Justin Hayward

Looks good. On the last one, was that because you couldn't get lights out the window and you had to keep the source high enough that it was out of frame or because you wanted a softer wrap on the top of everyone? Thanks

Somewhere in the 90's American studio films turned into something far different than the studio films of the 80's. Of course, Alien was the 70's, but who's counting. It seems directors took the visual cue from the Scott's and Bruckheimer movies, but ignored the story and character stuff? although; the 90's had a rise in "independent" filmmaking as a result. You can say the same thing about the 50's to 60's and the 70's to 80's as well. They certainly weren?t making Terminator in the 70?s. ?Rain Man? ?Planes Trains and Automobiles? ?Ferris Beuller?s Day Off? (Lots of John Hughes movies) ?The Color of Money? (unless no Scorsese counts) ?Time Bandits? ?The Dark Crystal? ?Gleaming the Cube? ?Rad? ?The Lost Boys?

This was under-cranked with the actors moving very slowly? http://www.songbirdthemovie.com/trailer/ Although, I believe he had the actors freeze in rhythm between movements to give it more of an animated feel. Sort of like robots.

Thanks.

I thought the url worked, but it doesn't. Anyway, they blew up a "hospital" on the south side of the city and it was pretty cool.

They're shooting it here and we got to see some cool stuff... http://s42.photobucket.com/albums/e301/the...ospitalBoom.flv It's hard to read, but that says "Gotham City Hospital".

Maybe that was sarcasm.

Well, somewhere in what seemed like a drunken rant, he mentioned he invested 80k in Red.

But isn?t it more original to not reserve the style for only the action scenes? It?s the same as using hand-held for the most non-dynamic scenes? Like at the end of Blade Runner when Harrison Ford picks up the unicorn? tin foil thing? It makes the whole movie more dynamic. Trouble is, most of the time a filmmaker shows a strong style, it?s only other filmmakers that criticize. And not because they really dislike the stuff, but mostly because they notice it, and want the rest of us to notice they notice it.

I didn't realize that's what they meant.

I read Sam Rami is always re-positioning his shots and Bill Pope shoots most of his stuff. They probably figure fixing problems in post is so common now, why not make it as easy as possible in case they have to.

They?re probably a little more organized than that. Even though the camera is flying all over the place, it still manages to land on whoever has a line of dialogue or any other important piece of information. I didn?t understand why he told that guy he was in his office. He could have just walked right out of there. And, is it just me, or are all the ?assets? just Zoolander male model assassins?

Take something you know all about, like your job or a hobby you're really into or a specific relationship you've had and try to tell a story about it for under ten grand. If it?s interesting enough to catch people's attention at a film festival or something, you may get a shot at making another one for a little more money.

Do you feel that you're covering for bad (or no) production design? Lighting can be icing on the cake to good production design.

This is what Claudio Miranda said in that article posted here about the viper's workflow... "David loves the workflow of the Viper. He likes seeing what he gets. He asked me once, ?Don?t you sleep better knowing it?s all good, all in the can, with no scratches?? http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/technique/7847.html I understand his point, but in the four years I've been shooting commercials, one feature, and a bunch of shorts(which may not be enough shooting for me to be an efficient judge), I can only remember one lab and maybe a couple AC mistakes that were unfixable without digitally removing the dust and dirt.

It looks like an Andy Kaufman sketch.

An "unsupervised best light transfer" is what they call a flat, low-contrast transfer in telecine, unless you give them specific instructions (in the camera reports or in person) to be more contrasty or saturated/de-saturated or whatever. They want to show you the latitude available for your final transfer, which is good. If I?m not going to be there, I usually call the colorist and give them an idea what we're looking for, so the dailies transfer isn't way too far from the final. Trouble is, (like you said) there?s no set ?base? in telecine like printer lights, so when I ask them to show me the ?base? look, it actually varies from lab to lab. One might look over-exposed where the other may look under, or more/less contrasty. It?s a little frustrating, but I?m getting used to it.

You're right. That was inappropriate. Sorry Jay.

Oh come on Jay! I'm buddies with Ben and I've seen some of you're shorts. This post is almost as melodramatic as your movies. You?re a nice fellow, but the truth is, you?re a video groupie. The first movie I saw of yours was something shot on hi 8 or some early video. It was about the robber who robbed the doctor that was responsible for killing the robber?s daughter? That movie looked terrible. You shot on video and tried to make it look like film (rented a 12k for sun shots outdoors)? It looked like the worst video, video produces. Don?t argue video. You compare it with the silly things you?ve done, not with real films. If you compare your stuff with real films, you?ll be a bit more in touch. Jay, I like you. You?re funny to me as I know you from other things. Truth is, you could make something interesting, I think that if you put you?re mind to it, you could do something interesting. Just don?t try to knock anything talked about on this website. These guys (for the most part) know what they?re talking about. It makes you sound silly. Justin

Art usually comes from an artist that doesn't know they're truly making art. When we scrutinize art, we try to make it clear the artist was intentional. Maybe they were, maybe they were just drunk, it?s all pretty silly. Trouble is, we get a rush from making films, whether good or not in other people?s eyes. We hope they are good. We hope people enjoy our work, or we would be devastated? which I am frequently. In the end, I hope to fool everybody into thinking I?m an artist, but, at the same time, I truly want to make cool stuff. This is coming from a true non-artist... Or is that what I want you to think I think? Absolutely.

Underexposed it until you feel it looks like night. Possibly keep the camera set for tungsten, so the daylight appears blue. Try not to get any sky in the shot and try to keep the sun as a backlight. Make sure the sunlight doesn't clip and avoid overcast days if you can. Overcast day for night hasn't worked too well for me in the past. As long as you don?t use any practicals (like a flashlight or something), it?ll be fine. Trouble is, day for night usually looks like day for night no matter how well you pull it off.

The lack of sound doesn't help. Trouble is, the sound only kicks in when someone is about to speak and then all we hear is music. An overall rough sound mix will help immensely.

I just meant, what are you doing on this project? Shooting it?

Phil, Do you want to be a director of photography or a director?

It's really helped me. First of all, it gives you some credibility in the eyes of potential investors. I can now make an independent feature that I won't be paying for out of my own pocket. People with money are suddenly interested in helping me out. I've also gotten the opportunity to direct a fairly high end commercial that will, if anything, lead to more paid commercial jobs. Hopefully at some point I can change my job description from gaffer to director. I just happen to make the most money gaffing right now. Don?t short-change film fests.