guess we agree despite your desire to disagree.

Did I ever mention theatrical though? Theatrical loses money for the filmmaker and doesn't make fiscal sense in many instances. A couple hundred movies do it and maybe 10 make money after all the P&A is taken out.

The new thing will be self distribution that actually works. I think it'll take a while for that idea to permeate the business. Amazon will already sell your movie for a 20% fee if you fulfill it.

I heard from one distributor that about once a month now he finds a self distributed movie that has sold over 10,000 units. A couple movies like that a year is a viable low budget business. No traditional distributor needed. Internet sales rights retained. I think that's where it's going on the low end.

Current industry pros (writers/actors/directors/marketers) that are multitalented but have been throttled by the studio system are the ones poised to best take advantage of all this new technology and are most likely to create and sell the good content in the coming years. But there are a lot of contracts in place that may keep that from happening quickly. Or perhaps just the idea of alienating themselves from the studios will stop these people in their tracks.

Or I'm wrong and literally everyone with talent has already made it as far as they can and there are very few good movies to be enabled by the continually lower cost of shooting and posting. The studios system works well and elevates the best movies into production. Or you can't make a good movie without hundreds of people and a lot of money and RED is irrelevant. Maybe that is true.

I don't think people with talent and good networking skills are in any danger either way.

Fair enough. I guess I'm still too attached to the theatrical experience to assume that most filmmakers would be actively seeking to take their work elsewhere, except as some sort of compromise. So when people spoke of making deliverables at home, I assumed they're talking a DCDM or a DCP. People have been discussing that on other threads around here, even if you weren't thinking theatrical (my apologies for reading into what you were saying).

It's totally possible to make great movies without hundreds of people and lots of money. Experimental filmmakers have been doing it for decades, as have the odd indie here and there. I do sincerely hope that RED causes a resurgence in small, high quality productions, but most of the time, I am still skeptical of this actually being the case. But that's an argument of aesthetics, and not technology.

And of course things are moving the self-distribution route on the low end. It's been happening in music (hell, it's hit the high end, look at what Radiohead just did), it's certainly hit publishing (or, as a writer friend of mine said once after reading a particularly bad self-published novel, "There is now no bottom to the publishing industry."), and to a lesser extent, it's hitting movies, though that's sure to become more commonplace.

krd

10-06-2007, 07:48 AM

Or I'm wrong and literally everyone with talent has already made it as far as they can and there are very few good movies to be enabled by the continually lower cost of shooting and posting. The studios system works well and elevates the best movies into production. Or you can't make a good movie without hundreds of people and a lot of money and RED is irrelevant. Maybe that is true.

I don't think anybody here is arguing for the tyranny of the studio system, or that meritocracy always prevails in the movie industry, or that a handful of multinational corporations rightly controls the technical talent pool because quality is wedded to big budgets.

But the core of your claim has already been tested. For more than 10 years virtually anyone could afford to make a movie from start to finish on DV, owning all the tools of production. For that matter, $20,000 buys enough S16mm filmstock to cover stock and lab costs on an 80 min feature shot 10:1, and that's been true since before most of us were born.

The editing and camera equipment for making a film can't get any more accessible than it already is. Forget about 4K for a moment. How many of these low budget, self-produced films were well-written? Well-acted? Well-directed? Well shot? Well lit? Well edited?

How will new technology or distribution models change the fundamental constraints on low-budget movie making, which are already known to us? Haven't armies of people, in and out of film school, been working this way for years?

Chris Kenny

10-06-2007, 09:10 AM

The editing and camera equipment for making a film can't get any more accessible than it already is. Forget about 4K for a moment. How many of these low budget, self-produced films were well-written? Well-acted? Well-directed? Well shot? Well lit? Well edited?

Some of them. Not most, but some. Yet virtually none of them were profitably self-distributed. Which suggests the problem is with the nature of self-distribution itself. And the big new factor to watch there is, of course, the Internet. Both as a medium to promote a film, and as a direct distribution medium.

The other factor to keep an eye on is that digital projection breaks down the wall between theaters and everything else. One should keep in mind that a DCI-compliant media server is not the only way to get data to a digital cinema projector.

Joel Kaye

10-06-2007, 09:41 AM

What Nirvana is right around the corner?

Your points are good and I certainly ponder those things myself. But there are already a lot of movies out there that distributors will tell you are good but will never be picked up for distribution because they can't be neatly packaged and sold. Additionally, tons of "OK" cable content is really just low budget production that didn't exist 10 years ago but now is available due to lower costs of production. Video podcasts are happening and some of it is decent.

Other variables I think will contribute to better content than we have been seeing.

- Kids today statistically see more video on the net than they do on TV. They are used to all kinds of content without stars and the Hollywood machine behind it. They don't read reviews. They listen to friends. They are the market for the new content. The Internet will be where people break from. Not Hollywood.

- AppleTV in HD and other set top appliances that allow access to HD content via the Net are coming. It's rumored Apple is working on allowing Indie movies into iTunes via a couple distributors specializing in that.

- Distribution is changing so smaller films should have a chance of making their money by selling direct to the consumer.

- Digital projection is coming. The massive expense of having to make a film out may go away. The studio still own the theater chains by proxy. But there could be a independent theater resurgence that will book indie movies directly. Again - that could take 10 years to see evolve.

- It takes time to get good at the craft of visual storytelling. I think that clock started ticking for many in the past 5 years and they are just starting to get good.

- video still looks like video and RED looks a lot more like a movie. Audiences weren't likely to warm up to most of these little DV movies IMHO because they feel weird.

- VFX capabilities and prices are plummeting. You can blow up a Battleship on a desktop computer and have it look pretty good right now. And I can pay 3 guys in Africa $500 to do it in a week.

- There is a ton more educational material out there to help people get past time consuming hurdles w/o needing 10 years of experience.

I could be totally wrong. Movies are really hard to make well. It's the toughest thing I've ever attempted... so many variables can go bad. But I just have to believe that the total number of people trying is going to go way up in the coming years and that will result in both more good and bad stuff total.

I read an Internet article recently about the GLUT of entertainment content. I then checked the date. It was 1998.

Joel Kaye

10-06-2007, 09:55 AM

M Most

10-06-2007, 03:54 PM

To clarify my previous post further - It's impossible to know how many worthy projects never got off the ground in the past that will get made in the coming years due to this perfect storm of lower cost of production and the ability to bypass the traditional distribution system and market straight to these new consumers out there that are open to watching non-hollywood content.

Watching is one thing. Paying for it is another. What you're describing as "self distribution" and "perfect storm of lower cost...", I describe as a way of making something yourself that a lot of people might want to watch - once - and very few, if any, will actually pay you for. Except in very, very rare cases, that's the current and past history of the Internet. It's basically a license to get free stuff, and always has been. Besides Apple, Amazon, and Google, very few companies or individuals have ever been able to figure out how to make any money through Internet distribution of anything, especially entertainment material. I honestly don't see any evidence that this will change, as all of those "new consumers" you are talking about have grown up in an age where you don't pay for anything. Without the ability to make money, what's the point?