Considering the amount of work, the number of people and the cost of equipment it takes to make a motion picture, $1m is absolutely low budget. The average cost for a Hollywood feature film is $65m+. It's difficult to make any film with a medium size experienced crew for less than $1m. If you have any recognizable talent, it's difficult to make for less than $5m. Once you get below $1m, the terms "micro budget" and "no budget" start being used. Mini-budget, Indy budget, Ultra Low budget are also used. It depends on who's is using the term and in what part of the industry they are working in. If you are outside of the industry with no money, the terms mean little to nothing because everything is low or no budget, but if you are working with crews, talent and investors that have experience, those terms have specific meanings.
SAG (Screen Actors Guild) uses Ultra Low Budget (0-250k) Low Budget Modified (250k-700k) and Low Budget (700k-2.5m) to differentiate projects from their normal union rates.
Toward the edges of the industry I've seen the following breakdown.
No Budget = below 40k
Mini Budget = 41-80k
Micro Budget = 81-150k
Ultra Low Budget = 150k-250k
Low Budget = 251-400k
Indy Low Budget = 401-500k
Classic Low Budget= 501k-999k
Hollywood Low Budget = 1-5m
But more often I just hear the terms No Budget, Micro, Indy and Low.
As a video editor, I'd say you are close. imho, to me it doesn't say that Rob was making his leadership of the company all about the product (you'd really have to go back and look at past photos to see if this is true) but more that he is now fading into the background of the company, while Bryan is "focused" on future of the company (looking towards the viewers right which is typically the future). Although many decisions like that in films often tend to be happy accidents (or subconscious choices), it is pretty clear that they are deemphasizing Rob.
Are those the only stocks you have picked? Have you picked any that didn't do as well? Or any that were losers? What led you to miss on Apple or Priceline?
Is this for projects funded (at least partially) by Netflix before production? Would love to hear more about your experiences (both with Netflix and general filmmaking outside the US).
60fps is not yet good. The Hobbit at 48fps did not look as good as 24fps and Billy Lynn's long Halftime Walk at 120fps 3D was one of the worst looking films I've ever seen.
I do believe someone will crack this nut (as Cameron did with 3D). But it's going to take the right project and very creative filmmaking techniques. Personally, I think the first one that works will be a sci-fi in a sterile setting, so the HFR will work with the narrative, not be a distraction.
The Canon C series (100/300/500/700) are popular among documentary filmmakers. And this in mainly for projects produced by Netflix in the pre-production stage. Not for projects that have already been shot (but not yet distributed).
I'm in post on a project shot mainly on the Canon C100 (not on the approved list). We will be talking to Netflix at some point about picking up the project and I have no worries about in not being in 4k or shot by an approved camera. If they like the project and want it, the camera format won't matter.
What cameras would you prefer shooting on that isn't listed? I'm not seeing anything that I'd prefer to shoot on (other than film).
Cameras like the Sony A7s or the Panasonic GH5 are great for the low budget film, but if Netflix green lights your project, you can afford much better cameras. Unless the project calls for really small and unobtrusive cameras, in which case Netflix would most likely approve the use of whatever camera best fits the project.
In a way it did. Now instead of installing the BlackMagic Decklink cards, I can buy the Blackmagic UltraStudio or Intensity and get the same function over Thunderbolt or USB3. What was once locked to one machine is usable by every machine I have, including taking it on the road and connecting to my laptop.
Apple saw where the market was going and that an iMac or MacBook Pro with Thunderbolt/USB3 peripherals can do the work that required a fully decked desktop machine 6-7yrs ago, which is great for the vast majority of creatives. But in doing so they have left a segment of the creative community without the expandability, upgradeability and speed necessary (3D, CGI and some VR, etc). But some of these were never really strongholds for Apple anyway.
As a 20+yr veteran editor who has used just about every NLE on the market, my money and time goes to FCPX unless my clients specify otherwise. It's the fastest, most versatile and most stable product out there and the only one that feels like it is truly evolving away from the original late 80s NLE paradigm. And while its use in the high end market (film, tv and commercials) in the US is minuscule, it's global footprint is growing.
As someone who is a video pro, cutting commercials in NYC and LA (and former post facility engineer), I'm not seeing it. I don't know of one editor or post facility that has moved from Mac to Windows or Unix. One River Media (the co. that posted the blogpost about switching) is using Davinci Resolve as an NLE, a far more niche choice than cutting in FCPX. Resolve is a color correcting tool (a very popular one that I've used to color grade features) that has added editing support. I've yet to meet anyone in the wild using it for editing.
Even the editors I know that cut on Adobe Premiere which is available for both PC and Mac aren't switching from Mac, which honestly has surprised me a bit because of the greater choice in hardware. But for most video editors at this level, you're just trading speed in one area for problems in another. Editors whine and complain every time there is a tiny change in the interfaces they use, they hate change. They have been forced to embrace FCP and Premiere over the years (and complain about it incessantly). Very few will choose to make the jump to Windows for the same reason.
As you step down the ladder, the move will make sense for some. Your all-in-one facilities or one man bands (production and all aspects of post handled by one or two people). But in my experience, this group has already been heavily invested in the Windows side because of the cheaper initial costs (that money you save early will be spent later and the Windows post-house will cost as much or more than a comparable Mac post-house, at least it did when I was an engineer).
And the other aspects of video post production, the CG, 3D and compositing sectors already heavily lean toward Windows or Linux and have for over a decade.
There just isn't a huge need for massive speed increases in the hardware side for most video editors. We've gone from needing very fast, high end systems with fast (and expensive) SAN storage to laptops and SSDs that allow us to do more, faster than ever. iMacs or MacBook Pros are all the average editor needs, with more and more working remotely from home. I cut a project for the NBA over the holidays on the first gen USB-C MacBook and years ago cut a project for REEBOK on the just released MacBook Air. Both these projects came up unexpectedly while I was traveling but went off without a hitch on underpowered hardware (that I bought for web surfing and writing).
That's not to say that I wouldn't appreciate (and most likely purchase) a new and expandable Mac workstation. But for the most part, I'd be spending money to just spend money. It wouldn't speed up 98% of my job. And that other 2 percent isn't slow enough to cause me any issues.
SAG (Screen Actors Guild) uses Ultra Low Budget (0-250k) Low Budget Modified (250k-700k) and Low Budget (700k-2.5m) to differentiate projects from their normal union rates.
Toward the edges of the industry I've seen the following breakdown. No Budget = below 40k Mini Budget = 41-80k Micro Budget = 81-150k Ultra Low Budget = 150k-250k Low Budget = 251-400k Indy Low Budget = 401-500k Classic Low Budget= 501k-999k Hollywood Low Budget = 1-5m
But more often I just hear the terms No Budget, Micro, Indy and Low.