@Bwhitz

"The truth is, if you can't make something that gets people's attention with a DSLR and a few thousand bucks... you're just not cut out for it. The truth sucks, but hey... it is what it is."

And the proof of that is where? What great and mature works were made on a few thousand bucks? And which great filmmakers have emerged through that means? In the American indie world, there have been a number of no-budget films which have led to career success, but most of these cost far more than a few thousand bucks and didn't, in any case, reveal great filmmakers. At the very low budget end, these films advanced the careers of people like Kevin Smith and Ed Burns, which speaks for itself.

There is the case of Charles Burnett, whose "Killer of Sheep", a student film made for under $10K in 1977, has become a classic. But that's never been repeated. We could raise the budget to $35K to allow for The Blair Witch Project, but I don't think anyone would argue that film is a masterpiece, or that it discovered great filmmakers.

If we wanted to see how well the process works in reverse -- can established filmmakers work at very low budgets and succeed dramatically? -- we could look at Dogme 95 films. But though they were shot on consumer cameras, they had budgets in excess of $1 million, so they're not very instructive. There is the case of the great Hungarian filmmaker, Bela Tarr, most famous for an astonishing 8-hour movie called Satatango. He's made a few no-budget videos, but they don't do anything for his reputation. The same might be said of some of Godard's no-budget video work.

It would be great to hand out $3000 and a GH2 to the likes of James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard and Sophia Coppola (to take a Hollywood cross-section), and see how well they do, but it's a challenge they're unlikely to accept.

@jrd "something that gets people's attention" and "great and mature works" are pretty different things.

You can't look at a hollywood cross-section / hollywood centralized movie-making to talk about low budget industry / ingenuity because you are then talking about an industry which relies on very significant funds.

It is far better to check out the roosters of International Independent film-making for good examples of what you can achieve with minimal funds. With that said - time, money, skill and people is not free. The industrious film-maker can coordinate the available resources to a good end result.

@RRRR

"It is far better to check out the roosters of International Independent film-making for good examples of what you can achieve with minimal funds."

I see hundreds of foreign art-house films a year. Most have budgets which American independents could only dream of. The few impoverished traditions -- such as what's going on in mainland China with unofficial filmmaking -- tend to be very specific to social conditions and require that the viewer suspend the usual expectations.

In or out of Hollywood, money is unfortunately crucial. As far as "getting attention" as opposed to do something which is actually good -- sure, there's a difference, but either one is pretty difficult in the movie business, without money. And I doubt bwhitz was arguing that all you need to do is make the right kind of junk. He seemed to be saying that talent will triumph, without money.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev "It is good to have various options, yes. And it is good to have BM camera available."

Yes, exactly. I know my audience won't care... but I would, personally, like a RAW shooting camera... and I knew it was available at this price point. I always wanted something I can do some real CGI composting with... and now we have one! :) It's too hard when you're starting with just a 1080p file and you have no room to move it around. But in terms of actual film-making improvement? Nope, won't help there.

...and yes, in the end, I want to direct slick looking CGI heavy films... so my shorts and demo reels need to look the part. So for me, at my current career stage... the BM camera is going to be an ENORMOUS help. But, it won't make my stuff any better, it'll just give me the peace of mind that the camera is not the limiting factor anymore. I'll just be able to concentrate on writing and the CGI elements. So it is like a big burden being lifted in that way.

@jrd "He seemed to be saying that talent will triumph, without money."

Yes, that's correct. For the most part. If you can't make a decent short with a thousand bucks or so these days... you'll never be able to. Camera is not the limiting factor here. You were right that a certain look and aesthetic helps the audience take the material more seriously, no argument there. But we can achieve that now on a T2i/GH2. So that hurdle is removed. Your directing, cinematography, editing, writing, ect... skills became FAR more important overnight since 35mm video became available to the masses. That's why allot of people hate on DSLRs. They're like a big mirror that directly reflects your skills. You can't blame the technology anymore... although allot of people still try to.

"It would be great to hand out $3000 and a GH2 to the likes of James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard and Sophia Coppola (to take a Hollywood cross-section), and see how well they do, but it's a challenge they're unlikely to accept."

Well Avatar was shot on a 2/3 RAW camera. So Avatar would have been no different on a BM camera than what they used.

And I'm sure that the BM camera is going to out perform the Genesis in all areas besides rolling shutter (which really doesn't matter). So all the films shot by those filmmakers would still be good... beside Sophia Coppola. Her stuff sucks. She wouldn't be making films if it weren't for here dad.

I don't see what "the challenge" is you're referring to? Camera are not magically better when they're more expensive and bigger.

@jrd "-- that it's very difficult, perhaps impossible, to make a persuasive conventional dramatic film without money."

See this is wrong... and a poor attitude to have. Some of the best directors and writers, I guarantee, are NOT working in hollywood. Affordable movie camera like DSLRs and this new BM camera are still VERY new, give it some time. We'll see allot of great new stuff soon. Money is not what makes good films good.

Talk about a fucking thread hijack.

Where is the TC I/O???

^True

But just the talent of a few people making a movie will get you allot farther then it did 5-10 years ago. You'll obviously need money still, but probably 10x less of it. I think something with a $200,000 budget 10 years ago would cost around $20,000 today... and it'll look better.

You can also save a TON of money by writing around people and locations that you already have. So it'll make that part more difficult. But hell, if you're really creative, there's no reason you couldn't make a film that seemed like it cost a million dollars for $10,000. It wouldn't be possible with every idea though...

@Hazna

Another camera is being design without any input from sound people. Great.

I am sure input is not the main thing here.
As it is camera designer by designers and for designers.

Btw, considering BM design decisions.

Scarlet-X maximum data rate is 55MB/sec. (440Mbit/sec).

Such data rate even not require SSD, as you can use good 7200rpm HDDs for streamed recording.

I'll try to write special blog post about BM camera discussing all very serious design flaws this camera has.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev "In many areas tools are affordable. But your own skills or talent are not enough. You need other people. And in most cases you need good, or even best people. Hence you need money, as it is unfortunate that this people need to eat and do other things."

This is the main point. The cost of filmmaking has always principally been the cost of labour. Even in the days of 35mm. People need to stop thinking new technology will make a significant change for their filmmaking efforts. Mainly because it will lead them away from the main points. If you want to try to make films outside the traditional funding routes, which is fine, your main focus should be on developing new ways to work together.

This is why two years ago I started to build a co-op style organization in Iceland, and am interested in experimenting with crowd sourcing of funding options. Not saying there are any magic solutions there, but we need to direct our focus from technology and towards the problems of the organization of work. I'm not even sure any of that will succeed, but I just think it is the right direction.

Believe in your story, or your own talent, or your crew. Believe in God or the cause even if you like. But don't believe in a piece of electronics, please :)

http://www.xxxxxx.com/showthread.php?153-what-about-a-thanking-thread-for-BMD/

Here people have started to thank a company for manufacturing a product that is to be sold for profit. A product almost no-one has even tried. We have seen how irrational and weird all kinds of fanboyism can become. People have a desire to be creative - a real cultural democracy is a new utopia of our age. But for many reasons this is quite unachievable yet. But the "prosumer" market is an answer to that, and of course, as with any human desire, capitalism finds a way to attach that desire with fetishism to an object that can be sold as a product.

(please note, this is a very broad analysis, in no way directed at anyone in particular or the BM company or camera, which I'm sure are both excellent)

I would sign up without seeing ANY images, based on the specs alone. Dynamic range + raw 12 bit + 2.5k with Resolve for $3k??? It's a no-brainer!! It's a tool that will help me get better images, and in more extreme lighting situations, so the focus can move towards telling a great story.