HD vs. 35mm film: Comforting to know

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

For about 10 years average Joe has been able to technically approach the audio recording abilities of the major label studios, it hasnt changed the industry or dynamic much at all. Again, there HAVE been some great bands who have broken out this way but they are the teeny minority.
ash =o)

You couldn't possibly be more wrong about that statement. OK, you could be *more* wrong, but not by much. ;-)
First, the list of breakout, no-budget-basement-bands is huge.
Second, it's affected the industry so much that several states have had proposed legislation (passed in California) to limit these "basement digital studios" because of their impact on the larger studios. Imagine California passing laws regarding independent film makers working out of their garage?
Third, even the big name hitters like Garth Brooks and Jon Bon Jovi are working in their "basement" studios, same with other major artists, and having been to some of them, my place is better equipped than some of theirs. Michael Stipe's place is a wreck. But he's putting out hits. It's the artist, not the tools.
You can't at all make a comparison between the two industries. I have a terribly accurate and deep knowledge of the music industry, and I'd say I'm pretty reasonably informed in the video industry as well. There are some very narrow parallels, but narrow they are. The cost of high end mics and pre's are falling, and we've reached a point of bit depth and sampling that won't be surpassed for a long, long time, if ever. The video world has not caught up to that yet.

[Peter Wiley]

Films are already being distributed digitally in a huge way -- on DVDs. Hollywood has been paying very close attention to the survey work that shows most people would rather stay home and watch a movie than go out to a movie theatre. This is the dynamic driving the "when to release the DVD debate"

So it may be that the "film look" that matters is really the film look as it appears on DVD. It's not the end of film that matters as much as the end of movie theatres.

If the money is being made in DVD distribution, and much (if not most) of it is, then it seems to me that first-run movies are more and more likely to go directly to DVD and that is going to have an impact on how they are made. Digital production will be seen as a way to increase margins on the production of the DVD product. This will be more of a business than technology isssue.

[Ash Greyson]

I have a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of the music biz and I was the vice-president of an indie label for a couple years so I got pretty good chops in the music business. Yes, many artists are doing the basement studio thing... seen their budgets? Almost the same as the old model. I know to the dollar what the budget of Bon Jovi's last 2 records were... well over the figure I quoted.

My point, maybe overstated, was that the proliferation of low-cost equipment to record did not lead to a breakthru of new undiscovered talent. Some? Yes, but as I stated most the CDs that had any success at all (still only 4% make back their budget) were from the old studio system. Overpriced recording budget, silly promotion budget including illegal payments to radio and pay-offs/deals to the WalMarts and Best Buys of the world to get product in stores and placed well.

I think you and I actually both agree... it is the talent and the marketing that far exceed the tech... I would say the same in both worlds, I think the film biz is worse on the marketing end... they dont want to MAKE stars... they want to USE stars to promote their product.



ash =o)

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Yes, Ash. I've seen their budgets. Maybe you don't know what I do for a living?? Paying for players and paying for studio gear/time are two very different things.

We probably do agree on most of this, but overall, the two industries aren't comparable. Not really.

[David Kennett]

One difference in cost that I have not seen mentioned - In digital, the big cost is pretty much up front. Film just keeps costing and costing and costing. Kodak loved it!

On the digital distribution of movies, it seems that the studios should upgrade the theaters, it's the studios that will reap the benefits. From some numbers I read somewhere around these parts, I figure they'll get their money back in about four years.

[Dylan Pank]

Originally Posted by David Kennett

...In digital, the big cost is pretty much up front.

Not if you need to do a film out, Not if you're an exibitor and you haven't had digital gear installed yet...

[Mike Tesh]

Film or digital, most of the money is in the production itself. Name actors, locations, catering, FX, other below the line costs, distribution and marketing.

Since most films these days go through a DI (digital intermediate) it's just easier and more cost effective to start on digital. At least for an indie filmmaker.

I know I used to cut film with a splicer and now when I cut video on my computer (whether it started as video or film) I can't imagine ever doing it the old way again. Just seems so archaic to me.

I don't think the theater will ever truly die, but I do think we'll start to see a bigger line drawn between movies like Lord of the Rings and Just Friends for instance. In 5-10 years a movie like "Just friends" probably won't ever see a theatrical release. And that will be common, it won't be looked down on the way today's straight to video releases kind of are. Because it will only be big event movies like LOTR people will see on the big screen. I know that's how it is for me right now. I won't go to the theater unless the film merits the big screen.