Phil Connolly

Often exaggerated by the painfully slow crawl of the text roller. Justin, How about: "A film by Mr and Mrs Oakley" ?

At the other end theres nothing worse then filmmakers that give themselves separate full screen credits for each separate job role they have done. It starts to look a bit pretentious. I think if you have 2 or 3 HOD roles then they look fine in a line e.g Written, Directed and Edited by... Otherwise a "Made by" Or how about credit everyone else first and give yourself an "Everything else done by..." One of my favourite credits is "Thing Doer" Thats one of the reasons the Coens use Roderick Jaynes to edit - its starts too look way to self important if your listing everything. I cover lots of roles on my films - but if I have the credit for writer and director - they are the important ones. I'm not going to list all the random other things I've done on the film as it would include "Casting, Van Driver, Painter, Costumer, Casting, PM, Focus puller, Colourist, foley, dubbing mixer........ ' gets silly fast. You could make up names for your imaginary crew to make the film seem like a bigger deal. It no different to pretending to be several staff members in your prod co - so it doesn't look like its just you and a laptop. You should see my fake offices...actually you can't since they are being renovated..

With the bigger festivals I think its less about getting noticed from being viewed by a screener, but more about star power. Festivals want celebs in the films and to attend - that helps them sell tickets and get press coverage. If they screen stuff thats too obscure they may struggle to sell any tickets. So they are going to prioritise films based on the names/saleability - rather then merit. So basically the same as every other form of cinema exhibition. In terms of submissions I think the Whithoutabox and FilmFreeway - have kind of killed festivals. Well in terms of getting an obscure but brilliant indie onto a wider platform. Since they have monetised the process of submitting to festivals. They have also streamlined the process in a way that makes festivals end up with unmanageable numbers of applications. Resulting in the temptation to not do due diligence to the task. I've never had a film of mine selected for a festival screening based on me submitting it through those channels. Although I've had a few good festival screenings of my work. But I always got in via a different way, or having an in with one of the programmers.

Its one way to make the number of applications manageable. If you make it free, you get totally swamped - an obscure local festival I know off had free entry (it was a 2 day festival screening 18 or so films) they had 2800 entries. With the online submission things - the number of applications are really high. So a small fee insures the entry numbers are a bit managble and means you can afford to pay the staff that are going to have to sift. Of course it can be a huge cash cow - if you don't actually watch the films submitted and staff totally with volunteers and get sponsorship. There are def plenty of scam festivals that will take your money and not even look at your application. Lots of sharp practice around festivals - there are so many festivals now (10,000 at least), getting into a festival if its not a "name" is kind of meaningless. The Doc "Official Rejection" is quite an eye opener: But a small festival without big sponsors and a desire to pay its staff - entry fee's are a viable option. But if I'm considering paying a fee to a festival these days, I'll be doing a lot of research into them to make sure its proper. I also give each paid entry a separate password protected vimeo link - so I can actually check they viewed it.

It looks quite nice and the handheld worked ok for me. I like the concept but and the stealing of the bag was fun. But some issues storywise and pace. e.g the first int shot with the fur in the foreground kind of gives it away. It then takes the person a long time to read the not and spot the dogs dead. Normally in a dog household you'd know within 5 seconds that something is wrong with the dog because its not barking at you. I think the oh dear moment has to happen quicker to be realistic. You could have set up the dog sitting using the walk and talk phone call "I'm on my way to check on Lucky..." Her reaction was a bit dead pan. Still its a good first film and the production values are decent. I just think the slow discovery of the body wasn't credible, especially as we know its coming from seeing the fur in the foreground. From a character POV its way more satisfying if the incident is either the characters fault or she covers it up and makes it worse. Its not clear why she takes the dog so we don't really know if she is in trouble for loosing it. You need to think about what the jeopardy for the character in the situation is. Or its a bit flat. The more agency you give your characters the better. On the theme of Dog sitting Chris Morrises short is worth a watch My Wrongs 8245-8349 &117 Is also great because the protagonist is very much the architect of the problems and the film is surprising. You don't want the audience to guess the end.

One of my favorite performance videos is "Judith" Directed by David Fincher Both in the way its lit and the way the performance is shot and edited. Looking at it closely - it seems the light through the doors is the main light source. Maybe they bashed in a few small fixtures on the odd shot. But generally its the daylight blasting though the door and the courage to play it dark. Its difficult to tell it its all day light or if they have a massive HMI punching through the door to help. Might be a bit too "metal" for your group - but the look really works for the song in question and the coverage supports the performance. Really I would listen to the song a lot. The mood of the music should dictate the look. You are lucky to have a good flexible space and enough budget to be creative on the lighting front. What you do really needs to serve the music and the performance. So its impossible to really comment. I would light Radiohead in a different way to Slayer in the same space.

I think shooting in the direction of the open doors, with the band silhouetted in the foreground could look interesting.

Shallow DOF could hide many sins depending on the shot. I was thinking it could work as an out of focus splodge of colour in the background. Curtains could also work How wide is the room? Could a long polecat span the width?

The bigger question is what look are you going for? If you don't need to light the space and just the band - the question would be do you need different "looks" for different parts of the song. E.g you could go for a more theatrical/concert feel. Rent a couple of moving heads. Key the band with source 4's and use Par 64's as back lights. Might be tight on the budget but there are always deals to be made. Or if it were me I'd be thinking about using lots of "practical" type lights to show the depth of the space. Or $2k would buy a lot of Xmas tree lights. I made this video with about 15 sets of Xmas lights, 2 x 800w Open faces and 2 x Kino 4 banks.

Looks doable. Apart from adding signage. Are you going to be able to source many extra's/support actors: A few peoples in steward/stewardess uniforms - the ones with the thunderbird hats and weird neck ties. I think the right uniforms would do the majority of the work in selling the location. Maybe the lectern could become a check in desk - either with a logo attached or wrap in material to change colour To hide the video projection screens - either use them to project adverts, departure times. Or you could get a big roll of photographic backdrop paper . It comes in lots of colours. You could cover the back wall in a nice dark colour. E.g airline blue or red. The screen could be hidden behind it, it would inject some colour into the set and match the "air-line" branding. etc... Its a good option when you can't paint a wall and need temporary cover. If its kept out of focus, you don't even need to be that neat about hanging it or fight creases too much. Then stick some cut out text on it e.g GATE 15 on it. Also if the films in 2.39:1 you could probably keep the projectors out of shot if your careful.

Looks like straight forward stop motion/piximation. Any camera that can shoot single frames (DLSR or motion) would work. Shutter angle doesn't need to be too narrow for stop motion since your photographing static objects. In any case longer exposures allow you to use less light and get deeper focus. I remember reading that Aardman used a 1 second exposure time on "Chicken Run" - allowing them to get enough DOF while working at low light levels on 125ASA stock. (Important when you cast can melt) The jerky stop motion/piximation effect can be approximated by shooting at a lower frame rate and doubling up. E.g shoot 12fps and repeat every frame twice to get 24fps play back but with more jerky motion. Although it tends to not have the full uncanny valley you get with proper stopmotion using people as puppets. Any to save time (all online discussions around piximation need to reference this promo):

Second "Directing Actors" by Judith Watson - its excellent. "Adventures in Screen Trade" - William Goldman "On Writing" - Stephen King "The writers Journey" Christopher Vogler Film Directing - Shot by Shot "Nuts and Bolts Filmmaking" Dan Rahmel

Agree with David. Extracting 1:1 from 2.39 might be a bit ugly framing wise - even if you might get away with the resolution. Shooting OpenGate spherical either with a common top line (or Fincher chart) would give you more flexibility to reframe. Or the other option depending on your schedule is in addition to the annamorphic coverage - get 4:3 spherical shots of your master wideshots - these will crop down to 16:9 and 1:1 better then a pan and scanned 2.39:1 frame. Or B camera with spherical lens on it. In terms of cropping - 2.39 to 1:1 - its going to be quite a drop. But its also an easy thing to test in Photoshop- any 2k 2.39:1 footage would give you a ballpark idea. Showing the client a demo is usually the best convincer and helps manage expectations.

Looking at the listing its the first year the festivals run, so they might have a bit of a learning curve about what they are asking for in terms of spec. .mp4 or .avi are no guarantee of screenable quality. Just because they are running a film festival doesn't mean they know anything about file formats. Its also not clear if this is for the approval copy or screening copy. Or if they intend to screen mp4's (yuck) On the last round of film freeway submissions I did - I uploaded a SD version of the film. To make sure they asked me for the big pro-rez version on screening. I once entered a new york festival - went to a lot off effort making an nice high end HD master - only to hear they screened the DVD I'd sent initially. You could always shoot them an email to confirm. In the end if they like the film - the format is less of an issue and can always be worked out ahead of the screening

If you don't change the overall speed of the film your audio "should" remain untouched. To convert 29.97 to 24 you don't want a process that drops frames, since that will result in stuttery uneven motion. You need a process that retimes the frames and makes new tween frames to even out the frames. Back in the day the Snell and WIlcox Alchamist was the "Best" tool. These days lots of software plugins can do it. Maybe try twixtor. At some level your going to reduce the quality - since the new frames are going to be the computers best guess rather then actual photographed images. Some shots will look better then others. But these days its possible to get quite decent results, but its usually possible to spot some frame rate conversion artefacts. On films its always better to shoot at 24fps - since it can be projected in all cinemas and meets DCP spec. 24 fps can be sped up to 25fps for European TV and 3:2 pull down applied to convert to 60i for US broadcast. In terms of the film freeway thing - the file you upload isn't usually the version they screen. Normally you upload a h.264 type screener for them to decide if they want to program the film. If they do, they will come back and ask for a proper DCP or ProRes. So the frame rate of the film freeway screener file matters less.

Thats always been the lowest selling point for me. Going into those weird culty shops - where the staff are just too enthusiastic. Whats all that stuff about clapping and cheering customers? Your buying a phone, not saving the world. Grumpy PC shop or this: I like the way OS-X works and have been a mac user since my G5 tower. But more recently apple have been eroding the reasons to like their products and I'm considering the jump back to PC. However its good to research all options. Computer tribalism isn't needed these days, but I don't think apple is the "default" option it was even 3 years ago. Although, back in the day I was an Atari ST hating Amiga 500 zealot.

Maybe a laser tape measure to set focus?

It seems like apple are working to put off the Pro user. FCP isn't really the force it was - so no reason to get an apple. Creative Suite, Avid and Resolve all run on the PC. So no reason to own a mac anymore

On Drama shoots if your operating as well you can end up spreading yourself a bit thin. I find when I'm operating a tricky shot my mental focus is mostly on the frame and the movement. You don't spot the nuance of the performance. Yes you can watch the take back, but then you slow the shoot pace down further and risk the actors possibly watching themselves back - which I find is never a good idea. But if you've got a good operator, directing/dop from the production monitor position works ok and you can do both tasks at the same time. Set ups are a bit slower because you might have to alternate between setting up lights and giving actors notes... but if you able to prelight the set before the actors come, then that element can be streamlined. I'm developing a short at the moment and while I have a clear vision about how I want it too look and could self shoot. The actors performance will have to be carefully judged or it could look cheesy. So think I will have to find a DOP that has a similar take on the material But on the documentary front I vastly prefer to self shoot. Particularly when you've got to work fast - you can just grab the shot rather then explain it to the dop/op. I normally do interviews with a locked off camera - so you can focus on the content rather then the framing. Shooting a bit wide on 4K for post tweeks makes life even easier on this front.

I would be wary getting one of the current MBP for editing (I have a 2015 and a 2017). The 2017 one is frustrating that you pretty much need a dongle to plug anything in. The 2015 has an SD slot, HDMI, thunderbolt and standard USB. WIth the new mac (2017) - i need an adapter for even a pen drive/USB stick. Gets annoying fast and when your editing you going to be presented with different external hard disks and camera card media all the time. The dongles get expensive. I can't plug my printer,Tv, SD cards or any ext harddisks i own without an adapter. I'm probably going to get a PC next time. If apple continue down this stupid connectivity path I vastly prefer the MBP 2015 for editing, the keyboard is nicer as well. I got 2017 through work and didn't get a choice. But if it was my own money I'd either be looking for a well specc'd 2015 second hand or abandon apple

In terms of not having a desqeeze viewfinder, 1.33X squeeze isn't too drastic - so its still possible to compose with care when looking at a squeezed image. I used a 1.33X anamorphic back in the miniDV days to shoot 16:9 on 4:3 cams. Once you get your eye in, its surprising how quick you adapt.

Its not just about getting access to the information and tutorials. A good degree with push you to critically evaluate your own practice, critique your work and give you workshops and activities that allow you try things. Also the social aspect and finding like minded collaborators is a good thing. Could you do this externally off your own back? For less money? Of course, but it might take longer. I used to attend a film society that formed many of the functions of a film school In the sense that it was a community of practice, we made films, critiqued each others work and even made a 90 min feature film. But these things also are rare and it was hard work for us to fit stuff round our day jobs. The feature took 8 years to complete. One of the joys of going a doing a full time course, is the chance to have full time immersion in the subject. I'm also wary of the idea of film programmes charging 100's of thousands per year. Bachelor's degrees in the UK cost £9250 per year for home students, which is a lot of money, but not crazy high. I would also baulk at the 100k per year programmes. UK Masters are more expensive per year - but the NFTS cinematography masters (which is one of the best in the world) is £14k per year. Its worth every penny

I teach on a film production BA. Although as a filmmaker I'm mostly self taught - learning from books, online content, DVDs, directors commentaries, colleagues, podcasts, trial and error etc... Theres little in my classes that couldn't be learn't from free online resources. And indeed from time to time I've shown tutorial clips sourced from youtube in teaching (its particularly useful for AE). No film teacher is filling there classes with just youtube clips - students would complain pretty quickly. I see my role as providing structure and focus. I was self taught and as such I went down a lot of blind alleys, because I didn't know what I didn't know. The point of a film programme is to give structure to that process and it certainly can speed up your progression. I cover in a 3 year degree, the stuff that took me about 10 years to work out for myself. In terms of the other question around cinema workflow, that depends. At undergrad level you can approximate it and include all the main steps needed to make presentable work. But again its a huge topic and you can't cover everything. The priority is focusing on the storytelling and the basics of the craft skills. Any more complex then that, would hint that your working on a larger production and would start to hire experts. An undergrad degree doesn't make experts, it gets you to an intermedia level that will allow you to work in professional productions. I would agree there are issues with education and how its funded and organised etc... But in my experience on the ground level most tutors are passionate about doing a good job and sharing their love of film. We certainly don't do if for the money

I guess something like first man (I've not seen it yet) - is going to risk looking at flat - since you've got low contrast DLP mixed with lower resolution super 16 - probably going to be a bit mushy. Also with cinema projection - there are lots of other ways contrast can get limited, from dirty glass in the booth port, to lens choice on the projector. You can get high contrast DLP lenses but they need more light etc.. Sony projectors have higher native contrast then DLP's, but are less common due to limitations with 3D.

I think thats one of the issues with DLP projectors. They can't do true black, so you get a milky grey instead of black. Quite noticeable on films with sequences in the dark grey of space. 4k DLP projectors tend to have even worse contrast. Film prints can do better blacks. Laser projection has much better contrast and digital systems such as Dolby Cinema and Imax Laser - can do really black blacks, often better then film prints. But the equipment is v expensive, so installations are super rare. Hopefully prices will come down and more cinemas will invest in Laser based projection