|
Steadiman posted:My friend you really need to stop being so defensive. People got hung up on those points because you brought it up without provocation and because of the way you said them, it really did look you were shifting blame all over the place and that's not pretty so you will get called on it. As DP you are ultimately responsible for what the film looks like, not your AC or your operator or your colorist. So the fact that you came out blaming these people made people a bit suspicious at your motivations. Ofcourse there were problems and it's a student film and we don't know the whole story but so what? Every set has problems, not being able to scout or pick your own crew is a common thing nowadays. That doesn't mean you should run away from a production, it just means you need to be more on your guard. If you don't know the AC or operator, watch them like a hawk at first to make sure they're doing what you want. If the color temp thing happened several times, and it seems you caught it a few times, you should've figured out there was a deeper problem and solved that(I.e. switching the soft button functions) and taken extra care to check it after each take. Fair enough, you're very right about most of what you said. I have shortcomings in the management side of things; and because of that I've taken a liking to gaffing, because when I DP I don't enjoy what I'm doing as much. If I'm ever talking to someone about film things, I'm not nearly as hostile of a person as I come off as on this board; I don't think I've ever actually vented about this project before, it feels pretty good to get it off my chest. On set when I see that the Cam op or the 1st AC isn't giving me what I want, I never make accusations, but if I correct them a couple of times and by take 5 or so they aren't able to give me what I want I stop correcting and I tend to get a little bummed out, and bottle up my frustration. there is one, long handheld shot in the short, and I knew that we were pressed for time so I told the operator rather politely that I would be taking the next shot. He said ok, then once we were set and I went to get the camera, he threw it on his shoulder and said "I want to try it". I can understand that feeling, so I said ok, but we are way behind schedule, and I will be OPing after he tries it. 8 takes later he wont give me the camera and our 1st AD makes us move on; I mean seriously, only on a student film can someone pull that poo poo. I come off as a huge dick when I try and put my foot down so I end up backing off, and just getting upset because we never even got close to getting the shot. also, that gunshot was about 20 feet away in the parking garage, it's not evident in the trailer; but that's when the handheld chase scene begins with him behind chased by henchmen.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Andraste posted:If I'm ever talking to someone about film things, I'm not nearly as hostile of a person as I come off as on this board; I don't think I've ever actually vented about this project before, it feels pretty good to get it off my chest. Hey brotha, jump in the boat. I think if most people working on set expressed their real emotions with the source(s) of their frustrations, none of us would work again. As a person who comes from a family with bad tempers, loud mouths and chronic foot-in-mouth disease, I've taken more time learning diplomacy than I did learning t/stops, foot candles and film curves. As a former student filmmaker, I also know your frustration quite well. One project, which I posted about a long time ago, scared me out of the "directing" pool for a good long time (possibly forever). Sounds like you're learning the same lesson I learned: find the crew you trust, who know their place and know their job, and build them into your "team". Find the cam op who won't get snippy when you want to grab the camera for a shot. Find the 1st AC who doesn't take offense when you humbly ask "Is the camera set to 4000 kelvin, 180 degree shutter, all that good stuff? Still at T/2.8?", even during week 6 of 7. When we DP, we know all eyes are on us, so you want the guys who do their jobs, and understand that you're just concerned with the final product, all egos aside. Egos are the worst enemy of the paycheck. Egos get people fired, never rehired, or never hired in the first place. The DP on the project that set me off told me once: "Anyone can expose the film, I'm trying to make it look good." Well, in my opinion, sure, anyone can expose the film, and a percentage of them can make it look really good... but an even smaller percentage of them do so in a way where everyone is happy to be there, crew or production. Like I said in my initial reaction, I didn't know anything about your shoot or the real problems therein. I was just concerned, since this is a cinematography thread, and as the cinematographer, you seemed to be throwing everyone under the bus. I think, given your circumstances, most people here will understand your situation and side with you. Basically: it sucks poo poo, but you learned a valuable lesson. Take it onto the next job, it will set you apart down the road. Steadiman posted: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)! EVERYONE who works with the RED TAKE NOTE of this! Turn that AWB poo poo off as soon as you get the RED on set. Personally, I'm glad many of the functions of the RED are buried in nested menus, so you can't gently caress up the color temp or shutter angle by one errant click. Personally, my button presets for RED are: 1: Focus assist. 2: False color. When I DP, I still bring out my light meter, despite the glory that is False Color. Why? Because I can pre-light a set without the camera!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 22:23
|
|
|
I'll keep yammering about 3d because hey, it's all I've got to contribute. I'm not one of those film guys. But, with all the push to shallow depth of field, 3d seems to be pushing the other way. One of the great things about the panny cam and its small sensors is depth of field. You want it in 3d. Apparently the RED 3d rigs need to ISO up to 800 in order to get usable 3d depth of field. I've got no idea if that is true or not, but that's what I've been told. It's interesting if it is true because it goes to show there is no such thing as one camera to rule them all. Lots of different cameras for lots of different uses. Has anyone here output 3d from an edit? We're working on the footage in FCP using the dashwood plugin, but I don't know about the final hop. When we export to a file how do we actually play that back on a consumer screen? I know there are 4-5 different ways to output to file, but can you play from a file? Or does it need to be authored into a 3d blu-ray or something. So many questions. After using the camera for a while I'm not convinced film is where 3d is going to be the big win. Nature docs are going to be where 3d is at. The sense of immediacy when shooting animals in 3d is staggering. That's the biggest wow I've seen to date.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:When we export to a file how do we actually play that back on a consumer screen? I know there are 4-5 different ways to output to file, but can you play from a file? Or does it need to be authored into a 3d blu-ray or something. I think you're stuck with red/cyan analygraph. So uh, that silly plugin in AE might actually have a use!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 18:07
|
|
|
infiniteseal posted: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 I see no reason why you can't film a feature with a tiny cast and crew, as long as you're realistic about your capabilities and craft your script to reflect that. I don't think you need a director + DP + cameraman + AC if you can build a script around one person wearing all those hats and choose equipment that reflects that choice. I think the notion that you need a vast crew of electricians, grips, and PAs with catering and police to cordon off entire city blocks is antiquated. You can do a lot more with a lot less these days, and while these things are (probably) necessary for big budget film-making, no-budget projects are gaining more and more ground. I'm projecting a lot here, because it's my intention to jump into this arena myself. I've already bought my 5dmk2 and Zoom H4n, and a few other odds and ends like old SLR primes. After I finish a short script I like enough to shoot, I intend to shoot it myself while another person is boom operator/audio tech. Then I'll take all the footage and color correct/edit it in Premiere CS5. And if that's a ten minute piece, there will obviously be a longer time commitment for a 90 minute piece.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
Alright.Catrel Stevens posted:I don't have any real filming experience; I just watch a lot of movies and have been lurking this thread for awhile. Hopefully you don't mind me chiming in. Thanks for chiming in. Yes I may do that and yeah I'd like to change up the font color and style a bit. Trajan is so tempting I had to try it, but I do feel like it's overused. Catrel Stevens posted: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. Thanks for comments. Yeah I see what you mean, I believe I had some tilt to it, but then there were some ugly signs that I didn't want to get in the frame, but I liked it other wise so much so I tilted somewhat more to try and crop them out. The final edit of that will change. Catrel Stevens posted: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(?). The opening track and ending track (more of just noise I guess) is music by a guy known as Lustmord. He's done a lot of music sound design http://www.lustmord.com/credits_sd_film.html. I'd love to license some of his music eventually.) The middle song, the one you talk about is actually from The Fifth Element, so yeah it's a bit dated/overblown, but there's some aspect of it I really like for the mood and I'll just be using it as temp music now. (I'm also using a lot of Vangelis' score for Bladerunner for temp tracks. I find it really is an inspiration to use amazing, big budget tracks like these to inspire an edit before you've gotten the final music, though it can create problems if the final track can't support the edit the same way. infiniteseal posted:You're being way too pretentious. Knock it off and go make a bunch of short films. I don't really know what about the demo reel or my explanation you're saying is specifically pretentious. I mean I'm trying to be humble about it guess if anything (which is maybe why you think I'm coming off as not being serious about the scope of the project?) I made a good deal of short films in and during college and I'm just sick of them. I think some people love working in the short format, and some don't, and there's just so many things you can't do in a short, and I want to do some of those things. You can't have the kind of subtlety and character development and backstory that you can in a feature. I know I can always work in private on my feature ideas while doing shorts, but I want to actually do something with other people on them instead of just writing notes and looking at locations. As far as making a mess, whatever, I'm paying the people who aren't personally invested in the project and just doing their job, like the occasional sound guy. The main actor loves the project and wants to work on it because of that, paid or not. I'm not forcing him to do anything and will definitely pay him if the funds become available. I know it seems hosed up paying the sound guy and not the main actor, but he knows if I was paying him by the day we basically wouldn't be able to do the project because the funds aren't there right now. I'm only hiring a professional sound guy when I really really need it (I'm also holding mass recording sessions for looping a lot of the dialogue, since it's cheaper and most of the time it's a waste of money to get a pro sound guy for recording a scene on a NYC street when you have loving firetrucks going by every ten seconds. I know looping is a lot of work, but I'd actually venture to say I'm pretty talented at it after having to do it on so many student films when the crap equipment died.) infiniteseal posted: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. If I'm asking what seem like basic questions, it's because I want to get a very basic initial reaction to a glimpse of the project. It's just a demo reel of small things I've shot: a test of the opening credits concept, first edits of short scenes, and some random establishing shots. Yeah, it's pretty subject compared to a synopsis or a fuckin business plan, but I think it gives a good impression of more subjective things, like the mood/setting/look of the piece, i.e. NYC can be shot a million different ways, this is the way I'm thinking of shooting it. I stated in my explanation, it's not supposed to show any plot or narrative or character development. We're not there yet, but I've shot a lot since this and those things will be more evident when, say, I put together a trailer or something. infiniteseal posted: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. I hate this idea that people have that every movie HAS to be shot all at once in this system with catering and video village and SAG actors and full funding with everyone paid, or it's not worth doing and it'd be better if you just did nothing and not waste everyone's time. I know so many people that work at the camera rental house who say they want to be writer/directors and such that have this elitist notion that unless you're shooting on 35mm or at 4K, it's never going to go anywhere and can't ever be a legitimate project and they will never make that jump that requires doing ten jobs on set at once in the freezing cold that most real directors had to go through to get where they are. If anything, that's pretty pretentious. An excerpt from the wiki on "THE FOLLOWING", Christopher Nolan's first feature: Production: Following was written, directed, filmed, and co-produced by Christopher Nolan.[2] It was filmed in London, England, on black-and-white 16mm film stock. Following was written and planned to be as inexpensive to produce as possible, but Nolan has described the production of Following as "extreme", even for a low-budget shoot.[2] With little money, limited equipment, and a cast and crew who were all in full-time employment on weekdays, the shoot took a full year to complete.[2] To conserve expensive film stock, every scene in the film was rehearsed extensively to ensure that the first or second take could be used in the final edit.[2] For the most part, Nolan filmed without professional film lighting equipment, employing only available light. He also used the homes of his friends and family as locations.[2] No, I'm not saying I'm fuckin Chris Nolan, I'm saying every director has to start this way unless they have a rich producer father or something. infiniteseal posted: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 Well, I mean it took nine months to get the script to a good place, I've compiled a huge database of photos and corresponding notes on NYC locations I've found while just living here for a year. I've put together entire wardrobes by scrounging in thrift stores during that time and collected and modified props. I've done a poo poo ton of work, sorry if it doesn't sound like I have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:I see no reason why you can't film a feature with a tiny cast and crew, as long as you're realistic about your capabilities and craft your script to reflect that. I don't think you need a director + DP + cameraman + AC if you can build a script around one person wearing all those hats and choose equipment that reflects that choice. What is your filmmaking experience so far? What are some films you enjoy watching?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 15:51
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:What is your filmmaking experience so far? None. quote:What are some films you enjoy watching? I don't think that's a very fair setup. My only point is that new technology is bridging gaps, and it now makes it _possible_ for tiny crews to do what once took an army. I'm not under any delusions that Glengarry Glen Ross was shot on an iPhone, or that The Dark Knight had two people doing all the lighting and set design. I understand that most of the movies I've enjoyed and been exposed to are the result of meticulous planning, large budgets, and armies of cast, crew, and logistics. But I also know that a lot of people in the industry feel threatened by the possibility that this new technology will make their job obsolete. You can go to the RED forums and read people who are irate because customers are coming in and renting HDSLR cameras instead of much more expensive RED packages. I just thought it was odd to tell someone that they are destined to fail because they aren't capable of employing 85+ other people in the creation of their movie. I didn't get the idea that this thread was only about commercially viable professional cinematography for medium-to-big budget projects. If I'm wrong about that, my apologies. But if I'm right, and this thread is for anyone who picks up a camera and decides to tell a story, why tread on their dreams? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
Gossamer posted:Words words words words words Every single thing you've typed says that you want to take on a big project but you still haven't seriously examined the SCOPE of such a project. Ok Christopher Nolan made a feature by having his buddies show up every weekend for a year - so did John Cassavvettes. Absolutely, it can be done. Is it likely? Hardly. It's possible you could have a bunch of very good friends who are dedicated enough to give up every weekend for an entire year to get a film done, some people on these very forums did it once several years ago. But those were also people who'd been making films for a very long time and had been good, good friends for even longer. What I objected to was the complete lack of understanding of the amount of work that goes into a feature. Saying that you'll just get whatever camera is around, that's a HUGE no-no. You think someone is gonna take you seriously if your image is bouncing back and forth from one camera to another? How many pages a day are you planning on shooting? How are you going to handle changes to your actors over time? A year is a long time to make sure they keep the exact same haircut and are wearing the same clothes every weekend. Locations? Anything secure for a year? Yes you can make a feature with anything, anyone, with any level of experience. But is it going to be a good use of your time? That's the issue. You don't HAVE to have a full SAG crew and ACA DP or whatever, but you should have a better understanding of what you're up against. Basic casual questions like what your post was full of say that you haven't thought about this in much more than a cursory, "Boy this is gonna be cool" sort of way. Pre-production alone can take years for a feature. Hammering out script details, then figuring out locations. On a big budget feature you can average shooting about 3 pages a day if everything is flying along well. I've managed to go as much as 8 pages a day on some indie shorts, but we hoofed it because we only had the location for 2 days. How are you going to lay out your locations to make sure you have each location secured when you need it, as well as making sure all those crew will be there? Your post had "here's a couple of images I shot, I want to make a feature" yet you're still talking like you don't REALLY know how much work goes into it. Saying Nolan shot "The Following" in a year is an understatement - how many years of pre-production went into it, and the fact he and the cast/crew were at UCL at the time, making it a good project for them to take on. I've also read Robert Rodriguez's journal while filming El Mariachi, and sure he made a feature on the cheap as well but unless your cousin happens to be mayor of a Mexican border town it's probably highly unlikely you'll catch those same breaks. I'm not saying you can't do it or no one else on this board can do it, people have done it, and I hope to be in those same shoes one day myself, but there is a strong lack of understanding of the amount of work that goes into making them
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 17:42
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:I don't think that's a very fair setup. My only point is that new technology is bridging gaps, and it now makes it _possible_ for tiny crews to do what once took an army. I'm not under any delusions that Glengarry Glen Ross was shot on an iPhone, or that The Dark Knight had two people doing all the lighting and set design. I understand that most of the movies I've enjoyed and been exposed to are the result of meticulous planning, large budgets, and armies of cast, crew, and logistics. But I also know that a lot of people in the industry feel threatened by the possibility that this new technology will make their job obsolete. You can go to the RED forums and read people who are irate because customers are coming in and renting HDSLR cameras instead of much more expensive RED packages. The technology is a red herring, you could shoot a feature on 16mm and a fisher price sound recorder 30 years ago, it's just a little easier/cheaper now. But nothing, NOTHING, can get rid of the meticulous planning that goes into planning out a schedule that will ensure it gets done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 17:46
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:But I also know that a lot of people in the industry feel threatened by the possibility that this new technology will make their job obsolete. That's a huge pile of bullshit. The only production job I can think of that has been obsoleted by digital cameras is clapper/loader. It wasn't even really obsoleted, just replaced by DTI. I guess if some career 2nd AC never learned how to ingest files they'd be out of a job, but nobody stays a 2nd AC for very long anyway. Even if you think cameras somehow take less people to operate now than they used to (they don't), the fact is that lights, sound, production design, producing, directing and acting are still basically the same departments they were 30 years ago. All that said, please don't think I'm trying to discourage anyone from making a film. Just be realistic about what that phrase actually means. If you have the talent, drive, time and cash to make a movie with just you and your buddies, DO IT. I'm only trying to dispel the notion that your $800 T2i is a replacement for a competent gaffer or feeding your actors. Camera gear is number 35 or so down the list of poo poo you need to worry about when making a movie. That's probably being generous come to think of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 20:24
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:But I also know that a lot of people in the industry feel threatened by the possibility that this new technology will make their job obsolete. You can go to the RED forums and read people who are irate because customers are coming in and renting HDSLR cameras instead of much more expensive RED packages. How do you know industry people feel threatened? The majority of industry people aren't posting on Reduser. Red owners are on Reduser, so of course they're irate. Industry people are usually too busy working to bother with forums. As someone who works in the industry (and clearly isn't working today), I can tell you at this moment you have thousands of people attending CineGear in Las Angeles right now, all gawking at new technology and thinking of new ways to use it in their storytelling. Here's a non-camera example: the ASC just held a seminar teaching DP's the range and uses of newer "solid state lighting" devices, from the Litepanels to anything based in an LED light source. I haven't seen too many lighting technicians sweating their jobs because the LED's weigh less and draw less power, because it's a tool. As I've posted before in this thread: I think very few people in the industry are terrified of new technology. The industry has survived it time and time again, from the introduction of 16mm to 24p digital cameras and the RED. The industry is just annoyed with what comes with new technology: the rates fall out of bed for everyone. Producers think "the camera costs less, so the technicians should cost less too, since they have to do less." Now, I'm going to ramble: Go back 15 years, and imagine an industry mostly reliant on film. Film cameras came from one of two places: rental house, or the DP/1st AC. DP's could own an Arri 435, Arri SR3, nobody could own a Panavision but still. The rental houses rent the cameras based on initial purchase, upkeep, maintenance, servicing before you rent it, etc. Now, production company A could call Mr. DP, and ask for his rental price for his camera. Mr. DP, who owes his career to discounts and kindness of rental houses, would tell the production his rental price was X, which wasn't too far off what the rental houses would charge for the same camera. Rental houses were happy with Mr. DP, because he's maintaining the same rental price. Often, Mr. DP would bring his camera into the rental house, and they'd rent him all the accessories he'd need. Everyone is still making money and running a business. The symbiosis exists because the rental house supported Mr. DP's career while he was coming up, and he knows where he comes from. Much of his knowledge and skill was afforded to him through supporting the other companies. His lighting and camera knowledge now comes from years of experience "coming up". Flash forward to modern day. Consider cameras like the RED, 5D mk2, 1D mk4, Varicam, etc. Many people are still going the traditional path, but now more than ever, New DP can pony up a few thousand dollars to build a 5D mk2 package and offer himself as a DP. Perhaps he wants to put together $60,000 for a RED One package with lenses and accessories. So, he's got a camera package to market himself as a DP, no relationship with the local industry, and no concept of what he should be charging. However, New DP really wants to be working, because he's probably got ALL this liability against his credit cards. So, he's probably more willing to take a job than someone else. Production Company B calls him up, and says "we have a 1-day music video for you. All we have is $400 for you and your camera package. We know other cameras around here going for that price. By the way, might be a 14 hour day." New DP really wants that work, so 1 day isn't so bad. So, he takes the job, undercutting the local rental houses for a RED One production package (even a generous indie package with just a zoom lens) by $300+. Bad news is he didn't earn any money for himself! Production Company C calls him up, and asks for a bid for a 6-day short film. They want him to come DIT ("We've got a DP, just need a camera and a data manager") for $120 a day, which is nice because lots of companies don't know what minimum wage is. New DP knows most people expect a 3-day week with a slight discount, and he knows other guys are probably bidding $400/day for a similar package. But he needs the work! So, he offers them $1100/week for the camera and takes $120/day for 6 days, average 12 hour days. They take it, and the show wraps a week later. New DP's actions make life difficult for everyone in the industry. He's not doing himself any favors, because of all the production companies he's worked for in the last year, only a few will remember him if/when they get a show with more budget. Only a few of them will call him back later, and if they do, they'll probably expect that cheap rate once again. He doesn't know what he should be charging, and even if he does, chances are he's competing with dozens, maybe hundreds, of other New DP's with their own RED, 5D mk2, etc, all of whom will work for less than what he'd charge if he even thought of raising his rates! He hurts himself, and he hurts the entire market. Meanwhile, the industry will continue to rent the Panavision Genesis, the Arri Alexa, maybe even Aaton's new Penelope. Why? Because they still have relationships with Panavision, Arri CSC, Birns and Sawyer, Clairmont, Abel Cine Tech. But WHY? Why would they keep going to those rental houses??? Why not just buy their own RED, or their own Alexa? Well, here's the secret. Two reasons; one business reason and one timeless photography reason: 1. CUSTOMER SERVICE 2. GLASS 1. Customer Service - Panavision, Arri CSC, all big rental houses know the name of the rental game. If I'm renting you a RED package, I'd sure as poo poo better have a spare RED package identical to what I'm renting you ready to come to you if your camera fails for some reason. Your O'Connor head locks up. RED won't boot. Your favorite 28mm prime lens gets broken. Panavision, CSC, etc will send you a replacement head, new RED body, new lens IMMEDIATELY if you're in town or overnight shipping if out of town. What private owner can manage THAT? 2. All photographers tell you what makes great images isn't the camera, it's the goddamn glass. Sure, you own a RED package, but do you have your own set of Cooke S4's? How about a standard set of ultra speed primes? I doubt it, but you've got a full range of 20 year old Nikon FD lenses with useless witness marks and fungal growth on the elements. Whenever I DP, or I recommend a camera package to people, I have a guy with a RED package that's OK, but he has his own set of Zeiss ultra primes, all T/1.9, and all gorgeous. I recommend him for the lenses. That's enough for now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:
Keep going, seriously. That was a good read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
With a 10 min short, you can push yourself to the limit for the few days of production. However, making a feature doesn't mean simply multiplying this time by ten. That is where the misconception comes from. It is easy to plan a few successful days of aggressive filmmaking because there is a lot of wiggle room and low pressure - but once you have to do 20+ of those days in a row you need a really solid schedule that can only be developed with months of full time preproduction, and maintained with a happy cast and crew. If you wanted to shoot just weekends with a skeleton crew it would take at least a year and most of your time would be spent on coordination and overhead and the final product will suffer. DSLRs give you a great image for cheap, but since they're far less than even 10% of your budget, it doesn't make or break a project by a long shot. The economic advantages only exist for short films.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:My only point is that new technology is bridging gaps, and it now makes it _possible_ for tiny crews to do what once took an army. I don't understand why people continue to believe this. I don't understand how people read camera forums and flip through Gizmodo and Engadget and come away thinking that digital cameras sprout robots that do your budgets, scout your locations, feed your crew, light your sets, drive the trucks, generate your power, level the dolly, write your shot lists, supervise the script, build your sets, paint your props, workshop your actors, get clearances, hold the boom, record the audio and operate themselves. I bet the next model will write your script and edit it for you. You can make a movie with no money and a bunch of friends. Plenty of people have done it, you might have even seen a tiny percent of them. El Mariachi, Clerks, Following and Primer are all absolutely amazing movies, shot for next to nothing that propelled their creators to fame and fortune. They were all shot on film. I would never, ever, ever discourage anyone from making a feature film. It's one of the most rewarding experiences I can imagine being a part of. However, if you're arrogant enough to think you don't need professional help, incredible amounts of debt and years of dedication to pull it off, well I can introduce you to about a dozen people I know with projects on "permanent hiatus" while they work off their credit card debt and beg everyone they know for another couple hundred bucks so they can just finish that one scene. Know what you're getting into. Do the work you need to do to make sure that your film can be completed. Nobody will ever watch the half finished movie you can't get finishing funds for. Once you've done that, then you can pick up a camera and tell your story. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jun 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I don't understand why people continue to believe this. Let me just state, that not *all* of us believe this. I'm attempting to shoot a couple tiny projects on the Flip camera I got for christmas. Go ahead, laugh, it's okay. I understand. But my parents didn't know what the gently caress to get me, they sprung this on me on 12/24, I had about 30 seconds of research time and just looked at what was selling well on Amazon. So no I can't check focal length, I can't really zoom, or white balance or do any of the myriad of things I spent 40 grand to learn about. But it's a camera. I point it at things, and it records those things and plays it back. Plus, if I did a really good job in lighting those things, it won't look like utter poo poo with a bunch of artifacting! For some people, I think this is all they want. They don't *want* that credit card debt on top of the thousands they probably spent for film school, and they might not be able to get their hands on Real Gear for awhile. So if it turns out it's fully possible for a friend or family member to hop on down to their local Best Buy and pick up a My First Camera for their budding film-maker plus the latest copy of Madden for themselves? That has to be a good thing in the long run. Of course, there are dingbats who think if it looks cool, than it's a good camera. But they'll just continue to make bad lets plays and that'll be that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 08:41
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I don't understand why people continue to believe this. I don't understand how people read camera forums and flip through Gizmodo and Engadget and come away thinking that digital cameras sprout robots that do your budgets, scout your locations, feed your crew, light your sets, drive the trucks, generate your power, level the dolly, write your shot lists, supervise the script, build your sets, paint your props, workshop your actors, get clearances, hold the boom, record the audio and operate themselves. I bet the next model will write your script and edit it for you. Thank goodness we could keep away from the hyperbole. quote:You can make a movie with no money and a bunch of friends. Plenty of people have done it, you might have even seen a tiny percent of them. El Mariachi, Clerks, Following and Primer are all absolutely amazing movies, shot for next to nothing that propelled their creators to fame and fortune. "No film vs. video talk, dammit" As you reduce the barriers to entry ($ and technical skill), more content will flood into the market. quote:I would never, ever, ever discourage anyone from making a feature film. It's one of the most rewarding experiences I can imagine being a part of. However, if you're arrogant enough to think you don't need professional help, incredible amounts of debt and years of dedication to pull it off, well I can introduce you to about a dozen people I know with projects on "permanent hiatus" while they work off their credit card debt and beg everyone they know for another couple hundred bucks so they can just finish that one scene. It sounds like those people bit off more than they could chew. At some point they sat down and decided to shoot a scene in a certain way, knowing that they would be expending the last of their budget and be unable to continue. That's loving stupid, and if you cannot properly budget what you have(no matter how vast or miniscule your resources), you will fail. It's all about knowing your limits and working comfortably within them. I'm willing to bet the failed auteur filmmaker lounge is filled with folks whose scripts called for entirely CGI battle sequences, death defying stunts, and long single takes through live events involving the coordination of thousands of people. quote:Know what you're getting into. Do the work you need to do to make sure that your film can be completed. Nobody will ever watch the half finished movie you can't get finishing funds for. Once you've done that, then you can pick up a camera and tell your story. I agree 100%. I don't see why what Gossamer posted deserved the response he/she got.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:<snip> Wow, you posted all that and you finally get down to the part where new technology is lowering the rates for professionals in the industry. But they don't feel threatened by this, just annoyed? quote:Now, I'm going to ramble: When you say you're going to ramble, you mean it. Your story reads like something out of Hell House: "See the new DP? He didn't earn his experience, and because of his massive credit card debt and ignorance about the proper rates to charge, he is DOOOOOOMED!" But what you did show is that this new technology is increasing competition, driving down prices, and removing barriers to entry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
ynotony posted:With a 10 min short, you can push yourself to the limit for the few days of production. However, making a feature doesn't mean simply multiplying this time by ten. That is where the misconception comes from. Everything in this post is spot on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 17:47
|
|
|
infiniteseal posted:The technology is a red herring, you could shoot a feature on 16mm and a fisher price sound recorder 30 years ago, it's just a little easier/cheaper now. You're forgetting something called distribution. 30 years ago it would've been limited to the physical reel and finding someone both with a projector and a desire to see the movie in a specific setting. Now you can upload a video to websites dedicated to showcasing independent films where it can be viewed by hundreds to millions of people. quote:But nothing, NOTHING, can get rid of the meticulous planning that goes into planning out a schedule that will ensure it gets done. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 18:06
|
|
|
I think a major point is that if you are going to make a full feature on no budget, and do most of it yourself, is that you'd better be drat sure everything else about it is incredibly good (like the story and the cast) because you won't have shiny and pretty pictures to fall back on. You need something to grab your audience and dazzle them with, whether that's the visuals or the story, or both. Chances are that if you're doing it yourself on the cheap it won't look that great because you simply don't have the means. In that case you'd better have a story worth telling! And unfortunately that's where it often goes horribly wrong. Jack of all trades still often means master of none. I've seen enough films made like this to be confident about that statement, a lot of people are just so excited to make their movie that they forget to actually make a movie worth watching, filled with cliches and boring characters played by friends who recite their lines in an almost comically bad fashion and often look wrong for the part. Sitting through a ten minute short filled with that can be tough, a full length feature of that can be hell! And yes, people being forced to lower rates is annoying as hell. It's annoying because these people are undercutting. It's hard enough to make a living in this industry as it is without people lowering rates even more. It's easy to do when you're just starting and happy to be working but eventually you're going to want to actually make some money and have a life. At the rates some of these new guys are going out for you will need a second job just to pay the bills eventually, or end up working 14+ hours a day, 6 days a week permanently just to survive. Let alone come out ahead. It's a dangerous trend because there simply isn't enough work out there for that. This is a business, not a charity. It's great that directors want to make art and a beautiful and personal film but eventually you're also going to want to recoup some of your investment, undercutting is not the way to do that and I'd say the vast majority of these films will never make their money back, or get seen by a larger audience. I'm certainly not against people going out and making their own feature, I'm just saying that it's not a viable business model in the long term. There is not a big enough paying audience for that. Sure, the youtubes of the world allow for a potentially huge audience but that doesn't mean you'll get that audience. If that's the measure of success, it must mean the lady who uploaded a home video of Miss Fluffy the Cat playing piano is a genius director. Good distribution is much more than just uploading to YouTube and vimeo, it's marketing too. And you'll need that to not get drowned in the millions of other videos screaming for attention. This form of distribution is great for short clips but very few people will sit through 90+ minutes on a site like this simply because there's so much other content screaming for attention. However, if you do manage to get that attention and some advertising revenue it becomes a pretty good distribution system. But there it comes back to my earlier point again, you'd better have something to dazzle the audience with! A great story, a great gimmick, great acting, or great visuals, or all of the above. If you're lacking that, and most of the films on these sites are lacking this, then you've got nothing. A storyteller is nothing without an audience. Steadiman fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jun 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:Everything in this post is spot on. How do you know that? edit: holy poo poo steadiman we got some weird rear end avatar sync going on Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jun 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:No film vs. video talk, dammit" You seem to have missed not only my point, but the point of the thread title. I cited those movies because they were shot before the DSLR craze. Some of them before HD video even existed. My point is that people have been making zero budget movies for almost as long as people have been making movies. The chances of those zero budget films to gain any sort of mass media traction is the same now as it has ever been. Digital filmmaking is absolutely changing the way people make movies. It is not, however, changing the business of making movies, at least nowhere near as significantly as you seem to think. Jalumibnkrayal posted:You're forgetting something called distribution. 30 years ago it would've been limited to the physical reel and finding someone both with a projector and a desire to see the movie in a specific setting. Now you can upload a video to websites dedicated to showcasing independent films where it can be viewed by hundreds to millions of people. Online distribution is also a red herring. No, you don't have to rent a theater to show your movie anymore, but buying a Vimeo Pro account is not the same thing. Unless your film is either uniquely amazing in some way or backed by a marketing push, you are no more likely to attract viewers to an online presentation than a run down cineplex in Skokie. And if your film is that amazingly unique or you have money for marketing, it doesn't really matter what format you're on. People will see it. There is also very little monetization available yet. You are going to go into debt making a feature film worth watching. You are not going to recover that debt online. You seem to believe in a glorious new dawn of DIY digital filmmaking, and I honestly want to share your enthusiasm. In a lot of ways, I used to before I tried to make some sort of a living doing it. The fact is, the physical act of making a movie that people want to watch takes an inhumam amount of effort, coordination and talent. It can not be done by one person alone. Digital technology doesn't change that. Making a zero budget movie requires a script that can be shot with no significant post, five actors or less, natural light, free locations and no extras, while staying incredibly compelling for 90 minutes. If you have that script, please send me a PM, I will buy it immediately. In fact, I'll trade you all of my digital camera gear for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 20:23
|
|
|
If you don't have any money/connections then make a short. Trying to cobble together a feature is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 20:53
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:You seem to have missed not only my point, but the point of the thread title. I think we can agree that the amount of no/low budget films created is going to rise significantly with the synergistic combination of inexpensive gear and online distribution. Whether or not they'll be worth watching is a completely different topic. quote:Unless your film is either uniquely amazing in some way or backed by a marketing push, you are no more likely to attract viewers to an online presentation than a run down cineplex in Skokie. And if your film is that amazingly unique or you have money for marketing, it doesn't really matter what format you're on. People will see it. I definitely disagree here. People can stumble upon a hosted file through a variety of ways and watch it any time years after the initial upload. And that can be done in addition to renting out a run down cineplex in your Chicago suburb of choice. quote:There is also very little monetization available yet. You are going to go into debt making a feature film worth watching. You are not going to recover that debt online. I agree wholeheartedly with the first part. Your second sentence is contingent on the financial capabilities of the filmmaker. And yeah, I don't think anyone anticipates making money with online films. quote:You seem to believe in a glorious new dawn of DIY digital filmmaking, and I honestly want to share your enthusiasm. In a lot of ways, I used to before I tried to make some sort of a living doing it. The fact is, the physical act of making a movie that people want to watch takes an inhumam amount of effort, coordination and talent. It can not be done by one person alone. Digital technology doesn't change that. I definitely don't have a script like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 21:18
|
|
|
I guess even I've helped maneuver this thread a bit off topic. Perhaps back on topic? Anyone see anything cool at CineGear this year?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
I heard they're gonna show off the Scarlet for real this time, now it comes with an evf and the sensor is a new kind of bwahahahaha oh god i can't do it
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 07:38
|
|
|
Scarlet is dead in the water. Now with iPhone 4 and iMovie, you've got production and post production all in one tiny package. No need for those big bulky cameras or edit systems anymore. At least with iMovie on the iPhone I know why FCP hasn't seen any love in a while. Maybe they'll get back to it now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 15:39
|
|
|
Final Cut Pro is built on libraries of code that haven't changed a whole lot since the 90s. That QuickTime rewrite is going to have to come a long way before FCP gets any real changes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:Anyone see anything cool at CineGear this year? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
The biggest thing I'd like to see in Final Cut is being able to use audio unit plugins and keep the native plugin interface window. That would save me having to export to pro tools for probably 85% of the projects I do. That and integrating something like pluraleyes into the multiclip system would blow my god drat mind. Motion and Color need a whole lot of work, but most of that is just getting them on par with FCP's UI and stability. I would probably use Soundtrack once in a while if it wasn't a buggy piece of poo poo, too. Oh and Compressor needs to be burned to the ground and rewritten, but people have been saying that for three revisions and it just keeps getting worse so yknow. whatever. anyway, none of that depends on Quicktime afaik. Also, Quicktime was completely overhauled for Snow Leopard as well (badly). I don't see how messing with Quicktime helps Final Cut at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:Final Cut Pro is built on libraries of code that haven't changed a whole lot since the 90s. That QuickTime rewrite is going to have to come a long way before FCP gets any real changes. yeah quicktime X just came out, so I can't imagine any more major changes to FCP until 10.7 probably. They already dropped PPC support so next is to actually pull that old code out and rebuild the new stuff. I'm still running 10.5 on a first-rev mac pro, but that's mostly cos I'd need to upgrade pro tools to 8 (and buy a new mbox) if I wanted to go to 10.6, otherwise I'm happy on 10.5 but I'm gonna imagine there'll be some heavy-duty changes to FCS coming around the bend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 18:02
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:anyway, none of that depends on Quicktime afaik. Also, Quicktime was completely overhauled for Snow Leopard as well (badly). I don't see how messing with Quicktime helps Final Cut at all. You mean you don't see how Quicktime is the entire backbone for everything video-related on OS X? Final Cut Pro is basically a glorified XML-generator for organising Quicktime videos
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
infiniteseal posted:You mean you don't see how Quicktime is the entire backbone for everything video-related on OS X? Final Cut Pro is basically a glorified XML-generator for organising Quicktime videos I know what Quicktime is. I mean that everything that needs fixing or improving with the Final Cut Studio suite is UI, stability or plugin related. Film is the "entire backbone" for a steenbeck, but better emulsion doesn't make editing with it any easier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
FCP won't get any real 64-bit support or better multi-core handling without a QT overhaul, that's what I was talking about. That's definitely stability and performance related. I like Compressor the way it is. It takes a while to get use to, but being able to save my boss some money by recently doing some PAL conversion in house was worth it's proverbial weight in gold.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:FCP won't get any real 64-bit support or better multi-core handling without a QT overhaul, that's what I was talking about. That's definitely stability and performance related. Quicktime X is 64 bit, QTKit has been 64 bit since 10.5, and I don't really know how FCP could be more multi-core friendly, especially considering that most of the threading management is done by the OS now with Snow Leopard. If there's anything keeping them from making FCP a 64 bit binary, it isn't Quicktime. I like compressor too, I just wish it wasn't so crashy and broken into a bazillion applications. I would like to see one nice efficient front end that combines Compressor, Qmaster, Qadministrator, and Batch Monitor. I barely even open compressor itself anymore now that I have a droplet set up for everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
I'd say the majority of stability issues arise from QuickTime, at least insofar as I've seen it to have it's share of bugs and quirks. And while QuickTime has been making it's transiton to 64 bit, it's still going to take forever to excise that old code and clean it up. Sure they dropped support for PPC but what about intel core duos? I've got a mac pro 1,1 and that doesn't get full 64 bit support but I don't think apple is gonna cut all us first-gen mac pro users out of fcp, at least not that fast there's a poo poo ton of bloat in there that needs to be cleaned up, but I'll be happy when it is; I spend anywhere from 6-8+ hours a day in that program, I'd love to see it running to it's potential
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 23:43
|
|
|
The way I understand it QT X provides a fraction of the functionality of QT 7. Everything I've read points to that as the reason why FCP hasn't had a substantial update since 6.0. I like having separate places to manage presets, watch progress and manage distribution. It keeps it lean. The way you're using Compressor with Droplets is how it was intended to be used. I'm grateful it's nothing like Squeeze or AME.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 00:21
|
|
|
Oh my lord I hate hate hate compressor. So much promise and so temperamental. Whether it's outputs, or Final Cut Server using it to do its thing, it's always compressor that is the weak link. I loves Episode and Episode Pro. Love it. Stable and faster with quality output. DId I mention I love episode?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
butterypancakes posted:The way I understand it QT X provides a fraction of the functionality of QT 7. Everything I've read points to that as the reason why FCP hasn't had a substantial update since 6.0. They stripped a ton of stuff out of the player, which is now useless. The player doesn't have anything to do with FCP or QTkit though. I don't know what you'd call a "substantial update" but FCP 7 has a poo poo ton of new stuff I now can't live without. First and foremost being able to retime clips in a sequence without doing a ripple edit, which is loving enormous. That combined with the new ProRes stuff, the new tab and marker system, the multiclip improvements and the better-if-still-flaky 3D stuff in Motion... I dunno, I'd call that a substantial update. That and they FINALLY gave us a floating timecode window. The only thing I wasn't impressed by is the new alpha transitions, but that stuff always struck me as pandering to the iMovie crowd anyway. I would be a lot happier with Compressor if it didn't constantly decide to forget my cluster settings, but yeah I guess it's better than the alternatives. edit: wow, that episode thing looks awesome, but I'm really not paying $500 for a better version of compressor. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Jun 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 01:01
|
|