what's the best format for delivering feature films over the Internet?

I was thinking of putting one of my feature films as pay-per-view on my website. What's the best format for download? Is h .264 mpeg2 a good format? This is the only one I know that is smaller in size and can be downloaded easiest, I'm thinking. Am I right? Is anyone familiar with this form of marketing movies over the Internet? Thanks for your help in advance.

In a couple of years, *everyone * will be doing it. Unless the recently trashed network neutrality legislation is totally crushed and suddenly we have greedy cable-like internet tiers of service.

H264 is cool. You can generate a couple of formats, for slow and fast bandwidth.
But features wll be a slow download for a while, no way aorund that. Streaming anything over consumer cable or DSL usually burps; it's not ready for prime time.

- Loren
Today's FCP 4 / 5 keytip:
Do a virtual Audio Mixdown to lighten playback load with Command-Option-R!

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

Thank you, Loren. I'm doing a conversion export to h.264 on one of my features. It's going to take 4 hours to render -- so that's not so bad. It's too hot to work today anyway :-) I'll just let the G5 do the conversion and see what happens. I selected medium quality and 25 as the frame rate. Everything else I put on automatic. I left the audio at 48. I hope the file won't be too huge for download. I'm not thinking of streaming, because I don't think anybody can stream it off the Internet, right? So I unchecked streaming. I'll have potential viewers use credit cards for paying. I wonder how many millions I'll make? LOL ... I hear the majors are already offering pay-per-view downloads. So I'm not beating anybody to the punch. My main concern now is if it's technologically possible for a little guy/gal to put up his/her movie on the Internet? Comments are welcome.

A lot of people are too imptient to wait for a free trailer to download let alone full length feature they have to pay for. Personally I would have a very enticing short, streaming trailer on the website and then a use the credit card system to allow them to buy a DVD. It's more work for you as you will have to burn and ship DVD's but I think you would have a lot happier customers that way.

That's a good suggestion, Frank. But just out of curiousity, what size files are the majors going to put up for their pay-per-view features? And are they talking about mpeg2 h.264 or some other format? I remember students at a Cal State campus (with lans) were waiting 15 minutes for the Star Wars trailer to download -- this was the one a few years ago. I thought that was excessive, but maybe things have improved a bit, or have they? Loren says two years from now everybody will be able to put up their movies over the Internet. There must be a new technology being talked about...

I will definitely put trailers of all my movies on my website. I'm editing a new trailer for my last movie now. It's taking me a bit longer, but I'm going to make it a good one (as best as I can anyway).

okay, the conversion is done now. For this 99 1/2 minute movie, the mpeg2 h.264 movie came out to be 1.8 Gigabites. Holy Moly. How long will someone with a broad band or dsl take to download this movie?

Some ways you can save bandwidth...

- reduce teh resolution (320x240 max)
- set audio at 22 KHz
- 15 fps

Try that and see what happens to your file size. It'll still be big, but perhaps easier to swallow.



bob rice
frameworx media

Also, certain companies specialize in stremaing longform. Akamai is well known for it; they service Apple.

Fasrt streaming servers usually cost dough, though. Google it!

- Loren
Today's FCP 5 keytip:
Preview effects sections with Option-P or Option-Backslash!

The FCP 5 KeyGuide?: a professional placemat.
Now available at KeyGuide Central:
www.neotrondesign.com

"1.8 Gigabites. Holy Moly. How long will someone with a broad band or dsl take to download this movie?"

simple answer: they wont

your audio is a huge part of that file size, as you haven't compressed it at all.
last time i compared audio compressions, i thought IMA4:1 was pretty good
and AAC sounds good on my iTunes music
don't know if you;ll ever get it small enough, though.

why not sell it off in sections?

and what about DiVX? or is that for streaming?


nick

Well, Bob, I did a 320x240 reduction and it worked. I made an mpeg4 h.264 with 15 frame rate and it came to 342 MB. I looked at it on my monitor at about 10 inches diagonally and it was just on the point of breaking up. It was okay for the purpose of previewing the movie to some potential buyers, but not as a viewing experience.

I couldn't find the place to set the audio to 22 kHz. I think my mistake was that I compressed the 1.8 Gig file instead of going back to my QT movie which was 17 Gigs. I'm going to do a new QT movie -- self contained -- and see if I can get better results and I should be able to reduce the audio size as well.

This is what you indicated as well, Nick. If I do the movie in sections, will that fly with pay per view downloaders? I guess anything is possible; we're in virgin territory with serving features over the Internet, I suppose.

And thanks, Loren. I'll check into this company that does the streaming after the 4th of July holidays. I'm going to Google streaming services as well. I was actually thinking of doing that also. Last time I checked a few years ago it was like $200 per month.

>>> "1.8 Gigabites. Holy Moly. How long will someone with a broad band or dsl take to download this movie?"

simple answer: they wont <<<

Amen, Nick. NOBODY will wait around for a download like that - especially having to PAY for it. It's not just the speed of the downloading connection, but the server where the movie is stored.

The internet has gotta be the worst way to showcase a film...period. You have to remove so much of the film to make it easier to download (reduce audio & visual quality).

I personally would look into some kind of straight-to-DVD distribution and focus on building a high-end interactive website to promote that DVD version of the film that encompasses "Bonus Feature" type stuff from the film (cast & crew bios & photos / set photos / behind the scenes clips and/or documentary / HI REZ teasers & trailers / maybe a game relating to the film plot / and much more.

That's what I would do...if it were my film.



When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Maybe Mike H can chime in. I remeber an interview on Digital Production Buzz about a per-order DVD distributor that focuses on independent films from quite awhile back. This might be a better way to distribute your film without crushing all your hard work down to internet-friendly size though compression and compromise. You only order what you need, which means no inventory and no huge expense outlay from the start, so it's easier to set up distribution channels.

I don't recall the company's name. Perhaps Mike can find that info, or has it on the top of his noggin!

There's several, but just to get you started

[www.customflix.com]
[www.theflux.tv]
[www.indieflix.com]

Thanks, Joey, for the suggestions. They're definitely first rate. I like those websites that have the trailers, bios, photos, synopses, and so on. But I was hoping that the Internet would provide some way of actually making money from showing the movie, not just promoting the movie.

I don't know too much about making the website interactive. That requires some other programs than just html and photoshop. Can you suggest some place where I can learn how to create interactive websites?

I assume games also require other programs. Interactive websites would be great. Even learning Flash would be a great help. I hear some people are designing their entire websites with flash. I'd love to learn that, but then I know that there are special courses for that. So it must really be involved.

At this point I'm just working on improving my trailers :-) Thanks for the excellent advice though. I'll do my best to follow it. I appreciate your taking the time to make the suggestions you did.

Thanks, Deb, for the tip. And Jude, I made a note of those websites. I'm going to give them all a shot. I want to see if I can make some money on the Internet :-)

"I want to see if I can make some money on the Internet :-)"

what, without taking your cloths off?


nick

> But I was hoping that the Internet would provide some way of actually
> making money from showing the movie, not just promoting the movie.

You can put the film on a website and charge money, sure, but I doubt you'll make much. There's so much internet content out there that you won't be able to get that many people to pay for your unknown movie with no stars. The Blair Witch phenomenon only worked because the website was free. And when you can download BMW films for free, why should web surfers pay money for some indie feature out of nowhere?

You need a marketing plan. How are you going to stand out from the hordes of web content? And what makes me want to pay to see your film? When your content isn't free, even if you're charging a super-low amount (say $1 per viewer), people switch into a much more critical frame of mind.

> I assume games also require other programs. Interactive websites would be
> great. Even learning Flash would be a great help. I hear some people are
> designing their entire websites with flash. I'd love to learn that, but then I
> know that there are special courses for that. So it must really be involved.

We're back to an old discussion: You're trying to do everything yourself. Get a web designer, hammer out a concept together, and let him/her do the programming necessary. Yes, you can self-teach certain things, but I guarantee you that a year of self-teaching won't get you to the level of professional designers. Just like some kid buying Final Cut Pro, thinking he can be an editor right away, will get demolished in the marketplace by specialists who have been doing this for years and are held to high, money- and time-sensitive standards.

Delegate, find your talent, let them do their job. Film is collaborative. Even a director who's superb at editing, eg. Martin Scorsese, shouldn't be doing the editing on his own film. That's how Akira Kurosawa, no slouch at editing, came up with films 50-60 minutes too long near the end of his life. If he had been collaborating with an editor, he probably would have produced far tighter films.

between taking my clothes off and keeping my shirt on there is a lot of leeway there. LOL

Derek,

Okay, so we're not ready to showing our movies over the Internet because the technology isn't there yet. Right? Okay, ok, it's there for the majors, but not for indies :-)

About collaboration ... sometimes it's better not to. It depends on many factors. There's certainly a case to be made for the auteur school of filmmaking. I was traied to make films on my own -- even create the music, which now I can do ... thanks to Soundtrack Pro.

There are those times when collaboration is necessary, like in the case of making a big budget movie or when investors are involved. We can't be artists with other people's money. LOL

With THE WAY WE CHOOSE I set out to make a film by myslef. Now I have it finished and I'd like to put the final touches on also, such as making the trailer and the poster as well :-) I want to put this movie out by myself. Now, don't get me wrong: I need advice and help but only with technical matters. I need creative feedback as well, but I have to do the job myself. I think you know what I mean.

But my next film -- which I'm actually in production on -- THE PLAYERS -- I'm open to collaboration of the sort you're suggesting. It's a no budget movie though, and so those people who wish to collaborate with me have to do on spec. It's asking too much maybe, but I'm open to discussion...

>>> But I was hoping that the Internet would provide some way of actually making money from showing the movie <<<

...nope. You are going to have to add porn or famous naked celebrities to draw any attention & make any $$$ on internet distribution. Forget about it. You are trying to take on too many jobs and not allowing collaboration between specialties. You should be talking to a talented Webmaster who is experienced in your specific need...not a bunch of Editors who in all probability (and in the majority) probably have very little experience posting anything on the internet except their Demo Reels or client proofs.

The end piece always suffers when you cut corners by trying to do everything yourself...



Post Edited (07-04-06 15:51)

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

> About collaboration ... sometimes it's better not to. It depends on many
> factors. There's certainly a case to be made for the auteur school of f
> filmmaking.

The only modern filmmaker who tries to do nearly every job is Robert Rodriguez. And his films are worse off because he's trying to do everything. If Rodriguez had gotten Los Lobos (who did music for Desperado) to do the music for Once upon a Time in Mexico, rather than hogging the music credit himself, he would have had a better score.

> I was traied to make films on my own -- even create the music, which now I > can do ... thanks to Soundtrack Pro.

Real film composers wouldn't be using loops in Soundtrack Pro to make film music. No composer I know will give up the necessity of writing the music, choosing the players and playing the pieces with the specific emotional and rhythmic nuances tailored to the actual film. Those music loops are much more fun for consumers than real tools for composers.

There *are* still a large number of filmmakers who try to do everything themselves. They're called film students. And I can't tell you how many student films I've seen which need the stern, disciplined hand of an experienced editor -- four shots making the point of one shot, obsessive cutting on action regardless of motivation, bad shot choices.

Hogging all the credits does you no good if professionals who see the film can see the problems. Each position on a film crew -- photography, directing, acting, writing, editing, production design -- takes decades of skill and experience to hone. Just one of these jobs, if done well, will take up most of your mental energy; it doesn't make sense to try to do them all.

Joey, I agree that it takes a talented webmaster to do the kind of thing I want to do -- I'd like to have a flash video on many of my movie pages. On the other hand, I can edit a trailer or promo myself, because I enjoy doing it and I also want to put up new clips on my website all the time, so I don't have the budget to do a lot of trailers like that. In the case of making one dynamite trailer for a movie, I wholeheartedly agree: it takes someone who does trailers for a living to give me a great trailer -- one that might even sell my movie.

But, Derek, I don't agree with you on much of what you say this time. Although you're right about student filmmakers following certain conventions blindly, and you have some good pointers there (cutting on action for example.)

Regarding Robert R., I don't think you're right. I don't know the guy, but he has the right (and he's earned the privilidge) of cutting his own movie and creating the music himself.

And as for Soundtrack Pro, I feel that this is a great tool for the independent filmmaker. There's no way I can afford Andre Jarre to do my music, and I don't want to give my movie to a student composer (though he/she might know more about music than me), because they won't be able to give me the best film score anyway. By definition, the filmmaker is the only one who can capture the intent of each scene and the whole movie.

Now I might not be a great composer but I know what music I like and when I put the right piece of music on a scene I know whether I like it or not. I can show the movie and ask for feedback. Like my first trailer. Joey said that the music was 70s funk. Now I don't know exactly what that means. I only know that I liked it. Okay so my taste is passe, but (believe it or not) my movie is kind of a 70s theme movie. So maybe it's okay with the 70s funk sound. Some other people I've shown my movie to also indicated that the music was 70s, etc. And I recognize that maybe the music has to be changed, and I'm changing it. (What do people have against the 70s anyway? LOL)

I have edited a new trailer in fact and I've put in new music (created on Soundtrack Pro), but my pc has crashed and I have to buy a new harddrive and save my files. I can't do any ftp'ing for a few more days. I'm going to post the trailer and hopefully get some more reactions from you and others later.

I've followed your advice on editing the new trailer though. The shots were picked by another editor and she'll also do another version of the trailer, but she's busy now, so I cut a trailer based on her shot choices myself. Thanks again for your help and feedback.

> Regarding Robert R., I don't think you're right. I don't know the guy, but he
> has the right (and he's earned the privilege) of cutting his own movie and
> creating the music himself.

Sure he does. And viewers and film professionals have the right to judge for themselves whether his score really is up to the standards of John Williams, Thomas Newman, or Jerry Goldsmith.

> film score anyway. By definition, the filmmaker is the only one who can
> capture the intent of each scene and the whole movie.

Just don't let your crew hear you say that. You've basically just said that DPs, editors, production designers, art directors etc. are not filmmakers.

It's a very film-school concept, the delusion that nouvelle vague film theories actually applied to professional filmmaking.

> not. I can show the movie and ask for feedback. Like my first trailer. Joey
> said that the music was 70s funk. Now I don't know exactly what that
> means.

Which is why you shouldn't be the only music supervisor or composer on your film. A music supervisor/composer not knowing musical motifs, genres, instrumentation, music history etc. is like a DP who doesn't know lighting.

Professional filmmaking is collaborative whether you like it or not. There's no value in clinging to the outdated, impractical "auteur theory". Steven Spielberg tends to take only one or two credits on his films (director and producer), and nobody will doubt that he had his say with John Williams, Janusz Kaminski, or Michael Kahn. He doesn't even take co-writer credit despite having great story sense and lots of input into the script. Spielberg probably knows how to light a scene as well, but why should he shortchange his own film when he can get Kaminski to propel the photography into the stratosphere?

Derek writes-
[Sure he does. And viewers and film professionals have the right to judge for themselves whether his score really is up to the standards of John Williams, Thomas Newman, or Jerry Goldsmith.]

But it's perfect for a Robert Rodriguez movie, eh? Jerry unfortunately has passed, and John and Thomas work on fairly high end films with big budgets. RR is not known for those.

Second issue:

[Real film composers wouldn't be using loops in Soundtrack Pro to make film music. ]

I thought that way too, until my good friend Don Wilkins showed up at my studio to demonstrate how to use both GarageBand and STP to build excellent beds for his live keyboarding and arranging. It was an eyeopener.

Don is the just-retired chairman of the Berklee College Film Scoring Department, which he founded 25 years ago and which sends its students to Hollywood every year.

John Carpemter also directs and scores. David Lean directed and edited. Peter Hyams directs and shoots. Do it if it's right for the show and you're good at it. There are auteurs out there, but the idea as a film theory is pretty much dead; collaboration among proficient folks who respect ecahother makes the best product.

- Loren
Today's FCP 5 keytip:
Preview effects sections with Option-P or Option-Backslash!

The FCP 5 KeyGuide?: a professional placemat.
Now available at KeyGuide Central:
www.neotrondesign.com

>>> Do it if it's right for the show and you're good at it. <<<

There it is...if you are going to do all the jobs, you should be GOOD AT IT!

- Joey



When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

> But it's perfect for a Robert Rodriguez movie, eh?

I disagree. That's why I brought up Los Lobos. The Desperado score was a better Robert Rodriguez film score than Once upon a Time in Mexico.

> I thought that way too, until my good friend Don Wilkins showed up at my
> studio to demonstrate how to use both GarageBand and STP to build excellent
> beds for his live keyboarding and arranging. It was an eyeopener.

Sure, that's because he's using loops just as a backdrop, like sampling in hip-hop. The core of the composition is still his own writing and playing. If you're only using pre-existing loops and nothing else for film music, then the parts will sound like any other Mac user who has Soundtrack Pro.

I repeat. Your statement was:
[Real film composers wouldn't be using loops in Soundtrack Pro to make film music. ]

It is not true.

- Loren
Today's FCP 5 keytip:
Preview effects sections with Option-P or Option-Backslash!

The FCP 5 KeyGuide?: a professional placemat.
Now available at KeyGuide Central:
www.neotrondesign.com

> I repeat. Your statement was:
> [Real film composers wouldn't be using loops in Soundtrack Pro to make film
> music. ]
> It is not true.

Did Don Wilkins actually use Soundtrack loops in a feature-film score? Or was he just demonstrating arrangement?

It doesn't count if it's for some small local TV station, a corporate reel, or for teaching. If Steven Soderbergh came knocking, would Wilkins be digging up Soundtrack loops?

Sure! Whatever's useful. Don's very typical of real film composers. Half a dozen indie features and several docu and dramatic series over the years, including my own docudrama production-- and used synthesizer with live instruments much the way, today, he would use GB or STP with live or sampled instruments.

A lot of it depends on budget, doesn't it?

To keep this on topic it is precisely because we have so many enabling tools that we *can* do more of the work once delegated to skilled craftspeople. It doesn't mean we should, of course.

- Loren
Today's FCP 5 keytip:
Preview effects sections with Option-P or Option-Backslash!

The FCP 5 KeyGuide?: a professional placemat.
Now available at KeyGuide Central:
www.neotrondesign.com

<<< Holy Moly. How long will someone with a broad band or dsl take to download this movie?>>>

As referenced above, that's kind of what's holding up the bandwagon right now. If you don't want to view the movie on your cellphone, or even if you do, a 2-hour movie is going to be way too big and too long a download.

I downloaded one of the televison show episodes of "Night Stalker" from iTunes and it's basically cellphone size, or, if you blow it up, second generation VHS. That was a 43 minute show.

I agree this will take off--when everyone has T1 or better into their house.

Not happen' yet.

Koz

Thanks, Koz, for getting to the bottom of it. I did want to know where we were at technically. I'd like to think we can put our movies up on the Internet and have a fair shot at seeing our movies out there.

Which brings me to the second point of the discussion: Soundtrack Pro. You keep saying "looping", Derek. I don't loop. I use the single bits of sound. That's the best part of STP. You loop a few bits, like the drums, but even the drums you don't have to loop. I scored one of the pieces for my feature using single drum bits and it's great (my standare of great, Joey :-) ...

Anyway, the musical elements in STP are short and should not be looped for best results. In fact I'm cutting many of the bits into two pieces because I want a single note many times. And if you're working with single notes, then you're putting music together like any other composer. I'm not a trained composer, but if I were STP would be my orchestra. There are unlimited numbers of instruments and sounds. You can vary so much of the pitch, notes -- I'm not that profficient in the terminology of music, but I have a musical ear :-)

Imagine if Tchaikovsky or Beethoven had STP, my God, they would've written a hundred symphonies each.

STP is nothing but a revolutionary tool -- even more so than FCP. Because with FCP you have to know a million tricks, but with STP you can create music -- if you have talent and the expertise, albeit. I love the control it gives me. STP levels the playing field for independent filmmakers. Now many filmmakers can tackle finishing their movies, because with a musical score any filmmaker can pull a film together. Music is the super glue for a movie compiled over years. Because many filmmakers go out and shoot movies because they love creating images. Before STP a filmmaker could only look at his footage by himself and put the reel back on the shelf. But what STP allows the filmmaker now is the opportunity to connect the scenes he or she have shot over the years and create wonderful movies. Maybe they won't play in Toledo, but at least they can shown as DVDs and maybe even marketed. There are plenty of festivals now.

Another thing is the whole digital revolution, the HD cameras and all -- movie makers can now produce much more professional looking movies with the help of STP.

I'm all for collaboration when the budget is over $50,000 for a feature film shot in 35mm, but I'm working below that presently. I make movies with short ends that are barely long enough for slates. LOL

I don't shoot slates btw when I do a no-budget movie, because I record the sound myself. I prefer recording the sound myself ala Federico Fellini because I can then direct the dialogue separately from the picture.

Anyway, thanks for advice and the great points about filmmaking, Loren.

There are many filmmakers who have the expertise to shoot a personal film. I was watching a documentary Sydney Pollack made about an architect in NYC. He did the whole show by himself with a digital camera. Most French New Wave directors edited their own movies. And you're right, Loren, David Lean started out as an editor in Hollywood. Editors make the best directors in my opinion.

I will concede one point to you, Derek. Collaboration will produce more successful movies. But we must not forget that film is an art form also. Film is not a performing art. You can film a play, even though it may be adapted for cinema, but it's still a play. But Fellini made real movies, not filmed entertainment. That's my model for filmmaking. You can use a big crew and have a lot of collaboration, but a quintessential filmmaker has to control all the elements of a movie.

And that's my 2 cents worth, Joey :-)

> You keep saying "looping", Derek. I don't loop.

You're using loops. Pre-recorded bits of sound, collaged. Yeah, you're looping.

> Imagine if Tchaikovsky or Beethoven had STP, my God, they would've
> written a hundred symphonies each.

But unless they get an orchestra to play the piece with its own specific nuances like phrasing, volume, sustain and attack, all you'll have is still a generic piece of general sonic collage.

> tackle finishing their movies, because with a musical score any filmmaker
> can pull a film together.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a sound designer talking about a short film put together by Sandra Bullock (either as producer or director...can't remember). At a certain point, apparently, she exclaimed to the designer, "Put in a couple of more great songs and we got a movie!"

Music is just one aspect. Although there are cases of a musical score blowing a film's appeal skyward (Halloween, for example, was called "The Babysitter Murders" before the scoring stage), you'd still have to have a good cut to work with. The Halloween score wouldn't make The Blair Witch Project any more mysterious or unsettling, for example.

And the most successful film I've edited so far had no music except in the beginning and the end. Music is an overused tool, especially among student filmmakers. It's just like any other film component -- more is not better, and decorum is everything.

> Before STP a filmmaker could only look at his footage by himself and put the
> reel back on the shelf. But what STP allows the filmmaker now is the
> opportunity to connect the scenes he or she have shot over the years and
> create wonderful movies.

What're you talking about? Either you've got a script or you don't. Either you edit a film well or you don't. Music is not the be-all end-all.

> But Fellini made real movies, not filmed entertainment.

Again, a very film-school point. If you want to say Die Hard is not art but Julien Donkey-Boy is, you certainly have the right to do so. But it doesn't help anyone make a good film. Paul Verhoeven is a hundred times the filmmaker that Larry Clark will ever be, for all of Clark's aspirations towards "art". I find the distinction of "art" and "popular culture" irrelevant and silly. Shakespeare was the pop art of its time, as were Hitchcock, John Woo, Beethoven, Mary Shelley in their time.

Give me a good "filmed entertainment" film over a bad "real movie" any day.