modfodder

Considering the amount of work, the number of people and the cost of equipment it takes to make a motion picture, $1m is absolutely low budget. The average cost for a Hollywood feature film is $65m+. It's difficult to make any film with a medium size experienced crew for less than $1m. If you have any recognizable talent, it's difficult to make for less than $5m. Once you get below $1m, the terms "micro budget" and "no budget" start being used. Mini-budget, Indy budget, Ultra Low budget are also used. It depends on who's is using the term and in what part of the industry they are working in. If you are outside of the industry with no money, the terms mean little to nothing because everything is low or no budget, but if you are working with crews, talent and investors that have experience, those terms have specific meanings.

SAG (Screen Actors Guild) uses Ultra Low Budget (0-250k) Low Budget Modified (250k-700k) and Low Budget (700k-2.5m) to differentiate projects from their normal union rates.

Toward the edges of the industry I've seen the following breakdown. No Budget = below 40k Mini Budget = 41-80k Micro Budget = 81-150k Ultra Low Budget = 150k-250k Low Budget = 251-400k Indy Low Budget = 401-500k Classic Low Budget= 501k-999k Hollywood Low Budget = 1-5m

But more often I just hear the terms No Budget, Micro, Indy and Low.

Muting is still one key press.

I especially like the way the toucher handles dual screen brightness, 1 press and it brings up a brightness control for each screen.

As a video editor, I'd say you are close. imho, to me it doesn't say that Rob was making his leadership of the company all about the product (you'd really have to go back and look at past photos to see if this is true) but more that he is now fading into the background of the company, while Bryan is "focused" on future of the company (looking towards the viewers right which is typically the future). Although many decisions like that in films often tend to be happy accidents (or subconscious choices), it is pretty clear that they are deemphasizing Rob.

Are those the only stocks you have picked? Have you picked any that didn't do as well? Or any that were losers? What led you to miss on Apple or Priceline?

A tweet from my lone experience on AltspaceVR.

"I spent an hour in VR watching Reggie Watts perform live. The future feels suspiciously like a 90s version of Second Life."

The experience was about as underwhelming as possible and I never went back.

Is this for projects funded (at least partially) by Netflix before production? Would love to hear more about your experiences (both with Netflix and general filmmaking outside the US).

That's valid. And kinda surprised it's not listed. Any other cameras that would make sense to be on the list?

60fps is not yet good. The Hobbit at 48fps did not look as good as 24fps and Billy Lynn's long Halftime Walk at 120fps 3D was one of the worst looking films I've ever seen.

I do believe someone will crack this nut (as Cameron did with 3D). But it's going to take the right project and very creative filmmaking techniques. Personally, I think the first one that works will be a sci-fi in a sterile setting, so the HFR will work with the narrative, not be a distraction.

The Canon C series (100/300/500/700) are popular among documentary filmmakers. And this in mainly for projects produced by Netflix in the pre-production stage. Not for projects that have already been shot (but not yet distributed).

I'm in post on a project shot mainly on the Canon C100 (not on the approved list). We will be talking to Netflix at some point about picking up the project and I have no worries about in not being in 4k or shot by an approved camera. If they like the project and want it, the camera format won't matter.

What cameras would you prefer shooting on that isn't listed? I'm not seeing anything that I'd prefer to shoot on (other than film).

Cameras like the Sony A7s or the Panasonic GH5 are great for the low budget film, but if Netflix green lights your project, you can afford much better cameras. Unless the project calls for really small and unobtrusive cameras, in which case Netflix would most likely approve the use of whatever camera best fits the project.

For a film they green light, probably not. But if the film is already shot and they want it, I don't see that getting in the way.

In a way it did. Now instead of installing the BlackMagic Decklink cards, I can buy the Blackmagic UltraStudio or Intensity and get the same function over Thunderbolt or USB3. What was once locked to one machine is usable by every machine I have, including taking it on the road and connecting to my laptop.

Apple saw where the market was going and that an iMac or MacBook Pro with Thunderbolt/USB3 peripherals can do the work that required a fully decked desktop machine 6-7yrs ago, which is great for the vast majority of creatives. But in doing so they have left a segment of the creative community without the expandability, upgradeability and speed necessary (3D, CGI and some VR, etc). But some of these were never really strongholds for Apple anyway.

As a 20+yr veteran editor who has used just about every NLE on the market, my money and time goes to FCPX unless my clients specify otherwise. It's the fastest, most versatile and most stable product out there and the only one that feels like it is truly evolving away from the original late 80s NLE paradigm. And while its use in the high end market (film, tv and commercials) in the US is minuscule, it's global footprint is growing.

As someone who is a video pro, cutting commercials in NYC and LA (and former post facility engineer), I'm not seeing it. I don't know of one editor or post facility that has moved from Mac to Windows or Unix. One River Media (the co. that posted the blogpost about switching) is using Davinci Resolve as an NLE, a far more niche choice than cutting in FCPX. Resolve is a color correcting tool (a very popular one that I've used to color grade features) that has added editing support. I've yet to meet anyone in the wild using it for editing.

Even the editors I know that cut on Adobe Premiere which is available for both PC and Mac aren't switching from Mac, which honestly has surprised me a bit because of the greater choice in hardware. But for most video editors at this level, you're just trading speed in one area for problems in another. Editors whine and complain every time there is a tiny change in the interfaces they use, they hate change. They have been forced to embrace FCP and Premiere over the years (and complain about it incessantly). Very few will choose to make the jump to Windows for the same reason.

As you step down the ladder, the move will make sense for some. Your all-in-one facilities or one man bands (production and all aspects of post handled by one or two people). But in my experience, this group has already been heavily invested in the Windows side because of the cheaper initial costs (that money you save early will be spent later and the Windows post-house will cost as much or more than a comparable Mac post-house, at least it did when I was an engineer).

And the other aspects of video post production, the CG, 3D and compositing sectors already heavily lean toward Windows or Linux and have for over a decade.

There just isn't a huge need for massive speed increases in the hardware side for most video editors. We've gone from needing very fast, high end systems with fast (and expensive) SAN storage to laptops and SSDs that allow us to do more, faster than ever. iMacs or MacBook Pros are all the average editor needs, with more and more working remotely from home. I cut a project for the NBA over the holidays on the first gen USB-C MacBook and years ago cut a project for REEBOK on the just released MacBook Air. Both these projects came up unexpectedly while I was traveling but went off without a hitch on underpowered hardware (that I bought for web surfing and writing).

That's not to say that I wouldn't appreciate (and most likely purchase) a new and expandable Mac workstation. But for the most part, I'd be spending money to just spend money. It wouldn't speed up 98% of my job. And that other 2 percent isn't slow enough to cause me any issues.

Current playback technologies only playback one frame rate. yes you can mix frame rates in an edit, but they will be converted to the master frame rate of the timeline (so that 24fps footage would be converted to playback at 48fps, not it's native frame rate). Sometimes this looks fine, other times this can cause image problems.

And it's only recently that mixing frame rates in the same timeline has worked well. 5-10 yrs ago, we would have to convert the footage, typically using hardware specifically built for conversion (Teranex or Alchemist). Then came along desktop software that could do decent jobs converting. Now, if i'm cutting in Premiere or FCPX, I can just drop the footage in and the software will take care of it, usually without issue (Avid still has problems with non-native frame rates and it's recommended to convert before importing the media).

And it's been this way since playback frame rates were standardized (and automated). Projectors had no way of changing playback speed on the fly depending on what frames were projected. Television was locked into one broadcast frame rate spec (29.97 in N. America, 25 in Europe) and TVs were locked into one of those specs. Tapes and disc playback was typically locked into one in the early days, although DVD eventually allowed for multiple playback options, as does Bluray, but the hardware typically converted them for playback on 29.97 screens (pre-HD). We're still limited to what the screen can playback to some extent, the broadcast specs of 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, 30, 50, 59.94 and 60.

With computers and monitors we have the capability to playback multiple frame rates, if the software allows it, and that is where the current issue is. I can playback different frame rate QTs on the same screen, at the same time without issue. But there is no software (that I know of) to create or playback videos consisting of multiple frame rate videos. Game engines might be able to change playback on the fly, but I have zero knowledge of that tech.

And it would be advantageous to have tech that allowed switch on the fly playback. I'm currently consulting on a documentary that uses source footage from at least 3 frame rates (24, 25 and 29.97). And the editor is cutting in Avid, so we have to convert before import, which slows down the creative process and adds complications to the finishing process.

All this is to say, it is much more complicated than you make it out to be.

Sorry, I think this was meant for another comment, not yours, as I don't see the sentence I thought I was responding to in yours.

Your list boils down to "use it appropriately and don't assume old techniques are appropriate". Obviously there is a lot of learning the industry would need to do to use 8k well.

This takes more than a "competent film crew". A competent film crew should have no problem working in well established techniques and workflows but wouldn't necessarily be prepared to venture outside that. If I was directing a production in 8k, HDR, VR, 3D or any edge cases, I want more than a competent film crew. I want creative thinkers and problem solvers. I want crew members who have experience on a wide range of projects, everything from digital video to imax (you might be surprised at how often even the crews of big budget productions have limited experience outside the status quo).

In the early days of the RED camera, the best footage came from cinematographers who had worked in lower budget HD productions, not film cinematographers. The HD crews had already been working in similar workflows, but the competent film crews were flummoxed by this one piece of equipment and even though they could see the results on set, they would still send back footage that was way underexposed and often unusable (and this was often from very well respected and experienced cinematographers).

I believe few people in the industry believe that 4k is the pinnacle. But most do believe that the technology to move to 8k is not even close to ready or worth the added cost, that workflows for 4k are just now becoming standard (the majority of projects are still finished in 2k, although that will change with distributors like Netflix now requiring 4k delivery). And that audiences won't care enough about beyond 4k enough to pay extra. Are you ready to pay extra for an 8k screening? The theaters have to recoup the cost for new projectors while they're still paying off the brand new 4k installs. Oh, and there aren't many cinema lenses that can cover an 8k image (especially since many DPs prefer the quality of older lenses).

There are old timers that lament the loss of film and resist moving from 24fps. But they'll be replaced by the younger generation who will be more open to experimentation and pushing the medium beyond its limits. The industry is driven first and foremost by profits, so once the pencil pushers see profit in 8k and HDR, the whole industry will move in that direction.

It takes more than just a competent film crew to adjust for 8k and HDR. New lighting, makeup and set design techniques have to make up for the higher fidelity. Suddenly the line where makeup is applied is highly visible, as happened during the switch over to HD (this led to makeup artists switching to air-brushing in the early days). Set design needs to look even more real than before (if you've ever been on set, you probably noticed how fake everything looks, yet on screen the flaws disappear). This will take time and experimentation. And money, money that the industry really doesn't seem willing to spend yet as they've spent tons moving over to a 4k pipeline. It'll take a blockbuster success from someone like Cameron releasing an 8k HDR film for the industry to even seriously entertain the idea (and they'll be more gun shy since the 3D push wasn't as successful as they hoped). And unless annual attendance shrinks drastically, they have little reason for the extra expense (and theater owners won't want to bear the cost of the upgrade since they're still working on the upgrade to 4k).

Douglass Trumbull, a pioneer in cinema techniques, is developing technology to allow mixed frame rates and resolution. So those panorama shots could be 8k HFR, while maybe the close up shots of the actors are 4k 24fps. It will be interesting to see if this actually works in a film that requires suspension of disbelief. I wouldn't hold my breath for this to reach cinemas in large numbers anytime soon.

All this is to say, it is much more complicated than you make it out to be.

HFR and 8k require rewriting the rules of set design, makeup, lighting and post-production for non-documentary work as they expose the artificiality of fictional narrative. Rather than feeling like you're in the movie, you feel like you're on the set, seeing all the fake backdrops, cables, and acne. HD (and 4k) had similar issues, but not to the extent that HFR and 8k does. Although both HFR and high resolutions do work extremely well for sports and nature documentaries where suspension of disbelief is unnecessary, at the moment both are worse for narrative filmmaking using current techniques.

The Hobbit (shot 48fps 5k 3D)had mixed results using HFR. The scenes shot on location with less CGI looked awful (like low budget early 80s BBC mid day dramas) while the green-screen, heavy CG scenes felt like being in a video game (in mostly a good way). Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (shot at 120fps 4k 3D) looked absolutely horrible, like early HDCam home movies. It was impossible to get swept up into the movie and made an ok script and good acting feel much worse than it actually was.

I do believe someone will crack the code on HFR, but it will first require the right source material (The Hobbit and Billy Lynn's Long Walk Home were not it). I suggest utopian sci-fi or something set in a sterile environment. But even beyond that they have to figure out the lighting, makeup and set-design (and the extra burden HFR and 8k puts on post-production, especially for CGI/VFX).

One element that actually helps make a film feel cinematic is a slight softness to the image. The best looking digital cinema uses on camera filters and/or post-process to help achieve this look that comes naturally from film shot at 24fps.

Younger audiences who've grown up on HD and HFR video games are less bothered by the differences, but audiences usually don't really know what they want until they see it (one reason that early audience feedback is poison to the process).

background note: 20years experience working in production and post-production

I had a great boss (founder of the company) who said, after I just screwed up, "There is not a mistake you can make, that I haven't already made. Just don't make the same mistake twice."

Don't know what you're prerequisite for an engineer is but my brother, an aerospace engineer, has been using mac laptops since the 90s. And in the classes he teaches, nearly all the students are using Apple laptops.

Oh I agree and didn't mean to infer otherwise, just doing my bit to illuminate the process (a process that might have changed since I was last involved a decade ago).

If the segment includes a fashion editor/advisor from a magazine, the clothing and accessories featured are advertisers for the magazine, not paying GMA directly (to my knowledge).

I did a little freelance on the magazine side, putting packages together to show the fashion labels what coverage the magazine was able to get. I have know idea if this cost extra or it was more of a incentive to purchase bigger ad buys in the magazine. This was nearly a decade ago, but at the time I don't believe the morning shows were paying labels or the fashion consultants, it was more of a quid pro quo.

Could have been an interesting learning experience had they brought up a scorecard after you've been playing a while (or at the end of the game), tabulating all the death and destruction you caused. But that really only works once, otherwise you'll come into the game with the intention of death and destruction.

Maybe the hand crank could charge the battery as well. On long road trips just have your passengers crank through the night....

So you don't read any Science Fiction or Fantasy.

It'd be one thing if he was born and raised in NY, but he grew up and spent most of his life in Minnesota. Surely as a writer he is able to invoke his past memories with sincerity in creating this fictional narrative. Or do you believe that as soon as he crossed the Minnesota border, all that was lost, and as he stepped into a NYC Starbucks he became a jaded cynical New Yorker.

When I look for places near my neighborhood in Greenpoint Brooklyn, Google Maps pulls up places in New Jersey about 30% of the time, even if I type in the exact name of the place several blocks away. I haven't been to NJ in years (and only a handful of times).

And last time I was in Palo Alto using Google Maps to find a dry cleaners, it sent me on a 20 minute goose chase, and had me going in circles. On the third try of reentering the address (using copy/paste all three times, all 3 times the address was identical) it finally game me an accurate route.

I still use Google Maps more than Apple maps mainly because of the subway/bus integration and because I've been using it for so long, but in my anecdotal experience Apple Maps isn't any worse than Google Maps and has been less irritating when it's wrong than Google (although I use Google more).

That's just the Mayor and the City Council "disrupting" the current ride sharing duopoly.

I believe he is implying that Quicktime was the only app/codec/container that allowed the user to stop, rewind, fast forward, jump around in the clip without the app completely failing. As a video editor for the past 26 years, that has been my experience. Every other video playback app/container that I've used (on both Windows and Mac) failed at treating a clip in a non-linear manner. My current preference is still for Quicktime 7, the utility knife for video playback (even more so than VLC in my experience).

Not quite the same. In the switchover from CFC to HFC, it was mainly the same companies making both chemicals. In the switchover from fossil fuels to renewable/green energy, you are moving production from one group of well established suppliers to a group of mostly newcomers. While many of the larger energy suppliers are invested in numerous energy plays, the bulk have a singular focus on one energy source. (Source: family in petroleum industry).

I wouldn't give up my childhood living on 7 acres that backed up to hundreds of acres of state land for anything. And the weather in the Tornado Alley of Oklahoma was great, ranging from freezing snowy winters to hot and humid summers, giving my childhood a huge range of enjoyable experiences. I could hike, camp, fish, hunt, sled, ride dirt bikes, build stuff, blow up stuff (with my homemade fireworks), play most sports, all just steps from the back door. Seeing wild turkeys, dogs, coyotes, horses, fluffy bunnies (fierce killers), the monarch migration and too many types of birds to list without having to leave the property was invaluable to my curious mind.

The only other experience I'd consider possibly better for raising a child is in NYC (my current home) where the best art and culture exist a short subway ride away, with regular interactions from seemingly every culture in between.

You can have your moderate weather fluctuations (I don't consider cold, rain or snow "bad" weather), I'll take a world of life outside my door.

Losing one function or even several doesn't automatically make something obsolete (outdated, outmoded and generally no longer used) if it's still functional for it's main purpose. Ball mice are obsolete mainly because no one is making mice that aren't optical/laser (AFAIK). A TV losing a smart function doesn't make that TV obsolete unless the person using the TV was relying heavily on the smart functions. And even then I wouldn't necessarily say that the TV was obsolete mainly because the smart functions on TV are used by a small percentage of consumers, typically less than 15%.