Phil Connolly

Large sensors work against you in the studio and the dynamic range isn't needed under controlled lighting. When you operating a Ped, you may have a shot where you Jib up, Dolly, Zoom and have to pull focus (at the same time) - trying do that with 2 hands is not great. Hence a lot of the time you need the deep focus of a small sensor. On sitcoms in front of a live audience... You only have one proper take to get it and you need a good fast zoom range to make sure you can stay out of each others shots, once you get to 5 camera it gets busy. In this situation aesthetics take second fiddle to practicality. I can shoot nicer images on my DLSR then the JVC studio cams we have in our main studio.. but I would never attempt a multicam live sitcom on DLSR's.

I've been using Scrivener for the last few projects. Affordable, flexible on the layout formats and allows you to create scene cards - move them around and just write one scene at a time. I like the way you only see the scene your working on at a time. Back when I had the whole document in a scroll, the temptation is to re-read the previous days work and then you start editing it and you never move forward, but keep messing with the first few scenes. Scrivener mitigates against that. I'm a fan. Nice thing about scrivener is it has a 30 day free trial that only applies on the days you write. So your free trial may last several months if you only write a couple of days a week. Or just use Fountain - then you can use any text editor

In the Uk the list price of the fuji is £300 more then the price I got on the BM. But maybe I could get a better deal on the fuji If I talked to the dealer about academic discount. I think the 4k BM is the best bang for your buck and if you don't have many bucks But I totally take your point about the camera in the hand is worth more then the stupid BM camera that takes a year to come. I'm kind of stuck because I've brought the accessories with the BM in mind and if I did get a refund I would have extra money - so would have to get a worse camera. Will have to keep waiting.

All a little more expensive. I probably wouldn't have been able to afford 5 kits. Got a really good price on the BM pockets (well it will be good price if they turn up)

Gear can depreciate - better not to think it as an investment but rather what it allows you to do. If you sold it now what use could you put the money towards - could that kickstart your next film production. Its better to be making films any which way with what every resources you have to hand, thats how you learn and grow. Better to keep turning over small projects and building momentum then saving up for the "masterwork". In the same time period you might be able to become "investible" and receive funding due to having built a portfolio. I've avoided owning kit, to get enough to do proper drama production is expensive and it would be sitting idol 99% of the time. Even if I made a micro budget feature that would mean kit I owned would get 3-4 weeks use in a 2 -3 year period. This year I'm probably making a single short film - no point owning kit for a 5 day shoot. Renting is comparatively cheap, amazing deals and rates are possible if your prepared to be flexible and perhaps use kit that less popular. There must be 1000's of Red 1's gathering dust that could be put to use etc...

Quite - I got caught out with a 13 month wait for the BM 4k Production cameras. Was hoping they had learn't some lessons and got their act together resulting in just a few month delay. Been waiting 6 months now, v annoying. I wish I could learn my lesson but I work at a University in interesting times (from a budget perspective), so need to make every penny count. Black Magic stuff is so keenly priced its kinda worth the risk on delivery. If I canceled the order what could I get in the price range? Not much....

Really nice, I love the long 2 shot in the car - just letting the location to the work (I'm not really sure what the Actors were saying at that point) Liked how dark you let the frame go

Quite "Grand Budapest Hotel" - had 1.37, 1.85 and 2.39:1 segments all within a 1.85:1 digital container.

Best book to read is John Belton's widescreen cinema It will explain the History of aspect ratios and widescreen In short Cinemascope started at a 2.55:1 aspect ratio (in the late 50's) After getting tweaked around to accommodate various sound track configurations most "scope" anamorphic prints had a 2.35:1 aspect ratio I believe in the late 70's this was tweaked down to 2.39:1 - this was to prevent splices made on the frame lines creeping on screen when projected - the slight crop prevented that. So scope films have been 2.39:1 since the late 70s/80s - thats the standard cinema scope projection. When you see 2.35:1 on IMDB or a DVD case its either from an early film or its wrong. Most people incorrectly call 2.39:1 scope - 2.35:1 for historical reasons even though its wrong. 2.40:1 isn't an actual aspect ratio - its just 2.39:1 rounded up, if a film is labelled 2.40:1 chances are its actually 2.39:1. Saying "two four oh" is slightly quicker then "two point three nine" - when a DOP uses 2.40 she knows its not actually 2.40:1 or 2.4:1 - its just a short hand. Whats printed or on imdb is created by marketing peeps and graphic designers - they won't understand the specifics of aspect ratios. Plenty of film people say "two three five" even when they know its "wrong", but it flows off the tongue in English in a nice way. Or we could stick with Flat and Scope to describe the main two ratios. The aspect ratios listed on IMDB can be wrong at lot of the time and in the early days of widescreen (50s, 60s) there were many AEs in use: 1.66:1, 1,70:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1, 2.0:1, 2.21:1, 2.35:1, 2.55:1, 2,65:1, 2.76:1 etc.. But late 70's early 80's onwards 99% of cinema content is either 1.85:1 flat or 2.39:1 scope Of course the aspect ratio flexibility digital and digital projection has offered means - we are moving towards more and different ratios - e.g imax, 2:1 etc...

poor sound is less of an issue of kit. Mosts recorders can record better then CD quality without breaking a sweat. Sound kit is pretty standard from production to production and is generally cheaper then camera gear. Sound devices make nice field recorders in the ~$1000 bracket. Problems with sound are usually production driven and tend to stem from: 1: Not hiring a qualified sound recordist/boom swinger - getting the camera op to record sound or a runner etc... 2: Filming locations used with no consideration to how they sound - e.g loud background noise or poor acoustics 3. Schedule too fast for crew to do a good job Most of the audio problems I've heard in TV are based on these kind of decisions. Occasionally you get extra problems created in post production - e.g poor mixing with too loud music. But thats fairly rare. A lot of poor sound on domestic TV's is due to the tiny speakers used on modern LCD's. A mix that sounds horrible on a domestic TV - may well sound amazing on studio monitors.

The DCP spec is supposed to be 5.1. If your mix is in 5.1 you just give the masting company the 6 audio stems (correctly labelled) and they will compile it into a 5.1 DCP If you have a stereo mix - the chances are they are going to convert that to 5.1 by putting the 2 stereo channels on left and right speaker channels and potentially leaving the other 4 audio channels silent. That would work in a pinch, but would mean you don't get the dialogue from the centre speaker or engage the subwoofer. So a 2.0 will give you sound in the cinema - but its not in proper DCP spec. The dialogue wouldn't be as focused on the screen and the bass might be a bit thin without sub woofer working. Probably fine but not ideal. Cinemas do benefit from having a dedicated centre speaker to carry the dialogue and if all the bass end is going to the subwoofer - you loose that if the DCP doesn't have the .1 channel. Of course if the left and right speakers are large full range speakers then maybe subwoofer won't be missed too much. That depends on the specific cinema and specific speakers they use. If you are using a firm to create a DCP - ask them how they handle stereo mixes - do they just keep the other channels silent or open it out to a fake 5.1 - maybe sending the bass to the sub track and dialogue to the centre. In this circumstance lots of festivals accept a prores screener - with a stereo mix. That way they can use a laptop to run it, patch the audio in the non-sync input of the cinema processor and turn on the dolby stereo matrix decoder. Running stereo mix through the analogue dolby stereo matrix, converts it into 4 channels with an optional sub - the dialogue automatically goes to the centre speaker and an analogue cross over would drive the sub. Thats a ok way present a stereo mix in a cinema. If the dialogue is the same volume on both left and right tracks and in phase - it will come out the centre speaker. Even if a stereo mix isn't encoded with the Dolby Stereo (surround, Pro logic etc.) format, it will sound ok when played back through the system - for phase reasons. Unfortunately I don't think its easy for most projectionists to patch a 2.0 stereo DCP into the dolby stereo analogue matrix decoder even if they have one in the booth. So a 2.0 DCP is hard wired to the left and right speakers with no easy way to get the audio to goto the sub or centre - unless they have built a patching preset in the cinema processor - which they may have or may not have. The point of DCP's is to not leave it to chance hence 5.1 is mandated. 2.0 or 1.0 will work - but its hit an miss how well it will sound, mix and cinema dependant. DCP's run off a hard wired server and most cinemas don't have technically competent projectionist on staff any more, any time I've been involved with event screening the "projectionist manager" won't let me mess with the settings of the cinema sever. But festivals sometimes will have good (increasingly rare) actual qualified projectionists. One option you could try for DCP is a 3.1 mix (LEFT, CENTER, RIGHT, SUB) wouldn't take too long to produce. What you could do to make the audio stems in FCPX is export a mono track of just dialogue, and a stereo track of everything else - that would give the DCP masters enough elements to make a 3.1 mix. Also depends on your film 2.0 audio might be fine if you don't want deep bass. Mono might be fine.... horses for courses. However, producing a full 5.1 mix, after all might be overkill for a 2 min film for one festival... or might be worth it - depends on the context. I would say 2.0 would probably be fine in most cinemas, 5.1 would sound much better and offer a more consistant experience in different cinemas (which is the point of the DCP spec, consistentcy) Proper multichannel sound mixing can get expensive quickly, which is why so many micro budget indie films sound so bad. I've found the home brew approach to be hit and miss. On some films I've mixed them at home and they've sounded great in a cinema and one time I was mixing on quite small speakers and I cranked the bass to compensate - sounded fine at home. In the cinema the bass was over powering. But I had no way to tell on my small speakers at home and the cinema couldn't turn the bass or treble up or down - they are often locked out the E.Q and just have volume. I've learn't my lesson - If I'm prepping a film for a theatrical screening, even if I track lay the audio myself at home - I'm going to do a pass on a properly calibrated system. Ideally you want to make sure your sound levels are correct so that when the cinema sets their volume to "7" it the volume you expect. Ideally films are mixed in a calibrated room - using PPM audio meters, so the theory is cinemas should be able to leave their volume control set to "7" for DCP's and not have to touch it between films...well thats the theory anyways. Fun times

Hand developed 16mm using red wine and instant coffee based developer - makes a nice grungy look with density shifts that approximate hand cranked footage. Check out Mark Jenkins wonderfully odd: "Broncos House" It certainly has a unique look

I would personally avoid the current generation of Mac book pro for DIT duties. It only has USB-C type connectors - so for many peripherals, card readers, external monitors etc.. Your going to need dongles and adapters, which can get annoying. E.g needing an adapter every-time you need to plug in a USB memory stick. I've got a 2017 model and have lost 2 dongles already and its a pain if you've forgot the right adaptor.

The world of content creation is pretty broad and it some areas are more agist then others. I've been on set for certain fashion brands promo shoots and it the full "Nathan Barley", with no one over 25. On proper drama/Tv shoots the age skews older, but it really depends on the content. Sometimes producers want the cool wonder kid and other times a safe pair of hands are needed. I've taught film production for the last 10 years. Getting older has allowed me to project a bit more authority, and working day to day with younger people has kept my cultural references upto date. Although I think the "age gap" is less of a thing then it was in my parents generation. There are some roles, that perhaps I'm too old for. I've stopped doing music videos. Partially because I can't make them pay, but also bands are often looking for younger collaborators - I'm becoming out the loop on that one. As others have said it because self excluding in your 20's you can afford to work for low/free. Now I have to me more selective about the projects I'm involved with. Personally as a filmmaker and specifically someone that writes scripts, my writing has got better as I got older. More life experience has given me more to write about. Sure there are writers that are flat out brilliant, geniuses in their 20's. But they are very rare, a lot of excellent writers find their groove when they are bit older. Although agism is a thing in the film industry, it has a bigger problem with how it copes with disability. Many disabled people are completely excluded from many roles (that they could do) because there's no attempt to build or maintain any infrastructure to support disabled workers. One issue is the industry can plays fast and loose with HR and not have the procedures in place to avoid: disability discrimination, agism, sexism, bullying etc...

Computer Chess, super low fi video (intentionally) but found an audience: Bronchos House - grungy home developed 16mm did well on the festival circuit Wheres the Money Ronny - Launched several careers - shot on SVHS https://distrify.com/videos/9ukZA3-where-s-the-money-ronnie Too much snobbery around kit. Use the camera that makes the images you like

The BM shoots to a proper broadcast approved codec - there are plenty of moves screened on TV and Streaming shot with lessor camera/sensors. The BM pocket probably out performs the 1st gen HD cameras (like the MK1 Varicam, F900 etc) - so its capable of better images then the earlier small sensor digital films including: 28 Days Later, Attack of the Clones, Dogville, Speed Racer, Zodiac, Collateral, Bowling for Columbine, Sin City, ... all those movies are taken seriously. We are at a point where you can by a camera for $1000 that will meet HD broadcast spec and look fine on the big screen. Audiences will have a bigger problem with poor audio and acting. 28 Days Later looked like complete pants on the big screen, but audiences still engaged with it, because its was an interesting film. I can't comment on the BM pockets ergonomics, it would probably benefit from a rig, but if shot carefully the image quality would be fine. On a 6 day schedule hollywood polished visuals are unlikely. If you look at other micro budget films shot on similar scheduales eg: Creep, Prevenge, Blair Witch and maybe check out Coherence (2013) - they don't look pretty. But work because the ideas are good. I would def check out Coherence since it was shot in about a week in a single location. The photography was not great, but the idea was strong and it got Netflix distribution and found an audience. Ultimately, use the best tools you can and make the film as good a possible. Don't second guess what the audience or distributor may or may not accept - because to be honest its going to be an uphill struggle regardless of the quality of the camera work. Because ultimately you don't know. There is of course an argument of not selling yourself short and trying to raise more money for gear + time. But I've seen plenty of people paralysed by that and never make anything. One thing to note is a 1 week shoot is pretty short so you might be able to borrow other cameras cheaply/free because its a short time. E.g get something thats easier to hand hold. Or maybe it could be found footage. Have the actors operate handycams - because they are documenting their progress. Then any technical issues with the coverage has a clear reason. People forgive the bad photography in Blair Witch because its "found footage" solves lots of problems. Also you could mix it up with CCTV type footage

Also if you can get 2 cameras - that will help your schedule by increasing the speed of your coverage.

Good luck - feature in 6 days is going to be hectic. I shot one in 12 days and that was pretty crazy enough. I have a 60D its a perfectly fine camera and will result in acceptable images. However I would choose the Blackmagic pocket if you have wide enough lenses. The lenses you have available for both cameras would also be a factor in the choice as well. The three reasons, I would pick the BM: 1: It has a more robust codec, that will stand up more to grading. The 60D can look good but you have to nail the look in camera because you don't has as much room to move on the grade. On your schedule - your probably not always going to be able to nail the lighting. So the ability to have a bit of room "to fix it in post" is a good thing 2: Deeper depth of field. Its harder to get that pretty shallow depth of field look on the BM pocket. In your case thats a good thing. 14 pages a day is going to mean fewer rehearsals and takes - in this case deep depth of field is your friend. If everything is in focus, complex focus pulling is one less thing to worry about. Sure its less pretty: but I would take a film thats in focus over under rehearsed large sensor SDOF focus buzzing any day. Its still possible to get a shallow shot on the BM pocket but you have to work for it. 3: Dynamic range - the pocket has a bit more. That speeds up and simipfies lighting, sure you can deal with less dynamic range through controlled lighting, ND gel on window etc... But on a 14 pages a day you won't have time to finesse the lighting and will have to make do with what can be achieved quickly - again a camera that captures more and gives you options in post is a good thing.. 1080p is fine and will hold up on a big screen. If you did have a 4k camera - I would propose you compose the frame at 3K - with look around. That would allow you to reframe in post and fix mistakes. 4k shooting for 1080p delivery give maximum options in post. Of course it is better the nail the lighting and composition on set and then the camera choice matters slightly less. But on a 6 day schedule your priority has to be getting great performances, all the coverage you need and decent sound - the aesthetics may have to play second fiddle to them.

I wonder how much longer Arri are going to be flogging that sensor. I'm surprised they don't have a 4k+ S35mm size sensor yet. But it can't be much longer before they announce a new sensor. The LF Alexa feels like a stop gap. + Sony and Red are catching up/over taking on dynamic range/low light. If I was buying an Alexa/Amira new now, I would have to have a business plan to recoup my investment quiet quickly. In case Arri announces a new sensor in the next year. Or the other option is to wait for the next generation of sensor arrives and then pick up an Amira/Alexa cheap and happily shoot nice images.

Hope you get it - I ordered 5 of them in September last year - still no sign of them :( Some manufacturing issues according to the dealer

Thats not a reason not to watch - plenty of good films have 180 line breaks in them. nothing wrong with an intentional 180 line break even Kubrick did it from time to time

Its not a straight comparison between Alexa and Amira because their are different flavours of Alexa. The 4:3 option isn't available on the the Amira and its only available on some Alexa's. Same with recording RAW internally not all Alexa's can. The Amira was a very strong contender because its got the Alexa look, 3.2k almost UHD capture and internal ND's - at a price point that was lower then the similar spec'ed Alexa's The Alexa Mini (in the UK at least) cut down interest in the Amira because it offers everything (4:3, RAW, UHD) in a well priced smaller package and for drama that seems to be the go to camera. I was looking into getting an Amira for the company I work for and were advised the Alexa mini was a lot more popular - I guess because of the added flexibility. Although you need to trick it out to get it balanced for hand held. Budget cuts meant we ended up with Sony FS7 but it was nice to dream for a few days. Although docs use the Amira a lot. In terms of it not being full UHD up-converted the 3.2k looks very good. The UHD version of the BBC natural history doc "Dynasties" its primarily shot on the Amira and it looks truly stunning. I would say its the best looking streaming UHD show I've seen - I guess thats also because the BBC iPlayer runs UHD at 22Mbs rather then Netflix's lower rate of 16Mbs. It seems short sighted they don't approve 3.2k capture for UHD on Netflix because it looks really nice. Enough to out resolve their low bitrate codec at least....

I would second the issue that although its probably cheaper to use an actual dead cat. I wouldn't risk tramatising the kids with it (depending on age). You also need them to be able to "act" Fake cat sounds expensive Maybe sedation is doable? The excellent "Amores Perros" did that in the dog fighting scenes and it was pretty convincing. Although you'd have to find a cat and a Vet thats prepared to do it. Again sounds expensive. Tricky. Maybe there is a way to stage the scene with a real dead animal but you don't have the child on set at the time. Eg with cutaways etc... Theres always a creative solution. I made a comedy short film where a dog is killed. We had similar problems about how you stage it and reveal the corpse. In the end I opted to have it die off screen and my actor turn up in the next scene with a plastic carrier bag full of "bloody lumps and fur" - with the dog leash(lead) hanging out to to properly sell it. The result (especially after we dubbed the sqelching sounds) worked ok within the crazy world of the story e.g: Dead rats are easier as you can buy them frozen from pet stores as snake food. You just need to defrost them and boom

I've managed to make cheaper disco type foggers work. Lots of wafting with polys is needed and if you overfill the room with Haze and then wait for it settle and thin - it looks a bit more even. Its possilbe to get it too a point where it doesn't swirl too much - if you make sure you've isolated any drafts and really really taken the time to waft. Other tips would be to make sure you keep doors and windows closed. Any schedule more time to shoot - it takes time to build up the haze and waft it about. You can get excellent results with water based fog, its just time consuming to get nice. Taking reference stills or looking a playback is a good idea to make sure your density is consistant shot to shot. If your changing focal lengths you might need to tweak the fog density as well. The oil based smoke machine I've used is the gas powered Artem - it was great for density - but you really don't want to be breathing any amount of it in. Good for EXT's and nice you don't need power to run it. But I thought for interiors most venues will only allow water based

I don't know Darkplace is pretty good: https://dai.ly/xkjq2f