Patrick Cooper

Yes, Pond 5 is a very popular agency that specialises in stock footage. And photographers don't actually sell photo or footage to stock agencies. They sell their content to clients through the agency with the agency acting as a middle man (taking a commission.) For scenes featuring lots of people / bystanders, you wouldn't really need model releases for each individual. The easiest way to do this would be to submit the image as editorial rather than commercial. Model releases aren't required for editorial images. There are restrictions on the use of editorial images by buyers. They're mainly used for news or educational purposes. They can't be used to advertise a product or service. It's unlikely that you would be able to submit the polar bear image to a stock agency (even as editorial.) Because it's clear that you took the photo on private property (probably in a place where you paid a fee for admission.) Generally, you can't submit photos that you took inside a place where you paid an admission fee. Unless it's a generic image that doesn't identify the location. By the way, the duration of clips available at Pond 5 range from 5 seconds to 60 seconds.

Okay, I went into the Color Grading section of Shotcut and adjusted the shadows on the left (using the negative numbers.) That is kind of working to improve the picture.

For those who use Adobe Lightroom to process Raw still images, I'm sure that you're familiar with increasing the blacks of an image with a slider. And sliding to the left to make use of the negative numbers. Just wondering if you can do the equivalent of that with Shotcut or perhaps the free version of Davinci Resolve? I have some wildlife footage that was shot on an overcast day. And it looks a bit flat and lacking in density. I have the video in Shotcut right and now and increasing the contrast doesn't really help much. I think I likely need to increase the blacks like you can do with still images in Lightroom. It would be great to be able to do more or less the same thing with video editing software.

Thank you for your detailed reply. Ah a treatment. That sounds like a logical first step and a good way to organise one's thoughts in regards to the narrative. Obviously, this shows how little I know about script writing and the related writing processes. Out of curiosity, are there any instances of treatments being pitched / submitted to studios by prospective writers which are then converted to scripts internally by studio employees / script writers working within the studio? Or is it the case that a studio would only accept a completed script as opposed to a treatment?

So I have some ideas for some movies of different genres going through my head. And Ive written down some notes and expanded on the ideas (( guess that's a good start.) I am considering writing some scripts based on these ideas. But I confess that I'm completely new to script writing. I'm finding this quite daunting (like the equivalent of writing a novel.) I can predict that writing one script for one movie is going to take me an insanely long time. I'm not sure of the best way to approach this. Is it better to get the whole thing done very rough so that I can complete it in a reasonable time frame? And then go back and refine, improve and polish it? Or would it be better to try and get it as good as I can from the very beginning? Also - roughly how many pages would be needed for an average length feature film? I know this would vary a lot from film to film. I know that in the US, a script is not much good on it's own (you need an agent to get it into the proper hands.) Do the film industries in most other countries operate in a similar manner?

There was an intense geomagnetic storm (G4) on 2 January this year. I managed to capture this time lapse on the north coast of Kangaroo Island. Unfortunately, a huge dark cloud came along at one point and covered just about all of the aurora. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytT9JQxVdeU

There is a hardware store that sells much longer aluminium tubes (around 3 meters) but they have a mill finish. Very cheap though.

Ive changed my mind about using a pair of drawer sliders. There is someone who uses these for camera tracking and he made a good point about their use. They're made of three segments and when each of the segments comes into play (as they're extending) there will be extra resistance. That may make it challenging in getting a consistently smooth slide. Of course I could just simply use the footage in between two points of resistance but that sounds quite restrictive. Now, I want to make a variation of this kind of dolly with angled wheels and two tubes. Mine will be a lot more compact and I plan to have two small light stands under each end. I admit Ive never worked with PVC pipe before though I have the impression that it could be fragile and easily damaged. I'd like to use aluminium which should be more durable. Though I'm having trouble locating decent lengths of aluminium tubing. The longest I can find is 600mm which is not all that long. Edit: Ive just found one online store that sells 800mm aluminium tubes. I'll have to enquire as to whether they're mill finish or anodized. It's probably wise to go with anodized aluminium as it offers better protection against the elements. I would be using a camera slider a fair bit outdoors (including close to the sea.)

ok

I was discussing cheap DIY options for tracking on another forum and someone came up with the idea of using a pair of draw sliders. I think this could have good potential. I would be using a Panasonic G7 M4/3 camera which weighs around 415 grams. That would likely be attached to a ball head connected to a short block of wood on top of one of the sliders. I do want to attach the whole rig to a tripod. Though I'm not sure if it's wise to use a single tripod under the middle or two tripods (one under each end.) Suppose I did use one tripod with a short block of wood underneath the middle of the draw sliders. I guess there could be a chance that as the weight of the camera is moved from right to left, there could be some slight dipping of each side. Almost like a sea-saw but not to the same degree. Perhaps it's better to use a long section of wood under the sliders with two tripods spaced far apart? I definitely want to use tripods because sometimes I would be set up in nature on uneven ground or over rocks. I would just need to adjust the height of one of the tripods to get the whole thing level. The act of me moving the sliders with the mounted camera could lead to some slight unwanted movement of the tripod / tripods. So I thought of an alternative way of doing the tracking. And that is to attach a line to the block of wood holding the camera and ball head and use a reel with a handle to slowly 'wind it in.' I think the winding action may also help me get a more consistent tracking speed.

When I first got into 3D photography a number of years ago, I was using a regular 35mm SLR and the so called 'cha cha' method with slide film. Basically sequential 3D shooting. Although the results were great, I was very limited with the sort of subjects I could shoot. I was restricted to static scenes with no movement. About a year ago, I purchased an old stereo camera that was manufactured during the 1950s. This allowed the shooting of subjects with movement. Not long ago, I exposed a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 colour negative film with the camera. This is one of the stereo pairs I captured with that film (cross-eye version.) The subject is a beach at Penneshaw, Kangaroo Island in South Australia, Australia. I actually didn't know the lab was going to scan the film after developing. I gave instructions to a family member who dropped off the film to the lab but I did not request scanning. The thing is that this camera exposes frames that are considerably narrower than standard sized frames on 35mm film. And the lab scanned the frames as if they were 'full frame.' So many of the digitised pictures are chopped up into small bits. Occasionally, there are whole frames. That beach cross-eye above is one of the very few stereo pairs that I was able to salvage from the scans.

Oh another thing - make sure you pack away the grey card straight after using it. If it's left out in the sun, it's grey colour can fade over time - making it lighter. And of course this will lead to underexposure. If you don't have enough time to perform a test, you could bracket your exposures. Alternatively, if your shoot takes place within a fairly short space of time and the light conditions are going to be constant and won't change, you could arrange for your lab to do a clip test. Ask your lab if they can indeed do a clip test before the shoot. That's where you take a few test shots at the beginning of the film with your estimated exposure. The lab will cut off a portion of the beginning of the film and process that and analyse the results. If the frames are correctly exposed. the rest of the film will be developed normally. However, if those first frames are overexposed or underexposed, the lab will adjust the development times accordingly for the rest of the film. If you go down this route, make sure you select a single exposure setting for the whole of the film. The back of grey cars are usually white. This can be handy when taking light readings in low light conditions. Make sure you open up two stops from the recommended reading (from the white side.)

There is something that is kind of ironic. I have only shot two colour films in 16mm - one was reversal and the other was negative. The first one was reversal (with obviously narrow exposure latitude) mostly out in the snow and for that film, I metered off random neutral toned subjects that I found in the environment. The exposures were spot on. With the colour negative film, I tried overexposing by half a stop and took great care in using my (second) grey card for all the shooting. The result? Underexposed footage. Unbelievable. For both films, I used the internal meter of my Canon T70 35mm SLR camera.

Place your meter fairly close to the grey card so that it's only metering the card and nothing else. If it's a sunny day, you may need to alter the angle of the card to avoid glare and reflections. If there are any glare or reflections on the card, this will likely influence the reading, resulting in underexposure. With the second grey card that I purchased, I did alter the angle of the card to avoid glare etc but I was still getting severe underexposure with slide film (and with negative movie film.) So yea it might be wise to shoot a test film first with your particular grey card to see if it truly does reflect 18% of the light. Or perhaps do some tests with a digital camera and compare the readings with the meter that you'll be using with the film (with both the card and different subjects. )

Over here in Australia, we shoot film upside down all the time (in the land down under.) This is the norm here.

Nice work! The nature imagery complemented the relaxing music. Some beautiful close ups in there.

At first, I was confused by the title of this thread. I thought you really were after movies from the early days of cinema. There is a 2003 Western starring Tommy Lee Jones and Cate Blanchett called The Missing. In one scene, we're given a POV shot from Tommy Lee Jone's character after he's been given drugs. All the vegetation appears pink with most other colours looking closer to normal. This is a pretty clear indication that infrared colour film was used with a yellow filter. I know this is slightly off topic but in the music world, there was a Jimi Hendrix album cover that was photographed with infrared colour film and a fisheye lens. That album being Are You Experienced which was released in 1967. Those elements, along with the fashion on display, really added to the psychedelic look.

Ah I didn't realise that it was an incomplete download. The odd thing is this file seems to have vanished from my downloads folder. Definitely no experience with C++ code. Out of curiosity, does the free version of Resolve offer the option to stabilise footage?

I'm one of those people who are still using the old VirtualDub program. And I really want to use the DeShaker plugin as it does such a good job with smoothing out footage. I was directed to go to http://www.guthspot.se/video/deshaker.htm to download this particular plugin. Although I'm using 64bit windows, I was advised to download the 32bit version of DeShaker as that offers some advantages. I was expecting to get a .vdf file. More specifically - a file called DeShaker,vdf. When I downloaded the file from that site, I got this - Unconfirmed 68664.crdownload. Ive no idea what that is. Do I need to convert it into a .vdf file or is this thing useless for my needs? The site has a link to another site where the DeShaker plugin can be found - https://github.com/gu-t/Deshaker It looks like there are a few variations of DeShaker here (with different extensions.) DeShaker.cpp DeShaker.h DeShaker.rc DeShaker.sln DeShaker.vcxproj DeShaker.vcxprojfilters Would one of these work as a plugin within VirtualDub? Oddly, I don't see a .vdf file. Additionally, would anyone know where to find the QuickTime VD plugin online? I believe that allows VD to recognise more file types other than AVI. Like MOV files. I hope it will also work with MP4 files.

And if you're shooting negative film, I guess you'd want to open up that aperture even more. Maybe an extra half a stop at least.

Thank you for the recommendation for Hydra. Ive also discovered that the Adobe Lightroom camera app has a WB lock.

By the way, my photographs that decorate these cards were shot with a mix of film (35mm and medium format) and digital. Though mostly digital.

A short video on how I go about making my greeting cards which I occasionally sell on Kangaroo Island in South Australia. It seems to be mostly tourists who buy these cards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53O5Nmt-Ack

Ive been doing a little bit of iPhone photography indoors under artificial lighting conditions. And the automatic white balance can lead to some unpleasant colours in those kinds of scenarios. The default camera app on this iPhone 7 seems to be extremely limited in what it can do. I can't see any option to change the WB. Could anyone recommend a camera app that allows WB adjustment or a at least WB lock? For a while, I was using the free version of the Camera + app that had WB lock. Very handy. But every time I open it up now, this advertising appears (asking me to do a trial which I have no interest in.) And it seems impossible to exit out of so I can't use this app anymore. Even deleting the app and reinstalling it makes no difference (the advertising still comes up.)

I could visualise the highlights of a reflective building being blown out on a reversal film like Ektachrome if one is exposing for the mid tones. Though Ive only shot a little bit of Ektachrome 100D years ago and I can't recall a lot from that film stock. Oh another handy tip for shooting reversal film is taking a light reading from green grass and then reducing the exposure a little. For example - closing down the aperture between a third of a stop and half a stop from the recommended reading. I once shooting slide film at a zoo (of a gorilla enclosure) and I took a reading from the green grass and then closed down half a stop from that. The exposures turned out perfect. Another thing that can be done is taking a reading from something that is white and then opening up two stops. Handy for shooting in dim or low light conditions where a light meter might struggle to get a reading from a mid tone. If you're doing this in bright, sunny conditions, take care with whatever white surface you're metering from (ie if it's very reflective.) If there's glare coming from the white surface, you might have to alter the angle otherwise you might end up with underexposure (despite opening up two stops.) Depending on what kind of environment you're shooting in, you could use a combination of these different methods and do a comparison. For example - taking a reading from a mid tone, taking another reading from green grass and closing down half a stop and then metering from a white surface and opening up two stops. If all these methods end up indicating the same aperture, then it's a pretty safe bet that that would be the correct aperture to use.