Landon D. Parks

This is a legal issue, and an important one. From a professional standpoint, you have to get signed releases from anyone who appears in your film in any recognizable forms - from image to voice. Failure to get this written permission might not only lead to a lawsuit down the road, but will also prove hard when it comes to getting E&O insurance - proper clearances are a major proportion of getting such a policy. Do yourself a favor - get permission from them. Alternatively, you can post a large sign warning that filming is in progress and that they might be photographed, but I'm not sure if even this would stand up in a court of law. News and documentaries can usually get by with getting crowd shots, due to the nature of the material.

That is some amazing GH4 footage, and really shows the power of that camera. Did you use an external recorder? As for the short itself, I like it a lot. You have a great sense of pacing, and I simply love the look of it. Good job! The story was also compelling for being so short.

Liability insurance is a must if you are shooting anything, anywhere. Even short film projects. Most places won't issue a permit without it, and it doesn't have to be expensive. You can get a short term production insurance package for liability and property damage for less than a few hundred dollars. I have generally found that the more 'film centric' insurance companies tend to overcharge, but then again the insurance is often tailored for the industry and you have the option of adding other types of insurance, like E&O. I have been saying this for a long time. It doesn't matter if it's just you and your friends shooting something - that won't stop you from being sued, and certainly won't stop a judgement against you or your friends. I use The Event Helper for my liability and property damage insurance. They are quick, have great rates, and are easy to work with.

The real fun is when you get clips from 4 different cameras, shooting different aspect ratios, with different file types, and different frame rates, and a single deliverable is expected from it. Talk about issues from hell. I have never dealt with or delivered 60p footage. All my deliverables are either at 24p for DCI, or 23.98p for web. One documentary I did post work on I delivered in 29.97p, that that one was the odd one out of the bunch. I'm curious why someone is requesting a 60p delivery. That doesn't appear to be any standard sort of format. Standards are 24fps for DCI, 23.98fps for most other uses. There is also the old interlaced carryovers of 30i and 60i, but no one uses those to any degree any longer. 29.97 is common as well in television. Edit: I don't even see standard options in export menu for Resolve for anything other than 24, 23.98 and 30.00. The one 29.97 project I did was in Premiere, kind of odd to not see 29.97 in Resolve though.

BTW, if she wants to get involved with the Texas film industry, she needs to be in Austin. Dallas and Houston have some film-related things, but most of the Texas industry is centered around Austin.

If she wants to be a cinematographer, and she can't imagine ever doing anything else - then she needs to get a head start now. While college is a good backup plan, it will not even be considered when interviewing for a role as a cinematographer on a film. Even a prestigious film school will only be as good as your connections you make there. In the filmmaking field, what you can do is what counts, not what the paper you have says you can do. It's a results driven industry, where the 'demo reel' is king, and your main calling card - especially as a cinematographer. I'm ceretainly not discouraging going to college. I went, if only as a backup career option in the (more likely than not event) that the film industry does not pay out a perfect salary year-after-year. Thankfully, I have been doing okay insomuch as I havn't had to have a second job to meet my needs, but I'm thankful I have my degree to fall back on - in education. One thing I would steer away from, unless you just have money to burn, is going to film school. As mentioned before, school plays little to no role in future jobs as a cinematographer, short of these hypothetical 'film school connections' that never really seem to show any proof of actually existing. She would be much better off getting a REAL degree in something that she can actually get a job at with that degree. She doesn't have to use it immediately, but having it might well save her butt later in life. A film school degree is worthless outside the film industry, and pretty much worthless there as well. IN my opinion, film school is a product of a bygone era, when you needed the structure and support of a school to provide you with a chance to practice making films, provide you with equipment to make them, and fellow classmates to help you. The industry has not been like this for a while. With the advent of social media, it's very easy to find a core group of people who share your passion on your project to help you. Cinema-quality equipment can be had for peanuts, and much less than the cost of a single film school class - let alone a degree that will set her back $100k in debt. What will she come out with on the other end? A few connections with fellow students (if shes good at networking and/or outgoing), and a few short films for a reel. Frankly, she could have racked up these short films in a year or less, rather than the 4-years required for the degree. Now of course there is some value in the film education provided. You'll sit through every kind of filmmaking class you can imagine - writing, directing, camera dept., lighting, film theory, etc, etc... You will learn a very broad knowledge of pretty much everything - but this is becoming less and less needed now that there are DVD film schools for less than $1,000 that will teach you the ins and outs of pretty much everything in the industry. Lets also not forget that great thing known as Youtube, and even Vimeo. So that is my take a film school. I didn't go, and got my degree in education as a fallback. This is what I'd suggest she do, not drop out of school entirely. A perfect route for her would be to enroll in a school that has a really good film program, but do another degree. While attaining her degree, she should purchase some equipment for a few grand and in her spare time, build a reel over the 3 or 4 years shes at school. If she wants to network with film students, and she is outgoing, she can just meet up with them - she doesn't need to attend the same classes. If she has her own equipment and things, many of these students will be falling over themselves to work with her. The important thing to remember here is this: Always have a backup plan in the film industry. It's an extremely hard industry to break into, and just as hard to stay in once your there. Unless you're one of a few select cinematographers, you're not going to be getting a lot of constant, good paying gigs. As much as it pains me to say, you just can't set-out from college and say 'I'm going to be a Cinematographer (or director, or editor, or insert something else here) - there is no promises in this industry. You might become one of the lucky few, but the odds are very high for failure.

Given some of the absolute drivel excuses for movies that Netflix actually paid for their services, I'm less convinced that quality of the movie matters. If it is an action film, fantasy film, rip-off of a current blockbuster, or a horror movies, you have a good chance of getting your movie in front of millions of people, despite the quality (or lack thereof). Got a 'B' list actor? You're in my friend!

Selling a $500,000 feature is totally doable, yes. Do not, however, expect it will receive any kind of theatrical distribution, let alone wide release. I can count on one hand how many times in the past 10 years a movie made for $500k or less got a wide theatrical release outside of a few selected markets. Hell, most direct to dvd films have budgets in the range of $1,000,000 or even more, and are often healmed by production veterans; even they don't get wide release in cinemas. Yes, every once and a while someone will be in the right place, at the right time, with the right feature, and the correct know-how, to land such a deal. It's not common at all, though. So no, I wouldn't assume that a $500k movie, even with name talent attached, will get a wide theatrical release. The numbers prove that beyond a doubt. Getting your $500k movie into a few select markets is certainly doable. However, I don't consider your film a theatrical success story if I have to drive 6 hours to Chicago, or 9 hours to NY to see it. While a limited theatrical release in a few markets is neat, it's not what I consider a real theatrical release as we tend to think of them. The fact remains, that for a $1,000,000 or less feature, possibly even $2,000,000 or less, it's much more cost effective to go to streaming and DVD than try for a theatrical release across the nation. It can costs 10x the production cost to release a film into wide release. For many studios and distributors, $2,000,000 or less is fairly easy to recoup from DVD, streaming, and overseas sales deals - and without the added cost and risk of a cinema release. Yes, they might be willing to get it into a large market and pump some marketing dollars into one or two cities, just to get some clout for the film, but for most filmmakers that is as far as that is going.

Success is also in the eye of the beholder.... If you make a movie for $3,000 and it makes $5,000 - that is a success as well. The less expensive the movie, the less it needs to make to be a success. I think too many filmmakers are too focused on spending money, rather than making a good movie. Believe it or not, you don't need to rent a RED Epic and have Johnny Depp in your movie. Most 'filmmakers' spend WAY to much money on something that, more than likely, will remain a hobby. Hell, Hollywood could learn a thing or two from this advice... Although, I will say this: A lot of filmmakers who get success actually TRIED for it. This is where Richard is right. Some people berates him for his 'luck', but that is how everyone is successful. If there was no luck, we could all follow Richard's advice word-for-word, and enjoy his same success. Luck, though, more times than not, is the result of blood, sweat, and tears. Yes, a great many movies are doomed to fail, but more than likely this is not because they are unlucky, it's because they are bad movies and/or have unmotivated and/or un-knowledgeable filmmakers behind them. Too many filmmakers approach filmmaking with no idea of the business end of filmmaking. They are artists first and foremost, and don't possess the skills needed to sell a movie. Is it any wonder these filmmakers fall the wayside with their little films sitting on the shelf of their bedroom? Personally, I think we can all learn something from Richard here. Here is a guy who has successfully produced several multi-million dollar movies. Frankly, I respect him for that. Yes, I'm sure luck played a role, but then again it plays a role in everything we do in life. For that matter, why go to college for a career? You'll need luck to land that good job....

Many filmmakers in history would argue against that point. Some of today's most predominate filmmakers are the ones who bit the bullet and produced their own feature films. Yes, having legitimacy will help you, but in today's brutal filmmaking society, I don't think a short film is going to get you there, at least not like it use to. The reality of the situation is this: I think we are seeing a split in the film industry. Not too many years ago, the only real ways of success consisted of two paths: Get your film into theaters, or get your film/series on television. Okay, a direct-to-dvd deal could be a neat thing as well. Anything less wasn't successful. With the rise of the internet, and mobile-enabled environment, we are seeing new methods take off and launch success stories. No longer are the gates of distribution controlled by a few Hollywood executives. It's now possible for filmmakers to get their films onto many successful platforms without any need for the Hollywood system. So ultimately, I'd stop worrying so much about impressing others with fancy short films, and worry more about getting a really good project going that has potential to launch your career. Trying to impress other people with a roster of short films simply isn't going to cut it any longer. PS) I'm not decrying the short film format. It's a fine format for learning to art of filmmaking... I just don't see it as a calling card any longer.

The Ohio system is one of the better ones available here in the States, and has one of the highest rebates. It's fully refundable or transferable. It also covers pretty much all expenses as long as they are spent inside the state. I'm certainly no tax expert, but my understanding is that its issued as a tax rebate at the end of the year. While there is an application process, it's easier to qualify for than, say, the California tax rebate, which requires you enter into a lottery. The Georgia rebate systems seems rather lackluster to me, and I'm shocked at times why their industry has flourished so much. I think having Tyler Perry (and his studio) based there has been a major push. I'm actually shocked more productions don't shoot in Ohio, to take advantage of the fairly generous credit system and overall cheaper production costs. I mean, for a big budget film, 30% refundable could be fairly sizable - though there is a $40 million cap. We're getting better though, just a couple weeks ago I got to actually hang around the set of reprisal (thanks to a local industry friend who was working on the film), which was neat to see a big budget flick in action. A few months ago or so I got to meet James Franco while he was here shooting The Long Home, which was neat. I guess that proof that the Ohio industry is still fairly strong. Myself and several others who are fairly vocal in the community have been pushing Butler county to take the film industry more seriously, and to advocate for better studio facilities here, which would certainly increase production. I think if we had a real, fully-fledged studio here, that would be the best thing for the areas film industry. I'm not aware if any banks will provide cash upfront in a loan type fashion for these credits. For the current project I'm working on, I was able to find a gentleman through a mutual friend who is willing to make us a 30% loan of our budget for 3.5% interest, but only if we can raise the other 60% up front to meet the minimum $300k spend. So I suppose that is similar to the bank option you mention, just without the bank. It's tough to get banks to do anything film-related here, at least from my understanding. I have been trying to get my current project off the ground for 2 years. Keep truckin' on as they say.

Crew positions for major productions are hired in several ways, depending on the type of project. If it's an out of town production like we get in my neck of the woods, most of the crew will be hired locally. In many cases, they will be sourced from the local film office who usually maintains a production book, which lists everything from local caterers to equipment rental companies and sound stages, and yes - even crew members broken down by their job categories. To get into this book, you need to meet the requirements set forth by that film office. In Indiana (where I use to live and was listed as a PA in the book), you had to have experience doing at least ONE job in your category. Other states will vary. To see an example my local film offices production book, look here: http://www.filmcincinnati.com/crew-cincinnati Atlanta, and Georgia by default, will have a very well setup film office, since a lot of productions shoot there. Your first goal should be to gain the requirements needed to become listed in that production book. For productions that are locally based (meaning the key crew are also local (DP/Director/Production Manager, etc)), a lot of your chances depends on who you know. In any case, no one is going to hire you for a paying production, especially television and feature level, unless you have experience. To gain the experience, you need to figure out what area you want to work in. You then need to start networking with Atlanta-based crew members who do what you want to do. Not only with this gain you friends in the local production industry, but you can usually convince them to help show you the ropes. I managed to network with a lot of local crew members here in Cincinnati. I did this mostly by getting in on a local Facebook group populated with local crew. I also tend to 'inject' myself into the local scene as much as possible. That is really all you can do. As for how to begin conversations and things, just do it like you naturally would. You don't want to approach people with a pushy way. Your first goal is simply to network and meet people, not to push yourself into the industry.

Most of the credits available here in the United States are tax-rebate based. For example, if you shoot a film with a budget at least $300,000.00 - you get a refundable 35% tax credit from the State of Ohio, which is where my production company is based. Effectively, this means you get 35% of everything you spend IN THE STATE back, which can effectively be like getting 35% of your budget covered by the state, but then you have to spend it all in the state. This 35% tax rebate is why a lot of productions have been shooting in Ohio recently. Taking advantage of this is hard though unless you have the money to throw around up front, and as such, I think this was mainly implemented to draw big-budget productions into the state, with no regard given for smaller productions. In fact, the production I'm developing right now is budgeted to take advantage of this tax credit. I'm not aware of any government programs that provide upfront funding for feature films or other such projects. Almost makes me want to move 4 hours north...

Can't wait! I'll even make the 4-hour trek to Canada for it.

Only do this if you have something lined up. Both LA and NY have the highest cost of living in the United States. Unless you have family or close friends to stay with, or a good job lined up in advance, you're going to be miserable. While I have never lived in LA, I have visited several times (just 3 weeks ago, in fact) - and the sticker shock will send you scurrying. Home prices alone are 5-6x what you'll find most other places, gas is several dollars more expensive per gallon, etc. And before you say 'but there is no film industry anywhere other than LA' - note that just several weeks ago I met Brian Miller downtown, 5 minutes from my company office, while shooting his latest movie 'Reprisal' (Brice Willis). About 3 1/2 months ago, I had a little chat and handshake with James Franco and Josh Hartnett while they were getting Coffee in a small restaurant in Hamilton Ohio, where Franco was shooting 'The Long Home'. I even got invented to spend the day on-set, and meet some of the people involved. And more times than not, these companies that are shooting films here are not bringing their entire crew from California - they are going to hire many of the crew from the local roster. LA might well be the epicenter of the Hollywood studio executive offices, but it's hardly the bustling film production industry it once was - unless you consider the sheer number of student films, short films, and extremely low-budget productions made by people who moved there hoping to get into the Hollywood industry. Most 'real', good-paying, union productions are shot outside of California. Those 35%+ tax rebates without the need for a lottery work wonders. I don't want to turn this into an LA vs. everywhere else argument, but just take heed and think carefully before making a blind move to LA in the hopes that your dreams of success and networking will be showered upon you. Here in Cincinnati, we have an active film community that I regularly network with - everyone from writers to camera operators to gaffers and grips. They exist outside LA. TL;DR: Look to your LOCAL film community for help and assistance. Unless you live in a small town, a little work will put you in contact people who would be willing to help you learn the ropes. If you have a little money, you could always rent some of this equipment to practice with as well.

I agree with most of what you're saying - except for the processor stuff - You don't need a dual core with Ryzen and Ryzen Threadripper (no reason to think thread-ripper wouldn't work if Ryzen base does), the thread-ripper has up to 32 processor cores, which exceeds even top of the line Intel Xeon dual processor configurations. Personally, if I was to ever want the OSX operating system, I would most assuredly go through this route. Apple hardware is just too expensive in the dollar to performance range. Not that I'm in the market or anything, but since the original poster mentioned looking for something comparable to a top of the line iMac (not mac pro), this is a fair option if he is willing to do the work. Linus does say, in the video, that it outperforms the top of line iMac at less cost. This setup could just as easily outperform a modern Mac Pro replacing the Ryzen base with a Threadripper CPU, allowing access to 32 cores - which is vastly more than Intel even offers in its dual Xeon configurations. Yes, it's more work - and might not even be up OP's alley - but it does work and is stable once you get it setup. And the cost to perform ratio just skyrocketed. A system like this, dual booted with Windows, Linux, and MacOS would be a great combination. You could switch over to Mac when you needed it (although I'm not real sure when that might be - maybe for iTunes delivery or something that requires Mac software to encode). Edit: There is also another article which displays some alternatives to the current Mac Pro configurations. The comments are particularly interesting, and the entire article is worth a read. https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/4461-powerful-alternatives-to-that-new-apple-workstation

Just an update on a video I ran across. If you want Mac OSX, and are willing to do some work to get there, check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAut2VGpDvo. It's basically a Hackintosh using Ryzen CPU's and AMD RX graphics cards. It's cheaper and better performance than more traditional Apple offerings. Once it's working, it works 100%.... Getting it to work can be a chore though, so warnings...

If you mean doing an aspect change in post - it's really easy - just depends on the software - it's different in each one. If you let me know what software you are working with, I can probably help you. If you mean change aspect in camera - that is a little different, and can't say I have ever heard of this being done. Usually, aspect in camera is gate and format dependent in film, though in digital it can often be changed in the menu settings, with different quality results.

Something like this seems much easier with digital than film, at least to me. If you want a timelapse, why not just do that with your DSLR? While film cameras can do timelapse, that is really more of a photography technique. Why do you want to shoot this on film when most DSLR's can already do it?

:wacko: Sorry for the Hijack, couldn't miss the opportunity.

(PS: Didn't realize how old the original post was. Oh well, my advice still applies) Honestly, you're going to run into problems with investments. First, in every US state, there are 'blue sky' laws, that prevent you from selling the sky to investors. For starters, if you want to go the investment route, there are several ways you can go. All of them required you from a corporate structure, create investment documents, etc. You'll NEED a lawyer for this because one out of place line and you are on the line for federal criminal charges that can see you sitting in prison for 20 or more years, rather you meant to or not. You can look into 'Regulation D' investments, which are the old fashioned way of getting film investments. You can go 'all out' with 'Regulation A' filings as well, but that is really overkill. Probably the only area of bright light in the investment world for a film is the crowdfunding under the JOBS act. This allows companies to setup 'exchanges' similar to Kickstarter, where people can post investment proposals for public viewing. It's by far the easiest way to make this work, but this something you'll have to do an investigation on your own. Go to google, type in 'Crowdfunding Jobs Act' and do your research. However, back to reality: Getting investments in a film is going to be nearly impossible. The only way I can see it working is by collecting a large number of tiny investments through a crowdfunding exchange as mentioned above, and even that is still untested. The reality is: To fund your movie, you can certainly throw a party and make people pay to attend. DO NOT, however, make it appear as an investment for the film - this will get you in trouble for securities fraud. Anyone is free to throw a party, charge an entrance fee, and then use that fee however they want. Everyone is not free to say 'your admission to my party is an investment in my movie'. Technically, even accepting 'investments' from parents is, legally, well, illegal. Another way is to consider a crowd funding campaign. This is probably the easiest of the methods, but you need a rather large network of supporters already in place to make this happen. Bottom line: Getting $30k to film a movie is not easy. At all. In fact, you're probably better off trying to make a bigger film and get 'investments' or studios in on that. The problem with the $30k film is that it has no market. A marketable film requires some kind of asset, like a name property or a name star. The days when you could make a small indie film with no names attached, and see it succeed are over. More than likely, your $30k film will end up being distributed directed by you on sites like Netflix, Hulu, TubiTV, Amazon, etc. These movies will not see much a profit, and might, in fact, have a hard time making back their $30k budget. At least with a $500,000 film, you can get some stars attached that can actually get you a meeting to get a film made. Don't mean to be a Debbie-downer here, but I have spent a lot of years trying different ways to raise money for movies... It's not that easy.

Proper cine-focus lenses are, well, expensive.... Otherwise, your stuck with still photography lenses, which aren't much better at pulling focus than the GH line. I mean, it seems kind of overkill to stick a $10,000 cinema-zoom lens on a $1,500 GH5. I still own my Sigma 18-35 and a M43 speedboosters, but rarely use them any longer. Edit: The Rokinon are nice lenses, but then you have the crop factor issue on a GH line camera.

Glad to be the first... There is nothing at all wrong with the Lumix line of lenses. Short of spending thousands of dollars on real cine-lenses, the HD-series, namely to 12-35 and the 35-100 are perfectly sharp, capable lenses. Are they perfect? No, but they are great lenses that work just fine and produce a perfectly pleasing image. Of course, each lens will run you about $600 or more (I paid $1,600 for my set), so they are far from the cheap $200 or less Lumix lenses that most people consider for the camera. Don't get me wrong, there are better lenses. If you can afford it, a speedbooster in combination with a really nice cinema lens or maybe even a high-end photo lens will give you great results as well, but hardly results I'd say are light years better than the HD-series of Lumix lenses. There are major advantages to the native lenses as well - namely no crop factor to consider, stabilization, auto-focus support (if you need it), glass that is designed to work with the camera, and the need to not have to deal with adapters.

Film school is only worth it if you can get it for free. If you're going to spend your own money on it, I can think of a few betters way to spend $100,000... Like making a feature that will actually showcase your talent. The reality is, in the film industry, no one cares about your degree. It's one of those 'arty' communities that don't rely on education, rather showing what your capable of. The main reason to go to film school is to be around other potential filmmakers. It's the 'networking' thing. The problem with this, in my mind, is two-fold: First, you're main associating with other student filmmakers, which is probably not going to lead to any jobs after school, and second - if you really want to network, you can network without paying the tuition. Connect with these students through social media, meet up with them for coffee, etc.