Leaderboard

over inflated is that inflated as in bubble. this is not some south sea bubble not some tulip o mania no big bang. show me a pro anamorphic as good as an iscorama or better tell me the price. iscorama is cheap optically under priced it is not about the price but the precious value. how many folks have shelled out silly money for china junk optics with 0.95 f stop. poor copies of leica noct china has little value now or in 30 years. the stuff may work but has little soul that is the modern way we live in satanic times a new dark age. iscorama is from a time a great expansive period 1900-1950s the period when great optical men tried to best each other in design. out do and out wit in light ray trace. sub standard is the norm today . input tapped into computer cheap aspherical optic added a new lens for the hd world. clowns knocking out variations on a theme or just blatant copies average at best. iscorama inflated no way. a good price for those who can make it work. the bolex moller 1.5x is treasure for me has a better look than the iscorama another optical marvel under priced.   we all want a bargain all could do with a free lunch forever. all would like a mercedes for the price of a shit ford. we want the best for next to nothing now godamit and how dare we not be given it. what is the problem. we know the cost but not the value.     the same chap shot this which i like https://vimeo.com/37044086

No studio. He released it on his own. Traveled to different cities presenting and doing Q&As. I'd say that is pretty successful.

The director wants to keep a lid on the production costs so as not to distract attention away from the film itself. He's doing the opposite of propagating a starving artist narrative. That said, I heard a rumour that the budget was around $50,000. $300,000 in a month is very acceptable for a small scale, no studio independent release, but if the budget is correct, it's exceptional. Six times the production costs is a great return on investment, especially when he's spending so little on distribution or marketing. Bare in mind that this is not the only number that counts. Carruth is also making money from every foreign distributor that picks up the film. It's just a little from each country, but it adds up.   Talk about negativity. This guy could go out and shoot an upbeat movie in the hopes of chasing success, or he could make what he wants to make, on his own terms, and retain total artistic control over the film and its release. He found a way to do the latter and remain profitable. That is true success. 

  Um, sorry but, no.  Those "hidden" costs are invariably related to distribution companies and their fees.  That's how the brothers at Miramax built up their company and gained power, by fucking over the filmmakers they distributed for.  If he's releasing this himself...is he roleplaying and giving himself a hard time?  Is that what you're suggesting?   The $300,000 for limited theatrical (less than 50 screens at its highest) with no real P+A budget or conventional marketing is rather outstanding (takes $30M to market a film conventionally, according to Soderberg's revelation).  You aren't even looking at the available information to form an educated guess about what's going on here so your statements are exactly the opposite of "educated".      He's also self-releasing it on DVD and streaming, meaning very little overhead.  The limited theatrical and growing word-of-mouth will serve as a mini marketing campaign for the home video release which could easily bring him three to five times the small theatrical business.  How well it does then will ultimately come down to what he actually spent on it (or raised) and what, if any, deferrals are still owed.   You won't know the production cost unless he wants it to be known.  There is no authority to IMDB or boxofficemojo or any of these sorts of sites.  They get their information from voluntary sources with no oversight or fact checking or even a means to fact check that sort of information.  Someone sends a number and if their account or previous history is deemed trustworthy it gets posted as if it were fact without a single phone call or e-mail or any follow-up for first party confirmation.

Like to share this short film which is part of a larger project. Shot with GH3, slrmagic 35mm and Kowa 8Z. https://vimeo.com/65543988  

Wow, wild speculation based on bad experiences with unknown filmmakers leaves me...unmoved.

How can you look soft and over sharp at the same time?   Budget was $50k I heard.   Including funding his own distribution.   It's a stunning achievement. Not even released on BluRay or in rest of the world yet. Word of mouth is still growing for the movie. By the time the year is out he's likely to have taken over $1m easily.   I think he'll handle Europe / UK in same way he handled the US. Film festival, promotion online, word of mouth, then theatrical run based on some healthy buzz.

too many !

Hey Rob....  Forget the rubbish original taking lens...:)  your isco36 optimised FF58's went out today....       

Hopefully once the move to streaming has shaken out, some alternative models for marketing lower budget films will come about.

  Seems like someones a little sour on this topic, if you knew what it took to make such works, like you mentioned, shouldn't you hope for success for the film maker? Not to mention the possibility that maybe, just maybe, not all independent film making are the same experience? We don't know the factors, but if the rumor of 50K was the budget, im sure people where paid to do their jobs or maybe a possible % gross of the profits? Thats also beyond the fact that someone made a short film thats doing well? Those 2 gigs you worked on must have been real truble to leave such a horrible after taste...

Thanks.   Based on what you are saying, it sounds like you may have a rack-focusable 2x anamorphic that costs around 1/40 of what an Iscorama goes for these days...   This sounds too good to be true. What's the catch?

Exceedingly poor show. If the 7D II is indeed the first APSC model to have a new sensor, let's hope it's really good.

I'm interested to see it! It looks kinda "tree of lifey" from the trailer.  Whether I like it will probably hinge on whether it comes across "try hard" or not...   With regard to gear, some shots look better than others and it's never been my favorite camera, but hey, it shows that such kit is good enough so that's a great thing.   I have a two-year old film shot on 550D that's still running festivals (last one was filmkunstfest in Germany). No one is really bothered too much about details like overall sharpness, moire and so on if they like the story, but it's a bonus to have them gone, so it's a good thing to always look for better. That's the attitude that lead us here and will lead us forward.   This story just gives me more of a push to keep going regardless of budgets. The actors are the most important really, cos the camera is mostly there to capture a performance! Most indies have dire acting, even when the ideas, scripts, sound, music, and camerawork and kit are good, poor acting makes the film shit despite all of the above.   I've lost count of the number of times people have bragged about their gear choices and lenses, their anamorphic rigs, shown great stills and then the final work has had such poor/embarrassing performances that you stop it after a minute.   You can have millions to play with and a film fall down on performance or scripting. So make friends with actors!   I hope this film makes millions, that'd be good for everyone in the long run.

Somebody at Voigtlander shoud start to cinevise their glass.

  Amen. Shane is well into the black. Critically, and monetarily, which means he will roll into his next project on his own terms.   I watched the film earlier tonight via iTunes/AppleTV. It was affecting. Well done. The nuance of the story was beautifully subtle but totally there. And yes, by the way, it looks beautiful. it matters. It's cinema.   Gents, ladies, the distribution mold is shattered. Time to make a jail break.   I'm in.

  Nowhere close, from what I gather, he is keeping mum on the budget, because he got a lot of criticism for how low the budget was on Primer, and he doesn't want a similar reaction. My guess is it is still a very low budget.   I'm going to see it in theater tomorrow night, and I've been excited for the past month to do so!

  About $75 million.

Looks every bit as detailed as the GH2, but with better codec out of the box and of course 1080/60p, better screen, etc.   I wouldn't be surprised if it beat the GH3 on image quality in video mode too. Need to test that.   If the camera is so detailed with sharpness at 0 or -2 there's no need to sharpen in post any more, something I had to get used to with my FS100 and 5D Mark III footage.

This are Good news for every one. This is the time where the filmmaker's tools are not a limitation anymore. Events like this just push me to keep doing what I'm doing, each time with less weight on my shoulders. 

Good for Shane. And us, as audience and filmmakers. A rising tide floats all our boats.

Three quick shots at various sharpening settings with the Panasonic 14mm at F8. Only G6. Download here (wetransfer) Natural profile, everything zero, NR at -5. Three shots, sharpness 0, -2 and -5. -2 looks like the sweet spot to me :)

Thanks guys!  The film has already won best of festival awards and Best Short awards at two festivals....and its not even in its final cut.  We just rendered the final copy out today. Its total runtime is about 17 minutes, and it was shot entirely using an ISCO anamorphic set.    Heres some more stills from the film.   

For some reason I was locked out of my account. Not sure why. I am AdamCinema.   Anyways, I buckled down and rented an Iscorama 35mm and 50mm. Really nice little kit, and I shot my entire senior thesis with this lens.    The kit came with 4 diopters and an Achromat in addition to the lenses. I really wish I had, had the money to buy it after I rented it. Here are some stills from the film.