Any independent digital film-makers on this forum?

I was just wondering if there were any aspiring or practicing indie/digital film-makers on this forum. I would be interested in hearing about your projects.

It's a hobby, yass...

If you want to laugh at my terrible American accent, you can go here...
Chicken Fries Kentucky. (Ten 5-second-shorts that get played during film ad-breaks). It's my mate's project, but i knocked out some corny phrases for him, and threw some ideas, music and footage his way. (Some of the sound stuff came out pretty cruddy, but the 'rotoscoping' [computery-cut-out-stuff] is class )

There's some old projects of mine here (also featuring lavishly bad dubbing - but at least i was in control this time... Mwhahaha etc)... Search the 'library' for...

• 'Above and Beyond'
• 'How to Stay on Top'
• 'Chocobition'

They're pretty slapdash - and the streaming doesn't exactly enhance them - but they were merely a training exercise for the terrible film empire that i'm currently building (I think you might even like the sentiments in 'How to...' young Djangolini )

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

You could count me as one. After working on a few shorts, last summer I attempted a feature length which was, well, moronic. Naturally, it was a nerdy horror film and had a body count of 15+ people and largely took place in the same room.

I think I learned more in those two weeks than I have any other time in my life. I'm pretty sure I invented a few new profanities as well.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

Call me the Scottish Spielberg!
Please, nobody else will, especially not those in charge of funding in Scotland!
Doing a Diploma in Digital Film at the mo, and have attended loads of film courses, including two summer courses at the New York Film Academy.
I've had plenty of intrest from my teachers in the US, but unfortunately Scotland is proving more tricky.
Had my film reel stolen by a fellow pupil during my first stint in the US, so now I'm a complete paranoid android when it comes to trusting people.
I would say watch this space, but you might be waiting some time.

__________________
Hey Pepe, would you say I have a plethora of presents?


Toga, toga, toga......


Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour?

Wow, that's really interesting stuff! Golgot, thanks for the links. I will definitely check them out asap.

What do you guys think about the future of digital cinema? I have been doing some reading up on it and it looks like it is ready to take off in a big way. What do you guys think?

HD will blow everyone away, especially as more people convert to HD cameras and TV's.
I'm saving up to buy the new sony hd digital camera, it's amazing how far technology has changed in just a few years.
Rodriguez has been a huge fan of HD, look how good Sin City came out, definetly the future until the next technology breakthrough!

I agree. George Lucas' HD technology will take the cinematic world by storm.

It definitely seems to be on the up. I'm still not sure if HD looks better than film, but digital tech is definitely a treat to work with - and a boon to the amateur . (My flick-ettes ain't filmed btw D, they're made from archive footage, so they don't have any digital footage - in case that's what you're hoping to see. They're made of 'digitised'/compressed footage instead. Bler )

It looks to me like we are on the verge of a Renaissance of independent film-making in the digital medium. I think that it would be a breath of fresh air in the movie industry to have a wide range of new Indie film-makers working digitally. It could give new meaning to the concept of Indie film-making. I mean, look at how the music industry has grown and transformed thanks to new technologies--although piracy remains a major concern.

I think for Indy's and amateurs, yeah. And for documentaries/tv, too (altho the sheer amount of footage that can now be filmed must be as much of a pain as it is a joy for editors ).

At the mo, i'm glad most of the movie-pros are sticking with film tho (transferred to digi media afterwards, i believe). It just looks richer - more replete with harmonious detail.

I think it's partially the format, and partially the potential for tinkering, that makes digi efforts - like Lucas's latest Franken-films - seem a bit too synthetic on the eye.

With modern digital editing software, the editing process is virtually (excuse the pun) painless!

On the contrary, HD resolution results in richer and more detailed imaging compared to celluloid. Compare 1000 lines of resolution in celluloid to up to 4 times as much in HD. Add that to the dramatic savings in terms of production costs and time. I'd say HD is a shoo-in. The only problem is updating to more expensive digital projection technology. Otherwise, in terms of production and distribution costs and time, celluloid is no comparison to digital, which is why it is inevitable that digital is set to catch on in a big way.

True, Lucas has gone a bit overboard with CGI and computerized effects in his new films. However, if you consider that the digital medium offers crystal clarity and incomparable image resolution along with huge savings in production costs and time, plus the fact that, unlike celluloid, there is no wear and tear over time, digital has many positive factors going for it.

BTW, I bet Lucas would have gone digital right from the start of his career if he had the option. His first movie was a quintessential Indie flick--THX-1138 (or something like that)--about a dystopian Orwellian police state in which all human contact is strictly regulated and human beings literally are nothing more than numbers in the system. It is interesting to speculate about what Lucas might have done if he had the technology at his disposal at the time!

Yeah, but i was referring to the wealth of material that the editor suddenly has to sift thru. It's good to have the choice, but it's also potentially headache-inducing

Ok, i'm basing my judgement on HD films transfered to standard cinema projection, and HDtv reproduction of standard material. I'd need to see the whole shebang to judge properly. I guess the old analogue issue of 'records providing better quality' (when unscratched ) is sticking in my head.

No argument there .

No overstatment there .

Sure, but would THX definitely have been better for it? Remember that working to a film 'ration' makes you focus more on your shots - 'treasuring them'. Digital encourages you to 'shoot everything and see what works later'.

Focusing on the moment can help the actors too. Many directors advocate the 1-or-few takes policy, i believe - especially for scenes of emotional urgency. It allows the actors to recapture the 'once-gone-lost-forever' feeling that pervades moments of importance, etc.

True--with digital film-making, the volume of footage that editors and directors have to deal with probably increases. But, on the other hand, I think that's a good thing, because now film-makers have greater flexibility when it comes to translating their vision on screen. Plus, with editing software, the editing process becomes seamless and much more painless and flexible as a whole.

The best LP doesn't measure up to CD or mp3 quality! Digital rules, dude! You made my point there! Thanks!

Well, the fact is that Lucas invented digital HD film-making technology because he was dissatisfied with the existing celluloid technology when it came to making his new Star Wars films. So it's pretty obvious that, given the choice, Lucas would probably have gone digital from the very start. As for whether or not it would have worked, well, consider the fact that technically, the new Star Wars films are vastly superior to the originals, even though the original films are much better in terms of story, direction and acting IMO. (Basically the original films are more engaging and better films overall, especially The Empire Strikes Back, which is probably the best in the series). So, if Lucas used digital film-making technologies for his original films, I suspect that they would be way better technically, and I don't believe that story, direction, etc. would have suffered for it.

As far as your theory about rationing film shots goes--it's true that Hitchcock shot sparingly and rationed his material. I guess that's a film technique--to place an artificial restriction on yourself as to the number of takes you take. However, most film-makers typically shoot about 10 times (am I being conservative in this estimate?) the footage they use in the end. And with digital, they can shoot even more footage at a fraction of the cost. So does this mean that the end result will suffer? I would argue not, because the more footage the director and editor have to work with, the closer the end result will come to their actual film-making vision. Keep in mind that most film-makers tend to compromise their ultimate vision because of logistical issues (such as cost, technology, studio pressure, etc.). So if cost and technology become less of a factor, I think that's a good thing, because now, the end result is closer to the film-maker's actual vision. So I don't think that your point is altogether valid, though it does have merit, I'll grant you that.

True, I admit that is a technique that, perhaps, is a way of capturing spontaneity on film. But an improvisational style like that is still a discipline that film-makers impose on themselves, not because they have to (though sometimes they do, because of the cost factor), though usually, film-makers tend to shoot way more footage than they actually use. Still, I am of the school of thought that whatever makes the film-making process easier and more flexible, the better it will turn out. Just because it is now easier and less costly to shoot more footage doesn't mean that you have to--you can still impose the artificial constraint upon yourself of shooting fewer takes to capture an improvisational, spontaneous style. So, again, I don't think your point is altogether valid, though it does have merit!

Many musicians etc still prefer LP reproduction. There are some technical reasons backing them up: LP's purely 'analogue' recording and reproduction techniques mean that more elements of the original music are kept ('whole') - whereas the digital trickery of CDs etc involve techniques like "brick wall filtering" which lose aspects of the original (notably higher frequency ranges - including even the inaudible ranges, which have still been shown to have an affect on on our physiology/brain-waves etc).

For reasons like this, i always suspect that digital might lose some qualitive aspects via its non-analogue/bit-separation approach. IE certain 'executive' decisions have been made about what information is important to record - whereas with analogue you get the whole shebang.

On durability and practicality, digital still wins hands down of course.

How do you know Lucas wouldn't have acted like a kid in a sweet shop and spent so much time on the look of the originals that he forgot the story aspects? (Have you noticed how badly even experienced actors act in front of bluescreen etc as well? That never helps the story become engaging either). Could it be that these two aspects are what condemned the latest 3 Star Wars films to being utter tripe?

I think 10:1 is a minimum for big-budget affairs, yes. I think the main thing i worry about is how the profundity of re-shoot opertunities may affect the less 'focused' directors and stories (and what with all the studio-meddling that goes on in hollywood etc these days, its easy to see how even well-thought-out initial 'visions' for films can become 'compromised' and 'unfocused').

The recent indie-hit Primer demonstrates what the 'unfocused' Hollywood productions lack. The director had such a firm idea of what he wanted to do that he actually shot at a rate of 2:1! He would, of course, have benefited from a greater shooting ratio, but as it was he was able to operate like this because he had put so much thought into his initial concepts. (He also worked on film, because he felt the over-exposure and colourisation effects he wanted to use couldn't be achieved as well on digital )

True.

I'm just wondering whether the image-manipulation (via blue-screen etc) and massivie-shooting-ratio posibilites that digital bring are the automatic boon that you're suggesting. I think they may have made it more challenging when it comes to making a focused and convincing film, on some levels.

I'm sure director's will learn to cope tho .

Firstly, I object to subjective, emotionally loaded, connotative terms like "digital trickery". Terminology like that has no basis in reality. We're talking about two legitimate forms of music reproduction, each of which has its own merits and demerits. IMO, if you do an objective comparison, digital technology wins hands down in virtually every respect, except in certain fringe circles. But you raise some interesting issues, nevertheless, that I admit that I was not thus far aware of and I say point taken.

Getting beyond the seemingly deceptive jargon, I have to point out that most authoritative sources have nothing but good things to say about the qualitative aspects of digital reproduction, both in audio and video. Also, define "whole shebang". Bottom line is that with digital, you get better quality in virtually every respect. I listen to mp3s on my iPod all the time, and each time, I am impressed with the clarity, range and quality of the music I hear. I listen to CDs on my Bose wave radio/CD player and every time, I am impressed with the quality of the sound. I watch DVDs on my laptop and each time, I am impressed with the quality of the image and sound. You're telling me that you'd prefer to listen to a scratchy LP on a wind-up gramophone or a scratched black-and-white print on a defunct home-movie projector? Well, that's probably just you. I doubt that most people would agree with you, though!

And in virtually every other respect, except the esoteric qualities that you and probably a few others apparently look for in their music, at the expense of such other qualities as clarity, range, etc.

Like I said, I agree with you that CGI and green-screen, etc. are overdone. I definitely prefer quality acting, plot and content in my films. However, what I am referring to is the logistical aspects of film-making--shooting footage, editing, distribution, etc. My point is that the digital medium is far superior than the conventional medium in these contexts. True, there is bound to be a learning curve with all new technologies. But that's not to say that they cannot be mastered, once you overcome your initial apprehension and groundless suspicions pertaining to new technology. There will always be the naysayers when any new technology is introduced, but typically, the positive factors associated with the technology tend to win out in the end. And there is no denying that the positive aspects of digital film-making technology simply overwhelm any negative aspects, whether real or imaginary.

Actually, 10:1 is a pretty conservative estimate--25:1 or 50:1 is probably closer to the actual figure. As for the rest of your point, what you are talking about is the film-making process. Your points are really non-issues (sorry to be blunt, but these are the facts). What I am talking about is the film-making process as engaged in by professional film-makers, based on my own limited knowledge and experience (I have a cousin who makes art-house films, BTW, so I know something about the field).

Well, in the end, all we got is his end result. We can't compare what he shot to his artistic vision (which is in his mind), so we have no idea of how close he came to it. You call Hollywood productions "unfocused"--please define/elaborate what you mean. When you claim that his low shooting ratio was owing to "a firm idea of what he wanted", how do you know that? How do you know what he wanted? Can you read his mind? What do you compare what he shot with? The fact is that you are only speculating. He might just as well have been dictated by more logistical issues such as cost and production time. So did he necessarily get the best shots in the end? It's really impossible to say. I think that if he had shot more footage, he would have a better range to make a selection from, choosing the best footage for his end product. In fact, what I am saying applies equally to professional still photographers, who routinely shoot many times the number of stills that they use ultimately. E.g. glamor photographers, commercial photographers, art photographers, etc., invariably shoot several times the number of frames that they ultimately use. So this is a common practice, not something unusual. On the other hand, like I said, some film-makers prefer to artificially restrict the number of takes, some for logistical reasons, such as cost and time, other for artistic reasons, such as capturing spontaneity or achieving an improvisational style. These are valid schools of thought, as is the school of thought that prefers celluloid for niche artistic reasons. However, for the mainstream, I think that digital is probably the way they will choose to go for any number of reasons.

Blue or green screen existed well before digital--it's unrelated to digital film-making. You're talking about special effects and CGI (computer generated imagery). That's a whole different issue. I think it's outside the scope of this discussion, but I would welcome the debate (some other time). I'm talking about conventional professional film-making using digital technology. In virtually every aspect, the benefits of the technology are overwhelming, so much so that it is inevitable, IMO, that it will catch on in a major way--in the mainstream. That's not to say that celluloid will remain the preferred medium of choice in some niche artistic circles for esoteric reasons (and I totally respect that). But when it comes to mainstream cinema, I can bet that digital will take over--it's just a matter of time. Ultimately, I'm betting that even a celluloid production would have to convert to digital for mainstream distribution and display purposes. It will be like CDs and mp3s versus LPs and cassette tapes today. As far as the issue of "focus" goes, I don't think that it's anything more than a buzzword (in the context you are referring to it). The bottom line is that the more footage you have, the greater the range of footage you have to make your selection from and, as a result, you can pick and choose the best, most coherent shots to piece together to make your film in the end. That's what the editing process is all about, and there is no denying that digital HD shooting, along with editing software, makes all this much, much easier and less expensive and qualitatively way better, IMO.

Robert Rodriguez has already done way more than cope with the medium! He has proven its possibilities! (Even though I don't particularly enjoy Sin City for its content, I cannot but admire the technical sophistication and film-making skill that has gone into making it! Rodriguez has proven his technical mastery over the medium, though I question his artistic tastes in that movie at least).

Funny way of saying it.

Simple idea. Analogue mediums represent the recorded-subject in a single 'unit'. Digital mediums use multiple units and assemble them into a whole.

I merely suggested that, because the designers of digi technology must make numerous executive decisions about how to break-up and reassemble the 'subject', there's more chance of human fallibility entering the mix and omitting or obscuring an integral aspect in the process. This may not always be immediately apparent (as with the loss of higher-frequency ranges mentioned previously).

Analogue mediums, altho an engineered technology, involve a more serendipidous and 'organic' (if you will) method of capturing the 'subject'. That is all.

I'm terribly sorry if it offends you that i suggest there's even the teeniest whimsy of a possiblity of a chance that digital might feasibly have the slightest of imperfections.

You normally take constructive questioning so well

Interesting. So you accept the potential of digital mediums failing to capture the same range as vinyl, and yet... you don't

Luckily for you, i think CD tech etc is now starting to match the range of vinyl etc, if it hasn't done so already. But for years it didn't. And did you notice? Did you ****. You already 'knew' digi was, simply had-to-be, the best.

Do you know what's ironic? (No, you never do, but there we go).

I haven't taken away from the positives of digi media at any point. In fact, i've highlighted them as well. (Altho you obviously haven't noticed, from the way you repeat the same point back at me *over*and*over*and*over*a*****ing*gain).

I've also agreed that it will almost certainly become the dominant medium. All i've done is point out a few potential downsides that seemed worthy of consideration.

It seems you don't like to consider them. Well fine. Why not buy yourself a nodding dog and go talk to that instead?

You are priceless. I'll lay odds of 50:1 that your cousin's art-films won't make any cash if he's shooting at 50:1 tho (On film that is. Lovely luscious film )

Many of them have absolutely no coherent 'motive'/moral/style - because they're pulled in so many directions by the profundity of 'interests' that surround them. Many of them lack 'authorship'. Many of them are ****.

No, but i can read interviews where he talks about all this.

Then laugh!

No, there's no danger of human fallibility entering into the equation, because the digitization of media (audio and video) is all done by the technology, not by human beings. Human beings don't even factor in at this level of the process.

However, the digital medium has repeatedly been proven to be superior and more life-like and accurate.

I don't feel offended in the least as I don't have any sort of personal stake in the technology. For me, it's just technology. It's not like we're talking about a person.

As a matter of fact, I take constructive questioning very well.

My personal experience tells me that digital technology is far superior in every noticeable respect that really counts. It's not like we are compromising in terms of quality. The resolution and clarity are far, far superior in digital. In almost every respect, digital wins hands down. Analog may have some esoteric factors going for it, but I don't think they are really relevant.

Then we agree (aside from the pointless insults)!

He probably doesn't shoot at that ratio. Probably 10:1 or 15:1 more likely. And it's true, he isn't in it for the money--he does it for artistic reasons. He makes his money as a professional architect.

Also, I must add, that when you say "lovely luscious film", what you are doing is expressing a somewhat absurd sentimental attachment to a technology. Film is a technology, not a person. Save your sentiments for human beings who have feelings, not for soulless machines who feel nothing.

True, many commercial films are pretty crappy, mainly because studios tend to buy scripts and then have them rewritten again and again in a sometimes misguided attempt to make them commercially viable (as they see it). That's why I'm advocating independent cinema based on digital technology, so that studios don't meddle with the production, and what you get is a more coherent artistic creation that speaks in a distinct, coherent voice. That's what excites me about digital technology--it makes independent cinema so much more cost-effective and logistically possible. That's why I believe that digital media is the wave of the future.

True, but you can't tell whether or not he's bull****ting you without reading his mind.

Yes, but humans have overseen the design of the process, far more so than with analogue. That's where fallibility may enter the equation.

As always, there was some competition in your post for 'funniest statement'. This one wins it (but the irony-soaked one about mind-reading comes in a close second).

So you're saying that with all the high-tech digital equipment at our disposal when it comes to digital reproduction, there is greater potential for human error now than there was with analog reproduction because somehow human beings are more deeply involved in the design of the process? That is factually as wrong as it is absurd.

It seems that you have a finely developed sense of irony, because you seem to see it everywhere. Try looking in the mirror!