The Prosumer Myth is bad

I agree with you Clive on many points, except the point about dollars. Due to the cost of entry, I can make money and pay for all of my equipment with a small business, shooting commercials and events, then I can work with a talented group of individuals to produce something that we're all proud of, without having to spend a lot of our own money, or sell our souls to a distributer. If we come up with something great that eventually gets distribution, then that's wonderful. If we don't we've had an opportunity to collaborate on creative expression that is priceless.

I guess my point is that I, for one, am not trying to get rich from my creative endeavors. I'm making a decent living doing semi creative commercial work, and there are lots of local film festivals that wouldn't even exist if it weren't for inexpensive technology, where I can show off my creativity, which means more to me than a million dollars.

Furthermore, cheap cameras allow me to shoot video from the bow of my kayak and other hazardous places without toting 60 pounds of gear or risking a huge investment. I've seen indie movies made in remote places (mountain climing, remote ocean kayaking, etc.) that would not have been possible with a 35mm rig.

I'm in your camp on some points. I do believe that "cheap" has given rise to a rash of low quality work that has obscured the occasional short with high production values. I must say, though, that some of my favorite movies were made on a small budget. It's been said here, ad nauseam, that the camera does not make the movie. Do you really need to require a big budget to work hard on your script, look for good/name actors, have high production values, good light, etc? I agree that the professionals are accustomed to more robust tools, but that is just another challenge for the DP, it's not a reason to throw away your prosumer camera.

Just to avoid sounding like I'm in total disagreement, let me reiterate, that you are absolutely correct about the rush to buy equipment and start shooting, with nothing more than a loosely defined concept ... hell, I've done it. Maybe it's good advice to stop buying equipment and focus on script/preproduction if your target is an international cinema release. It's a good idea to do good preproduction in any case, but if you don't intend to find a distributor for your film, then a small budget just makes good business sense to me.

One could argue that there is a viable market for movies shot on digital over film. I am sure it is a given that many to most of these digital theatrical release movies were made with high end digital camcorders, not prosumer camcorders, but as with all technology the quality of digital camcorders will increase according to Moore's Law and the prices of such camcorders will become affordable to most of us, meaning digital may become the future of moviemaking. Some of these were shot on prosumer camcorders (e.g Open Water).

Here is a list of theatrically released films shot on digital as opposed to film:
Source: Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_digitally
9 Songs
Able Edwards
The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D
Afrodite Superstar
Aliens of the Deep
The Anniversary Party
Apocalypto
Atanarjuat
Boat
Buena Vista Social Club
Caachi
Caché
Cars
The Cats of Mirikitani
The Cell
Click
Cloverfield
Codex Atanicus
Collateral
The Company
Corpse Bride
Curious George
Dancer in the Dark
Darkened Room
Dear Pyongyang
Dogville
Domino
The Edukators
Ellie Parker
Evenfall
Böse Zellen
Full Frontal
Gabriel
Godzilla: Final Wars
Grindhouse
How High
Hustle & Flow
Inland Empire
The Kingdom
The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse
Looking for Kitty
Manband the Movie
Manderlay
Me and You and Everyone We Know
Miami Vice
My Scary Girl
New Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Next
Once Upon a Time in Mexico
Open Water
Pieces of April
Planet Terror
A Prairie Home Companion
Rainbow (1996 film)
The Right Way
Russian Ark
S1m0ne
Saraband
Scarlet Diva
Scary Movie 4
Silent Hill
Sin City
Sketches of Frank Gehry
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over
Spy Kids trilogy
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
The Storm
Superbad
Superman Returns
The Talent Given Us
Tape
Tears Of God
The Cave
U2 3D
Ultraviolet
Under the Raven's Wing
La virgen de los sicarios
Zodiac
The Zombie Diaries

Somewhat related, I would have to say that I believe the cheap affordability of digital prosumer camcorders and related equipment (NLEs for home quadcore PCs, etc) is likely giving rise to a rush of wannabe indie filmmakers (I am one of them) who write up a screenplay or acquire one cheap. The story, the screenplay, has not had to pass through the normal filtration process to assure its quality for hollywood. So I think, and this is just my opinion, that there will be a plethora of indie films made because of the affordability of prosumer equipment that lets anybody produce and direct just about any screenplay. But the success stories will come from those indies that have the great stories, the great screenplays. Too often I fear most indies will be made just because their scripts can be made into movies, without going through a screening process.

It is also worth noting that Hollywood uses a cookie-cutter approach to making movies that they know will be popular in the box office. Just because a movie isn't hugely popular, grossing in the 100's of millions of dollars, doesn't mean it's not a great movie. If it weren't for indie film makers who don't need to gross 100 million to satisfy their investors, we'd have nothing but the same shit coming out of Hollywood, year after year.

Doug

Replying to my own post, I just have to comment on a purchase I made yesterday. I bought an 8GB usb flash drive, the size of a car key. Now they make them up to 32+ GB but I just bought the 8GB, plan to hook it on a carabiner on my bookpack. Now what amazes me is I was thinking of the 1.44MB floppy disk I still use to store some financial info on, to keep it off my PC or the net. That 8GB little car key flashdrive is about 6,000 of those 1.44MB floppies. That blows my mind. I just can not imagine what sort of digital camcorder technology we will have in 5-10 years out, it just will have to be mind numbing. Red.com quality digital camcorders will likely be <$3000 ten years from now, seriously.

Joe999 said:

... as with all technology the quality of digital camcorders will increase according to Moore's Law

Click to expand...

The vast majority of those digital films were shot on Cinealta or the equivalent. A lot of them had multi-million pound budgets.

I'm not arguing against digital... hell, I was one of the early pioneers of HD film making... five years ago people on this forum, who now shoot on HD, were calling me an idiot for predicting that HD would replace film as the indie format of choice.

All I'm making is a personal observation about how cheap prosumer camcorders have effected the indie scene.

Once again Clive hits the mark, generally there's a ton of discussion about best this best that, film look this film look that.
I'm yet to read "I shoot with a Panaflex on 35mm and am trying to get my film to have the "video" look"

There have been some films done that way, the pioneering work in "deep focus" was Citizen Kane.

Crystal clear from front to back. It would be interesting to see someone shoot a piece in BW on video to give that effect a whirl.

I still believe story is king and should hold sway over equipment and technology (which is what Clive is saying about taking enough time to make sure the screenplay is done to your satisfaction).

If the story is good (or great even) it doesn't matter if you shoot the movie on a Kodak Brownie and clothespin all the pictures to a wheel and look at them through a magnifying glass, it's still a good story.

I purchased old tech DV cameras (original Canon Opturas) because they were dirt cheap, and coming from a background in radio I wanted to experiment with video, put me in the "hobbyist" category for now.
So for the time being I work within the limitations of the camera and create content that will most likely be seen on tv or computer until I build some credibility and then move up into buying or hiring better gear and the people to go with it.

I've always considered myself more a writer than anything, so the access to low priced equipment has allowed me more of an opportunity to see if my writing holds up. The latest and greatest tech stuff doesn't interest me so much at the moment, but in ten years I'll be buying it from people that thought there was something magical about it a decade back.

I really thought the new technologies in distribution and equipment would indeed lead to an explosion in content from independents, but I think Clive is right that the access may actually have led to a lowering in the amount of production. If I missed your points Clive feel free to smack me down.

Being the eternal optimist I would like to think of that as an opportunity. It's a vast unexploited market for well written and well executed productions.

Neil

Clive, I agree, and that is my plan. But I can study light, exposure (basic), camera movement, blocking, framing, and editing among other things, without film cameras. And the professional digital cameras are getting very close to the quality of film cameras. Yes, there is still a plethora of data in the analog world that does not directly translate, but there are limits to what the human eye can perceive. I have both an analog 35mm still camera and a digital SLR. For some things, I prefer the analog camera (especially black & white photography). Others, the digital is more convenient and still produces an excellent image. What I love about digital is instant feedback. When I snap a digital photo, I will know right away if my exposure settings were correct or if I need to aim and bounce the light in a different direction. Then I can snap several others while experimenting until I get just the image I want. I guess I'm too into instant gratification and don't want to have to wait for processing to find out whether I missed the mark.

But I understand your point in that I shouldn't need to buy all of those things. I could just rent equipment, hire writers, a Production Manager, DP, gaffers, key grip, script supervisor, assistant directors, costumers, makeup artists, et. al. and just sit back and watch it happen if I were in it solely for the money. But I'm not. I am in it as a creative outlet. And if I do ever get to a point where this endeavor pays more than my day job, my knowledge in all of the other areas of the process would prove invaluable because I could wear many hats depending on the needs of the production. If nothing else, I can watch the machine and know what parts need oiling and what parts need replacement.

And on the costs, I can empathize. The more I evaluate what I have and what it can do relative to what I want to do, the higher the investment. I am about $3000 into obsolete camera equipment. Everything else will carry over (computer systems, C-Stands, tripods, sound recording equipment, flags, lights, etc.).

Considering what that $3000 got me relative to what it would have cost brand new, I'd say I was doing pretty decent all things considered:

I think it's because I came into indie film making as a writer/director with no technical skills.

So, all of my early films were shot with a DOP, sound guy, first AD, gaffer, and about a dozen runners. I've only acquired technical skills as the industry has developed in the weird prosumer way it has.

I never expected to be a camera operator/sound guy/art director/writer/director/producer/1st, 2nd and 3rd AD/editor (offline and online)/colourist/foley artist and sound designer. (better add 3D animator to that as well, these days)

I learned how to frame a shot/about exposure/about DOF, from my years as a professional photographer... so, I never needed to learn those skills on a camcorder... and the camera operating skills you acquire on a prosumer cam really don't translate to professional cameras. (A fact you really won't appreciate until you knock out the back focus on a professional camera).

The fundamental skills of exposure and framing I can teach to fourteen year old in about two hours... after that it's just practice... something you can do as easily on a good stills camera. And the body memory skills you learn from moving a prosumer camcorder are detrimental to professional camcorder use.

Often as indies we talk about film makers like Rodriguez as a model, but overlook people like Bruce Robinson... who made "Withnail and I" with absolutely no technical knowledge at all. He delegated the entire shooting process, lens choices, shot choices, lighting and sound to professionals, whilst he concentrated on getting his script and his performances right.

Ironically there are a whole world of indies who are making innovative films and acquiring a radically different skill set... you should check them out, they're fab:

Straight 8

If you limit the discussion to learning how to use a pro camera. I agree.

However, there is so much more to learning how to make a movie than
learning how to use a camera. I became a camera operator more than ten
years after I started directing - directing semi-professionally. So for fifteen
years ( if you count the dozens of short films I made as a teenager) I
knew nothing about cameras.

Learning about filmmaking a film isn't limited to cameras. So I still deeply
believe that a consumer camera or a prosumer camera is a great tool in
the learning curve.

clive said:

One of the common arguments made by DV film makers is that the cheap camcorder gives them the opportunity to learn how to make films without having to invest huge amounts of money.

However, this arguments doesn't hold up for a number of reasons:

Firstly, when people talk about the maths of DV production they are talking about $3K for a prosumer camcorder, $2K on a computer and editing software, and about $2K on other bits and pieces collected over time. Seriously, by the time you've added on some fancy pluggins to make the DV look like film, a 35mm adaptor, a Matte box, a cheap steadycam, some lights, a decent mic, a boom pole and three hundred books on how to make Hollywood movies on DV cams, then you're easily looking at another $2K.

So, all in all you've invested $7K on equipment that almost, by isn't quite good enough to do the job.

Click to expand...

Here's just a few things one can learn:

Casting and working with actors.
Working with crew.
Scheduling.
Finding locations.
Camera and lights placement to tell your story effectively.
Creative ways to move a camera.
Controlling the set - getting the best out of people and "making the day".

And you can learn all this without spending $7k. You can learn all these
very important aspects of making a movie for much, much less. A $600
camera, free editing software and $200 worth of lights and reflectors. So
I think you can learn without spending huge amounts of money.

And every single one of those things directly relates to the industry.

clive said:

I think it's because I came into indie film making as a writer/director with no technical skills.

So, all of my early films were shot with a DOP, sound guy, first AD, gaffer, and about a dozen runners. I've only acquired technical skills as the industry has developed in the weird prosumer way it has.

...

Click to expand...

I am the opposite. I bring all of the technical knowledge to the table. Working in computers all those years, I can build and troubleshoot practically anything, from a gaming system to a high-end server or workstation. Working in computer graphics engineering for a number of years, I play with the oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, pattern generators, broadcast TV signal analyzers, etc. As a Home Theater enthusiast, I calibrate my own equipment (sound and video). And the third variable is a love of movies and all things visual. I started out in my younger days studying screenwriting, so I’ve spent several years developing that skill and story sense. What better way to bridge what I was doing in my younger days with what I’ve been doing as a career? Maybe my approach is wrong and I should just focus on one skill. Don’t know yet. I’ll know after a few short video productions. I may not have the patience to work with a full crew, in which case I’d be resigned to writing and/or editing anyway. I am not a makeup artist or a costumer and don’t want to be, so I will need to outsource those duties no matter what.

At middle age, I am exploring my options. One will float to the surface and I will end up where I am supposed to be one way or another. The more I learn about the production process and go through the planning phase on my own projects, the more I think of ways to delegate and who I'll need to ride along with me. There is no way I can do this all alone no matter what my skill set.

Take a Cenealta $250,000 digital camcorder. Playing voodoo with the cards, it is possible that might sell for $2500 ten years from now. I look back ten years ago and I recall RAM memory sold for $100+/MB. That means the 4GB memory in my personal PC would have a 1998 value of
4000MB => $400,000
Amazing. I get what you are saying. But if such almost film equivalent digital camcorders become affordable, indeed almost cheap, in ten years, film might become extinct.

clive said:

The vast majority of those digital films were shot on Cinealta or the equivalent. A lot of them had multi-million pound budgets.....

Click to expand...

Rik, I do understand that you learned how to do those things by making films on DV... but actually the very skills you're talking about are the skills that the new generation of film makers aren't learning, simply because they've got camcorders that allow them to 85% of the process without technical support.

As a result of this they never even consider working with other professionals... and they never acquire the kinds of skills and disciplines we acquired working "old school" but with new technology.

What bothers me is the widening gap between "DIY" indies and the film making industry.

What also bothers me is the idea that a $4K camera can be made to do what a $50K camera is designed to do, if you bolt the right bits on.

There is a growing industry out there of people who benefit from selling that lie, because it allows them to sell books, products, camcorders, half assed steady cam rigs and any number of pieces of kit/software and manuals.

It's a cynical industry that knows there are a million wannabee film makers out there who want to believe they can become the next Tarantino, if they just put the right lens adaptor onto their $2K camcorder.

The scene has become obsessed with the "how to" and has lost sight of the business side of the business. As a result the digital revolution that showed so much promise is dying on its ass.

It's turned too many potential film makers into Youtube content providers; it's become victim of anyone who can see a fast buck to be made from screenplay contest, 48 hour film contest, online film festivals and a million other diversions from the actual task of making films.

clive said:

It's turned too many potential film makers into Youtube content providers; it's become victim of anyone who can see a fast buck to be made from screenplay contest, 48 hour film contest, online film festivals and a million other diversions from the actual task of making films.

Click to expand...

I view this as the most important statement in the thread.

REASON: Unfortunately, this is where our entertainment culture is already headed. Look to the music industry as a mirror example -- 20 to 30 years ago, the cost of producing your own media and getting it into the hands of a wide, diverse market was cost prohibitive. Today, with computer recording equipment and MP3 uploads to the internet, anybody can make a bad recording of poor talent and be heard around the world. The middleman, whose job it is to weed out the mediocre and offer recording/distribution deals to the truly promising -- these guys are becoming obsolete. However the public does not seem to mind. They have an unlimited pool of content from which to choose. The days of one band taking the world by storm are probably over. I would challenge anyone to name a band since 2000 that has captured the fan base earned by classic artists like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc. Does anyone today even have that potential? Sorry if I digress from the true thread topic, but I think this situation mirrors what Clive is saying.

This cheap technology is already out there, and people are already doing what they do with it and flooding the world with YouTube content. That can't be taken back. Its like trying to take pee out of the pool. The world of professional visual content will likely struggle to re-define itself as the music industry has been forced to do.

If a new movie maker never learns these skills, they will not
succeed. You suggested that there is little learning value in
using a prosumer camcorder. I don’t think asking about how to
make their movie shot on a $600 camera look like film is
indicative of that failure.

I take no exception that you are bothered by the widening gap. I’m
not. I am excited for all these “DIY” movie makers. I was one
once. And I tried and tried to make my super 8 movies look
exactly like the movies I saw in the theaters. And when I moved
to VHS I did the same thing. As I learned, I discovered that
what was important was NOT the camera. So will any serious movie
maker.

I have a lot of respect and admiration for people who are trying
to get an excellent image from their $4k - or $600 - DV camera.
I’m envious that new movie makers have forums like this where
they can make contact with people with experience. I didn’t have
anything like that. I had to figure out what I was doing wrong by
trial and error with no professionals to ask questions.

I agree with you that there are a lot of lies out there about this
business. Writers and actors pay “agents” for representation.
Some get burned and quit - some get burned and continue with a
better understanding of the business. Filmmakers are being sold
exactly what you mention. Lens adaptors are worthless, “film
look” software looks to a pro like video with an expensive
filter. Festivals and contests are touted as the answer. Many
movie makers are spending most of their time concerning
themselves about technology and not what’s really important.

No argument there, clive. If every new movie maker who posts here
about “best” camera, “best” software, “best” lens adaptor, made
movies with what they currently have, and made a LOT of them,
they would learn more.

When I was getting started I believed I could be the next Kubrick
if I just had a better camera. Don’t we all go through that? Is
that something new?

I see the digital revolution as still showing a lot of promise and
far from dying on its ass. I see it thriving and being very
exciting!

I was going to sum it all up and blame "Teh Youtubes" - looks like it's already mentioned, though.

I have an analogy from my life that might apply.

Back when I worked as a photojournalist (early 1980's), nobody paid much attention to digital, and 35mm was considered low quality. For professional work, most of us were shooting 6x7cm or 2x2 negatives (120 film) at the low end. At some point, 35mm cameras overtook the "pros" for shooting weddings and such. The professionals with their expensive film cameras and large, external flash units were overtaken by 35mm shooters with on-camera flashes. Quality went down, but the consumer adjusted their expectations. Then came digital, which aspired to reach 35mm quality (what had previously been considered substandard). It was a long time before digital still cameras were arguably as good as 35mm film. Even now, only the best digital cameras come close, in my opinion, but consumers have devolved to accept low resolution digital images as the standard, and with everyone shooting their own weddings, vacations, sporting events, or what have you, the truly professional photo shot on 5x7 sheet film is all but dead.

What is the consequence? We've got millions of images that are shot with barely a thought, that have replaced a few really outstanding images that were produced by the elite photographer with an in-depth understanding of his medium, his equipment, and the art of photography. I'm sure you could argue that millions of snapshots are better than a handful of awesome photographs that cost too much money, but you could also argue that we've watered the industry down to the point where it is nearly impossible to convince someone to hire a competent photographer (if you can find one), because people have lowered their standards to the point where anyone with a decent digital camera and a modicum of skill can produce adequate results.

It would seem that my darkroom skills and knowledge of film are now completely obsolete. I suppose that jades my opinion regarding this "evolution". I don't think anyone will argue that technology is moving forward and giving us "more", but will the new shooters ever become as proficient as we had to be when we didn't get to see the results until our film had been developed and we had at least a contact sheet to look at. We learned to see like our camera/film sees. We had to produce consistent results with no instant preview. I believe that experience makes me a better photographer; even with my digital camera.

To bring the analogy even closer to this thread, I could call this the mega-pixel myth!

Doug

I agree with John, I'm thinking that you are taking your frustration about a fading indie scene out on entirely the wrong thing. The problem isn't that technology is cheaper and therefore more accessible, it's that the wrong people are gaining access to it. Half the people out there making films aren't even interested in the process itself, they are concerned with how much the end product will earn them and that shows in their films... Everything becomes half-ass when the mentality is get it done as quickly as possible. Too many people are mistaking opportunity for innate ability and creativity. But i firmly believe that their are people who will benefit from from the opportunity to make a film on a lower budget and those are the films we should be paying attention to.

Not just teh youtubes, the whole freakin' internet is to blame.

The internet created a decentralization of information... therefore a medium for communication on a global scale. Long distance rates or travel expenses were no longer a hindrance in distributing content... the studios loose control over distribution venues due to digitization and high bandwidth speeds.. the record labels loose revenue because of an abundance of content on the internet... but behind everything is the looming specter of the internet... whereas the studios, networks and labels controlled the advertising medium, limiting it to what censors and screeners select, the possibilities of content on the internet is ENDLESS. I mean, I've seen one of the best features films I've ever seen for FREE from the filmmaker's website (Magnus Opus, and it was on google video a while ago, but try and track it down!), but I've also seen two girls eating each other's shit out of a cup. No boundaries. Not even when you would WANT boundaries.

I agree with Clive for the most part, but I gotta say that I think there's a bit of "traditional thinking" and "old schoolism" jading your analysis. I agree with you about the last 5 years, but I think that it's still an evolving market, and in still in the cocoon form.
I think Bluray, and the former HD-DVD are just distractions to bleed the greedy market of money until the internet is completely monetized, censored, patrolled and controlled.
The internet is the wild west, and with things like Net Neutrality heating up, it's pretty obvious that the big media is after the medium.
In 5 years, if things keep going the way they do, Viacom and AOL-Time-Warner-Microsoft-Mac-Trump-Enron will be making trillions off the internet and putting choke-points on the spread of information. You won't be able to see an artsy short student film without seeing an ad for some diet calorie-free soda that your facebook account profiled you to be in that target marke... and big media will be rolling in money again. From an artist's point of view, it's a big threat...

But in the next five years, all the filmmakers working on web-based content might actually have some profitable opportunities (ad based revenue... there's a few already- Revver, Metacafe) which could be the source of financing for larger projects.
Rather than mortgaging houses, taking loans, or seeking investors, films could be funded by revenue from shorts online. For (interested) filmmakers, this could mean shooting 35/HD, hiring a professional crew, PAYING actors!, name talent and the ability to not have a 9-5 job.

For everyone else, it's more money to waste on crappy films...
But think about it- RIGHT NOW, you can watch feature films online, STREAMING. In 5 years, you'll be able to stream full HD videos to your HD computer on your HD Ipod. Instant gratification. Box Office weekend will be measured by number of downloads, the "ticket" price will cut out a lot of overhead, but international sales streamlined.. roaring profit. Then slap an ad at the start and we're talking BA-JILLIONS.

But that won't happen until big media institutes Net Neutrality... the studios are afraid because if people start regularly getting their movies from the net, they'll be one step closer to online piracy.... aka- why pay when you could see it for free?
So they'll lobby the government to regulate traffic to designated servers where they can control branding, and the means and the message. Then, NBC.com will run fast for all AOL users while Pirate Bay or torrent sites will be restricted. Independently financed competition can be limited on bandwidth, and the consolidation of the world wide web will eventually lead to a rise in corporate ownership of all ideas, which will suck.

So, really our job as indie filmmakers is to barrage the market with as much low-budget *quality* work as possible, glean a huge profit, become independent millionaires, and replace the centralized studios with our own decentralized networks that internationally target audiences through the web... while spending our own oodles of "producer money" to lobby (read: bribe) politicians into obliterating net neutrality and entering the golden space-age of mankind, where we all share the same robot-enhanced consciousness and roam the universe bringing peace and justice and rocking good movies to all alien species.

Until then, I think we're stuck in an industry gridlock, reluctant to change and too decentralized to remain the same.

But as for DV filmmaking- I agree that it doesn't teach the traditional process well, but SKILLS are learned and experience is gained. It'd be much easier to make the leap to a first time film if you've done 30 internet shorts of mediocre quality and learned 30 lessons in avoiding mediocrity.

That being said, ironically, I've come to the same conclusion- make less, plan more, do better- for my own films... it's good to have a base of schlock to learn and grow in (or stagnate and wallow, as I'd prefer), but eventually you have to blow your load on the money shot film that will just, like, kick the audience's ass because it's so good.