Fun Any Directors?

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
I'm looking for IMDb threads/posts to archive, and here's the earliest non-spam thread from Shop Talk Directors, originally posted by rain62537, who's been an IMDb member eight months longer than me.

by
rain62537
» Fri Oct 7 2016 19:08:32 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2001
I have spent many hours working on a website that gives independent filmmakers a place to post their films and get feedback from their peers. Please check out the site and utilize it to improve your craft. Enhancements will be consistent as I am constantly thinking of ways to make it better.

Thank you and look forward to seeing everyone's work.

http://www.IndieFilmShare.com
No replies.

Sounds like a neat deal. Kind of like a Simply Scripts for filmmakers. No mention of a board, but that's what we're for, right? :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
This is a very important question for directors to ask, and here it is archived before IMDb flushes it down the toilet.

by
S_Leone
» Sun Oct 9 2016 17:32:06 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2006
any tips?
Nice username. 8) Here's what the Shop Talk pros had to say:

by
colcam
» Sun Oct 9 2016 19:52:51 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2000
Get your DP, costume designer, set designer, and First AD at the table so they can make notes about what will look right, work right, and what can be done on your budget.

And ZERO dollars is a budget,

A lousy one, but a budget.

After the intro lean forward and start taking notes while you only glance upward at the actors, and you let them run with the story their way.

You may choke on it, but you need to keep your mouth closed and watch what they do, how they do it, and after the first cold table read the First AD should ask about what the actors feel are the right costumes. The actors voice their opinion, and the costume designer nods helpfully and makes notes. Sometimes those notes get used, sometimes they are discarded, but the costume notes are what the set designer needs to know about the delivered tone and parameters of the sets.

When the First AD asks about anything special that should be on the board the actors will say how they see it. You may think of a generic bedroom, the female lead may want a couple of "play off" points in the room. Guess what? The costume designer is making notes about the potential sets because that might well determine the final costume choice.

It is paradoxical, but when the actor says she sees her character's pivotal and closing scenes in the library as being in a big, well lit room with ten foot tall bookcases full of books that tells you and the costume designer that her looks need to fit that first, pivotal set, so you create a great spoiled girl look for the pivotal library scene and the story can proceed cleanly in lower cost, less modified sets for the story between pivot and climax.

NEVER tell an actor how to do something.

ASK the actor to run it through "this way" so you can see how the other actors react to the change. The actor needs to have final call on the character, not the writer, not the director, just the actor in the persona of the character.

Then you take lunch, and when you get back everyone seems relaxed, you ask the first AD to read location and headers, and start the second table read-- and suddenly the dialog goes from okay, just not quite right to OMG THAT IS GREAT because the actors and now wearing the skin of the character and the character is at the table.

That is the simplest and quickest way to get the story done right, and if the actors all tell you that something doesn't work right, ask for their help and FIX IT.

Give the actors the next day off, talk to the costume and set heads, see what you need to do, figure out how to do it, and listen if the DP says you need a different approach in this scene or that scene.

Don't make the mistake of thinking you are going to the barn and picking out a nice horse for a little trail ride. You are going to be going on a bronc ride and you need everyone on the same page.

If and when the work gets shown at a festival you are going to hear about how it is so much better than anyone could have ever expected. Do not let it go to your head, just buckle down, start over with a new screenplay, and this time it will be your rodeo.

Clowns and all.

.
Very good advice.

by
Myosis1
» Mon Oct 10 2016 19:44:36 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2016
For theatre or for film?
by
S_Leone
» Tue Oct 11 2016 12:01:06 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2006
both but at the moment more so theatre
by
Myosis1
» Tue Oct 11 2016 12:16:44 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2016
In professional theatre there is usually three weeks. The first week is table reads and blocking, and a bit of scene work. Second week is dedicated to scene work and transitions, and you close it out with full act runs, and full show runs. The Saturday or Sunday before opening there is a tech rehearsal, and the beginning of the week are full tech runs and by Tuesday or Wednesday you have previews in front of an audience so you can open on the Friday.

In community theatre and collegiate, the schedules are slightly longer. As much as six weeks.


For film, there is usually no time set aside for rehearsals prior to shooting, but you can usually sneak in a table read with the actors that are available. This is the last time everyone gets to experience the script from beginning to end in order, so it is very helpful. But usually you start the day with a camera rehearsal with the actors and the DP. Everyone except you, the actors and the DP is usually cleared of the set, and quiet should be observed. No walking around and talking while you all work. You rehearse the scene you are going to shoot, work out the blocking, direct the actors' performances and then when it is about 90% where it needs to be, you have them run the scene and while you and the DP go over the shots that will be needed. You release the actors to makeup and costume and the camera crew lights the set and lays down any track or sets up whatever camera support will be used. Then you shoot.

Each director and production is different, but that's pretty much how it's done in my experience.

The goal of the rehearsals differs from film to theatre. For theatre you are rehearsing so that the actors and crew can perform the show from start to finish without stopping. For film, you are capturing moments that will later be cut together to tell the story.
This is invaluable information that I couldn't let disappear. You're welcome. :)
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
Let's face it: Directors have a reputation for being ego-driven dictators who take all the credit. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :biggrin:

But how do you deal with collaboration and being open to ideas while maintaining authority?

From IMDb's Shop Talk Directors (archived for posterity):

by
S_Leone
» Mon Oct 10 2016 06:09:32 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2006
i did a play recently and i although i was looking for input i came across as being unsure of myself and lacking authority

how can i be in charge but still be open to ideas?
Here's what the pros had to say:

by
Myosis1
» Mon Oct 10 2016 19:37:11 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2016
Do you yourself feel as if you came across as unsure, or others told you afterwards?

it is a delicate balance, and I have worked with professional theatre directors that allow actors a great deal of freedom. That, in my experience in my previous life as an Assistant Stage Manager, is most common. In a college environment, the director acts more as a teacher than director, but in professional theatre the director allows for a good deal of input.

So if you are coming off as unsure, it might just be your delivery. The actors need to know that you have the big picture in mind, and won't let them stray off base from the story you are in charge of telling. So you may not gain a great deal of confidence if you are ALWAYS needing input. But the occasional, "Look guys, I really don't know what we need here. Let's try a few things and figure this out" is not uncommon. That said, you can't seem as if you don't know what you want. It has to come off as "I know what I want, I just don't know the right way to get there". If that makes sense.

That's why I asked whether it is a perception you have of yourself, or if others expressed their discomfort to you. In either case, it might be due to the misperception (sic) that in a professional environment the director DIRECTS EVERYTHING. And that is not the case. It is a collaboration. The actors are in charge of their characters, and you are in charge of the overall story. And the best collaborations are when both needs are met. The actors look to you to make sure what they are doing is the right thing for the overall story. Are they all in the same play. Are their acting decisions appropriate for the style and story.
by
S_Leone
» Tue Oct 11 2016 12:03:53 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2006
i found myself in a situation where i thought actors would gave me ideas but they started arguing with me and changing lines

the thing is i havent directed theatre before only short films so i was sort of asking their advice but it sort of back fired on me
by
Myosis1
» Tue Oct 11 2016 12:19:43 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2016
That's a shame. But that might be the result of inexperienced actors.
by
S_Leone
» Tue Oct 11 2016 13:03:16 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2006
i am working with actors who have more theatre experience than me but i am i think a good writer and know my scripts i also have loads of film experience but just am uncertain when it comes to things like casting rehearsal etc but at the same time i am learning
by
firearms trainer
» Tue Oct 11 2016 22:37:19 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2001
Why did they want to change the lines? Was it because:
- the words didn't "flow" right, and they wanted them to sound natural, or
- they were just trying to assert themselves as actors.

As others have pointed out, it may be inexperience on their part (especially if the latter.)

Or, it may be you.

Have you had someone else read your script with a critical eye? I don't mean an actor, fellow writer or family member who will sugar-coat it. I mean someone who has read HUNDREDS of scripts and will look at it with a CRITICAL eye.

If the script holds up, then maybe you are giving them line readings. Actors HATE that.

If your script is solid and you are not giving them line readings, but allowing them to be their own characters, then I would guess it is inexperience.

Having done hundreds and hundreds of both film and theatre projects, all i suggest is to remember that, in theatre, actors MUST be true to the script. (In many cases, it is a requirement of the performance licence.) (sic) This is where you need to assert yourself from the first moment someone goes off the page. Very politely correct them every time. They will soon get the implied point that they either stick to the script or get off the project.

THEN you find out how solid your script is. If one leaves, and the rest stick to your script, it was good, and you just needed better casting. If ALL your actors leave, it's your script.

Sorry, but most of us can't really answer your question unless we know more about your script and your directorial style.
Very good advice, Myosis and Firearms Trainer.
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
Another goodie from IMDb that I'm posting her for posterity. This one concerns casting, the first time that the characters leap off the page. Specifically paying your actors, especially on a low budget production.

by
Little_Miss_Yappa
» Thu Oct 13 2016 14:46:21 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2004
Post Edited:
Thu Oct 13 2016 15:08:39
Hello again!

So in my other post, I mentioned how I'm gonna start making lil' films. I'm wondering how you all handle casting, more specifically, payment. I am a firm believer in paying artists for their (our) work. I'm a freelance writer and I generally don't work for publications that don't pay (or, depending on the work I'm doing, don't pay enough). However, I will have very limited funds.

I know lots of folks turn to kickstarter, Go Fund Me, etc. to raise money for their art. What has been your experience? Have actors worked with you for little to no money? If so, what was that like?

Two words: Jeff Goldblum [love1 smiley]
Some very informative replies:

by
pgodlewski-569-399675
» Sun Oct 16 2016 00:12:31 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2012
It really depends.

Good actors know their value and will more likely not work for little or no money.

Inexperienced actors will more likely work for free or very little because they want the experience or need more material for their demo reel.

Working with experienced and good actors is always a plus because they tend to take their craft very seriously. You get your money's worth.

Working with inexperienced actors might cause problems from punctuality (which is super important) to preparation to even hot flashes of ego or attitude.

It sounds like you're just starting. Making lil' films, which is probably best way to go about it because you don't want to bite more than you can chew. I would suggest to work with people you know first to get a better understanding. If you're just starting out, chances are your films are not going to be all that great. It takes time to learn the craft and even more time to master it...most never really master it anyways but goal is become better, or as good as you potentially can be. You should look into taking acting courses/classes to get better understanding what actor brings to the set/stage. In that class you could meet some people that could help you make couple lil' films.

But once you get things going and you feel like it's time to step it up...

Social media is great place to advertise casting gigs. FB has many groups you can join for your area specifically (NYC, LA, or even smaller metros like Tampa Bay). You could also contact a casting agency, that will probably be the best way to get exactly or close to what you're casting for.

Since you are a writer, you can write specific scripts with specific parts for people you know/meet. Always include actors in you budget and if you can't make sure you feed them really good stuff. I've been involved in many "passion projects" where everyone had passion for director's vision but what really kept our spirits for countless hours was the bomb food.

A lot of actors willing to work with you if they really like the script/your vision for the project...but at least buy them great lunch and pump their car.
by
Little_Miss_Yappa
» Sun Oct 16 2016 23:55:04 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2004
Post Edited:
Sun Oct 16 2016 23:55:34
Thanks! [wave smiley]

I've been writing for three years just about but have, honestly, purposely avoided doing the directing/producing/actual filmmaking thing. I'm doing it now because I'm passionate enough about my work that I feel like making something and putting it out there is just about the only way I can get my name out there at this point, considering my circumstances.

Two words: Jeff Goldblum [love1 smiley]
by
pgodlewski-569-399675
» Sun Oct 16 2016 23:59:36 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2012
Do it. It's fun and heartbreaking as well as highly rewarding in the end.

Start small. Don't try to tackle a project that will overwhelm you. You see it's better to make a GOOD simple short instead of an AWFUL complex one.

At least that's how I see it. Have a ball. Share your work if you like. Early stuff can be pretty brutal but once you learn from your own mistakes you can improve and get better.
Not everybody's last name is Spielberg, Kubrick, Nolan, Tarantino or Hitchcock, so you're never gonna have much money starting out, unless you're already rich. ;) So just pay what you can, if you can. If not, then credits, points, a copy and/or food (free beer!) will suffice.[/quote]
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
Have you ever made that John Carpenter-style thriller that you're sure will scare the shit out of everyone and their mother... only to be told that it was "cute"?

This inquiry is another treat from the closing IMDb boards.

by
Chris_Esper
» Sun Oct 9 2016 15:49:07 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since July 2008
This is a label I often hear about my work, even when I'm trying to make a serious attempt to make something that is trying to say something in a serious way.

I realize that there are plenty of quirky movies out there, especially indie comedies. I don't know though, I guess I always found these comments to be not so flattering and almost like my work is not being taken seriously. Sounds dumb, but do you often find ourselves battling this kind of issue? Or do you see it as a good thing?

www.chrisesper.com
The experts weigh in:

by
Myosis1
» Mon Oct 10 2016 19:42:27 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2016
If you are not intending to make a "cute" movie, then being called cute is not what you want to hear. Not that cute is in itself bad, it just means you aren't meeting your goals as a storyteller.

For me, I used to get "interesting" and "thought-provoking" a lot. When what I was looking for was "exciting" and "entertaining". So I feel your pain.
by
mikekuhlman-415-393642
» Wed Nov 9 2016 20:31:55 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since July 2012
Sure, when I was trying to scare the hell out of people and they merely laughed.
Ouch. Maybe you're doing too much or not enough. Maybe you're taking the wrong approach. If they think it's cute, amp it up a bit. Tone down the "cuteness." Emphasize what you want your audience to take seriously. If they say it's it's too over-the-top, tone it down until your audience gets it.

Here's my personal advice, and it starts at the writing stage -- write what you, as the audience, would like to see. If you don't like what you're writing, how can you expect the audience to?
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
There might be some useful information in this thread, so I'm archiving it here.

by
RynoII
» Fri Nov 25 2016 03:10:10 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
I wanted to direct my first real feature and was going to originally produce it myself, with a very low budget, like $50K. Then rely on getting external distribution later, like what a lot of indie filmmakers do.

So it would be like a really low budget movie like El Mariachi or something like that.

I worked as a PSM on someone else's short film. We all worked for free and were payed with food pretty much. The director then sent that short film into some production companies, wanting to make the short film into a feature, and was using the short showcase.

He got offered 10 million dollars from a company, but he turned it down. The company wanted him to use a cast and crew of their choice, and he would be out of the loop and picking his cast and crew. So he went to a different company and got 1 million instead, with the freedom to cast and crew whoever he wanted pretty much.

I wasn't invited back to the feature, so I do not know much more than that. However, I was wondering if I should go this road, and if getting a million or more dollars is as easy as he made it seem.

Not to put him down or anything, but I and my friends who I showed the short film too... we didn't think it was that good, and we were actually very surprised he was offered 10 million from one company, and 1 million from another.

The short was decently made on a technical level, but we just thought that it was poorly scripted, and was trying to be a serious horror movie, but came off as unintentionally funny, scripting wise, more so than the technical.

But I was wondering if what he did was too rare to hopefor, (sic) and therefore maybe I will have to settle for a really low budget looking and feeling 50K feature, compared to a million or more. What do you think?
A PSM, by the way, is a Production Stage Manager, and it's usually a theatre/stage term.

by
Brian_S_Fitzgerald
» Fri Nov 25 2016 12:15:17 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2011
I think I don't trust any of the details of this story.



If it wasn't for disappointment, I wouldn't have any appointments.
by
RynoII
» Fri Nov 25 2016 13:59:16 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
Well that's the story I was told by the director when he was explaining it all to me, but I don't think he would have any reason to lie. Also the movie he made did go to several festivals in different countries, and he went on a talk show to promote it, so it had a significant amount of money behind it for sure.
by
BlueHarvester
» Fri Nov 25 2016 15:29:18 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2015
So ... I guess you finished that screenplay? And I'd like to see this short film too. I'm most interested in how it was staged. Can you send me a link?
by
RynoII
» Sat Nov 26 2016 01:47:55 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
It wasn't my screenplay, the director and producer shot his own screenplay. I don't know if he would be okay showing a link, since I kind of talked about the movie on here, and not sure if he would be okay with that.
by
BlueHarvester
» Sun Nov 27 2016 18:40:53 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2015
I'm referring to the feature length screenplay that I've been helping you with on that other board and in private messages for the better part of a month. You are now talking about financing which usually comes after completing the screenplay. So my question is did you finish that screenplay? I'm not talking about the short film your friend made. I'm going to be pleasant and assume you are not being evasive on purpose.
by
RynoII
» Mon Nov 28 2016 14:48:34 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
Post Edited:
Mon Nov 28 2016 16:23:13
Oh sorry, I misunderstood.

I am almost finished it and putting some touches on a more revised draft. Not sure if I would be funding that one, or someone else's in the future, but I was thinking of using the same plan they did, if it's good.
[post deleted by the poster]

Yes, the script always comes first. Then you can worry about the other stuff, funding included.
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
Narrative film gets all the hype, but what about all you Michael Moore wannabes out there? IMDb user Protozoid answered your call back in November.

by
Protozoid
» Wed Nov 30 2016 18:39:23 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2004
I'm making a documentary on a shoestring and I'm having a heck of a time getting people to agree to interviews. Not sure if it's my manner, the fact that I'm not a big name, or they are unwilling for some other reason. Perhaps I underestimated how controversial my subject matter is?

Does anyone have any advice, or know where I can get some? Also legal advice about FOIA requests and such.
FOIA is a Freedom of Information Act request. Here's what the pros said:

by
Myosis1
» Wed Nov 30 2016 20:11:58 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2016
I can't really speak to the FOIA issue, as I've never had to submit one.

But I can say that the reluctance of your interview subjects is either, as you say, due to the controversial nature of the doc or they just don't find it interesting. My experience has been that I have seldom if ever come across someone who didn't want to participate in an interview. People love talking about themselves, and the idea of having a forum to talk about their experiences or a subject they care deeply about usually results in enthusiastic participation.

If you are questioning your approach, you might try appealing to their vanity. "I understand you are an expert on this subject", or "I bet you have some interesting stories to tell about..." or "I just don't feel the documentary would be complete without your perspective".
by
Protozoid
» Wed Nov 30 2016 21:09:31 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2004
Thanks for the response!

Yeah, I've tried appealing to their vanity with almost those exact words. Without giving much away, this is a crime story involving a religious group (hence the controversy), and I'm trying to get people involved with the investigation and the perpetrating of the crime to be interviewed. The investigating officer gave me some info, but clammed up when I asked for an interview and won't respond to emails, any more. I found two people who participated in the crime, but they did the same thing when I mentioned I was making a documentary. The crime itself was not major - illegal mining of minerals - but the group that is implicated is kind of a major local group. Even the local newspaper wouldn't touch this story, despite the fact that it's a huge scoop.

The FOIA thing has also been tricky. The Forest Service (the subject of my requests) usually says yes right away, but they've been denying and evading me for years, at this point. It's unusual behavior from all involved. I thought perhaps it was just me, but I think I've stumbled upon a story that the locals want to remain a secret...
Religion is a touchy subject, a fine line to walk. Everyone's reluctance should come as no surprise.

by
Myosis1
» Thu Dec 1 2016 13:39:39 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2016
If this is an ongoing investigation, that would explain the resistance from law enforcement. And likely everyone else.
by
Protozoid
» Thu Dec 1 2016 13:51:08 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2004
Post Edited:
Thu Dec 1 2016 13:53:16
Absolutely, except that the Forest Service investigation was concluded seven years ago and, according to the investigating officer, charges were filed, a fine was paid, the case is closed, and it should all be public record. Local Forest Service employees tell me to just find the files, but FS employees who deal with FOIA requests have denied me time after time, saying no such files exist. Off the record, though, the person who denied one of my requests told another FS employee who I'm friendly with that he denied me to protect the name of the perpetrator, even though that is legally public record. So there are two aspects to my frustration: public files are being hidden by officials, and people involved in the story itself and [are] keeping very quiet. Even the editor of the local newspaper won't touch this story, despite having been obsessed with it at the time.

I see all of these crime docs where the victims' families and perpetrators of heinous crimes agree to be interviewed and it makes me feel incompetent somehow, or stigmatized or something.
Maybe he could fictionalize it and turn it into a narrative film, if people are that reluctant and evasive.
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
IMDb is full of gems that will be lost forever if nobody archives them. This is one of them.

by
enriquesinghjr
» Sat Dec 3 2016 21:40:18 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since September 2009
So I need to shoot a scene with no dialogue, the character just sits inside a plane, checks her tablet and looks out the window.

I can afford a ticket for her and for myself.

We are shooting with DSLR cameras.

I can strip the camera and make everything look like a regular vacation moment... I only need a couple of seconds footage.

No audio required.

Will use natural light or maybe a small on camera light source that can be placed on the hot shoe on top of the camera.

If I shoot this while in mid flight there's a 99% chance of getting away with it, right?
by
Myosis1
» Sun Dec 4 2016 18:57:37 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2016
Sounds like it. Just don't get anyone else in the shot that has not signed a talent release.
by
enriquesinghjr
» Sun Dec 4 2016 18:59:21 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since September 2009
Thanks for replying.
by
ImReallyANarc
» Mon Dec 5 2016 11:32:42 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2005
You should be fine. Just be mindful of the flight paths and time of day to be sure your shot won't be ruined by backlight from the sun.
by
BlueHarvester
» Mon Dec 5 2016 22:46:30 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2015
Save your dough. Sneak onto an aircraft boneyard. They often have planes just sitting around. Or try a flight museum. You can also try a flight school or an airline. Some have passenger planes cut in half to train stewards in hospitality.
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
This archived IMDb thread concerns lighting, color timing/mixing, and/or color grading. The difference between timing and grading is that the former is usually done photochemically (as on 35mm film), while the latter is usually done digitally with computers and software. Timing, being analog, will often have a more organic look than its digital counterpart.

by
worc508
» Sun Dec 18 2016 06:13:51 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since July 2005
I have an editing question. I been working on a zombie movie and right now I'm stuck at trying to color the scene in a Gothic hue. What would be the best way in color correction to create this look? The look I'm going for is the scene in Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey when they died.

Thank you in advance!
[post deleted by poster]

by
RynoII
» Sat Dec 24 2016 02:19:47 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
A lot of that scene has to do with blue colored lights on set, while shooting though, and not done so much in post. So I don't think you could get it that blue, unless you change the hue and tinting around a lot, but doing so, could make the scene look too much like a completely different movie, from the rest of your footage, so it depends on how much of a mismatch you are okay with.
It's usually best to do as much in-camera as possible. Only use digital trickery when you need to.

by
worc508
» Sat Dec 24 2016 14:04:55 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since July 2005
Thanks!
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
While it's best to shoot a film in its intended aspect ratio, here's some tips on letterboxing (or, adding black bars to) your film.

by
FilmMuscle
» Sun Sep 18 2016 01:29:02 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since January 2008
I just remembered that I need to add black bars to my short film for that cinematic look, but I realized that it totally messes up your cinematography. It creates a problem with headspace. A lot of the details I wanted included in a shot are left out because of the black bars. Do people frame their shots with the black bars in mind or something? How do I get around this issue? Would appreciate any advice. Thanks.
by
colcam
» Sun Sep 18 2016 06:01:26 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2000
message sent
by
ImReallyANarc
» Mon Sep 19 2016 05:26:51 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2005
Do people frame their shots with the black bars in mind or something? How do I get around this issue?

Yes, each shot should be composed with the aspect ratio in mind, so that the film doesn't end up with the issue that you're now struggling with. I would suggest just sticking with your original aspect ratio for this project (I assume 16:9?). It may not look as cinematic, but I would argue it's better than cutting off your talent's head with black bars.
by
Brian_S_Fitzgerald
» Sun Sep 25 2016 19:49:37 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2011
The aspect ratio should be determined before you record your first shot. To avoid the issue you describe.

To guide composition, all the monitors on set (including the one the camera operator is looking at) in some way display where the image is going to be cropped. Most professional monitors will have selectable display settings to toggle through for the most common aspect ratios, and a rectangle is superimposed over the image. My monitor has red lines, but others draw dark translucent bars at the top and bottom of the image.

If you don't have access to one of these monitors, you can just put tape. I've seen people use electrical tape, but I liked using clear tape. That way you can still see the line, but you can also see what you are leaving out of the frame.

A quick and dirty method is to find an image online that represents the aspect ratio you wish to use. Print it out, and put it front of the camera. Zoom in to just where the left and right edges fill the frame. Put tape at the top and bottom of the monitor that roughly matches the position of the black lines. It's not perfect, but it'll be close.

If it wasn't for disappointment, I wouldn't have any appointments.
by
mikekuhlman-415-393642
» Wed Sep 28 2016 18:26:04 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since July 2012
Post Edited:
Wed Sep 28 2016 18:30:39
I believe Sony Vegas editing software has "event pan/crop", which allows you to shift the image down to preserve headroom between the black bars, but then you'll still lose footroom. Yes, it's best to crop-protect for the black bars during the shoot.
by
PF4Eva
» Thu Sep 29 2016 17:29:44 Flag ▼ | Edit ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since April 2002
...Or you could just shoot on film. If you want that 2.35:1 aspect ratio without chopping up the image, just shoot 35mm with an anamorphic lens.

I doubt you have the means to shoot your film in Ultra Panavision 70, let alone IMAX. So anamorphic will give you the look you want.

C. Martin Croker 1962-2016 RIP
by
colcam
» Thu Sep 29 2016 19:47:00 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2000
You can also shoot video with an anamorphic adapter, but his quest is not for the display ratio, he wants the black bars, so just masking the finder in production and masking the image in post is a fairly easy and quick way to do it.

And it is a lot cheaper than buying 130,000 feet of film, paying processing, edit, post, and final match-- which is still less than you will spend on Craft Services for a real production.

.
by
archibald14
» Fri Dec 9 2016 17:17:01 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2016
You shouldn't change your ratio to something other than what you had in mind when you shot it.

A proper movie has to be planned from the beginning. If not, why even bother ?
by
Hehohohehahahe
» Mon Dec 12 2016 06:56:23 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since July 2012
Stick with what you've got. If you must, crop it slightly to 1:85.1. I like 2:35.1 as much as the next guy, but it isn't the be all end all. Tarkovsky, Kubrick, Bergman——they all made due without it (besides two films I believe).
by
RynoII
» Wed Dec 21 2016 02:37:49 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
For your next project, if you want to be real cheap and not spend money on a monitor or anamorphic or anything, you can put your camera on a tripod and set it in front of a 16:9 TV. Line up the corners if the cameras's viewscreen, with the corners of the TV. Line them up exactly, so what you see through camera is the TV screen only, with no border of the screen showing at all.

Then pop in a DVD of a 2.35:1 movie and let it play. Then with the camera, lined up with the TV screen, take a photo of the movie. You will know have a photo with the black bars from the DVD movie on your cameras view screen. Using the black bars on the photo as a guide, put black tape over top of them, and line it up exactly when you do. So you should now have a 2.35:1 aspect ratio screen on your camera with the black tape, or at least really close, for cropping in post.
by
Hehohohehahahe
» Wed Dec 28 2016 05:41:18 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since July 2012
Please tell me this is a joke?
by
archibald14
» Wed Dec 28 2016 17:20:52 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2016
What is the problem ?
by
Hehohohehahahe
» Sun Jan 1 2017 13:55:30 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since July 2012
All you need is the magic lantern markers. Then when you have your 1.78:1 image in your editing programme, divide 1920 (1) by 2.35 and set the value the video height to get the correct crop.
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
Spoiler alert -- it's a ripoff. This is why I deemed it important enough to archive. Don't get scammed.

by
RynoII
» Tue Dec 27 2016 00:22:54 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
I am an aspiring filmmaker trying to get more opportunities and break into the business. I am trying to get my first feature off the ground which I can shoot on a microbudget of 40K about. It would be a really low budget movie intended as a breakthrough movie in the spirit of El Mariachi or Paranormal Activity, in the sense that it's really low budget.

One director who has had more success than me and lives in LA, gave me a interesting proposition. He said that if I use my budget to direct my own movie, and give the budget to him and produce his movie, he will give me a co-producer credit as well as let me direct a couple of scenes in the movie.

He said that me getting to direct a couple of scenes, in an LA production as well as getting a co-producer credit will give me something to put in my portfolio that is worth a lot more than making my own movie, with the experience that I have so far.

What do you think. Is this a good proposal from him and I should go for it?
by
Myosis1
» Tue Dec 27 2016 10:56:32 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2016
At best, he's full of sh!t. At worst, he trying to scam you out of 40K.
by
RynoII
» Tue Dec 27 2016 11:58:00 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
Okay thanks. He has made two feature films so far, and he showed me one of them, the second is not released yet, but he has more experience than I do, so I thought I would listen at least.

He also said that if I am not interested in that offer, than he could help me make my script since I was having trouble getting enough cast and crew, and he could help me by using the cast and crew, that he would be able to get... but the only problem with that is, I would have to use his selections and he wants to play the main character.
Red flag right there!

by
Myosis1
» Tue Dec 27 2016 12:04:42 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2016
Unless HE is giving YOU money to make your movie, he shouldn't have anything to say about the cast or crew.
by
RynoII
» Tue Dec 27 2016 13:01:00 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
No he's not giving me money or anything he is just saying that the cast and crew is better than what I was able to come up with, and I should take it.
by
firearms trainer
» Tue Dec 27 2016 17:21:54 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2001
Be sure you get an Associate Producer credit, and ask for NET points, not gross points. Gross points are for suckers.

Then watch "State and Main."

But in all honesty, with the state of your script (which is hopeless) and your inability to get any actors with talent or crew who know what they are doing, if you just give him money and direct a couple of scenes, you will be exactly the same place as if you tried to make your own movie. Basically, nowhere. You will be one of the many millions of filmmakers who made an awful film that no one beyond family and friends will ever care to see.

Because you ignore our advice to throw your script in the garbage and start over writing what you know, and start making short films, not features ... well, you are wasting your money either way.

At least if you give him money, you will get to direct some real actors for a few minutes. That's probably better than what you can do on your own. So, yes, it's a scam and yes he is taking you for a ride ... but you won't be any worse off than if you did your own film without him. Plus, you get a trip to LA.
by
RynoII
» Tue Dec 27 2016 18:11:19 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
I am up for making short film, I am not trying to ignore advice. I made one short film so far, and trying to make another though have had trouble finding people interested. As far as throwing a script in the garbage, I don't remember getting that advice on here, so maybe the majority of people who gave me advice on here, did not tell me to do that and it was just a minority?
by
MonsterMaker
» Wed Dec 28 2016 11:26:12 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since November 2003
You always say you're having trouble getting cast and crew. Pay them. People will work for you. Set a shoot date. 3 weeks/18 days. A cast of no more than 6 and a crew of 10. You won't pay a lot but when you offer pay and set shoot dates you'll get people to find a cast and crew.

That's what this LA director is going to do.

You don't direct a couple of scenes, you direct a feature. You find a good producer and you don't need a co-producer credit. An “LA production”? So what? Neither of the micro budget films you mention were LA productions. What you need to put in your portfolio is a feature YOU directed. Not a feature you financed for another director but shot in LA.
by
RynoII
» Wed Jan 4 2017 22:16:20 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
Okay thanks. I offer to pay. The problem is, is that when I set shoot dates, I do not get enough cast and crew applicants in time. It just takes longer for them all to apply to the adds. So how do I know when the shoot dates will be, when I don't know how long it will take enough of them to apply? I could set the shoot date four months down the road, to give everyone enough time to apply, or is that too long?

As for this offer by this director, he keeps tempting me, saying that if I invest all my budget, as a percentage of the budget on his feature, and me being allowed to direct two scenes in LA, I will learn more than I could ever learn where I am now.

And where I am now, isn't very good, so it's tempting. But as long as you are certain, that it's a rip off, and I am not missing out on a great opportunity to learn how to direct, as well as get a co-producer credit on a feature to add to my portfolio.
(Robert Loggia avatar)
by
MyNameIsStupid
» Wed Jan 4 2017 23:04:53 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2010
You should totally do it

Dont tell me you're innocent. Because it insults my intelligence and makes me very angry.
by
RynoII
» Wed Jan 4 2017 23:28:13 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
Post Edited:
Wed Jan 4 2017 23:30:11
Well now I don't know what to do... Perhaps I could to see a script first, but how do you tell if a script is good since the majority could hate it, and everyone else gives mixed opinions in the end? I suppose there is no way if telling if his script is better compared to one I wanted to direct in the future though. What do you think?
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
Should a writer stick to just being a writer, or shoulds they cross over into directing/producing/etc.?

IMDb explored this question back in October.

by
Little_Miss_Yappa
» Mon Oct 10 2016 20:02:42 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2004
Hello all!

So...I've been an aspiring screenwriter for about three years now. I've submitted to a few screenwriting contests and all, with nice feedback, but nothing's gone anywhere. Under my personal circumstances, I've begun to realize that the only way I'm gonna really get out there is to just put my work out there. But I'm just a lowly writer, so that means having to move into a director/producer/editor (basically everything LOL) role as well AND it means having the funds to actually make a film. I've been unemployed for almost three years (long story). I currently make a few bucks as a freelance writer. It's really frustrating to know what you need to do but not have the means to do it.

But now I do! Well, I don't actually have the money yet, but my father passed away this past weekend after being told he was terminally ill over the summer. We were estranged so that's neither here nor there, but I will be receiving some inheritance money. I plan to use some of the funds to make short things. I'll create a Youtube channel to upload them.

I've already spent two years in grad school studying Adolescent Education (didn't graduate) so I won't be going to film school, but for this to work I will need to learn the basics and was wondering if y'all have tips on where I could go. I'd even take a course or two (probably not like, audit an NYU film course, but like reputable sites that offer education, that kinda thing).

Because I'm interested in film (have taken screenwriting courses and also just listen to and watch artists - I love DVD extras for this reason), I have a basic understanding artistically of what directors, various editors, cinematographers, light...people (?) etc. are trying to accomplish and how they all work together to complete the director's vision. I just need the technical education. I know I can rent equipment relatively cheaply for like a weekend or something, but I'd also need an understanding of cameras for film and what would be the best equipment for my needs and artistic desires.

Any help would be appreciated. I'm located in New York, on Long Island! Thanks y'all! [wave]

Two words: Jeff Goldblum[love1]
by
Myosis1
» Mon Oct 10 2016 20:22:16 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2016
This is going to sound like a very lazy answer, but YouTube is a great resource for beginner-level technical information.

I attended NYU in the late eighties, before these resources were available. But I was educated in film production using film cameras. So when things moved into digital, I found myself self educating online.

But you have the right idea. Gather some equipment, make some short films, and learn from your mistakes. Sometimes you don't know what you don't know until you do it. Then you have specific areas to investigate. Your sound sucks? Learn about how to get the best sound. Images tend to be too dark? Learn about exposure. Etc.

Just be careful not to spend too much with whatever inheritance you receive. People are making great short films with a DSLR and a good mic.

Being so close to Manhattan is also a huge advantage. Volunteer on some student productions. You can go to NYU at 721 Broadway and post a flier offering your services for free. (Heck, there might even be a digital method of doing this that didn't exist in 1988!)
by
colcam
» Mon Oct 10 2016 20:24:06 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2000
Finish at least four to six screenplays, then go to film festivals with copies in your shoulder bag. When you are in tech seminars you need to make an input, and to listen to what others say, but do so while remembering that YOU are a writer, and without the screenplay nothing happens. Do not let it go to your head, but remember you have a real contribution to the project.

If things go well maybe three or four real life producers or directors will take the screenplay you have written that is most like what they feel they want, and they will read it.

And they all will hate it.

And if it is well done, it eats at their mind, and they show it to someone else, such as another producer, another director, some really good talent that is still in the unknown stage.

Somewhere, somebody gets hooked, and they pay you diddly squat for that screenplay, and about a week later somebody else calls to ask how cheaply you will let them option it [f]or the next decade or so.

When you apologize because that screenplay is already sold they say thanks, and hang up before you can get another word out.

You feel bad, they are upset, and they voice that anger with missing buying this one screenplay-- and a dozen people will contact you to find out what else you have.

Sell a second one, also for almost nothing, and suddenly you have people wanting you to work for them, and they do not go away when you remind them that you need to be paid.

Summary? Write. Write at least a half dozen screenplays, then go back and read the first one again and rewrite it to your new standard. Do that with number two, go to the festivals, and be "solid" in your presentation.

Most wannabe writers do not write, they just talk about it. Make sure you are a writer, then sell your work to pay the bills.

That is the problem.

You have to actually work at it, and most wannabe writers want fame and money, not work.

Go for work.

It pays.

.
by
Little_Miss_Yappa
» Mon Oct 10 2016 20:29:22 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2004
Post Edited:
Mon Oct 10 2016 20:29:50 I have written and do write - can't apply to contests without doing that - but thanks. [wave]

Two words: Jeff Goldblum[love1]
by
Little_Miss_Yappa
» Mon Oct 10 2016 20:34:34 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2004
Thanks! Text resources would be helpful to[o,] though. I have multiple disabilities, including a learning one. Auditory learning isn't my strong suit unfortunately. [hmm]

And yeah. A film called Tangerine, about two trans women, was filmed on a freaking iPhone! I have an idea of what's out there and as poor as I am I def don't plan on spending all my inheritance money on this, but it is my dream. Even just having work I can be proud of on Youtube would be amazing. [yes]

Very helpful you are. [yes]

Two words: Jeff Goldblum[love1]
by
RynoII
» Wed Jan 11 2017 16:52:46 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
You are wanting to direct one of your movies to get noticed as a writer, is that right? What if you just show off your scripts to other directors, and have one of them, want to produce and direct the script instead?
Some people have that drive to be a writer/director. John Carpenter. Quentin Tarantino. Kevin Smith. Richard Linklater. Even me.

by
MyNameIsStupid
» Wed Jan 11 2017 20:41:26 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2010
Where on LI [I'm assuming LI stands for Long Island?]? There are a few places to choose from.

Dont tell me you're innocent. Because it insults my intelligence and makes me very angry.
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
From the IMDb archives, I'm lumping all these camera-related questions together in one thread.

What type of camera would be best for this task?
by
RynoII
» Thu Jan 19 2017 21:00:27 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
I was working under a director/camera operator, and I noticed that while shooting downtown at night, he can get the footage, to look really bright, and really good, with a low amount of noise, since we were shooting documentary style, under natural lighting mostly.

I noticed how in his camera, everything is in focus at night, which is the complete [opposite] of the cameras I am use to (sic). I am use to (sic) ones with a really shallow DOF, especially under low light conditions. But I like how he can open the aperture all the way up to f1.8, he said, and it's still all in focus.

I would like a camera that can do that at night, when it comes to shooting scenes with a lot of action in, where you would want a lot in focus.

But I also like shallow DOF as well when it comes to the more quiet scenes, and dialogue scenes.

I was wondering, is there a camera, where you can have the best of both worlds, without having to spend the extra money on a 35mm adapter, to get shallow focus? Mainly I want a camera, where I can go from a deep DOF under low light at night in the city, but also go to a shallow DOF as well, without light being the dictator in what the DOF should be.

But is there a camera that is low cost, that can do that?
Re: What type of camera would be best for this task?
by
John-PaulJones
» Sun Jan 22 2017 14:14:21 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2014
No.
Re: What type of camera would be best for this task?
by
Nael-Gharzeddine
» Wed Jan 25 2017 16:52:24 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since February 2014
Check out the Sony A7S
Re: What type of camera would be best for this task?
by
RynoII
» Sat Jan 28 2017 23:58:28 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
The Sony A7s seems like a good choice as well. However, I am afraid if I close the aperture beyond say f11 for example, that the shot could suffer from aperture diffraction when it comes to DSLR sensors. How much can you close the aperture, before you reach diffraction?
Also, don't be afraid to explore your options in Super 8, 16mm, and 35mm. See what you like, and what works; it's your film.

Here's another thread about zoom shots:

Can I get a zoom shot like this on a low budget?
by
RynoII
» Sun Jan 29 2017 22:55:30 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
Post Edited:
Mon Jan 30 2017 01:29:17
Basically for a film project I want to do, I want a zoom shot like this, like the one you see at 1:38 into the clip:


Basically it starts out as a medium close up of the woman, then it zooms far back, putting her in the background. Basically I want a shot like that.

However, it's very difficult on a microbudget to [find] a lens that can do that. Even the rental store, has all kinds of video equipment, but not those kinds of zoom lens. So I tried my lens as a test, which is a variable aperture lens. The aperture changes as you zoom back and forth. I asked for advice on that, and people were telling me that the lens was changing apertures as I zoomed back and forth. So I made sure and did in a test, here:


Now I did that test with the aperture at f8. I looked to make sure, and it stayed at f8, the entire time. I also tried more zooms back and forth that I didn't post, but it was f8, the entire time.

So [is] it possible to get the kind of shot that you see in The Wild Bunch without that specific of a zoom lens that can be a constant aperture? One option is put the camera on a steadicam, and run with it. But I cannot run as fast as the zoom you see in that shot. It zooms back about 40 feet in less than a second, and I cannot run that fast with the steadicam. A dolly would probably be even slower.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

I thought about maybe getting a 4K camera and then zooming into the footage in post, and then zooming back in post, cause then I would still have 1080p in the end. Is that a good option?
No replies. But my advice would be to go with the steadicam option, undercrank it (meaning, to shoot at fewer fps than the standard 24; try 12 or lower), and then play it back at 24fps. This is how fast motion is done. Don't overdo it, or it'll look like The Munsters... unless that's what you're going for.

This next post asks about creating camera movements in post (ore, after the fact). The original post was deleted by the poster, but here are the replies:

Re: Is it worth it to create camera movement in post?
by
Arriflex74
» Mon Jan 16 2017 23:07:07 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
Post Edited:
Mon Jan 16 2017 23:09:06
I shot a short film but not really that happy with how there is almost no camera movement in it. I guess I was concentrating on everything else, and not paying as much attention to having no movement in my shots.

See how right there is a learning opportunity if you're open and self aware enough to realize it?

What do you think? Is it worth it? Or not really, and just tell the story without it?

We don't know your story. We don't know your shots. So who knows, except you.

Here's an idea. Nothing is permanent in digital editing. Try it out and see if you think it works, learn and quit asking here about abstract things we can't help you with.

Never go with a hippy to a second location.
Re: Is it worth it to create camera movement in post?
by
MonsterMaker
» Tue Jan 17 2017 08:58:28 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since November 2003
But then what will he do with his day? He has no independent thought. Every post here and on two other messageboards is something that he thinks but cannot act on without other people telling him what to do.

This is a prime example. He has seen it done and doesn't like it. But he thinks it might work done well. He won't try it to see if it works. He wants total strangers to tell him that it's okay to try it.

Ryno, what I think is... it's worth trying. There. Now you can try it because some stranger you have never met says it's worth trying. That way if it doesn't work you can go to one of the other messageboards and say “There is one guy who said try it, that why I did it.” The failure will not be yours, it will be mine.

I wonder... if it works will you give me credit?
Re: Is it worth it to create camera movement in post?
by
archibald14
» Wed Jan 18 2017 13:25:43 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2016
When you are making a movie, the most important part is that before shooting begins you must have a clear idea in your mind of how the movie plays out. If you don't, then you basically will have no artistic vision and you will be winging it on set, making up the shots as you go along and waiting to see how it turns out in editing. Leaving it to chance basically. That's not the way to make a movie. Shot composition and editing have to be decided before you start shooting anything.

Anyway, it's too late for that now, but if you really want to experiment with movement then you can always try an edit and see how it works. The good thing with digital editing is you can try things as much as you want.
[post deleted by the poster]

Always make and effort to do as much in-camera as possible. That'll save you headaches in post.
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
Is shooting a feature film on a Canon rebel, a bad idea?
by
RynoII
» Fri Feb 3 2017 12:06:28 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
Basically when it comes to filmmaking, I tend to be cheap on the cameras. I spend more money on sound, lighting, getting the best actors I can, and getting the best art direction and locations I can. Things like that.

Right now, I only have a T2i camera, with 3 lenses. A 70-200, a 50mm, and a 24mm.

However, is shooting a feature Canon rebel, that you want to get noticed and hopefully get picked up, a bad idea?

I've looked up features shot on DSLR's and almost all of them are shot full frame, with cinema lenses, so I would be taking it down some notches, by shooting on an APS-C sensor, without cinema lenses. But I was thinking the budget could still go towards other things, but how necessary is full frame, with cinema lenses, do you think? I was thinking of upgrading to the T6i, but I would like to keep my lenses, so money can go towards other things in the budget.

What do you think?
by
ImReallyANarc
» Fri Feb 3 2017 12:26:04 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2005
Post Edited:
Fri Feb 3 2017 12:27:52
Ryan, this is not the answer you want, but I'm hoping it's just as valuable.

However, is shooting a feature Canon rebel, that you want to get noticed and hopefully get picked up, a bad idea?
No, but shooting a feature with your severe diffidence is a bad idea. For you and for me and for anybody who wastes their time giving you advice that you refuse to listen to.

If I was to say "Yes, it's a bad idea, get yourself a used RED or at least an URSA" then you'd flood seven different message boards with questions about white balancing your new camera and framing your subject and how to adapt those Canon lenses you already have.

I know guys who went to Cannes last year with a film shot with multiple T2i's. It can be done. These guys are also prolific short filmmakers who have been doing this for years and won boat loads of awards. They're experienced enough and at the stage to get their stuff picked up by festivals regardless of the camera they used.

Get out there and get shooting. Enter filmmaking competitions and win them. Then, when you're at the stage when you've picked up awards and are a confident and competent filmmaker, take whatever camera you have and get noticed.
by
RynoII
» Fri Feb 3 2017 12:30:06 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
Post Edited:
Fri Feb 3 2017 12:43:33
Okay thanks. I am not saying I am going to shoot a feature now. It's just I was wondering if it's worth investing in a more expensive camera for the future.

One thing I have noticed in my shooting, is that the camera does not shoot RAW video, so the color grading options are limited, cause it causes more noise in grading. Could this be a problem, when wanting to look professional?
by
ImReallyANarc
» Fri Feb 3 2017 15:45:19 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2005
Download Magic Lantern. Problem solved.
by
pgodlewski-569-399675
» Fri Feb 3 2017 23:41:49 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2012
Why don't you shoot it and tells us later?
by
RynoII
» Sat Feb 4 2017 22:03:49 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
I shot one short film on it so far, but wasn't sure if it would be good enough for a feature.
by
pgodlewski-569-399675
» Sat Feb 4 2017 22:22:21 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2012
Why not? The camera is just a tool.

I see you on here just talking about this and about that. Maybe you should just do it instead?

So you made one short film and you are already going to make a feature? Trust me a camera is going to be least of your concern.

The chances that first feature being picked up are very slim and if by chance your film is phenomenal, it being shot on a DSLR isn't going to stop it from landing a deal. However like I said chances of it happening it pretty slim. Just make a movie, see for yourself. You worry too much about nonsense. Your films aren't going to be award winning right out of the gate.

Maybe make some short films before you commit to blowing budget on a much larger project.
by
RynoII
» Sat Feb 4 2017 23:34:35 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
No I wasn't planning on making a feature now, just investing in future equipment so I would get the most bang for my buck, and use the camera over and over again.
by
pgodlewski-569-399675
» Sat Feb 4 2017 23:53:49 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2012
Are you the cinematographer? Most people I know own a camera or two but they actually rent equipment for bigger productions. You know it's better to rent a high end camera and spend the money you would have on it for budget of your project?

I know people who own RED cameras that by today's standards they are not high end and worst part is they are still paying it off. The projects he works on usually has budget to rent a newer RED, or couple Sony A7S MKII. Each project calls for a different camera. You want to just buy and store gear, that's your call. The money you spend on owning gear could go toward your production to hire make up artist, stunt coordinator, editor, colorist, or anyone that will help you make your film a better piece.

Or you could invest in a camera that will be in few years outdated. Your call
by
RynoII
» Sun Feb 5 2017 11:38:39 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
The thing about renting is, is that I would have to learn an all new camera in such a short amount of time, where as if you own the camera, you have a lot more time to learn.
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
by
firearms trainer
» Sun Feb 5 2017 15:40:01 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2001
Keep shooting your little home movies on your cheap toy camera. No one here cares anymore. You are not serious about learning your craft, and you don't even have the slightest clue about why you SHOULDN'T shoot a feature on a digital Rebel, so this will always just be a hobby for you until your money runs out.

NO professional will ever take you the slightest bit seriously if you show up with your Barbie's First Camera.

But good luck with your home movies.
by
pgodlewski-569-399675
» Sun Feb 5 2017 16:28:16 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2012
You're just making excuses.
by
RynoII
» Sun Feb 5 2017 16:52:22 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
NO professional will ever take you the slightest bit seriously if you show up with your Barbie's First Camera.

Well if that's true then what cameras should I get then?
by
pgodlewski-569-399675
» Sun Feb 5 2017 17:07:08 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2012
Phase One. Everything else is for amateurs.
by
firearms trainer
» Sun Feb 5 2017 17:24:00 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2001
Sigh.

I guess you will never get it.

A camera is just a tool. Tell a good story FIRST, then worry about the camera. The mission dictates the equipment, not the other way around like you have it.
by
RynoII
» Sun Feb 5 2017 21:08:42 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
Alright, perhaps, I am worrying too much about the performance of the equipment :). I mean there are some equipment I should have sure I figure. I figure that say, a boom mic, is better than the on board camera mic obviously... But I should get too worried, or too carried away with it.

I just figure why do big budget movies spend all this money on high performance equipment, if story telling is a lot more important.
by
firearms trainer
» Sun Feb 5 2017 23:14:15 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2001
I just figure why do big budget movies spend all this money on high performance equipment, if story telling is a lot more important.
Because this quote illustrates why exactly you have been wasting our time for the past eight years. If you don't understand this basic concept, then there is NOTHING anyone can do for you.

If you want to make nothing but home movies until all your money is all gone, then keep worrying about the equipment.

If you want to be a filmmaker, take three years of film school, and then revisit this question. All will become clear.

Many filmmakers become filmmakers because they make films. They learn as they go, and improve with every project. You, on the other hand, haven't learned the one most important basic concept in filmmaking in the past eight years you have been on these boards.

Either go to film school and start at lesson one, or find a new hobby. You don't have the basic knowledge to do this one.
by
pgodlewski-569-399675
» Mon Feb 6 2017 01:51:26 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2012
Big budget films have...well you know big budgets.

Why don't you make projects that fit YOUR budget?

Why not make a sappy short about lone filmmaker worrying that his camera isn't good enough but instead of actually doing anything with it he just sits on a dying messenger board?

I see you constantly asking about some complex plot about cops and robbers or something with many characters and subplots.

And for what? What have you actually done with that script? You're just jerking everyone by the tail with questions that you could find answers for yourself.

If you only invested half of the time you're putting into this research and worrying about equipment, maybe you'd be actually closer to making that cops and robbers movie. Maybe not.

When this board dies later this month...will you finally go out and start doing it?
by
ImReallyANarc
» Mon Feb 6 2017 05:44:23 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2005


Post Edited:
Mon Feb 6 2017 05:45:16
When this board dies later this month...will you finally go out and start doing it?

Unfortunately, there are other message boards where he does the exact same thing. Everything he learns in this thread, he'll misinterpret and then ask for clarification on one of the other message boards. I am a regular at one such board and in a few days there'll be a new Ryno question "Some people have told me that I need to spend less time researching and learning, and more time using my camera, so where can I find something to shoot?"

After the IMDB boards die (may they rest in peace) he'll just crank up the posting on those other message boards and still learn not a fooking thing.
by
pgodlewski-569-399675
» Mon Feb 6 2017 05:59:49 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2012
...you're right.

I guess I am just hopeful and naive.
I know someone like Ryno so it hits close to home.
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
by
ImReallyANarc
» Mon Feb 6 2017 06:14:18 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2005


Post Edited:
Mon Feb 6 2017 06:14:40
In a Ryno thread, I assure you you're not the naive one [laugh]
by
firearms trainer
» Mon Feb 6 2017 17:13:15 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2001


Post Edited:
Mon Feb 6 2017 23:13:10
Someone called it a vortex. It is more like a black hole of anti-matter that once it sucks you in, you will have no hope of ever emerging.

And to think I used to do the Kessel run in 13 parsecs.
by
ImReallyANarc
» Mon Feb 6 2017 18:16:07 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2005
That's probably the most apt description of any Ryno thread. Even those of us who have seen him do this over and over again for years still get sucked in. The questions seem genuine at first.


On a side note, firearms trainer (and arriflex and even aiwaz), I thank you for your input and your patience with this board. I know it's mostly newbie bullsht 99% of the time but those of us who are serious about filmmaking, whether as a passion project or as a career aspiration, greatly appreciate the feedback from working professionals.

Now what camera should I buy?
by
John-PaulJones
» Mon Feb 6 2017 21:06:34 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2014
I second this. There were some great folks in here, and a lot of working professionals came on here anonymously over the years to help newcomers. Those are the folks I will miss the most. They were the ones who understood the true meaning of the term "shop talk," and "paying it forward."

On a side note, I actually had the pleasure of meeting FT in real life the last time he was down in California. I attended a workshop he was giving, and let me assure you, he is as calm and patient in real life as he appears on these boards.

by
firearms trainer
» Mon Feb 6 2017 23:32:20 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2001
Thank you JP. I try.

I will admit that a few people over the years tried my patience.

I have met so many IMDB friends in real life. Most of them are long gone from these boards but i still remember going for dinner with a writer/actress I know from these boards the last time I was in California and as we took the hotel elevator down, the doors opened and in stepped ANOTHER shop talk friend that I had never met face-to-face.

But 30 years in this business is probably enough. I have met some wonderful folks; worked with some amazing people both in front and behind the camera, and made friends around the world. It's been a great career.

But don't worry; I am not going anywhere. For as long as there are still good people NOT making it home safe at the end of their day in the film business, I will still keep advocating for safety, making a pest of myself with producers and lamenting with the DOP that we are probably the two oldest people on set. Other than maybe Randall Wallace and Lasse Halstrom, I probably have t-shirts older than the last 30 directors I worked for.

On the other hand, perhaps people SHOULD listen to the old man in a young person's game. He just may have something to say.
by
BlueHarvester
» Thu Feb 9 2017 08:35:04 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2015
You shooting anything on any type of camera is a bad idea. You should try your hand at other things. Take up angling or something.
I wouldn't put it that harshly, but the pros have spoken.
 

PF4Eva

Member: Rank 3
This is the kind of question that amateurs and aspiring filmmakers might ask a pro. Let's see what IMDb's Shop Talk Directors had to say:

by
RynoII
» Tue Jan 31 2017 02:45:38 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
Basically before, I would watch tutorials on how to make my own DIY equipment, and so far I have mad (sic) my own boom pole, my own shock mount and my own camera stabilizer. But I find it didn't work as well. However, I never used the real things before, so I can't really compare how much better they are.

For the DIY boompole (sic) I got a painter's pole like one tutorial said to, but the problem, is (sic) that the painters (sic) pole would make rattling noises, when swinging the boom from actor to actor, as the actors took turns speaking. The only solution to to (sic) this was to extend the pole all the way, and it was silent at that point, but the disadvantage is, is (sic) that the pole was really long all the time, and awkward to be able to move around in small or confined spaces.

For the DIY shockmount, (sic) it worked fine if I was holding the boom still on an actor, but if it was a shot, where I had [to] swing the boom from actor to actor, it would cause the mic, to (sic) loosen and fall out, thus having to restart the take.

For the DIY steadicam, it works not bad, but if feels (sic) like it could work better maybe, if it was built better or more professionally... But what do you think? Should I go spend the extra money, and go pro, or just keep re-inventing with DIY, till I get it right do you think?

I have so far, gotten a professional Rode shock mount, and no mic falling through since. I was going to get a deadcat next, or some sort of wind protection, but my friend told me I shouldn't bother with the extra money, and just make a DIY wind protection. What do you think?
by
ImReallyANarc
» Tue Jan 31 2017 11:03:01 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2005
Most equipment is worth exactly what you pay for it.
My advice would be do use whatever works. Many indie filmmakers use DIY equipment when they have a shoestring budget, if any. If the shoe fits, wear it.
 
Top