Josh Bass

I would tell you to rent a teleprompter, being a teleprompter operator myself sometimes, and having done this exact setup. Here's how it works, see. You take another camera, a small crappy camcorder is perfectly acceptable, and you point it at your interviewer, shooting him in CU. That camera's output will go into the teleprompter monitor. This monitor mounts on the camera, and there's a piece of two way glass that goes in front of the lens. The lens sees right through the glass, but the glass also reflects whatever's on the prompter monitor. What this means is that a person looking to the prompter glass looks like they're looking right into the lens. If they see your interviewer's face on there, presto! Should run you around $225 or so for the day. For the prompter gear, that is.

Aren't most interviews, in fact, lit that way, though (smart side lighting)? That's how I do it (provided they're looking slightly to one side of the lens and not right in via Errol Morris interview style). I've seen guys do it the other way, but in my experience it's not the norm.

I understand the line of action for editing, I'm saying that to light the way you guys talk about, you would always have to arrange camera and talent to take advantage of where the light sources are. I guess it really isn't a huge deal most of the time. . .I think of on-location shooting and how if there's only a window on this side and not that side. . or if the background is ugly when you turn that way, it would cause issues, etc. etc. The kind of stuff I work on , it's probably more of problem than in the professional arena. If I ever do anything narrative again, I'll keep it in mind. So, never mind I guess.

Doesn't this mean then that you'd have to block all your shooting so that the motivating sources for your movie lights always favor lighting from the off-cam side? And find some new reason for it to work if you cross the axis? Seems like an insane headache.

So is it just the combo of those three things (art direction, lens, direction--p.s., I never know what the hell people mean when they say "direction")? Together? And no other show does it quite like that? I guess most shows are set in offices and more realistic looking residences instead of houses with sea green walls.

Hey, I wanted to ask, do you know the hardness rating on those rollerblade wheels you used? I built a dolly based on someone else's design that apparently had a fatal flaw, causing it to be useless on PVC pipe (or any circular surface that fit between the wheels) if you wanted sound in your movie. I always figured if I tried again I'd get skateboard wheels, but now that you say yours works well, I'm wondering if I could use the wheels I already have. I fear they might be too soft, so if you know the hardness of your wheels, I could compare the two. Thanks.

For my edification gentlemens, maybe you could help me out with something. Let me start with a few things. First, I'm not much of a DP. I've DP'd my own projects, and a few other things, but for all intents and purposes, I'm not familiar with much beyond miniDV cameras and their stock lenses. Another thing is that while browsing through the TV, one (or I, at least) can tell almost immediately whether one (or I'm) is watching a TV show (dramatic series, I mean, as opposed to sitcom, talk show, etc.) movie, or commercial. Something about the visual style between each is different. Yet another thing is that where TV is concerned, seems like in as much as they are different, all (or at least many) TV shows have a "saminess" about their looks. Regardless of the cinematography overall, the thing I've been able to pick out is there seems to be this one lens that all (or most) use for everything (no idea what focal length)--wide shots, CU's, everything in between. Whatever focal length it is, it tends to flatten everything out so that you don't have the more exotic 3D quality you get with the wider lenses. Now, there's this show, Pushing Daisies, that stands out among the crowd. I think this show is visually stunning, but I can't pinpoint what it is. It bothers me, wondering if any of you a)agree and B) can help me. I don't necessarily think the art direction is better than all the other shows, or the lighting, etc. etc., yet there's something that really stands out. The one thing I've noticed is they do seem to use different lenses. Wide lenses on CUs, stuff like that. To me, it looks like you're watching a feature instead of a TV show whenever I happen upon it. It also looks a little softer than most shows (on an HD set, most shows have this uber-crisp look to them), but that could be something about the way ABC broadcasts or something. Anyway, just wondering if anyone can pinpoint the factor or factors that make it really pop from the other stuff that's on.

I don't mean to be rude, but he mentioned that in addition to school, he spent the last two years doing freelance work.

I always heard the XL1 was very popular. The REd could die at a crucial moment, "blowing" a take.

I think it usually is the lens, on these cams. As I said, this was a pretty big problem when these cameras were more popular. I used to work at a place that owned one, and I finally convinced them to send it for servicing for this same issue. Came back and it was fine. I promise that unless you're an electronics/technical genius, and you don't mind voiding your warranty (if you have one), there's nothing an end user can do to adjust the back focus on an XL1 or XL1s with the stock lens. If you care to investigate the 14x or 16x manual lenses for this series of cams, I think they can be had (via ebay, I'm not sure they're still being manufactured--but they might be) for around $1000 or under. If they're still being made, maybe around $1200. The 14x is much rarer, and was an adapted Fujinon lens (I think). It has a manual iris, so you don't have to use the body iris control on the camera, but no motor for the zoom (you'd have to turn the zoom ring yourself), although I remember reading you could buy a motor for it. The 16x was the newer version of that, and has a zoom motor (though you can still turn it manually if you like), but no iris ring. The 14x will definitely be an ebay thing, but they may still make the 16x.

That's not good. I don't know what to say. . .send it in again, make sure to tell them your lens needs a back focus adjustment. Or try to get them to give you a new lens. On the manual lenses, if you're at all interested in getting one of those for your camera (they're sharper, and also have real focus and zoom rings--14x even has a real iris), you can adjust back focus like you would on a pro cam. The only way to fix the issue on the stock lens, though, is to have it serviced.

Hi. This camera and the 'S' upgrade have well-documented problems with this. You'll have to send it to Canon for service, it's not a user adjustment, like on pro cameras.

From what I've heard, there's a major difference between the rycote softie (or similar products) and a full blimp system. I'm not going to pretend to know how the science works, but they say something like the softie is only useful under the mildest of conditions outdoors. Any real wind starts blowing, the rycote's no good and your audio goes to poop. The blimps are supposed to make a major difference even in very windy conditions, and also if you're swinging a boom around really quickly (the air flowing past the mic can make a lot of noise). Just like most of you guys advocating 35mm over any digital format for it's generally superior quality, I doubt every sound guy would spend the money on those pricey zeppelin systems unless the product was necessary and worth it.

I know this doesn't mean much since you're in the union and therefore have a whole other thing going on, but in Houston (don't know how people do it everywhere else), half day rates are not that uncommon. Granted, there are people who probably don't do them (those guys so in demand that the cannon possibly forsake a full day rate even for a half day's work), there are many who do (myself inlcluded). The half day is from 0-5 hours, full day kicks in technically after hour five, though if you're a nice guy and you get out of there fifteen minutes after, you could still call it a half (up to you). People generally don't actually charge half the rate of their full day for their half day rate, though, it's two thirds. So if you're a grip at $300/day, then your half day is $200. If part of your fee is labor, the other part gear, the way I do it is, gear rents at a day rate, period, labor is halved for a half day (instead of the 2/3).

How can one be of Muslim "descent?" Islam is a religion, not a race/ethnicity.

The XL1s and XL2 can do this (okay, I'm a little unsure about the XL1s, but the XL2, definitely. Says so right in the manual). Yes, it is 12 bit instead of 16. They also have XLR adapters specifically made to record fourr channels simultaneously for the XL series, but you can do it without the adapter, though I don't know exactly how. Never tried. But it can be done.

I second not re-using tape. How much is a "ton of footage"? How much do you see yourself recording? Are we talking 2 hours or 50 hours? If it's a low number, maybe just bite the bullet and buy new stock on your own dime. Here in the US, there are places you can get the middle grade of Panasonic tape (ends with "PQ") for $3 (don't know what that is in pounds, sorry) per tape. If it's a lot of tapes you think you'll be needing, then different story, I guess. I would press for them to pay for tape stock. It's the least they could do, considering you're donating your time, skill, and possibly expensive gear. What it comes down to is that if you're volunteering to do the gig at all, even for no pay, you want to do your best, which would definitely include not using already-recorded tape stock. If you have to do it anyway, tell 'em, "you're cheap, so if this comes out like ass, you got what you paid for."

There seem to be a lot of fests that consider anything up to 45, 50, sometimes even 59 minutes to be a short film. How many of these they actually SHOW is another story (sometimes you can find a list of the films shown in the previous year's incarnation, with a short synopsis and hopefully the length included). I myself am circulating a 23-minute film (DOH!) and a 12-minute film (less DOH!) through the super low-end fest circuit right now (I didn't bother with the big ones because, you know, come on. . .my miniDV, no-name actor having long-ass movies ain't gettin' into those). If the original poster is here in a year or year and a half when I finally know how many fests my films got into (out of about sixty, cumulatively), I will report back. So far each film has made it into one fest, with about five rejections for each. But then again, I made a 5.5 minute movie that everyone who sees it seems to love, and that was met with mostly rejection too (granted I only submitted it to around 10-15 fests), so what the hell do I know? I certainly won't make anything over 15 minutes from now on, without a damn good reason. Good luck.

I gave up. On this same topic, are there any outlets for SHORT films, besides: film fests a handful of new "get paid by the download" services a handful of TV channels that show shorts

Bored. Lots of time on hands right now. Searched for Mullen quote, found it, was wrong about it mentioning specific dollars. But still think it's floating around somewhere.

I recall a very specific number being put out there when you were first talking about this movie. You mention tricks used to get film stock at low costs like bugging film students and stuff. This would have been. . .2 years ago? I don't remember exactly. I also remember, possibly a separate thread, where Mullen got an advance copy of the finished film and talks about how you busted your ass, and it how it certainly didn't look like you only spent $__________ on the movie.

I recall the budget (specific numbers) being mentioned as well. If you're trying to keep it under wraps, might try to find those old threads and see if you can delete the posts or have the moderator do it for you.

I spent a ridiculous amount of time working on a 33-minute "short" that I chopped down to 23 minutes. Even at that length though, I fear it's going to be very tough to get into fests. I've been sending it out anyway, 'cause it's time to move on and all, and I think it's pretty solid (audience response at the few screenings I've been to indicates the same), but my point is that it's likely anything over 15 minutes (15 pages; 1 page should equal 1 minute) is going to be a tough fest sell, period. Think about it. . .if you're Sundance, how much easier is it to fit a 1 minute short in your schedule vs. a 25 minute short? Not to say that fests don't accept films of this length, because most do, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to make one. I certainly won't make that mistake again (unfortunately none of this never occurred to me at any point during writing, production, or editing--not until someone made that point to me).

You used to be able to (and maybe still can) get a battery for the XL series on ebay, some kind of knock-off brand called "No Mem" or something, that runs around 40 dollars apiece, which is comparable to the BP-945 (the longest-running Canon battery--last I knew was selling for around $120 a piece, or something crazy like that). These No Mems last around 7 hours on a full charge. Had a friend who used 'em with his XL1. Save a little money that way.

There's one I'm using now called Anime Studio Pro. It's around $200, and distinguishes itself from other programs mainly because of its bone system. For example, you draw a character, than assign bones to the arms, legs, torso, etc. You then use the bones to animate, almost like manipulating a puppet in 2D. You can download a free demo good for 30 days.