In the past month the world of independent film has seen some significant changes that should change things for years to come. In the last two to three years, the film industry has seen a revolution due to the DSLR cameras that were released. Canon's series including the T2i, 7D, and 5D has resulted in the average consumer being able to shoot video with the quality of the industry standards. Independent feature films like the Sundance hit Bellflower and established television shows like Fox's House shot on these cameras, giving it credibility within the industry. Suddenly the average person could save a reasonable amount of money, and shoot something that could end up looking like a theatrical release.
This has furthered the digital revolution, that cameras like the RED started. And it's appropriate that RED has taken the next step in the digital revolution. They announced their new RED Scarlet, their newest and most cost effective camera. It shoots 4K video and takes 5K images, all for under ten thousand dollars. Preorders have opened up, and they plan on shipping them out early next year hopefully. And the biggest question is how this new affordable tool will be utilized by indie film makers. It'll be interesting to see who will be the first of the Hollywood elite to shoot on it, Peter Jackson and David Fincher have long been advocates of RED's other cameras. Jackson's hobbit sequels are shooting entirely on the RED, as is David Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. And on the other end of the spectrum it will be interesting to see what up and coming film makers will be the next to make a big splash with the new format, and launch the new style that will be emulated, and how Canon will follow suit after being dethroned.
Sources:
http://www.theverge.com/photography/2011/11/19/2573414/red-scarlet-x-camera-shipping-now
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Canon vs. RED
On November 3, 2011 Canon announced its latest professional camera, the EOS C300. It features a S35 sensor, and films at 1080p. Lately, the race in the digital film world has been to get the highest resolution. The RED camera has had a 5K camera already, but Canon took a different approach and aimed more at perfecting the currently mainstream standard of 1080p. The price tag for the camera is $20,000, however...
RED finally announced the long-awaited RED Scarlet-X 4K video camera. The finer details are making their way out to the public, but it’s already known that this will be yet another big step in the digital realm of filmmaking.
RED initially released its first flagship camera a few years ago, but the most important part was its price point compared to what the industry was used to paying for. Now you have a variety of prosumer cameras that independent filmmakers use that don’t necessarily have the multi-million dollar budgets.
But back to the Scarlet-X.. It broke another price barrier, but being available initially for under $10,000. It has a superior S35mm sensor, and can film in slow motion up to 120fps at 1K. It also works with all the accessories the RED family has had for the last couple years.
So now you have a choice of two really good cameras, but both taking different approaches to what they feel is more important. I feel most independent filmmakers will opt for the RED equipment, given its already existing elite and cool status and a lower price point. But for those who already work in Canon workflows, they may opt to pay a little more money to have the convenience of not having to change things around.
In the end, it all works out for the end user, and audiences around the world will reap the benefits of seeing storytelling from people who once couldn’t afford to get their vision out there.
References:
http://www.theverge.com/products/eos-c300/3768
http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/3/2536818/red-scarlet-x-camera-announced-to-take-on-canon-c300-ships-november
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Bettering Business Plans
Thanks to all the research into other production companies, I’ve been lucky enough to learn a good amount of what not to do, as well as things that I, and my company, probably should be doing. I think the biggest one that we’ve learned from is in the marketing aspect, and how to promote ourselves. A lot of the companies I’ve researched and looked into have had unorthodox forms of advertising for themselves as well as unique ways of getting their name out there. For long we only utilized social media advertising and some print/flyers for advertising. Instead we’ve started building a strong word of mouth campaign that has attracted us many clients. We have also taken to doing spec commercials as well as contests to build more of a reel as well as having commercials for larger brands.
I think our approach to how we produce videos is what is most appealing to the potential investors. We have a simplified work flow, and it is our unique factor. An investor reading our business plan will see that we optimize and make the most use out of what we are given. I think that our practicality will show any potential investors that all of their investment will be utilized and not wasted. We pride ourselves in our work flow and synergy between us, and we can and have turned out quality projects on a dime, and in a timely and professional fashion. We honestly feel that a guarantee of a quality project for little to nothing will entice investors to see what we can do with a budget and a greater means to produce something. We’ve worked below our means for a while now, and we have been working towards taking that next step, and we’ve always felt that as long as we put in the time and work, that future clients and investors would notice and give us the chance we are looking for.
References:
http://bpexpertviews.blogspot.com/
http://www.unknownmedia.net/
http://www.videoworksproduction.com/blog.html
I think our approach to how we produce videos is what is most appealing to the potential investors. We have a simplified work flow, and it is our unique factor. An investor reading our business plan will see that we optimize and make the most use out of what we are given. I think that our practicality will show any potential investors that all of their investment will be utilized and not wasted. We pride ourselves in our work flow and synergy between us, and we can and have turned out quality projects on a dime, and in a timely and professional fashion. We honestly feel that a guarantee of a quality project for little to nothing will entice investors to see what we can do with a budget and a greater means to produce something. We’ve worked below our means for a while now, and we have been working towards taking that next step, and we’ve always felt that as long as we put in the time and work, that future clients and investors would notice and give us the chance we are looking for.
References:
http://bpexpertviews.blogspot.com/
http://www.unknownmedia.net/
http://www.videoworksproduction.com/blog.html
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Business Plans
For an investor, a business plan gives a sense of direction and focus for the company.
Donald Trump mentions that with a business plan you will know where you are going, what you are doing, and how you will get where you want to be. Donald Trump started off in a military academy at the age of 13, and graduated with a degree in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania. From there, he went into the real estate industry where his father was and began his career there. Now he is a billionaire and even has a television show about the workings of a business.
Oprah Winfrey notes that it makes you recognize the the tiny things that are usually overlooked and the what-if scenarios. Oprah Winfrey made her fame with “The Oprah Show” and in its first year had a profit of $125 million. She took over the show from ABC with her own production company, Harpo.
Some of key components investors are looking for in a business plan are:
The Executive Summary- Who will be running the company? A person with a Master’s background in the same field will look more appealing than a person who is just jumping into the field that he has no credibility in.
The Product- What is it that the company is selling exactly? It should be something that stands out and can be marketable, as well as not to offend any persons of any specific group.
Financials- You must be able to show how the business should do financially, because in the end, investors really only care about making money. If you’re in a field where 99% of the companies don’t make money, you have to be able to show why your company is capable of making the money.
Presentation- The business plan should be free of any errors. This includes spelling and grammatical mistakes, as well as information. The last thing you would need is a statistic in your business plan be wrong that you thought made your business look successful. You also want to keep the business plan relatively short, because investors are busy people and shouldn’t have to deal with a 100+ page document. A good length is around 20, and it shows you put some thought into your plan.
Sources:
http://bpexpertviews.blogspot.com/
http://help.bplans.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_winfrey
Donald Trump mentions that with a business plan you will know where you are going, what you are doing, and how you will get where you want to be. Donald Trump started off in a military academy at the age of 13, and graduated with a degree in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania. From there, he went into the real estate industry where his father was and began his career there. Now he is a billionaire and even has a television show about the workings of a business.
Oprah Winfrey notes that it makes you recognize the the tiny things that are usually overlooked and the what-if scenarios. Oprah Winfrey made her fame with “The Oprah Show” and in its first year had a profit of $125 million. She took over the show from ABC with her own production company, Harpo.
Some of key components investors are looking for in a business plan are:
The Executive Summary- Who will be running the company? A person with a Master’s background in the same field will look more appealing than a person who is just jumping into the field that he has no credibility in.
The Product- What is it that the company is selling exactly? It should be something that stands out and can be marketable, as well as not to offend any persons of any specific group.
Financials- You must be able to show how the business should do financially, because in the end, investors really only care about making money. If you’re in a field where 99% of the companies don’t make money, you have to be able to show why your company is capable of making the money.
Presentation- The business plan should be free of any errors. This includes spelling and grammatical mistakes, as well as information. The last thing you would need is a statistic in your business plan be wrong that you thought made your business look successful. You also want to keep the business plan relatively short, because investors are busy people and shouldn’t have to deal with a 100+ page document. A good length is around 20, and it shows you put some thought into your plan.
Sources:
http://bpexpertviews.blogspot.com/
http://help.bplans.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_winfrey
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Slaves to the Audience
One of the more exciting things about the entertainment industry is that despite all the work, dedication, time, and effort that all facets of the industry puts into their craft and their product, we will still always be slave to the audience. We live and die by them. Labors of love and art house films crash and burn at the box office, while Alvin and the Chipmunks becomes a billion dollar guaranteed cash cow. The industry has always catered to the masses, giving them what they know and hope the people will show up for. The same goes for television and music, there is a constant evolution that’s entirely guided by what the viewer is asking for.
I thought this would make for an interesting discussion when I took a look at the weekend box office for this weekend (September 16-18). This weekend something unexpected happened. In a weekend where there were three new releases featuring bona fide movie stars appealing to multiple demographics, it was a rerelease of a film from 1994 that trumped them all and won out at the box office. The Lion King saw a rerelease by Walt Disney Studios, hoping to advertise for the upcoming Blu Ray release. This isn’t by any mean new as Disney did this in 2009 where they rereleased Toy Story 1 and 2 as a double feature. With projections in line with the Toy Story rerelase, they were hoping for a 10 million dollar weekend. What happened instead was a 30 million dollar number one opening.
What makes this interesting is that despite this being one of the lowest attended years in history, mostly blamed on inflated ticket prices, and bad 3D gimmicks, people came out in droves to see a film that not only was released almost 10 years ago, but that over 90% of the audience had no problem paying for the 3D premium priced tickets.
This is to me one of those examples of the audience guiding the next trends. It is not uncommon for older films to get a rerelease, but to have audiences respond to one with this amount of enthusiasm shows what may be lacking in the current offerings. It will be interesting to see what the next slate of upcoming films looks like, and how it will continue to perform over the next few weeks. It’s to note that the rerelease was scheduled for a limited 2 week engagement, but based of this weekend’s success, it will likely be extended.
I thought this would make for an interesting discussion when I took a look at the weekend box office for this weekend (September 16-18). This weekend something unexpected happened. In a weekend where there were three new releases featuring bona fide movie stars appealing to multiple demographics, it was a rerelease of a film from 1994 that trumped them all and won out at the box office. The Lion King saw a rerelease by Walt Disney Studios, hoping to advertise for the upcoming Blu Ray release. This isn’t by any mean new as Disney did this in 2009 where they rereleased Toy Story 1 and 2 as a double feature. With projections in line with the Toy Story rerelase, they were hoping for a 10 million dollar weekend. What happened instead was a 30 million dollar number one opening.
What makes this interesting is that despite this being one of the lowest attended years in history, mostly blamed on inflated ticket prices, and bad 3D gimmicks, people came out in droves to see a film that not only was released almost 10 years ago, but that over 90% of the audience had no problem paying for the 3D premium priced tickets.
This is to me one of those examples of the audience guiding the next trends. It is not uncommon for older films to get a rerelease, but to have audiences respond to one with this amount of enthusiasm shows what may be lacking in the current offerings. It will be interesting to see what the next slate of upcoming films looks like, and how it will continue to perform over the next few weeks. It’s to note that the rerelease was scheduled for a limited 2 week engagement, but based of this weekend’s success, it will likely be extended.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
3D
In the beginning of the summer, Marvel’s Thor had an opening weekend gross with 60% of which was for 3D screens. In the coming months, the summer blockbuster season was in full swing, with over a dozen 3D films released, sometimes more than one each weekend. By the end of summer, Marvel’s other release Captain America: The First Avenger was released in similar fashion to Thor as well as catering to the same audience, yet its 3D take that accounted for about 40% of its audience. This shows that there was a definite over-saturation of the market. I have included a chart from Box Office Mojo to show how many 3D movies have been released, and how many have been just this summer alone. Though there seems to be a dip in interest, some film makers and studio executives are hoping to reverse this trend before it no longer becomes a viable option.
One of 3D’s pioneers James Cameron, whose Avatar grossed over $700 million most of which was from 3D tickets, will on hand at the 4th annual 3D Entertainment Summit to talk about how the public’s perception of 3D can change so that it can stay around for years to come. Some plans are to lower the price of 3D tickets, and make cheaper more wieldy 3D rigs to shoot on, to counter the post conversion craze. Cameron has been quoted by saying “This is a good moment for Hollywood to acknowledge that they have to try harder to maintain the idea that 3D is a premium experience. We can’t take cheap routes to offer a 3D title in the marketplace.”
Also on hand for the Summit will be Fox chairman Tom Rothman, and many other studio big wigs with the best intentions, and here’s hoping that the weekend of the 20th they can make strides towards making 3D something that sticks around and doesn’t turn into a trend like horror remakes or Dane Cook movies.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/2011/09/02/3d_summit_-_speakers_james_cameron_vince_pace_tom_rothman_gene_simmons/
http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=3d.htm
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Industry Liabilities
http://www.slashfilm.com/christopher-nolan-jon-favreau-quentin-tarantino-join-battle-premium-video-demand/
One of the biggest controversies brewing in the film industry at the moment is the video on demand fiasco. Companies like DirectTV are attempting to get the jump on the already crowded home video market, and as a result are closing the window between theatrical and video release. Many film makers feel this is killing the theatrical experience and have lobbied against this practice.
While I can agree with the financial benefit this could make to someone with a home entertainment system, I can’t agree with something that can cause such a detriment to the theatrical experience, which at the end of the day is the dream and goal of every feature film produced. The video market is already terribly crowded, and it is only fair to all those who spent months and years laboring over these films for them to be exhibited the way they were intended, and not rushed off to TV, so one company can make their dollar before the others.
http://www.slashfilm.com/michael-bay-personally-begging-theater-chains-properly-project-transformers-dark-moon/
The 3D craze has also been a buzz in the entertainment industry. With jacked up ticket prices, poor post-production conversions, and a flooded market trying to cash in, this is quickly becoming a trend and is burning out.
One of the recent outcries is over the bad projection in theaters. To save money on expensive bulbs, theaters are projecting their films at a lower wattage, which affects 3D films even more so, as they are already darkened because of the tinted 3D glasses. Studios like Paramount have taken precautions outlined in the article I posted, but I fear it may be too late, and we probably won’t be seeing digital 3D as much over the next few years. It isn’t being used as a tool as much as it should, and instead is just a trend to cash in, and the audience who is paying those prices are finally starting to realize that.
The last bit I’m posting is a little bit less serious. This is a viral video posted by the Alamo Drafthouse and is an angry voicemail from a woman who was ejected for texting during the movie.
Here is the censored version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVz-fO7kxcQ
While this is a funny video, it’s good to see a chain like Alamo not tolerating such distractions. This may not be a huge problem plaguing the industry, but it’s a bother to everyone who goes to enjoy the fruits of the film industry, and has sparked much debate over whether or not they should have ejected her. Personally I got much joy from listening to this voicemail, and maybe it can serve as a warning to others who aren’t thinking about those around them.
One of the biggest controversies brewing in the film industry at the moment is the video on demand fiasco. Companies like DirectTV are attempting to get the jump on the already crowded home video market, and as a result are closing the window between theatrical and video release. Many film makers feel this is killing the theatrical experience and have lobbied against this practice.
While I can agree with the financial benefit this could make to someone with a home entertainment system, I can’t agree with something that can cause such a detriment to the theatrical experience, which at the end of the day is the dream and goal of every feature film produced. The video market is already terribly crowded, and it is only fair to all those who spent months and years laboring over these films for them to be exhibited the way they were intended, and not rushed off to TV, so one company can make their dollar before the others.
http://www.slashfilm.com/michael-bay-personally-begging-theater-chains-properly-project-transformers-dark-moon/
The 3D craze has also been a buzz in the entertainment industry. With jacked up ticket prices, poor post-production conversions, and a flooded market trying to cash in, this is quickly becoming a trend and is burning out.
One of the recent outcries is over the bad projection in theaters. To save money on expensive bulbs, theaters are projecting their films at a lower wattage, which affects 3D films even more so, as they are already darkened because of the tinted 3D glasses. Studios like Paramount have taken precautions outlined in the article I posted, but I fear it may be too late, and we probably won’t be seeing digital 3D as much over the next few years. It isn’t being used as a tool as much as it should, and instead is just a trend to cash in, and the audience who is paying those prices are finally starting to realize that.
The last bit I’m posting is a little bit less serious. This is a viral video posted by the Alamo Drafthouse and is an angry voicemail from a woman who was ejected for texting during the movie.
Here is the censored version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVz-fO7kxcQ
While this is a funny video, it’s good to see a chain like Alamo not tolerating such distractions. This may not be a huge problem plaguing the industry, but it’s a bother to everyone who goes to enjoy the fruits of the film industry, and has sparked much debate over whether or not they should have ejected her. Personally I got much joy from listening to this voicemail, and maybe it can serve as a warning to others who aren’t thinking about those around them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)