Not all festivals accept digital but, yes, more are. As Richard said, most theatres don't have digital projectors either. Greg Pak couldn't raise enough money for his latest feature, prefers film, but shot it digitally, transferred to film and tours the country showing it at Landmark Theatres.

The questions you ask vary quite a bit. You could say that if a film was good enough it would be in theatres but I don't know if that's true and wouldn't be surprised if there are some great ones that never made it except to dvd.

from a business standpoint based on what theater-goers are motivated by isn't it silly to assume a sub-$50,000 budget feature would get or benefit from a theatrical distribution?

I had a similar conversation with a buddy working on a movie in NYC with the Wu Tang Clan... they have a $250K budget and it's Wu Tang... that's STILL not enough to warrant a theatrical release. Or is it? Are they the next thing?

In either case I'm dealing with a guy from Chicago named Pete. Pete's a good actor but I'd guess folks don't know him. (Obviously HIS folks do and would buy several copies but seriously) My big-name talent is that guy pronouncing "Coven" correctly in American Movie - Robert Richard Jorge... A great movie.

But a perfect example of a movie that while I saw it twice in theatres I own the DVD and everyone else seemed to see it on DVD as well.

That's what I'm saying. a great script/actors/direction/etc... does not mean theatrical distribution. Without name actors you can pretty much forget it. Why not shoot for festival and direct to vid distribution and be profitable. The goal being a career. If you consistently make great movies you will attract great people. Cart before the horse.

Note: One screening of American Movie was in Milwaukee and the other at the Music Box in CHicago. I believe that movie won Sundance...

btw: If a dv movie of mine wins Sundance and get some theatrical deal THEN I'd consider a blow-up.

whatever your medium my mantra has always been "finish the project" ((I'm finishing one started 5-6 years ago!))

Josh,

Right, you can shoot on dv and hope for a deal that will allow you to transfer to film... as long as you realize the limitations in the process. You can ALSO shoot on film, finish in video,(For festivals and screenings) and have the security of knowing the negative is ready to conform and print! That's very appealing to potential distributors. That's really the best of both worlds.

And don't forget, deals can be made on film and processing. We got some great deals on stock on ebay, and just got off the phone with Kodak, willing to work with us on the next feature.

just curious,


is it possible to transfer to 35mm film by filming a DLP projection or a HDTV?

or indeed to use the principles of a P+S to film off a ground glass?


I dont know - thats why the question - but it seems to me a low cost way ahead

Remember it's not the budget that gets you into theatres but you are on the right track when you say you don't have a name actor for your film. People forget that movie making and distribution is a business. If there were no movies, the same people might be out selling cars, dishwashers or appliances. They are salesmen and only interested in what will sell.

That's why name actors are so helpful. Generating a buzz will get them interested because people are buzzing about it. (I heard Mel Gibson likes this technique:) ) I've read some recommend running a film through the festival circuit and creating such a buzz which leads to an agent/studio/distributor, etc.

So, why would people plunk down money to see your video or film? That is what a distributor will ask himself when he considers your work. Riveting story? Name actor/s? Hype? Name director? You might need all the above.

So you may have to self distribute which can be difficult, won't make you much, if any, money, might HAVE to be on film (so you can show it anywhere), but may get your name out there.

point taken...

Read article on digital projection the other day and was surprised to find it is up and running in Brazil. They developed the system and deliver via satellite. Brazil has huge geographic area so this cuts distribution costs way down and of coarse is a great thing for their indigenous productions of which there are many.

This is a great discussion going here by the way. I just wanted to add to what Richard Alvarez said.. I know a filmmaker here in Toronto who recently finished her film which was shot on 35mm but transferred to digital, edited & finished in video. It played at a few film festivals right off DVD (720 x 480) looks amazing of course and last week was picked up for distribution. The distributor can now worry about its release ie. where it will be released and on what format. The 35mm neg. is always going to be there if needed, but likely in this case it will stay in the 720x480 digital domain and be broadcasted on television.

This is why I think one can never be certain where their film is going to end up, or ultimately how it will be displayed... hopefully if your a filmmaker you plan on making more than ONE film so my advise is to go about using what ever format will allow you to make as many as possible without raising money $ for 4 years just to shoot your first film!

Bottom line is you can never win; if you shoot on video you "may" need to go to 35mm print for theatrical release and you might be kicking yourself for not using film to begin with. But if you shoot on 35mm film and release on video, you may never see a 35mm print either.

The one advantage of going film, though, is you can easily transfer it to anything else at anytime but it may not be practical or possible to do the same with video.

I had a conversation with some cinematographers and it just dawned on me that using Super16mm and Vision2 stock now approaches and surpasses 35mm stocks from only 10 years ago. (And 35mm stock is better also). That is why "The Station Agent" and the current "Die Another Day" (title?) were shot on s16 and blown to 35 beautifully. It's still not 35mm but it does look good.

Using high end equipment, my son has budgeted a 10-minute, s16 short this summer at $9000 through the answer print.

But with s16 you won't get 35mm depth of field.. nor will you with even the best miniDV camera which is where the mini35 comes into play and why were here to discuss it! lol

Bottom line is if you can't let go of the urge or desire to shoot on film, then shoot on film. The mini35 however is an amazing alternative because you get the best of both worlds in some sense: low upfront stock cost, low post production cost, beautiful images that for sure are NOT 35mm film... but pretty damn close enough for the viewer to fall for the illusion of it all.

I have a post in this forum of some stills from a current project I'm working on. In one post I show 2 images, one with the mini35 before post and one after post. Most would agree not much else comes close to the mini35 when it comes to digital...

(no I don't work for P+S Technik) lol

I can guarantee they are not s16 on a 40 foot screen, too, which is what we are doing.

DOF is not an issue with his script. Too many people feel they 'must' have an out of focus background but that is not true in all situations. Specifically, several of his scenes need deep focus to tell the story.