Keith Mottram

watched heat again last night, and really liked the artifacts from the lenses, especially all the softness when shooting at night and the great use of long lenses. which anamorphics did they use? thanks Keith

I spoke to a friend on friday who is a shake op in oz, he was under the impression that it is going to be HD. He had no idea whether it is going to be shot on the Genesis. This is not a conformation as until the footage starts rolling in who knows. But effects tests have been done in HD for Superman. Of course it is possible that they are shooting HD just for effects shots. Keith

if you are finishing on dvd then stay in SD, however if you are doing effects on the piece it may well be worth moving the dv footage into a different uncompressed SD codec. This way your blurs, film effects, motion effects will render in 10 bit and this will be an improvement on staying in the DV codec. Keith

you cant simply up-res the footage from machine to machine. The easiest and cheapest way is to up-res in post. In my opinion shake has the best rescaling algorithm. I think 28 Days did it on discreet but i could be wrong. Either way you would leave this step till last, why waste drive space with HD footage? Keith

I heard that you can shoot 4:3, what is the quality like and is the whole resolution used with the image stretched or do you end up with black bars. thinking out loud it gives the posibiliy of shooting with a pstecknik converter and scope lenses if this was the case. which may or may not be a neat idea. Keith

cheers michael, thats what I thought. will the effect be similar with the lighting style i described. keith

I'm looking to do a flashback sequence and I wanted to achieve a similar look with the lights flaring as in these two shots. Is it done by changing the shutter? I'm assuming its in-camera. I'd also be looking for a similar level of saturation (although different colour temp.). If the scene was lit with practicals (its an external at night, the lights being visible chinese lanterns) would the same effect be achievable? Thanks alot, Keith P.S after rewatching the Limey, I couldn't help but wish that Soderbergh hadn't decided to go alone with his cinematography Ed Lachman's work on this film is beautiful.

35mm lenses, 35mm dof.

first rule of indie filmmaking its not how much you have but how much you can get for free. keith

if your not doing any major moves then why not plan the film in fcp or whatever and rephotograph the stills with a 35mm motion camera. If your moves are quite simple then do the same with rostrum. However if you do digital you dont need to worry about a cut list. My route would be manipulate your frames as much as possible in FCP at SD (using proxie versions) export the sequence as XML import the XML into an After Effects 2K comp. using Automatic Duck (you can then replace your proxies and therefor maintain the full res of the stills), tweak any moves that you need to add too and then export those stills at 2K too whatever format your post house will take for an Arri Laser. I've done this very route myself and it works perfectly. You'll also be able to export a QT from FCP in SD and HD res for tapes. Keith

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

one thing you do need to consider is wether your going to get insurance. You'll need this if you are borrowing from a college or a rental house. This will be difficult for you to get as your under 18. If your in London I'd try looking at working with a film co-op like four corners (if they still exist) or panico (but you have to do a basic course first) that way you'll find advice, equipment, cheap crew, help with contracts as well as insurance. remember that a contract works both ways and if something goes wrong the contract will possibly make you more not less liable. Keith p.s your equipment list includes grip items that a owner/ operator wont have. and minimum sensor? this is far too specific.

did some nice work on deep cover if i remember correctly. keith

landon, i wanted to be the greatest director in the world by the time i was 21. that didn't happen. nor 25. nor 30. maybe 40? maybe 50? maybe i'll get to make an okay feature. that's an acheivment. serioulsly though just watched 'good bye lennin' last night and it was fantastic it was the director's (wolfgang becker) second feature and he was 49, i believe, at the time. rent it and see if you think you could better it in the next thirty three years. Keith p.s. all good things come to those who wait.

the only words that come in to my mind, considering the fact that it is 2am and i really shouldn't be on the net right now is that you are a "gentleman and a scholar". we do it for love, or to be masochists. Keith

okay for what it's worth, Landon, here is my opinion. First enthusiasm is very important, so keep it up. This way when all your initial projects dont turn out the way you want, you'll have the confidence to make another. To follow, however rude the comments seemed your first films will be poop, even if other people think they're alright you'll think they're poop. If you dont think your initial films are rubbish and unwatchable then your probably in the wrong line of work. You should be your harshest critic. Second revise, learn, study. This applies to all the arts and all the cultures out there. This is the reason why so many young filmmakers get it wrong. My first directed films, from videos shot at your age through to film school, sucked for one major reason- I was naive both interlectually, emotionally and artistically. Thirdly its a fact of life that to be given a large chunk of cheese to play with at a young age is excedingly difficult (and $300,000 does count as a large chunk of cheese). This is due to the fact that there are very few people under the age of thirty to have the maturity (in all senses) to be trusted with that kind of money. As an example my graduation film cost about $9000, which i begged and borrowed for, half way through production I started having panic attacks and at the begining of post i had to leave for two weeks suffering from exhaustion. This I found out later was not unusual. The pressure will get to you and investors know this. What's the magic solution? There is none. Sorry about that. Film school may or may not be beneficial. Work experience certainly will be. Not only do you need to learn to direct, you need to learn people skills. These are not accessable to someone of your age. If they were you'd seem precosious and no one would want to work with you. My advice is to develop all your film skills through shooting and studying. Get a video camera- any video camera not the latest and best. Get yourself a simple edit system. Watch lots of films (even ones with subtitles and old classics). Find yourself a real role model and work out why you like there films so much (when I was your age it was Luc Besson and I used to search London for copies of his films on VHS). Try and find a company that will let you work in your school holidays. Find a secondary proffesion in the film industry. The reason I learnt to edit was so that I could earn a living when I wasn't directing. Be VERY patient. If you can do a proper externally funded (not your trust fund or your dads mates from the golf club) feature by the time your thirty you are a young director and you will feel proud. In case your interested I'm thirty and hope to do a feature sometime in the next few years (and I've been hoping for that since I was sixteen although now it is not so unrealistic.) If you want people to take you more seriously on this site then you need to come back with some more learned contributions, as mean as they may seem I dont think there is anyone here who doesn't want to see you do well. I personally think that it is always exciting that there are people your age who are enthusiastic. Go out and rent some interesting and diverse European and American cinema (find some classics prior to Star Wars) and chat about them on the forum. That might prove to people that you are taking your craft seriously. Wanting to be Christopher Columbus and making a harry potter movie just makes you seem interlectually and artistically stunted and I for one don't think we need anymore directors like that. Peace, Keith

as far as i know it was a prototype that never went into production. Keith

I noticed but chose to ignore it. It was so dumb and stupid that inexplicably an image of a whiny fat milkshape slurping child popped into my head. I decided to leave the obnoxious little fat kid till he grew up. Keith

Ellen Kuras shot my favorite movie of last year, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. What do you mean by a 'woman's touch' though anyway? Keith

dan, your post doesn't make sense. you cant provide a drive in pal 25p. you can provide a preformatted drive and specify a codec for conversion and hope that the transfer house can accommodate. I'm also a bit confused as to why you'd want to transfer from 24p to 25p- for output for pal broadcast? in which case why do you need it progressive? whatever way you go about this you are talking format conversion then output to a drive, this is expensive at a transfer house i would expect costs of at least £500, if you want to stay progressive even more. If you are happy with pal dv tapes it might be cheaper. Either way it would be alot more cost efficient to digitise your footage in a suite and export it yourself. If you explain the point of the exercise in more detail i might have some other ideas. Keith

Why should the director cut it up to make it work? If a director is unsure he has to carry on shooting. From an editors point of view i hate pointless endless takes, but I hate not having the shot even more. From a directors point of view the worst mistake I made was on an add a year ago when after a DP started bitching about a take already being covered, I agreed against my better judgement to change setup. It screwed up the whole add. This was my fault and my fault only. Next time I shoot, I'll keep shooting till any important take is in the can. Its the directors rep on the line when alls said and done. So dont assume its because he doesn't know how he'll edit, it could equally be the opposite. Keith

Jon, you spoke of mistakes with type size etc, a problem I had until I started using final draft. It will format and keep you in check. It works like a simple word processor but will cover your back so that you know that when you hand your next script in, it will at least physically feel like a script. I dont know wether you can get a student discount, but if not there are plenty of um..er.. how can i put this...unofficial copies on the net. Keith

I agree with you in principle, there is however two paths here. On the one hand you have the system where everyone has there own singular role and if you can afford it you get the best of each. On the other is the simpler more indy or even auterish system, in this case you will get editors or cinematographers or directors who want to do their own colour work. At the end of the day why shouldn't they? So they might not be such good colourists, but they are working in their own way and this in itself can produce some fabulous and sometimes superior results. At the begining of the nineties I worked as a still retoucher in the earliest days of Photoshop. I worked at an upmarket lab in London and we had some of the best fashion photographers walking through the door, at that time being a retoucher was a seperate skill and photographers would be amazed as I manipulated the colours and composited. Nowadays no one walks around saying photographers should leave photoshop to the proffesionals and at that time if you'd asked me I'd have said get the software, get a computer and learn. That does not mean that every DP or editor or director will be a decent colourist, most of them will be poop, but it does not mean that people should sit and be pidgeonholed. If everyone wants to multitask then let them- what is there really to be scared about? We already have badly shot films, badly edited and badly acted, so I'm not going to loose any sleep about a 'non-colourist' doing some mediocre colour correction. Keith

Mark, was there any talk at the screening about scope options? Keith

Maybe my post is unclear, my point is digital is the future. Whether you consider HD not up to standard is not relevent to my point. I dont believe I ever said that digital was better because its new, that would be rediculous- what part of my posts gave you that opinion? Geez sometimes I do feel a bit of paranoia on this forum. I mean is digital technology that much of a boogieman. Oh my god the HD is coming help help run to the hills!! Seriously though, you still have plenty of time to shoot film as do I. Just face the fact that digital is the future (and for some people the present). Keith