HD For Indies

Here are my raw notes I took after I walked in late to the New Technologies in Film panel:

Reeker - David Payne - did what he called a "DI Lite" on his film Reeker (he's the guy that had the horrible experience with BlackMagic Design, he's very very very not happy with them, to the point there was mention of the word "lawsuit").

Glenn Kiser - VP Skywalker sound

Anne Hubbell - Kodak in NYC, works with indies, before was indie producer

Christian Zak - exec producer for DI for Technicolor in NYC, accomodate a workflow that fits budget & asthetics. Strategize a solution

Gary Walker - computer imagery for 23 years, 10 years in Hollywood at Digital Domain and Sony Pictures, saw that the future of the tech was for indies, indies can afford the tech & expertise that has been exclusive to Hollywood

experience with new tech - David Payne on Reeker - goal was to utilize new technology cuz it sounded nice for investors, not all new tech is going to help you reach your goals, thought they were going to be shooting HD, shot 35mm. Wanted new tech in post. Wanted high quality, off the shelf stuff. 1 1/2 years ago 23K edit system - worked with D-5. Rented the D-5 for capture and online stuff. $1200/day deck rental at the time. 1/3 of the price for a "real" house. Negative transferred to D-5. DI Lite = HD DI workflow.

Anne Hubbell - 7 new film stocks in the last 2 years. She worked in indie films for 10 years, a TV producer. New Vision 2 stocks - amazing grain, opened the door for Super 16 shooting, coupled with DI. She says shooting on 16 w/DI as a price effective comparator to HD. I'D ARGUE WITH THAT, OR AT LEAST WANT TO SEE #'S. Some folks are hitting unexpected costs with HD, some like the known workflow of film vs. HD. Tools for how you need to tell your story. Previs system called Kodak Look Management System (WRITTEN ABOUT THIS BEFORE). Helps DP & director know what things will look like in the future, so you'll have a recipe for what you want later. Easy to share files, not everyone has to be in the same place, etc.

Shooting on film doesn't keep you from getting involved with DI & VFX and going back to film Gary Walker points out.

Film stock captures more info than video does. (She says this'll save you some money).

Christian Zak - high end tech is being driven by studios. Exciting that the tech is available to indies, is getting into indie film price range. Last fall Technicolor NY, Scorsese doing Aviator, Ballad of Jack and Rose working in the same facility. Ballad is showing at SXSW, shot 7218 16mm, telecine to D-5, color corrected to D-5 and output to 35mm.

Kiser on sound - sound has been a laggard in adopting new technology. Biggest issue is the embrace of DAW and mixing boards, digital flow has been integrated, but the methodology has not been changed for films. There's this firewall between editorial and mixing. At the mixing stage, handcuff yourself by losing flexibility by moving into a different format on a console. Consoles don't talk to mixing stations in any meaningful ways. They still do a lot of high end event type pictures, but in the last 5 years, the middle range ($30-$70m) film which used to be the bread and butter, they'd spend $1/2m to $1m on audio. Studios are not doing those, either going bigger for tentpole movies, or smaller for indie niche releases. They've had to re-invent their process to go after the lower end budget stuff because they don't fit for that. They are owned by a filmmaker (George), George has been frustrated by limitations, he invests in making stuff work for him and other filmmakers hopefully. On Ep2, wants to stay in the workstation until the very end of the process. final mix started last week, built new 6.1 pre-mix rooms (currently Pro Tools), the concept is that those are editorial rooms, pre-mixing in editoral. Editor can create/design in a 6.1 area, do EQ etc. in that phase, then move to mixing theater. Taken out mixing console, put 3 ICONS together (mixing it in Pro Tools). This technique came from indies due to budgetary reasons, first time it's been done at this scale. George is happy because he gets ultimate flexibility. They are getting pushed from both sides, high and low.

THIS IS GREAT - FROM THE BOTTOM UP

Avid - Bodner - not telling people which way to go is a challenge. Problem these days is IndiGen wanted to make films shot on DV. Every one wanted to do DVX100a as well. The ability to handle all these formats, handle them natively, and make sure teh R&D doesn't dissapear next year, not lead anyone in a wrong direction, let folks be able to use it all, and not waste their time on dead end tech. how to pick and choose and get good partners, and figure out how much time they should spend on it. VERY INTERESTING.

Jason Tomaric did CL.one. Did scifi for $25K with 3000 extras, shot in NASA stuff, 650 digital effects, he used new tech to put it all together. For someone with no money, what is attainable is the excitement of making the movie. Started it at age 19. Worked with a Quadra at the time. The project rode the digital wave. Premiere 1.0 was what he did. Started on VX1000. Seeing the result, it's pretty good. Good technology doesn't a good filmmaker make. Understand light, and sound, and mixing, and lenses, quality vs quantity. Bob Ross the painter new his tools so well he never stopped to think about tools, he was fluent with them. It should be a through line to your art. Don't let the tools get in the way of the art that you're creating.

Gary - telling people "you can tell your story now. There were limitations in the past, but now you have access to it."

Anne Hubbell - need discipline and need to know what your final product should be. Don't assume that just because you have limited resources that you won't be able to achieve what you want. Understand the tech involved and ask questions. TEchnology didn't come first.

Come talk to us and see what you're really after, not "we need a 4K DI", work it through the process rather than assume you need something in particular. Rely on Technicolor or others steer you. Ask the experts first - take the guesswork out of it. Be informed FIRST.

Shoot for the sky from the beginning - try to do something good.

If you save $30K by shooting miniDV, it's not as if you're going to get paid just $30K less. This is not the case.

CL.one guy saying - the DV projects are anomalies, about one a year. (he teaches in LA). The miniDV is great for first time filmmaker, once you have process down, THEN step up to make the one you want to sell. Don't expect to make money off your first college thesis level project. Take baby steps. If you're going to get Skywalker Sound to help you out, (or other post facility), you have to bring something GOOD to them that they will get a benefit out of. If there aren't good coattails to ride on, there's no reason for them to help you. Look to the next step.

Kiser says - they have a number of charity projects that go through the facility every year - good for the soul to contribute to those starting and to the community. That makes up for doing a picture like Catwoman. (OOH, THERE'S MY PULLQUOTE). When a project comes in and folks ask for help - they ask if it's intersting or an interesting filmmaker. They are a big facility, they have a lot of folks they work with, lots of talented people, lots of up and coming folks need something creative to work on, they volunteer on no budget stuff to put their reel together. A mutually exploitative relationship.

Folks want to play and learn, so they volunteer to work on stuff. And especially with the internet, the ability to move files around and get stuff done.

Kodak works with folks because they want folks to work on film. They work with indies and indie discounts, not for profit organizations get discounts. SO LOOK FOR DEALS, DON'T PAY LIST ON FILM STOCK. Don't be afraid to ask.

CL.one guy - You're either going to get a film done with passion, or with money. One or the other. Just ask - worst case they can say no.

Know what the costs WOULD be. Kodak rep saying she was shocked at how tight budgets are. Be educated about what you're asking for. BUT if you're not raising the kind of money you need to, think about why that is, and make changes if you need to, and do everything you can to get the money you need, because the other way, it is hard. All this tech is meaningless if you don't have an interesting compelling story to tell.

Tech is a double edged sword. If using to enhance a story, can be cool. Some things just don't work. Peoople showing films on cell phones at Sundance - it didn't work. The indie community pushes harders. But high end tech, film scanners are being driven by studios, but so much of the other tech is driven by the indies.

The impact of tech is more on the film creators' side rather than the audience's side.

Story and content and people in the story supercedes ALL THE TECH any day.

The technology over-ran the last couple Matrix movies.

Audiences don't care about film vs hidef - have a good engaging story.

The passion is the payoff.

More and more people are able to access the stories, or to see them.

25,000 theatrical screens in US, over a million 5.1 home theater systems in home and skyrocketing.

A lot more savviness on the part of the consumer. San Francisco isn't known for great theatrical audio, Kiser has better stuff at home.

Studios are paying more attention to 5.1 remixes for home setups. This didn't exist 3 or 4 years ago. Skywalker REMIXES for home distribution.

Choice of format will effect your distribution.

Ask a lot of questions, ask the ones that seem stupid. There's a clean and simple way to transfer files from Avid to Pro Tools....BUT not everybody does it right. Lots of simple errors that can be made that make the work useless, such that it gets hosed.

You don't have to have the greatest tools to do the best work.

Producers don't need to be technologically savvy, but they need someone who is they work with.

There experts are saying that they'll do one or two phone calls before some kind of commitment is made, so use that currency up carefully.