|
Provide food and offer $50/day to your regular cast/crew, lots of people would be happy with that. Anything less and you might as well just ask them to do it for free. Most people who are serious about completing a project are gonna be on the set because they want to network and meet people, so a token "I'm paying you because I want to," builds a more professionally-minded set which is great for networking and working in general, at least in my own experience. TBH, if someone's already said they want to work on your project and you haven't talked numbers, then they're probably willing to do it for free or really cheap because they're either friends or desperate. Sitting where you're sitting, assuming you've got a number of people committed to this project, and just now asking this questions, means they probably will do it for copy/credit/meals and even a travel stipend would be above & beyond what they're expecting. Magic Hate Ball posted:So I made a short film, To Answer Your Question... (part one, part two). I'm not thrilled with it, but I learned a lot. It's not on the same level as most of the stuff posted in here, but it is in HD, and that makes it a better movie, right? The thing I noticed is that there is a ton of superfluous material. You had a ton of shots that I couldn't see any purpose at all for. This dude sitting at the computer making a drink, then getting up and walking to the exercise bike and getting on it and pedaling and drinking... why? You could do that shot in a second, dude pouring into a cup, then sitting on the bike and taking a sip, done. I understand that the pan is a cool thing to do, but that doesn't mean it needs to be done. The most important thing I took out of my time at school was "every shot should tell a story." You had a shot of them pulling into the parking space... what for? People know that you have to park a car if you want to get out of it, you can show them getting out of a parked car and finish the same story in less than half the time. I understand that a lot of people normally find themselves in the position of writing, directing and filming when they want to make sure it gets finished, but the main problem with trying to wear too many hats is that, as you acknowledged, your attention gets spread too thin. You can't account for the change in f-stop if you're not paying attention to the light tones in the shot because you're *also* directing them. Maybe if you're shooting in a lit studio with a dedicated cameraman you can afford to be director AND DP, but there's good reason that you hire different people to run those roles instead of trying to do it all yourself. bassguitarhero fucked around with this message at 23:53 on May 24, 2010 |
#
?
May 24, 2010 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
This is a short I wrote, directed, composited and edited last year. It was set up on a saturday, shot on a sunday and I spent a few months in my spare time working on it. I'm aware the actress has a bit of an accent, but I don't mind it. What kind of location do you think we shot this in?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 10:42
|
|
|
Sagacity posted:This is a short I wrote, directed, composited and edited last year. It was set up on a saturday, shot on a sunday and I spent a few months in my spare time working on it. I'm aware the actress has a bit of an accent, but I don't mind it. I like the concept, and it's well acted but there are a couple things that kill it for me. 1. The music. loving hell. Get rid of it. Do literally anything else. Your pacing was fine, you do not need to fill the gaps with an amateurish rehash of the Ghostbusters score. 2. You lost her eyes. Noir is fine, but you need to keep something reflected in the eyes or people seem dead. This is especially important with long monologues like this one. Next time get an obie or something on camera to spark them up a little. You also clearly needed fill on the closeup, but I can't tell if that was a style choice or a mistake. 3. Was the fact that her lover is a woman supposed to be a shocking twist or something? If so, you should be aware that this is the year 2010, and the fact that lesbians exist is generally not considered a revelation.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
Thanks for your critique!Dr. Fishopolis posted:I like the concept, and it's well acted Dr. Fishopolis posted:1. The music. Dr. Fishopolis posted:2. You lost her eyes. ...snip... You also clearly needed fill on the closeup, but I can't tell if that was a style choice or a mistake. Dr. Fishopolis posted:3. Was the fact that her lover is a woman supposed to be a shocking twist or something? Sagacity fucked around with this message at 23:32 on May 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
I response to the film school question: It really depends what you want to do. I feel that a cinematographer MUST go to film school, it is almost like a science degree. I think there are certain fundamentals you have to learn before you can dive into theory. Sadly, in my case, I think if you want to be a writer or director you should go be a theater major and take films classes on the side. Film schools, I feel, are created for the camera. I know that sounds stupid, but look at how many student films look nice but are filled with terrible acting, storytelling, and sound. It is because all they push on you in school is how to work with the camera. Also, if you do go to film school, get to know the theater kids because they are better at acting than your friends and desperate for film work. I don't know why I am the only one in my class that figured that one out. Edit: I should also add... don't try to be a Steven Soderbergh (writer, director, DP, editor) while in school. You'll spread yourself too thin, not learn a drat thing, and burn out before the project is over. A good percentage of film-making is being able to communicate your vision to the rest of a crew, and that is a talent you should learn in school. If you want to do that later on, that is fine, but then you should write and direct your own projects (or even split that up), DP for other kids, edit for others. Focus each talent separately. I also feel the best thing you can do for you film is find a good sound guy and pay him well. York_M_Chan fucked around with this message at 23:46 on May 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 23:37
|
|
|
Sagacity posted:It was a stylistic choice. It was shot green-screen in a very cramped space so the lighting got kind of flat. This was an attempt to make it look more interesting. I'm actually quite pleased with how the DOP made it look, especially under the circumstances, but the colour correction may have gone a bit overboard (uncalibrated monitors, sigh). I definitely prefer stark shadow contrast to the usual flat greenscreen look, I think you made the right call there. The eyes are still an issue though. Keep a 25w bare bulb in a clip lamp in your kit, and stick it on the camera rig. Cheap, easy fix.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
York_M_Chan posted:Sadly, in my case, I think if you want to be a writer or director you should go be a theater major and take films classes on the side. Film schools, I feel, are created for the camera. I know that sounds stupid, but look at how many student films look nice but are filled with terrible acting, storytelling, and sound. It is because all they push on you in school is how to work with the camera. You need to learn all the crap on your way up, but once you land your first directing job you quickly realize all those things you've learned and perfected are actually someone else's responsibility. Your AD knows more about what's going on on set than you. It is now your job to focus on the story and the actors - the things you maybe weren't as concerned with in the past because you never had the time/luxury. It is ironic.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 03:42
|
|
|
infiniteseal posted:Lowel Omni lights, or a pro light w/ stand if you don't already have a stand, that'll give you enough light for one face but just barely. A 500w omni will give you some more breathing room, or if you want to light up the whole room you can get a 1000w tota but that's not spotable, you could put a frame on it and some diffusion to make it a broad soft light but you won't be able to spot it. http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360257868215&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_5527wt_870 Would that be enough Enufff?! SquareDog posted:If your video camera is fast enough, make your own china balls. It's easy, cheap and for the price, looks good. I know you live in Canada so I can't recommend where to go but look for china balls at an interior/exterior decor store. Then go to the hardware store and buy a standard light socket that can plug directly into a power socket. Then buy an extension cable and some high wattage bulbs and you're in business. It's not the best but it would only cost $20 per light. Sup, SquareDog! What do you mean if my camera is fast enough? Would home depot have China balls? This sounds like a nice cheap fix to soften up the light. I want to replace the flood lights I got going. I tried to film myself talking into the camera in front of the green screen with 4 huge halogen lights and my face started to melt off.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
Sagacity posted:. I'm actually quite pleased with how the DOP made it look, especially under the circumstances, but the colour correction may have gone a bit overboard (uncalibrated monitors, sigh). 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
Housh posted:http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360257868215&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_5527wt_870 Personally I wouldn't go with them, they're pretty no-name and I get the feeling those are a lot cheaper in construction than something I'd want. At least, as far as ordering over the internet goes, I'd stick with brand names I recognise and have worked with before.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 06:45
|
|
|
Do not cheap out on softboxes. They will burn the gently caress down. Stick to Chimera, Lastolite, Westcott or Lowel. Make god drat sure they're meant for continuous light, not strobes.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 06:53
|
|
|
Housh posted:http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360257868215&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_5527wt_870 Hey, yeah don't buy cheap knock off lights, they will be flimsy, won't work right and could become a safety hazard. Camera "fastness" is in reference to how well it "see's" light. The faster it is, the less light it needs to capture image. I think most camcorders are fast enough. For the China lights you can get all the hardware at the hardware store, but for the paper china balls themselves you will likely need to look at a Canadian equivalent to Pier 1 Imports of Cost Plus World Market, they're interior/exterior decoration stores.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 07:28
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:Ha! I know your DP quite well and have worked with him before! Say hi from me
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 08:48
|
|
|
Sagacity posted:Okay, I will. Will using the name 'Steadiman' ring any bells, though?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 12:17
|
|
|
Ok, I'll stay away from the cheap junk.SquareDog posted:For the China lights you can get all the hardware at the hardware store, but for the paper china balls themselves you will likely need to look at a Canadian equivalent to Pier 1 Imports of Cost Plus World Market, they're interior/exterior decoration stores. I have two Pier 1 Imports near by so I'll look for the China Lights. Are you sure hardware stores carry lights strong enough? Or do you recommend a light wattage? I think someone mentioned 500watt (assuming total output) I'm hoping to use CFL lights. I'll start with the china light setup since Henry's softboxen were way out of my price range. I have $200 set aside for a light.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 14:05
|
|
|
just build one and test it first before you buy more.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 16:04
|
|
|
Housh posted:Ok, I'll stay away from the cheap junk. the big lights give you more wattage because generally you're shaping the hell out of the light with black wrap and gels and diffusion and masks and flags, etc; so if you're in a pinch, less light, like 60w bulbs will work, they're just gonna need to be much closer to your subject and are flimsier and harder to control. Big lights are pretty cheap when you think about it. They need to be powerful, dependable, and easy to work with. That's why you get heavy duty bodies, heavy duty bulbs, and housing with barn doors and the like. When you're on a set, you can't afford to have a light NOT work, so that's a pretty good deal for a couple hundred bucks. You'll need tp place the china balls outside of the frame and try to make sure they're not just throwing light EVERYWHERE. They're great for a soft touch on faces but that won't look good if everything around the face is brightly lit, too. They'll be more work to set up and get right than regular lights, but they're cheap so that's pretty much it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
Cut up some black T-shirts and get some clothespins. You can control china balls pretty well by flagging them off.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Cut up some black T-shirts and get some clothespins. You can control china balls pretty well by flagging them off. Or just order a few yards of duvetyne: http://www.filmtools.com/du60exb.html Housh: most home improvement stores have practical bulbs maxing out at 150W (effective or actual, be they CFL or incandescent). If you want 250W or 500W bulbs, order them from photography supply stores and get photofloods. Also, make note of the socket's maximum wattage. As for soft boxes: just don't. They're all just fire hazards. China balls are great for small rooms, closeups, or giving more light/throw to a practical light motivating your scene. They're not strong enough to act as a space light or large area fill, so don't bother. Some manufacturers have perfected the china ball design for larger areas (gem balls, pancake lights, etc), but you're not using those.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
Just wanted to get a little feedback on this. I've been shooting some short scenes for my first feature project, trying to create a trailer and a good 30 minute portion of the film to show to potential producers. Last fall I created a short demo of stuff I shot last summer when I was first getting acquainted with the actor I'm working with and it's basically just to show the mood/setting/look of the film, not to show story or character just yet. I've shot a ton since then and will be editing together more of a teaser trailer type thing soon. I'm shooting primarily on my Lumix GH1 right now, but will be taking out better equipment for the bigger sequences. Let me know what you think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fWWI_NIsAI The beginning part of it is sort of a concept for what the actual opening titles may look like. Also, I'd like to know if anyone recognizes any of the music? (Other than the stupid reggaeton playing on the radio in the thrift store. That needs to get replaced.) Gossamer fucked around with this message at 22:00 on May 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
Gossamer posted:Just wanted to get a little feedback on this. I've been shooting some short scenes for my first feature project, trying to create a trailer and a good 30 minute portion of the film to show to potential producers. The opening titles definitely establish a nice mood and tone. I'd suggest making the credits stand out more against the shots, as they're pretty small and the white of the letters sometimes blended with the white on the building they were on. It's also usually a nice touch if you can angle the credits to match the angle and perspective of the buildings they're on. You sort of did this with the "Husk" title at the end. (Maybe you're planning this and just didn't spend the time to implement it in this demo.) The first shot after the opening credits is a little too sharp of an angle, and the fast pull out you do on the taxi is jarring. It seems out of step with how you shot all the other scenes. The shot immediately after, where the bus pulls in the way, seems much better angled while still achieving the same sort of melancholy feel as the rest of the piece. Everything after that with the actor is well focused and composed. You found some good locations to juxtapose the appearance of him in his nice-ish suit against. Seems like you have a good handle on the tone you want throughout the work, and the shots you got, mixed with the ambient hollow, wind sound relay it well (reminds me of the sound from the "Footage Not Found" gag in Arrested Development). It doesn't look like you used anything in addition to natural/regular lighting where you filmed, and that definitely lends itself to constructing that tone. I don't know where the music is from. It worked pretty well for me except for when the sax kicks in during the briefcase scene. That felt a bit heavy-handed, or maybe just dated(?). Hope that helps at all.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
Gossamer posted:Just wanted to get a little feedback on this. I've been shooting some short scenes for my first feature project, trying to create a trailer and a good 30 minute portion of the film to show to potential producers. You're being way too pretentious. Knock it off and go make a bunch of short films. Seriously, a feature is a HUGE undertaking. You don't have a clue how you're proceeding, you're going to make a huge mess for yourself and probably wind up giving up after shooting for way too long and wasting a bunch of people's time. Make a bunch of shorts until you know exactly how you want to proceed, then have another look at it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
ynotony posted:This might be a tall order, but has anyone seen 5D film out? Or better yet 5D cut with Red film out? We've got two Reds and 2nd Red will live with 2nd unit when it is not needed, but our schedule was just cut by 5 days and a back up would be nice to have just in case. Might be leaning on 2nd unit even more than we originally thought. Our DP is doing her own tests for this because we couldn't find any good resources. We can't afford a film out test obviously, but we'll at least do a 2k/4k projection test. I'm very interested to see what happens and I'll post the results if I'm allowed to.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
ynotony posted:Our DP is doing her own tests for this because we couldn't find any good resources. We can't afford a film out test obviously, but we'll at least do a 2k/4k projection test. I'm very interested to see what happens and I'll post the results if I'm allowed to. I just worked on a few days of documentary reenactments, and they're going to film out. I'll let you know when it's available, and I'll post my impressions. Should be out by August.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
infiniteseal posted:You're being way too pretentious. Knock it off and go make a bunch of short films. Could you be more specific? His post is pretentious? His collection of shots is pretentious? quote:Seriously, a feature is a HUGE undertaking. You don't have a clue how you're proceeding, you're going to make a huge mess for yourself and probably wind up giving up after shooting for way too long and wasting a bunch of people's time. This is all evident to you by looking at that youtube video? quote:Make a bunch of shorts until you know exactly how you want to proceed, then have another look at it. How do you know he hasn't made a bunch of short films already? Gossamer, I thought that collection of shots was well composed and set a definite style. The shots didn't really make much sense as a narrative, but I assume they weren't supposed to. So I'd say full speed ahead!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 20:28
|
|
|
Gossamer posted:Just wanted to get a little feedback on this. I've been shooting some short scenes for my first feature project, trying to create a trailer and a good 30 minute portion of the film to show to potential producers. I'm not sure what kind of feedback you're looking for. It's 5 minutes of MOS B-roll. It's very attractive B-roll, but if I were a potential investor I'd need a hell of a lot more to go on.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
Picking up the new panasonic AG-3DA1 3d on sunday for four days o' testing. Fun, fun. I'm hoping I can force myself through this "how to make 3d movies" book without my eyes crossing and my brain shutting down. Fun fact: The camera we're getting belongs to the factory, not to Panasonic.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
My last two days at work consisted of the rig pictured below. Basically, 20' grid overhead, they wanted six 2k's mounted to the grid shooting down, and a 20'x20' frame of silk mounted to the grid. 4' pieces of speed rail descend down from the grid via swivel cheeseboros, mount to the 20' frame at each corner. We had 4 guys doing it, but we could have done it with only 2 if needed. They rented a stage with a green screen cyc that came with lights and gear, so there wasn't an opportunity to suggest space lights. Make lemons... EDIT: I'm convinced the goddamn image upload function loving hates me. Here's the image hosted elsewhere: 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2010 09:30
|
|
|
Just finished the first day with the 3DA1 and so far it is incredibly easy to shoot 3d. I mean ridiculously easy. Mess with the convergence and shoot. That's about it. It's as easy to cart around as a 200. Run and gun with 3d. We've been laughing our asses off at the image on the screen because we can't believe we're able to do this stuff. Granted we're 3d newbies, but I guess that's the point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 21:04
|
|
|
Have any of you ever worked with anyone who was solely a Colorist/Footage Grader/Digital Intermediary? What were your experiences with them like? I'm finally getting around to learning Apple Color through the Lynda tutorials, and so far it's been really fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
The Affair posted:Have any of you ever worked with anyone who was solely a Colorist/Footage Grader/Digital Intermediary? What were your experiences with them like? I'd love to just do color someday. Last month I got to spend a few days with a colorist over at Technicolor for the concert DVD I'm working on. He graded it using DaVinci Resolve and was great to watch work. I've had good luck with Color, but it's amazing how much control surfaces and more mature software move the process along. Something as simple as having the option to grab a look from the previous clip, or one or two back, really saved us time. In Color you'd just be cutting and pasting. We chatted about looks for a few minutes and then he took off going shot to shot. I threw in some input now and again but it was mostly just him applying what we had talked about to each scene. He really knew color theory and how to use run Resolve. He even helped us out with some workflow questions I had about the DPX sequence we were getting back. Smart guy, you could tell he knew as much about editorial work as color. I can't wait to get my hands on Resolve now that it's available without hardware for OS X. I'd have to pickup a lot of color work to justify a simple control surface, but it would be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd8TONyiABE Here's a project, or rather a trailer for the project (I like the trailer more than the finished deal). I DP'd it on the RED one. we had 3 issues which you can pick up on pretty easily. 1. Our AC unkowingly white balanced occasionally and hosed the color temps up. Not that bad right, because we're shooting in RAW? 2. Our DIT logged and transferred without correcting the hosed color temps. 3. Our Colorist boned us in the end. All of these problems are fixable and could have been prevented with better communication, but the director is being a tool and doesn't want to bother fixing stuff; but rather move on to other things. Andraste fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jun 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
Andraste posted:we had 2 issues which you can pick up on pretty easily. 1. The AC white balanced occasionally to what? What color temp did you want to be shooting at? Who was operating, and why didn't they notice the color temp changing? 2. Why not just fix the colors and re-export it? You can maintain the same timeline, just point the clips to the new media instead of the old media. Everything corrects itself. Doesn't require any more effort. 3. How did your colorist bone you in the end? You're the DP (aren't you?), so shouldn't you be involved in the coloring process? I know nothing about your shoot, or what the real problems were. However, I can say that perhaps your director is being a "tool" because the DP he hired is blaming everyone he hired to get the job done? If I was directing, and my DP told me, "sorry your vision got hosed up, the AC hosed everything up on set, and the DIT hosed things up in post, and that goddamn colorist hosed us hard," I'd probably just want to give up and "move on to other things" too. Probably without that DP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 00:11
|
|
|
Nobody seems to be too into 3d and all but after 3 days of shooting with the Panny camera, I can tell you this. It seriously fucks with your balance. I actually felt like I hurt something in my brain yesterday when changing the convergence. I was watching on the monitor while I did it and I won't be doing that again. When you're shooting you get the good and the bad at the same time and it's always changing unlike in a finished production. It seriously causes brain grief.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:1. The AC white balanced occasionally to what? What color temp did you want to be shooting at? Who was operating, and why didn't they notice the color temp changing? This was the first thing I wondered too. It looks like he white balanced to an errant orange rolling across the set. How do you fail to notice that on the monitor? The lesson to be learned here is not "the AC hosed us over" or "the DIT hosed us over" or "the colorist hosed us over". Those people are there for the day to do their jobs and go home. The responsibility ultimately lies with the department head. In this case, the DP. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Jun 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 04:00
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:I just worked on a few days of documentary reenactments, and they're going to film out. I'll let you know when it's available, and I'll post my impressions. Should be out by August. Our film will already be in post by August, but I'd still like to hear your thoughts. We're doing a 2K projection test in a theater tomorrow, and we moved some cash around for a film out sometime next week, so I'll relay the thoughts of our DP and my less qualified thoughts as 2nd unit director.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 04:01
|
|
|
Well, you guys are great at making things up as if you had any idea how this set was ran and why things happened. I was hoping I could get feedback on the project excluding comments about the color; that's only one element of the film. You don't have to tell me how to fix the problems, I'm aware of the how. This was a student film, I was given a shot list 2 days before the project, never saw a couple of the locations until the day we shot. The director hired me on as DP, then came to me and told me who my crew was, I like an idiot didn't back out immediately because it was going to be my first DP project, and didn't want to give it up. To say the director's vision got hosed is to assume he expressed one at all, he left it all up to me; I told him I was going to go for a gritty feel and blue hue to match the theme of his movie. On our RED of the two buttons on the left side of the body, 1 punches in, and 2 auto WB. When you are shooting in RAW, you don't see any difference on the monitor, no matter what you are balanced to. And it was the CAM OPs first time using the red, he did not notice the color change each time in the EVF. it got changed on accident and fixed several times but many shots were shot at the wrong temp. I went out of town to Northern California when the project went into color, I saw it for the first time during the last day of class. I was approached by the colorist after class asking for feed back, he informed me that the director gave him the project and asked him to color it without any direction at all. I asked the director if he could sit down with the colorist and myself and go through the project together, his response: "Ya... I don't think that's going to be possible", that's all he said. So many paragraphs later, and I've basically summed up that it was a student project with many faults; I didn't even get into casting and location scouting. What I plan on doing is tracking down the RAW files and cutting a few segments together for my reel. Andraste fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Jun 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 09:45
|
|
|
Hey Andraste, we're not going "Good job loving up on that color, dickwad.", it just seems like you're a bit more hostile towards the other people on the project than you should be. Some of them did say "obviously, we don't know what happened until you tell us" but when you only go (for instance)Andraste posted:
Anyway, I'm just some dude who paid too much for film school, so I can sit here and tell you I didn't really notice the color all that much. I was actually kind of taken into the story, I dug the concept, and the acting certainly could have been worse. The only thing I thought was weird was the final shot. I assumed that what happened was when she called him, she knew someone was pulling a gun, called him to warn him blahblah. But then the sound effect of the gun makes it seem like it's 10 feet down the parking garage rather than sounding like it came through the phone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 11:11
|
|
|
Andraste posted:....! This sort of poo poo happens and how you deal with it as a DP is what makes you a good or bad person to work with. Right now you're not a good person to work with in my eyes, not because your work sucks but because you apparently can't keep control of your department and get very defensive when called on it. That, to me, means I would probably be arguing with you on set every day. Not interested! Being a DP Is as much a political function as it is a creative function so dealing with situations like this is a very large part of your job and you did not do that part of the job well, the reasons are not as important as your reactions. It probably would've been better if you had phrased it different, and there's a lesson for the rest of your career in there too because producers don't like hearing poo poo being slung around like that either and will very likely reply in the same fashion! It makes you look very unprofessional. If your people hosed up, you should've seen it a lot earlier. Sure there are people to be blamed but you take that up with the people and in private, you don't say your crew "hosed you" to others. It's your department and you should've been in control so this all reflects on you. Honestly if you tried selling this excuse to a client I can guarantee you he would not work with you again. But the good thing that came out of this is that a valuable lesson is learned and you will never do this again! So that's good. This will never happen again on your set! And next time make sure the soft buttons on the RED don't ever affect the recorded image, only what you see in the viewfinder (like RAW or zebra or something)! That's asking for trouble. And you are certainly not the first person this has happened to. It's good that you know what went wrong and how to fix it, I hope you still get a chance to do so. Steadiman fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jun 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:Could you be more specific? His post is pretentious? His collection of shots is pretentious? the fact that he's asking EXTREMELY basic questions while throwing together a few shots tells me that he's got no idea about the level of work involved in a feature. I have no problem with the shots themselves except they were pretty boring. Nice angles, sure, but I couldn't figure out the point of any of the shots or why they were on screen for so long. But that's beside the point. In the filmmaking community in san francisco, it normally takes people a couple of years to put together a feature. That includes scheduling, getting equipment, figuring out how to pay everyone, how to pay for craft services, getting locations secured, writing & rewriting the script, fundraisers, etc etc etc. And that's before the shooting starts. Basic things like "I figure we're gonna shoot on this camera and then get another camera for some other shots" is an absolute ABSOLUTE no-no. Do they do this on big-budget features? Sure. But they also have DPs who spend ages testing different equipment and they know EXACTLY which cameras they're using and when. I'm not saying the poster couldn't make a feature and sure you can get your buddies together and go make something anytime, but the amount of work and craft that goes into a feature is ridiculously high and the casual attitude with which they posted it tells me they haven't actually thought about it anything more than a cursory notion
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 19:09
|
|