Scott Lynch

The director for this video is Laurent Briet. Who is, in my opinion, one of the top music video directors right now. You should see some of the other video's he's done. He's also a big Shake guy and does a lot with that. http://www.laurentbriet.com/ -Scott

Well I don't see a reason to even critique a film that was made in 48 hours, especially one that has specific criteria. I did one of these 48 hour things back in April just to see what it was like. But after I finished the film, I coulnd't figure out why everyone loves to do these things. Yes it was a cool concept to see how fast you can put together a film, but in the end they are always crap, I know mine was :). If you are forcing random specific criteria into a cohesive film it never really works. Frankly after doing one of them, I have no desire to ever do one again. If our goal is to perfect our craft and create interesting stories then why do we put ourselves through such hell and at the end of it, get no real reward. Rome wasn't built in a day, and a film shouldn't be made in two. And Kyle I wasn't slamming you, frankly your film looked a lot better then mine did, but in the end what's really the point? -Scott

@mattworkman -- http://www.cardboardboxfilms.com @thinkmonkeymedia -- what format did you compress your reel for internet play? Well it is a quicktime .mov file with the reel edited in FCP and exported using compressor. The HIGH version is 480x360, Millions of colors, running at 29.97fps. The LOW version is version is 320x240, Millions of colors, running at 15fps and what compressor codec did you use? H.264 for the video. ACC Stereo for the audio with the High at 48kHz and the Low at 32kHz. and how big did the file end up? High - 11.3Mb Low-4.42Mb

Oh, one more thing... One of the reasons I had wanted to go to a better school was to get the access to the high-end equipment. While I will not argue that high-end professional equipment is important to understand and learn from, I believe that at the end of the day it is still a tool to tell your story. I mean all of us can point out films that was shot 35mm that didn't have have anywhere close to the merits of a film shot with lower quality equipment. Technical proficiency, while still very important, does not create a story, it can only make a good story better. Mainly I believe because it allows the viewer to keep up their suspension of disbelief, in order to focus and be drawn into the film. Thanks again, -Scott

Thanks again to everyone who has commented. Just to add a few things of my own. I'm 22 years old, but I've been working towards being in the business for just about 4 years now. And Bill T, what you said really rings true with what I've discovered. You really do have to work your ass off just to get started meeting people, and then you have to work that much harder to get a job. I still work in any capacity on a lot of different projects every time I have a chance, even a few weeks ago I drove down to Chicago to grip on a short film for no pay. But I have started to see things pick up in ways I wasn't expecting, and in the month since I wrote the original post, I was hired to be a Post Supervisor/Editor/Motion Graphics on a feature length doc that we are getting ready for Sundance and I met some established professional people that are very interested in getting one of my short films off the ground. So I realize that I am still a long way from where I want to be, but the path I have chosen (non-film school route) has started to open up a lot of possibilites, and the type of possiblities that I like :). But what I've really liked about the path that I've found, has allowed me to really focus on the storytelling process. I've discovered that going to a film school, even one like AFI, cannot really teach me how to tell a story, and that is something that I have to learn on my own. And I have no desire to fit in the studio system, but feel like I have the freedom and control to make films on my own terms in making my career however I see fit. But all of you again have really helped me gain some perspective about what exactly I want to do, and I really appreciate that you took the time to respond to my post. Thanks again, -Scott

I've had the good fortune of being a finalist in a short film competition taking place this August. The final stage of the competition is taking place in Agra, India (just south of New Dehli) where we have to create a short 1-2 min film in 24hrs. While I'm really excited to go over there and everything, I haven't been able to find a lot of information about shooting in India, what to expect and prepare for, other then it will be Monsoon season and expect rain and it being really hot. The film we have to make will have to be on a theme that they give us right at the beginning of our time limit, they will also provide video camera and editing equipment, exactly which we will also find out when we get there. So being as we will already have a lot against us, I wanted to know if anyone had had experience shooting in this part of India during this part of the year, and what I could expect to find in regards to things like poster board for bounce cards, will I be able to find aluminum foil for reflectors, and any other tips you may have (dealing with people, ect.) -Scott

Hey Raj! The video was pretty good. Your costline location was beautiful, where exactly did you shoot it? I'm also interested because I'm going to be in India this August for a film competition, taking place in Agra and New Dehli. But after the competition is over my two colleges and I will be traveling down the west side down to Bombay and we would like get involved and help work on a music video or maybe a few days on a feature. Would you know of anyone who would let us get on a set? You can see some of the work we've done at http://www.cardboardboxfilms.com Thanks! -Scott Lynch

No I didn't have a problem with shooting the negative and getting an image. Although all the negative that I shot was the b&w footage. All of the color in the video was reversal. I've done this process with 16mm color neg (I think it was Kodak 7245), but I noticed more of a color loss when I inverted the footage in my editing program. I'm no expert when it comes to telecine, but I believe it is because color negative film has a slight brown/red tint to it that you need to compensate for with how you white balance your DV camera when you go to record the screen. One other thing I wanted to mention was how difficult it can be to get your images to look sharp when doing this process. Make for sure that the projector you are using is projecting your image with the maximum sharpness for the screen, that the screen is absolutly flat and does not warp at the edges, and that your camera has the screen in focus. With the tests I've done, I find it better to make your projected image approx 2 feet wide on the screen, and to not use the edges of the screen, as mine was older and had a little warp to it. -Scott

I don't have a DV-30 but my XL1 has a 4:3 chip in it with an option to shoot a squeezed 16:9. I used to shoot all of my footage 4:3 and letterboxed the top and bottom in post. I did this because I thought that if I wanted to I could move the frame up and down to correct any framing issues. But on a recent short I used the 16:9 feature. What I found was that when I squeezed the image in post my images looked a lot sharper and cleaner, and had less of that "soft" look that older mini-DV cameras have. So, I guess think about shooting squeezed 16:9 as a way to qet more quality in your final image. It's kind of like if you shoot HD video and downconvert it to SD, because you are starting with more pixels then you need in the original image, when you compress it the footage always looks better. But try it out shoot a couple of shots once in 4:3 and then before you move the tripod shoot a squeezed 16:9. Then in post decide for yourself if you think that one image looks better then the other and use that to make your decision. -Scott

Well there are a couple of different types of projector screens that you can buy. High grain, Low grain, Silver, and Rear Projection. High grain is a white screen that has a bit of shine to it so you can use it without having to kill all of your ambient light. Low grain is a flat white matte surface that you use in complete darkness. Silver helps reflect more light from the projector to a larger room. And Rear Projection is used when the projector is behind the screen. I'm not sure if I would recommend a Silver screen for this type of application. My screen tends to produce specular highlights, which may be undesireable for a cleaner look. If you look at the video there is part of the screen that is brighter then the rest, and I believe this is because of the type of screen that I used. I think a Low Grain screen would give you the most even picture, but I don't own one and couldn't say for certain. The Silver screen worked for what I needed to. We created the video to feel like an old newsreel, so we almost wanted it to seem like you were watching the video being projected on the screen. Maybe someone here is a bit more familiar with different screen types and could give an authoritive answer. -Scott Actually I just found this website that might clear up the information about screens. http://www.projectorsolution.com/projector...rontscreens.asp -Scott

I've done this process before with a low budget music video I did. I shot with a Arri BL and K-3, using Kodak 7222 and 7285. Then I had the film processed at a local lab. I projected the raw negative and reversal stock through a Bell & Howell 16mm projector onto a silver screen and recorded the screen with an Canon XL1 on manual and a shutter speed of 1/75. Make sure you keep the exposure on your mini-dv camera on manual, you don't want the camera to try to auto-expose for you. You have to do a lot of tests to get the best exposure and your contrast ratio's are going to be a lot higher, but it gives a unique DIY telecine look. In post, I inverted the negative and put a white mask around the color reversal so I would have consistant borders. I also "dirtied" up the footage with AE so the original was a little cleaner. If you are doing sync sound also be aware that you will probably have to play with the speed of the footage in post so that the audio will sync up, this is quite a time consuming process and can be a headache if your not prepared for it. Also, not all of the footage in the video is 16mm, I did add a little bit of preformace footage that I shot with an XL1, I tried to make it match as close as possible, but if you look closely you should be able to find it. The video was shot for just under $1000, and you can see the resulting video here: http://www.cardboardboxfilms.com/fileserve...minata_HIGH.mov -Scott

Thank you all for the comments. I was talking with a gaffer/DP that I know and we were talking about the pro's and con's of film schools and he pretty much said that it really depended on where I wanted to take my career. If I go to AFI what I'm really paying for is a way into the studio system. So I guess I need to really evaluate what it is that I want out of filmmaking. I think I would rather DP independent features, so going to AFI may not be the correct path for me. I think what I will do is work on a few short film projects that I have in the works and practice my craft on my own terms. Thank you all again, this has helped give me some better perspective. -Scott Lynch Cardboard Box Productions, LLC

Hello all, I'm a younger DP looking for a lot of honest critiques of my reel. Mainly I'm interested in getting a few more credits under my belt and attempting to get into AFI's cinematography program. Currently, I'm in a small film program at a community college (far away from the filmmaking world), but I augment the lack of any real schooling with working on as many professional projects as possible. I've started to create a good professional name for myself, but most of my work tends to be low-budget music video's, short films, and mind-numbing corporate projects. With they way I'm going right now, I'm afraid I'll get stuck in the small end of filmmaking (aka the non narrative/creative), and I feel that without a good exposure to established cinematographers and professional equipment, I may lock myself into corporate video. So my questions are: 1. Is my work of high enough caliber to get into a top program, such as AFI? 2. Is a film school really the best course of action or should I remain working my way up through the ranks? 3. Or should I take the $50k/year that I would spend in school and use it towards a nice festival short film? And here is the reel: High-res (11.4 MB): http://cardboardboxfilms.com/fileserver/Sc...chReel-HIGH.mov Low-res (4.4MB): http://cardboardboxfilms.com/fileserver/Sc...chReel-HIGH.mov Thanks for taking the time to look, -Scott Lynch scott@cardboardboxfilms.com www.cardboardboxfilms.com