Your own movie? Has anyone made one? (1 Viewer)

[Scotty_McW]

I made a few films in film school: 2 documentaries that were each about 15 minutes, 1 narrative film that only ran about 10 min, and wrote a feature length screenplay. I've got a few ideas for future projects, I just need to get myself motivated to actually start working on them again.

 

[Ruz-El]

Seth,

Thanks for the response. I've been pushing, (and as director have mades detailed notes of what I think we need to make a final cut) to just upload what we need to make a final cut. Because this is our first project as a movie making collective, the consensus is that everything should be uploaded, mainly because the camera and software automatically make save spot based on when the camera was started and stopped, and so that we ahve more to play with in the editing. Seeing as I told the guy at the begining that he could look after the initial editing based on my notes, I can't battle him too much. I was hoping that I could get a confirmation that people were uploading at a broadcast resolution as opposed to the highest quality, with the idea that it would most likley be shown on TV anyways, as a way to convince him that we could get away with it.

The main problem is we don't own the equipment we are using for the film (again, I was out voted when this "better and easier" equipment came available)and now it looks like our editing is going to have to sit a month without doing anything.

I guess the moral is don't let people convince you that their way is easier, the tried and true way is a better way to go.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Here's a picture of what the source and unsqueezed versions look like for the 2.35:1 (actually, closer to 2.21:1) tests I've shot:

 

[Seth--L]

Russell,



You either capture your footage at DV resolution (uncompressed) or compressed. You NEVER output your final cut compressed. The only reason you would capture your footage compressed is if you're going to edit offline, but your final cut will still be outputted uncompressed at DV resolution.

 

[LarryDavenport]

I made a short 16mm film (w/ sync sound) about 13 years ago and have been meaning to get the print transferred to DVD just to have, but I'm not sure if I'd have fun watching it because I'm not crazy about the abilities of lead actor. On the other hand, my leading lady, Natalie Smith, was a prominant extra in Singles. She played the beautiful blonde who was flirting with Kira Sedgewick's fake-foreign boyfriend at the bar.

Back in 1991 my 15 minute movie cost me about $45,000 (I had to buy my equipment but I got a lot of that back when I sold it later). With today's digital equipment and software I could have made it for a couple thousand bucks (including the cost of equipment).

My 2 big pieces of advice:

1) No period pieces. Continuity is a bitch. My film took place in 1972, and I busted my ass getting the details right, even renting a guy's 1972 Camaro, only to find when the film was shown on the big screen he had a Dukakis bumper sticker that no one noticed on the shoot.

and 2) don't pay your friends to work on the film. No matter how much you pay them they still act as if they are on friend time and will show up when they want to.

 

[Lew Crippen]

There are two in commercial use: a Sony and a Panasonic. Both 24fps and HD. IIRC, the Sony has slightly higher resolution and the Panasonic allows one to simulate ‘overcranking’.

Both allow adjusting the color balance settings to simulate various film stocks, which is useful for different lighting conditions and other artistic reasons.

Neither is cheap and most budget filmmakers rent them by the day, so a tight shooting schedule is imperative. The results are very impressive. I’ve seen the HD tape from the Panasonic on a professional HD monitor and it is very, very impressive.

 

[Ruz-El]

Seth,

Thanks again, I've forwarded the thread to my editor, maybe he'll trust the collective here more than what I've been trying to tell him. I'm basing my uploading jabber from about 6 yearsd ago when we uploaded Hi-8 footage onto a computer to edit a film. It was our first attempt and we did it at what the software called TV quality. The final result when outputed back to tape looked really good, and actually had a sort of film look to it, which helped it be more accepted. I see the point of keeping it DV quality though, no point in sacrificing picture info if you don't have to.

So has anyone actually seen / used the new Hi-Def cameras that Sony announced for the consumer market this fall? I saw a quick news item on them on CNN in Dec. It sounded like they would retail at about $2995 US. I'm seriously thinking of getting one as my first camera, because couldn't you realistly expect true professional results from it? (As far as being able to transfer to film with decent resolution, similar to "One upon a time in Mexico", if that movie was in fact shot on DV. I haven't seen it yet, but "21 Days later" looked really good to my eyes.)

This is one of the best threads I've been apart of on this forum.

 

[Hal D]

I made a number of short super 8mm films(comedy & horror) in the early 70's(sound & silent). I'm currently writing scripts to shoot on video which I plan to put on dvd & sell on ebay & advertise in the horror & monster magazines. The best ideas I ever had came from exaggerating ordinary situations. Kind of like the Naked Gun movies. I use my paintings of monsters and superimpose titles and credits onto them using my old Amiga computer for a great nostalgic look. Then I come up with bizarre music on the piano to add & overlay using a Radio Shack mixer. At one time, I used audio dub on my VHS. None of this costs a great deal. It all turns out looking pretty good. Great thread!

 

[Lew Crippen]

Once Upon a Time in Mexico was shot on a Sony HDW F900, HD camera. This baby rents for a little over $1,000/day and you only get the body. Lenses are extra. You can rent a slightly less expensive model for two or three hundred less.

The Panasonic AJ HDC27F rents for about two hundred less than the F900.

I think that 28 Days Later was shot on a Cannon XL 1S, which can be bought for about $2,500. But I’m sure that it was modified. The Cannon is mini-DV, not HD.

 

[Chad A Wright]

I'm currently saving the money I need for all the equipment. I've added up about $10,000 worth of stuff that I think it would take to make a decent quality movie.

The $10,000 includes everything except sound and lighting equipment. I figure on adding $1-2K for that.

Most of the expense comes from the camera and a new top-of-the-line Apple G5 Powermac (along with a huge monitor). The rst is mostly software and misc. equipment/tapes.

I started shooting my first short on video and about 15 minutes into production realized I wouldn't be happy with the results, so I stopped. I'm a perfectionist, and I want to see my vision look as close to film as possible. So now, I'm just writing and storyboarding like crazy until I get the money. That way, when I finally have the equipment, I'll have about 5 or 6 films ready to shoot.

No one seems to realize how cheap a film can be made these days. With the advent of technology, just about anyone can make their own high quality films for relatively little cash.

 

[Chris PC]

I'm not sure if all Sony's are like this, but I understood that they were video camera's.

Sony = 1080i "VIDEO".
Panasonic = 720p Progressive.

Both 24 fps but being progressive, the Panasonic is really going to the one more like FILM. The Sony's 1080i is VIDEO.

 

[Ruz-El]

Heres a question for all the Pro-Am movie makers who sem to be in this thread:

Are any of you even considering buying or getting into true film equipment (8mil or 16mil)? At this point, I can't imagine ever shooting with actual film stock unless someone else is paying me to do it. At the same time, I'd love to try as it really does look better, IMHO, than video, it's just way to cost prohibitive.

 

[David_Blackwell]

I have several novels written, some screenplays I have been working on over the last 2 years, and some other ideas I have still floating around in my head as I work them out to the stage where I have enough of a handle to write something. Sometimes it is good to write and it will figure itself out. Other times, you write something and it takes time to come up with parts of the story that you have to step back for months or years to get the thing to finally come together.

I want to write, produce, and direct my own movies. I have decided digital video (and HD digital) are the way to go due to the fact that it's cheaper, you can shoot much quicker, and view the shot after you shot it among other factors. Once I have somthing figured out writing wise, I will hunt for a digital video camera and start experimenting. I have watched the extras on the ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO DVD. I think ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO looks wonderful as it was shot on hi-def digital, and 28 Days Later looks good and uses digital to great effect.

Be Seeing You,
David Blackwell

 

[Chris PC]

Also digital "video" camera's require less light. I even remember this when I used a VHS-c video camera over 10 years ago to record bands in bars. It was only rated down to 7 lux and yet I could video tape in dimly lit bars without any lights. Yeah there was some picture noise and lack of colour saturation, but it wasn't that bad. Totally watchable. I'm sure the newer digital video camera's are fine. HD 720p 24 frames per second would be nice

 

[Jacinto]

Back in high school I made a film for a class project. All of my friends helped out, and our total budget was something like $30. It was a comedy, of course (what home movies by high-schoolers aren't?), but other than being shot on old hi-8 camcorders and edited VCR to VCR, it came out really well. It had all the goods: a bank robbery (shot outside an actual bank), an off-road car chase, a drug bust in a parking garage at night, a hospital scene (shot in a hospital), two girls in a cat fight, a shootout in an office building (actually shot in an office building during business hours -- we got the hell out of there, fast!!), a montage, and even a great stunt towards the end (one of my friends agreed to fall off an embankment into a stream about 10 ft. below). The assignment was to create our own 10 minute film. My film, Mexican Ninja: the Motion Picture, came in at 62 minutes with an additional 30 minutes of outtakes after the final credits (yep, we had credits!). I can't even begin to tell you how much time I put into making that stupid movie, but I still watch it once in a while for the nostalgia...

I'm pretty sure I've still got all of the raw footage somewhere. If I ever have the time, maybe I'll convert it all to DV and re-edit someday.

 

[Chris PC]

Yeah. Thats what I'm talking about. If people transfer their movies, films and videos to DVD's we can trade them here

 

[Seth--L]

There's so much equipment involved (and people) in shooting 16mm that your films really have to turn a profit in order to afford it all. You could spend a fortune just on a lens for a camera.

 

[JonZ]

Me and a few friends made a horror movie when I was like 12 years old (1982) called The Spatula Massacre.

The killer, in a cloak and mask was running aound killing people with a spatula

 

[Erik.Ha]

Was it one of those flimy rubber "spatulas" you use to get the last bit of cake mix out of the bowl, or one of those wicked flapjack flippers?

 

[JonZ]

No man,a wicked metal one