Just how hard would it be to make a movie on a shoestring which didn't look or feel like it?
- Thread starter Overmind One
- Start date
OMNI
My avatar speaks for itself.
sure but everyone has a btter one then that ugly ass BLEH cword..I've got the cuter butt though.
Uh, the reality is that shooting on film yields an INFERIOR product to HD video in terms of resolution. Its a fact. The grains of silver oxide are larger than nanopixels. The lenses are not a factor when shooting video unless you are using special effects. The audience CANNOT tell the difference between million dollar optics and an HD video made with a simple $300.00 12mp Camcorder. YOU may have the eye to see these things, but 90% of the viewing audience does not. I do not recall anyone whining about the video quality of The Blair Witch Project. If you only could see the equipment being used by live News crews. Before, they needed a whole truck and bulky cameras. Now, they are using the same sort of camcorders sold at Best Buy to do these newscases, and in some cases, they are using WEBCAMS. I live in California and get to see this sort of thing all of the time.
The "real equipment" is a 50/50 proposition. 12 megapixels on a Sony Camcorder is the same 12 megapixels that SuperDooper $15,000 Megacam offers at 12 megapixels. Its the same example as the watches I made in another thread. A $20 million-dollar Bvulgari mechanical watch with a solid platinum movement and encrusted with rare moon diamonds will keep LESS ACCURATE time than a $1.00 watch bought at a 99c store. What I know is that unless you have a deep working knowledge of technology, you may not realize why it is wasteful and illogical to spend for features/names when they do nothing for the product you are making. I do not think there are very many people who would be able to tell that you do your renderings on a home computer. It looks like it was done in a digital studio in some megatower somewhere by a crew of CGI artists.
Your perceptions are biased, man! Its like most artists. Can you really tell me WHY you think film is a desirable media to use, without making a purely SUBJECTIVE assessment of it? From a technological standpoint, NO film can equal the resolution or fineness of digital. In the first 10 years of digital, perhaps it was superior. But the digital technology has surpassed it by a comfortable margin. Software can give it the characteristic film quality by clicking a mouse. Those big bulky digital cameras are mostly empty inside. The lenses do not add anything unless you are comparing plastic lenses to glass. Cellphones are sporting Zeiss optics just like the huge cameras. WHY is the $30,000 camera better? Again, try to make a case for them without being SUBJECTIVE. The reality is that the Industry has been spending so much money on things for so long, they think it is a REQUIREMENT. They are very wrong.
This is for amateurs. You are now officially a "Pro".
I am thinking live action, storyline, limited location shoot, clever dialogue, and perhaps one or two special effects.
Red Scarlett HD, eh?
http://gizmodo.com/379530/red-scarlet-3k-hd-pocket-pro-camera-under-3000
Not impressed. This camera shoots at 3k resolution (3000 by 1980). The finest HD TV for home theaters can only display 1080p, so....
The technology of that camera is just not as impressive as you think it is. 8x zoom? Really? LOL. It records to SD cards???? Why would anybody spend $3000 on a camera like that when they cannot use the high end of the technology? The resolution is TOO HIGH. The best TV could not match it, so why film in it? The theaters are no longer the main vebue for watching movies. It is the living room.
This HD camcorder from HP has superior specs on every level, and records to a HARD DISK.
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HR10-Camcorder-Review-33522.htm
The HR10 is modeled after the standard definition DVD camcorder, the DC50. Both camcorders have the same components on the front of the body, with the addition of the HR10’s Instant AF sensor (explained more thoroughly in Manual Controls). The HR10 sports a 10x optical zoom lens with a focal length of 6.1-61mm and the following 35mm equivalents:
-43.6-436mm (16:9 Movies)
-53.0-530mm (4:3 Movies)
-43.6-436mm (LW Still Images)
-40.0-400mm (L, M, S Still Images)
The lens has a 37mm filter diameter for attachments such as telephoto or wide angle lenses. If you opt for any such attachments, keep in mind the flash and video light (in some cases) will be blocked. However, this should not be such a detriment, as the video light is merely successful in casting a bluish, penlight-grade wash over the image. Since the video light is mounted to the left of the lens, more light is prominent on the right side of the screen and gradually trails off toward the left.
The flash is located above the video light, and the Instant AF sensor above the flash. At the bottom of the front is the HR10’s built-in stereo microphone, accented by two pentagonal speaker clusters that bookend the circular remote sensor.
:icon_e_wink:
The second camera is clearly superior to the Red Scarlett in every measurable area. So why is it better?
EDIT:
The HP camera which is the second one is a 2007 model, and cost about $1200.00 when new, but today can be had for about $500.00. The Red Scarlet model I posted is a 2009 model, and retailed for almost $3000.00. Today, it is still fetching $1500.00 and more. But mostly because of the cachet of owning one. I own a set of 4 Linco Pro stands for my greenscreens and cameras, but I could have paid less for more generic and equivalent stands. Why did I want the Linco stands? Because they come in a Linco case that is widely recognized by photographers and video buffs and looks cool even when empty. Are they better stands? No.
http://gizmodo.com/379530/red-scarlet-3k-hd-pocket-pro-camera-under-3000
Not impressed. This camera shoots at 3k resolution (3000 by 1980). The finest HD TV for home theaters can only display 1080p, so....
The technology of that camera is just not as impressive as you think it is. 8x zoom? Really? LOL. It records to SD cards???? Why would anybody spend $3000 on a camera like that when they cannot use the high end of the technology? The resolution is TOO HIGH. The best TV could not match it, so why film in it? The theaters are no longer the main vebue for watching movies. It is the living room.
This HD camcorder from HP has superior specs on every level, and records to a HARD DISK.
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HR10-Camcorder-Review-33522.htm
The HR10 is modeled after the standard definition DVD camcorder, the DC50. Both camcorders have the same components on the front of the body, with the addition of the HR10’s Instant AF sensor (explained more thoroughly in Manual Controls). The HR10 sports a 10x optical zoom lens with a focal length of 6.1-61mm and the following 35mm equivalents:
-43.6-436mm (16:9 Movies)
-53.0-530mm (4:3 Movies)
-43.6-436mm (LW Still Images)
-40.0-400mm (L, M, S Still Images)
The lens has a 37mm filter diameter for attachments such as telephoto or wide angle lenses. If you opt for any such attachments, keep in mind the flash and video light (in some cases) will be blocked. However, this should not be such a detriment, as the video light is merely successful in casting a bluish, penlight-grade wash over the image. Since the video light is mounted to the left of the lens, more light is prominent on the right side of the screen and gradually trails off toward the left.
The flash is located above the video light, and the Instant AF sensor above the flash. At the bottom of the front is the HR10’s built-in stereo microphone, accented by two pentagonal speaker clusters that bookend the circular remote sensor.
:icon_e_wink:
The second camera is clearly superior to the Red Scarlett in every measurable area. So why is it better?
EDIT:
The HP camera which is the second one is a 2007 model, and cost about $1200.00 when new, but today can be had for about $500.00. The Red Scarlet model I posted is a 2009 model, and retailed for almost $3000.00. Today, it is still fetching $1500.00 and more. But mostly because of the cachet of owning one. I own a set of 4 Linco Pro stands for my greenscreens and cameras, but I could have paid less for more generic and equivalent stands. Why did I want the Linco stands? Because they come in a Linco case that is widely recognized by photographers and video buffs and looks cool even when empty. Are they better stands? No.
Tell me why then. I can easily see why it would be important in creating CGI. The framerates, the number of polygons, etc. I dont know that much about CGI. But I know more than a little something about video technology and I know that film cannot approach digital in terms of resolution on the high end. It will never be able to because the size of the silver oxide grains is much larger than electrons or the nanopixels on a high end CCD chip. I also know that even if you film at 10,000px15,000p, you will only be able to display it at 1080p no matter how much you spend on your TV monitor. So, why is it better to overdo the resolution? Perhaps if you werent a CGI artist, you might have a different eye on this subject?
I think the best demonstration is to create something worth watching. The Blair Witch Project was entertaining and was filmed without using any of the fancy stuff you are describing. It made more money than many films costing more than one hundred times more. I would hope that mentally bringing the filmmaking arena down to earth where the rest of us live is a GOOD thing.
The technical question is interesting, and there are benefits to higher end video.
For example, what is the highest frame rate human eyes can perceive:
http://www.cameratechnica.com/2011/11/21/what-is-the-highest-frame-rate-the-human-eye-can-perceive/
If you film at a frame rate higher than the max value then everything will appear to be completely fluid and natural. Also, what are the maximum pixel density the human eye can perceive:
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/06/do-you-really-need-300-ppi-on-a-3-5-inch-phone/
The article is challenging the Apple claim that 300 ppi is the max but my point is that there is a max albeit one that varies by distance. Do your film at a higher density and all the images will have completely natural outlines and shapes because the pixelation is at a level our eyes cannot perceive.
Same comments no doubt apply with color saturation and other aspects too.
For example, what is the highest frame rate human eyes can perceive:
http://www.cameratechnica.com/2011/11/21/what-is-the-highest-frame-rate-the-human-eye-can-perceive/
If you film at a frame rate higher than the max value then everything will appear to be completely fluid and natural. Also, what are the maximum pixel density the human eye can perceive:
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/06/do-you-really-need-300-ppi-on-a-3-5-inch-phone/
The article is challenging the Apple claim that 300 ppi is the max but my point is that there is a max albeit one that varies by distance. Do your film at a higher density and all the images will have completely natural outlines and shapes because the pixelation is at a level our eyes cannot perceive.
Same comments no doubt apply with color saturation and other aspects too.
Great info. And it is proof that the constant one-upmanship of technology marketing hits a hard ceiling that makes no sense to breach. This is also true of sounds and smells and all of the other senses. Our technology exceeds the capabilities of our natural senses ALREADY. One could compose an entire symphony at ultra high frequencies but nobody would be able to hear it. My point is that no matter how much you spend, you cannot exceed the capabilities of human senses or the very best HD TV sets. Right now, the level of resolution in HD camcorders and phones is already far higher than the best cameras of 15 years ago, and this includes the million dollar models. The computing power of your current Thunderbolt is more powerful than the first Cray supercomputer. The robotics on children's toys today is more advanced than anything on the Moon Lander which landed on the Moon in 1969.
Movies and entertainment will move out of the studios and into your pockets. Wait...we are already there.
mzzz
Well Known GateFan
Definitely agree with this. Started watching more foreign films cause of that. They don't have the big budgets, but they make up for with superior story telling.
EvilSpaceAlien
Sinister Swede
So true. One of my favorite non-genre movies of recent years is actually a small non-American production with a budget of $3-4 million, and it was done brilliantly. Great story (through it's based on a book) with good actors and directing. And now the Hollywood morons are planning on doing a remake which I am utterly certain will be awful. Why am I so certain about its awfulness? Well firstly, it's a remake, and secondly, Zac Efron is going to play the lead. :puke:
What this topic comes down to is the cost of creativity. ITS FREE! When I was stationed in Tennessee, an old corn farmer sat me down on his porch and his wife brought fresh lemonade and "tea cakes" and told me some stories about the River (Mississippi) from when he was a kid. I am certain that he embellished every paragraph, but I sat there transfixed, seeing the images he conjured in my mind with his stories. Same thing with Illiterati's book Siofra. I could SO see it in movie form. Storytelling does not require film, cameras, CGI or theaters. The current idea of "entertainment" is a far cry and a pale shadow of itself. I found myself just as terrified hearing the story about the hairy girl who lived in the attic of the empty house on Lake Cachuma as I did watching the first Alien. But the hairy girl story was told around a cracking campfire and 10 very quiet and scared teenagers.
The movie "The Man From Earth" was shot completely in ONE ROOM on a single location in a cabin, and was AWESOME storytelling. One could do it for $100.00 and with a few friends. The illusion of mega-millions to do movies is fading.
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
OM
There is a difference between storytelling, and movies.
As a near 30 year vet of role-playing, trust me bud
There is a difference between storytelling, and movies.
As a near 30 year vet of role-playing, trust me bud
YoshiKart64
Well Known GateFan
I'm sorry but I just don't buy that everyone will suddenly start accepting movies filmed on some guys phone over professionally made films. People are putting a load of media up on Youtube but it hasn't stopped the desire for a new Batman movie. Online distribution is great for getting media to more people but at the end of the day your going to need to be able to finance proper products and have a market that's actually sound for a return.
If it wasn't for companies like HBO spending the required amount to do Game of Thrones justice, we simply wouldn't have entertainment like that. The current TV/Movie system as its flaws but it has an upside that far outweighs it in my opinion.
If it wasn't for companies like HBO spending the required amount to do Game of Thrones justice, we simply wouldn't have entertainment like that. The current TV/Movie system as its flaws but it has an upside that far outweighs it in my opinion.
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
You know what drives me crazy about you is that I can't figure out if you're willfully obtuse or if it just comes naturally. Plenty of people have laid out excellent arguments, based on reality, but you refuse to even acknowledge it. The "phone film" thing was just an example that OM1 gave of how technology has changed, that's all.
Look, all we're saying is that the technology for film production has changed and so have the economics of it. Yes the studios are still big players and will be for quite awhile (if they respond to changes in the industry accordingly), but the fact that the tech and the money issue has changed means that they will have to change also. Look at what the Internet and computers have done to the music industry. In less than a decade record companies have been turned upside-down and gutted (along with their signed artists) because computers now allow people to get exactly what they want musically, exactly when they want it. It's also allowed plenty of no-name artists to get their presence known in a way that record companies never could have managed. It's also severely changed the way that money flows thru the record companies. It is a fact that music artists now make the bulk of their money from touring (listen to Steven Tyler bitch about this sometime; he laments the loss of millions to their library of songs). Gone are the days when they could sit back and rake in millions from CD sales. Yes they still make money from the purchase of their music but the iTunes .99 cent per song model that lets you cherry pick what you want has destroyed the album market. The artists and record companies aren't getting $13.99 per CD anymore since music buyers pick only what they want at a much lower price.
So, the film studios aren't going anywhere just yet, but it's a fact that economically priced quality film and production equipment is becoming more prevalent to the general population. So are the distribution networks for independently produced films. To think the big studio system won't be changed in some fashion is short sighted because it will. To think the Internet won't have an effect on the theater and film distribution system is short sighted also. Home theater system sales are up and so are complaints by people who simply won't go to theaters anymore.
And look at how "reality" shows have changed TV. A decade ago you had mostly scripted dramas and scripted sitcoms (since the 1950's) yet now they are in the minority. The availability of low-cost high quality recording equipment certainly helped fuel this new genre. These shows aren't produced by studios, rather, they are conceived and produced by independent production companies (owned by show runners essentially). The budgets are so low on most of these productions that just about anyone can get into the game.
And that's the point we're trying to make here, that the economics have changed and are continuing to change. To think the big studio system will remain static and unchanged by this new reality is, as I've pointed out, short sighted. You can't deny the industry changing examples I've listed because they're a fact. Music and TV have been changed radically in the past decade. It's not a stretch of the imagination to assume the same is happening to the film industry also.
YoshiKart64
Well Known GateFan
I'm not saying things wont change, I'm just saying that films still cost a hell of a lot to make, even on a budget. I also stated that the digital download model simply doesn't work for films as there is no way to recoup the necessary costs. As you stated for music, much of the money is made on tour which is essentially a parallel to a film being in a cinema.
As for your comment about reality TV - sure that's cheaper to make, not so cheap that anybody could do it though. It's still ordered by and directed by big studios though and is reliant on the big networks to find a mass audience. It's hardly by the people, for the people. Most of it is also complete garbage.
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
Your analogy is wrong. Touring bands aren't the same as movies being shown in a theater. Let me just throw in a hearty DUH! right here. The analogy should be touring stage performers, not movies in theaters. Living breathing humans aren't the same as pixels on a screen, m'kay. The economics alone are a whole different animal.
And once again you (willfully?) fail to grasp the facts of reality laid out in my examples. You're like a child stamping your foot defiantly against a tidal wave of change. The fact that reality TV is mostly garbage wasn't the point of my example (and you know it). The point was that the technology and the economics of television production has changed drastically in the last decade. Deny it all you want but the times they are a changin'.
YoshiKart64
Well Known GateFan
Your analogy is wrong. Touring bands aren't the same as movies being shown in a theater. Let me just throw in a hearty DUH! right here. The analogy should be touring stage performers, not movies in theaters. Living breathing humans aren't the same as pixels on a screen, m'kay. The economics alone are a whole different animal.
And once again you (willfully?) fail to grasp the facts of reality laid out in my examples. You're like a child stamping your foot defiantly against a tidal wave of change. The fact that reality TV is mostly garbage wasn't the point of my example (and you know it). The point was that the technology and the economics of television production has changed drastically in the last decade. Deny it all you want but the times they are a changin'.
If the only TV you can produce on such a drastically reduced budget is reality television then digital distribution is going to have a problem. One of these facts of reality is that TV and Movies cannot be sustained by people paying Netflix-esque prices as they cost too much to make. The digital market will continue to grow but the money will still need to be found somewhere, which is why other models and big studios will remain.
Just because something is nicer for the customer doesn't mean it magically works. Two guys and a few hundred dollars does not make a film.
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
Well, if you're so sure of it I guess that means you're right. :roll:
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
OM
There is a difference between storytelling, and movies.
As a near 30 year vet of role-playing, trust me bud
Now, why would you drag your bedroom antics into this thread?