Landon D. Parks

"when you build a mac" Ughhh, ain't that against the code? Where would you buy the parts - the OS - etc? I think you mean, 'when you order a Mac from Apple or a certified re-seller'; I mean, unless I'm way behind the times and its now possible to custom build your own Mac.

I also do post work as well, and my PC specs are as follows: AMD FX-9590 Processor 2 x GTX 1080 GPU's Blackmagic Mini Monitor card 64 GB RAM 960GB internal SSD that runs programs, 2TB internal scratch drive, and 12TB external storage in RAID 5 array for projects in and out. Bluray player/burner That is my basic setup, with the additions of two monitors (a Dell ultra-wide 29" and a Dell 4:3). My Blackmagic card drives an external projector that projects a 128" image for color and sound mixing work. The projector was rather expensive though, and the cost to have an IFS tech come and calibrate it and certify it for Rec 709 was expensive. I also run a sound mixer and such things, which will add to the cost. The total cost of my PC setup was probably in the $3,500 range in 2012, but I have added probably $3,000 more worth of upgrades. The total cost to build the editing suite at Incendio Films office (where the PC now resides) was roughly $10,000 in addition to the computer cost. Today, You can probably build a setup like mine (computer + monitors only) for around $3,000 or less, plus you got the cost of the software as well. It really depends on what you want from it, and how professional you need to go. Being able to grade in Rec 709 is important though, so I'd make that your first upgrade choice after you get the editing PC. Projector, screen, and IFS-tech costs for me came to around $5,000. For reference, here is images of the setup at the Incendio Films offices 'studio' room:

Does any professional really use Vegas, though? I haven't touched Vegas since v.9, and that was back when I had my cheap consumer HDV camcorder and used it to play around / edit home movies. I currently have v.13, but only to open projects given to me by other people. No one has yet. I'll just say that I have been using Windows my entire life, and have never encountered these glitches and driver issues that many people complain about. Not. Once. Well, one time I got the BSOD, but that was because my HDD failed, something that Mac drives are not immune to. As Brian said in the above thread, Pro's are moving away from Apple, and that is because Windows has been getting a lot better at what they need. Apple's lack of drive to support the professional community is also troubling. They don't support nVidia cards that well for starters - which is an issue for many people. They pretty much screwed up FCPx to where its a souped-up Windows Movie Maker (or iMovie if your use that type of thing). The new towers are starting to be designed toward multi-tasking on everyday stuff rather than serious uses like rendering and trans-coding - which are valuable tools needed for any editor. Yes, the old hardware can still work great and can catch up to some PC machines - but what happens when it can't; and given computer power standards - it soon won't. My biggest issue with Mac's is their reliance on 'Plug-n-play' mentality. It's a one-size-fits-the-common-denominator mentality. This lack of customization prevents people from getting the computer they need, and rather forces them to get a 'standard' computer that works for 'most' people. Meanwhile, if a new rendering technology comes out that requires a new GPU - I can simply run out and buy it, plug it in, and boom - I'm all set. Look, I understand that a lot of Pro's in the media industry still use Mac. No question about it. However, I feel that is because they were taught to use Mac in an era where Mac had the upper hand in media design and editing. They stay because the cost to remove all the Mac pipeline and put in a Windows or Linux pipeline is more expensive and time consuming, and the current setup still works for them - not because Mac is superior. The whole 'Mac is better' argument has not been valid for a long while now, and is mostly thrown around by people who use a Mac and other Apple products like a religion. I encourage anyone to build a top-tier PC like I have (which is the same or less money than a Mac Pro), and then compare the two directly. Most won't and can't, because they either have one or the other - not both. And lets be serious, the only reason Apple won't release ProRes on PC is because they know if they did, it would only accelerate the decline of their Pro market. My PC setup, pictured below, can stand on its own with any Mac Pro - even the current one. I'd put money on it. AMD FX9590, 64GB ram, Blackmagic Mini Monitor card, 2 x GTX 1080's, 12TB storage in Raid 5, etc.

Some do require ProRes, but not all of them, so its not correct to say you aren't going to deliver to these places outside of providing a ProRes file. For that matter, most places doing any sort of post work should be able to afford a cheap, old MAC that they can load the DNxHR into and spit out a ProRes file - it wouldn't take some super-Mac to accomplish that. Here at my studio, I keep an older Macbook around just for that purpose. Even IF you don't directly have access to a Mac, you probably know a friend who does who you could shoot a couple bucks to use it temporarily. I'm just saying, it's not like not exporting ProRes is a death sentence. There are plenty of workarounds. Also, the aggregator I have worked with in the past, KinoNation, requires DNx or ProRes files, and they deliver to iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and tons more. Amazon's video direct platform does not require ProRes either.

The fact that Lightworks free only allows exporting to YouTube and Vimeo is troubling for me. Why set yourself up for such limitations if its not required? The last time I used Lightworks I didn't find it appealing at all. Not saying others won't, but I'm not aware of anything Lightworks does that Hitfilm Express does not do as good or better, and Hitfilm Pro is the same price as upgrading Lightworks to professional - and Hitfilm includes a full effects, titling suite, and mocha integration. Even the free version of hitfilm does not limit you to exporting only to YouTube and Vimeo.

But is Vega's really consumer-level? It's probably on-par with Premiere Pro, which means it has a learning curve and more features than most consumers could ever find a use for. It's also $300 to buy. Personally, if I was going into this arena today I'd go with Hitfilm Express. From someone who has used Hitfilm Pro in the past, I can tell you that the program is very stable - fairly easy to navigate for a newbie, has plenty of output options, and more. The express version is also really good, and is basically a limited version of the Pro edition. Of course I don't use Hitfilm much any longer, having moved onto Resolve for edits and color, Protools for audio, and Fusion for VFX, and Ae for titles - but people are doing amazing work with hitfilm software.

I agree. Resolve is probably not a good option - I was just putting it out there since it is free to download and play with; added more as an afterthought than anything. I still say in the arena he is looking at, Hitfilm Express is a perfect fit.

Why not Hitfilm? While the Pro version might be a little above consumer level, the free Express version has pretty much any feature that would be needed by a consumer - and the best part - its free and from a respected software player. Vegas is an option, but the pro versions are at least $500 (or use to be), and its really not consumer level at all - more broadcast level maybe. Vegas does have the movie studio editions, which are on par with Magix software offerings and PowerDirector, but if your going to go that route, the Express version of hitfilm will do pretty much anything those will and will save you $50-$100. Hitfilm Express has effects tools too, like keying, 3D particles, and a full 3D open-cl engine. This is in addition to the editing and audio interfaces. And, if you need more tools in the future, you can upgrade to Hitfilm Pro (around $300) and take advantage of a full indie-film post production package. See: www.hitfilm.com/express There is also Davinci Resolve - which is also free and includes a nice editor, color corrector, and output tools - but it has a steep learning curve, has very little audio or effects tools, and is far from consumer-level.

I rent out my low-end package on occasion - GH4, Atomos Ninja Flame, DR-60 M2, and basic shoulder kit for around $100-$125 per day, depending on rental length. Add in my full lighting, sound, and grip kit, and the whole shebang goes for around $350-$400 per day. It's mostly all lower-end gear though, and most of my rentals have been college students looking to make short films over a weekend. I make the most money with production services, though. I charge $500 to $800 per day to rent me + my gear. I like it better that way, because I'm not sending my gear to some random individual. I'm in Cincinnati though, so rates might be higher on the coasts. Basically, I'm glad I bought a lower-end system. My entire equipment stash has paid for itself at least 20x over just over the past year. As for buying a full cinema camera rig and support - you're talking about a much higher investment. Can you realistically make your money back in 2 years or less on the camera? If so, go for it. The other gear should last you a long time.

Not to resurrect an old horse, but look what I found while browsing my local Walmart today. It wasn't in the $5 bin either. Good job, Richard!

Here's the thing: Fan films in general might or might not have legal issues around them. It depends on the fan film. You mentioned Star Wars - while I'm no lawyer and will not offer legal advice - I will say that Star Wars fan films have a very established history, and are generally 'okay' to do as long as you follow the rules. In fact, LucasFilm still to this day has an official award for best star wars fan films, and even allows you to download a package of assets you can use in your film. Common sense must prevail though, and you cannot profit off the film in any way. More info on awards can be had here: http://www.starwars.com/star-wars-fan-film-awards and http://www.starwars.com/news/feel-the-filmmaking-force-star-wars-fan-film-awards-2016-now-open. As for how they are treated professionally, I don't think it matters. I have seen some professional people do fan films, such as Andrew Kramer and Ryan Connolly. However, I don't think they are doing them to gain professional street cred, and are usually done for fun or for a tutorial on their shows. Bottom line, my opinion is that doing a fan film won't hurt anything, but don't expect it to land you a job.

Sounds like a good idea for a series, Tyler. Hopefully we'll see something from it in the near future. Have you considered Amazon Studios? If they like the idea, they will fund it for you as an original series.

The east coast is as expensive as the west coast, with less resources for film production. The primary reason these inner-country areas are becoming film havens is because they are cheaper in general to shoot in. Tax credits help, but Hotels and permits are much cheaper in GA than they are in Boston. Bottom line. If you're going to spend west coast prices, but as well stay on the west coast. Not sure how NY gets by with as large an industry as it has. It's an anomaly, and probably because NYC is such an iconic city that it's hard to recreate otherwise.

I won't do the multiplex IMAX any longer. I DID do it for Fantastic Beasts - but only because I got a free ticket. Sitting 2/3 of the way back, the out-dated 2k projection was apparent on the larger screen - showing the dreaded screen door effect enough to be distracting. IMAX digital has to be the worst idea as its implemented. Even the other auditoriums in the theaters have better projectors than the IMAX screen. If you want a nice experience, check out the 'Dolby Cinema' experience. Same sized screen as the fake IMAX, but uses 2 x 4K laser projectors and Atmos surround sound combined with reclining seats. Now that is the way to see movies.

Well, I think a lot of these technical terms are lost among the public anyway, which is who IMAX is aiming for. Most people know of two IMAX formats, 'IMAX 2D' and 'IMAX 3D'. Adding 'laser projection' or '70/30 film' just confuses the genera public, and such distinctions are generally only appreciated by die-hard format fans and industry pro's, neither of whom is a major market for IMAX, or any studio for that matter. Just like these new 'Dolby Cinema' format that is coming out. Every person I have talked too has no idea what it is or if/why its better than IMAX. People generally just want to see a movie, and keeping it simple and streamlined is the easiest way. I don't think IMAX is trying to lie to the public about it at all. If most of the public even knows the difference between film vs digital (and most don't, or don't care), IMAX and other studios (and the public who actually cares) know that film projection is already dead for all intents and purposes. Just my $0.02.

I have used a micro SD with an adapter in my GH4 on one occasion, and it worked to the limit of the card. It should work though, just make sure the Micro SD card specs meet the minimums for the camera. The adapter simply creates an electrical pathway from the larger SD to smaller Micro SD card, and as such should not pose any great issues itself, short of maybe build quality on a cheaper card.

It's not my cup of tea, but then again there is no such thing as entertainment that appeals to everyone. I mostly like SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror - so my opinion should bot be assumed to mean your work is not good. As for the whole rip-off thing: Plenty of things get ripped off. Heck, the Scary Movie franchise makes its money by ripping off others movies. Yes, it's a little different here in that Scary Movie actually uses their own content, but we are mostly talking about different levels of 'rip off' here.

The important thing to remember about agents: They do not get you a job. Like in the literary world, an agent should be your connection point to the producers and/or people who get things done. You go to THEM when you need something, and they make that happen. Want a meeting with the Lions Gate development team? Your agent should be setting that up for you. Your agent should also be on the lookout for job openings, and actively submitting your name for consideration. True, your agent will not hand you a job offer, but one of their primary jobs is to get you in the door. If your agent is not doing this, it means he or she is not a good agent. If you just want someone to negotiate rates and contracts, you're better off with a manager and/or attorney for a lesser fee.

I actually found a neat little trick... I took some window tint and placed it over a piece of plastic transparency. I then cut that down so it fits my monitor. In that sense, the area outside of the 2.39:1 center marker is slightly less bright, which helps me with framing. Kind of off topic, but it's an idea I'm throwing out that others might find appealing. Additionally, I treat the area outside of the 2.35:1 but within the 16:9 as a 'danger' buffer zone. Doing so helps prevent the accidental 'boom in the shot' effect among other things. When I'm framing for 2.35, I never worry about trying to get a 16:9 out of it later. If at some point you think 16:9 is needed, it's probably best to just frame it for 16:9 initially, keeping in mind that you intend to crop to the center in post. It's more difficult to do right, but it's probably possible.

Personally, I frame for 235 all the time, and just mask the center portion. Heck, even the cheap $140 7" production monitor I have has 2.35:1 safe guards. It's much easier to simply bring that into Resolve and add a center crop then trying to manually crop out certain parts of the frame for each shot. But then again, I'm not as experienced as David. Part of the advantage, in my mind, to cropping center is that you can use either top or bottom portions if you need to reframe in post. If you frame for the top 235:1, you have no leeway on top. If your monitor does not have a 2.35:1 safe marker, simply hook it up to something that will feed it a 2.35:1 letterboxed feed. Then makes notes of how large the top and bottom boxes need to be. You can then cut out some black paper and mask your monitor. This is what I do anyway, since my monitor just provides basic line grids - which I can't stand.

Don't have anything to contribute, but just wanted to say nice reel. I think it just goes to show that work don't always go to the most talented people, a lot of it is about who you know, not what you know. Then again, like Richard, I do my own stuff for the most part - though I do freelance for commercial clients, photography, and post-production services on occasion.

Audio Technica AT-875r and Rode NTG-4. I also have a four channel wireless system from Audio Technica known as System 10 Pro, attached to those are 4 x Countryman B3's. Between the 875r and the NTG-4, I'd say the 875 is better for indoor and the NTG-4 for outdoors or when you need to pick up sounds from a long way away. The System 10 is there mostly to capture dialogue on wide shots where a boom would not be practical. Never had any trouble with the System 10 pro's, despite them being 2.4GHz.

In my opinion we don't need anything more than 4k projection. 2k is fine as it is, and looks on-par with typical film release prints to me. 4k is 4x that much information. Anything above that is simple technology for the sake of technology.

On the contrary, we have shows like Game of Thrones that spend hours doing nothing but developing characters - most of the time very slowly. GoT is not the only one, either. And really, these shows are also watched by millennials. These type of shows show no sign of slowing down. At the same time, in the world of feature film, there have been HUGE changes in tastes. Being a lover of 80's fantasy movies - I can tell you that no modern film that I know of seems to move as slow. Modern audiences expect more cuts, faster action, and less fluff. Even modern fantasy masterpieces like Lord of the Rings suffers from this - never spending much time getting to know each character. So the real questions should be: what makes feature films and TV shows so different in the pace we as watchers are willing to put up with? Is it the high ticket price for a film that makes us think we are getting ripped off when there isn't enough 'movement' happening? Is it the cell phone generation? But then that doesn't explain why TV does not suffer from the same issues...

Wasn't real sure where to put this... So it fits best here. Does anyone have an advice on making digital footage have the sort of grainy, gritty look of this music video? The look would fit a short film I'm working on, but no amount of playing in Resolve can, well, resolve what I'm looking for. I tried to bump up jitter and grain, as well as washing out some of the black. Short of shooting this on an older style film stock, is there a similar way to get digital to look like this? It almost appears as if it's shot on Super 8, yet it doesn't quite look grainy or jittery enough. Feels very 70's-ish to me. Thanks in advance!