Del Collens

You can cut this WAY down in time and still be affective at showing your lighting skills. - Cut out some of the beginning with the hitman/cop, shlt-can the guy with the tire or come in at half tracked back not the MCU, don't bother showing multiple shots of the same lighting in the room. You have a lot of good naturally lit shots here with video-- Either hang long on one, or find a glamour CU take to show your glamour capabilities coupled with a few seconds of the wide. The vial shot with the couch I'd 86. (over all you have too much of this ACTOR in the beginning of YOUR cinematography reel, it's not his acting reel just remember that. Only pick the shots you think came out well and those that show decent composition and gets the point of the style variety across. I understood its style after three shots. (pick your favs)) - Kissing in the car, ditch. The tree scenes, beautiful-- cut the whole thing like you did from 1:15 to 2:00. - Girl with the daisy sitting on the dolly while you track, shorten. The two shots directly after that have a light continuity thats noticeable possibly just from the shots selected. - The overcast shots in the field on film look great, really great -- I'd take out the OTS of the door and the red flannel shots however and replace it from him inside looking to him exiting the building/then down the street- if possible. I'd personally move the girl outside (5pm/the bridge) with the flower in here hair (3:12-3:29) to the end and END (last shot of reel) on the left profile shot at 3:25, it's a stronger shot than what you have as last at the moment. Maybe flip those two sections and shorten the girl with the mother (currently at the end) all together once moved. There you go, make it short and sweet -- If I was a big or even small production company producer, UPM, director, assistant or even PA, I'm not about to watch 4 minutes of cinematography made for cinematography junkies -- So MAKE IT ZING! Like you want to impress the execs who don't know shilt about what you're doing.

This pretty much sums it up. I rarely if ever talk to the cinematographer, if anyone in post is talking to the camera department it's usually the vfx artists for any 'special' shots, i.e. greenscreen, cgi, etc. As an editor, I can't speak for all, but I do not go on the set, in fact I avoid it as it inhibits the imagination of 3d depth/space. If I know what the set was like, what shots were cheated, etc it can greatly effect the impact of a cut. Seeing as the idea is to get the directors vision across (unless you're working in TV/Music videos, which is usually free-rane cuts with no meaning), understand the story and directors narrative, I really never had the need to speak with a cinematographer about anything from a post-production point of view. Course, taking in consideration there are a lot of different types of editors, from a picture editing point of view -- I don't want to know anything about what is taking place outside of what I see, because that is how the audience will see it.

Nice. Reminds me of a toothpaste commercial... *

You stay with the emotion of the scene. However, if a crew member walked through the shot... Continuity is not important if you're engaged, nor is the technical aspect of the shot unless it breaks the 4th wall unintentionally or is vital to the scene. Cut-aways are to save the scene or actors when there is a major problem. Inserts are to help with the geography of the space in the scene. Neither are considered motivated cuts. Motivated cuts, or when a director refers to it as a motivated cut (as editors usually cut from their gut), is when action or dialog in a scene refers to something of importance. Easiest scene to understand this in is: The Maltese Falcon. A scene where Bogart is sitting at his desk and his secretary answers the phone, we're on her, she mentions bits of information unknown to her but Bogart knows exactly who it is. At the moment she mentions the 'give away line', we cut to Bogart's reaction to her words. That is motivated, otherwise known as a reason to cut. Big problem with a lot of editing I've seen and somewhat detest is the quicker cuts that serve no purpose other than to jar and confuse the viewer. The first rule in editing is NEVER CONFUSE THE VIEWER. This can be especially hard when dealing with amateur handheld so be careful.

Not bad at all. It starts off quick and to the point, no over extending shots. Nothing really calls out hey, I'm doing a complicated shot either. My only peeve is the song, and a few high contrast shots at the end that are in danger of being redundant.

I'm currently on the look out for freelance work. I stumbled across this site, I was interested if anyone has or is registered with them and if maybe you could share your opinion. www.filmstaff.com Reason being is that the site looks extremely unprofessional yet boasts claims of monumental proportions, so it makes me question whether or not it's simply a scam, or just another low-key site that actually lives up to its claims. If you have any experience with them, please comment. --thanks.

I think it looks fine. Maybe make a fine production logo for 10 seconds with that effect intigrated with the title of the company.

Ok, first thing, and I don't want to impose in any way so take it with a grain of salt. Primary people you are dealing with on this forum are cinematographers, videographers and the occasional DP. So this one important factor, that was not mentioned once as expected, before you do anything; HAVE A STORY Avant-Garde/experimentation is good if you don't care for story, however my suggestion to you is lock your story. You're wearing a lot of hats, which is a bad thing unless you're goddamn amazing at filling each glass equally, very few people in the world are, so think twice about what all you should be focusing primarily on. You want to write, direct, photograph and edit, and from the sounds of it, produce it. If you have people who want to specialize in a particular craft, and you trust them or are close enough to collaborate well with them, do it. Putting your hands in too many things will sacrifice what you want in post. Also, working with others is a great step in realizing what it is truly like in all stages of production, it's what you have to do regardless of the position. It's a collaborative artform whether you like it or not, and often times it's not art :) So, figure out what it is you really want to focus on and try and get others too take some of the load off in the other areas if possible. (I know it's easier said than done, but it's worth trying.) If you're writing something just to do some cool camera shots, stop and possibly rethink what it is that you're aiming to accomplish. If that is all you're wanting to do, rent anything you can afford and take advantage of the most experimentation possible -- HAVE AT IT -- and use the knowledge you gain for your next film. However, if you are wanting to engage or make your audience think, rather than have something to simply show your friends and family. Write a story and keep it short and simple. It doesn't have to have dialog, in fact, it's an accomplishment if you don't have any dialog at all but have a solid story. Get Final Draft if you want to write in a professional structured format just to get your feet wet. People on this forum may be willing to read your short and give constructive criticism -- If you get desperate send it my way and I'll give it a read. A DP friend of mine wrote a book in the early 00's that covers basic composition and numerous other tidbits helpful to aspiring DPs, if you have questions about composition or standards of either videography or cinematography give it a go if you have the money. If you're editing, I suggest getting a old copy of Avid Xpress Pro HD or possibly Media Composer if you have the money. Lastly, the more prepared you are, the better off you are. Don't get flustered, remember it's for the experience, and remember to have fun.

Here is the simple answer to your question. Avid is the industry standard, studios, union and non-union ran production companies all run Avid systems, both PC and Mac. The primary reason for this is it's workflows for both industry standard formats (HD/Film) and the way it handles media (it's codec's). FCP is the consumer standard, independent, low-budget production companies all run FCP. It handles common rogue formats 'friendlier' than Avid. As far as which is better, it really has to do with the editor's preference, as it is a tool, nothing more. What the editor wants to cut on is really up to them. People who bicker over which is better usually aren't editors. However, if you do not have this clout, which very few of us do, to where a production company will get you what you need nine times out of ten you'll have to make due with what the post house/production company has. Which can be completely random. So really whether or not you want to learn or purchase an editing program depends strongly on where you see yourself working. But it never hurts to learn at least the basics of each, being computer oriented is probably going to help you pick up different editing programs regardless, it will be more of an issue of what you can afford to do in the long run.

Interesting reel. Director I know is in pre-production for a film, and I know he is in need of an underwater camera op for a particular scene. It's being shot on 35, do you only have housing for your camera? I will give him your name.

Jib, Crane, Dolly, Production design, stand-ins, and a ton of VFX artist composite work.

Only 5? <_< The Third Man Falstaff Paths of Glory The Wrong Man The 400 blows

Look of the picture. I'm ignorant when it comes to all the details of many of the cameras being released, so I couldn't tell you if it's actual 23.98 that the Sony Z7U shoots. A good bet would to be to find out what codec it uses, this will tell you a lot. For instance, the hvx-200 is DVCPro HD, and that codec is capable of doing true 23.98 without a pulldown, granted it doesn't appear to have the same picture quality (talking pixels) as the Sony HDW-f900, but DVCPro HD meets industry broadcast standards and then some. It's highly possible that camera does this as well, but you never know. So in my opinion, if you're going to be the one editing it and mastering the cut and Authoring the DVD - Test it. Depending what you're going for, as with most companies, they have a workflow and usually the authorers make the DVD as compatible with all systems as possible. To prevent conflicts with dvd players, most houses that I know author all the footage regardless if it's progressive as interlaced, saving progressive for HD DVDs. As you might already know, if you play a progressive compressed MPEG2 converted dvd in a non-progressive dvd player, it will either not display, or you'll get pixilation, skipping, etc. So one instance of a test was; Shoot anything for 5 minutes. Use every frame rate and resolution your camera supports for these clips, and then bring them into your editing system using the different quality codec's provided (in Avid/FCP/Premiere,etc). Most formats have a standard, which are virtually 1:1 of the original master footage, you'll find it for your camera. (For instance in Avid, the standard codec for miniDV or DVCam footage is dv 25 411) Now once you're done testing that, make some exports of your clips, then in a 3rd party app such as Sorenson Squeeze, make some MPEG2's with various settings and burn them to dvds, drop them in your player to test and there you have it. HDV is a tough call and can give you more headaches than necessary. But just remember you can always convert virtually any format to one compatible for playback. But if quality is a big concern, as it should be, I would definitely do some research as to the workflow for an HDV camera. Highly possible the end result will be something you do not want.

Well, I'm an editor so I think I can possibly help you with this. Good video camera example is the Canon XL2, it shoots miniDV Standard Def at various frame rates, all within either 1.33:1 or 1.85:1 (which, depending on the camera you're using, is 4:3 & 16:9 non-anamorphic). It can shoot the following frame rates; 60i (59.94fps) 30i (29.97fps) 24p (29.97fps - emulated 23.98) Now what the camera is doing 'in-cam' is a 3:2 pulldown, meaning that it's actually taking quarters of a frame every 3/5 frames in the TC and counting it as a whole, and rounding it off, dropping it on 6 black frames, plus more mathematics, etc, etc. This is why you're getting the 'blur' type 23.98 effect. The reason for this is primarily the 'film look' and broadcast standards regarding 29.97. Almost 99% of the news you see is shot 30/60 drop-frame on digibeta. I haven't seen a 'true' 24p video camera that isn't emulating 23.98 that's SD. Most SD cameras and footage I've worked with that is claimed to be 23.98 is actually 29.97 with the pulldown. Film has no p/i, it's film and the camera framerate is 24 (23.98). HDV is emulated all over the place and compressed in-cam heavily. HD, depending on the camera is capable of many framerates/resolutions, and is compressed using a Hard Codec in camera to either a tape or drive. SD is capable of 29.97, emulated 23.98, and higher, recorded to smaller tape and often not compressed in camera. There are many rogue formats, which is often why people have problems with Avid supporting only industry standard formats, but that's another story. A good example of a rogue format is the Canon XHA1, which is HDV, shoots up to 1080i at a emulated 23.98 called 24F, but is a pulldown to 29.97, image flipped, and compressed in-cam as a MPEG-2 stream, to a miniDV tape. An editors worst nightmare. Depending on who authored the dvd or what format the film was mastered, the framerate on your dvd player is usually 1:1. Meaning if it was shot on film at 23.98, mastered at 23.98, authored at 23.98, you're watching it 23.98. I've never seen a dvd player doing a pullup or pulldown, if your dvd player supports the formats along with your screen/projector,etc you'll get the authored framerate. If you shoot at a emulated 23.98 that is really 29.97, don't author it 23.98. It's the difference between two completely separate pieces of equipment and a DVD player is not going to reverse the in-cam process, if you can even get it past the mpeg2 encoding. I've seen this before and the image is a skipping mess. Most poop on the web is VBR and compressed heavily using a codec of their choosing. As long as the viewer has the codec you used to compress the video it's going to be viewable. Hope that answered a couple of your questions.

I think you just need to remember that every writer and director is different, and depending on the circumstances and it's intentions, add what you feel is important for the story. Certain writer/directors write their first drafts in directors scripts, most actions including shots, movements, reminders, etc. There is no specific 'formula' to writing a script outside of the format of them. Actually, 9 times out of 10, besides the (pause)'s, most parenthetical are completely ignored (at least by people who work in development). You best bet is to simply ask yourself if its necessary, if it isn't, then get rid of it. As a personal preference for myself, when taking someone else's script into production, I have it re-written in notes, because the page doesn't direct the actors itself, and you may often find that something doesn't work (more often than not) either for pacing purposes or emotion.