Jim Feldspar

Comment and question: This may help some of you. i-Movie has a special section of VFX that you can lay on after you've shot your scene, in this case no hoses except to wet down the streets. It works especially well for night shoots or overcast days but particularly night because if you have a streelight or something in the background, that will seem to justify the backlighting of the rain. I've used this effect for downconverted P2 footage and then sent it to Final Cut Express to finish. With good sound effects, it can be pretty convincing. I just bought an instructional CD at my local camera store. It says that it would show how to create environmental effects, like rain and snow, in Photoshop. I don't know much about Photoshop but could get access to it. The video starts with the instructor standing outside introducing how he's going to show how to do these effects in Photoshop. While he's talking, there is snow falling and then lightning, both clearly effects and implying that how to do them will be revealed in this CD. In the video however, he uses still pictures and never says a word about getting these effects onto an editing timeline. This video was right next to an instructional DVD on shooting Mini-DV. I called a friend who knows Photoshop very well and he said that he didn't see how Photoshop, which he said is for still images, could be used for video effects. Does anybody know? I think that I got duped. Does anybody know of any effects programs that can allow rain or snow to be put over scenes in a video or film? Thanks.

Xavier, Thank you! I've been going to all sorts of places that might sell materials and doing searches for do it yourself gear. These sites are immensely helpful. Really appreciate it!

Thanks!

Cool, thanks. A bit out of my price range presently but it's good to know about them and also to learn a new term.

Thanks guys, I've never come across black silks. Are they for diffusion still? What are Road Flags? I searched but couldn't find anything, just sites for off road racing flags. I'm looking to find what would be the right choice and then buy some and make some gear. I went to a fabric shop that sells "silk" (it is silk but I guess there's all kinds) for $9.99/yd. That's a yard long and 60" wide so I could make a 10' x12' for about $80.00. There's also cheaper silk which has some patterns in it but as long as it's white that's okay.

I know that silks are used for diffusion but I'm also wondering if there is a uniform figure for how much light is cut. When a silk gets pulled off of a grip truck for a 12' by, I've never heard anybody say which one do you want? In the 18" x 24" flag kits, there are single and double nets but only one silk. Is that silk the same in terms of diffusion/cutting light as a silk for an overhead? My local grip huse didn't know offhand and they're busy (week before the 4th) so I don't want to bug them and ask if I could come in and measure. I know that at first it might seem that a question about silks should be in the gripping section but I figure that this aspect might be more of concern to the people lighting. I'm making some plans and any information would be helpful. Thanks.

THANKS!

Does anybody know where in the Eastern U.S. or anywhere the mail goes Super 8 Kodachrome can be developed? Thanks.

Excellent web site!

Quite excellent points. Who should own the copyright to something written by one or more people, perhaps revised by others, directed, shot, edited by different people? In comparison, the short story copyright (which is on every one I've turned in) is certainly easier to ascertain. Also, as you point out, the school may benefit the filmmakers by continuing to screen their films and certainly I've never heard of a film school making millions by producing a picture based on an idea in a student(s)' short or conversely suing a student who gets someday to make a feature based on his short. Obviously that doesn't happen. I guess it's the big picture that's bugging me. As you point out, there might be an argument here but after a while common practice becomes so common that people don't tend to question it anymore. I see that so often in society that I guess this set me off. Oh, by the way, part of the agreement with WGBH for the $2000.00 grant is that the filmmaker post a copy of (his/her edit of the) short and then make cuts based on comments from people who view it online. How do you like them apples? Enough ranting. 1. I'm going to talk to the station about this, if they'll listen, and see what they have to say. 2. I'm going to work on my list of laws and policies that I think are unconstitutional or simply unfair but exist because they go unchallenged. 3. Maybe I will pitch an idea, see if I even can get a $2000.00 grant and worry about all my philosphical concerns down the road.

Being an English major and not at a film school, I didn't know that film schools take ownership/ copyright of a production. That would really piss me off. The film student is paying tuition so isn't he or she is paying for the film? If my school said that the English department could claim the copyright to my short stories which I wrote for my classes because they provided the desks and teachers and lights and heat and in some cases copy services for students; I'd tell them to take a hike.

Yes, these are good points, much like if one doesn't like a certain show, change the channel. I'm still protesting however (or complaining?) For example, I've worked for free on many shoots as a p.a., extra grip. sandbag carrier and it's been worth it because I've learned a lot. In this case a production is getting ownership of ideas thought of by someone outside the production who is hungry enough to make this trade-off. I dislike that much more than trading my manual labor for the benefits of working on a big production. Of course this may be a case of an entity simply protecting itself without having any ulterior motives. You're most likely right that there would be no objection by the station to a filmmaker developing the ideas in the short later on. I think you hit the point when you said that there will be plenty of other people who won't mind these terms. That attitude is pervasive and it's why higher up the chain on the labor side, unions developed. Without unions, there would be a lot more "Oh you don't want to work 16 hours for a flat rate? No problem. There's ten people waiting outside who will." As a p.a. I can take low/no pay for carrying stuff but giving up ideas that somebody else couldn't think up? That just bugs me.

I understand that there's a trade-off.For example, some scientists work for pharmaceutical companies and get labs and equipment and research funds that otherwise they would never get. They may get a good salary but if they discover a drug that makes billions, they won't necesarily get a cut of that. However, without the job at the drug company they would maybe never have achieved that scientific success and contribution to society (and to the company's bank account,) That's part of the deal though, because the pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, on other projects that don't work and the companies don't recover that money. You make good points in this case. Possibly too, if a filmmaker did find a way to expand his idea from a three minute short into something much bigger, WGBH might not stand in the way. Their project is done so after some time such a spin-off might not hurt them and maybe all they would want is a credit. I guess it's just that yielding total ownership that troubles me. It's probably a lot easier for WGBH than working out the individual negotiated conditions of a bunch of filmmakers that may never come into play anyway, and exposure on a Ken Burns film could help launch somebody's career so it might well be worth it. This morning I saw a rerun of "Dinner for Five" in which Jon Favreau talks to filmmakers and actors. In this show, Frank Darabont noted how the Writers Guild of America gave up, as prcatically its first action, the writers ownerships of copyright to the studios. I'm sure that that there are complex issues here but everybody on the show did have a bit of a chuckle at a union becoming established and then giving up so much. I guess that the WGBH requirements remind me of other contracts that contain provisions that protect the heck out of the producer and although they might never be exercised, they do mean that a filmmaker who signs such an agreement is agreeing to at least the possibility of an extreme trade-off. I guess if you have a hit record but you don't get any of the money and yet it launches your career, then maybe it's worth it.

I heard about the local PBS station offering a $2000.00 grant to support the making of a 3 minute short that PBS might include in Ken Burns "War". Now two thousand bucks is nice but look at the last requirement on the eligiblity list below, "grant WGBH all right, title and interest, including the copyright, in and to the short produced with the grant" I say the hell with them. I'd sign something to let them show it all they want and to show it first and to show it exclusively for a year but the copyright? What if I thought of a way to expand it into a feature or develop something from my short? Public television. Everybody calls the people involved liberals and lefties but this looks like a grant from HUAC! This is from lab.wgbh.org. the site with the info. for the $2000.00 grant from WGBH in Boston: Eligibility Almost anyone with a good idea and the gumption to execute a video short may apply to the Lab's Open Call. You must be a legal resident of the United States and be at least eighteen years of age to apply. Employees of WGBH are not eligible to enter. All entries submitted become the property of WGBH and will not be returned or acknowledged. If selected to receive a grant you must complete, sign, and return a Producer Services Agreement and: comply with all independent contractor criteria of WGBH including completing all independent contractor status verification paperwork required by WGBH (e.g. Taxpayer I.D. Number for Business). Failure to do so will disqualify you from becoming a grant recipient be available to produce the short during a four week period beginning on or around 7/10/07 and ending no later than 8/17/07 not become an employee of or provide other services to WGBH prior to December 31, 2007 if deemed necessary by WGBH, obtain a fiscal agent certify that the completed work is original, and no other person or entity holds rights to the entry certify that the completed work has had no prior cable, network or public television broadcast in the US grant WGBH all right, title and interest, including the copyright, in and to the short produced with the grant

David, I go without the vest too but do you use the forearm brace? It has a metal post for mounting the rig and gives a lot of support and a lot of relief to the operator and it's fairly inexpensive.

How do you use par cans on location? I picked up three Altman lights of varying lengths that had been hung by pipe clamps in a theater. I've used stand adaptors on 1K Fresnels that have flat yokes becasue they were hanging in a studio but the Altmans are longer and I think might be front heavy. They have shutters to control the countors of the light but are I believe par cans or maybe they'd be ellipsoidal spotlights as I've seen par cans that have no adjustablity. In any event, these lights have flat yokes but if I used them would I have to bag the heck out of a baby stand or would I need to get a different adaptor and move up to a junior or combo stand? Thanks.

" It could be due to poorly run cables" I didn't know that this could cause flicker. How can the way cables are run have this effect? Thanks.

Fantastic! Thank you David and everybody. I feel like I just got a million dollars education in your replies.

Does this mean that everybody who shoots Super 16 and makes prints tends to a 35 mm blow-up? It seems to me that shooting Super 16 is a great way to go and make a good looking film while saving money (compared to a 35 mm production) and you can show your Super 16 feature in several ways without a film print and thus let a producer pick-up the cost of the blow-up or, if you don't get a distribution deal, then you've saved a lot of money and still may have a decent film to show. Would you say that people tend to shoot Super 16 more for better looking 16 mm projects that are never intended for big screen projection (straight to DVD,television shows, music videos) or more for lower budget feature films? In a way, doesn't the cost of the blow-up counteract the initial savings except somebody else in this case is paying for the blow-up so the original producer was able to shoot in Super 16 what might otherwise have been unaffordable to have shot in 35 mm ? Thanks.

Now I get it. That is so clear. Thanks!

Many Super 8 cameras shoot 18 f.p.s. and are projected at the same rate. A Nizo that I used had variable speeds but it's 24 f.p.s. option gave a less skittery look when played back at 24 f.p.s. than did 18 f.p.s. projected at 18 f.p.s. The other variable speed options were to overcrank or undercrank and have it look that way because the projection speeds would still be the 18 or 24 f.p.s.. So, just for kicks, say you have a high speed camera and can shoot 300 f.p.s.. That's going to give you great slow motion when projected at 24 f.p.s.. However, if somebody invented equipment so that you could shoot at 300 f.p.s., record sync sound and play back at 300 f.p.s., wouldn't you have an incredible picture? Of course there are exposure issues, film costs, etc.. Hypothetically though, what do you think? What about a 60 or 96 f.p.s. sync sound camera that could be projected at those respective speeds?

Max, you always seem to know your stuff and I learn from your posts but I've been confused about something regarding thicker/thinner negatives. I hear it mentioned but it would seem to me that overexposing would use up more of the chemicals involved in the negative and thus there would be less information which would seem to me to be more aptly decsribed as a thinner negative than say something that's uderexposed but perhaps has information that can be dug out of the shadows. Am I going wrong somewhere? Doesn't a bit of overexposure obliterate the most exposed parts and then they can never be available to be addressed in post? Thanks.

That answers a lot of questions. Considering the lesser quality of 16 mm sound and the increasing rarity of 16 mm projection, it seems that we could save money by not making prints and projecting digitally...and if somebody likes it and wants to pay for the blow-up to 35 mm then great! Laying out the 1.85 or 1.78 options like that really clarifies things. I think that I would definitely play it safe and compose for 1.85 but maybe a little tighter up top than usual (I tend to like that anyway.) That would protect 1.85 and maybe take the edge off the extra headroom in 1.78. After editing in Final Cut Pro, we can print to tape for digital projection. Is it HDCAM that is used at festivals for digital projection? I'm sure that i'll be researching this and double checking with any given festival for its requirements. Thanks so much!

A lot of good suggestions, thank you! I don't have a lot of festival experience so I've been inquiring about prints based on the director's comments but that's a good point about projectors. I'll have to look into it. Yes, planning can definitely save money and I like to plan carefully. When you had shoots when you used the zoom all the time, was it because you were zooming or because you needed to save time and used it as a variable prime rather than change lenses in which case did you sacrifice image quality that would have been obtained if you had used the primes?

"Why aren't you considering 200T (7217) if you think that 100T is too slow and 500T is too grainy?" It's not that I think that; I suspect that but I don't know. I understand that at some point what's too grainy may be a matter of opinion but in general, getting a good exposure and not pushing anything, is 500T much grainier than 100T? I believe that faster stocks are usually going to be grainier but my impression is that newer technologies and manufacturing of stocks have changed that somewhat. For example, I'm going to price stock and am wondering if maybe 500T might be more expensive if it can give greater speed without five times more grain than 100T. The director is saying that he may want prints for projection at festivals. Does "The only downside to Super-16 is that you can't make a contact-printed 16mm print with an optical soundtrack on it." mean that there's an alternative to contact printing or that no matter what an optical soundtrack is out? I've heard about magnetic soundtracks? What about them? Are they a historical item or still used? What are the options for shooting Super 16 and making a print(s) for projection? Is it going to require some compromise of the soundtrack? I wanted to ask about the aspect ratios because I'm simply ignorant here but I think that 1.78 will be ideal! Just to know though, what if we composed for 1.78 and then some producer with a bag of money says please, please let me blow up your film. Since it had not been composed for 1.85, I can imagine that making it into that might make some head room tighter but it sounds fairly close. Have people encountered this and made out okay? The guy at the rental house, whom I know somewhat and have had some good conversations with him, recommended the 35 mm lens package, saying that it's extremely popular for people shooting Super 16 but of course budget is always an issue and if you say that the old Zeiss Super Speeds are good then I think that I'll go in that direction and ask him what he can put together for us (and maybe save some money and buy more film.) When you say slow speed for outdoors, you're saying the 50D 7201? I think so but just want check. The 7217 is a great suggestion. The interiors will be Tungsten at night and that would give me a T2 at 25 footcandles which would be cool with me (if I have the lenses that get to a 2; some are 2.8s.) If we do anything in the street at night, then I'll go with the 500T. As always, thank you so much for your help!