I could have made that film for $7,000. Assuming I wrote the script. 16mm film per 50' roll is about $50 with processing, assume they shot about 5 or 6 rolls. Most of it was video transferred to film. Transfer process is probably about $600.
Editing and conforming is probably around $1000. Final print, about $2000. Rent some 16mm equip for a few weeks, and there ya go. No real complex lighting setups, no post-production thrills, besides the video to film transfer. No props, really, besides some standard camping supplies.
Yeah, definitely _under_ $10,000. While I was watching it, I was constantly wondering where they spent the $50,000.
And yes, I am a 16mm filmmaker, so I know what I'm talking about.
> That _was_ Mike in the corner, but he was > (supposed to be) hanging from a noose, dead.
Don't agree with you there. He came into the basement max 30 seconds before Heather. If he was hung in the corner, he would still be either struggling or at least swaying. However, he was perfectly still.
Therefore, I reason he was just standing in the corner, alive. Remember the story the old guy told at the beginning?
I've been an IRIX user for a long time (own an Indy), and must admit this might actually be a Bad Thing. Now, don't get me wrong, I also have a Linux box, and use it most of the time, but IRIX really is amazing. I hate to see it go. I'm hoping that ALL Irix software will be ported. If that happens, then I'll switch this over to a Good Thing. Irix is by far the most stable operating system I have ever used. I would love to see the same software minds who came up with it now focus on Linux. We're in for a fun ride!
>> SGI has written some great software >> over the years.
If they could port imgworks over, I'd be set. I really miss that program... I use Gimp all the time, but imgworks just made some things soooo simple, like transparencies in GIFs.
Also, I'd love to see the SGI software manager ported over to use RPM images. That was such a masterpiece of software upgrade and installation efficiency.
-Mike (who likes having a Linux box and an Indy at home)
Seriously! All we need is some "new" mail company with 1 year of experience to start delivering mail to some 300 million Americans. Yeah, that'll work.
I'll take my 220 year old USPS any day.
Some monopolies are actually good, as bad as that sounds...
Anyone who mentions the whole race thing in connection to the Internet should really think hard about what they're doing.
It's not like there's a login screen asking for your *race* when you connect to the 'Net.
It's all about income and the ability to own a computer. If more blacks and hispanics are "not on the net", than it's because more blacks and hispanics have less disposable income than others. That's it. Don't you dare try to tell me this is related to disrimination or anything. It's just an interesting social demographic...
You can get that sweet Sony HDTV for _only_ $8000.
*cough*
Re:Could someone tell me why it was bad?
on
DIVX is dead
·
· Score: 1
You're comparing DIVX and Open-DVD?
WHY?
Because that's what Circuit City was doing in their marketing! They were very obviously going after the people that would want to buy a DVD player, and the salecreeps would lure them into a Divx purchase, saying it's like DVD, but "better".
So, don't blame me for comparing the two. Circuit City did it while trying to market Divx.
Of course DVD is better. As you said, "Duh."
Re:So now I'll buy DVD player, any recommendations
on
DIVX is dead
·
· Score: 1
I highly recommend the Sony DSP7000. It does an excellent job on decompression. There are many titles that look noticeably better on my system than on my friend's Panasonic, I believe it is. Or RCA. One of those. Anyways, the DSP7000 is a bit more than your average player, but I think it's worth it. And you can't beat that cool sliding front panel thing. Wee!
Re:Could someone tell me why it was bad?
on
DIVX is dead
·
· Score: 1
Just curious: Do you (Linked List) work for Curcuit City or something? You seem rather enthusiastic about the dead format. Or did you buy a player?
Just curious what motivates you.
Re:Could someone tell me why it was bad?
on
DIVX is dead
·
· Score: 1
1) I don't rent from Blockbuster. I generally don't rent at all. That's not my point. I'm arguing Divx vs. Open DVD, NOT Divx vs. tape rental.
2) Why should I need a freakin' PHONE to watch a movie?
3) I want to be able to let a friend borrow a disc. I want to be able to take my player elsewhere for a party. I WANT THE FREEDOM, darn it! I don't want restrictions IF IT'S MY PLAYER, all right? Is that too much to ask?
4) Again, I'm discussing Divx vx. Open DVD, not rentals
5) If I buy the disc, it should be mine. Pulling a video from the shelves is different. I haven't bought it yet. But, if I buy it, it's mine forever. NOT SO with Divx. You "buy" the disc. Watch it for a year. They decide to stop the movie from being shown, so the disc you "own" is useless, because the studio won't let you watch it. COMPLETELY different evil here.
6) VHS is bad. I'm not arguing that.
7) Again, why are you bringing up VHS? It's like comparing apples to oranges. I'm contrasting to Open DVD.
8) Again.
9) I'm NOT talking VHS, okay? Sheesh. OpenDVD discs can play in my DVD-ROM drive. Divx cannot.
10) Bad marketing, or sleazy marketing, usually is the product of bad products. If the product is bad, the company realizes it has to spin it well to sell anything.
11) Some studios saw it was a bad thing from the start.
12) Like 11.
13) Read 1984. It's scary. Divx was another step in that direction. Telescreens? Come on.
Re:Could someone tell me why it was bad?
on
DIVX is dead
·
· Score: 1
1) Privacy. Needn't say more.
2) Need to connect to a phone to watch a disc.
3) Cannot take disc or player to a friends house.
4) Costs $3 every time you watch it (well, in a 24 hour period, or whatever)
5) Studios can choose to lock a movie in a later date. That means you cannot watch a disc you "own" if the studio decides (it's in the contract! really!)
6) Inferior compression quality.
7) Pan-and-scam only. No widescreen or 16x9 anamorphic.
8) No special features such as commentary tracks, trailer, or cut scenes.
9) Not compatible with DVD-ROM drives in PCs.
10) Marketing was all a sham. Circuit City employees were downright lieing to customers about the "benefits" of Divx.
11) Some major studios refused to participate in Divx at all.
12) Some major hardware manufacturers refused to participate as well.
"Microsoft customers had already demonstrated a distinct lack of interest in having a version of Microsoft Office that worked on Linux, so Microsoft had no plans to push forward in that market."
Well, duh! Microsoft customers, last time I checked, used WINDOWS. Hello!
Why is it that M$ is allowed to continue? I hope that *nobody* upgrades to Office2000 just to prove a point. I hope people start thinking for themselves soon instead of following blindly like a lemming, thinking they need to upgrade to Office2000 just to continue "being productive", whatever that means.
Java for windoze-only. Doesn't that really just defeat the ENTIRE purpose of Java? And doesn't anybody in M$ see that? Guess not. They have their anti-competition blinders on again.
This is just another case of someone in the media using the same stupid argument. They think they're making a logical conclusion by saying "Windoze is better than Linux because Windoze is Windoze".
They point out that Windoze NT integrated Windoze products better, and that's a reason why NT is better. Umm... let's just think about this. Okay, Linux runs "GNOME" better than Windoze, so therefore it's better than NT! It's just a STUPID argument, but a lot of the media like to use it. They can't come up with anything real, so they just sound like the recent M$ marketing campaigns: It's better because it's the biggest and has the largest marketshare. Yeah, that's the reason why it's "better". Sure.
I just hate that groundless logic. But it's in print, so it must be true, eh? Stupid media...
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition." Huh? Try because they force PC makers to ship Windoze with every computer. THAT's why they outnumber Linux supporters. A lot of your joe home computer user *thinks* he prefers Windoze just because that's the way his computer came. Basically doesn't know any options, so therefore he supports his one easy solution. If people *actually* had a choice (like in the ideal capatlistic world which will never happen), then we'd have a lot more Linux supporters on our side...
I'm sure glad I'm using a card with an nVidia chip, that's for sure... I knew there as something fishy with 3dfx. It's funny how they learned their business practices right from M$: Don't worry about making better products, just push proprietary formats to the users and then whine about them.
I'm glad that nVidia is so gung-ho about Linux drivers. That day the drivers were released I downloaded the file, linked the correct libGL and copied over the XF86_SVGA, and in about ten minutes flat I had Quake III up and running in 800x600 with full lighting and texturing.
Man, I love it.
-Mike -- OpenGL developer who can finally use his home Linux box!
Slashdot Mirror
here's the list:
Irix
Solaris
Win95
WinNT
Linux
Ultrix
HPUX
MacOS
I could have made that film for $7,000. Assuming
I wrote the script. 16mm film per 50' roll is
about $50 with processing, assume they shot
about 5 or 6 rolls. Most of it was video
transferred to film. Transfer process is
probably about $600.
Editing and conforming is probably around $1000.
Final print, about $2000. Rent some 16mm equip
for a few weeks, and there ya go. No real
complex lighting setups, no post-production
thrills, besides the video to film transfer.
No props, really, besides some standard camping
supplies.
Yeah, definitely _under_ $10,000. While I was
watching it, I was constantly wondering where
they spent the $50,000.
And yes, I am a 16mm filmmaker, so I know what
I'm talking about.
> That _was_ Mike in the corner, but he was
> (supposed to be) hanging from a noose, dead.
Don't agree with you there. He came into the
basement max 30 seconds before Heather. If he
was hung in the corner, he would still be either
struggling or at least swaying. However, he was
perfectly still.
Therefore, I reason he was just standing in the
corner, alive. Remember the story the old guy
told at the beginning?
I've been an IRIX user for a long time (own
an Indy), and must admit this might actually
be a Bad Thing. Now, don't get me wrong, I
also have a Linux box, and use it most of the
time, but IRIX really is amazing. I hate to
see it go. I'm hoping that ALL Irix software
will be ported. If that happens, then I'll
switch this over to a Good Thing. Irix is
by far the most stable operating system I
have ever used. I would love to see the same
software minds who came up with it now focus
on Linux. We're in for a fun ride!
>> SGI has written some great software
>> over the years.
If they could port imgworks over, I'd be set.
I really miss that program... I use Gimp
all the time, but imgworks just made some
things soooo simple, like transparencies in
GIFs.
Also, I'd love to see the SGI software
manager ported over to use RPM images. That
was such a masterpiece of software upgrade
and installation efficiency.
-Mike (who likes having a Linux box and an Indy at home)
Seriously! All we need is some "new" mail
company with 1 year of experience to start
delivering mail to some 300 million
Americans. Yeah, that'll work.
I'll take my 220 year old USPS any day.
Some monopolies are actually good, as bad as
that sounds...
Well, fact is that the USPS is now a private
company, and has been for a while. It's
no longer directly controlled by the Gov't.
You really think that if there were
"competition" I could still get a letter
from D.C. to California in 3 days for
only 33 cents? Riiiiight.
I've mailed nearly 600 packages through
USPS Priority Mail over the past few years
and all of them arrived at thier locations.
The US Postal Service rules. I'd use them for
a package over UPS or FedEX any day. Oh,
and by the way, the USPS *does* have a
tracking system now...
Anyone who mentions the whole race thing in
connection to the Internet should really
think hard about what they're doing.
It's not like there's a login screen asking
for your *race* when you connect to the
'Net.
It's all about income and the ability to own
a computer. If more blacks and hispanics
are "not on the net", than it's because more
blacks and hispanics have less disposable
income than others. That's it. Don't you
dare try to tell me this is related to
disrimination or anything. It's just an
interesting social demographic...
Just thinking...
Here are the best items to have on hand while
staying up at night coding:
1) Espresso machine from Starbucks
2) Espresso roast whole beans
3) Burr grinder
4) Chocolate covered espresso beans
5) Penguin caffeinated peppermints
-Mike
"there's too much blood in my caffeine system"
P.S. - it's spelled eSpresso.
Nope, it definitely is a Countach.
You can get that sweet Sony HDTV for _only_ $8000.
*cough*
You're comparing DIVX and Open-DVD?
WHY?
Because that's what Circuit City was doing in
their marketing! They were very obviously
going after the people that would want to
buy a DVD player, and the salecreeps would
lure them into a Divx purchase, saying it's
like DVD, but "better".
So, don't blame me for comparing the two.
Circuit City did it while trying to market
Divx.
Of course DVD is better. As you said, "Duh."
I highly recommend the Sony DSP7000. It does
an excellent job on decompression. There are
many titles that look noticeably better on
my system than on my friend's Panasonic, I
believe it is. Or RCA. One of those. Anyways,
the DSP7000 is a bit more than your average
player, but I think it's worth it. And you
can't beat that cool sliding front panel thing.
Wee!
Just curious: Do you (Linked List) work for
Curcuit City or something? You seem rather
enthusiastic about the dead format. Or
did you buy a player?
Just curious what motivates you.
1) I don't rent from Blockbuster. I generally
don't rent at all. That's not my point.
I'm arguing Divx vs. Open DVD, NOT Divx vs.
tape rental.
2) Why should I need a freakin' PHONE to watch
a movie?
3) I want to be able to let a friend borrow a
disc. I want to be able to take my player
elsewhere for a party. I WANT THE FREEDOM,
darn it! I don't want restrictions IF IT'S
MY PLAYER, all right? Is that too much to ask?
4) Again, I'm discussing Divx vx. Open DVD, not
rentals
5) If I buy the disc, it should be mine. Pulling
a video from the shelves is different. I haven't
bought it yet. But, if I buy it, it's mine
forever. NOT SO with Divx. You "buy" the disc.
Watch it for a year. They decide to stop the
movie from being shown, so the disc you "own"
is useless, because the studio won't let you
watch it. COMPLETELY different evil here.
6) VHS is bad. I'm not arguing that.
7) Again, why are you bringing up VHS? It's
like comparing apples to oranges. I'm contrasting
to Open DVD.
8) Again.
9) I'm NOT talking VHS, okay? Sheesh. OpenDVD
discs can play in my DVD-ROM drive. Divx cannot.
10) Bad marketing, or sleazy marketing, usually
is the product of bad products. If the product
is bad, the company realizes it has to spin it
well to sell anything.
11) Some studios saw it was a bad thing from
the start.
12) Like 11.
13) Read 1984. It's scary. Divx was another
step in that direction. Telescreens? Come on.
1) Privacy. Needn't say more.
2) Need to connect to a phone to watch a disc.
3) Cannot take disc or player to a friends house.
4) Costs $3 every time you watch it (well, in
a 24 hour period, or whatever)
5) Studios can choose to lock a movie in a later
date. That means you cannot watch a disc you
"own" if the studio decides (it's in the
contract! really!)
6) Inferior compression quality.
7) Pan-and-scam only. No widescreen or 16x9
anamorphic.
8) No special features such as commentary
tracks, trailer, or cut scenes.
9) Not compatible with DVD-ROM drives in PCs.
10) Marketing was all a sham. Circuit City
employees were downright lieing to customers
about the "benefits" of Divx.
11) Some major studios refused to participate
in Divx at all.
12) Some major hardware manufacturers refused
to participate as well.
13) DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!
It's been fun watching Divx flop around in
its death throes for a while now... At least
it's been put out of its misery.
Yeah, and I like the statements by Sharp saying
that customers "preferred the Divx option" at
their stores. Yeah, and I'm a Chinese fighter
pilot.
... at this comment:
"Microsoft customers had already demonstrated
a distinct lack of interest in having a
version of Microsoft Office that worked on
Linux, so Microsoft had no plans to push
forward in that market."
Well, duh! Microsoft customers, last time I
checked, used WINDOWS. Hello!
... I can see is if Red Hat were to some reason
go under, the media would immediately call
Linux DOA.
The media has a nack for making illogical and/or
unwarranted connections, and this could be
another case.
However, that would be like saying if Ford went
out of business that all cars were destined
for failure... hmm.
That's the impression I got by the author saying
that RedHat would "dominated by RedHat's success".
It could also be linked with its failure.
P.S. - I'm not saying RedHat will fail. I'm a
6.0 user, and love what they're doing for Linux.
I'm sure someone somewhere is wondering the same thing about you.
Ouch. Sorry I bothered you.
Okay, good point. I wasn't referring to
anything money-related, per se; just
a bit upset at ongoing practices of M$.
How typical.
Why is it that M$ is allowed to continue? I
hope that *nobody* upgrades to Office2000 just
to prove a point. I hope people start thinking
for themselves soon instead of following
blindly like a lemming, thinking they need to
upgrade to Office2000 just to continue "being
productive", whatever that means.
Java for windoze-only. Doesn't that really
just defeat the ENTIRE purpose of Java?
And doesn't anybody in M$ see that? Guess
not. They have their anti-competition blinders
on again.
-Mike
This is just another case of someone in the
media using the same stupid argument. They
think they're making a logical conclusion
by saying "Windoze is better than Linux because
Windoze is Windoze".
They point out that Windoze NT integrated
Windoze products better, and that's a reason
why NT is better. Umm... let's just think
about this. Okay, Linux runs "GNOME" better
than Windoze, so therefore it's better than
NT! It's just a STUPID argument, but a lot
of the media like to use it. They can't
come up with anything real, so they just
sound like the recent M$ marketing campaigns:
It's better because it's the biggest and
has the largest marketshare. Yeah, that's
the reason why it's "better". Sure.
I just hate that groundless logic. But it's
in print, so it must be true, eh? Stupid
media...
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides
a better value proposition." Huh? Try because
they force PC makers to ship Windoze with
every computer. THAT's why they outnumber
Linux supporters. A lot of your joe home
computer user *thinks* he prefers Windoze just
because that's the way his computer came.
Basically doesn't know any options, so therefore
he supports his one easy solution.
If people *actually* had a choice (like in
the ideal capatlistic world which will never
happen), then we'd have a lot more Linux
supporters on our side...
-Mike
I'm sure glad I'm using a card with an
nVidia chip, that's for sure... I knew
there as something fishy with 3dfx. It's
funny how they learned their business
practices right from M$: Don't worry about
making better products, just push proprietary
formats to the users and then whine about
them.
I'm glad that nVidia is so gung-ho about
Linux drivers. That day the drivers were
released I downloaded the file, linked
the correct libGL and copied over the
XF86_SVGA, and in about ten minutes flat
I had Quake III up and running in 800x600
with full lighting and texturing.
Man, I love it.
-Mike -- OpenGL developer who can finally
use his home Linux box!