GeorgeSelinsky

Dave, thanks so much for not only sharing your experience but posting stills from the set. I enjoy it very much and am sure others do too. - G.

I've asked this question before on this forum and haven't gotten any replies. I have tried to research this question on the web but it's really hard to find anything out at all this way. I'm looking into the option of moving out to San Francisco (at least temporarily). I'm based in New York right now but I like SF better as a place to live. I am wondering if it's a good place to film in as a director/producer, especially doing studio work as in TV commercials and maybe even a low budget TV series. New York is great because the permits are free, and there is more talent out here it seems. Monaco labs is more expensive out in SF, that's for sure, but I can always send my film to LA. Can anyone who works out there just give me a basic idea of what it's like? I'd appreciate any input at all. - G.

1) Yes, it is :) Forget about using it to record sync. You can, however, try post dubbing, read my article at http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky/nonsync.html 2) Yes. 3) Yes. 4 (the second 4)) A lens that is 2 times better usually costs 5 times more. That's the way it usually works. You decide whether its worth it or not. 5) The Konvas runs on a sync motor (I think most of them do, maybe the 1 doesn't, there are different motors for them). 6) Konvasses and other cameras abide on ebay in large quantities. Be careful, some dodgy dealers out there - check their records. Make sure the camera isn't stolen, there is a database of serial numbers of stolen equipment. Ask for serial numbers. 7) 35mm 1.85 (standard widescreen) is a different beast from Super 35 (which compares to 2.35 anamorphic). Honestly, for a first time feature forget about anything but standard 35mm 1.85 or 1.66. Super 35 and Anamorphic are out of your league. 35mm film isn't cheap. You can probably get a good deal on short ends and film processing in Los Angeles (I'm paying the near equivalent of 16mm prices here in NY). But ask yourself if you want to bother with such an expense anyway: are you really out there to do an exercise at this point, or do you really have pretenses of making money on this? I'd advise strongly sticking to the first option, especially at your age (no offense). You won't regret it I'm sure. - G.

That all depends what you want to do with it. I've never used one but I've read about them quite a bit. It's really not the low budget filmmakers' best friend for several reasons. One, it's not only big, which makes it tough to squeeze into small locations, but it weighs over 120 lbs making it impossible to handhold (you need two people to lift it every time you want a shot change). Two, you're getting it with a large, slow zoom lens, and I don't believe it's a very good one. Third, it doesn't come with a tripod - that's a separate item (a dolly/crab is probably a better idea with a camera like that). Fourth, the 1000' magazines are large and only benefit you if you're actually shooting on 1000' loads, if you're sitting on Ramen noodles now you're probably going to be using 200' short ends. As for reliability I really don't know. If you had something go wrong with it they'd probably have to fabricate the part or cannibalize another BNCR. I really would think twice before getting this beast. - G.

I had hundreds and hundreds of headshots come in for my NYU student film, with no pay. I had well over a thousand come in when I put out a casting notice for a 35mm feature film. I don't know how good 180 of the 200 reels that this person gets are, probably not very good. Apparently this person hasn't found their choice yet so you still have a chance - they want to get your reel and they've bothered to personally answer you. Then again, there's nothing to guarantee this person actually got 200 reels either. This could simply be a way of saying "People really want to work on this project - it's worth the trouble" Also, I just wanted to note that it's not exactly professional to address you as "Dear fellow filmmaker" (unless you introduced yourself as a filmmaker). Yes, the competition out there is fierce alright, but I don't know if this particular situation is such a good meter of that. - G.

Festival programmers have an ethical obligation to view each film that pays to come in as a submission. They DON'T have to view the whole thing, of course (and that would be a waste of time in some cases) but they do, in my view, have to give each submission a reasonable chance. Otherwise they are cheating themselves. - G.

Well, put yourself in the position of the festival director. Your job is to put on a fun and good show. You have to find films that are going to score with the audience and support the image of the festival. One way of going about this is asking for submissions, another way is to go to other festivals and markets and go seek. Film festivals are not major money earners, believe me - there are many expenses associated with them. Their key value to the organizers is usually in networking and publicity. Admissions fees are a way of paying for the time a person/people needs to process your application and view your film. I'm sorry, but if you see what gets sent in most of the time, you will understand why you'd want to get paid something to watch someone else's film (esp. a feature film) and give it a fair chance. Many of them are so bad that after the first 20 minutes you want to chuck the tape into the trash. It makes you feel like Alexander Delage at the Ludovico Center's lidlock cinema. The admission fees also help cover the cost of advertising and publicity (part of which goes to covering their "Call for submissions" ads). This sort of stuff isn't cheap, it's not just the ad space but someone has to make up a nice ad, etc. When a festival has an extended deadline (as is the case sometimes), it's a two way street where the filmmaker and the festival may benefit. The festival is saying "Look, you couldn't complete your film on time and therefore we couldn't give it priority consideration - but you still stand a chance of getting in if you give it a shot." If instead the festival said "Stop, we're not taking any more tapes" they'd have to 1) put out a notice about this, which costs advertising money, 2) have a staff that will have to answer each submission and return it saying that the festival has been booked, and 3) what if one or more of your films gets pulled, or the print never makes it? By allowing an extended deadline you're benefitting both the late filmmakers (giving them a chance, albeit smaller but not shutting the door) and your festival. It's up to the filmmaker if they want to take that chance, and I don't think there's anything to disclose, it's fairly common sense. Of course, there's also always the chance that your film may really blow the socks off of the competition to the point where a programmer makes a strong case for it to be included somehow. But it's hard to upset the balance once a certain slate of programming is put together, you have all these arrangements, publicity, logistics (including flying over the filmmakers which some big festivals do), etc. If the festival said "Okay, since we're not giving you priority consideration you can submit for less or for free" then what would happen is most people would simply wait till the last minute to submit. There would be less incentive to submit on time, and the staff would be mobbed at the last minute with a load of tapes. Also, it would attract a lot more trash, too. If you could submit your tape to Sundance late for $10, some Joe who is playing with a camcorder in his basement will say "Ah, why not give it a shot?". At this rate festival programmers would have to content with a lot more junk at a time when the workload is getting heavier in all departments, and the festival would make less money from it. The bottom line is this - the early bird gets the worm. That's the way it is with college applications and many other things. There are human factors to consider as well as the practical side of things. The primary goal of film festivals is to show a certain type of programming to an audience. When you keep that in mind I think many festivals are pretty honest with their admission fees and policies. By the way, for the record I do think it is immoral to cash a filmmaker's check and NOT view their film. That is outright unethical. - G.

Here's what I'd do, Take some expired still C-41 based 35mm color negative film (or black and white, but color is easy to get developed in a 60 minute lab), thread it through the magazine, then in the dark load the camera, putting the film into its path (may be a bit tough in the dark but do the best you can. Using a hole punch, punch a hole in the center of the film and put the hole right below the gate (you can feel this with your finger). Then when the camera is properly sealed (make sure the shutter is closed first), bathe the camera with a powerful 1000W light from all sides. Go back into the darkroom and unload it. Then get this roll of film developed (not printed, just neg developing and make sure to instruct them not to cut it up into strips - although they probably won't cut it up or print it when they see no images) rethread the film into the mag and camera, align the hole punch to be right under the gate. Now you can trace where this leak is happening - it's at least a start. - G.

I'm sorry for a silly semi-inside joke but there's an appropriate Seinfeld quote here, "Does she know about shrinkage?" :lol: - G.

Making a film festival work is tough. Programmers have to put on an entertaining and memorable show. They often go looking for films - they don't just wait for the tapes to come in the mail. Actually, a good festival programmer should have their prime pieces in place months before the festival shows. It's a bit unnerving if you're sitting there with only a few weeks or days to go and you still have undecided, empty slots. It's almost like having no script ready a few days before a shoot. Having a ready program in advance is a great help in promotion and planning. So I can't blame festival programmers and directors for trying to secure their slate of films as in advance as possible. Late submissions are to them a "what if" situation, i.e. "What if at the last minute we get a terrific undiscovered film that can really score points with the audience and get us good press?", "What if one of our selections gets pulled because it got into Sundance/Toronto/Berlin and needs to preserve its premiere status, how do we fill the slot?". It's not "Let's be nice to all those filmmakers who are just finishing now so we can give everyone a fair chance." The latter is often what it is interpreted as, and that's not really correct. Your chances ARE better the earlier you submit. Let's face it, if the film isn't ready because you simply can't meet the schedule (not because you were simply procrastinating with getting your package together), that's not really your fault nor the festival's. Things happen on their own momentum sometimes and you have to accept that. Wait for next year, and try your hand at other festivals. What concerns program selection, YES, it is TOTALLY up to what the programmers want. They are putting up films that fit their festival's image (in their minds). If your film promotes an issue or a subject matter that strikes a chord with the programmers, you have an upper advantage. If it doesn't, or if it happens to offend the programmers, you are obviously in a disadvantage compared to the others. There is no federal or state mandate that forces film festivals to be equally considerate to all genres and subject matters (nor would that be practical or even ethical). Also, there are a LOT of politics involved, as with many things in life. Whenever 'other people's money' is involved that is the case. It's like the old Russian expression, "The one who pays is the one who orders the music (to be played by the band)". - G.

I'm very glad it's of help! Post dubbing is usually something that student filmmakers experiment with (when all they're given in an intro course is a non-sync camera but they want to have some sync in their first sound films), and is then forgotten until the ADR stage of a movie. At least that's the case in America. This was a standard method in Russian cinema for ages, as well as many other Euro countries. From a creative perspective (and this is my personal opinion), this method is actually in many ways preferrable to sync. The amount of control you get over sound is much greater. The idea is that when you're filming on location, with the whole crew there and all that gear, you can leave yourself to concentrate just on the picture element 100%. The sound end of it is left to a separate stage, where you have maximum control over it. The biggest problem with post sync and probably the number one reason it's not used a lot in America is that it's a bit inefficient financially because when you have big actors it's more expensive to book them for extensive ADR sessions later than just to film the whole thing in sync (esp. if you're filming in a sound stage). You have to confine yourself to a schedule (and pay a facility) and if time and money are getting tight, you have to start accepting less than perfect results. This often happens in Russian films, where entire features are dubbed in one week, with long tedious sessions. The f-it factor increases, and the result is visible on the screen (esp. the big screen). But the audience there is more accustomed to loose lips than here. Actors tend not to like post-sync for obvious reasons, it's more work for them, they have to recreate their entire performance again, they have to fight off the sense of artificiality. But it's a good chance to improve on things and take things in a different direction sometimes, you can practically recontemplate the expression of every line of dialog (and also, you can refine diction which can be of great help with some actors), and by improving the on screen performance you're making the actors look better too :) You can also get one actor to dub another, which is where it can really get fun. When you shoot sync you're stuck with what you have pretty much, getting ADR to match with sync audio is very difficult. Another good issue here is that post syncing forces you to think about your ambient and foley sounds much more carefully, you're forced to recreate everything versus relying on the soundman to get it (and the soundman is primarily interested in dialog, nothing else). You also don't have the continuity issue of a close miked shot being cut into a far miked shot. Yes, some people like this change in proximity effect but you can also reproduce this nicely with an intelligent combo of reverb and EQ in the mix, if so desired. All in all, post sync works best for low budget filmmakers where actors are working for almost nothing or for nothing period, where you have inexperienced, amateur actors (here is where post dubbing can really bail you out sometimes - although it's not the cure all for bad performances either), and don't have enough time on the set or the personel to get good location audio. The equipment required is actually less expensive than a good location audio recorder and mic package. It's also great if you're shooting over a long period of time where rental of a camera is inefficient and it's better to buy one. You can get a nice light non-sync camera like the Arri II or Konvas instead of getting a hulky BNCR or an Arri blimp, or spending the extra money on a BL 1/2 - G.

Go for the BL4 if you can get your hands on it. The Mitchell if it's in good shape will work out I'm sure, you'll have to settle for older lenses. It all depends on whether its blimped and sync or not, of course. What you're proposing to do, record the rehearsal audio and then try to sync it up to the picture, won't give you good sync even if you slice and dice it to death. Your actors would have to mechanically replicate the rehearsal audio during the take, and that's a sure way to murder a performance. Your actors are either going to become robots or they're going to complain. If you can't get a quiet enough camera, just post dub it. 3 minutes of final film shouldn't be that hard to post sync. I'm post syncing a feature right now. It's a bit tedious but you can really refine performances that way and get the sound as crispy as possible, separately adding the ambient sound and foley to taste. Check out my article, http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky/nonsync.html - G.

Just a suggestion... Scott Norwood wrote up a pretty inclusive FAQ for rec.arts.movies.tech (http://www.nyx.net/~snorwood/faq2.txt) I would strongly suggest consulting that FAQ and referencing people to it as well. There are a few others ou there too. If anything they can at least help in outlining an approach to each answer. No purpose in doing work that's already been done. - G.

There are student films where the credits are as long as the film itself, even longer. With the kind of money and crews some film student films have thrown at them, it's easily done. - G.

The Russian miniseries "17 Moments of Spring", which was filmed in 1973, used the same method with great success. It was a story that took place in the last days of World War II, about a Russian double agent who was in the Gestapo, in reality working for the Soviets. They cut in a lot of interesting stock footage, including footage of the major Nazi's and combat footage, to great effect. - G.

I love black and white as well and would love to shoot a film on it. I understand that it, as all other cinematic effects, can be misused or used as a copout sometimes (i.e. making video look like film). Unfortunately, the pressures of the marketplace don't allow filmmakers to use black and white even when it is totally appropriate. Furthermore, an added benefit was that black and white USED to be considerably cheaper to shoot (you could pick up short ends of 35mm B&W for under a nickel a foot even ten years ago). - G.

I've often stepped my motor down when I was loosing the light to push for that extra exposure. You can either shoot at 12 fps and have your actors slow down by 50% (you can time it out on a stopwatch), or you can have them act at a normal pace then take the film to be step printed in the lab. The former can work out well if the actors are good enough at slowing down every motion of their body. The latter will result in choppy motion, which is done for effect. - G.

I think that this is very unfortunate. In a day and age when the bean counters are attacking film budgets with a vengeance, trying to push everyone to go HD, while at the same time Kodak filmstocks have gotten so grainless and sharp, and the aspect ratio of HDTV is closer to 2 perf than SDTV, 2 perf has perhaps the highest potential it ever had to be a standard working format. I think it pays to give it a stronger push. As always, this depends on both camera manufacturers/rental facilities and laboratories working as a team. We see that Super 35, Super 16, and Vistavision still have adherents out there, and these are formats that need opticals to get to a print. 2 perf and 3 perf are no different, the big thing here is a difference in the movement. - G.

I had no idea they still were in business! http://www.jkcamera.com/optical_printer.htm Looks like you can get a total system running for significantly under $10K, they handle S8 - 35mm, pin registered (no 2 or 3 perf movements though). - G.

No, I copied that clearly... From what I recall in my discussions with one optical equipment designer (who has designed systems for laboratories), there is a premade RGB light head that you can purchase (or at least there was when I talked to him). Basically we're talking about a light source here, not an entire camera system. I know it doesn't just fit like a puzzle piece from the contact printer to the optical head, but the cost of adapting it shouldn't, theoretically, be so astronomical, and the return is the benefit of automation versus having one person manually trim every change and sit there. I don't think it's a creatively enjoyable task for a technician to be tweaking the R, G, and B knob based on a cue sheet or tape. Might as well have him/her manually push the button for each frame. I understand that a lab is a business and sometimes what's good for business is reducing overhead and passing a part of those savings onto customers, to encourage more business over the competition. Besides, with the current brand of digital intermediates looking more like glorified laser HDTV transfers and costing upwards of $100,000, I think that many filmmakers will still be interested in staying film to film all the way. It's a tried and true method. Furthermore, not all labs are going to have the bazillions required to invest in that gear anyway. Once again, I apologize if it sounds like I'm being a know it all - I acknowlege that pro's are pro's for a reason. I just want to understand this process better and see what the real deal is, and I appreciate your contribution very much. By the way, if your facility quotes me a good 2 perf optical rate I'd actually be quite happy to entertain the idea :D - G.

Thanks to Dom and Dirk for your answers, it's nice to have lab people on this forum! I've had varying experiences with labs, sometimes I'd see how ridiculous some of their prices were - simply based on how one client could get away without getting charged a certain fee, while another who wouldn't know any better got it on his or her tab. The fact is that labs are a business and while I don't know how much the technician on the end makes (I'm sure most of them are not driving BMW's), the guys on top don't drive bad cars - that's for sure. Many of them have offices in prime city locales where real estate is not cheap, either. I didn't know that there was such a serious dust issue with wetgate printing, in all the telecine transfers I've done with wetgate I guess I've been lucky not to have this problem. I also never imagined that it'd take a whole day to set up an optical printer to do a different format. In my experience with Oxberry's it didn't seem to be that complicated, swapping a movement and checking the optical alignment isn't as easy as switching lenses but didn't imagine it'd take a day. Also, why an automatic light changing system couldn't be adapted to an optical printer is strange. Given the large amount of 16-35 blowups and Super 35-Anamorphic films that are being done, one would think this would almost be an automatic development. These days fewer people use optical printers for wipes and old fasioned "opticals", so it would make even more sense to reconsider the setup of optical machines. At the same time, people who used to shoot films in 16mm and T-scope back in the 60's and 70's had a much lower pricetag to pay for their work even when inflation is taken into account. There was one lab in the USA, from what I'm told, that used to do 16mm ECO blowups to a 35mm interneg for very little, and Technicolor Italy would give you dye sep blowups from 2 perf 35 - optical work heavily discounted. Now it's amazing that 4 perf 35mm can in some instances be the cheapest way to go. I know I'm not a lab technician and I apologise if I come off sounding arrogant - that's not my intent. I know there's a lot to know and learn here and I'm grateful for the opportunity. It's just that I've had enough insider knowledge about how these businesses operate from people who've told me some behind the scenes stuff, and I know how some costs can get easily padded - the rationale being that people in this business have money to spend. At the same time it wouldn't be fair if I didn't point out that quite a few labs have been very nice and generous to indie filmmakers, willing to take chances with their films and so on... I do think that there are ways to reduce the high price of optical work, but perhaps the market is happy sitting where it is. With the onset of digital intermediates, optical printing may be forced to become cheaper to compete, or simply be allowed to fade away. - G.

I don't think that's an appropriate label to give. Reversal is as "professional" as negative, it's just that given today's methods of working negative is usually more preferrable. There was a time when in 16mm reversal was more predominant with professionals, especially in color. There was a low contrast color reversal Ektachrome Commerical 7255/7252, and a line of regular contrast Ektachromes. If I had to shoot 16mm in B&W and I had a decent lighting package, I'd probably give the newer Plus X reversal a good testing. Its predecessor 7276 was as grainless as a B&W film could get, it could even pass for 35mm with a good telecine job. I know they raised it a stop and it may not be as grainless but I'm pretty sure it's still a bit less grainy than the old Plus X 7231 negative. - G.

Yes, for an extra price I'm sure. Unfortunately when advances in techology show up and something comes cheaper, labs and video facilities always find a reason to inflate the pricetag so it's just a smidge less expensive than the older alternative (or even a smidge more expensive, but more 'advanced'). I'll never forget I spoke to one technician who invented a real easy, low cost solution to an optical bench procedure. It took him an afternoon of soldering and it meant much less work for him in the end. I innocently asked "So, did you charge your customers less since you have to do less work?" "No!" he said smiling, "I charged them more, because now they're getting their stuff back faster!" I can easily see the mentality in this case being "Well, we charge them more now because they don't have to bother digitizing and it saves them time and the expense of a deck." I can see the suits at the transfer facility whipping out a calculator, figuring out how much time it takes an assistant editor to digitize, calculating the salary money saved by the production, etc. That's the way business operates, maximise the profit... This is one of the things that in the past motivated me to heavily consider DIY options with filmmaking, you cut out the unpleasant business end of dealing with laboratories and your expenses are not related to what someone things they can get away with charging you. Not that DIY is always practical, unfortunately, but anyway... - G.

If it wasn't for the data rate issue on Gnutella, films would be viewed the same way as MP-3's. Download a song, download a flick, whatever... What is most upsetting and insulting to artists is when their original work is being used by someone ELSE who is making a profit off of THEIR work. Take for example bootleggers, that's a prime example right there. These people (who are equatable in their activities to spammers) sit there with their DVD burners in their basements and sell copies of someone else's work for a profit. It's not like they're doing this for free ("like dude, you gotta see this film!") or even 'at cost'. To them its a profit generating situation, just like spam is made to generate profit for these bums who are too lazy or stupid to make a real living by selling toe nail clippers or porn site memberships. But as a beginning artist, you have to start somewhere, and you can't expect to get paid like a pro from the outset. If a musician is just starting out, they need exposure, just like DP's, actors, etc. Most songwriters' early songs are not going to be their best material, just like with most beginning DP's and actors and their early work. Ever hear the first demo recordings that the Beatles made (before George Martin produced 'Love Me Do' with them)? Wasn't impressive enough for any major label at the time to take interest. All of us got our start working for nothing or for very, very little. That's the way it is with all artists, from scriptwriters to musicians. It doesn't mean their efforts mean nothing, it's simply a fair trade off - you're starting out, we're starting out, or you're starting out and by taking you on we're taking a chance you may not do the best job, but if you do well, you'll do well for yourself and increase your value. C'est la vie... - G.

With reversal you always get more contrast because the original is intended for direct projection. If you make exposure mistakes, it's very tough to correct it in reversal (especially overexposure - if you do that, you're stuck with what you have). Kodak's reversal films are sharper than their negative counterparts. I haven't compared the grain on the newer stocks with the negative, but Double X was always grain city. If you're going to stay on video, reversal might look nicer to you with stronger blacks and slightly better sharpness. But if you want to survive a printing stage then negative is really the best way to go, its more flexible (unless you want to experiment with preflashing your reversal - then you're still stuck with the same exposure issues again anyway). - G.