Would building an online service that allows people to mail in hd tapes, and then edit online via a flex app help? You could use AWS clusters to handle the rendering compute load.
1. Talent (although assuming you write and direct yourself, and use unknown actors, this can be brought down to under a few thousand).
2. Film stock and processing (over 50k with celluloid, but obviously digital is much cheaper).
3. Equipment (camera, dollies, lights etc.): 40k
4. Crew: 70k for a 2 week shoot with a cheap crew, including catering
5. Post production: 40-60k
This sort of money will get you a surprisingly professional looking 90 minute film. However, production costs on film are always eclipsed by marketing costs. It can cost thousands of dollars just to market a film to the distributors, no matter to consumers.
Obviously, you can make a film for much less than this, but only if you want to make a film like Clerks or In The Company Of Men (i.e. one location, shot in a weekend).
The way I figure it, the minimum number of people you need in any traditional production is essentially the cast and base operators (which could also be cast members if multi-skilled)
However if you go into 3D animation, this number can actually go down - to the point where you have a content production team around the size of a small startup.
The model I'm looking at could be described as a digital aniation studio, a "mini pixar" if you will, that uses open source software (Blender, Cinelerra) and homebrew motion capture (both facial and performance) to get performance across in a quick manner and using a significantly smaller team. I'm also looking at leveraging EC2 for rendering instead of investing in purchasing multiple servers for a render farm.
The model isn't scalable across the entire film/tv industry of course, but I figure it could work for a couple studios and this is what I'm working on trying to prove right now.
If you could tag your contributions with CC-Attribution licenses and have your name appear in the credits, that might be enough incentive for a lot of people to bring down production prices even more.
And if you're shooting a web show you don't need the high quality film because the ultimate medium is digital anyways.
To take over TV, you need to at least match the picture quality of made-for-TV movies, and probably match 1080i resolution.
Then again, if anyone has more experience in the industry please correct me.
Edit: Also, the reason for the poor quality is probably not due to the quality of the original film. I would think it's more of a compression/bandwidth issue.
I still believe in film as an art form but for a commercial production webshow it may be overkill, especially as HD cameras get better.
I think that for content to be produced for online (not just as a novelty webisode but as an actual artform) people need to start thinking outside the 22 minute content 8 minute ad format for half hour blocks of television.
For example, a standard sitcom format goes like this.
Credits
Story (teaser / cold open)
Commercial
Story
Commercial
End of Story
Commercial
Tag
Credits
It would be interesting to see some A/B testing with recutting lengths of commercials for the exact same episodes with a randomised set of people and see if the net effect of how "funny" a show is is noticeable or negligible.
(sorry, just late night stream of conciousness rambling)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_overlay
You're probably thinking of a deblocking filter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deblocking_filter_(video)
which is typically used in the decoder for the relevant video CODEC; recent video drivers do have hardware support for this, but it's not a fundamental connection. Moreover, deblocking only helps so much.