Indie Film: Does a 4K finish pay off? (looking for examples)

[Matthew Quinn]

So I should just tell the colorist hey man i want 4k? then scale down a 2k print for me to make dvds for submissions?

 

[Christoffer Glans]

So I should just tell the colorist hey man i want 4k? then scale down a 2k print for me to make dvds for submissions?

That would be the way. Only thing that would be in the way of 4K delivery is if the process of grading and finishing costs more in both time and money, but if grading R3Ds, it's only the render out that's changed in resolution, so it wouldn't be a problem for the colorist. If working in Resolve, he could use easy DCP for proper cinema export, as long as it's P3. Ask him for a P3 4K DCP and a rec709 4K DNxHR 444 or ProRes 4444, then you are covered with a good cinema master and a good file master which you could scale down yourself.

Avid now has DNxHR resolution independence so a DNxHR 444 is native

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I think there are realistic limits below which a feature film cannot be made. That would include a $25,000 budget. I think realistically, it is possible to do films for $200,000 or $150,000 or even $100,000 and get something reasonable done, provided you can live with the compromises: mainly lower-cost actors, fewer locations, and fewer shooting days. But there are fixed costs for which you can't compromise too much: lighting kits, lens rental, insurance, permits, editors, sound mixing, VFX, and color. If you try to cut too many corners, you're going to wind up with a very uncommercial production that you can show in your garage, but very few other venues. Real commercial films have to have recognizable talent, compelling storylines, and they have to be told in a visual way that holds the audience's interest. I've hung around enough with indie distributors to understand what they look for and what will actually sell. The grim reality of commercial release is that only a small percentage of indie films make a profit, and even then, it might take years for the investors to actually break even.

As far as budgets go: the usual rule of thumb for (say) a $1,000,000 production is that you have to budget roughly 15% for post -- but this doesn't mean that percentage holds if the budget skyrockets to $50M or $100M. The costs go up, but they don't go up 10 times. A $10 million film might have roughly the same post budget as a $50M film. But there are a lot of factors, schedule being very high on that list.

I've done plenty of very modest indie projects for color and final delivery where we were able to hold the line at roughly 25-30 hours of work for well under $10K. In many cases, that included some additional editing, the full conform, titles, multiple versions, and several different deliveries. A lot depends on how well the clients are organized and whether the film is truly locked. I still run into films where we do "final" renders, only to have the director change his or her mind at the last minute, and we have to frantically go back and replace shots or pull up scenes. This was almost impossible in the days when film prints had to ship to theaters. Now -- unfortunately -- it's become standard practice, to the point that features are merely "latched" and never fully locked, and changes run rampant. I don't mind changes, but the client has to understand that the longer they prolong the post process, the more it's going to cost.

Marc, I'll try to pm you. I fully understand where you are coming from, but I didn't get involved in the low end cinema scene, and push it like .... in front and behind the scenes. I did all that work for nothing so people could film descent looking documentaries and $25k films, and third world stuff, and couple of grand local community stuff (which I've worked in) and in house studio stuff, not for big budget. Today's $250k might he closer to yesterday's $25k budget, but I don't think $25k is dead, as Elsie, whom I talk to said about the Clerks film (I think certain elements of that film would add up despite the lower equipment/film budget though). We are facing a technological future where one person can direct produce and do all the post, hand over file projects containing all the original data to a studio/dustributor and say, here it is, this is what I've done, polish it if you wish. The receiver can then.go through the footage and further adjust sections that may need it. If the single person is good, and has done a good job, then it should be evident at first screening as to how really bad it might be, and they will know what they have to deal with and negotiate or ask them to adjust and cone back. The real advantage is that if they polish, they will have a fresh set of eyes not to tired of looking at it that can quickly verify and adjust the work before their eyes stop being fresh. I should add, that it would he optimal to include extra alligned footage and versions of scenes, and the full of each scene, incase they need alternative cuts to work with. Funny, I remember writing that bit about scenes in a dream a few nights ago. That has not happened for ages (and usually not in dreams. Of course, most people will suck at this and a lot of work will be needed, but it is not for everybody But, the same principle applies to the team. Those three of four people that can team up to do it. However, I'm curiouse how resolve would go on auto and then adjust. At $25k all you want is something good enough to put on line and look nicely watchable, not.even great, content trumps including the work you put into content.

You obviously must deal with some quality work, bubuit us not always needed. I do have my own ideas on production, and the style used by cheap quality BBC comedies is something I want to do. If you look for the old BBC comedy Coupling and go to sorcual features on one of the discs (maybe season 3 or 4) they outline how they are doing it. The entire year is shit in a week or two, next week in post, the next out to air. It might sound impossible, but they are very savy. They get a cheap room, place boxes for the scenes furniture and block out and rehearse for three months. The SINGLE writer has honed this things for ages (faulty towers was a good example of writing by two people). The quality little known actors trained to nail the content leads to less production time). Hence forth, I often watched crappy looking English comedy shows rather than elite looking crappy US comedy shows with everybody arguing how important they are ruining the content (Sinfield, and some post sinfield, excluded of course). Unfortunately the world has become a stage and reality an act now days in the US and the UK, and here, but, how many quality SciFi shows you see come out of CANADA still. The British had a commitment to delivery of content, a good show. Like Hollywood now has a commitment to good acting, and a good show. Know your teachers, and know them well. On the other extreme, was the Startrek enterprise series, movie level production on a production line on steriods. Probably around the forth season on the special features section they show their production methords. This one is pretty vague in my memory, but they actually block rehearse on set with ans wuthout camera rigs etc while they are setting up for the next scene. TOTAL COMMITMENT. The budgets for these Startrek shows are rather high. Voyager was astronomical in its day, $17 million an episode from memory, the highest yet at the time. I don't know how that was padded though. The BBC stuff is my sort of thing (I think I was planning refining actors by that stage), maybe more, and with a bit of the startrek production style. I actual want to find cheap raw workable talent and refine them. The BBC stuff, in reality, is the $25k zone, I can right good, and practice, and rehersal is cheap. Everybody starts out, funding, shares. A team effort, and whoever gets the chance leaves to better pastures. However, for big budget, wherever starting out or nor, everybody should get paid (I can keep the shares for myself then ). Now Blair Witch is the last word, despite how much we know, sometimes people will watch feces.

 

[Matthew Quinn]

That would be the way. Only thing that would be in the way of 4K delivery is if the process of grading and finishing costs more in both time and money, but if grading R3Ds, it's only the render out that's changed in resolution, so it wouldn't be a problem for the colorist. If working in Resolve, he could use easy DCP for proper cinema export, as long as it's P3. Ask him for a P3 4K DCP and a rec709 4K DNxHR 444 or ProRes 4444, then you are covered with a good cinema master and a good file master which you could scale down yourself.

Avid now has DNxHR resolution independence so a DNxHR 444 is native

you are the best, this is what i was thinking of just didnt know how to put it into words for him ty!!

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Shooting R3Ds makes it even unnecessary to discuss a 4K delivery or not since you will always have that possibility. Yes, you might have a lot of VFX shots, but even those artists seem to do 4K today without that much of a problem.

But the main thing in my opinion is that 4K delivery now might seem overkill, but how many times have you thought "I wished that they shot that movie back in 1980 in that way, then a remaster with todays standards would have been much better" etc. If you are involved in a movie that might be considered important to preserve, or if it's popular enough to be viewed many times over many years, then when everyone is sitting in front of their 4K TVs or IMAX VRs in 2030 and that old classic goes available on the HBO late night theatre streaming event, you will think "really good that we did it in 4K so it could easily be remastered for rec2020 and todays viewing standards..."

Christoffer, 4k actual presents a minimal resolution forba seat with a good fov. That is why it is important. Even if you can do 8k, 4k is still cool. I tested and worked this out years ago. If you widen the feild you have to start moving your head or eyes too much, but at the range where you can see a lot without straining or moving your head, 4k represents a resolution where your mind starts integrating pixels mirenand more, and noticing resolution less. You can still see it, guvennthe eyesight, but you ate looking for it more and more.

Copyrights arebnow blowing out of proportion with companies wanting to push it way into the future. So good content will he around like Citizen Cain us, and Gibe with.the Wind. Online, your content that us good has a chance of being watched, without the current restrictions that favor things like GibenWuth.the Wind in.the past and Citizen Cain.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Anyway Guys, sort of missed where to put this with my reply to Marc. I was one of those guys that could have done multiple things on a $25k budget production, but now even going out in the sun can konk me too much, but I still believe others can do it, and if they are good enough they can shine.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

I just wrapped my first feature which was a micro budget horror film, shot on location at a summer camp, that will end up costing us about 25k all in. So it is technically possible, but not for the average production company because this film took years of work that were totally unrelated to the actual movie.

The reason we were able to shoot for that cheap is because I called in 5 years worth of favors from around my professional network to get everything we needed for cheap/free, and I own my own camera package. So, all of the work that I've done in the last five years is what made it possible to make a feature for 25k. So, while it's technically possible, if we paid with cash instead of favors, the film would have cost about 100k instead.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I think that this is the direction the indie model is going to go. Because production and post equipment have been democratized, I think you will see more indie filmmakers spending years building up favors with other filmmakers instead of years trying to find finacing. Maybe I'm just being optimistic but I hope the indie world turns into a "all for one, one for all" type environment.

Also; to get back on topic, for our indie feature, we decided against a 4k master and are simply doing a 2k DCI SCOPE output from a 6K 2:1 frame with a 5K 2.40 center extract with a REDCODE of 5:1. The reason we went for 2k instead of 4k is because we were shooting out in the pitch black forest with an M18 and a battery powered light panel. Even though we were shooting at T1.5 on CP.2 SuperSpeeds, we were still underexposed in a lot of situations. Also, we need to heavily reframe and/or stabilize certain shots because of time constraints on set. So we decided that a 2k master would give us the more noise reduction through downscaling and the most room to reframe and stabilize where necessary.

While we inititally wanted to master in 4K, the realities of our production made it unfeasible. However, this crew is already prepping our next feature which will most likely get mastered in 4K.

Also, for those who are curious, here is an pre color correction version of our trailer so you can see what we pulled of in this price range: https://vimeo.com/144496783

 

[Mike Garrick]

4k delivery at the moment ( for now ) is overkill for indies. That's unless you are doing episodic indie series ( is there such a thing ?) for Netflicks .

Face it at a Indy level you are counting your dollars all the time , IMO 4k is just an unneccasry step when even the biggest films are being largely delivered in 2K. This is amplified if you have VFX components adding substantial time penalty for 4k deliverable and time = $$$$$.

The other night I went to a test screening of an Indy features shot 4k but because it was a test was delivered in Blue ray which looked surprisingly good ......did the audience care ........did I care .....no.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Marcus, friends working on each other's projects is what used to happen I think. But you don't need stella quality to have great content. Spending time on getting people, acting and writing right costs little, but heaps of time, and I think $25k without the extra quality is still possible. Why doesn't the quality matter so much, because big wigs will demand it, but with the internet you should be able to place your movie on line paid viewed anyway. Just a matter of finding the right fit online service. Even if not available yet, it should be possible eventually.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

4k delivery at the moment ( for now ) is overkill for indies. That's unless you are doing episodic indie series ( is there such a thing ?) for Netflicks .

Face it at a Indy level you are counting your dollars all the time , IMO 4k is just an unneccasry step when even the biggest films are being largely delivered in 2K. This is amplified if you have VFX components adding substantial time penalty for 4k deliverable and time = $$$$$.

The other night I went to a test screening of an Indy features shot 4k but because it was a test was delivered in Blue ray which looked surprisingly good ......did the audience care ........did I care .....no.

Nearly decades ago I came up with a proposal for a mechanism that could derive HD detail from hvs tapes, one if my early av industry ones. Other people are doing these things now. The companies are probably planning to upscale their movies, 4k bkuray and other markets, but can indies afford it?

Over 10 years ago Intel came up with an upscaler routine that took 100 hours a second of footage to do on their processor. We could be talking 10 times faster now on a processor, 10 tines more again on a GP GPU, even more, and more on a costly to do custom circuits (maybe Red can upgrade the rocket to do this and well them by the truck load to server farms). So realistically, maybe 1hour per second of an indie film with that routine, but maybe they have something that works 100 times faster again. Studios can set up a server farm, indies it might be a big cost for them. In the future we expect little yeild of performance increase from current technology. A conversion from silicon might yield double, but the machines will get so hot for every unit of performance increase to become too unaffordable privately. The techniques I have been working on I am hoping to yield 10-100 times the performance density using current substrate technologies, and upto 1000 times eventually. Which is similar to some of the low end future technologies. This does not include alternative technologies I have envisoned that will have similar and higher yields at those power levels.

Private individuals maybe locked out of planned holographic shooting at future cinema level resolutions due to the sheer cost of processing on today's silicon. We are talking like 64k to achieve descent visual resolutions in the post 2k range, even auto sterscooic cinema screens hopefully, where 2k 2D movies will look dead. So studio level film can dominate. Sony is working on holographic. You guys are going to have to start looking at the online route. However with the technology I'm looking at competitive low budget solutions are likely possible again, and detail restoring upscaling. Just funding and actualisation testing, design and development of the work, once I get the finale piece right (which was a bit of a stall there after I was on it but was distracted for several weeks before I returned to design it and draw all the strings together, which was a new type of calculation unit, which is where the extra 10x+ came in). The other bits of my design are a new calculation mechanism and new processor/processor instruction set and chip communications handling. Only one company knows of parts of this work, and their designs are slowly changing in those directions (which should enhancs and make their product more usable).

 

[Marc Wielage]

The reason we were able to shoot for that cheap is because I called in 5 years worth of favors from around my professional network to get everything we needed for cheap/free, and I own my own camera package. So, all of the work that I've done in the last five years is what made it possible to make a feature for 25k. So, while it's technically possible, if we paid with cash instead of favors, the film would have cost about 100k instead.

I would bet you would have been able to produce a far better show just by raising more money on Indiegogo, Kickstarter, or the myriad of other potential investment sources. The problem with depending on friends is their inability to pay their rent and car payments with favors. The other issue is that there's always going to be technical lapses, and if potential distributors are going to judge your work against competing $100,000 or $250,000 or $500,000 films, the latter are going to be easier to sell -- all things being equal.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I think that this is the direction the indie model is going to go. Because production and post equipment have been democratized, I think you will see more indie filmmakers spending years building up favors with other filmmakers instead of years trying to find finacing. Maybe I'm just being optimistic but I hope the indie world turns into a "all for one, one for all" type environment.

Some call it "democratization," but I see only destabilization and disruption, particularly in the area of decent workers' wages and professionalism. I don't necessarily mean you personally, Marcus, but I've occasionally encountered filmmakers with a disturbing degree of a sense of entitlement, to the extent that they feel like the people they hire should feel lucky that they got to work for $100 a day and burned pizza. There are real, meaningful numbers in a film budget below which you cannot go. This is particularly true in the indie world that hires SAG-AFTRA actors, where there is a rock bottom rate that the actors have to work for. You can try to go it without union actors, but the reality is that good, established actors are in SAG, and distributors will look for recognizable names as being one of the biggest selling points of indie films.

The problem with people who want to make films at ridiculously low rates is that they rarely have a concept of what real budgets are and what's expected even at the low end. I've seen many crews who were grossly taken advantage of, and in some cases, put in danger due to poor planning and bad timing. The entire issue of having no permits, no insurance, inadequate transportation, mediocre food, horrible weather, and on and on... I've seen some doozies in my time. I'm not saying your shoots are necessarily this way, but I have seen in the past that this is what happens when people try to cut corners and make a movie for $50,000 or $20,000 or (god forbid) $7000, as Robert Rodriguez legendarily did with El Mariachi. And as I always point out the color correction I did on that film alone cost $20,000, and the final sound mix on that film cost $250,000 (including the cost of re-recording all the sound from scratch because all the production tracks were bad)... so the apparent production cost of micro-budgeted films is not quite what people believe.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

I would bet you would have been able to produce a far better show just by raising more money on Indiegogo, Kickstarter, or the myriad of other potential investment sources. The problem with depending on friends is their inability to pay your rent and car payments with favors. The other issue is that there's always going to be technical lapses, and if potential distributors are going to judge your work against competing $100,000 or $250,000 or $500,000 films, the latter are going to be easier to sell -- all things being equal.


Some call it "democratization," but I see only destabilization and disruption, particularly in the area of decent workers' wages and professionalism. I don't necessarily mean you personally, Marcus, but I've occasionally encountered filmmakers with a disturbing degree of a sense of entitlement, to the extent that they feel like the people they hire should feel lucky that they got to work for $100 a day and burned pizza. There are real, meaningful numbers in a film budget below which you cannot go. This is particularly true in the indie world that hires SAG-AFTRA actors, where there is a rock bottom rate that the actors have to work for. You can try to go it without union actors, but the reality is that good, established actors are in SAG, and distributors will look for recognizable names as being one of the biggest selling points of indie films.

The problem with people who want to make films at ridiculously low rates is that they rarely have a concept of what real budgets are and what's expected even at the low end. I've seen many crews who were grossly taken advantage of, and in some cases, put in danger due to poor planning and bad timing. The entire issue of having no permits, no insurance, inadequate transportation, mediocre food, horrible weather, and on and on... I've seen some doozies in my time. I'm not saying your shoots are necessarily this way, but I have seen in the past that this is what happens when people try to cut corners and make a movie for $50,000 or $20,000 or (god forbid) $7000, as Robert Rodriguez legendarily did with El Mariachi. And as I always point out the color correction I did on that film alone cost $20,000, and the final sound mix on that film cost $250,000 (including the cost of re-recording all the sound from scratch because all the production tracks were bad)... so the apparent production cost of micro-budgeted films is not quite what people believe.

Thank you for your response Marc. You brought up a lot of good points and I'd like to try and address each one individually.

While we of course would have been able to produce a better final product with more money, me and my crew are all commercial film makers who are trying to break into the narrative feature side of the world. For us, we looked at this feature as the first step towards bigger and better things. Since we were confident in our abilities to make a competitive product Oma budget, it made sense to us to raise private equity, rather then going through kickstarter. Yes, we probably would have received a larger amount through crowd funding, but we thought it would look better on us moving forward to be able to say' "we raised private equity for our first feature and made our investors their money back". Which, is much more likely to happen at 25k then at 250k, especially for a first feature.

Also, since we are all commercial film makers, we can make enough from our commercial work to be able to afford to shoot a feature for basically nothing. For instance, these last two days of simple commercial work has covered most of my operational costs for December. So, as long as we all see it as a path towards greater things for all of us, no one feels like they are being taken advantage of (Also, since I own a dragon, I can offer free camera rentals to my crew whenever scheduling allows and I'll usually come 1st for free as well.) Now, we obviously can't make a living, or more importantly raise a family, shooting projects for this cheap but this isn't a permanent plan, more a personal investment/sacrifice (however you would like to look at it) for the future that we can afford to make because we are young and motivated. (And so far, knock on wood, it's been working out for us. As a result of this first feature, we have two features that we will most likely be shooting in 2016 and one of them already has more money attached than our first feature had all in!)

While we may never be able to compete with a movie with a $500,000 budget, for our first feature it was a much safer game to play with significantly less money. So, in case the worse happens at least it's a realistically fixable problem.

The difference between destabilization and democratization is an incredibly fine line that I think comes down to intention (oh and by the way no offense taken for any of what you said!) I know exactly what you are talking about because I live and work in the ultra low budget world. At times it's deplorable what people expect from their crew. However, I do believe exceptions can be made for the smaller infractions for projects that are truly passion projects (as long as the producers take care of the safety and well being of crew members. I.E. Can't cover everyone's day rate but the crafty was amazing.)

As far as SAG goes, the Ultra Low Budget Agreement is actually pretty fantastic to indie producers. Actors minimum day rates are $100 and you don't have to pay for first class travel arrangements. The only caveat is that the sag actor will make a lot more from residuals from any non theatrical revenue streams (which for indies is pretty much every revenue stream).

Unfortunately I have been on those types of shoots before. Luckily though, as a result, I mow know the importance of fighting for crew's safety and well being. While it did get a bit cold on the overnight parts of our shoot, and a few days did sadly have to run slightly longer then 12 hours, we had permits, insurance, sleeping arrangements at the location and also had a really amazing private chef working for free who kept us constantly fed with gourmet quality food. So while we weren't perfect, we did everything we possibly could to make the process as enjoyable as possible (and I'm happy to report that the crew was still all smiles at the end of the shoot!)

That's a really interesting tidbit of info Marc! Glad to know how far 7,000 can go in this world hahaha

But seriously, thanks again for your insights and I look forward to your response!

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I agree Marcus. It is a matter of saving, and team of partners who work on a project to see it come through. People normally were working free, I think, OK, but give people shares at least, and try not to be too ambitious. We are talking about quick and not so unasty films. It what it is, an experiment, an accomplishment, an project. People walk away having achieved something and maybe getting something out if it. Some experience, a little tick on a resume, an actor develops their non existent profile.

I know you work on the high end Marc, but that is not the whole world, and I like the ideas of collectives. I'd love to work on some low end starter projects. Nobody needs to starve or be in danger, and if it could be achieved on weekends that would be better (I know, hair grows). It can be a very simple film, well rehearsed.

 

[Marc Wielage]

As far as SAG goes, the Ultra Low Budget Agreement is actually pretty fantastic to indie producers. Actors minimum day rates are $100 and you don't have to pay for first class travel arrangements. The only caveat is that the sag actor will make a lot more from residuals from any non theatrical revenue streams (which for indies is pretty much every revenue stream).

I agree, and I think it's important to realize that SAG is well aware that a lot of actors would rather work at a low rate than sit at home waiting for the phone to ring. Note that there's also a low-budget contract for IATSE technicians, so there are realistic minimums for camera crews, grips, sound people, editors, colorists and others to work on modest projects. You can't do it for $20,000 all-in, but something more realistic, like $150,000, is absolutely possible provided there are few locations, the number of actors is relatively small, and the scope of the story and action are relatively controllable. I've done post supervision for films like this where we kept all the editing, all the sound, and all the color to no more than about $20,000, which -- comparatively speaking -- was pretty miraculous given how complicated a lot of it was.

If you found a way to keep the crew happy, and everything worked out fine, that's great. But I have encountered situations where producers hired large group of strangers where it wasn't a favor, everybody was working for miserable wages, and there was not only a lot of grousing, there were occasional departments who upped and quit the moment they found better-paying jobs elsewhere. I worked on a post project some years back where they called me and said, "ooops -- there's no shoot today, because the entire camera department quit." Literally. I think the final film had four different DPs listed in the credits, because they kept having to stop and restart as people came and went. Not a happy crew. And that was a $900,000 production. (Not exaggerating.)

I think if the shoot days are held to no more than 12 hours, you maintain a strict "12-on/12-off" policy to give people enough turnaround time to rest, if everybody's well-fed, if everything's very well-planned out... it's possible to make surprisingly effective small films inexpensively. Maybe not $20,000-inexpensive, but certainly $100,000-$200,000. This can work as long as there aren't car chases, explosions, lots of visual effects, and a dozen fight scenes. Intimate human dramas with a cast of five... romantic comedies that take place in a half-dozen different sets... horror films set mostly inside a single house with a handful of actors... those can all work. Four company moves in one day... that ain't gonna fly.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I agree Marcus. It is a matter of saving, and team of partners who work on a project to see it come through. People normally were working free, I think, OK, but give people shares at least, and try not to be too ambitious. We are talking about quick and not so unasty films. It what it is, an experiment, an accomplishment, an project. People walk away having achieved something and maybe getting something out if it. Some experience, a little tick on a resume, an actor develops their non existent profile.

Again, to me it's just a case of knowing what the bare minimums are and not deluding yourself that you can get away with less. If you don't believe me, sit down and have a serious talk with indie distributors out there. They'll tell you the same thing that I'm telling you: that commercial films have to have a certain level of quality, both on the creative end but also at the technical end. The moment they see bad lighting, noisy pictures, and hear hard-to-understand dialogue, they're gonna stop the video and not want to see more. And distributors are not generally willing to spend more money to fix these problems -- you have to solve them before you walk in the door. If you make something less, it's going to wind up looking like an elaborate home movie, and the cruel reality is that nobody outside your circle of friends will see it, and nobody will pay for it. Heck, there are good films out there with real budgets that wind up with microscopic audiences and no profits.

I know you work on the high end Marc, but that is not the whole world, and I like the ideas of collectives. I'd love to work on some low end starter projects. Nobody needs to starve or be in danger, and if it could be achieved on weekends that would be better (I know, hair grows). It can be a very simple film, well rehearsed.

Naaaa, I've worked on tons of $200,000+ indie projects over the past couple of years. (Check out my IMDB credits.) I understand full well the realities of the indie world. But none of these people tried to do their projects for $20,000. It can't be done, not with a real script, real actors (whose names will sell the film), real lighting and grip gear, and real sound. You can make a short for $20,000, and I know of people who've done Kickstarter campaigns where they'll shoot 10 minutes of a proposed feature just to show investors, and in some cases that has worked.

But again... there is a point below which a film can't be made. And this is particularly true for post. I can recall four or five films we got in at Complete Post & Technicolor over the past 6-7 years, and we got part-way through post-production and the filmmakers ran out of money. We wound up having to seize their elements (files, hard drives, original camera materials, sound tracks) and not releasing them or finishing the work until the bill was paid. In one case, it took the producers another six months to raise more money just to bring them up to date. Don't start the post process knowing you've already blown through your entire budget on production. Even a $20,000 film may still require $20,000' more work in post. And there are a lot of hidden expenses like legal fees, E&O insurance, contracts, music rights, and on and on. It's a very tough business, and I've seen well-intended people put through the ringer on low-budget projects like this.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Again, $200k is hardly cheap, and you miss what I sm saying. I am expecting something much less than you think I'm thinking.

As for post, these are people who will largely do it.themselves and keep it simple (a fool.has a complicated fool for a client, henceforth if your production is unweildly complex for you to do...). However, we are in gear shifts to better quality by computer calculation but the infrastructure hasn't been put in place yet (been on this one for around a few decades). Green screens are only the start of it. The infrastructure are massive open content systems so you don't have to make a lot of a scene and do seamless virtual sets, which would he important in scfi, which is very expensive to do (yep, $20k SciFi would be pretty limited, virtually not worth doing, as would action). You can do cities, terrain and pabets by automatic generation routines, even ground, rocks, scenery, clouds, dirt etc. If it ever dies come through it will tsje a lots and lots of time of one person sitting in front of a computer, which can be the primary person on the film. Again, one person can do much of the expensive post work. Not a reality yet. Our computer power is also like a 1000-1 million times less than really convenient, but those adavanxes are expected to start this or next decade). Simone is also possible

As for bad lighting, noisy pictures, and hear hard-to-understand dialogue all that is doable with skill on set and maybe a little post and close dubning for mishaps. We are talking skill here. Again, Blair Witch, and I have hearing issues and believe me a numberbif big productions get speech issues. I can tell everybody, one of the biggest things to affect a filmnis audio. With bad audio a film sounds as bad as Blair Witch looked, and less acceptable. That would he a big challenge (music score and good voice).

As for acting, I outlned some of the rehersal techniques to use on local actors. As for writing, I'm already writing something note complex than scripts. Like thick negatives, a story has to have real density. I am a writer.

You will remember I was pointing to a future where digital distribution could be used in services not so strict (word of mouth) and user rating systems that work for what you want to watch (elsewhere). These will replace the direct to video tape rental movies. But the number one thing I tell.fellow writters as well, is to work towards something really good and do something else in between. One well worked out self production is worth doing four or ten "home movie" like ones in.the same time. So if it takes five to ten years to refine and come up with a quality low cost production, do it, we would be better off with ten times less low end rubbish content.

Funny thing, I was watching a news clip today on a new SciFi series called Air lock. The effects and presence seemed a bit pile you said. I was thinking with the simple energy weapon.effects I could actually try a strong purple colimated light effect and save on.cgi (don't anybody else do it, it will look old before I can do it . I suppose being a scfi person I'm used to accepting lower quality. But realise, as with great SciFi, great content (along with no glaringly inadequate sets) is most things. Repeat after me "Danger Will Robinson, Danger".

All this focus on talented quality delivery on a simple film replaces a lot of cost. So unless you ate prepared to rehease and train a crew to competency a collective a talented individuals would he better. These are passion love films, rather than live of money.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Here is proof. Marla The Movie is my favorite short of all time. It (evidently based on a character from Fight Club it turns out) was a 10 minute short shot quickly for 30O-400 Euros on a Sony prosumer camcorder with a spinning CD disc cover 35mm still lens adaptor, with out a big American movie star in sight from what I can tell, and likely no grading. Apart from the artistic film like effect of the spinning adaptor, it is the delivery of the content that makes it shine. Shows what a talented person can do with local talent. Now, imagine if they could have done 90 minutes of this. It was a CLASSIC.

http://www.stylevars.com/playing/stream.php?vid=CzNG2XoPkbo

https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=CzNG2XoPkbo