Phil Connolly

Reds are also keeping their prices up because they are small and practical. Look at the cameras that have dropped down e.g Alexa Classic, F3, F35, D21 etc.. They are larger or require external recorders etc...

I've def done that for moon light effects that become visible when the actors "switch" off the practicals

On this stedicam shot at the end of Hugo you can see a lighting shift As Bruce say's normally you would use a dimmer pack and a lighting desk - that would allow you to fade any light up or down to your hearts content either manually or patterns can be programmed in. This is very normal for studio TV production e.g game shows where the lighting shifts between rounds etc, or sitcoms where you need to change from day to night quickly without relighting. For traditional dimmers you use tungsten lights. To get around the colour shift on tungsten its normal to set all the lights to 70% brightness and do a manual white balance to that. This stops the lights looking too orange when you dim them. You can get mini dimmers that you can plug one or two lights in (about 2kw) and manually dim them that way. Fine for simple set ups, but not as powerful as a TV studio setup with full dimming. On location you could look into renting the Rotolight Anova LED fixtures - they can be dimmed over wifi. So you can control them using an app on your phone - bypassing the need for an electrical dimmer and LX board. Thats probably the future for this sort of thing. The nice thing about the rotos is you don't get colour shift on the fades. They are expensive but compared to renting a dimmer pack and LX controller its not too bad. You can get other fixtures that will dim directly with a DMX controller, however they are usually more geared to live applications e.g LED Pars and Moving heads - they are unlikely to have particularly good colour If the lighting shift is supposed to be unmotivated then you want a way to make sure the dimming (up or down) looks smooth, using a controller you can programme would help. There are also mechanical ways to change lighting on shot, from panning a light on, moving a flag into position or using shutters, flooding the lamp etc...

I the credit thing, I think it can look really silly when people credit themselves on two many roles. Especially when they give a separate full screen credit to each thing. If I have done multiple roles i credit them as a single line eg. "Written, directed and edited by Philip connolly". That's pretty clean and sensible. You could make up names for the other roles, but again could look silly. Why invent credits just keep it short. I credit myself on the max 3 most important roles I've done. If I did other roles and I probably did (e.g catering, dit, costume, art dept) i just omit those from the credits. Looks silly otherwise. Or credit yourself as "made by" or "filmmaker". The overly self reverential credits makes you look silly if you go down that route. Or credit your cast and crew and go everything else ......

Indeed, everyone bangs on about "The Blair Witch Project" costing less then $30k. The version anyone saw cost many times that once it had the audio remixed and an expensive 35mm film out. With a short your inviting comment volunteering a budget so not worth it. Same if I end up shooting on an FS7 I would not mention it and hope people assumed I could afford an Alexa. If it ends up looking really good maybe I'd pretend it was an Alexa shoot on IMDb...

The actual budget doesn't really matter. Also it can work against you e.g if a film has a low budget it might turn audiences away, "why would I watch that cheap film?" This is more of a feature thing, but micro budget features often keep quiet about the budget or pretend its more. I wouldn't include the budget unless it helps "sell" the film, what do you gain by volunteering the information? You do see features made for tiny amounts eg "Primer", "El Mariachi", "Following" that are big achievements, for such a low budget. At that point the budget helps the marketing. At the high end e.g "Avatar" the budget is also a selling point, e.g "come see the most expensive film ever made, $300 million+ of spectacle." "This film was cheap" is less of a marketing opportunity. If your budget falls between two extreme's and most shorts are made on a wing and a prayer anyway. I wouldn't bother to volunteer it, whats that point? It just invites scrutiny. Unless you post the budget is quite high then it makes you look like your serious e.g I managed to get $100k to make a short, I'm serious. But then if the actual film doesn't look like a $100k short, you look like an inept filmmaker. In conversations I'm sometimes honest, but it depends. The short I'm working on at the moment I'm not telling anyone the budget, certainly not the actors agents. Them having that information won't help. The only time discussing budget is useful in conversations/articles for other filmmakers. I discussed a budget in an article in "Filmmaker Magazine" because I thought it would be helpful for the filmmakers reading and the film was a done deal and had already been in festivals. I'm also honest to my students about what things cost me and I don't lie on this forum either. Festivals often ask for a budget on the application form - I would either be honest or lie - depending on how I want to be perceived. Ultimately the budget is what you say it is, it could be the cash budget, or the in kind budget, or your time - its not like imdb are going to audit it.

Yeah the whole packaging thing is a problem. Whats the point of an Agent if they make more money off the package? At that point they don't look out for your interests. I think the WGA action is overdue but they won't be able to force any change on their own. If the DGA and SAG et al joined the dispute, you'd get a bit more movement. I'm surprised they haven't already packaging potential limits the options of all film creatives not just writers. Ooops sorry are we supposed to be talking about film technology? Films in vertical/portrait ratios - they are starting to creep in already. Since we consume more and more media on small devices I think the instagram friendly ratios are going to be around for awhile. Also a portrait formatted cinema screen could have the cool looming over you effect you use to have when you entered a real IMAX theatre

I think 16mm is difficult for VFX in general, its not just the grain. The image is also a little less stable and you have less overall resolution and picture information to work with. If your keen to preserve a film work flow, bumping upto 35mm would give better results. If you use the same stock colour and gamma would match perfectly and you'd have more flexibility in post. If budgets tight even 2 perf 35mm is 1.6x larger then s16 when working at 16:9 and 3x larger at 2.40. Or just do de-aging the old school way, with an excellent makeup artist and careful lighting. I once did short where we needed an actor to look about 15 years younger on a flashback and we got pretty close to convincing, they had this concealer that filled the wrinkles in. Although it can look terrible if you push it too far and it needed lots of touch ups. If you do it this way the softness and grain of s16 would help sell the makeup.

Looks a lot better

It has a crop mode that allows you to use a 1080p window of the sensor which would probably work with an s16 lens. Or just shoot 4k full sensor, and crop the vignette out in post

The terms are pretty interchangeable and most library types and academics can barely tell the difference between HD and SD - so as long as your in the ball park its probably fine Blu ray is usually HD, 1920 x 1080. The K is taken from the horizontal so its 1.9K so pretty much the same visually as 2K. Unless its UHD bluray that would be 3.8K. 4096 x 2160 compared to 3840 x 2160 would have different aspect ratios mind

Maybe your responding to the lack of grain on digital vs film? Grain can put a bit of snap into the image and maybe that counter balances the slight softening effect of anamorphic's

If your planning for cinema projection its probably better to conform to the DCI spec: In 2K, for Scope (2.39:1) presentation 2048×858 pixels of the imager is used In 2K, for Flat (1.85:1) presentation 1998×1080 pixels of the imager is used In 4K, for Scope (2.39:1) presentation 4096×1716 pixels of the imager is used In 4K, for Flat (1.85:1) presentation 3996×2160 pixels of the imager is used The reason UHD is a doubling of the 1920 HD width, eg 3840 across is it simplifies the maths. Most people are going to be watching a lot of 1080x1920p footage on their UHD/4k TV's. If TV's were 4096 across the resize would be more difficult to do and the end result less good. If its more likely people are going to view it in a domestic setting HD/UHD - then it may be "better" to master directly to UHD 3840, since the downconvert from 4K DCI may affect the quality.

Its quite good for product photography and pack shots. Sometimes I find myself hitting the minimum object distance on the 85mm. Then the 135mm is great for those tighter shots. Its more about getting tighter then a specific long lens "look"

Indeed the last "free" music video I did was on the agreement they let me do what I want and have no input in the edit. Its not fun getting trapped in edit hell on free jobs because the artist is upset they don't look sexy enough....

From memory I think its about 8 or 9 stops. Limited mostly by the 8 bit DVCProHD Codec. I never actually tested it but at the time was better the DV type cameras and similar to Digi-Beta/HDCAM - which have similar specs. Perfectly fine if your able to control the lighting. I did work on the post of the Top Gear Polar special, (shot on the first generation) and the footage looked excellent. Panasonic HD cameras were less popular in the UK compared to Sony HDCAM. Mainly because the broadcasters picked 1080/50i as the standard. 720p production was less common. Shame as the Panasonic colour was nicer then Sony's its 4:2:2 rather then HDCAMS 3:1:1 and they are a bit better in lowlight, due to the larger pixels. Also it was easier to work with, you could capture tapes over firewire and not have to invest in a HDSDI capture card. I used a few panasonic's because the university I worked at the time was a Panasonic training centre.

Hi Sam The dialogue is quite tightly written and its paced well. The idea around a girlfriend leaving a boyfriend behind to go to collage has potential. The current draft however lacks drama. Most films create a challenge for the protagonist (Brent) to overcome, this could be a difficult decision he has to make or a problem he has to solve, or a sacrifice he has to make. Its important the protagonist is the person that drives the story through the choices they make. Currently in the script, stuff just happens to Bret and he goes along with it, we have 5 mins of disappointment, but its not that dramatic. Films where nice stuff just happens to the heroes, tend to be a bit dull. Ideally you want to challenge and make life difficult for your characters. This is too easy. What if the parents do not want him to take a year out? What if he goes on the road trip reluctantly? What if he was more angry about April going to Brown? What if he failed his exams and the year out is cover for the fact he couldn't get into collage? It could be more dramatic. Find away for Brent to make more decisions. Often its a good idea to give your protagonist a personality flaw , that they have to overcome to resolve the films conflict. E.g he could be too possessive of April and realises he has to let her go at the end. Short films should be pacy and too the point - you don't really need the scene where he's given the car. It doesn't advance the story, unless they give him his sisters old pink VW and Bret acts like a brat (conflict), then it can break down later (more conflict). Think about how many locations you use (you have to shoot these places). What are the most cinematic ways of shooting these scenes, e.g is the phone call needed I would recommend you read "On Writing" by Stephen King, he really talks about the need to put your characters through the ringer and this podcast episode on writing is very good: https://johnaugust.com/2019/how-to-write-a-movie It talks about story from the POV of addressing your characters wants. Screenwriting is hard well done for putting yourself out there and I hope this feedback helps. I do think your central theme/idea - has potential but it just needs to be developed further. Have fun with it, see if you can throw in some curve balls, make it surprising.

They are nice lenses - looks glossy, good colour pallet and pacey edit. Was the 2.39:1 crop decided in post or during the shoot? Some of the full hight dancer shots are cropped at the ankle and it looks a bit tight, might look better in open matt 16:9 At times the operating is a bit uneven - on wider dance shots (particularly) I think camera movement (is it hand held or loose tripod) its a bit distracting.

I agree the with the kit side of things, they should consider that an "in-kind" investment - so both a exec producer credit, a contract that states a deferred payment (which you won't get) and clear agreements about showreel should be the bare minimum. To be honest I'm not a fan of producers that also want free kit, especially when they aren't paying for labour. Its a bit cheap ass, what other corners might they cut? As a producer in the past I have done microbudget project with unpaid crew, I didn't enjoy it, made me feel cheap, but I alway paid for kit hire and I once was able to make a deferred payment to the crew when a project won some prize money.

Don't rely on future promises, there's no way they can guarantee future work and shorts are unlikely to make a profit. But if you think it could be profitable you could ask for a contract with a deferred payment, without paperwork its not likely you'll get anything. A deferred payment is pretty common - e.g you have a contract that states you will get X amount if the film turns a profit. However I can count on 1 finger the number of films that I know about that actually was able to make the deferred payments. Particularly for shorts. Only do the film if it benefits you for other reasons - e.g levelling up on the showreel/experience. Or do it because you want too, filmmaking is fun, if you enjoy making films then its not a bad thing to make a film for the pure joy of making it outside of financial reward. These days I do project for free either because it allows me to explore something creatively that haven't been able to do in paid work, or i like spending time creatively with a specific bunch of people. In terms of future work or being promised they will hire you when they get funding for the TV/feature version don't expect too much. In the first instance its very unlikely project X will become anything bigger - its a long shot. Also, even if the filmmakers are working in good faith and they get funding for a bigger project and want to keep working with you. They may not have the clout to take their crew with them. The studio make (for instance) want them to use a DOP thats known to them. If your a filmmaker presented with an opportunity to make the film, but only if you work with the crew the studio demand. It would be very tough risking a deal breaker to keep your old DOP. This has happened with quite big directors e.g Danny Boyle and Kevin Smith not being allowed to bring on their own DOP's from the indie days when they make a studio sale. So even if they promise they will keep you, they might not be able too.

I dun lit this with 2 red heads, sorry for the low res, I never kept a copy, this is grab off youtube. The back light just had a bit of ND and was backed well off to get the level down. Key was a red head through 216 and a lastolite on the side bringing a bit of fill. Creating a crisp backlight is easy, the trick is to not have it OTT. I don't like it drawing attention to itself Full video here - quite happy with the lighting on Chris Hopewell as well, same deal 2 x red heads for the interview, but I got to leave the lights in the set on:

If you want to shoot a "live" performance with a single camera. Do the wide shot with the musicians playing "live" and record that sound properly. That recoding now becomes your "master" audio recoding, so keep shooting till you have a take that looks and sounds good. Then for your subsequent shots get the musicians to "mime" along to your live "Master" recording. This gives a hybrid live/mined video thats again easy to sync up. The trick is to shoot a take near the start that establishes sound and then everything matches that. Otherwise you risk the musicians drifting off. This approach can look really good and fool most people into thinking its a fully live multi-camera performance. As Jon said it could be possible to put it together with the musicians playing live each time to a click track, they would have to be good, it would be more work to put the music together and combine the sound and not all musicians are great with click tracks - it would be possible to get lost. The other option is to use 2 cameras. Then you can get 2 live angles and 2 mimed angles - so it feels more live. My tutor at film school shot an Erasure video with 2 x16mm cameras at a concert. The did one pass in the sound check and another in the main concert. The footage sync up because Erasure were playing to a backing track and the speed was consistent between takes. You couldn't tell the shots were taken at different times, matched well.

At this point, sounds like your jumping through so many strange hoops to make film work. Why waste stock on a compromised film option? If they aren't keen with "movie cameras", thats when digital does become a more flexible option. The location is happy with small digital 4K and its gotta be better then battling low light while attempting to push process small gauge film stock. Sometimes its better to take the path of least resistance.

Widescreen Cinema by John Belton is an interesting read. Shows how widescreen technologies developed and stories behind them. Its good back ground and context for the formats we use today. After reading you can become a true aspect ratio nerd.

I would have loved to see this on the big screen. The 4k Netflix version looked and sounded great