3 ms·

To those saying that the $200-$800 shouldn't be a factor: Some time in 2004, I went to a pre-release screening of a movie in Hollywood. The director was there

by IvyMike 12y ago

To those saying that the $200-$800 shouldn't be a factor: Some time in 2004, I went to a pre-release screening of a movie in Hollywood. The director was there, and afterwards he did a Q&A. Someone asked "Is there anything you would have changed about your movie?" The director's response: "If I had had $400 more, I would have [filmed a scene much differently]". So the immediate follow-up was "Wait, $400? How much did your movie cost?" The answer: $7000. It turns out that you may have even heard of this particular movie: it was Shane Carruth's Primer. It's one of those small indie films that managed to break out and make a profit. But I guarantee for every Primer there are 100 other films that don't make it, and some of them are quite good. The question is do we really want to lose access to those films? (I personally think the answer is trying to get that $800 down to under $100 through automation and tools, but we're not there yet.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film)

lisper 12y ago
I'm the filmmaker and the author of the blog post. The total budget for "But for the Grace of God?" was about $10k. It depends a little on how you count. I spent $2k on equipment (mainly an HDV camera), $1k on software (Final Cut Pro), $3k on editing (all of which was ultimately wasted because I ended up editing the whole film myself) and $2k on music licensing, plus some miscellaneous expenses. Close-captioning would cost about $500 or so, or about 5% of the total budget, or about 50% of what the film has made.
- washadjeffmad 12y ago
  Yeah, but this is maybe a ten hour job for an amateur using free (OSS) tools, and it's to keep a much bigger investment where it can make money. Estimate about three hours per hour of footage to transcribe, then two to three times the length of the film to sync the subtitles and, if required, embed. You could have knocked it out in a weekend then written a blog exploring what technical and formal steps you took to comply, which would have been a much more apt and interesting topic to see on HN. Calling it censorship is a bit much, but I get the frustrating sentiment that is keeping up with compliance.
  - lisper 12y ago
    It might be a ten hour job for someone who knows what they are doing, but I am not such a person. I have zero experience with closed captioning, so for me to do it myself, not only would I have to do the actual work, but I would also have to climb the learning curve which almost certainly would take more than ten hours. It would make a lot more sense to just pay someone to do it for me (which I will probably end up doing). But that's not the point. The point is that because of a government regulation (one which does not even apply to my film, BTW) I have to pay $500 or lose my distribution. That, to my mind, is the very definition of a "chilling effect on free speech", not unlike a poll tax. It doesn't matter that the amount is relatively small, and that I could easily afford to pay it. It's the principle of the thing. Poll taxes were relatively small too. My concern is actually not so much for my film, but the thousands of titles out there made by people for whom $500 or ten+ hours of work is actually a substantial burden, and the thousands of films that might not get made because this extra burden pushes the producer over the edge to decide it's not worth the bother.

by IvyMike 12y ago

lisper 12y ago

I'm the filmmaker and the author of the blog post. The total budget for "But for the Grace of God?" was about $10k. It depends a little on how you count. I spent $2k on equipment (mainly an HDV camera), $1k on software (Final Cut Pro), $3k on editing (all of which was ultimately wasted because I ended up editing the whole film myself) and $2k on music licensing, plus some miscellaneous expenses. Close-captioning would cost about $500 or so, or about 5% of the total budget, or about 50% of what the film has made.

washadjeffmad 12y ago
Yeah, but this is maybe a ten hour job for an amateur using free (OSS) tools, and it's to keep a much bigger investment where it can make money. Estimate about three hours per hour of footage to transcribe, then two to three times the length of the film to sync the subtitles and, if required, embed. You could have knocked it out in a weekend then written a blog exploring what technical and formal steps you took to comply, which would have been a much more apt and interesting topic to see on HN. Calling it censorship is a bit much, but I get the frustrating sentiment that is keeping up with compliance.
- lisper 12y ago
  It might be a ten hour job for someone who knows what they are doing, but I am not such a person. I have zero experience with closed captioning, so for me to do it myself, not only would I have to do the actual work, but I would also have to climb the learning curve which almost certainly would take more than ten hours. It would make a lot more sense to just pay someone to do it for me (which I will probably end up doing). But that's not the point. The point is that because of a government regulation (one which does not even apply to my film, BTW) I have to pay $500 or lose my distribution. That, to my mind, is the very definition of a "chilling effect on free speech", not unlike a poll tax. It doesn't matter that the amount is relatively small, and that I could easily afford to pay it. It's the principle of the thing. Poll taxes were relatively small too. My concern is actually not so much for my film, but the thousands of titles out there made by people for whom $500 or ten+ hours of work is actually a substantial burden, and the thousands of films that might not get made because this extra burden pushes the producer over the edge to decide it's not worth the bother.