Brian Rose

Guys and Gals I could really use your help. I'm starting my next documentary in March. It's a biopic, and I've spent the last three years corresponding with the subject, and I've finally gotten him to sign on to participate in the film. That and in March there is an event being held in his honor (he's a former Olympic athlete with a tremendous story of success and failure). I could wait forever for the ideal conditions, for money and gear which may never come. Instead, I've resolved to shoot something...anything. To get the key interview, and shoot enough of...something, anything to sculpt a short proof of concept film to help raise money for the whole show. The rub is he's in Hawaii, so the travel costs are a pretty huge chunk of the money I have to spend. I've had to beg and borrow a camera (an EX1-R) and I'm sleeping on the floor at a friend's place, who lives on the island as well. This is about as humble a production as one can be. I've got to do it. I know I must, because if I don't do it now, I don't think I ever will. And yet, I'm terrified that it'll all be a waste of time, because what I shoot will betray those humble origins. I see all these terrific documentaries, and I see how long the credits are of all the crew involved. I can't afford even that on this trip. I feel terribly self conscious, like, how can I possible expect to make a good film without lots of money to throw at crew and post production and all that. I know that's a silly thought. I try to tell myself it's about the story, and telling it well. I just still feel like I'm going to go into this thing, and waste everyone's time. That I'm just not good enough, and I'm going to fail to do this story justice. I need inspiration. I need stories of success from such humble beginnings. I need to believe that what I'm trying to do could turn into something worthwhile, that I might actually be making a good film here.

thanks all for the advice. Luckily I do have a good crew helping me on one project. But the other, the BIG one, I'm going at it alone for the first part. It's a biopic, and the fellow about whom I am making the story lives in Hawaii now. I can only afford to fly myself out there, and even then I'll be staying at a hostel to save money. I've had to beg and borrow a camera to take along, which isn't ideal, but I've just got to get something shot. I've spent 3 years researching the story and I've got to get to work on something. In 2012, I made two shorts, and wrote one feature script for a documentary my company produced. It's not enough. I've gotta do more, and not waste any time on my personal life, if I'm to make any kind of lasting impact. I really believe these films, these stories I'm going to tell, could be marvelous pictures. I just hope I'm up to the challenge of telling them myself.

the problem is I'm stuck in a catch 22. Grants tend to go to people with a proven record of films. I've made plenty of films, but none that achieve any notoriety. I'm a nobody to them, and so they are not inclined just to hand money to me. Of course, until someone DOES give me a chance, how am I do build a proven record as a filmmaker? I'm hoping once I have some footage shot, I can shape it into a trailer or a proof of concept reel, which could then make some inroads. But that is it's own source of fear. If someone is willing to invest money in me, I would feel so terrible if I failed and their investment was for nothing. On the one hand, filmmaking is a deeply collaborative effort, yet I fear letting people down by not making a good movie. Basically, what if my best isn't good enough, and never will be?

In a few months, I'll be starting two documentary productions. Both for the time being are self starters, because I'm in that stage where it is difficult to fundraise because I don't have anything to show as a proof of concept, and the process of applying for grants takes so long, I'm just determined to go out and shoot something for once. I've got two damned good stories to tell, and that's what scares me. In the right hands, they could be really oustanding....major film festival, awards caliber stuff. I believe they are that good. But I'm terrified that I'm not the right person. I'm afraid I'm just no good, and I'm gonna botch this thing, and wind up ruining a good story because I just don't have it in me to make a good film. I wish I could surmount this terrible creative doubt I have, but after ten years shooting pictures and scriptwriting television docs...I just feel like I've gotten nowhere, while people younger than me are scoring huge successes. Just look at the year Lena Dunham has had. THAT is talent and business saavy. I fear I'm just another hack, wannabee, never was, never will be. I have an obligation to the people who are involved in these documentaries I'm making, to make the film a success, so they wont' have wasted their time with me, but I fear I wil do just that. What if this films are a miserable failure, and I come away from it all knowing my life up to now has been a waste, that I've done nothing with my life? What if I blow it all?

I'm interested in picking up a couple more Eclair NPR mags, if anyone is looking to sell. Good working order only please, no repair or for parts. If you've got what I need, feel free to PM, and let's make a deal :) Brian Rose

Same here. If the price is right, I could honestly see myself shooting a lot more film...

It is a non-fiction mystery film, about a student from my city (Kansas City, MO), who disappeared without a trace while on a schol related trip to Chicago, and how the investigation has been stalled by the overwhelmed and disinterested Chicago PD, as well as the university which sponsored the trip.

Rob, i'll be shooting native R16, and while I would like to preserve that AS, I'm prepared to frame and crop for 16x9, since ya gotta make some compromises to get aired and screened, no? And I rather want a healthy strong grain structure, so cropping and blowing up a tad certainly won't hurt in THAT regard. Rob if I may ask, how would one be able to effectively create an EDL based on an HD version? Perhaps things have changed, but I was under the impression that keycode was for SD dailies. Is that no longer the case, or how else would I create an effective EDL for the scanner or neg cutter? BR

I'd LOVE to be around 4 or 5 to one, in an ideal world. But 10 to 1 to me seems pretty nice as well, coming from a world we're I've edited docs with a 25 or 50 or even 100 to 1 shooting ratio (which is just insane)

To answer everyone's questions, I'm shooting R16...at this point I'd love for a 1.33 full frame release, but I'll be keeping a 16x9 frame in mind if I need to compromise. I highly doubt it will ever be finished to film. I guess 'm thinking more along the lines of archival preservation...does it behoove me to get the negative conformed...it would seem that 's more practical from a storage point of view, to have a conformed neg to archive, rather than all the cans of unused footage as well. With that said, I'm aspiring to a rather low shooting ratio. This is an old school shoot, favoring pre-interview techniques and heavy preplanning. I imagine having as much of the film laid out structurally, so there is very little guesswork in terms of b-roll, and I can really tailor my interview questioning. In this manner, I hope to keep my shooting ratio below 10:1. BR

I for one am shooting my next doc on film. I'm dissatisfied with all the new cameras coming out, each one claiming to be a gamechanger, and I'm going to instead use the gear I have, shoot on 16mm black and white, and I intend to have Cinelab do the post work!

Hi All, I'm in pre-pro on a documentary project, which I intend to shoot on 16mm black and white. While I have no illusions of finishing to a film print, I'm stil debating my workflow, and could use your advice. First there is the issue of roughcutting. Do I get my dailies in HD, and essentialy do an online edit? Or would it behoove me to follow a more traditional pathway, getting an SD wtih keycode, doing an "offline," and then getting only the takes I used transferred in HD...or at this stage in the game do I need to be thinking about 2K or 4K? And while I don't plan to finish to a film print, does it still make sense to get my negative cut and conformed to the working edit? Or am I perhaps missing something important, and should consider other, alternatives? Thanks! BR

Hi All, I'm about to embark on a 16mm sync sound doc shoot, and some situations I'll be filming won't be ideally suited to the old school clapper method. I've read about bloop boxes that generate a synced tone and light that you could simply hold in front of the camera lens and be done. I also like this because it's a little less disconserting for interviews, than a loud clapper. Anyone know where I can find one? Are these made by anyone? Thanks! BR

Hey all, I wrapped a new claymation short a few weeks ago. It was for a contest, but sadly didn't really take off. It is partly an experiment with a camera stabilizer I built for animation work, to do more fluid, free form camera moves. It was also an exercise in more personal, introspective narrative. The latter I think was not very successful, and my own view is the script never took shape, dsepite about a half dozen drafts. But technically, I think it was a fairly successful. I love shooting deep focus, which is exceptionally difficult working in small scale. Subtle lighting is also a challenge for this type of thing, but I think it was overall fairly successful. It is a film partly about process and showing the rough edges, and the man behind the curtain. Anyways, I thought I'd post it here, and see what you all think. Do you think it's worth submitting to any fests, or not. Any fests you all might recommend? Any other feedback? Please, be as brutal as you can. I want to be better, and I must be better. I look at it this way: I'm 28, and there are many, younger filmmakers and DPs far, far better than me, who have accomplished way more. I've got a lot of catching up to do, so I need all the advice and criticism I can get! So hammer away. And hopefully if all goes as I plan, next year there will be many more of this. 2012 wasn't nearly productive enough. I made two shorts, and wrote a feature, but I've got to make more. Much more to hone my craft and get nearer to making a really excellent film. To start, I want to make four shorts a year, as well as producing two new documentaries. So hopefully you'll hear a lot more of me in the coming months! https://vimeo.com/52410465

Digital Imax I believe employs dual Christie 2K projectors to create a 4K composite on screen. It all seems rather unnecessary given there are native 4K projectors, but maybe it has to do with lumens? Now as for the resolution of Imax 15 perf 70mm? Hoo boy. 5 perf is roughly 8K resolution, so Imax would need, what, at least 16 or 32K, or is my math wrong?

Assuming the trend towards small to medium size screens remains the norm, I would agree. 4K is truly outstanding, and having seen several 70mm prints projected in the past, I felt the 4K presentation of Lawrence of Arabia ranked among them. Where 4K as a projection medium might be limiting is if one desires to show on larger, Imax sized screens. There, even 4K can have its limits before you start getting artifacts. If it were me, personally, I'd like to see 8K become the standard. 8K is the resolution necessary for 65mm scanning, and so to be able to project at that native resolution, you would then truly be exploiting the full image potential of the 65mm negative.

Do you know your theater's specs? You may have been watching a 2K projection, which is for all intents and purposes the same resolution as 1080p high def, and depending on the size of the screen, the limited resolution could be apparent. My presentation WAS in 4K and it was marvelous.

Okay, I just came from a screening of "Lawrence of Arabia," last night and here are my thoughts. First, I must begin with the good: I am now sold completely on 4K as a means of exhibiting films. The quality was outstanding. The brightness, the rock-steady image, as well as the retained film texture. It had everything I love about film, it's dynamic range, it's tactile grace, it's GRAIN, without the flaws of celluloid that results from sadly frequent substandard handling - scratches, shake, dim picture. The sound was marvelous as well, and I truly HEARD "Lawrence of Arabia" for the first time. Heard and SAW. I truly felt I was getting an experience as good as 70mm. Lawrence of Arabia restored is a resounding success, and if not a game-changer in the world of film to digital exhibition, then a prover that we are marching steadily closer to a more perfect format, which will allow these classic films to be seen with greater frequency, since we are dealing with hard drives and not fragile celluloid. Now the bad: if digital has a flaw, it is that classic flaw written of by Greeks and Shakespeare: it is within ourselves. The HUMAN factor. The presentation of Lawrence of Arabia was incompetent, and demonstrated why film nor digital matters a sausage when in the hands of idiots without training. As many of you know, this Fathom event (as well as others) is preceded by several shorts. It is one thing if the goal is to recreate a movie going experience, with newsreel, short and cartoon. Instead, we are forced to watch various features which no doubt will be on the DVD/Blu-ray. And when you're dealing with a nearly four hour film plus intermission, it is none too pleasing to have to endure added run-time of superfluous content, some of which (as has been mentioned previously) contains SPOILERS for those who've never seen the film! But the theater has no control over this, and I don't blame them. I do blame them for the rest of the evening. To begin, this bonus content began to play with audio only, no picture! After frequent complaints, the visuals started...I guess someone forgot to take the lens cap off the projector...who knows. So the remainder of the special features plays out, followed by the Overture. It is almost completed when... it stops, the lights come up, and the special features begin to play all over again!!!!! More complains from the audience. We are forced to endure the special features again, because apparently there is no capability to skip ahead in the playlist????? Again the overture starts to play, and near the same point as before, it does not stop, but the audio comes down, and the lights come up, and the manager comes out to apologize for the delay, and offer free passes. I might have been ameliorated by this token gesture, except for two reasons: 1) the passes, he handed out were stamped to expire Aug 31st 2012! 2) He hands out the passes, going up and down the isles, AS THE OVERTURE ENDS, AND THE MAIN FEATURE AND CREDITS BEGINS. The houselights remains lit as he does this, and I truly fought the urge to yell, "Forget the goddamn passes, dim the lights and get the hell out you moron!" Why he did not simply wait until intermission to do this, I do not know. Maybe he was due to clock out in a half an hour. I don't know. It was a botched attempt as a facile gesture of apology, and showed intense disrespect for the film, and the film going experience. It was a masterpiece in the expert handling of mediocrities. So much money and craft goes into the making of, and the restoration of these works of cinema. Why, then, do theaters and distributors not concerns themselves with ensuring the presentation matches the same quality of excellence? This is truly what happens when you push out unionized, skilled artisans (and projectionist ARE artists), and replace them with low paid button pushing, mouth breathing teenagers under the supervision slightly-less-low paid, mouth breathing managers. What saved the day was the film itself, and the restoration work done by Grover Crisp, with the trail blazed by Robert Harris. Lawrence of Arabia Final Grade Film: A+ Image Quality: A+ Audio Quality: A+ Presentation: F And for those to whom this may be relevant, the theater in question was the Cinemark 20, in Merriam, Kansas. If you should ever visit this theater, you will never cross paths with me, because I will never go back there.

From what I hear, prints are getting harder and harder to get, especially from the major studios. It's DCPs or nothing, usually. And when they do lend them out, it's to established folks. When you're an expert projectionist at Ebertfest like James Bond (that's his REAL name!), you can get stuff because the studio knows they're in good hands. But if you're an unknown to them, they're gonna be real hesitant, because these prints are expensive to replace, and very easy to damage.

PTA made a lot of curious choices, which indeed had me wondering if 65mm was the right call artistically. He described his initial approach as being to recreate the look and feel of a 50s film, and he had investigated horizontal 8 Vistavision as a shooting format. This posed too many logistical challenges, and the next logical step was 65mm. However to my mind, film gauge has very little to do with achieving a particular period look. It was about films stocks, lenses, anamorphic adapters (for that true Cinemascope feel, mumps and all), lighting and printing methods. I thought it was rather a shame to shoot that wonderful 2.20 full frame 65mm and crop it so much. It negates a fair bit of the purpose of 65mm. In hindsight, if I were him I would've shot regular ole 35mm, but utilized low speeds stocks for interiors as well as exteriors, and utilized modern lighting technology (LED, HMIs) to really up the wattage while keeping the temps reasonable. All the better to get those rich saturated colors offered by low speed color brightly lit, as well as a bit more depth of field. Obviously dye transfer printing isn't a possibility, but in post some color work could've better approximated the tonal saturation of a 50s tech print. I should say, I'm glad he's helping to keep 65mm alive. I'm glad he tried for it, but I think it may well prove to be a failed experiment in large format. I would much rather have seen "There Will Be Blood" in 65mm.

Ryan's Daughter is marvelous. I think it's Lean's best film after LoA. As for 4K, it has it's plusses. It's not a 70mm print, but you're getting something much closer to the original, whereas the print is likely 3 or 4 generations away from the oneg. However, in one instance, I was audience to a print of Baraka newly struck from the camera negative. It was a revelation!

You can judge a lot by the crew and the director. I mean, in my experience, it takes only a few minutes of conversation to discern the sleazeballs from the genuine artisans. That you are considering the gig suggests you trust this director, and it's a question of money. The next question is, what sort of calibre is this project, and what doors will it open? Say, for example, it was a horror film of some kind. Does it really have a shot at a big name fest, or will it play at one of the horror themed ones. Will it lead to the kind of work you want to do, or more horror? Really you just need to weight the benefits versus the risks, and judge if the opportunity is promising enough? Odds are it won't go anywhere, and you'll regret having lost the money. BUT, you never know. You may have a blast making the movie, make great friends and connections with talented people who'll bring you along for the ride, like what happened with Eric Steelberg hooking up with Jason Reitman on his debut. Or this film may position you for your big break. Remember, Wally Pfister was shooting soft core porn and direct to video poop until he DPd a film that made it to Sundance...where he had a chance encounter with another filmmaker exhibiting a feature named Chris Nolan, who just happened to have a script for a film called "Memento." That's all it takes. Honestly, I say go for it. If it fails, at least you tried, and all you lost was a little money. What is money at the end of the day? It fades, it won't last, it only staves off the inevitable. But this film could be YOUR SHOT. Better to take a chance on a failure, than pass on a golden opportunity, and live your life full of regret for not having taken that gig that was a breakout hit and won awards and launched the careers of those who helped to make it. Go. For. It.

And for what it's worth, there are absolutely gifted filmmakers. One need only look at P.T. Anderson. That dude seemed fully formed and in full possession and confidence of his abilities from the start. He's clearly gifted. And there are others who aren't. Me for example. I'm convinced I haven't an ounce of talent or ability. Blessed with desire, but denied the talent, to paraphrase Salieri in "Amadeus." I'm probably kidding myself by even pursuing this work, yet I do, because I feel, deep down, that I have something inside me that is worth getting out, that could be my gift to the world (Since I've never had a girlfriend, and probably there is no woman out there for me). One great film to justify my existence, and I'll make it, or destroy myself trying. In the end all my work will probably be thrown on the rubbish heap, and I'll never be seen as much as the idiots on youtube who score millions of views because they filmed some skateboarder crashing. But at least I'll have tried.

My fear is that soon being gifted or a skilled craftsman will soon no longer matter, as equipment gets cheaper and in the hands of more and more aspirants. HD DSLRS allow myriad folks to make pretty little pictures that are all style, no substance, shaky cam, shallow DoF. I see the incompetent filmmaking of the mumblecore generation, of Swanberg and the likes, and how they have achieved success without any demonstrable skill or desire to attain it. The cinema I loved, the craftsmen I admired are all dying off. DPs today bitch and moan about bulky cameras, yet know nothing of the hardships of using blimped Technicolor cams, or the original Super Panavision 70. I have tried to learn my craft, learn the old fashioned way shooting film and digital alike, but I wonder if all that skill even matters? The growing egalitarianism of the cinema, the cheap gear and software means there is no longer the weeding out process, the trial by fire that scares away the meek, the dilettantes, the self-entitled. Now everyone can make a movie with a little camera and a macbook. It is the idea of the million monkey's at typewriters in action. Someone's bound to make a masterpiece, but it won't be by intent, it'll be because of the Law of Large Numbers.

It's a nice compilation, but ultimately fails for this reason: not a single shot from any John Ford film. IMO no "greatest shots list" is complete without referencing Ford at least once. His eye for composition is second to none.