Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of
course we
are hungry
for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We
encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded,
you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License. |
|
back In an earlier post I said
While the home video is scarcely a good substitute for a $200 million movie production, the quality gap has narrowed enormously in the last 20 years, and it isn't unreasonable to think that in another 20 years, home production of "professional" quality movies will become cheap and practical.
I was off by 20 years. Take a look at the movie "Star Wreck", available as a free download. To my inexpert eye the production qualities are the same as a $200 million movie production. Since they thank six sponsors, one for "lend[ing] us a Pinnacle DV500 edting [sic] card" that retails for about $800, I think we can safely assume they didn't spend $200 million making the movie. According to their FAQ
Q: Damn, you must be very rich when you can afford a film like this...Huge sets, studios, actors and render farms!
A: What sets? The bridge sets are all virtual. The on-location shoots were made at locations that didn't cost any money (schools, public places etc). The "bluescreen studio" is actually a small piece of blue linoleum in Samuli's living room...
For Samuli this is a somewhat costly hobby, but as a movie it's still very close to a zero budget. The most expensive part of the production has been keeping the computer equipment up to date.
This is what their render farm looks like:
[Posted at 05/13/2006 08:06 PM by David K. Levine on Was Napster Right?  comments(2)]
Comments Well, watching Star Wreck you also get to appreciate why 30 of those 200 million usually go to lead actors :-) [Comment at 05/15/2006 05:24 AM by jh] You mean like the great acting in Batman and Robin? [Comment at 05/15/2006 07:42 AM by David K. Levine]
Submit Comment
Blog Post
|
|
Most Recent Comments IP is not a joke Couldn't it be used under the fair use at 02/08/2010 03:22 PM by Bill SteppGoldman does in AIG, you, and me Predatory Lending is a major contributor to the economic turmoil we are currently at 02/08/2010 03:07 PM by jmb27Common Sense Seth - I'm not sure how your comment @ 5:57pm casts any illumination on your earlier position. If I at 02/08/2010 02:03 PM by Justin LevineLessig: Congress is broken and Obama has failed Anon, state granted monopolies are effectively licenses for corporations to collect taxes on at 02/08/2010 01:50 PM by Crosbie FitchLessig: Congress is broken and Obama has failed It does seem strange to me that when we are faced with the possibility of a 23 trillion dollar at 02/08/2010 01:18 PM by AnonymousThe Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files Fred, I recognise that 'natural monopoly' may have a more specialised meaning for economists, and at 02/08/2010 07:19 AM by Crosbie FitchLessig: Congress is broken and Obama has failed Fred, I'm doing something immediately. I'm working on the Contingency Market. this is something at 02/08/2010 06:53 AM by Crosbie FitchThe Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files @Crosbie: I agree *natural monopolies* do exist, despite any tendency for SK and Bill Stepp to shut at 02/07/2010 10:21 PM by Fred McTakerLessig: Congress is broken and Obama has failed I thank John Bennett for this post, and for the quality of his posts here in general. I've been at 02/07/2010 09:02 PM by Fred McTakerIP is not a joke Well, thank *god* that people are looking out for the interests of the "We Are The World" at 02/07/2010 07:10 PM by Scott Carpenter |
