|
|
All the news now and in your digital future
What are the softwares used in hollywood movies today.
Posted by edbeta
|
Re: What are the softwares used in hollywood movies today. January 11, 2011 10:46PM |
They rarely show the NLEs. It's almost always the vfx/compositing/online machines- nuke, flame, smoke, lustre, resolve, spirit, maya, etc.. Heck, when was the last time you saw Photoshop in there?
www.strypesinpost.com
www.strypesinpost.com
|
Re: What are the softwares used in hollywood movies today. January 13, 2011 02:29AM |
Let me bring it to another level- the world of spots and commercials. Back in the sd days, if you had the budget, you'll shoot on film. Today, you may use a phantom if you're shooting slow mo, or you may shoot on the red cam. The benefits are obvious- cheaper and faster turn around time.
www.strypesinpost.com
www.strypesinpost.com
|
Re: What are the softwares used in hollywood movies today. January 21, 2011 04:16PM |
This was a post I wanted to reply to, but I haven't been able to get around to it.
The Social Network has just won a handful of golden globes. I wasn't too crazy about the film. I liked the slow motion party scenes, but I thought the story and especially the characters could have been better developed. One of my fav films will probably be "In America". That was a bloody good movie.
Firstly, things could go both ways, in fact, it would probably go both of those ways. Some of the issues are technological advancement, the computer age and internet distribution. Years ago, only the privileged few had a chance of working in filmmaking, because filmmaking equipment was extremely expensive. (incidentally this post will bump the thread up to somewhere near the discussion on Smoke)
Now, you can get a camera that shoots an acceptable quality (you may even consider it good), at a fraction of the price that it used to cost. Filmmaking is more accessible, which is both a good and bad. The good part, is that more people can now enter the filmmaking circles, which leads to more competition. Competition will ensure that nobody sits on their butts, and everyone will have to work harder for their dollar to churn out work of better quality. But of course, there is also negative competition and price wars, and that will make everyone struggle to stay afloat.
The truth is that most of us came from a "hits" era, and it was cool to show off the latest fashion accessories, listen to the coolest latest hit song, watch the latest blockbuster. That gives us social dollar. Little has changed on this end, and you won't be caught dead bringing your girlfriend to a movie that was "good enough". We want to watch the best (if not the coolest shows), and we want to impress our friends. Social dollar.
Then there is the TV set at home. Do people who own houses still buy a TV? Yes they do. Then there is the situation of boredom. Human beings are lonely beings. We create entertainment, sing songs, play games, indulge in social activities, create entire economies all to do one thing- deal with boredom (okay, I'm taking a leaf off Mark Cuban here). You know how some people will surf through a handful of webpages because of boredom? TV is the path of least resistance to dealing with boredom. You don't have to bother with finding your own entertainment. You just flick a switch.
Another issue is that the landscape of urban living has changed. Distribution has changed and will continue to evolve. I am on the internet more often when I am on the phone than when I am in front of a computer and actually surfing the web. iTunes is not broadcast. It is on-demand downloads. That changes everything. That essentially changes the way people consume TV shows. It breaks away from the piped feed, that broadcasters have for years used to generate revenue through advertisements and commercials. If you ask me, the next big thing will be video content and streaming for portable devices. And that is very likely be the bulk of media consumption.
You mentioned focus groups. We have sorta moved away from network executives who will buy a pitch based on a hunch and experience, to picking out random people at a fairground, and throwing a bunch of disinterested, bored people into a room to watch a pilot and provide opinions on how a TV show should be made. Believe me, I prefer this scenario to having a bunch of academics stuck up in ivory towers commissioning TV shows based on what they learnt in school.
So we talk about good enough quality. The truth is that you won't bring a girl to a movie because it is good enough, but you'll bring her to a movie because everyone says it's good. That's social dollar. But we talk about things going both ways, because firstly, the hits will continue making hits, while the middle class will probably erode away due to a less restrictions on distribution and easier means of production, essentially creating a third world economy, which is unhealthy.
www.strypesinpost.com
The Social Network has just won a handful of golden globes. I wasn't too crazy about the film. I liked the slow motion party scenes, but I thought the story and especially the characters could have been better developed. One of my fav films will probably be "In America". That was a bloody good movie.
Firstly, things could go both ways, in fact, it would probably go both of those ways. Some of the issues are technological advancement, the computer age and internet distribution. Years ago, only the privileged few had a chance of working in filmmaking, because filmmaking equipment was extremely expensive. (incidentally this post will bump the thread up to somewhere near the discussion on Smoke)
Now, you can get a camera that shoots an acceptable quality (you may even consider it good), at a fraction of the price that it used to cost. Filmmaking is more accessible, which is both a good and bad. The good part, is that more people can now enter the filmmaking circles, which leads to more competition. Competition will ensure that nobody sits on their butts, and everyone will have to work harder for their dollar to churn out work of better quality. But of course, there is also negative competition and price wars, and that will make everyone struggle to stay afloat.
The truth is that most of us came from a "hits" era, and it was cool to show off the latest fashion accessories, listen to the coolest latest hit song, watch the latest blockbuster. That gives us social dollar. Little has changed on this end, and you won't be caught dead bringing your girlfriend to a movie that was "good enough". We want to watch the best (if not the coolest shows), and we want to impress our friends. Social dollar.
Then there is the TV set at home. Do people who own houses still buy a TV? Yes they do. Then there is the situation of boredom. Human beings are lonely beings. We create entertainment, sing songs, play games, indulge in social activities, create entire economies all to do one thing- deal with boredom (okay, I'm taking a leaf off Mark Cuban here). You know how some people will surf through a handful of webpages because of boredom? TV is the path of least resistance to dealing with boredom. You don't have to bother with finding your own entertainment. You just flick a switch.
Another issue is that the landscape of urban living has changed. Distribution has changed and will continue to evolve. I am on the internet more often when I am on the phone than when I am in front of a computer and actually surfing the web. iTunes is not broadcast. It is on-demand downloads. That changes everything. That essentially changes the way people consume TV shows. It breaks away from the piped feed, that broadcasters have for years used to generate revenue through advertisements and commercials. If you ask me, the next big thing will be video content and streaming for portable devices. And that is very likely be the bulk of media consumption.
You mentioned focus groups. We have sorta moved away from network executives who will buy a pitch based on a hunch and experience, to picking out random people at a fairground, and throwing a bunch of disinterested, bored people into a room to watch a pilot and provide opinions on how a TV show should be made. Believe me, I prefer this scenario to having a bunch of academics stuck up in ivory towers commissioning TV shows based on what they learnt in school.
So we talk about good enough quality. The truth is that you won't bring a girl to a movie because it is good enough, but you'll bring her to a movie because everyone says it's good. That's social dollar. But we talk about things going both ways, because firstly, the hits will continue making hits, while the middle class will probably erode away due to a less restrictions on distribution and easier means of production, essentially creating a third world economy, which is unhealthy.
www.strypesinpost.com
|
Re: What are the softwares used in hollywood movies today. January 25, 2011 01:54AM |
Xavpil , oui je suis francais je vit au québec une province canadienne francophone et je suis surpris de voir ton post sur un forum américain anglophone , je croyais que cela était interdit ......
Dans le but de ne pas ennuyer les membres qui ne sont pas capable de lire le francais je te suggère que ont poursuivre par messages privés car je pourrait avoir quelques questions bien sur.
Hey guys dont worry if you cant read french it is not much different than editing Avid and Apple : The interface is different , the Workflow also but we get about the same great results
PRODUCTION D. GOYETTE
TOURNAGE / MONTAGE VIDÉO CORPORATIF
DISTRIBUTION DVD / BLU-RAY / WEB
[www.productiondgoyette.com]
Dans le but de ne pas ennuyer les membres qui ne sont pas capable de lire le francais je te suggère que ont poursuivre par messages privés car je pourrait avoir quelques questions bien sur.
Hey guys dont worry if you cant read french it is not much different than editing Avid and Apple : The interface is different , the Workflow also but we get about the same great results
PRODUCTION D. GOYETTE
TOURNAGE / MONTAGE VIDÉO CORPORATIF
DISTRIBUTION DVD / BLU-RAY / WEB
[www.productiondgoyette.com]
|
Re: What are the softwares used in hollywood movies today. January 26, 2011 04:35PM |
Frankly, I thought the Social Network could do much better if it had further developed the characters, as most of them are quite flat (especially the Winklevosses). It wasn't a bad film, just not the strongest of the year. If the movie was told from Eduardo's perspective, it would probably have been a more natural angle into the story (and would have made it a whole lot stronger), since the screenwriter probably knew more about Eduardo than any other character. Nice visual effects and soundtrack on it, though. I would probably prefer Inception to the Social Network at best picture. That said, I just watched Hereafter, and that was a pretty nice film, surprisingly directed by Clint Eastwood.
Piracy... I'm not sure if it will exactly cripple the industry. It will definitely be around in one form or another. You just can't destroy it. But if you make piracy hard enough, it's the kids with more time than money who will pirate, while the adults with more money than time will actually buy media content.
On one hand, it is shaping up to be quite unpredictable. Growing up in the 80s, I remember people complaining that Sillicon Valley is moving too fast for most who are working in it to actually catch up, today it is far worse. And you can buy an expensive finishing machine and see the price drop/watch other softwares take over within the next 3 years. It makes it quite hard to run a business on that.
Media integration, which started with the convergence of technology will be more prominent, if it isn't already. That, as well as media on portable devices. One problem is that if attention span on web videos is short, media on portable devices is much shorter. Another big question is how effective will we able to monetize that content.
If we look at other forms of media that has entered the digital age, music has yet to earn the hit the same kind of revenue as it did back in the 90s. The top 10-20% of the music industry used to make a profit for the rest of the music industry. Today, that top 10% earns a lot less than it did yesterday and that revenue is shrinking. News/journalism is another industry that is taking a huge hit. There was a recent year (I would think it's been every year since), that more printed magazines will stop circulation only to be replaced by online magazines with a much lower running cost, and we aren't talking about the ability to make profits or serious revenue expansion. If the future of news becomes entrepreneurial as opposed to being institutional (eg. the 2 guys in a basement operation vs the news corp), much of news will lose credibility. But that does not seem to deter wikipedia.
I guess the lesson we can learn from all of this, is that we cannot afford to provide the audience a similar experience but we need to change the way we entertain the audience as viewing habits evolve. Some of it will eventually happen, whether we like it or not. Music is still largely the same product, but it is much less about the concept album and more about hit singles, because the days of marketing a concept album to people playing a vinyl on a lazy afternoon has evolved into selling music to people on ipods, iphones and ipads, essentially people on the go. It is still about social dollar, and pop culture will never die. But when we talk about TV, advertising, and moving that culture onto portable devices, we may be looking at a radically different approach.
> exactly that - ideas!
That's one part I like about the influx of technology. Anyone with good ideas and the ability to raise a bit of funding can afford to make their own films. More so today than yesterday, and even more tomorrow. The problem is making money back from distribution, and there are a lot of people out there trying to do just that (and move off the long tail, so to speak). But when we are talking about making films, yesterday was a big question of money- whether you can afford to have your story told effectively, today it is more about skills and ideas, and that is where it should be.
I do love what technology is doing in post production. If we were still editing on linear suites like back in the late 90s, I'm not sure if I would be editing. Cutting pictures together, getting into the rhythm of the cut is fun, but not memorizing timecodes, and waiting ages for the tape deck to cue up to the right point.
Is it a merely a question of less for more? Or is it about something else? Let's say I could write, shoot, cut, sound mix, color correct, do 2D and 3D graphics and texture modelling, composite, encode and deliver. And if we were to integrate more forms of media at the same cost of hiring one guy, not taking into account that he will take substantially longer- the webpage and print ads on top of just doing the video, will that create a better artwork or a final product than working as part of an assembly line? Filmmaking is similar to the Nash equilibrium scenario called the stag hunt where the payoff (or final product) is far greater being a part of a collective whole, than being the sum of its parts. If I go at it alone, the payoffs (or produce), is something of substandard quality. If I get a team of experts, all craftsmen in their area, and work together to create one product, the return is a much bigger and more polished piece of work. We have almost always worked this way in the film and TV world, and it isn't just about a matter of dollars and cents. It is what we need to deliver a product of substantial quality that people will put money into.
www.strypesinpost.com
Piracy... I'm not sure if it will exactly cripple the industry. It will definitely be around in one form or another. You just can't destroy it. But if you make piracy hard enough, it's the kids with more time than money who will pirate, while the adults with more money than time will actually buy media content.
On one hand, it is shaping up to be quite unpredictable. Growing up in the 80s, I remember people complaining that Sillicon Valley is moving too fast for most who are working in it to actually catch up, today it is far worse. And you can buy an expensive finishing machine and see the price drop/watch other softwares take over within the next 3 years. It makes it quite hard to run a business on that.
Media integration, which started with the convergence of technology will be more prominent, if it isn't already. That, as well as media on portable devices. One problem is that if attention span on web videos is short, media on portable devices is much shorter. Another big question is how effective will we able to monetize that content.
If we look at other forms of media that has entered the digital age, music has yet to earn the hit the same kind of revenue as it did back in the 90s. The top 10-20% of the music industry used to make a profit for the rest of the music industry. Today, that top 10% earns a lot less than it did yesterday and that revenue is shrinking. News/journalism is another industry that is taking a huge hit. There was a recent year (I would think it's been every year since), that more printed magazines will stop circulation only to be replaced by online magazines with a much lower running cost, and we aren't talking about the ability to make profits or serious revenue expansion. If the future of news becomes entrepreneurial as opposed to being institutional (eg. the 2 guys in a basement operation vs the news corp), much of news will lose credibility. But that does not seem to deter wikipedia.
I guess the lesson we can learn from all of this, is that we cannot afford to provide the audience a similar experience but we need to change the way we entertain the audience as viewing habits evolve. Some of it will eventually happen, whether we like it or not. Music is still largely the same product, but it is much less about the concept album and more about hit singles, because the days of marketing a concept album to people playing a vinyl on a lazy afternoon has evolved into selling music to people on ipods, iphones and ipads, essentially people on the go. It is still about social dollar, and pop culture will never die. But when we talk about TV, advertising, and moving that culture onto portable devices, we may be looking at a radically different approach.
> exactly that - ideas!
That's one part I like about the influx of technology. Anyone with good ideas and the ability to raise a bit of funding can afford to make their own films. More so today than yesterday, and even more tomorrow. The problem is making money back from distribution, and there are a lot of people out there trying to do just that (and move off the long tail, so to speak). But when we are talking about making films, yesterday was a big question of money- whether you can afford to have your story told effectively, today it is more about skills and ideas, and that is where it should be.
I do love what technology is doing in post production. If we were still editing on linear suites like back in the late 90s, I'm not sure if I would be editing. Cutting pictures together, getting into the rhythm of the cut is fun, but not memorizing timecodes, and waiting ages for the tape deck to cue up to the right point.
Is it a merely a question of less for more? Or is it about something else? Let's say I could write, shoot, cut, sound mix, color correct, do 2D and 3D graphics and texture modelling, composite, encode and deliver. And if we were to integrate more forms of media at the same cost of hiring one guy, not taking into account that he will take substantially longer- the webpage and print ads on top of just doing the video, will that create a better artwork or a final product than working as part of an assembly line? Filmmaking is similar to the Nash equilibrium scenario called the stag hunt where the payoff (or final product) is far greater being a part of a collective whole, than being the sum of its parts. If I go at it alone, the payoffs (or produce), is something of substandard quality. If I get a team of experts, all craftsmen in their area, and work together to create one product, the return is a much bigger and more polished piece of work. We have almost always worked this way in the film and TV world, and it isn't just about a matter of dollars and cents. It is what we need to deliver a product of substantial quality that people will put money into.
www.strypesinpost.com
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
