Start as a billionaire.

Many are attracted by the glamour of film making, but in reality it is a lot of hard work, very competitive, physically straining and occasionally quite exhaustingly boring.

Be prepared to accept that working the same hours at McDonalds would pay out more (financially) the first couple of years. Have stamina.

Then there are places where you can preview and download music for a fixed fee per piece (Shockwave Sound and Q Music being my preferred ones), and then there is our dear Kevin MacLeod. He offers his collection of music free, as long as he gets credit in the film. If, for some reason, you cannot or do not want to credit him, you can pay a little fee (30 USD).

And now music artist Moby has made his own mini-website where he published over 60 tracks that can be used free of charge for non-commercial productions (commercial productions have to pay a standard fee, the full amount of which will be donated to a good cause). Here’s the incredibly blurry announcement:

[P]roducers of industrial and non-broadcast content are required to pay a $2,500 licensing fee to author and distribute Blu-Ray. Then, each producer is required to pay a $3,000 one-time AACS license fee, plus a per-title fee for EACH replicated Blu-Ray disc. […] Sony DADC is quoting that fee at $1,585 per title […].

Then there’s the per disc replication cost, which varies by quantity, and finally, there’s a $0.04 per disc fee for AACS and $0.01 per disc if you want SONY DADC to administer the payments to AACS on your behalf.

So let’s say a small local company ordered a little presentation film, which cost $2,500 to make. They want 50 copies on HD. This would then cost: 2500+3000+1585+50*.05=over $7,000. Or over $140 per disc. And that does not include the actual replication/duplication costs.
If this should really be true, it would put an end to Blu-Ray HD distribution for small productions, even before it had a chance to start. It would cost more to distribute a program than to actually produce it.

While I have to agree that video is a powerful tool, I would like to make some remarks:

For that video to be powerful, it has to be well made. A badly made video hurts more than a badly written text. But a well scripted, well executed video can convey information - and emotion - more efficiently than written text can.

Rather than Video >= Images + Stories I would suggest a formula along the lines of value of a video = min (story; technical quality; execution). It’s the weakest link that defines the potential of your video.

There are many companies that call themselves “video production”, and even more people with a video camera. Video cameras can be had for little money, simple editing programs come with all modern OSes. While it may be tempting to go for a cheap in-house solution, as always quality costs.

Different clients need different presentations

Not all clients appreciate “meat”. One of the first bids we did was for a state controlled company. After the presentation we were told (unofficially), that our presentation was the most creative, most exciting. But, in the end they went with a production company that is used by most other state companies. They got an alright, off-the-shelf video, that is watchable. But not memorable.

While our solution promised to actually excite the audience, it also would have been a non-standard way of presenting. Our client was not prepared to take the risk of doing something unusual. So, they got a run-of-the-mill presentation, well executed, passionless. Something our client could safely show to his boss and say that he o.k’ed it.

Reading in the web time

I don’t think that people read less than before. It is just that the amount of data people have to process has exploded. I actually think that we read more, but we skim also more than before.

Joe Devine: Have you actually seen a person die, watched them bleed to death, seen them take their last breath? I’ve seen that… many times.
Steven Schats: Why have you seen that?
Joe Devine: I used to produce music videos.

Which is especially funny if you have worked on music videos. Or pop promos as they are often referred to in the industry.

The types on a pop promo set

Pop promos are a totally different type of films from all the others; most notably there often isn’t a story, no one seems to worry about continuity, and generally there are 4 to 6 types of people on set:

1. Crew - the ones who ensure that at the end of the night, there will be something that can be cut. Also: making sure that noone gets killed.
   The DP is sort of the General of the whole operation, giving the entity its visual style.
2. Director - often a cool, hip young dude in flashy clothes. I’ve never been totally sure whether they are really needed on the set; my impression is that most of their work is done before and after the actual shoot.
3. Main talent - pops in for a fraction of the shoot to do the performance. The bigger the name, the larger the entourage. I had one pop promo, where the talent even brought her own cook - and she was on set for maybe 2 hours.
   Some have to show their attitude by being late/drunk/stoned/totally unprepared/gruffy/hostile/unable to remember the lines of the song they supposedly wrote.
   I was surprised to find out that even big name front figures do have very limited control over the content of their videos. Which brings us to�
4. Executives - their main job is to prolong the shooting by coming up with last-minute alterations. Since they are also the money people, they do have the last say. And of course, since they are virtually superfluous on the set, they have to make the comments � otherwise they would realize the illusion of their imporatance.
5. The band - They have to hang around much longer than the Main talent, then they are filmed in various close-ups; most of which ends on the cutting floor. They are usually great to work with, and happy to get some undivided attention. And very realistic as to their status as being background for the Main talent.
6. Extras - Just like in most other types of films, they have to have an incredible patience. But they get to say that they’ve been in the latest music video from whats-her-name.

Orbital meets Kafka

On YouTube I came across a video I worked on when I lived in the UK; Style by Orbital:

This is a very unusual pop promo for various reasons:

• The band members were never on the set
• It was not a live action story, but animated (inspired by Kafka)
• Shot in the course of 2 weeks (usual is 1 or 2 days/nights)
• I worked on the set without ever having heard the song
• Very calm, concentrated, friendly set

Usually the music is played over and over during the filming, so that at the end of the shoot you drive home exhausted, and during the night you constantly dream about that very song. Exhausting!

On this occasion a friend of mine, Jorge Luengas, was working as Focus Puller on the shoot, and somehow he got production to hire me for two days as a Clapper Loader. A clapper loader’s first job is to keep the film camera (an Arri 435 in this case) loaded with fresh film. Which usually is a rather demanding, and, in the UK, totally underpaid, work. Except that on a animation film you might shoot 10-30 seconds per day, and a roll of film holds 10 minutes. So there was not a lot of work to be done. But I got to work on the film for 2 days - and you can even see my hand in shot (when the lady tries to squash the bug (crossing the TV) with a newspaper (incidentally my favourite German daily, the S�ddeutsche).

Directors Luke Losey and Jonathan Charles, DP Jonathan Bloom, and camera operator Grant Wakefield all did an excellent job.

Treat your surroundings like dirt, and see what happens

I could also mention my first pop promo as a camera operator, where the band turned up drunk, and started throwing food at the camera and me. At which point I refused to enter the set with this rather valuable camera � we ended up shooting the remainder through the windows while the band enjoyed themselves in the mature activity of a full scale food fight.

Naturally, they didn’t clean up after themselves.

Oh, and their planned re-launch never took off. I wonder if that might have anything to do with professionalism and respect.

Or lack of.

Now I am really looking forward to trying out this baby. Luckily a guy I know has pre-ordered one, so hopefully I’ll be able to do some tests. But I am sure there’ll be lots of buzz around when this camera hits the sets.

¿Quanta costa?

But how much does this miracle of tech-specs cost? Well, let’s have a look at their price list, and put together a nice package to get us up and running:

Camera Body - 17.500
Premium Production Pack - 2.750
Battery/Charger Pack - 1.450 (I could find no info on whether the Red accepts the standard V-mount batteries)
Viewfinder - 2.950 (no specs on that one yet, though it seems that it is only 720p, and thus useless for critical focus situations)
On-camera HDD - 900
Red 18-85 f2.8 Zoom - 9.500

Total: just above 35k (US dollars, or 215 000 Norwegian kroner)

For comparision, a Sony HDCAM with 1080i comes at 45k - and that is body and viewfinder (500 lines!) only.

Further reading

UK Red users - the “officially unofficial website for owners/operators/enthusiasts of the Red One Digital Cinema Camera based in the UK”

DVXuser - a thread on suggested lens alternatives; though I would advise against using stills lenses. There is a reason that cine lenses are expensive; on stills you get away with much more aberration.

Red User - Forum about the Red Camera - though I did not find any in-depth information. Guess that will change as the cameras become available. Post from a pro. Section on lenses.

HD for Indies - good overview over what Red offers, and some insight into it

Wikipedia - good general overview. It’s Wikipedia, after all.

— We haven’t failed, we just haven’t succeeded.

Such went a conversation I had with my wife today. And with this I want to salute all people who stick to their ideals, and don’t get discouraged by life, trouble, problems, clients, money (lack of), paperwork (lack of lack of), tiredness (plenty of). The last days and weeks have been very busy, crazy and exhausting. But we stick to our guns, and I prefer being tired from working long hours for something I belive in, rather than being tired from working 8 hours for something I couldn’t care less about.

Get up, stand up. Don’t give up the fight.

Have a good week.

I’m a film editor who’s had the privilege to work on $100 movies to $100 million movies.

Story is king. If your story is working, and crafted well, and paced properly, you can get away with almost whatever you want. For instance, when I cut scenes, I cut for performance… I don’t toss out takes because the glass of water was full in take one but empty in another. 9 times out of ten, even the seasoned filmmakers I’m working with never see the continuity errors because the performances are working.

Occasionally I work with first time directors, helping them with their first short. I see two main mistakes. First, they think that if someone knows how to operate [an editing station], that they are an editor. This is simply not true. I know how to use a chisel, but there is no way [...] I could sculpt the David. Editing is the same: knowing what buttons to push is the least important part of editing. Knowing how to tell a story well is everything. In fact, I know one Oscar winning editor who spent many years never touching the equipment at all. She chose the cut points, and had her assistants do the physical cutting.

The second main mistake amateur filmmakers make, IMO, is that they are not vicious enough when cutting their material. Every single frame of film you project should be conveying new information to the audience. If it’s not, get it out.

The same applies to the craft of cinematography. On discussion boards around film-making I often read questions from wanting-to-be directors on what camera they should buy, which lens they should use. Ocasionally I take the time to point out that if they want to become directors, they should not concern themselves about equipment. They should spend all the time they can on the story, developing the characters, working with the actors to achieve his/her creative vision.

Rather than buying a semi-professional camera, I advise to hire in a professional DP. S/he will not only bring superior equipment, but - most importantly - experience to the shoot. Take a good story and a knowlegdable DP, and you will have something in the cutting room to work with. Your chances of getting your film into a festival and ultimately to actually sell it, have tremendously increased.

Or you can spend all your money on a second-rate camera (never, ever believe the hype that the new HDV camera for $10.000 is as good as a $100.000 camera. But that is another blog…), and end up having to both direct and shoot on your first film. Not a good idea. Leave the technical worries to someone you can trust, and concentrate on your job: story telling.

Movie tip: Living in Oblivion by Tom DiCillo. 

[The service] has the codename The Venice Project. It will offer “near high-definition”, programmes supported by advertising, with tools for users to personalise their channels or discuss programmes with others.

[...] one person close to Warner Music confirmed it was using the service to create channels for some of its artists, including Paris Hilton

Will be interesting to see what their business model is. Near HD definetely sounds intriguing - but we have to see it first.

Unlike YouTube or video-on-demand services, The Venice Project will offer conventionally programmed channels.

That is the problem with how TV works now - it is limited geographically. Why, for example, are we expected here in Norway to see 24 many months after the US? (Not that I want Fox to come to Europe )

[They] will offer incentives to users to provide information about themselves to help advertisers target relevant advertisements to them.

Sounds like a logical transfer of google’s adsense to the TV market.

“We are going to start with TV content such as documentaries, drama and music videos.”

Now this will be very interesting to see put to life. Traditionally, films are sold by territories. Say we make a documentary and sell it to the norwegian TV. They might want to have the option to sell it on to the other scandinavian markets. But still, we could sell it to the rest of the world. But selling your film to the SkypeTV project, you would lose that option. No further revenues possible. That suggests that they will either have to settle for films that would have a hard time selling internationally or they have to pay a premium to get quality programming. Lets hope for the latter.

You can read the full article that I quoted from over at ft.com

]]> http://modifoo.com/2007/01/17/internet-tv.html/feed