Everything is Possible but Nothing is Real

So I was in Vegas recently, and while I was there I was stopped not once, but twice by strangers who wanted to comment on the shirt I was wearing.  I happened to be sporting my Black Country Communion t-shirt.

Who are Black Country Communion you say?

Shame... Shame on you for not knowing.  Well, actually it's not that surprising.

Black Country Communion are a super-group of sorts, fronted by Joe Bonamassa, who just happens to be the best blues-rock guitarist on the planet.  It also includes industry stalwarts Jason Bonham (yes, son of the GREAT John Bonham, Glenn Hughes (Deep Purple, Black Sabbath), and Derek Sherinian (Dream Theater).  Not that you should actually care or anything, but they happen to be making the best true rock sounds since Bad Company and Led Zeppelin.

But that's not the point.

The point is that while talking with one of the folks who felt the need to comment on my shirt (a drummer who supposedly knew Joe B. when he was just a wee lad), he made the comment, "Man, it's too bad he can't make it in the music scene today..."  I said, "What do you mean - he HAS made it."

The rules of success in the music industry have just radically changed from where they were twenty years ago or so.

Joe Bonamassa has a loyal following who buy all his records.  He tours all over the world.  He even got to play with Eric Clapton at the Royal Albert Hall. That's success in today's music biz.  Is he a household name?  No, but he's not a 15-year old pop star kid either.  The music biz is now even more divided between the 5 or 6 mega stars who are heavily marketed (Lady Gaga, Black Eyed Peas, Justin Bieber, etc.), and everyone else.  It used to be you made money off sales of your CDs, but that's long gone.  Now the CD (er... digital download I mean) is a loss-leader just to get people excited about your live shows.  Cashflow is based mostly on ticket sales and merchandising revenue.

The time when an artist could make a living off the intellectual property of their art may be coming to an end.  And it's all your fault.


Yep, it's your dang fault for having an insatiable need to consume music and movies and not want to pay anything for them.  Once something can be digitized and transmitted as zeroes and ones on the net, it inevitably spirals down to a value of zero.  Folks just don't wanna pay if they don't have to.

And this is the sad future for filmmakers as well.


Thanks to Netflix, the assumption is that at any time I can click on a box and instantly watch great entertainment in the comfort of my home.  For free.  Or nearly free. As a consumer, this is amazing.  As a film buff I can now watch all sorts of titles I never would have been exposed to before.  I know so many more directors and their visions.  But are those filmmakers, really being compensated for all this?

Not really.

The indie film I edited and co-produced, The Commune, was offered a deal by Netflix for their Watch Instantly streaming service.  Do you know what they offered us?

$7500.

And that was before the distributor took their 30% cut.

So, let's see, our meager budget was under $100,000.  Hardly anyone got paid.  And now, Netflix wants to own it and allow anyone in the world to watch it for free in the comfort of their own home.  And for all that, we'll be compensated around $5000.

Now I'm not knocking 5 grand.  Hey, that's better than nothing.  Many filmmakers would love to be offered a Netflix deal.

But, do the math.  It's not rocket science.  There is no sustainable business model there.

Now, musicians have a way to get around this dilemma.  They no longer expect to make money off their art.  They can make money off their live performances.  And so now they are always on the road - like a hamster on a treadmill - keeping the machine running.

Live to rock and rock to live!

But filmmakers don't have this revenue stream.  We don't get paid for live performances.  Our films are our live performances.  Unless you're Kevin Smith, no one really gives a s#!+ about hearing or seeing the director - they just wanna see the movie.

So how will the indie filmmaker survive in this climate?

I don't know.  I really can't see it.


The only business model I can see working is to crowd-source the funding of your film.  Spread the risk.  Let your true fans feel like they are part of the process. Set up a kickstarter campaign and raise just enough money to hopefully cover costs.  Maybe pad it a little so you can actually pay your rent while making the film.  Then at least any scraps of revenue that are generated will be profit.

Do not go into debt and take out a mortgage on your home to make your next indie feature film kiddos.  It ain't worth it.

Welcome to the future.  Everything is possible but nothing is real.*



*(Living Colour - Type)

Inside a color grading session

Stu Maschwitz, the amazing DV Rebel himself, has posted an incredibly illuminating vimeo clip of a recent color grading session, using his Colorista II plugin for After Effects and Final Cut.

Now the skeptic may say, "Hey, this is just one big demo to pitch his software", and while this may indeed be true, it overlooks the fact that Stu presents an amazing wealth of information on all things color.  And it happens to be free.  You not only get to see the toolset in action, but more importantly, Stu's thought process as he is grading.  And that is indeed priceless.
 

07 - Color Correcting Food with Magic Bullet Colorista II from Red Giant Software on Vimeo.


Just please folks, all I ask is that you promise me you will use this knowledge for good...

Not Orange and Teal!

Film is dead

First of all, I love film.

In elementary school I was one of those AV monitor dorks who wheeled the projection equipment into your room and threaded the film whenever your teacher needed a break and forced you to watch that boring volcano documentary again.  I started shooting with Super-8 cameras as a 12-year old and spent many a long night gluing edits together in my dark, noxious-fume-laced-room.  I later finally got my hands on real 16mm equipment as a film major at S.F State.  We Cinema students scoffed at the broadcast arts department kids and their aesthetically inferior crappy-assed video cameras that they were forced to use.  Eventually as a professional video editor, I spent many long hours trying to make video look more like film (Cinelook anybody), but it never really got there.

With its slightly stuttering 24 frames per second, motion picture film suggested another reality altogether different from our own - a place to pour our ideas, our emotions. It was the medium of visual poetry, of dreams. Video on the other hand, presented the harsh, glossy reality of the now. The faster frame rate of 30 frames per second made it appear to our eyes to be a glance not of art, but of our own mediocre everyday reality.  Video was the realm of soap operas, of news, of live events.

I wanted to live in the filmic world of metaphor - of campfire tales and big-screen dreams. I fought the film battle long and hard, but you know, what?

It's over - film is dead!  Long live digital!

Standard film technology is arcane, inefficient and unnecessarily expensive.  Based on 19th century technological advances, celluloid, mechanical shutters and sprockets were exciting stuff back in the day, but c'mon it's time to move on already - we're not still riding horse-drawn buggies people!

Everything behind the camera lens is now under the digital technological influence of Moore's law, which means that it only gets faster, cheaper and better from here on out.

The big knocks against video always had to do with frame rate, resolution, depth of field, latitude and low light sensitivity.  Against the industry standard of 35mm film, video cameras all came up short.

Standard Def Video (regular TV) was embarrassingly deficient in terms of resolution.  There simply were not enough pixels on the screen.  Once High Definition (HD) video was introduced (and now with 2k and 4k), the image sensors on the new cameras could start to approach the rich detail of film.

In recent years, from the lower end cameras (Panasonic DVX100, Panasonic HVX200, Canon HV20, Canon 7D) to the higher-end cameras (Viper, Genesis, F900, Red Epic, Arri Alexa), all these issues have been addressed and now the differences between film and digital video are practically imperceptible. But don't take my word for it - check out this recent shootout of inexpensive digital cameras (like the Canon 7D) vs. 35mm cameras that was overseen by major industry insiders.  Remember, this was a test using some of the cheapest cameras available (the Canon T2i is under $1,000) up against big bad 35mm film!

Then go over to Philip Bloom's site and check out his story about testing out these same cameras for none other than George Lucas.

When you're done with that, fill your head with the news that big-budget disaster film director Roland Emmerich has been testing the new Arriflex Alexa and Red cameras for his next flick.

There will always be a small amount of DPs who will cling to film and fail to see the big picture.  They will continue to bring up issues of latitude and sensitivity and whatever else their engineers can conjure. This is all irrelevant. When you take into account not only the images that digital cameras are able to record today, but also the digital workflow (production, post production, distribution, exhibition) and the economic impact of that workflow there really is no argument.

For the past 10 years or so Hollywood has been forced to adopt a frankensteined workflow for making movies.   Movies have been shot (mostly) in film, then transferred to video tape or digital files for editing, special effects and color-grading, then printed back onto 35mm film for distribution and exhibition.  Hardly efficient or cost effective.  Pioneers in digital cinema like George Lucas (Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones in 2002) were the first to shoot their films digitally and tried to force the theater owners to start installing digital projectors.  However, most of the industry still remained entrenched in old technology, with the DPs and the Theater owners digging their heels in the most.

Just the idea of having to make numerous 35mm prints and ship them all over the country (carbon footprint anyone?)  so some kid can thread them into a projector (introducing dust, scratches and reel changes every 22 minutes) makes my skin crawl.

35mm film as the standard for the motion picture industry is barely viable today and will quickly disappear as Moore's law rips through the antiquated process of recording, editing and viewing motion images.  If today, a $2000 camera can make pretty damn good images that certainly are better than 16mm film (great for indie filmmakers), and a $60,000 camera can make amazing images that easily stand toe to toe with 35mm film (great for mainstream Hollywood), then just imagine what will be available 5 years from now, or 10 years from now.

Just as black and white films still existed after color came out, yes, there will still be some movies shot with traditional celluloid.  But they will be largely irrelevant to the industry as a whole.

And it's not just the old Hollywood guys who are hesitant to change.  When Elisabeth Fies and I talked to our DP about shooting her indie feature, The Commune, a few years ago, he tried to talk us into shooting it on 16mm film instead of on HD.  From his perspective, he knew how to operate the 16mm camera better and knew how to get great images out of it.  That's fine, but as soon as you factored in the economics and efficiency of the digital post production workflow, it became a very silly argument.  He still was able to get us great images and he did it on a Panasonic HVX200 HD camcorder.

I pick on DPs a little bit because they are now usually the last bastion of defense in the war of film vs digital.  They are still gallantly manning their posts as if there is still a war going on.  Some of these guys are grizzled Hollywood veterans who refuse to budge from behind their Panaflex entrenchments.  And I can understand - hey, you're scared, the shit is moving pretty quickly and you're going to actually have to learn something new.  Well waa freaking waa - welcome to my world buddy!

The world of editing and post-production experienced its digital tectonic shift in the 90's.  Avid burst on to the scene and changed the landscape forever - first in the video world, then marching quickly to the world of cinema.  Final Cut then followed, reducing the barrier to entry from $100,000 to $50,000 to under $10,000.  As an editor I started on a Steenbeck, then to a CMX 3600, next to an AVID, Media 100 and Final Cut.

 (editing circa 1985 - hey, where did that missing frame of film go?)

 

(editing circa 2010 - hey, where did my big desk go?)

Along the way I've had to learn Photoshop, After Effects, Motion, Soundtrack Pro along with countless other software programs.  I've dealt with endless formats from Umatic, BetaSP, D2, DigiBeta, DV, DVCAM, HDV, DVCPROHD, and on and on.  Now I live in a tapeless world of P2 and AVCHD and REDCODE RAW and H.264 and ProRes.  It never stops.  The digital revolution is a fast, violent, economics-changing process, and it always looks forward.  Jump onboard or be left in the dust.

I'm still amazed by the folks that still don't get this.  Even people in the biz, people I really respect seem to be living with their head in the sand.  Check out this recent round table discussion from some of the top directors of last year - Peter Jackson, Lee Daniels, Jason Reitman, Kathryn Bigelow, James Cameron, and Quentin Tarantino.  In a nutshell, Tarantino mentions that he'll stop directing once 35mm film is no longer projected in theaters - as if that is still to be determined some time in the future.  Peter Jackson and James Cameron almost fall out of their seats - they can't believe that he has no idea that the industry has already left him behind.  Even Jason Reitman tries to console Tarantino, as if he's a older brother breaking the news that there is no Santa Claus.

So, what does this all mean for you and me - makers and consumers of movies?

It used to be that the cost and complexity of the equipment acted as a filter against just anyone making a movie.  You needed to convince not just yourself but a lot of other people that your idea was good, that you knew what you were doing, that you could direct other people towards your vision.  You also needed a lot of money and a lot of people to help you.  It would take years to learn your craft - from writing to directing to lighting to shooting to audio recording to editing to dealing with labs to color timing to getting your final print.  You either went to film school or learned on the job - crewing your way up through many films.  Either way, this process took years and there was always a cost involved - you paid either in time or money.

Now the equipment is cheap, amazingly high-quality and easy to learn.  The information is readily available. I recently needed to figure out how to set up my Canon 7D for shooting and within 5 minutes I had found a video on YouTube showing me exactly the best way to do that.

The good news is that anyone who wants to make a movie can now make a movie.
The bad news is that anyone who wants to make a movie can now make a movie.

Its a great time to be a filmmaker, and as soon as the digital distribution is all worked out, we may actually even be able to make some money doing it.  For the consumer it means that there will be an incredible array of new voices, new visionary filmmakers producing amazing movies that would never before have been seen.  You'll just need a way to steer through the dreck.  Just because the equipment is cheap doesn't mean most people will be able to make a movie worth watching.  Screenwriting, lighting, acting, editing and all the other factors that go into making a great movie still are the most important skills that people must know before even thinking about picking up that inexpensive digital camera.

Film may be dead, but filmmaking is stronger than ever!