Phil Connolly

I've been intrigued by Mark Jenkins approach to filmmaking using home processed 16mm. His previous short "Bronco's House" is available for free here for 1 week: https://www.lecinemaclub.com/ Its rather good. Certainly an unique look

If you want things like bottle smashes to be really slow and awesome looking 48fps might not cut it. Slowmo starts too look cool in the 150 to 200 fps bracket for thinks breaking if you want to see the particles clearly. The other problem with the performer learning to lip sync at high speed means her motion will look strange as well - they will look slowed down as well, even with lip sync and a 2X speed up as David said is really hard to do. 4x or 6x to get more slow mo even more impossible. The other approach would be shoot it in two passes. Lock the camera off and shoot the background action in slow mo. Then shoot the shot again at normal speed with the singer in position. You could use a portable green screen to comp the two together or use the roto brush in after effects to cut round the singer so you can comp him on the slow background. You could shoot the singer in green screen in a studio but its easier on location to match the lighting. In terms of light levels you'd want to put ND in for the normal speed, rather then stopping down - so both show happen at the same f stop.

Nah, you may wish that was the case and you may be correct in terms of the technology used. But, language doesn't work like that. The millions of people that use the term "filming" for digital moving image capture, are not going to stop because some nerds on cinematography.com state its wrong. Its not wrong, because thats the word people use, how could it be wrong? Again its not about technology, but if you go up to any English speaker and invite them to shoot some video. A very large percentage of them will state they were "filming", thats the way language works. You can't police it or control it. Its like the time, the French language people, got upset with too many Americanisms creeping into French. E.g they created an alternative French word for "Walkman", which was "Baladeur" which was used by practically no one, because the general public were happy with "Walkman". The term "filming" is out in the wild its already being used by millions to describe video recording. At this point it stops becoming incorrect and just a part of the English language. Same when radio interviewers describe they got "great tape"... I doubt they are still rocking DAT machines. If you try correct someone for using the term "filming" wrong, its only going to make you look like a pedant. Also you'd be wrong because if you take the English language as its used by most people: Filming means recording moving images, ask anyone. Language isn't a debate, its a conversation.

The back up thing does stress me out when I'm supplying my own gear. I keep my trusty old 60D in the car on shoots, its good to know you can limp through on it if the Black Magic spafs out. On the fashion front I guess if Alexa is even 1% better, then on the high budget jobs thats worth the extra expense. At the commecials level its alot about image. I mean is the prod co and team that charges £500k for a 30 sec video going to be functionally better then a team that could do it £50k. Its a lot about having the balls to charge crazy prices and then the clients start to think its worth it. Alexa plays to that image in a way the trust FS7 doesn't

I used to shoot similar projects at I worked at the East 15 Drama school in London for 2 years doing this, the priority was never the cinematography but giving the trainee actors experience acting in front of the camera. More time spent lighting means less time for the students to practice acting. The quality looks similar to what we would achieve, e.g that of a small crew working very quickly. Also working with inexperienced actors means they are going to miss their marks, make mistakes - this can result in buzzed focus and mistimed camera moves. I got in the habit of shooting to quite deep stops, because I couldn't be confident I'd nail the focus on the one take the acting was kind of ok. This kind of work isn't the sort of thing you should be critiquing in the context of cinematography, its more of a teaching exercise - the production values just need to be "good enough" to give the actors a realistic "on set" experience. From my own experience doing this, I was often aware of the problems with the lighting - but if your shooting a 45 min drama in 4/5 days with a crew of 2 people and trainee actors, just having something that vaguely cuts together is a good achievement.

2048 x 1107 is a 2K scanning/record resolution of 1.85:1, 35mm film. Since a 2K scan is going to be 2048 wide and the hight dependant on aspect ratio up to 4:3. If your producing a 35mm print, then you would master at 2048 x 1107 for 1.85:1 2K typically and laser record it to film at that resolution. But if your mastering for digital projection, stick to the DCI spec, it assumes a 2048 x 1080 or 4096 x 2160 chip in the projector. Ideally you want to avoid resizing if possible. The bigger challenge is for odd aspect ratio films e,g 1.66:1 or 2:1 - they aren't coved in the DCI spec. At lot of 2:1 films are letterboxed within the 1.85:1 DCI frame - even though they "could" use more pixels by using the full width of the chip.

For cinema Its 1998 x 1080 - for DCI 1.85:1 flat The full 2048 width is only used in cinemas for the 2.39:1 aspect ratio. The 2048 x 1080 full container is a 1.9:1 aspect ratio , thats the actual number of pixels a 2K DLP chip has and its wider then 1.85:1. So to maximize resolution for a 1.85:1 file, it can only be 1080 pixels tall. The full hight is used and the chip is slightly wider then 1.85:1 so the sides have to be cropped down from 2048 in to 1998. For 2.39:1 the full width of the chip is used 2048 and its vertically cropped to 858. Best to stick to the DCI flat standard to avoid cinemas miss framing. Also best to conform to the correct resolution initially to avoid resizing too much If its for broadcast or web its better to 1.85:1 letterbox within 1920 x 1080 16:9 container. The DCI spec is only important if your going to make a cinema DCP. For 4K double the numbers

The photography really does stand up. However, I did find the film overall look a bit dated from a production design POV, also its very unbalanced in its gender representation, they should have cast the net a bit wider, I'd have made the "Buzz" character female. But the biggest problem is how ridiculous the whole thing is. As, if an entire country can come together in that way behind a scientific ideal. Governments can't even fix things like homelessness, hunger or healthcare - so a space programme, not credible, even if its a fun idea

Hi Osman, I think its a good idea to use the forum as a sounding board for ideas. Sometimes you can get stuck on an idea and an external input helps. One of my film students was struggling to get permission to shoot in a grave yard. I asked him why he needed a grave yard. He responded that he needed to show one of the characters had died. I asked him if there were other ways he could he could achieve that visually. That was all the prompting he needed to come up with a better solution. Sometimes you can't see the wood from the trees. I've done similar things where I wish I'd talked ideas through and taken suggestions. I think often we try to overcomplicate things and ignore the simple/obvious solution. Maybe because its "too easy" but very often the most straight forward approach is best. Don't delete the thread it shows working out and illuminates your thought process for others. Good luck with the shoot and do post the completed video when its done - I'm curious to see what you had in mind.

Technically is well shot and the clone effect is neatly done. But as others have said when the figures are so small its a frustrating watch - you want to see the instruments being played in detail and see the singers face. Personally I like to see the musicianship on a video, more traditional coverage isn't a bad thing. Maybe the concept would have worked better if you used the same basic composition but either did more extreme zooms onto the figures (even if it goes grainy) or just cut in some close ups. So keep the wide with the clones - but have some tighter shots to ground it. The opening frame is quite good. Just needs more development. Maybe treat this as a camera test and rework it to include more shots or thing of other ways to develop it - once you have the idea of "clones" what other things could you do with the concept. Being quite aggressive with the edit I find works on music videos. This was my attempted at a "Locked off" music video: sync seems a bit loose - even on the super wide shot the guy hitting the box thing seems to be a couple of frames off the beat. Some of the clones are more "on beat" then others - but at times feels a bit iffy.

If you want the cookies to interact with the waves and wash up on the beach, thats going to be hard to mock up on a model shoot. You'd need some form of "wave tank" - possibly doable but quiet a complex build. To be honest its probably easier to do on an actual beach with a ton of cookies (they are bio degradable after all), then you know its going too look real - and you don't have to mess around with compositing and green screen. If you time the tides right and maybe use nets to contain the action. Multiple cameras could be used to give you a couple of angles. Anything else and your dealing with issues of scale - where would you get mini fortune cookies etc... Beaches are big things, I'm sure you could find a quiet spot to shoot something quickly san's permit. I would put my energy into scouting a secluded spot, finding a time when the tides going out early in the morning or at magic hour and doing it that way. Then you know it will look "real". Putting the artist in pool in front of greenscreen is going to need a proper compositor to sell that - water and greenscreen is challenging cos of all the reflections etc... if the Director is doing the post, you want to keep it simple and active the effect in camera. The Sea Gulls would probably be pleased about the free meal if you do it for real as well. Obv's if your do put the performer in the sea - make sure you've thought through all the Health and Safety aspects and mitigated any issues etc...

This absolutely...even just eeking out a living requires a huge amount of work and dedication. But to work the top level on features - its equivalent to representing your country at the Olympics (only more difficult) Anyone thats worked in film production for any length of time will have been involved with some absolute "trainwreaks" and will have further "trainwreaks" in their future. Most of us show solidarity for each other, aware that we are in glass houses and better not be chucking any rocks about. There are some very experienced people on this forum that are sharing their experiences as a gesture of goodwill. Its not a place to pick fits and say X person is wrong. As a general rule the more "opinionated" a person comes across on the forum, the less experienced they are. Which is fine we want less experienced people on the forum is a place of learning. But its flipping filmmaking, there is no correct approach, its not an argument to be won.

Thats not the point I was making, I could have substituted any low cost digital format for my iPhone comment. I purposely chose a poor example of equipment to indicate that I would prefer a good film on any format then a well shot bad film. Funding is difficult, most films fail at this first hurdle Filmmaking is difficult - I have a lot of respect for anyone that got a feature film made. That is a huge achievement regardless of how good it is artistically.

Thats not post production - thats a live multicam-TV studio gallery (or control room for you Americans) The op is sat at a Vision Mixer (Switcher in American English). On the two main screens you are seeing 2 camera feeds and what looks like 2 VT's feeds or a clock and the other big screen (top left) is the programme out. The other screens will be to control VT's, graphics, titles etc.. All which are mixed in live On live TV you need a lot of screens cos everything happens at once Other things in the shot are an audio mixer on the far left and 4 radio mic receivers. This is a very small TV studio gallery - set up for 2 or 3 cameras. The one at my place of work (Brighton Uni) has about 3 X the number of screens and can handle upto 8 cameras at the same time. And thats at university - a sports or news gallery (sorry control room) will have 100's of screens and properly look like mission control

I used to do QC for Channel 4 and Film Four. A properly calibrated monitor is paramount. I would also keep an eye on the video scopes mainly waveform and diamond - they will show you issues that may not displayed on Often overlooked is audio monitoring, you need reference speakers a Phase Meter, loudness and audio PPM's. Headphone's won't cut it. Of course this represents the ideal and the calibration of the screens that people will view it on will be all over the place. The factory settings on most screens are usually quite wacky. If I'm finishing video and I working at home without access to nice calibrated screens. I try to aim for an average. I'll check the video is legal via the video scopes. I'll check it on a few screens - eg. A couple of TV's, computers, tablets, DLP (at work) etc.. and aim for an average. For domestic viewing on such a range of devices - the best you can hope for is a ball park. I've got away with not using proper calibrated monitors - but I did QC full time for 4 years, so I can eyeball it. I've got a few things past broadcast QC that I finished on a laptop. However, it was pretty nerve-wracking as I could't be 100% confident I'd not missed something that would be picked up in QC. The full on calibrated gear gets expensive, especially if you get all the metres, audio monitors, sound treatment, 5600K lighting etc... As Aapo states it absolutely saves time and stress, thats what your paying post production companies for, speed and confidence in the result. Its possible to do the same work at home on a laptop - but it will absolutely take longer and require more trial and error.

Depending on the stock used super 16mm is around or slightly less resolution then HD. A 2K scan will typically capture all the detail on the negative. 4K may look marginally better, but probably not enough to justify the extra cost. The vast majority of super 16 films made in the last 15 years will have been scanned at 2k A log scan doesn't mess with the colour, it just reduces the contrast of the image. You get a grey looking washed out image from Log, the idea being you dial the contrast back in during final colour correction. This process gives you more latitude to adjust the image in colour correction.

I think in the UK for many people we have a film making "Hobby" rather then a filmmaking industry. The actual number of British films making any sort of profit is pretty minimal. One of the reasons I think (compared to other places) is the fact that we speak English. So its easy to be swamped with US product. I mean why would a cinema risk booking a typically lower budget British film when they can book Hollywood Product. In countries where English isn't the main language US content has to be dubbed or subtitled which is never perfect, that gives local films access to the market, since people are more likely to want to see a film in their own language. Its a way to encourage the domestic market (France as we know has even had quotas). But in the Uk if you want to see a film in (near enough) English US product will do fine. As a kid growing up in the 80's watching mainstream content - I didn't even know films were made in the UK. I never saw a contemporary 80's film on the big screen that wasn't from the US. At least now with Harry Potter (yes I know is not really a UK film) British kids can see other British kids on the big screen. The US has been of course very good at exporting its films at the expense of local product, read David Puttnam's excellent book "The Undeclared War" - it describes how hard Hollywood worked to build its monopoly. So theatrically your kind of stuck, UK films can't raise the budgets that will compete with the spectacle of Hollywood's $100Million+ movies. Cinema is increasingly about spectacle and attraction. No cinema owner in their right mind would book a typical UK indie over Pixar, Marvel etc... Historically there was no market for UK films even in the UK. But on the positive - more new platforms exist and now we don't have to compete for screen space. Amazon, Netflix et al will take your film. TV (as Richard states) plays a bigger role, direct to TV, DVD has less of stigma then it did. But with this long tail approach, your not likely to raise much money off the back end unless your very lucky. We have more platforms but the revenue per view is much less. Hence it starts to look a bit like a Hobby, a thing you do for joy and not financial reward, is not always a bad thing. It might not be sustainable as a career. But it can be as valid as any other mode of production. If someone is making a micro-budget film with a crew of 2, an iphone and fuelled with passion, red bull and love for filmmaking - that is no less proper or less valid then the next Adam Sandler movie. I'd much rather watch "Following" then "The Cobbler" - even if the latter is more "professional". Its not a failure to not make money, it could be a valid choice to make a film that doesn't seek a large audience, but talks to a particular group. I don't buy into this if your film isn't making X amount of money or its "not professional" its not a "proper" film. There is no right or wrong way to make a film - they are all equal in front of the audience and thats what counts. That said it would be nice if their was a bit more money sloshing around, it would make this thing a bit easier and I'd like to be able to quit the day job. In the UK at least its very difficult to make indi production your "career". Too many people competing for the same pot of money/audience. We also have a strong "class" problem - where opportunities aren't made available on the basis of merit alone. It is more difficult to operate if you didn't get the private school leg up. Still its not enough reason to not make films. I like many others have to have a portfolio career, I do paid work, I teach, but writing and makeing films makes me happy, so I'm going to do it. I've not been able to make a living as a "Drama Director", but I don't see that as a reason not to do it. Of course I have the dreams of making something that will land with an audience and catapult me to commercial success. But, I have to be honest with myself and accept that it probably won't happen, the odds are against me even if I am talented and hard working, so I should enjoy the process and make films for other reasons. Or I could move to the US and join the "actual film industry" and try that route, hmmmm Avoid the IMDB dick measuring contest - that way lies madness TV on the other hand is booming in the UK, tons of work - but its more focussed on formats and entertainment. Good Drama opportunities are still quite rare.

I quiet agree, having some sort of manifesto to apply to creative labours can help give focus and direction to new projects. Unfortunately the increasing marketisation of education and the focus on "student satisfaction" - really risk eroding that principle. The most difficult element of my teaching practice is juggling the desire to push students to experiment and make mistakes. But then find away to mark and grade those mistakes fairly. For some students wanting high grades, they stray away from experimentation and only produce safer work to score "higher" marks. Its a shame but not easily fixed. You want to award good students with high grades, they want high grades, but most marking schemes don't reward noble failures. i love the idealism of the "rule sheet" - but to fully engage with it would be a real challenge in practice (which I guess is the point)

That John Cage guy is dreaming. Most universities have policies in place that would make this impossible

That makes me feel better about my film, funding was rejected by the BFI earlier this year...hopefully that's a badge of quality...

At least we live in the times of card media I was an edit assistant on Top Gear, back in the days of shooting the car interiors on DV tape. Lots of editing round the vibration induced tape drop out

My lighting is gender neutral, women aren't strange aliens that demand a different approach to men. If your shooting narrative with a sense of realism the both men and women are going to be under the same lighting conditions. It starts to look strange if your lighting people in the same scene in different ways based on gender. It was farcical when those 1940's films would wack in a load of diffusion for the leading ladies close up, killing any sense of shot continuity. Sure lighting can flatter a subject, e.g using softer frontal key - but again thats not a gender specific rule. Its boring that we have to stick to this rule that women, on screen must be young with flawless skin and men should be rugged and are allowed to be older. Its the same path that results in a team of roto artists painting out Nicole Kidman's wrinkles in Baz Lurhmans Australia. It didn't help the film even if they made her skin little look a bit better. But I don't work in beauty and have failed to any success in commercials for some reason.

The new black magic 4K pockets might be a shout for long record times. They have a usb-c port and you can mount an external portable disk on it for longer record times then internal card media. Its small and has good exposure latitude which is helpful on driving shots, you want to see into the shadows without the windows blowing out. Its proper 10 bit pro rez or raw internal - negating the need for an external recorder

I've been developing a short film on social anxiety. I wanted to avoid making an "issues" film but focus on the characters and present a unique take. Its based on real experiences and encounters I had and I think it could be an interesting and timely film. I've struck out on the few mainstream short film funds so have resorted to the surprisingly nerve-wracking process of crowd funding. Its really not much fun putting yourself out there, its absolutely not easy money. I feel uncertain about posting this here, but I've decided to spread the work as far as I can. https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/fruit-fix Do please have a look at the link, if your able to help pledge please do, if you can share the link and help get the word out thats also a huge help. I'm making the film regardless of what I can raise, I've got a lot of the elements in place - the funding is to help level up on actors and crew and pay something. I'm looking forward to updating the thread with a production diary in the coming months.

yep laptops can get very hot. I once had a macbook and it warped the battery and bent the case. Probably had a luck escape with it being lithium on the fire risk front - I'd left it rendering and came back to find it wasn't sitting flat on the table. The new Macbooks don't seem to get as hot or crank the fans as loud - so I suspect they are throttling the processor more. I haven't had a desktop since my G5 died, laptops are more practical for the way I work. But they are a pain on renders, luckily I mostly edit short form so the exports are usually less then an hour. I also buy frozen dog food that comes in flat pouches, perfect for being defrosted by my macbook - gives about 45 mins of cool running. I don't think I'll buy another Apple computer anyways, the lack of ports, cooling and price rises - don't make them worth it anymore.