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.

 

I've heard the same from several people, Will. And I have seen lots of really good stuff from the BMPCC. Adrian (see earlier in this thread) made a good case for it. BUT...I will probably be renting, not buying, my camera. The BMPCC seems to require a ton of accessories to be production-ready, and the footage I've seen from it doesn't really look **better** (though this is a subjective term, I know...)than what I've seen out of the Ikonoskop or the Bolex. That being the case...simplicity is a very big motivation for me. My experience as a DP has been with Super 16mm film exclusively, and that was 15 years ago (I became a professor in the interim in a field not related at all to filmmaking!), so I am finding myself very attracted to the devices that are fairly streamlined and (partially) idiot-proof.

 

Moreover, as a director...I like wide angle shooting with few closeups. On the last film I made, our "normal" lens was the Optar 9.5mm or, sometimes, the Optar 12mm. From what I gather, I can use the oldie-but-goodie Kern Switar 10mm on the Digital Bolex/Ikonoskop or even the newer, very nice Kinoptik 9mm, and get what I'm after that way and still go handheld quite easily. On the BMPCC -- and correct me if I'm wrong! -- I would need to outfit the camera with quite a bit of support accessories to get a wide angle lens on it. I think we're talking a Super 35 sized sensor, so it would be an 18mm or so, but still...it seems like it would require more gear to get that to happen, which is an expense I want to avoid. Finally, the BMPCC isn't so great on recording audio, and the Bolex and Ikonoskop seem to be much better that way...a nice way to simplify things further when on location.

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.

All of this has been very helpful for me -- so I thank everyone for contributing their perspectives.

 

I am no longer considering B&W...after giving it a lot of thought, color (with subtle tones, a little desaturated) will work better for my project.

 

After doing a lot of reading and research, it seems like I have three really good options, determined by a combination of factors, chief among them being cost-efficiency and handheld viability (a lot of shots will be handheld/MOS and require a low-profile camera so as not to draw too much attention):

 

Option 1 - use the Digital Bolex D-16, equipped with a few good but small c-mount primes (maybe the Kinoptic 9mm, and a few Switars?) and a small external viewfinder. The test footage I've seen looks REALLY nice, it's small and good for handheld, and the reports are that it is good for recording audio as well so I could use it for my sync-sound dialogue scenes. An alternate option for the same purposes would be to use the Ikonoskop A-Cam Dii, which looks to me like it produces images of equal quality to the Digital Bolex, and it is obviously also a low-profile machine. Post-shoot workflow still is a new thing for me to wrap my head around, but the discussions I've seen lead me to believe it's not overwhelming to learn.

 

Option 2 - use the Canon EOS C300. These seem to be more available from rental houses. it's not tiny like the Bolex or Ikonoskop...but it's not big, either, and equipped with a prime, it could be mobile/low profile enough. The imagery it can produce is beautiful. but I am concerned also about accessories, and the post-shoot workflow options aren't crystal clear to me....and even though they are more available to rent, they ain't cheap.

 

Option 3 - shoot Super 16. I've got access to Aaton cameras and good lenses, as well as a Super-16 Bolex for low profile/MOS stuff, virtually for free (through my university), and I've shot in that format years ago and am confident with doing so again. And it seems that scanning the neg to hi res (2K, yes?) then results in exactly the same media files that the digitial cameras produce, so workflow from that point onward is effectively the same. BUT -- everyone I've spoken to, and several of you out here, have noted that stock and processing might be cost-prohibitive (I guess even with trying to compete against digital, a lower demand leads to fewer resources for folks still shooting on film, so costs haven't really decreased since I last made a film...)Plus -- having separate audio recording is one more little headache to worry about, and I like the idea of streamlining these things while shooting.

 

As far as I am concerned, all three options would produce the sort of imagery/image quality I'm looking for. Super 16mm certainly would, and the tests from the digital cameras mentioned above prove that they'd do just as nice a job for what I'm after. Of all the options, actually, Option 1 (Digital Bolex/Ikonoskop) is the most appealing to me...but it doesn't look like there are many places in the Philly/NJ/NY area where I could manage to get a hold of one to rent for a few weekends next fall. I'd be appreciative if any of you could suggest places or even individuals who might have those resources.

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.

I'm just saying that it is hard to judge composition outside of a narrative context that drives it, especially more extreme framing which may seem wrong when viewed without any context but make sense if it were part of a visual structure to convey a mood or story point.

 

I remember years ago a complaint about Geoffrey Unsworth's anamorphic shooting of "Superman", to the extent that he shouldn't have pushed important information to the "bad" edges of anamorphic lenses, and I think they were talking about scenes like this:

 

 

 

But I think this is a good example where putting Ma Kent on the far edge of the frame makes sense because it reinforces the notion of her impending separation from her son.

 

 

 

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."

In case anyone is interested.

 

You can see the first episode of my webseries at the bottom with links to others at the top. It has a tank and some really cool props, lot of which are orginal from the 40s. It was really fun to do, not fun to have to force people to watch. Apparently WWII is not in unless your last name is Speilberg. Guess I got that message late. :-(

 

If anything, at least this might give YOU guys an idea of my skills. I want be a director, well really the whole "writer/producer/director" package like I guess everyone else probably wants to be. I had to do all the shots myself because DOP dropped out on day one. Luckily one of my actors turned out to also have some pretty good DOP skills, better then mine. He saved thing from being wideshot central LOL.

 

http://www.tinmachinefilms.com/

 

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.).

 

Most often the production company will schedule the BTS interviews when it is convenient for the talent and crew. It might be on a separate day.

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.

There's the Kino Flo single 12' inch that runs on the lighter socket, but that was 80 dollars to rent for one day, it was inordinately expensive, I initially wanted to have a 650w tweenie to bounce as the key and a 200w midget to light the back of the car in the opening scene, I would've added some 1/2 CTO and a 013 straw to get the yellowish look of an sodium vapor lamp, but getting a generator was the issue, so all of that went out the window. I don't see a light at 8:07, did you mean 7:07? That wasn't the lamp, it was actually one of the ceiling halogen lights from the diner, I set the kino further on the right, you can see the falloff on the woman's hair,

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.

What do you guys think a great director does? What makes one? One who is able to get the most out of their team and motivate their crew and team to create something at the top of their game? What would you describe a great one does?

 

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.