diy Nigerian teenagers make sci-fi films from their smartphones.
- Thread starter Aspiring Mogul
- Start date
The irony is, this thread is questioning the quality and technology when the whole point was, they did not let technology stop them. They used wood tripods. Should we question if that actually works, or the quality of the wood? Or should we use this article as inspiration for using the resources available to us (not them).
The way to compare the two is to watch a movie filmed on an iphone on a tv (via vimeo or netflix) and then watch any studio movie the same way. Modern 4k HDR tvs are actually very close to cinema projector quality. A lot of people have 65 inch 4k tv's now, so that would be my default production target for home screens. If it looks professional on one of those, you'll have great results on anything less.
For me personally, there is a significant difference on a mainstream television, especially on a bluray or 4k stream source with a higher bitrate.
Bottom line, if youtube or reality tv is your target, you can use cheap cameras. Anyone who is trying to make a serious tv show or film is already using a cine camera, for the above reasons.
A really big deal that isn't mentioned here yet is the flexibility and control you have over color in post coming from a highbit source. Cheap footage falls apart in the colorist process.
For some backstory though, I think OP is trying to work out what's needed to produce a streaming ready sci fi show. I get what you're saying, and it's inspiring to watch these kids working hard amidst adversity, I'm just trying to steer him toward a better result. Indie filmmakers often get excited about a new 300 dollar camera that promises "4k cinema quality" (I think it actually says that on the iphone page) and you get all these cheap washed out films that loose everyone's time and money.
I'm definitely not looking down at these guys, because 12 years ago, I was these guys, step for step. I remember excitedly reading the cannon 30d box in the store, and saying, wow, 4k, that's the same quality as a real movie. It took me a couple of years to figure out that no matter what I did, that camera would never look like movie footage. As mentioned above, there are literally dozens of reasons for that, but anyway, I'm just trying to save OP some time.
Yes, the macro version is, use what's available to you. Phones, wood, etc. The micro version is, what phone was that? How did you rig that tripod with wood? I get it. But if you take a step back and see what is available to you you can achieve the same results without a carbon copy.
This would also be a good moment to clarify that terms like 4k are marketing terms. They are not real measurements of quality, just a stripped down number consumers can understand. A real video quality measurement would look something like -
3840x2160x112mbpfx10bit so the bitrate (112) is a number the res is multiplied with to get the quality, and the last number is the color space, or data container dimensions.
4k x 200 is one thing
4k x 3500 is another
but consumers don't want to do math when they are comparing tvs, so they keep it simple, and both qualities are just marked as 4k, even though there is a huge difference.
3840x2160x112mbpfx10bit so the bitrate (112) is a number the res is multiplied with to get the quality, and the last number is the color space, or data container dimensions.
4k x 200 is one thing
4k x 3500 is another
but consumers don't want to do math when they are comparing tvs, so they keep it simple, and both qualities are just marked as 4k, even though there is a huge difference.
This issue I have with this advice is that it's not good advice to a writer/producer.
There is no need at all for an aspiring mogul to buy a camera.
An aspiring DP could get a lot out of your advice.
An excellent point. None of the equipment used mattered to the people who
saw their short films.
All the info about pro cameras and technical aspect is important to be aware
of for our Aspiring Mogul. But the point of this thread is inspirational. Look what
can be done with very little equipment when you have drive and talent.
I view technology as a quality "cieling" on the visual end. It doesn't determine your films quality, but bad technology can limit what you can achieve. Outside of imax, no one goes to the theater to see a camera, as you point out, they are going to see a story, but obviously presentation standards are competitive, so for someone trying to compete in the market, it does matter.
An interesting case study is "The Shield" which had a great story, acting, directing, etc, but was filmed on 16mm cameras to give it a gritty cinema verite look. It worked very well, and the show ran 7 seasons.
An interesting case study is "The Shield" which had a great story, acting, directing, etc, but was filmed on 16mm cameras to give it a gritty cinema verite look. It worked very well, and the show ran 7 seasons.
They had a little more than that... how many of them are there, like 9? all working together for free.
Having a big group of friends all enthusiastic about their free labor is definitely valuable.
I understand that writers don't need cinema cameras, but having seen many situations where the producer was clueless about the reasons to budget for equipment x, I don't actually think it's a bad idea for someone risking significant amounts of money to gain some hands on experience with the core tools. Would have saved me a lot of headaches over the years if the people running the budget had ever picked up a camera. I published a post once where I talked about my old orchestra conductor. He spent time learning every instrument in the orchestra, and could pick up a trumpet and say, oh, I see, your valve is stuck here because you used the cheap oil. that kind of attention to detail, and hands on experience makes for much better leadership. He was a great conductor, and won many national competitions. In the corporate world, I've spent hours arguing with guys about how, "they saw a tv commercial that said this webcam was cine quality, so why can't you guys just use that". I had a situation a few years ago where a producer fired half the crew because no one wanted to use "vectors" as an output format. He had heard from his xerox guy that vectors had infinite resolution, and all of us were "idiots" who didn't know how great vector files were.
Also, when I suggested that, I was really suggesting that he equip his crew with at least a basic cine cam, not necessarily become a DP himself. Still, I think Patton knew how to fire a rifle.
I'm not trying to rain on your inspirational story here, it's just that after a while you get pretty jaded about inspirational stories in indie film. I've seen about 3000 inspirational stories for every real world success, so I have a hard time taking an optimistic view these days. My view is not intended as a wet blanket, to me it's just a reality blanket. In my experience nose to grindstone trumps optimism 10/10 times.
In the original post, you'll not he says "how inspirational, but they aren't making any money" Therein lies the rub. Inspiration is good for making one film. Money is good for making a dozen films. My first movie was a fun and inspiring experience, I was so excited to create something. I quickly learned that without ROI, no amount of enthusiasm would pay for film 2. If you really love to make film, you have to think like a businessman. I like these kids, and their film, and I think they are having a great time, but you don't get far without an accountant.
Also, when I suggested that, I was really suggesting that he equip his crew with at least a basic cine cam, not necessarily become a DP himself. Still, I think Patton knew how to fire a rifle.
I'm not trying to rain on your inspirational story here, it's just that after a while you get pretty jaded about inspirational stories in indie film. I've seen about 3000 inspirational stories for every real world success, so I have a hard time taking an optimistic view these days. My view is not intended as a wet blanket, to me it's just a reality blanket. In my experience nose to grindstone trumps optimism 10/10 times.
In the original post, you'll not he says "how inspirational, but they aren't making any money" Therein lies the rub. Inspiration is good for making one film. Money is good for making a dozen films. My first movie was a fun and inspiring experience, I was so excited to create something. I quickly learned that without ROI, no amount of enthusiasm would pay for film 2. If you really love to make film, you have to think like a businessman. I like these kids, and their film, and I think they are having a great time, but you don't get far without an accountant.
Last edited:
You ain't kidding. In my litigation work, I've read so many stories of up-and-coming people, and not just 30-somethings, who later crash and burn, and you never hear of them again, unless you go into the court records, which I am trained to do, and find out how badly they have crashed.
This is possibly the most important aspect of what the Nigerians did, and - from my cursory analysis of a few years' posts on indietalk - a far greater source of frustration to wanabee film-makers (of all types) than any particular piece of equipment. We occasionally hear from the iPhone marketeers that this or that movie (usually shorts or ads) was shot "entirely" on an iPhone ... but track down the BTS video and you'll see that there was a whole team involved, and often as not a secondary pile of equipment that cost several times more than the phone.
Whether or not this thread helps @Aspiring Mogul find his road to riches, it has at least got me back in my particular groove after a period of doubt, so if anyone crosses paths with the Nigerians, would you thank them for me!
absolutely!! my last film i had no crew at all, but what choice did i have? make the film or make excuses.This is possibly the most important aspect of what the Nigerians did, and - from my cursory analysis of a few years' posts on indietalk - a far greater source of frustration to wanabee film-makers (of all types) than any particular piece of equipment. We occasionally hear from the iPhone marketeers that this or that movie (usually shorts or ads) was shot "entirely" on an iPhone ... but track down the BTS video and you'll see that there was a whole team involved, and often as not a secondary pile of equipment that cost several times more than the phone.
Whether or not this thread helps @Aspiring Mogul find his road to riches, it has at least got me back in my particular groove after a period of doubt, so if anyone crosses paths with the Nigerians, would you thank them for me!
i had to make compromises though and there are definitely some techincal shortcomings...
of course it was my first time doing everything alone. maybe now i have more experience and could pull it off better in the future.
As someone who remembers the days of working with Super 8 film, 240 line resolution video, and 480 line res DV, this is a funny conversation to me. If you are going to wait until you have the "best" equipment, you may not start. These kids "started."
My first year making film I couldn't even afford a video camera, but I was determined to make a feature. Inspired by films like Chronos and Koyannisquatsi, I took a still camera and shot a 90 minute film one frame at a time by attaching an autofire device to the camera, it shot at a max speed of 1 frame per second. Almost all of the clips took hours for a single shot. It took 7 months full time work, but I got it into local theaters at the end. This got me noticed by a local businessman, who hired me to create film for his clients, and 3 years of work later, I had a movie camera. These kids actually started with much better equipment than I did, courtesy of the evolution of cell phones over a decade.