While I've never meet you, Ken, I think you and I probably have a distinct advantage (age) that a lot of the people here don't have. I can walk into a potential client and say I've got 20 years experience and this is how we do this. The client figures I must know what I'm doing. Even if I didn't have the experience, it's assumed because of the age. It an air of confidence and authority. I show my reel and the work stands on its own. I've had a few clients and art directors question by choice of equipment over the years. I point out that betacam sp is an option but your budget will increase 20% or maybe a little more. This is based on the much costlier tape stock and increased rate for beta acquisition and digitizing an ANALOG source. I stress how old beta is and that modern digital offers many advantages. This works about 80% of the time. There are always those who resist change (fear?) or are just more comfortable with what they know and understand.

Jeff

Yes, Jeff, we're probably similar in age and we may both have enough salt over the ears (or exposed skin on the roof) to lend an initial impression of authority. <g>

Although I've never worked in the film, video or broadcast industries 25 yrs in the visciously competitive institutional investment industry taught me one early lesson which I believe applies universally; you are what you seem to be, at least until your actions indicate otherwise. Young people I've interviewed and met over the years generally "seem" to be either over-confident or insecure and fearful.

As your remarks reflect, if you act like a victim you'll be treated like a victim. To get the job, whatever it may be, you must exude confidence in your capabilities without being an insufferable, arrogant ass. One of the best ways to do that is to keep your mouth shut and your eyes and ears wide open as much as possible. Hide your fears and insecurities by concentrating instead on listening to what the client is telling you verbally and non-verbally. Sit on his side of the figurative table during that initial meeting. Convey to him "Yes, I understand your needs and can help you achieve them" not "I've got cool stuff that you should pay me to use for you." Being a good listener and using your mouth mainly to ask good questions initially are keys to avoiding an immediate "No". In the case of videography, prematurely exposing your DV "means" merely gives someone an excuse to reject you. But chances are high that your gear was often not really the issue for rejection.

People, young or old, who cannot sublimate insecurities will project "victim" in any field. Certainly in the end you have to produce the goods. But you often have to trust that you'll find a way to accomplish the unfamiliar. The ultimate tyranny of the required can be the most powerful creative force to propel you to new levels of achievement, resourcefulness and creativity.

Just my thoughts for whatever they may be worth.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : I understand your point, Daniel. Soderbergh's use of the camera, and Canon's publicity surrounding it, has used his notoriety to shine a light onto the use possible use of prosumer-class equipment such as the XL1s. But when you actually see how grainy and poorly-lit the DV footage was you realize that the notoriety will likely be of a strongly negative nature. Indeed, several of the critics have already flatly criticized the use of DV for the film, subtley indicting the technology rather that Soderbergh for some of the film's poor quality.

So, should we -really- praise Soderbergh for using the XL1s on this film when, in fact, it has made an already steep hill of professional acceptance for DV gear even steeper? -->>>
--------------------------
Here's a classic example of my point. A quote from CNN's review of Full Frontal:

"Soderbergh shot most of "Full Frontal" on a cheap digital-video camera...."

So how much benefit did Soderbergh really deliver to aspiring filmmakers who use XL1s', PD150's or any other such camera?

------------
The full review is at:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/05/ca.s02.full.frontal.ap/index.html

The Houston Press mentioned that he used specifically the XL1s, although I believe they actually called it the XL1 in the article.

Go Ken, GO!!! I'm behind you, with some one like sodaburger who has a lot of exposure/influence in the media, he has brought on some bad press on DV.

His quote at the end, "If it ends up being a film that's more influential than successful, that's fine with me, too." was the kicker, the influence is turning outto be the kind he was not looking to give.

Another thing, if it cost less than 2 million to make and he shot it mostly on video, where did all the money go? Is there a breakdown on the costs of the film that anyone knows about?

The way the lemmings in "hollywood" work DV will be poison. The opposite of the effect of remaking endlessly the same movie once a prototype makes money, money being the key thing. Anything that hints of risk will be shunned as a disruption to cash flow.

I noticed the other day a promotion, I think it was on MSN.com, that asked people to predict what new movies' first week gross take would be -- as if the gross was something people ought all know about and keep track of and use as a movie guide.

Sometimes I wonder about the culture.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : A quote from CNN's review of Full Frontal:

"Soderbergh shot most of "Full Frontal" on a cheap digital-video camera...."

-->>>

The irony here is that I've seen CNN crews using the XL1S and even a GL1. Guess "cheap" is good when it comes to the news operation bottom line (probably helps them pay for movie reviewers).

I doubt, however, that "Full Frontal" will poison Hollywood on DV. The trend is there and one bad film won't stop it. Kodak is certainly worried. I get mailings from big Yellow all the time reminding me that I should be using film, not video.

Rik Sanchez asked, "is the a breakdown of the budget?"

I saw Full Frontal at a special advance screeining in Austin on July 29 at the Paramount. Nick Katt was there to host (he plays the actor doing the Hitler bit). During the Q&A that followed, he was talking about the shooting schedule and all, and said, "where's the two million?" And I'm thinking, he's right, how did this thing cost even that much. Although I was originally told that DV was used for 80% of the production, it's onscreen for maybe 60%, meaning there's more 35mm on screen than what I had anticipated. I guess that's where the two million is.

P.S. -- I've moved this thread to "DV for the Masses," just seems more appropriate. Thanks,

where's the 2 million ..

crews don't work for FREE just because steven is shooting dv.

SAG min .. approx 500 day plus OT plus H&W benefits ..plus $$ insurance on the STARS -julia might be working for scale but you have to insure her for what her future income ( 20 mil a film) is worth in case she gets hurt ...

grips 400 day +OT +H&W benifits
sound mixer 500 day +OT +H&W PLUS equipment rental (approx 400-800 per day)
camera ass't ( yes even with Xl he had ass't) 500 day +OT+H&W
Drivers 250 day +OT+H&W
1st AD 500 day +OT+H&W
production manager 600 day +OT +H&W
producers 800 day ..
editor 5000week +B+H&W
ass't editors 300-400 day
sound work and mix ? 300K-400K
production office rental, van rental, locations rentals, PRODUCTION INSURANCE, FOOD ....

if they worked 6 day week then the 6th day is at 1 1/2 X rate penalties for going over X hrs ( into 7th day)

this was a 18 day shoot ... probably at least 8 weeks of pre -production

it all adds up QUICK ....

To Peter Wiley: Sadly, apparently the culture does care about the gross. Also, sadly, I am paid to watch, among other awful shows, Access Hollywood. They have entire segments devoted to how much a movie brought in on the weekend, and in total, etc.

<<<-- Originally posted by donatello : where's the 2 million ..

crews don't work for FREE just because steven is shooting dv.


if they worked 6 day week then the 6th day is at 1 1/2 X rate penalties for going over X hrs ( into 7th day)

this was a 18 day shoot ... probably at least 8 weeks of pre -production

it all adds up QUICK .... -->>>

Don't forget the advertising budget. It's usually factored into the cost of the film.

Cinematic DV feature
 

To me, Dancer in the dark is the best looking DV movie thus far, that would be one to check out for sure, but I was turned away by the handheld shaky cam effect that Lars Von Trier used throughout the film.

I also like bamboozled but I thought that the color was a bit dull...

The Anniversary Party is also a great looking DV movie very vibrant colors but I found out that it was shot on digibeta...

I still have yet to see a very cinematic DV film...

Has anyone seen a DV film with great some great framing and movement? Steadicam may be???

I just don't like seeing DV films where everything is hand held just cos you can... what filmmakers call "dramatic" to me is just dizziness and headaches...

Daniel

Canon Should SUE!!!
 

I'm sure Canon won't, but he (S.S.) made our camera look like a BAD VHS. If I was thinking of buying an XL-!, this film would have stopped me. Besides being a terrible movie with a poor script, it looks awful! I've seen Army training films that are more entertaining and look much better. Don't waste you money, like I did, on Full Frontal. It's a rip off and makes a great camera look real bad.

Full frontal Reviews
 

Canon Should SUE!!! I'm sure Canon won't, but he (S.S.) made our camera look like a BAD VHS. If I was thinking of buying an XL-!, this film would have stopped me. Besides being a terrible movie with a poor script, it looks awful! I've seen Army training films that are more entertaining and look much better. Don't waste you money, like I did, on Full Frontal. It's a rip off and makes a great camera look real bad.

arm chair quaterbacks
 

I remember a thread awhile back where folks were lamenting about having to have "real jobs" and weren't able to follow their dreams.

It's interesting that some members think it is amusing to bastardize a very succesful directors name (ie: sodaburger) as a form of critique. I think he deserves a great deal more respect than that.

I have always been of the opinion that film, music, theatre and book critics are just failed artists. They wish they could be out there doing something, but since they can't or won't, they bolster their own ego by degrading or falling all over the work of others.
The fact is...the majority of them haven't done squat artistically. If they were good artists, they would be creating art. But they don't.

If you don't like how he used the XL1 to shoot a movie for national distribution..shoot your own. Write a script, grap your precious camera, and shoot something. Take 18 days (what's that 9 weekends ?) and get off your ass and shoot your DV masterpiece.

The guy took a chance. Great !!! Hopefully he inspired a bunch of young kids to go out and make movies. That's more important than trying to please a bunch of cynical critics and camera hobbiests who would die for the chance to have their DV footage on the big screen. Most of us wouldn't even care if it was perfect or not. Just knowing you did something would be worth it.

Every hour we spend degrading another artists work, is an hour we could be spending on our own work....our own piece of art.

Don't get caught in the same trap that so many artists get caught in. The "I wish I would have" trap.

The is my opinion and not necessarily that of the management.

David Mesloh
Shooting good and bad DV daily.

Sometimes arm chair qb's are better than those lost souls in the field!
 

Very well said David, many good points, BUT just because he went out there and turned out a piece of bore does not mean we should sit here and applaud him for it.

Nobody was ever expecting a masterpiece from this guy, but most of us would settle for a decent work. No excuse for a half assed experiment! For a guy with his connections, power and means he should have done way better than this! Period!

Anyway, how come nobody is questioning how much money has Canon coughed up for this one? I don't think that the Canon ads are all over Full Frontal official site for no reason. And I also don't think that the full page Canon ads with Sodaburger's grinning mug with XL1 s are in every single damn DV magazine for no reason. And so, today Canon will sell you the dream that if you buy an XL1s you gonna make a movie like him. And they will milk it for all its worth.

I sincerely believed that they went to Canon and they struck up a deal. It is beyond my comprehension that no one here questioned or mentioned that possibility?

Re: arm chair quaterbacks
 

<<<-- Originally posted by dmesloh@gimixfx.com :
If you don't like how he used the XL1 to shoot a movie for national distribution..shoot your own. Write a script, grap your precious camera, and shoot something. Take 18 days (what's that 9 weekends ?) and get off your ass and shoot your DV masterpiece.

The guy took a chance. Great !!! Hopefully he inspired a bunch of young kids to go out and make movies. That's more important than trying to please a bunch of cynical critics and camera hobbiests who would die for the chance to have their DV footage on the big screen. Most of us wouldn't even care if it was perfect or not. Just knowing you did something would be worth it.

Every hour we spend degrading another artists work, is an hour we could be spending on our own work....our own piece of art.

David Mesloh
Shooting good and bad DV daily. -->>>

David:

Very good points and I have to agree. I also don't think the film is a bore. It is a devastating look at moviemaking ala Hollywood and the Los Angeles culture (which is why I think it upsets so many movie critics).

So Soderbergh took an XL1S, cranked up the gain and added grain in post. So what? I'm not going to judge a camera's ability to produce quality work based on how any one director used it in a single film. He bleached out colors and added grain to the Mexican scenes in Traffic and I didn't see Panavision proponents claiming it would destroy use of 35mm. The different color palettes he used for different locations in Traffic made it a more compelling film.

Steven takes chances, which is what I admire about his work. He experiments and pushes the limits, which is what we all should be doing with the medium. I talked with a Canon rep the other day and he says the company has no regrets over its involvement with Full Frontal and looks forward to working with Soderbergh on future productions. I've seen Full Frontal twice now and appreciated it more the second time around. The audience in the second viewing was also more into the film than the first time I saw it. And there's a lot of subtext that is easily missed on casual viewing.

Granted, Full Frontal is not for everyone. It is a very personal film, one that Soderbergh admits will be the last he will ever shoot or edit in LA. It was a crititique of a town he finds too constricting for creative work. Instead of castigating the guy because he didn't use DV the way we would have liked, we should applaud his willingness to try something different.

Ah, we now have one (count it, one) favorable review.

I just wonder how many of the armchair critics have actually spent a few dollars and gone to see the movie. If your want to critisize (or praise) something you should have at least experienced it. I don't want to hear arguments about wasting $10. Anyone who owns a $3,000 video camera + gear can afford $10 to see a movie and give an honest opinon. No arguments about wasting time, either. We waste an hour here and there every day. I know I'm guilty of that. So, go see the movie. You might come away with an idea for your next project or a technique you want to try. But, at least give me an honest and thoughtful opinon on something you've actually seen.

Jeff

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : Ah, we now have one (count it, one) favorable review. -->>>

Actually, I've read a number of favorable reviews: Filmmaker Magzine, Time (Richard Corliss called it a "terrific new movie...intimate and innovative."), Res, The Independent, etc.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : I just wonder how many of the armchair critics have actually spent a few dollars and gone to see the movie. No arguments about wasting time, either. We waste an hour here and there every day. I know I'm guilty of that. So, go see the movie. You might come away with an idea for your next project or a technique you want to try. But, at least give me an honest and thoughtful opinon on something you've actually seen.

Jeff -->>>

Jeff: Good points. I go to movies for two reasons: to be entertained and to study technique. Last night, I saw Full Frontal for the second time, along with The Kid Stays in the Picture (documentary on Robert Evans) and Tadpole (also for the second time). All were playing at a multiplex in Arlington that caters to indie film (it also has good popcorn). Seven hours well spent because all three of the films were good studies on technique.

The films also provided a good break after nine straight days cutting a documentary on the American mood on terrorism.

Liking or not liking what Soderbergh did in Full Frontal doesn't make any of us right or wrong. Any film that provokes thought and discussion proves its merit. When I got home last night, I popped Traffic into the DVD and watched it again (Soderbergh originally planned to shoot part of that film in DV). The Mexican scenes would have worked beautifully in DV.

Soderbergh
 

I feel that Steven Soderbergh has been an inspiration to me personally. It's hard to find many established filmmakers who are willing to talk about the technical aspects of filmmaking and in the process reveal their secrets and methods. I love David Lynch's work, he is one of those who are very protective of his work. He's reluctantly discuss or even talk about his films.

As a filmmaker, I have learned a lot from watching his movies and hearing him talk about his process.

To be honest, El Mariachi wasn't that good a movie but it was innovatove and fresh, and I think we'd learn more if we weren't so busy counting the grains on the screen and bad mouthing him for each one of them.

Daniel

This will be the last time i will be somewhat influenced by the critics.

This was a great movie, and very worthy of seeing more than once.....
----brilliant!

As far as the Xl1 footage quality....It did look worn and grainy but this was
OBVIOUSLY the directors intent. I for one loved this idea,.. like i said- brilliant!

Re: Soderbergh
 

<<<-- Originally posted by dcny@hotmail : I feel that Steven Soderbergh has been an inspiration to me personally. It's hard to find many established filmmakers who are willing to talk about the technical aspects of filmmaking and in the process reveal their secrets and methods.

To be honest, El Mariachi wasn't that good a movie but it was innovatove and fresh, and I think we'd learn more if we weren't so busy counting the grains on the screen and bad mouthing him for each one of them.

Daniel -->>>

I agree that one can learn a lot from Soderbergh. However, Robert Rodriguez directed El Mariachi, not Soderbergh (Rodriquez remade El Mariachi as Desperado).

Interesting that we're starting to hear more positive comments about Full Frontal from people who have actually seen the film.

Doug

Rodriguez shoots digital too
 

Rebel without a crew is the reason I decided I want to make movies...

What I meant is that it's great to see both of these big league filmmakers shoot digital, it's the closes thing to a pad on the back for what I am doing...

Rodriguez shot Spy kids 2 and El Mariachi 2 : Once upon a time in Mexico both in HD 24p...

Can't wait to see them...

Daniel

Well .. having not seen the film myself, not even seen footage, and is probably to young to have an opinion *nudge nudge* ... here i go :)

First off, the movie sounds like its a "love it - hate it" kinda movie. Either you think he's brilliant or you think he's crap. Me, i personally think mr. Sondenberg is a very talented director. But it also doesnt' mean i have to like everything he does. I do however, do not need to call him Sodaburger (how funny it did sound) because i dislike one of his film. On the same note, i don't have to call George (F)lucas anything either just because i think the two new star wars movies are nothing but ILM showreels & aimed att selling more toys rather than telling a compelling story. But thats besides the point :)

On the other hand, me and several colleagues in Sweden have noted a change in the market right now. People ask less and less for "is it shot on Betacam or 35 mm" and are more concerned with lowering the budgets. A lot now is being shot on DVCAM/DVCPro and even MiniDV simply because the costs of doing it on 35 mm is not always appreciated by the client. And since times are fairly bad here right now, everyone is checking their costs. In short, the person going "uh. but we MUST have 35 mm or DigiBeta" wont be doing much work after a while.

And finally, regarding the "best" DV video film out there i must say i was very impressed with Chelsea Walls. It was very nicely shot & lit. Much impressed.

Regards,
Henrik Bengtsson
DocuWild