I've lost all hope for the "film look"

May I ad my name to the list of very happy nattress G Film users. Also can highly recommend Digital Film Tree's 55mm filter set - more expensive, but with all sorts of awesome stuff with plenty of ways to go "film look". Currently using both on every shot of two 16mm/DV features we have in post.

Hiya deb,

I was referring to getting a faster renderer plug-in for my Quad...and it doesn't get any faster than THAT on the Mac platform

After Effects has "Nucleo" (which cuts render times in HALF) so why can't Graeme whip up a FCP accelerator & call it the "Renderbitch 5000" !!!

- Joey



When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

oh joey, so did you finaly try nucleo? if so, did it do as it claimed?

I bought the natress effects package.

Can anybody recommend a very simple setting/plug-in from natress to use on my 60i NTSC DV footage? Something simple is all I need.

"This trying to make video look like film reminds me of what has happened
to the music industry. Its called the dumbing down of listening and
watching."

Woof...Tough crowd...TOUGH CROWD! SOOoooooo you think Rich should just skip the film look altogether, huh JF? You have NEVER used a film look for video before? Filmmakers (very famous ones) / Students / Editors / Hobbyists have been doing it for years. Why all of a sudden get fed up with poor Rich? When life gives you lemons...make lemonade.

Deep breath, now...



When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

I don't have the budget for film. Sorry. I have to use video. That's just the reality. I prefer the film look. It's worked it in the past. It should work now. I got a new setup because I needed it and couldn't wait. It was one time opportunity to buy, and I went to it. Otherwise, I'd be using FCP 3.0 and be happy.

Really...dude...there's no need to apoogize. Do what you gotta do. I watched your trailer...very interesting subject matter. What size frame / camera did you shoot it?



When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

We shot on a Sony DSR-500. Budget was about 5,000. All in all, it came out pretty good. The last thing for me to do was tweak the sound a bit more and de-interlace so it doesn't look like a TV soap opera and like a film.

The Natress filter looks amazing. I can't quite figure it all out right now, so I just ran a simple deinterlace and I'm waiting for the render to finish. I tried the 24fps filter, but it looked weird.

Joey, I know the guys at GridIron - they're just down the road from me. I think I sort of put them on the path to doing video accelleration when they were looking for a use for their grid software.

FCP doesn't have a robust or large APi for plugins, and hence, you can't do this kind of thing with FCP though.

Richard, apply "G Film" default settings for your basic 24p. If you want more than that, apply the "G Film Preset - Basic" and see where that takes you. If you need more help, email me!

Graeme



[www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X

Film Look is hot hot hot. I'm going back to shooting film again :-) ... Just as soon as I finish my HDV epic and release it on DVD, I'm going back shooting film. Shooting film for transfer to digital is the way to go if you want the film look. Why spend thousands of dollars on equipment and rental when digital editing is all you're after. I know many people think that film is expensive. Well, it's not -- maybe on the day that you buy the rawstock, but then after that processing film is no more expensive than "processing" your digital dailies either. So how much is the cost of buying rawstock? I sell 35mm short ends for 15 cents per foot. If you're shooting a 90 minute movie, lets say you're going to shoot 4:1 ratio, that's 40,000 ft of film ... for a total of $6,000. That's the price of an HDV camera, but you can buy an Arri Bl 1 for about $7,000 -- one just sold yesterday on eBay for that. Now imagine how much money you'll save on "processing" digital dailies? And as for the film look, WELL, you got it! Great big 35mm film look. I'm telling you; it doesn't get better than that. Except of course if you're really creative and love to edit -- there's where FCP comes in. It's a picnic after that I tell you. And when you go into the markets with a 35mm movie, you get respect.

>And when you go into the markets with a 35mm movie, you get respect.

No not true!... When you go into the markets with a great story, that was well written, directed, acted and edited, then you get respect, regardless of what it was shot on!

i assume that your workflow for the inexpensive 35mm feature has the final film screened/projected digitally? right?

has to be. titles/neg cut/ANY effects/answer print/final print(s) = $$$$$$$$

but also, just want to add:
"......for a total of $6,000"..... then processing & telecine w/syncing. at which point that price doubles at least. not arguing - just pointing out.

"When you go into the markets with a great story, that was well written, directed, acted and edited, then you get respect, regardless of what it was shot on!"
-agreed

fp

I agree with the 2 Franks. Your "format" doesn't get you respect. A fabulous story shot for $500 made to look like $50,000 garners A TON MORE RESPECT than shooting a P.O.S. on Panavision 35mm.

Moviegoer #1:
"...Yeah, did you see that piece of crap last night? 2 hours of bla bla bla"

Moviegoer #2:
"...Yeah, but it was shot on 35mm!'

Moviegoer #1:
"...OOOPS, my bad! Let's go see it again"

I guess George Lucas & Robert Rodriguez don't garner any respect according to your rules, fm. You go shoot your film - have fun.



When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Gentlemen, gentlemen, I was only doing my Rodney Dangerfield: I get no respect :-)

But seriously, all I'm saying is that FCP has opened up a major avenue for independents -- like me -- and I'm eternally grateful. But if you want film look that bad -- why lose all hope -- go ahead and shoot film and then telecine to your favorite format and edit away, which is what I'm doing. I practice what I preach.

Personally, I like the look of the HDV. As a filmmaker who likes to shoot solo and improvise, the Sony Z1 is a fantastic opportunity for me. I'm certainly going to explore every angle of it.

Now as for releasing movies, well, we have to be realistic -- those of us who are filmmakers. When I call the 700 distributors who attend the American Film Market every year, they ask me what I shot it on? They want 35mm film. Period. They might look at my movie if it was shot on Sony 900. They are willing to look at High Definition if it's full definition. So I'm going to have to bite the bullet and buy the up-resing gear that will take me up to HiDef. I don't know if this will be acceptable, but I don't care, and here I hope you can sympathize with me, because I'm shooting digital because it's cheaper for certain types of projects -- like the felliniesque movies that I'm going to shoot. I want to experiment with all facets of story telling and editing. I'm going to break all the rules, but hopefully with justification. We're all in the same boat as artists and filmmakers.

I understand the frustration. I've done the math. The reality is that the buyers want film. Maybe it's an excuse and has nothing to do with quality, but that's what they'll tell you when you call them and say you have a digitally produced movie. They're going to ask: 1) who's in it? (this never changes), 2) What was it shot on?

My math was based on 35mm rawstock and releasing on DVD. I think the added expense for the average film is maybe $5,000. The difference between shooting digital and 35mm short ends. You can argue with me over "the average film", but I don't mind sharing my experience with you about shooting 35mm for the same money as digital. I've been making movies for 35 years as cameraman and editor. Now I'm using HDV because I want to make very creative movies. For me the film look is a mirage. I like the look of HDV just as well, because I look at my movies on the monitors and TV sets; I don't look at my movies in cinemas. ... Maybe in the near future when the Internet has leveled the playing field for us filmmakers too.

I would like to know more about how you've shot on 35mm in the past, and what your experience is with film markets/distributors.

You said they are only interested in digital if it's shot on the Sony DSR-900. What about the DSR-500? Lars von Tier, Spike Lee, and others have shot on it. In fact, a lot of films have been shot on the PD-150.

I know I'm at a serious disadvantage, but the quality of my film is pretty good. I have a somewhat name talent too (Sir Mix a lot, big whoopie I know but it's something).

My first film is being sold by Film Threat this spring, and it was shot on a Canon GL1. Granted, it's not a spectacular deal, but it's distribution.

I'd like to see what real opportunities my film would have at a film market, not to mention how you managed to shoot any kind of 35mm film for cheap. I hear it costs a fortune.

Shooting 35mm has some strange advantages. Sometimes people shoot super 16 thinking they're saving money because 16mm film runs at 36 ft per minute and so they're shooting and processing less film. BUT, shooting 16mm encourages most filmmakers to shoot more. That's one thing. Another is this: you can't cut 16mm like 35mm because you have to A and B roll it. With 35mm you invisible splices. So if you shoot 35mm, you can do a develop only on your negative -- you don't have to print all your takes like 16mm and you don't have to telecine everything. You can cut your negative and telecine/print only the circled takes. That means if your film is 100 minutes, you might only need to telecine 120 minutes of it. That's a huge saving over 16mm. You can actually do 35mm for less than 16mm -- if you're disciplined and experienced as a director. And if you're not, learn to -- you'll gain a skill that will come in handy someday. Rehearse and shoot only what you know you'll use.

In addition to all the savings in shooting 35mm, there are the added advantages that when you're finished you have a 35mm master. That's worth a lot. No blow-ups, no digital masters -- which cost a fortune -- more than the cost of buying your 35mm film and processing it and telecining it, plus some. We're talking $70,000 to $80,000.

Okay, now to digital. As long as you don't need a digital master, then you're ahead with digital, because you can make a digital master yourself by buying the right gear. I haven't gotten into this aspect so I don't know what this stuff costs. I know Magic Bullet costs about $800. That will give you many film looks by what I read. On this Wednesday, you can buy Magic Bullet for $400 -- one day only sale at the website someone already mentioned in this thread. I called SF and found out it's true. BUT if you need a digital master and 35mm internegative, then you gotta spend $80,000 for transfer to film. Of course, you can say, let the distributor pay for it. Sure, if the distributor takes your film, you don't have to pay upfront; but the distributor will deduct the cost of the transfer to film before you see any money.

I've been to the major international markets like AFM and Cannes. You can make more money with 35mm originated films regardless of what the film quality is. That's been my experience. There are the exceptions, but they're rare. Blair Witch, okay, one film in 10,000 films. It was a marketing phenomenon. I didn't see the movie, but it made $200,000,000 theatrical. The filmmakers got a million I heard, but I could be wrong. Also, the distributor refused to accept any more Blair Witch movies from other filmmakers, because they knew it was a once in a lifetime fluke that a film shot so quirky would make that kind of money.

Having said all that, things are changing. HDV and HD are making giant strides. The world of entertainment is changing and I don't mind shooting digital. But I'm going to get all the mileage I can from shooting it though. I'm not going to be concerned with film look. If I want film look, I'll shoot film. But now I want to explore what HDV can do with a $5,000 camera.

Wishing you continued success. I don't know about other Sony cameras. I'm sure they're all great cameras. The main thing is making movies that sell and give you satisfaction as a movie maker.

[you can't cut 16mm like 35mm because you have to A and B roll it. With 35mm you invisible splices. ]

Unless you want dissolves and don't want to go to an optical house for them. Then you A&B just lke 16mm. Also, you don;t need to A&B roll a Super16mm anymore; there's a process where you strng eerything into a single roll for optical, account for overlap in your stringup, and the whole band is done optically, even stepping back with a closed shutter and iris open again for the incoming scene. I know because I prepared a feature for this process at DuArt-- in the 80's!

But today, I think it's wrong to encourage students to use of film for anything but release prints for festivals or commercial distribution. Half of Hollywood is digital now, from TV sreies to features. Labs are specializing in clean cost-effective scans to film. The resuls are excellent.

I'm not saying film is dead, and there's a real value to the film look in working its magic on an audience at deepest perceptual levels-- but as filmman describes above, you're really forced into pre-editing your shoot, to save money, and that is not an ideal filmmaking method. Adjusting your artistic efforts to fit existing technology due to cost is but a coping strategy.

In film school they used to say, "film is your cheapest commodity." It was a tecaher's way of saying, "get it in the can forget about the medium." You can't say that anymore about film, but you can about, say, DVCAM or HDV.

And i fully agree with Frank, content remains king.

So, long live the film look.

- Loren
Today's FCP 5 keytip:
Place and edit Marker labels immediately with M-M !

The FCP 5 KeyGuide?: your power placemat.
Now available at KeyGuide Central
www.neotrondesign.com