Brett Bailey

You could use something as small (scale) as a couple of Stripbank soft boxes or as large as a Fisher light. Or, depending on the aesthetic, you could also back light it through vellum. A vellum example/aesthetic (simply grabbed off the internet): http://cdn.photigy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Glass-shot-white-lectureby-alex-koloskov22.jpg

Interesting read. David pretty much summed up my opinion with his, "Two ships," comment. The technology is here via the Arri Alexa and the Dragon. The current debate reminds me of the Vinyl vs. CD debate in the late '80s. Digital prevailed. But, you can still find vinyl nowadays. It's a niche market. I believe film will find its own niche market. Paramount has recently made "the big move" to stop distributing film prints. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-paramount-end-to-film-20140118,0,806855.story#axzz2qmWm9lBE

Mark, The C300's post workflow is simple. You can use the Canon XF utility to import footage... http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c300#DriversAndSoftware But, every NLE recognizes the native MXF format.

Due to BMPCC's crop factor your wide angle options are limited (At least when I used it when it first came out). There have also been gripes/complaints about third party adapters affecting infinity focus.

I've never had a problem with the 5D wither I was shooting RAW or h.264. I have experienced Moire and Orb issues with the BMPCC. As discussed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRDbINYkMyw It didn't "seal the deal" for me. I would likely try it again in the future. To each his/her own, I suppose. In the end, it's not going to be the camera that separates you from the competition. It's going to be the person behind it. That and telling a story that's worthwhile.

Is there any particular reason why didn't even consider the Canon 5D with Magic Lantern? I can rent a 5D with Magic Lantern for about $160 compared to the Canon C300 for $450. Just something to mull over:

Back to the OP -- Yes, I would, based on further interviews. David sums it. “It's mainly a time management issue.” It's the same with still photographers having a flip book portfolio or website. I'm a big NFL football fan. It's akin to athletes creating highlight "reels" and sending them to colleges for potential scholarships (jobs). The athlete's reel will in theory generate buzz. He might have loose hips, fluid footwork, undercuts routes brilliantly, and display great ball hawking skills on tape. The highlight reel might be the greatest thing ever, but you can't pick up on the “intangibles” of an athlete from clips. The school will then interview the athlete. The school might find that the athlete has “off the field issues” or they simply might find his personality to be “difficult” and would likely not jive with the rest of the team. Reels do matter until you're in that upper echelon of DPs -- Dante Spinnoti, Darius Khondji, Roger Deakins, Robert Richardson, Vitorrio Storaro, etc. Reputation matters. And, networking matters.

Many films today bog down the story and script with minutia. I enjoy simplicity. Star Wars was a great adventure film with a simple story that created an entirely new mythology. "Alien" was a great movie because it was succinct and it established a compelling universe. "Alien" also asked big questions and left the audience to answer them. The same can be said about "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope." One of the best write-ups about "Alien": http://www.gavinrothery.com/my-blog/2012/6/12/why-is-the-alien-script-so-good.html

There's not more that I can say that Richard hasn't already stated. Yes, grades matter. Nothing is easy in life. It will require blood, sweat, and tears. This industry is ultimately a business, so yes, math matters. Understanding the mechanics of a free market and capitalism matters. If you're wanting to know how to "light," science (some physics) matters. So, you should take every subject seriously. There are a myriad of stories of individuals within this industry who have had various disabilities, but ovecame them. Film school does two things ( A ) Allows you a place to network. And, ( B ) Teaches the "very basics." I would recommend someone starting out in this industry, if they were attending a university, to major in business and minor in film. It helps knowing the daedal intricacies of marketing, management, and finance. Plus, if film doesn't work out, you can fall back on your business degree. There are many paths within this industry. That's just my two cents.

Still, imho, one of the best, if not the best, super hero films ever made. It had such an "epic" feel to the movie. The score by John Williams was fantastic. The direction by Donner, top notch. And Unsworth... just spot on.

I, too, thought it was a reel about color grading. Always remember the rule of thirds. Christopher Doyle always has some really interesting compositions in his films with WKW. Particularly, "In the Mood for Love." If you haven't seen them, check them out.

Haskell Wexler, A.S.C. is categorized as red-green blind.

There are trade-offs camera to camera. The body of a BMCC with an EF mount is roughly $1995. A lens (let's say 70-200mm) will run you roughly $2,499.00. The 5D is just as pricey. You're in high school, just starting out, and are learning so I'm not sure I would bite the bullet on something like that. Unless, you're a good hustler (I'm saying this in a positive way) and are going to hit the local band scene and charge for videos -- then maybe invest. This might help you out. http://www.eoshd.com/content/9413/eoshds-top-5-cameras-of-2012 I started out with a Bolex H16 REX shooting on Kodak 7266.

I've heard the expression, "Never spend your own money." But, let me be candid. It's bull****. A seasoned producer will simply reply, "Why should I invest into your project when you won't?" You can try and "minimize" risk, but this industry is a huge risk by its very own nature. You're going to have some "skin in the game."

As others have stated, I was impressed at your job of pulling together the set pieces... especially on a budget. There are a lot of people that can't do it. About the only other project that I can think of is a ~ 50 min film called "God and Country" that was shot on a ~ $5,000 budget. http://www.godandcountrymovie.com/trailer.html Ingenuity is key. This is a visual medium... you have to use your mind's eye with shots and composition. When I work on a script, I see the shots as if I'm viewing the movie within my head, and make annotations.

Bruce Campbell dicussing his experience(s) on Evil Dead were very interesting. I enjoyed his candor in this video.

I was once asked the rhetorical question, "What's a successful movie?" by a producer. I thought about it for a moment and said, "It's one dollar past the break even point." This particular individual was a bit taken back that I came up with an answer so quickly and asked me, "Why?" I told him, "Because if we've reached the break even point I know that all the investors have recouped their investment. One dollar past the break even point means that a profit was made...and hopefully in the process we've touched the hearts and minds of our target audience." Of course, in the end, the goal is the maximization of profit. This industry is ultimately a business. I, personally, don't see the point into investing $100,000 into a short. A short is really nothing more than a portfolio piece. Plus, you really can't make a profit off of it. An alternate route would be -- why not direct and shoot some concept videos for a band? Why not direct and shoot some spec commercials and sell them to a company? The odds of a return on your investment are better than that of a short film. I'm in Richard's camp. If you're going to aim for a $100,000 budget, then you should probably go indie long form. Investing into a movie is a "high risk" venture. One way to raise $100,000 is through equity interests of let's say, $5,000 each, and have no limit as to the number of interests that may be purchased by any single investor. You'll need to sit down and design an information package for investors that includes very in depth analyses of genre trends, distribution plans, cash inflows and outflows, projected income, etc.

All good comments. I, personally, would lean towards weekly webisodes. As a matter of fact, there was an indie film entitled, "Stake Land" that begin very much in the same way. Here are a few article(s) about how they got started. It may or may not work for you -- but, it's an interesting insight into how they got their project rolling. http://www.revolvermag.com/news/exclusive-interview-stake-land-co-writer-and-actor-nick-damici-on-the-vampire-apocalypse.html http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2011/08/interview-stake-land-director-jim-mickle

This is a bit difficult to answer. It's a collaborative effort between the DP and Director. It depends upon the aesthetic you're trying to achieve (lens compression, field of view, etc.) Unless it's in order to achieve a certain aesthetic, I rarely use a focal length of 24mm. I don't particularly like the distortion that can occur in the facial area (eyes, nose, etc.).

True, but I made an effort to befriend the talent's personal assitant and built a rapport with both the assistant and talent. It allowed me some unique access to other areas of the production.

Start building your portfolio now. Write simple spec commercials and shoot them. Put flyers up around the theatre department. Network with people in the theatre/film/music departments. There is so much untapped talent there. There are theatre students that would love to participate -- especially if you provide them with a hi-res copy of the final product. Also, start writing some shorts and shoot them. I would start there for now.

Tim is correct. As a favor, I was asked to shoot BTS on a set. Have that sucker (camera) on your hip at all times and be ready to go at a moment's notice. This is documentary film-making. It reminded me a lot of the nature stuff that I shot a long time ago. If you don't have your camera ready -- you will miss the shot. You want candid shots of talent... shots of the camera crew prepping... actors running through their scenes... FX crews prepping, etc. Get your hands on a copy of the script and find some interesting scenes ahead of time that you know the audience will be intrigued about and earmark them. Approach the talent, when they're not busy, and graciously ask them if they wouldn't mind sitting down for a quick five minute interview for BTS. Have your questions written down in advance. Ask questions that the talent simply can't say “Yes” or “No.” You don't necessarily need fancy lights. You can use natural light or something as simple as a utility reflector light clamped onto a light stand. Or, you could use a cluster of household lights wrapped in diffusion just right outside of the frame with some white foamcore bounce if necessary. I, personally, prefer "loop" lighting for interviews. You'll definitely need a shotgun mic and possibly a lav. For interviews, I simply had a shotgun mic clipped to a C-stand arm just outside of the frame above the talent. As far as cameras, I would use a HD prosumer camera.

From 08:07 - 08:15 , on the video that I viewed, there was a young gentleman drinking a beer, with a bedside lamp to his right (in the background). I was stating that I would have used that bedside lamp. Especially, as it pertains to motivated lighting. Then, at 8:27-8:37, I would have grabbed a cluster of household bulbs (if need be to suppliment the light from the lamp) and held it right outside of the frame. Thus, creating split-lighting. I would have aimed at possibly obtaining a 8:1 ratio (3 stops) due to the dark nature of the subject matter.

I'll keep my answer succinct. The best directors have four basic qualities: 1) Vision (Stemming from passion). 2) Tact. 3) Decisiveness, but he/she is also open-minded. And, 4) Leadership. That's just my two cents.

Josh, The footage isn't that bad. I only had time to briefly scan over it. My suggestions would be... 1. Study the psychology of lighting. Constantly observe how certain set-ups convey mood. 2. You said you only had access to a Kino?. You're limiting yourself. Ingenuity is key. At 8:07, I see a lamp in the background. I would have probably had the lamp on. Have it spill some light against that back wall and possibly put the actor in silhouette. Preferably, you want pools of light to create a sense of depth. Always think outside of the box. If you're close on your subject... say... at 8:33... you can easily buy a few practicals from the local store and rig them just outside of the frame on the left for more light (motivated from the lamp). For the interior of the car, did you think about finding a light source that you could run off the battery /cigarette lighter socket? Also, you should have done a rack focus at 2:25. You're shifting the viewer's attention from the man to the young lady. The bench footage at around 11:07 isn't bad at all. 3. Don't be scared to mix color temperature. 4. Everybody who DPs is constantly learning. Heck, everything we do in life... we're constantly learning.