Shion wrote:I'm curious to know why you think this is such a bad approach?
because it has hardly ever happened before (not even in the el mariachi case contrary to popular belief) and it's not likely to happen very often in the future either.
Totally correct. I have friends treading that same treacherous path at this very moment.
But since we're on the subject, maybe we can talk about constructive possibilities. What about putting together a really hot 90-seconds-or-less teaser to use in the pitch and financing process? Has anyone had or heard of positive experiences along those lines? (Considering this myself as a money-getting tool for a feature-length doco I want to make.)
There are so many people out there trying to make <$50k features... They should probably be spending that amount of money on professional business assistance and on developing a truly impressive and compelling treatment in order to raise 10 times that.
Shion wrote:I'm curious to know why you think this is such a bad approach?
mattias wrote:
because it has hardly ever happened before (not even in the el mariachi case contrary to popular belief) and it's not likely to happen very often in the future either.
ccortez wrote:I have friends treading that same treacherous path at this very moment.
Hmmm. Perhaps I'm not getting it but here is what Actor wrote and, frankly, I see nothing illogical nor treacherous about it:
actor wrote:
* Shoot 16mm.
* Transfer to miniDV.
* Edit on computer.
* Burn a DVD.
* Shop the DVD around Hollywood and get a big studio to pay for transfer to HD and re-edit.
In my opinion, it is far from a bad idea and sounds like the safest way to create the original imagery with the least financial risk.
Since most films never get theatrical release, wouldn't shooting in 35mm on the same budget be a worse idea? I don't get it. What makes shoting in 16mm a bad or threacherous idea?
Shop the DVD around Hollywood and get a big studio to pay for transfer to HD and re-edit.
haha, you're funny.
/matt
You're right - it probably doesn't happen that often - but at least if it does you've got a great source format (16mm) for a blow up (either digital or optical) and if it doesn't you've got a dvd you can sell yourself or try and get a dvd distributor on board with.
It probably only becomes insane when you start doing the theatrical blow ups yourself -- and you could do a kind of HD transfer yourself with a hi res still or web camera and a work printer
Scot
Read my science fiction novel The Forest of Life at https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01D38AV4K
Scotness wrote:
You're right - it probably doesn't happen that often - but at least if it does you've got a great source format (16mm) for a blow up (either digital or optical) and if it doesn't you've got a dvd you can sell yourself or try and get a dvd distributor on board with.
Exactly. If you are working on a small budget, shooting in 35mm isn't going to increase the liklihood that you'll get a theatrical release. If anything, working with a thin budget in 35mm can actually create larger problems than it would solve, IMHO. I'm not saying that 16mm looks as good as 35mm but, realistically, 35mm shot underbudgeted isn't pretty, either. I guess a more fair question would be how many 16mm budgeted films that went ahead and shot in 35mm became successful. i.e. got a threatrical release?
Scotness wrote:
It probably only becomes insane when you start doing the theatrical blow ups yourself
Yes, that would be silly. Let the distributor pay for it if they want it.
Shion wrote:I'm curious to know why you think this is such a bad approach?
because it has hardly ever happened before (not even in the el mariachi case contrary to popular belief) and it's not likely to happen very often in the future either.
/matt
Why do you say it has not happened in the El Mariachi case? Are you saying Rebel Without a Crew is fiction?
Scotness and Roger have summed up my thoughts on the matter.
Mind you, I'd be curious to see how 16mm looks when transferred to HD via a Workprinter + Panasonic HVX200 combo. If it works well, it could be a decent, affordable approach for film-originated HD on a budget.
I still agree that a professional transfer is the way to go for those with intentions of serious HD distribution. But I think that over time, as HD becomes more prevalent, Workprinter-based HD transfers could fill the same niche that Workprinter-based SD transfers currently do.
As for Super 8, does it truly have the resolution to justify HD transfers? I have not seen a single image to suggest that it does. This includes the great looking 2K scan that Daniel from Chile posted a while back. Open that image in Photoshop, resize to 768x576, then resize back up to 2048x1536. Paste this onto a layer above the original, then compare the pixels @ 100%. The difference between the two is very subtle... the top one has more detailed grain, but not a more detailed image.
This is not to say that Super 8 HD transfers are useless... just that until they are priced similarly to SD transfers, don't they offer a fairly minimal advantage over upconverted SD?
Actor wrote:Why do you say it has not happened in the El Mariachi case? Are you saying Rebel Without a Crew is fiction?
they bought robert, not the film. it's very clear from the book.
i agree with roger there's nothing wrong with it, after all you have nothing to lose, but just remember that it's pretty much 100% sure that your dream will stay a dream.
Shion wrote:As for Super 8, does it truly have the resolution to justify HD transfers? I have not seen a single image to suggest that it does. This includes the great looking 2K scan that Daniel from Chile posted a while back. Open that image in Photoshop, resize to 768x576, then resize back up to 2048x1536.
yeah, that's a clever way of testing resolution. i've gotten the same results. although many sd transfers i've seen from wp's and ranks can be put through the same process using 384x288 and not lose much...
Actor wrote:Why do you say it has not happened in the El Mariachi case? Are you saying Rebel Without a Crew is fiction?
they bought robert, not the film. it's very clear from the book.
Yes. I would agree with that statement.
mattias wrote:
i agree with roger there's nothing wrong with it, after all you have nothing to lose, but just remember that it's pretty much 100% sure that your dream will stay a dream.
/matt
That's true no matter what approach you take, even if you have the means to shoot 70mm. Howard Hughes essentially bought his way into Hollywood but he did have some talent otherwise even he would have failed.
My goal is to make a feature and have it seen by at least a few audiences. I this point I seek to emulate Matt Pacini, Roger Evans, Rick Schmidt and J.R. Bookwalter rather than Rodriguez and Kubrick. If I achieve that then I'll set my sights higher.
i agree with roger there's nothing wrong with it, after all you have nothing to lose, but just remember that it's pretty much 100% sure that your dream will stay a dream.
The real question in this post is : are you willing to do movies because you like movies or because you want to be famous ?
If you made a movie and enjoyed it, why not send some DVDs to influent people ?
But if you made this movie thinking that it's your turn to touch the "american dream", now there's a problem. You probably should better work on wallstreet.
IMHO
Matt
_______________________________________
"Composing is improvising slower" Bill EVANS
good plan. and then when you've set your goals higher (i.e. theatrical feature) i suggest you start to shop a script around rather than a finished film. that's more likely to be successful, though still not easy of course. ;-)
Basstruc wrote:The real question in this post is : are you willing to do movies because you like movies or because you want to be famous ?
yeah, my only problem with the al mariachi approach is that people include the last step of the equation as if it was important or even mandatory. there are a million ways to be successful with an independent/underground film that don't include being picked up by a studio, which in turn is so unlikely that i don't think it should be part of the equation at all.
oh, and one of the tihings that can actually happen is that you do well at a few festivals and get a small art house theatrical release. distributors typically don't pay for what you're supposed to deliver as the producer, so you'll have to pay and it's not likely that you'll get the money back, but it might be worth it for career or artistic reasons. this approach follows the same route as the el mariachi method in that you don't have to use that much money to begin with, but ironically if you make a hit it's going to cost you. ;-) in europe there are many grants you can get to support the distribution of art films, including striking prints, but it's still you who have to get them. the distributor *won't pay*.
i don't think it should be part of the equation at all
The equation... haha. Like if getting success was a cooking "recette" (what's the world in english ?). If so, believe the best cooks when they say "You won't do a wonderfull meal without wonderfull ingredients."...
there are a million ways to be successful with an independent/underground film that don't include being picked up by a studio
Yes, but that's a solution like another. Probably not the best for sure. What I understood from my work (in commercials) is : whatever you are good or not if you take cocain with the right person, in the right discotheque.
Matt
_______________________________________
"Composing is improvising slower" Bill EVANS
Basstruc wrote:The equation... haha. Like if getting success was a cooking "recette" (what's the world in english ?).
recipe. it was posted in that fashion in this thread and has been numerous times before. it's not my idea, i'm just commenting on it. ;-)
Yes, but that's a solution like another
no, because it's much less likely. my point is that despite this it's often the first solution that people think of, which is why i said "haha, you're funny" and will contiue to do so whenever i hear it. :-)
/matt
Last edited by mattias on Sun May 01, 2005 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
