If you are an independent filmmaker with a limited budget and a project without a lot of airplane crashes, elaborate locations, and floods or earthquakes, a project that is original, has emotional impact, can benefit from hand held camera angles and does not require a-list stars in today’s marketplace you must at least seriously consider shooting on a video format and more likely on a digital format of some kind.

THE DIGITAL PRECEDENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET

The myth that to succeed in the theatrical marketplace, you must shoot and project on 35mm film is just that, a myth. The examples of successfully launched digital projects are emerging virtually on a daily basis. Last year’s Special Jury Prize winning screening of the Cannes Film Festival selection Thomas Vinterberg’s “The Celebration,” which was subsequently picked up by domestic distributor October Films and released in the U.S. and 35 other countries theatrically, has been described by many other commentators as as seminal and influential a picture in its own right as was D.W. Griffith’s “The Birth of a Nation” (1907)

“The Celebration” was shot hand held by Director of Photography Anthony Dodd Mantle on a one-chip $1000.00 consumer-available digital camera and then, for its anticipated festival and theatrical play, transferred to 35 mm film by Lukkein Laboratories in Holland.

Also screened at last year’s installment of the Cannes Film Festival and shot on a three-chip ($2,000-4,000), slightly more professional digital camera was award-winning and critically acclaimed director Lars Von Trier’s “The Idiots.” “The Idiots,” a caustic black comedy set in a hospital, was also picked also up by US theatrical distributor October Films for a U.S. theatrical and played theatrically in several other major territories. Like “The Celebration” the project was also transferred to 35mm film, this time by Denmark’s Hocus Bogus Labs.

These European pioneers have been joined by increasing numbers of American filmmakers. Bennett Miller’s Los Angeles Independent Film Festival Award winning project “The Cruise,” a critically acclaimed documentary about a unique and troubled Manhattan bus tour guide, was also shot on a three-chip digital camera , and following its festival success was picked up for worldwide distribution by U.S. based mini-major, the digitally progressive Artisan Entertainment. In this case though, the entire picture was shot in natural light by the director himself, who served as a self-contained, one-person crew.

DIGITAL EXHIBITION

Last October marked the first ever  satellite theatrical release in five theaters of Stefan Avalos and Lance Wesley’s $900 movie “The Last Broadcast,” an all-digitally shot project which was completely post-produced on a home desktop PC. The project has never been transferred to 35mm film and was released theatrically in digital form directly by satellite by Wavelength Releasing, by means of receiving dishes installed at specially equipped theaters with digital projection systems. This event was made possible through the collaborative efforts of Wavelength, Cyberstar -- A Loral Company, Texas Instruments, Cinemaccanica (France), and Digital Projection Incorporated.

Here’s how the process worked: “The Last Broadcast” was digitally shot and mastered, then sent to Cyberstar  in Mountain View, California, for encoding, testing for digital image and sound quality, and then stored on Cyberstar’s servers. Cyberstar’s transponder dishes then transmitted the movie to a satellite in fixed orbit 22,300 miles above the Earth. The satellite then amplified the signal and sent it back to each theater’s receiving dish where the movie (in pure digital information form) was then sent electronically to the theater’s computer server. There it was transferred to Digital Projection’s digital projector system, which incorporated Texas Instrument’s Digital Mirror Device (which includes a system of 700,000 independent mirror surfaces, none wider than a human hair), which can enhance the quality of the picture image to levels never before seen in conventional projection systems.  At a per screen average of approximately $5,000 per week per screen, “The Last Broadcast” while in theatrical release performed favorably opposite “Happiness”, its main indie competition in the marketplace at that time.

Following the lead of “The Last Broadcast,” June 18, 1999 saw George Lucas release his 95% digitally mastered “Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace” theatrically on four digital screens in the United States, marking the first time a major studio released a film digitally. Unique to distributor Twentieth Century Fox and Lucasfilm’s strategy was the fact that the Star Wars release was deliberately designed for two different and competing projection systems, one by the Texas Instruments group and the other by the JVC / Hughes digital projection system.  Variety Chief critic Todd McCarthy recently reported on two digital projection systems and concluded that the Texas Instrument system seemed more suited to high tech productions like “Star Wars” while the JVC / Hughes system was particularly effective with costumes, and skin tones in more low tech productions like “An Ideal Husband” which was released by Miramax and was also playing digitally this summer at the Sunset 5 Theatres in Hollywood. On July 30, 1999 Disney joined the digital fold by exhibiting its animated feature “Tarzan” on digital projection systems at three theater complexes: the AMC Pleasure Island multiplex at WaltDisney World in Florida, AMC’s Media Center North in Burbank, California and the Edwards Spectrum Complex in Irvine, California. It goes without saying that both Texas Instruments and JVC/Hughes hope to dominate the digital projection field in the coming years. Adding fuel to an already competitive bonfire, Lucas has announced that his next “Star Wars” picture will be produced 100% digitally (thereby making future digital exhibition all the more enticing for distributor, producer, and exhibitor alike).

DIGITAL PRODUCTION

Maverick producer / director Richard Martini (“You Can’t Hurry Love”, “Cannes Man”) was seen all over the Croissette at Cannes this year hawking his just completed $15,000.00 (including all equipment) digital movie “Camera” fresh with a feature article on his film in USA Today’s Tech Extra section.  Other announced digital projects from established directors -- most from the Sundance generation -- include the new films by Tom Noonan (“The Wife,” “What Happened Was...”), Jon Jost (“All the Vermeers in New York”), Todd Verow (“Frisk”), Miguel Arteta (“Star Maps”), Jonathan Nossiter (“Sunday”), Gary Winnick (“Sweet Nothing,” “The Tic Code”), and moviemaking’s current enfant terrible Harmony Korine (“Gummo”) who announced that his next project, “Julian” will be a shocking all-digital picture set in a school for the blind. With these indie directors and George Lucas (who will be using a $500,000 Sony/Panavision camera to digitally capture “Episode II”) leading the way, there is little doubt that this group be recognized as true groundbreakers of a new era for cinema, one already quite seriously compared to with 1927’s arrival of sound. As for the major studios eventual full-bore participation in this revolution, the question is no longer if, but when.

DIGITAL FINANCING/DISTRIBUTION

With new digital film projects popping up almost as quickly as websites, it is not surprising that financing and distribution entities supporting digital films are not far behind. Already well-established as a leader in independent financing and distribution, Ted Hope, James Schamus and David Linde’s Good Machine is financing the fourth independently made DOGMA 95 project     ( the ‘manifesto’ of guidelines which dictated the means of production on “The Idiots” and “The Celebration”) from the group led by Von Trier, to be directed by Danish commercial director Kristian Levering, and co-written by Anders Thomas Jennsen, who won an Academy Award for his dramatic short “Election.”

The Independent Film Channel has created a digital affiliate of founder Peter Broderick’s Next Wave Films (website: www.nextwavefilms.com) in an endeavor known as Agenda 2000 to finance and distribute digital productions with an eye toward theatrical release, but with no less than a guaranteed cable release to the approximately 13 million households that subscribe to IFC and its companion arts channel, Bravo. Independently of Agenda 2000, IFC’s president, Jonathan Sehring and indie attorney/producer John Sloss and his client Gary Winnick have announced a 10 picture digital slate, budgeted at an average of $100,000 per film, to be financed 100% by IFC and executive produced by Winnick and Sloss.

Former Independent Feature Film Market  (IFFM) director Sharon Sklar assembled a group of investors under the banner of Blow Up Pictures (www.blowuppictures.com) to produce and distribute digital projects. Blow Up has already announced the financing of its first three projects including Miguel Artera’s “Chuck and Buck,” Alan Wade’s “The Pornographer,” and Scott Saunder’s  “Lyrical Deviance.” The budgets of these projects will reportedly range from $50,000.00 to $1,000,000.00.

Digital world wide web distribution companies are also springing up at a stunning rate, from the digitally transmitted pay-per-view cartoons at “Ren & Stimpy” creator John Kricfalusi’s Internet Cartoon Network (www.spumco.com), to the “mini-movies” available at www.atomfilms.com (designed to be short enough so that wired office workers can catch them on coffee breaks) to the planned “Digital Multiplex” which will sell pay per view downloads of second run movies as an offshoot of the online game Hollywood Stock Exchange (www.hsx.com).

Of course, the convergence of digital audio and video have also allowed bootleggers to sell illegal digital copies of such films as “The Matrix” with the ease and anonymity that only the web provides.  Scott Sanders, President and CEO of SIGHTSOUND.COM, an outfit seeking to become to the world’s largest on-line movie downloading store, and which reportedly has 4.5 million viewers principally on college campuses, was the first to release a mini-major’s first-run thatrical motion picture (“PI”) in the pay per view window on line, and claims to have solved the bootlegging issues with proprietary encryption technology which limits the days and numbers of plays depending on the fee paid for the download and requires the bootlegger to go back to the SIGHTSOUND.COM website to relicense the movie before it can be replayed.  SIGHTSOUND expects to announce a major studio exhibition deal this summer, but nevertheless actively encourages and seeks out indies to release their films on its website as well.

One indie producer planning to test the waters with SIGHTSOUND is David Secter, whose movie “CyberDorm” is an offbeat campus comedy about the webcasting phenomenon. “The subject and setting make it a good choice for college broadband distribution,” notes Secter, “but with no star names we will be relying on compelling key art and a provocative trailer to drive downloads. We also plan to develop on-campus promotions with SIGHTSOUND’s team of campus reps. Hopefully, some of those who see the movie on the net will will be tempted to buy the video or DVD from our website.” Although “CyberDorm” was shot on 35mm film, Secter is bullish on digital production and recently bought a Canon XL1 (he plans to shoot future movies on mini DV). Secter  believes that “the indie film festivals should offer large screen video projection and let producers save the cost of blow-up until/if/when they secure theatrical distribution. Otherwise, moviemakers are better off putting that money into promoting their movies on the web, on video, and on television.” By sidestepping theatrical exploitation and releasing in first run on the web, digital entrepenuers may be on to a new business model for the entire industry; that is, using an innovative web premiere to drive direct video sales and perhaps T.V. sales, in almost the same way theatrical releases in the eighties and early nineties were used to move VHS units off the video store shelves and promote awareness to generate higher T.V. license fees.

As for some of the other the sites making their mark in the direct-to-web cinema game, Atomicfilms.com (not to be confused with atomfilms.com) and Ifilm.com are also among those who appear to be interested in actively acquiring films from producers for exclusive Internet runs. Websites like these particularly provide the opportunity for short filmmakers to expose their work to large audiences and ultimately develop future opportunities to make long form projects  if they so desire. Conversely, these digital sites may indeed provide new models for digital storytelling in a shorter than usual format.

Based on the numerous examples noted above, clearly the digital movie making age is upon us. We are not talking about future technology here. We are talking about the here and now. Faced with the decision on whether or not to shoot an independent project on digital, here are some of the factors and issues the aspiring digital auteur should consider:

CREATIVE ISSUES

The filmmakers who have plunged in to make their films on digital have largely raved about the new creative flexibility that purely electronic production allows. Because of the tremendous cost savings both during production and in post, filmmakers are not burdened in satisfying the bottom line needs of the studios, banks, insurers, completion guarantors, distributors, and foreign sales companies: with less cash at stake, a filmmaker can take the kinds of risks that are simply impossible on even a $1 or $2 million film. Movies have been made on digital for the mind-blowingly low sum of $900.00 (“The Last Broadcast”) and most digital projects have been completed for well under $100,000.00.  Without the suits, studio executives, bankers, and even a legion of meddling private investors looking over their shoulders, filmmakers are free to do unheard of things like actually make and finance movies without third party financiers and investors and retain true final cut of their projects, create new structural paradigms with which to tell their stories (like allowing the actors to shoot the film themselves), shoot at ratios of 30:1 as opposed to 5:1, as indie filmmakers are often required to do, shoot movies in the spirit of the DOGMA 95 filmmakers, using natural light, 100% hand-held camera work (which allows the line between actors and directors of photography blur as in Artisan’s “The Blair Witch Project” -- see sidebar), shoot vastly more close-ups than your average picture, complete post-production largely at home at an unhurried pace as opposed to at an expensive rental facility where time literally is money (or worse, having to wait to use off-hours and late night shift and weekend editing and post-production services when the equipment is usually down), and evoke an unprecedented visual intimacy with the performers (as digital filmmaking makes the one-person or three-person crew with little or no light or equipment completely feasible).

Actor-Director Jean-Marc Barr -- a performer in such Von Trier films as “Zentropa” and “Breaking the Waves,” who recently completed directing all-digital movie and spoke on a panel sponsored by Variety at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival, enthusiastically described his experience as literally being part of the audience as he shot: he participated in the movie as an actor; the entire cast and crew consisted of seven people, and naturally, all of them blended into the production as props. Barre “held his camera as a little bird,” throughout the production, which allowed the director a closeness and intimacy with his cast that he never would have had, had he shot the picture within the relatively rigid constraints of traditional celluloid.

In the digital arena, a director can view rushes instantaneously in color on a relatively inexpensive color video monitor. If the director and actors don’t like the work or simply want to make it better, they can, without fear of economic reprisals, shoot again on the spot, cutting short the delays that waiting for the traditional development of dailies can bring. Other production problems and political issues can also sometimes be solved through the use of digital production. Paul Wagner, the director of the multiple festival award-winning drama “Windhorse,” stealthily shot his movie, which features rare panoramic vistas and intimate undercover scenes, under the noses of the Chinese authorities that have currently occupied Tibet and banned all Western artists from filming or photographing there. Wagner posed as a tourist and shot his footage with consumer-grade camcorders. While Wagner’s ingenuity earned him international acclaim, his efforts also resulted in his being banned from Tibet by the Chinese government (luckily, the ban was issued after completion of principal photography).

Director Harmony Korine, whose all-film “Gummo”  richoched between drama, spectacle and naked reality, pushes himself even further with his latest work, the 100% digital “Julian.” Korine and cinematographer Anthony Dodd Mantle reportedly used nine different types of cutting edge electronic cameras including spy-size and surveillance cameras affixed to, among other things, eyeglasses and clothing, in order to capture actors improvising scenes in public places working off of Korine’s original treatment for the film, which is scheduled to be released later this year by Cary Woods’ Independent Pictures.

SOME DISADVANTAGES

There’s no question that digital production can help solve a number of creative and production problems, but it would be irresponsible to extol the virtues of digital production without mentioning some of the disadvantages. Clearly the most glaring drawback that filmmakers will have to deal with in the digital era is the fact that, upon completion of the movie, a filmmaker is left not with a 35mm print, but instead, raw digital information -- seemingly limiting the places the film can be shown to Video, TV, the Internet, and the currently rare digitally-outfitted auditorium. While, in this transitional time, most film festivals, distributors, and exhibitors are beginning to shed their long entrenched prejudices against video and electronic projection systems, the widespread availability of  these systems at festival venues seems to be a matter of only time; one or two years at the most, some say.

John Cooper, Senior Programmer of the Sundance Film Festival, recently told me that Sundance is exploring all possibilities to expand the video and digital screening facilities in anticipation of the onslaught of digital movies that will be submitted for competition this year. Qualcom Communications, of cellular telephone fame, in conjunction with Hughes Electronics and JVC has invested millions in the development of a digital projection system in anticipation of the huge demand for the retrofitting of 100,000 theaters to accommodate the digital age of electronic cinema. While these systems currently cost in the $100,000 range, as in most open technology markets, the costs are expected to decrease rapidly. Of course, industry leaders like George Lucas will certainly push the exhibition community to fall in line as early as possible. The debate is on-going about who will actually pay for the cost of retrofitting.

As for the short term, however, it is more than likely that filmmakers will have to transfer their digital movies to a 35mm print and responsible filmmakers should budget for such a transfer. Depending on the transfer house and the processed used, costs can run somewhere between $35,000 to $70,000 to complete the transfer from digital to film. (A discussion about the various transfer labs will follow.)

Since most digital moviemakers choose to buy their own equipment (which tends to be fragile), another potential disadvantage to the digital route is that producers aren’t simply able to call an equipment rental facility demanding a replacement to be delivered immediately; further, repairing even consumer-grade digital equipment on the set is no filmmaker’s idea of a picnic. As such, directors and producers in the digital sector advise purchasing a backup equipment package in case these kinds of problems arise.

Filmmakers definitely need to make decisions about the format they shoot in as early as possible. The two available formats  are NTSC, which is traditionally the American standard for electronic shooting (most TV news broadcasts in the US are on this format) and PAL, which is traditionally the European standard. NTSC has 525 lines of vertical resolution and runs at 30 frames per second, while PAL has 625 lines of vertical resolution and runs at 25 frames per second. Since PAL provides a superior resolution, and is so close to film playing at 24 frames per second, PAL can be transferred to film at a 1:1 ratio or literally frame by frame with a slowdown that is not perceptible by the human eye.  While the sound may require some tweaking in the post production process, the conventional wisdom is that with the lower resolution, and the visually perceptible 6 frame per second difference of the NTSC format, the PAL format is far superior to NTSC for digital filmmaking.  The problem for American movie makers is that PAL post production and transfer equipment is not currently widely available in the U.S. and the transfer process in the immediate future will likely have to be done in Europe.  Astute digital entrepreneurs however, are making the decision to purchase PAL cameas and PAL computer equipment and editing systems to be used for rental when not being used on their own productions in anticipation of the high demand for digital movie making in PAL.

Although not a disadvantage per se, another issue that digital moviemakers need to be concerned about when making their electronic movies include the tendency to simply shoot too much footage because it is so inexpensive.  The filmmaker must keep in mind that storage facility in the computer will be an issue and excessive footage may require purchasing extra expensive computer storage capacity, not to mention extra time and effort in the editing process it takes to review, choose, and combine the best possible footage.  Other issues that digital movie makers have concerns about include hot skies, black and white costumes or backgrounds, excessive stripes and fine lines, all of which may not capture as well on digital.  Experienced digital cinematographers suggest under exposure rather than over exposure.  Finally, since digital sound equipment is so precise, digital moviemakers must be vigilant about sound issues because problems with sound cannot be as readily corrected and are audible to the audience.

While consumer cameras costing as little as $1,000 are an attractive choice price-wise and are available in a wide variety, their picture quality is sometimes questionable, especially when bumped up to 35mm, where excessive stripes and fine lines in the picture can expose the format’s limitations in capturing subtle and detailed visuals.

CAMERA EQUIPMENT

Once filmmakers have chosen the format to shoot in, the fun really begins. Shopping for equipment can be a daunting task, but more often it is the one step in the digital process where the cutting-edge technology available to all can have a truly galvanizing effect on the artist. In today’s market, a filmmaker can outfit himself with the tools of digital production and post-production for about $10,000-$15,000, although depending on how sophisticated a director wants to get, the price tag can easily balloon to the $30,000-$40,000 range.

Excluding high-definition cameras, which are currently out of the price range of low budget filmmakers, there are 3 basic camera choices. The first is the single-chip consumer digital video camera that can be purchased at Circuit City, Best Buy, and other mass market electronics stores for $1,000-$2,000. This is the camera Thomas Vinterberg used to shoot “The Celebration,” and furnished excellent images in low light situations but provides the lowest level of overall image quality.

On the next level up are the $2,000-$4,700 3-chip more professional, but still consumer affordable digital cameras which furnish sharper image quality and can be equipped with “Fire Wire” output systems or digital video capture boards which allow directors to do most of their editing, mixing and special effects on a home computer. Bennett Miller’s “The Cruise” and Lars Von Trier’s “The Idiots” were shot on these types of 3-chip digital cameras.  The Sony VX 1000 and the Canon XL-1 appear to be the current cameras of choice according to digital movie makers in this arena.

The third level includes the professional digital video cameras which provide the best image quality available electronically but which show a substantial range and increase in price from the previous two categories discussed. Cameras costing between $4,000 and $100,000 (but not including the $500,000 Sony/Panavision prototype which will film the next “Star Wars”) are used primarily for broadcast television and major video productions and include in the category the Digital Betacam. These cameras generally do not provide the Fire Wire output capability, so editing on a home computer with this type of camera is not usually an option. While these camera systems are widely available in professional Hollywood equipment houses for rental, low budget independent filmmakers are perhaps prudent for economic reasons to purchase instead the three-chip system and perform editing on a home computer.  This method not only gives the filmmaker an unparalleled control over the logistics of post-production, but allows the filmmaker far more time to experiment with, and ultimately fine-tune, his vision of the finished product.

NON-CAMERA CONSIDERATIONS; TESTING

Distributors and film festival programmers including, in particular, Geoff Gilmore of the Sundance Film Festival, universally advise that the absolute essential production value that is found missing from most independent productions is top quality sound. Filmmakers need to make absolutely sure when organizing a digital production to provide themselves with the best sound capability affordable. Sound experts can prove to be valuable consultants in this quarter, and can provide especially good advice based on the nature of the production as to whether or not to record directly into the camera with an external mike or into a DAT recorder. For both paths, booms, high quality mikes, and audio mixers are highly advisable.

Also extremely valuable to have on the set is a color playback monitor that allows a filmmaker to view exactly what has been shot and how the color looks instantaneously. This instant access to “true” dailies (as opposed to traditional films, which employ the “video assist” for an approximate playback of the action) is one of the biggest advantages to digital filmmaking, and again allows the director to hone performances, cinematography, set design, and other elements in an immediate and unprecedented fashion.

Of course, today’s digital filmmaker needs to be highly aware of the nuances of the technology he and his D.P. are using. Accordingly, testing should play a key role in the pre-production phase to ensure that the on-set advantages of digital filmmaking work for the nature of the production and the appropriate lighting system is utilized.  This goes especially for the camera package’s ability to cope with light levels during the actual shoot and the types of lighting supplements and equipment, if any, that may be required. Shooting in actual or available light will enable a filmmaker to have the most flexibility of movements, the most set-ups per day, and the most freedom for improvisation for his performers, but obviously the story and script (night shoots will almost certainly require special lighting equipment) should call for this approach (and the camera technology should be able to beautifully capture it) before any decisions  as to lighting issues or equipment are made.

Another note on testing, in addition to extensive lighting tests in varying situations, on-set performance of the digital tools can also be enhanced by testing sound recording and synching (in the case of DAT-recorder usage) and, importantly, by testing the quality of the video to film transfer in conjunction with the transfer facility or several transfer facilities, for that matter.  This last test can be accomplished by shooting test footage that approximates the demands of the film and working with the various transfer houses to get the best finished 35mm result. When planning a high ratio shoot, it is also important to test the editing system that the production will be using. Issues of concern here include the storage capacity, computing power, and hard drive abilities for use in the cutting, mixing, special effects, and mastering processes.

THE TRANSFER

Unless a digital filmmaker is lucky enough to be accepted at a prestigious film festival that happens to have the requisite high-quality all-digital projection facilities (as Sundance, Toronto, and several others are planning to do), and thus has never had his digital movie transferred to film, or unless a distributor has acquired the movie prior to the transfer process, the filmmaker may never have to arrange for the transfer from digital to film at his own expense. In the case of “The Last Broadcast,” for instance, that particular picture is still in its original digital form. Television and video exploitation do not require a film print. Nevertheless, in order to attract a film festival or distribution deal, a film transfer must be budgeted for, if appropriate to your  digital project.

There are several different transfer processes in development, including such various forms as kinescope (which was originally developed in the first days of television), trinescope, electronic beam recorder, and the laser film recorder. Based on whether a digital movie has been shot and post-produced in NTSC or PAL, and depending on whether the transfer will be to 16mm or 35mm film, the processes for transfer differs. While a 16mm transfer is generally about half the cost of a 35mm transfer ($35,000-$70,000), if at all possible, filmmakers should seriously consider the 35mm route, simply because the transfer to the most standard projection format (35mm) adds more inherent value to the finished film than it would as a digital-to-16mm product, for which screening facilities are scarce.  Of course, it helps the moviemaker to absolutely lock in and fully negotiate the deal with the transfer house before his production begins, if only to avoid unexpected problems, surprises, and cost overruns when the time comes to actually perform the transfer.

As for labs, the leading practitioners of PAL transfers are all based in Europe, such as Swiss Effects in Switzerland, Hocus Bogus in Denmark, Colour Film Source in London, and Lukkien in the Netherlands. U.S. Based transfer houses working primarily in NTSC (although several state side labs are soon expecting delivery of PAL transfer equipment) include DuArt and Magno in New York, 4MC and Sony in Los Angeles, along with San Francisco’s Film Kraft and Film Team in New Jersey.

CONCLUSION

While some facets of the motion picture industry are clearly seeing the dawn of the digital age as a far-reaching and historical transformation of the way stories are told, at this point, the choice to shoot on a digital format clearly lends itself to certain types of stories. On the highest end, the rigorous computer effects work of a extravagant production like “Star Wars” demands a digital approach to principal photography, and in the most modest budgetary circles, the electronic camera puts cinematic storytelling techniques in the hands of filmmakers who could not have afforded to shoot anything even a few scant years ago. Yet to transform, though, is the broad middle of the business, as a major studio or mini-major financier/distributor has yet to greenlight a 100% digital live action production (excluding all-digital cartoons like “Antz” and “Toy Story”), and that day may still be 1-3 years away. While there is a digital revolution in progress, the final outcome is far from being a forgone conclusion, as the exhibitors, distributors, producers, directors, and even the writers who comprise the bulk of this $6.7 billion-per-year industry must radically alter the way they think about and do business to accommodate something that is still seen in some of the more traditional circles as simply a trend.

Nevertheless, as evidenced by the overwhelming success this year of George Lucas’s digital innovations and the makers of “The Celebration” and “The Cruise’s” digital ingeniousness, digital filmmaking has a definite upside. While critics may bemoan the death of celluloid (Roger Ebert recently accused digital projection companies of trying to trick the film-going public into paying nine dollars a head to watch two hours of what is essentially “television.”),  there is no doubt that digital filmmaking will open more artistic doors in the coming years than perhaps any new technology in the medium’s history. At the very least, any moviemaker who has a vision, a new idea, or a fresh approach to storytelling can actually capture and output his movie in a digital setting completely on his own -- for the first time free of the hassle and interference of third party financing and its inherent economic and creative constraints.  For the first time in a century, the moviemaker does not have to stop making his movie if the money people suddenly say “Stop” or “No”.  A new era of movie making has arrived.