joshua gallegos

No I had no free access to any location. My favorite films are usually talking head pictures, mainly All About Eve or anything made by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. I think I resorted to some hand held to have more movement as I feel a camera on a tripod doesn't work all the time, especially when you want some kind of energy behind it. Come to think of it hand held isn't so bad, it just depends on who is operating the camera. Really filmmaking is a combination of everything- location, set design, wardrobe, etc- it's really a missing character in my two shorts, but all of that requires more money which led to my point as to how limitations create boundaries. To create a color palette etc all those things are required, which means rooms have to be painted etc. But this is good practice, I've always wanted to do the Tell Tale Heart, I adapted it into a screenplay several years ago, and it's mostly a silent film. it really takes you inside the mind of a schizophrenic, but to make it would require thousands of dollars. I'll figure out a way to make it one day. Thanks for the advice everyone.

I usually do stuff in a hotel since audio is costly, I recorded all the audio on a Rode mic, i think the standard setting is 24db, and it didn't turn out too bad. Hotels are usually cheap to rent, so in camera, lens and rode mic rentals I ended up spending about 200 dollars. It's a significant amount of money to me, but worth it in the sense that I got to make something. The short I really wanted to make was about a cult, but that required an actual budget. This recent short I made on a whim, but I was disappointed in the lack of fluidity. I think I did a better job on my first short in that regard, but maybe it's because I shot a lot of pages in so little time, we barely managed to finish as everyone had to go and I only had on battery which required waiting time. Bill, thanks great advice. I actually have read parts of the book, which talks about cinematographers working with directors, only a lot of that doesn't apply to me yet since I do everything myself. I think filmmaking requires a sort of philosophy, it's a thinking man's game, you have to be able to see your vision and translate it to the camera. Films tend to have a tempo and rhythm and I feel that's one of the things I have to work on among many others. I think working with a crew on my next short will enable me to perform better and think more clearly. So, I don't think I'll ever give up since this is what I love to do. So many filmmakers make it look so easy, its incredibly challenging to get any kind of good looking image on camera.

No, I didn't say I was giving up, I just need to enjoy the process more as David mentioned above. The least enjoyable part of my work is looking at all the technical stuff, it makes me cringe. There was something Sean Bobbit said which was interesting, he said that usually beginners will resort to handheld when they run out of ideas, and it's true. But I feel beginners like myself are heavily limited. I didn't have the right lens, I couldn't get the shots I wanted with such a short wide lens, and the room was too small to put the camera where I wanted it. I needed a 50mm to get tighter, But again, at least I didn't spend a lot of money. In short I can't seem to incorporate my ideas as I see them and that's really what making a film is all about. So, I figure if I keep doing everything myself it will take me long years to become a proficient technician. I'm thinking of assembling an actual film crew for my next project and fund it properly, it's the only way good quality work can be made.

Thank you. I think I shouldn't get too caught up in trying to be something that I'm not. I should just have fun with this and not be too critical about it as it drains all the fun away. My favorite shorts are Bottle Rocket by Wes Anderson and Cigarettes & Coffee by PT Anderson. Also David Lynch has made amazing short films, but who has the mind to do what he does, he's so unique. I should take a break from online forums and try to do my own thing and just learn from trial an error and find my own way. I should stop caring about what other people will think and be glad I was able to make something. I think I've seen Un Chien Andalou, that's the short where ants are coming out of a person's skin, it was sickening.

Bill, I barely took this up last October, I can say I'm fairly new at this with little experience, since I've only been doing this for a few months. I can't become Caleb Deschanel overnight. Most of the successful shorts I've seen from Sundance have had the budget and crew, which aided the film's success. but enough chatting, this isn't helping. And constructive criticism isn't about pointing out every single fault, it's about offering an alternative point of view as to how you would approach a situation and how you would do it differently. That's what most readers do in screenplays, but then again they are professional people. I could just as easily point out errors in your films, but without offering a form to help it makes it cheap and standoffish.

No, Mark. I was responding to Bill. I just feel everyone has their own meaning of the word "passion".

But I feel music videos only visualize the things that are expressed in the music. In a sense music could still survive without a video, and commercials were broadcasted on a radio long before they were shown on television. I don't feel a Miller light commercial is telling me a story, it is just showing me a glass filled with frosty beer to stimulate my senses. Music videos are the same way, the song is already making me feel something, and videos only tend to externalizer those emotions. The cinema tells stories about people and it requires time to set up from beginning to end on a written page. Short films are more in the moment and episodic. For instance a guy wants to kill himself, so he plans to jump off a bridge, then as he arrives on the bridge he sees a woman who is about to do the same thing, then it plays out. How is anyone expected to tell a story in less than 10 minutes? Most of the short films I like are around 20 minutes long. In the early pioneer days a short film was a simple shot of a girl dancing or someone sneezing. And most of the shorts I see on Vimeo are people running in slow motion, and they're considered "films".

Well they do suck, I openly admit it. I wouldn't be on a board if I didn't know that. I should also mention I did not use auto focus, that was all me, you should see the stuff I left out which was out of focus. The frame was 2.35:1 and I just wanted to experiment with it. As I mentioned before, I'm barely starting out and wouldn't want to spend thousands on a short, and I know I'm not good at all the technical stuff, but at least I know how it works. Thus far I've had two opportunities to do something and I've **(obscenity removed)**ed up. The smartest filmmakers surround themselves with technically proficient crew, and all they have to do is verbalize ideas and they end up looking like geniuses. That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be. So I can't help but to question myself as to why I want to do everything myself, and it's so simple. I want to know how it all works from beginning to end. So I figure, these past two shorts have been nothing but experiments. A drawing on the fridge if you will. I hear the word "passion" being thrown around all the time. What is passion? Have you looked up its definition? Or have you shaped your own definition in your head and decided it applied to me? Let me give you its proper definition, and believe me this one little word has many. And this is THE number one use of the word. Definition #1 any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling, as love or hate. This is the part where I don't have to answer to you in that regard. You see I do have passion. My passion is to be the best mother**(obscenity removed)**ing filmmaker I can be. And I have intense emotions about that, because I am struggling with the technical poop. Being technical is the hub of all filmmaking of all creativity. Without any kind of technical ability, the work will fail abysmally. everything just becomes stifled and nothing will come through clearly. I haven't been smart by doing everything myself, and it's time to break away from that. I can do better, I have to allow the right opportunity where I have the proper funds and time to express my ideas. Thanks for the feedback, i just didn't like the passion part. I mean you don't know me in that perspective.

And another thing, I know my movies suck, but I know that's not the best I can do, I'm barely getting started, and I'll fail a million times before I quit. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't respect the art of movie making, but it's a craft and it has to be learned from the ground up which is not easy. What issues are factoring into my current short? I welcome honest opinions. If you knew some of the stuff professional readers said about my screenplays on The Black List.... But I proved them wrong too. I never gave up and made the Top List on their stupid website. I wish people would be more honest and critical which I was looking for in this post, but no one said anything. I can take criticism, I welcome it, it makes me learn and improve faster. So, if you could please elaborate on those issues I am currently having, as I myself cannot see them.

I'm not voicing facts, it is my own opinion. If I never make a feature then I know I've truly failed. The shorts I am making are only excercises so that I can learn and eventually make a feature film. I've also learned how to write for a budget. If you look at someone like Mike Cahill who shot, edited, wrote and directed his film 'Another Earth' you'll see that it's possible. Stanley Kubrick did the same thing with 'Fear and Desire', and I intend to do the same thing. I've failed too many times to even care anymore, so this is what making shorts is all about, reaching for that next step. The "issues" factoring into my current short is that I'm not where I want to be, I still don't feel ready to make a feature, and I never will be unless I try harder. I want to be the best at this, I want to be able to tell a story without **(obscenity removed)** it up and I feel I've learned something from these two little shorts I've made. No one remembers a short film, sure they're cute and creative, but they're not the real deal. It's how I feel, and look at Aronofsky or Jason Reitman's short films, they weren't great, but they learned a lot.

Short films are a completely different form than feature films. For instance Darren Aronofsky wasn't great at making short films, but once he made 'Pi' he made something special. This was Aronofsky's last short film before making 'Pi', and I still can't figure out how he went from this to making 'Pi', but it just shows you short films aren't important, I'm personally not a fan of short films, but it's a good and inexpensive way of learning the craft.

I wanted it to have a creepy porn vibe, hopefully all my porn watching paid off. I just know I can do better, I need to find a way to be able to do this everyday. I'm taking the video down since it's not ready to be seen.

Here's the first cut of the short I made. NOTE! It is still work in progress! It lacks continuity and some of the cuts are comical! I was just trying to see how short I could cut it, and I took away necessary shots to maintain continuity and coherence! I'd like to be judged on composition and movement, if you have the time. Thank you. https://vimeo.com/124481443 I shot the whole thing in 8 hrs, so it's not my best effort, I could've dines tons of stuff to improve.

Thanks, I found the app. Though, I'm not using the iPhone footage for the first cut. I managed to put it together last night, I think I exposed it pretty ok, maybe I was exaggerating when I said it was all terrible.

I see what you're saying, it's like Orson Welles once said A writer needs a pen, an artist needs a brush, but a filmmaker needs an army. The most frustrating aspect of filmmaking is not being able to get on camera the things that are in your head, I always imagine something and how it should be, but I end up with garbage. I was looking at my edit and everything is really terrible, it's so bad I refuse to show it to anyone and I'm contemplating of deleting everything, simply because it pains me to see something so terrible. I really respect all the great filmmaking artists and I can't measure up to what they do and it really tears my heart out, but I'm determined to continue, because I know that's not the best I can do. Having said that, I should've expected this, shooting 8 pages in less than a day is the dumbest thing I'll ever do (hopefully), and I'll never try anything like that again. I just didn't have the time to think things through. Anyways, thanks for the help and advice. My second effort was an abysmal failure, worst than my first attempt. yikes.

Well, I'm not a cinematographer, I'm a guy who tries to learn by reading stuff on boards, I'm just trying to make films. Really, my interests are in creating movement and composition,but I want to primarily write and direct stories. If I had the advantage of having a cinematographer and a crew of amazing technicians, my films would be amazing, and I truly believe that. But, since I'm not some fancy AFI student who has the advantage of hiring/assembling a professional crew, etc. I have to film and do everything myself which is extremely difficult. Added to this, making films is costly- so when you don't have the money, you don't have the time, and when you don't have time, you end up getting sloppy images. But, I'd rather make a film than to not make one at all. I was looking at some short films, like the ones made by Lena Dunham , and this is where I'm at right now. I have to make something with nothing, and it's super difficult. But I'm not complaining, because I enjoyed it, and I'll do it again the same way if I have to. I'll get it better, I figure, why raise thousands of dollars to make a short film when you know you're not ready to spend that kind of money. The rest of the stuff I shot is well exposed, since it was done with a Canon 6D. And the iphone shots don't look overexposed to me, if you're filming inside a building that means the windows are going to be completely blown out, that can't be helped John Clark.

Made this mini teaser of what the short will be like. https://vimeo.com/123815840 I think it's still rendering. Shot the opening with my iphone 6 since the Canon 6D ran out of battery. I wanted it to be grainy, so I think it worked. By the way the short is about a call girl who is terrorized by some guy, it's what I could come up, but maybe it works, the performances weren't bad at all. :/

Sorry for the typos above, I'm typing on my phone. I agree, I'm turning something that I love into a burden, I just hope I can edit this thing together as we were moving rather quickly. Framing in CinemaScope only made it more complicated and a burden. Photographing talking heads in a cramped hotel room was more difficult than I thought, especially maintaing focus without a monitor. I like to challenge my self, maybe that's a destructive thing. I feel like I need to do this every day, I'll probably make short films on my iphone and keep writing. Thanks again.

I wish I could write 2-3 minute short films, and you're right, today was pretty terrible, I plain and simply don't know how to write short scripts but I want to make films. Leveling a tripod getting the shot in focus, rehearsing to pan at the right moment, etc is exhausting. I will never make a bother short film where I have to do everything myself. I have no ide how guys like Mike Cahill were able to shoot, write, direct and edit his feature film.

Filmmaking is so difficult, I envy anyone who makes it look easy. Just came back from my shoot, filmed 8 pages in 8 hours since the actors were extremely generous to lend me their time. Here's a first frame grab, I've yet to color correct or anything. I felt terrible, but I think I had fun doing it. At least it wasn't a costly project, so, it was another learning experience. http://arsmagnalucisfilm.tumblr.com/image/115167773541 I ended up framing in cinemascope, and that was not easy. Can't say I did a good job, but it was worth it to just make something. Any advice on how to improve would be welcome.

I decided to utilize the full frame and film in 1.85, I just feel more comfortable filming in that ratio, and since I'm mainly photographing people it's the right frame to use. I was watching Hitchcock's 'Lifeboat' and realized it's what I like about films. Plus I don't have the skills to frame in CinemaScope, it will be too much of a distraction.

Took some pictures of the hall where I'll be filming the opening scene, I won't be able to light it, but I felt the available light was just fine. I'll have to work with 3 Omini lights with umbrellas, so I can soften the light, either way my budget is 300 dollars so at least I'm not spending a whole lot of money on this. http://arsmagnalucisfilm.tumblr.com/ Thanks for the help,, will post screens once I finish shooting on tuesday.

Light against dark / dark against light! That's a beautiful way to put it, if I may say, Mr. Mullen. Now, Toland at the time was working with slower film emulsion and lenses, so in today's standards would you light this set any differently? For instance we can see the shadows on the ceiling stretching abnormally, I think it's because it was sunrise. I remember in the scene Kane stayed up all night finishing Jebediah's review. With faster lenses and 800 ASA how would you go on about lighting the same scene? Thanks for the response Dylan, since I'm filming at 500 ISO, I could adjust by about a stop and film at 800 for the slow motion shots.

I see, I usually see that all the time in b&w films, this shot from Psycho being a very classic example! http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pIWHaIMeXWI/ULYtbU_Re2I/AAAAAAAABc8/vgDBCJDVCpU/s1600/Bates+office+Psycho.png I think they used the back light more in silent films, it's reserved more for a glamour era, for actresses like Greta Garbo http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Films/Goesta_Berling/GstaBerlingsaga12.jpg What shutter speed is normally reserved from slow motion at 60fps? Should I keep it 1/48 or change to 1/120?

To create this separation I need a back light to create a halo effect and modeling by using cross lights on the actors, I heard Hitchcock talk about this issue in an interview where he said that this type of lighting was no longer necessary in color because color separates itself. I'll experiment with the cross lighting technique and turn on practicals to create more dimension, it's quite a small hotel room, so I don't think it will be all that difficult to light, hopefully. I feel I should expose for the shadows to make it look more interesting as I prefer darker images. I'm currently listening to Robert Wise's commentary for 'The Haunting' who has great theory on the use of black and white. https://wondersinthedark.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/haunting57.jpg Thanks for the great notes, it helps very much!