Landon D. Parks

I'd choose a descent projector over an OLED TV any day of the week. A descent OLED will run you probably $2,000-$3,000 or more. My entire home cinema setup, including calibration, was less than that - and my projector is calibrated to near perfect Rec709. Tv's are also small, whereas a projected image can be as big as the wall you have, and gives a much more cinematic feel. Just my $0.02.

Sadly, won't be making it to NAB this year. Too busy with series development right now. Went last year with a friend and it was a blast, though! Looks like Blackmagic is at it again though. Interested to see the 4k Pocket, although it'll have to be priced right - and have a bigger sensor than the HD pocket. In other news, I'll be in England in September. If you see an ugly American guy attempting to drive on the wrong side of the road --- chances are its me. :rolleyes:

Theatre projectors are often calibrated to a gamma of 2.4 or even 2.6 (I forget what the DCI spec is), whereas most home TV's calibrate to 2.2. This will cause you to notice a difference in general 'brightness'. Also, projectors just behave differently than televisions do. Projectors rely on bounced light, whereas televisions rely on radiating light directly at you. This is why projects are often more comfortable to watch for longer periods, and also effects how it looks. Personally, I have never seen a television produce anything close to what a DCI or home theatre projector looks like. Projections just make the image a little softer, less harsh since its reflecting lights rather than sending it straight to you. You can achieve something close to this by properly calibrating your TV with a probe, adjusting the gamma up some, and then making sure your room is dark enough. It's all really complicated and is only made worse by televisions that do fancy things like make 24p content look like 60p content via frame interpolation and other fancy things that are often un-needed. One way to look at it: I always viewed TV as being set up to display sports and reality shows over dramatic content. Just look at the specs on most TV's, and you'll see they advertise many of their features using sports screen grabs and such. In the world of reality TV and sports, high frame rate, high dynamic range, and high resolution is king - and TV's are manufactured with this in mind. Home theatre projectors tend to be manufactured more in favor of dramatic content - many of the better ones advertise strict BT709 or even DCI compliance, low Delta E's, etc. They are designed with dramatic movies in mind since that is how most people watch a projector - watching movies in a dark, semi-dedicated space. For this reason, I always tell people if you want the experience closest to a theatre - get a home theatre projector. Televisions, by their design, will never come close to looking as good. With that said, you can get it as close as possible through proper room light control, adjusting gamma on the TV, and doing a proper calibration with a probe. Then disable any and all oversampling, up-rezzing, frame interpolation, etc. Will it look as good as a projector? No - at least not in my opinion - but it'll come closer than what most people get from their TV's straight of the box.

A TV will never show you 100%. Movies are generally graded for DCI and then converted or re-graded for BT.709 (your TV's color space). Cinema projectors follow strict DCI standards for aspect ratios, sound quality, and color. Short of installing a DCI-compliant projector in your home and obtaining the correct media (probably not going to happen), you can only do your best to emulate the experience. For starters, you need a high-quality TV that shows really good or perfect BT.709. Delta E of less than 5 is a must. You then need to calibrate your TV with a probe to ensure its showing the correct gamma, color space, brightness, contrast, etc. At this point, all you can do is install a really good 5.1 or 7.1 sound system. It's about as good as you're going to get. My setup at home is a 140" projector screen powered by a Viewsonic ProHD Projector and a Klipsch 7.1 sound system. I had the projector professionally calibrated to FSI standards, and also pay careful attention to light control and sound control in my theatre room. If you can afford that, go for it. Honestly, the projector, screen, sound system, and professional calibration cost me LESS than most people would spend on a single 70" television.

As for the 'Stranger Things' fiasco, you'll always have this problem. The reality is, you cannot copyright an 'idea', only a specific expression of that idea. I can make a movie about a boy wizard who goes to boarding school, makes 3 friends, and then proceeds to fight an evil bad guy, and do so perfectly legally. Sounds like the person suing the stranger things filmmakers never got the memo that ideas are not copyrightable. Lawsuits in the film industry are inevitable, and you'll certainly be faced with one sooner or later, more-so if your project becomes well known. It's also important to remember that you can sue anyone for anything - winning in the crux. More than likely, lawsuits like this a flung in hopes of an out-of-court settlement and a quick payday. Often times, its less expensive to just pay the guy a few grand to shut him up than have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars. People know this, and lawsuits are cheap to file (usually, under $100 in most courts). Now mind you, the Duffers probably did rip this guy off - at least as it sounds from the article, but that should not scare you away from pitching your idea in the proper venue. Pitching your idea informally at the Tribeca Film Festival to a couple of 'producers' is not the correct venue to pitch in.

What questions did you have about working with Amazon Studios? I might be able to shed some light on it for you from my experience in working with them currently, but know that what information I can share is extremely limited due to NDA agreements regarding the internal practices and workflows. I might be able to help give you an idea of what you're in for, how to start the process, etc. Do be warned right now though: It's not an easy process. If you have no film-industry experience, you'll probably not get any further than selling your script to them (if you're lucky, of course); and it sounds to me like you want to be involved in producing the script as well; unless you have a producer behind you with experience, this will, with almost 100% certainty, not happen. They want producers who know what they are doing. They are not going to 'hold your hand' along the way. They will give you money, a deadline, and you'll be expected to deliver accordingly. If you have no experience even if indie film production, how would you be able to know how to make all this work? It's one thing to produce your own film. It's basically up to you how it's done. A mistake here and there is usually fine, and there is not always rigid workflows to follow. Producing a studio project is the opposite of that. There are unions, rules, guidelines, deliverables with strict guidelines, budget standards you need to know, etc, etc, etc. First, let me ask you what level of involvement you want for sure? If you just want to sell your script to them, it's a lot easier than trying to qualify as a producer as well. Have you looked over their submission guidelines and their website FAQ? That will provide you a lot of valuable information. https://studios.amazon.com/submit/film#script. Also, keep in mind that my experience comes from series and not a feature-length film, and my agreement with them is a little 'different' than what one might typically have following the standard Amazon Studios route, so my experience and yours might vary. As for sending your script to people in general: What else are you suppose to do with it? Unless you intend to produce it with your own funding, you're going to have to start pitching the project to executives and investors. There is always the risk that someone might steal your idea - but that is a risk every producer takes when he has to go to others with an idea for funding. Some people here are warning against working with Amazon Studios and such because 'letting others see your script gives them the chance to steal it'; but then you'll run into that with any studio. I would personally trust the Amazon team as well as any other studio. All you can do is follow proper protocols in the industry, such as registering the script with both the copyright office and the writer's guide of America. If your idea is ripped off by them, you do have some legal recourse.

When working with my Rokinon lenses, I find I have to use a follow focus with a gear designed to reduce the focus throw of the lens. The standard throw is fine for a focus puller, but hell when trying to pull and operate. I also find the Rokinons to be less sharp overall than some of the more modern still glass --- but then I actually like that quality about them.

The Lumix series of cameras produce some of the most cinematic-looking images in the 'DSLR' arena. That is also why they hold their value so well. A GH4 still sells for over $1,000 new, not down far from its value at launch.

1. Not usually. The DP is a work-for-hire person, and most always that results in the work to DP is doing becoming the property of the hiring party. 2. Work-for-hire is the legal basis. If someone pays you to produce work for them, they are entitled to contractually own the product they paid for. From the US Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf Notice the 3 above underlined passages that would apply to a typical DP contract. From the US Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf As for LUTS and other such things: that is a common post-production change. The DP might be in the grading room, or he might not (depends on if the budget is there or not). In any case, the final decision of color grading is almost always up to the director, not the DP, in terms of final say. In any case, I can't say I have heard too much complaining about people running wild with a DP's work. Is it a common thing?

Looks like they are having a blast, I agree. Lot of it has to do with the large teen/preteen cast. Working with kids is almost always more fun than working with adults. BTW) It List is actually a pretty good movie for a direct-to-home, MarVista product for kids. Watched it several months ago.

The B-cam rig appears to be nothing more than a Ronin or some such similar device. The camera looks like a later-model Red, probably Epic or Scarlet. It's too short to be an original Red One. Not too many other cameras that are used regularly are that small - besides Red - other than maybe Blackmagic, but I havn't seen anything to tell me they used Blackmagic on that shoot.

Used GH4's are a dime a dozen, which I why I suggest that as an option. I have a GH4 for sale right now for $800, vLog included. The GH4 is nice because is starts out as a compact camera that can adapted to pretty much any lens size or format m43 or larger, has vLog, and produces nice cinematic-looking images with a lot of manual control. Down the road, you can update the camera with an external recorder when you're ready to get the highest quality video footage in 4:2:2 10-bit ProRes. I also own a Pocket camera now, and I like it as well - but it does require more than just the camera itself to really shine.

Maybe, BUT - if you read his post - he said he is looking for something in the $1,000-$2,000 range - not the $200 range. And frankly, its hard to 'learn' on a $200 DSLR that doesn't even give you the same options the $1,000 cameras have. If he has the funds to invest upfront, there is NO reason to buy a throwaway $200 camera - it's a waste of $200, since it will never be useful outside of basic learning. If he has a budget of $1,000 or more, a GH4 or Pocket is the best bet at that range. They can certainly be learned on, but can also produce cinematic-quality images down the road - and he can KEEP using them to produce professional results. A $200 camera will not produce any kind of good video, have little manual control over anything, and is just a plain bad investment. Frankly, given the way the market is going toward RAW and Log Workflow, he need to learn up-front how to expose for these profiles as well. A $200 canon, or $200 anything, will not give you that. By all means, if all he has to spend is $200, and doesn't really know rather he wants to even do cinematography or filmmaking - buy the $200 camera. However, if he has the budget for more, already knows he wants to do it, he needs to be learning on at least half-way professional equipment. The GH4 w/ Vlog or Blackmagic Pocket are great options for him. They are professional cameras that can be built on and used for a long time, they are fairly user friendly to learn on, they have all the professional features like interchangeable lenses and real video formats and options. Plus, these cameras are at the bottom end of his range, and THAT is where I'd suggest he start. The GH5 is an okay camera, BUT - word of caution - I returned mine to keep the GH4. The GH5 is not spectacular, and looses a lot of its great feature set once you switch to manual, non-lumix cine lenses. In the GH5 price range, he is much better off trying to find a used Blackmagic 4K camera. The GH5 is nice, but the 'amazing' autofocus, 2-step focus pulling, and IS are all basically moot once you switch to cine-style lenses, and the internal compression - while 4:2:2 10-bit - is still in a bad codec, and a GH4 w/ Atomos is still a cheaper and more robust option.

Personally, I'd avoid Canon. Unless you're into photography as well, the value for your money is lacking. Very few of the Canon's on the lower-end can compete in the video market. In the $1,000 budget, you could get a Blackmagic Pocket or a GH4. Both are very good cameras (I own both), but the Pocket does have the 1080p limitation and tiny sensor. However, the Pocket has a more 'film' look to it out of the box. In the $2,000 range, the main contender to beat right in the SLR-range is the GH5 or GH5s. Alternatively, you could find a used Blackmagic Cinema Camera, though spoofing it up to work well will require some - well - funds. If you're interested in a GH4 with vLog, I'll be placing my B-cam with less than 100 recording hours up for sale in about a week for probably $800.

Hosting such content on public sites will always lead to the chances of it being removed. Try Dailymotion - they seem to have no filter whatsoever. If they police the porn like the do the copyright infringers, you'll be fine.

Budget? Cranes range in price from $200 to hundreds of thousands - same with dollies. Some will only lease, like Chapman-Leonard.

Looks good, Richard. Playing at 5 theaters within a 10 miles radius of me. You know I'll be there for it. Personally, I have liked your previous films a lot. I'm a sucker for family-type films, which might be one reason why I'm disappointed in the cinema offerings - most are either horror knock-offs (I love good horror and thrillers too, but the keyword there is 'good'), sequels to superhero movies, or the latest Bruce Willis action flick - none of which really spike my interest. Most of the good family-type fare is now either a TV series (Once upon a time, Lemony Snicket, etc.) or direct-to-video. Then there are my all-time go-to shows Game of Thrones, Supernatural, X Files, etc. Plus I'm now hooked on The Crown. Netflix is really stepping up its game.

I have been a Movie Pass holders for several months now, and I use to love to go to the movies. However, within the past 2-3 months, I have noticed a marked lack of good, quality films. Occasionally, you'll see a descent summer blockbuster or some such, but more and more often I'm finding it's a bunch of sequels to movies that weren't good the first time around, or original pieces that are simply weird or too far out there. Meanwhile, on TV and streaming, we have a lot of great shows that are hard to put down. They seem to keep coming as well, and rarely do I find one that I hate. I'm actually considering getting rid of my movie pass subscription, because it feels like I'm dragging myself to see some of these movies simply to justify the monthly fee. Am I the only one who has found that TV and streaming seem to be surpassing cinema in quality content as of late?

What I do --- I always have 2 people on camera, me included. However, I find it much easier to train someone quickly to do slate/reports/offload/grunt work than focus pulling. I agree - it's difficult to setup any kind of camera system that is rigged out by yourself, even more so if you're also the DP, etc. Usually, I let the AC handle the setup while I'm lighting or directing.

Pretty much anything is a 'better' image than what an SD Betacam produced 15 years ago. I had a $200 LG Stylo that had a better looking image. That does not mean that the s9 is going to be some revolution. For the most part, high-end phone cameras have stayed the same in the video realm. My S8 has a really nice camera, but I'd never shoot a film on. No aperture control, only digital zoom, tiny pixels are terrible in low light, no real recording means besides internal or to clunky external micro SD cards that requires taking the back off the phone to change out most of the time, and the form factor... Sorry, but I don't buy that a phone is a good camera to shoot a movie on, at least unless you're going for that look in the first place. Pretty much, it's a logistical nightmare - it has rarely has easy access to change microSD cards, no audio provisions, and the tiny sensor with no real aperture adjustment and zoom are killers for me. Once they come out with a phone that can record to a more easily removable SD card, and at least add f-stop and optical zoom - then I'll come around. Yes, there are some cheap 'phone lens adapters', but I have never been impressed by a set of lenses for $20, I doubt Its going to start impressing me now. There are many cameras on the market now that are much cheaper than S9 that will produce a lot better results, so the s9 being revolution is pointless. It's only a revolution if it can produce better images than the cheaper option, and a $500 or less Sony 5000 series will produce better images than this (likely) $800 or more phone.

Filmmaking revolution right here...

:rolleyes: :lol: Ahh they joys of not being located in one of the movie epicenters. I feel ya bro. I rely mostly on college kids and high school kids. I do most of the critical skilled things anyway. I have a core group of 'kids' that I have trained over the past year or so to do things like setup lights, lay grip, etc. My crews are still tiny though --- Commercial I'm shooting next week has a whooping crew of.... wait for it... 8. I always am the director, dp, camera op, pull focus, and record sound. Usually one person for holding the boom pole, an AD, Makeup and hair person, Script Supervisor, and two PA's who wrangle the lights and grip.

Vest and arm stabilizers have been used in the film industry long before the digital takeover. When I say ‘Flycam’ that is a generic term I use for all such stabilization systems. Mine is the Glide Gear DNA 6002 system, which is a vest-and-arm support for larger rigs like mine. Of course, if you’re shooting film you’ll need video assist, and depending on your focus preferences and format, a wireless follow focus. I cannot see a reason for needing more than 12 - maybe 15 feet of track. If I’m shooting a walk-and-talk scene, the camera will be on the Flycam. The one issue I was grappling with recently was how to shoot a scene coming up this spring, in which I needed the camera to quickly follow people running through the woods. I could have laid a bunch of track, but instead settled on a cable-cam system. I just cannot image the issue of trying to set up track on any non-flat surface. Then again, I operate on tiny crews - and can’t really spare even 2 or 3 grips for several hours to lay and level a bunch of track. The Dana-style dolly is great because leveling is as simple as throwing a level on the track, and then moving the ball head and legs for each trip. I can do it myself, or can have 1 person do it in a few minutes. Just seems to me that there are better tools for the job when it comes to shots where you would need that much track. Seems even more important if you're short on crew members.

75' of track? That sounds like a nightmare to setup. If I needed a smooth shot that big, I'd just pull out my Flycam. 12' is about as long as I'd ever want to go with any sort of track solution. Maybe 15' if the shot called for it, but there comes a point where its easier to just throw on and balance the Flycam.

Aluminum is probably a better option than steel. Steel is very heavy, and unless you're running an extremely heavy Chapman-style dolly over it, I see no valid reason why you'd need steel track. PVC will work in a pinch, but it will sag if not properly supported. I actually decided on a Dana-style dolly, and couldn't be happier with it. Setup is much easier than it is with floor-track, and I have been able to extend it to 12 foot with no issues, and could go further if I wanted. It's on Tripod legs, so making height and un-even terrain adjustment is fairly easy compared to needing to build platforms and using chucks you'd need with a floor dolly.