John E Clark

It's not Youtube. From the listed article, shot length has been declining over the last 100 years, from about 12 seconds in 1930, to about 2.5 in 2010. https://www.wired.com/2014/09/cinema-is-evolving Here's a scatter plot of shot length vs. year of production... estimating that in 1980s shot lengths were perhaps 6-7 seconds, and now 2.5... it should be clear that 'pacing' has changed.

The OP may have run out of time... but how good would the DNxHD codec or the like from Avid, which I think they 'opened' the source to allow 3rd party applications to use it, would be for this sort of problem. One problem with the OP's post... is they did not indicate what tools they have now to deal with making a package to send to the sound person...

I do occasionally think in this mode... but here a significant difference... When I was young, there was only something like the Bolex windup 16mm motion picture camera that was in a price range that I could conceivably buy... something like $300 for ones I saw in a San Diego camera store. Then there was the cost of film+processing... and figuring out some way to get at an editing machine(renting), and then... renting a projector and screen. The last item I was at least familiar with as my 'artsyfartsy' circle of friends would rent 16mm films and show them in one of our houses... In any case, I chose the safer and much lower cost of entry path of still photography... which of course did not lead to my eventual career. USC was never on my college event horizon... in fact, any 'film school' was beyond my means, and the only local school, that I could afford, that had anything like a 'film dept', was mainly directed to broadcast TV type 'film' activities... Roll forward about 45 years... today, despite what the purest say... anyone with an iPhone or Android can 'make something of a short', even the totally simplistic 'on phone editing' tools are far better than reels of film, and two reel with stupid viewer, setup that I would have had available. So, to me there is no excuse not making a short... other than time to do it reasonably well. Fancy camera, fancy editing bay, etc. all can of course enhance any effort... provided one knows a reasonable amount of the knobology of the equipment. But for me, for a 'short' as a calling card for a film school, I would imagine the review board is looking for what one can do with story, visuals story, and if one makes a good story on simple easily accessible equipment, I think that shows far more than doing something with sophisticated equipment, and perhaps lack in other areas outside of the equipment.

The requirements you are listing are what you will have learned after attending film school... A 'film look' as opposed to a 'TV look' is directly related to many things, of which the 'camera' is a minor contributor. If you have made some short films yourself, perhaps with a low end camera, I'd suggest you stick with that for your image capture. If you have the budget for an ARRI (anything...) then you'd do better by getting some paid acting talent. Where mine and most non-pro works fail is: Acting Set Design or Location prep. Lighting and of course... the ever popular Bad Audio. These days one hears of people making short films, even an occasional feature, with iPhones or very low end cameras, and if done by people who know how to light, act, direct, write, etc... they look 'good'. So, the focus should be on what is in the frame, not how the frame is captured.

For 1000 ISO the Forumula is quite easy... if 100 ISO requires 100 fc... then 1000 ISO requires 10 fc @ f/2.8 @ 24 fps @ 180 deg.

For some of us, the 60's and 70's barrier breaking films, despite their 'low humor', were liberating from straight laced prudery. As for bodies in wood chippers as a comedic device... there is just such a scene in "Fargo"(1996). As for Jane Fonda and 'low humor', I believe the scene were she is seen sitting on the pot, presumably performing necessary body functions, was perhaps one of the first such shots in "Fun With Dick and Jane"(1977). Nearly 2 decades before Hitchcock showed a toilet being flushed in "Psycho"(1960), which some consider to be a first in at least showing a toilet in operation. Then there's the avoidance of even showing an unoccupied double bed in a married couple's bedroom... Especially in 50s/60s TV shows... The 80s also saw a rise in the Trauma Team's productions such as "Toxic Waste Avenger"(1984) and "Surf Nazis Must Die"(1987). Here's an article on research into the relationship between 'watch camp movies' and 'intelligence'... http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/enjoyment-of-trash-films-linked-to-high-intelligence-study-finds-a7171436.html

I have no problem with 'fart jokes' or other 'low grade humor'... heck "Blazing Saddles"(1974) blazed through a number of 'low' humor points. I do think political humor or satire such as found in "The Groove Tube"(1974) (filled with any number of scatological or sexual based humor points...) is severely lacking in the modern times... And yes I'd take my daughter to most R shows these days... ok... were she 12 again... but the way we did things when she was young was we would go to film A and she would go to film B if she didn't want to see A... this only happened with "Dracula"(1992)...

ARRI has an on line calculator and an iPhone App (perhaps a Android one as well...) which lists their light products' output at various distances. The actual lux/footcandles delivered by an arbitrary light depends on a number of factors, reflector shape, lensing if any, etc. Many off brand light producers only list the wattage of the lamp itself, which doesn't directly give 'how much light is falling on the subject'. I'd suggest getting a light meter that reads out lux/fc, and finding a rental house that has a selection of various lights and measure them.

For me, while many of the mentioned films have many technical features to study, I think "Requiem for a Dream"(2000) is one of the best for 'independent' low budget films. I'd also recommend "Dallas Buyers Club"(2013) as well. While it's budget was far greater than any one could imagine who was not now Hollywood connected, the approach of 'realism', 'use as much existing/available lighting' (other than 'well it was in the grip truck, so it was 'available'...), and fairly realistic performances, I think is important to study for those who don't have the budget. I'd also recommend looking at German New Wave such as Fassbinder and Herzog(ok... not the Amazon Jungle films... like "Aguirre" or "Fritzcaraldo"...), "Alice in den Stäten"(1974) from Wim Winders, and "Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum oder: Wie Gewalt entstehen und wohin sie führen kann"(1975) from Völker Schlöndorff. Most of these films could be remade with minimal crews and equipment, or films with more modern subjects/themes made in a similar low budget principles. In regard to why I think "Requiem" is a 'good example'... most of the thoughts I have for short films or if ever I were to do a 'feature' length film, is, I tend to think in terms of social critique/commentary in the form of narrative fiction. So "Requiem" is for me very definitely a social critique film, and has a low budget technique. The other genre I think of is 'parody' but that far more comedic capability of the actors and production, than I can find available in my neck of the woods... even find people who have the same sensibilities on what to make a parody of... is difficult...

So, it would seem that even in a comedy parody of a 'strong lighting' genre, the lighting is 'less strong' to support the comedic effect...

While I did not use any video equipment in the 60s, I did try to use my college's 'offering' for video in the mid-70s. It was a reel-reel recorder, and could be perhaps considered 'lugable'... in portability. The tape I had was perhaps 30 minutes long.

Having contemplated making 'movies' in the era... two things come to mind... 16mm Bolexes (wind up) were about $300 in then dollars.... which according to my CPI calculator is approx $1800 in today's dollars. A Bolex with a motor was more, and one with crystal sync to go to a tape recorder was even more... and of course one had to buy said tape recorder. And then there was the Stock + Processing costs. 8mm was of course cheaper, but still was the plaything of those who could afford such. Oh, yeah, anything more than the windup Bolex... was even more expensive than a Bolex + motor...

One does see stronger lighting in comedies when the comedy is parodizing a known genre, such as horror. Otherwise comedy tends to be less contrasty. A for example of lighting parody for humor response, the late Gene Wilder and Peter Boyle, in Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein"(1974)

It has been a million years since I've seen this film... so I can't comment on the cinematography, but I was so unimpressed by the story/acting, I've not been interested in seeing it again. On the other hand, "Mutiny on the Bounty"(1962) fused in my preadolescent brain the desire to go to the South Pacific... Mumbles Brando notwithstanding... Apropos this forum, Robert Surtees, who was the Bounty cinematographer, had a string of awards and nominations, including an Oscar for "Ben Hur"(1959). Do "The Graduate"(1967) and "The Sting"(1973) count as 'comedies"?

Oopps responded to the wrong post...

The problem is that because of the time to view clips, and the lack of imaging equivalents to text pattern searches, having a 'google' for specific images or clips is difficult, and requires a human to add any metatags on content. There are some simplistic algorithms for 'face' recognition, or similar, and perhaps other elements of a still image, but adding 'motion' to the image analysis isn't quite there yet... Even taking a text book in film, with some number of references to movies, or scenes in movies, is difficult to find the exact scene the book other is addressing.

I've only used Sandisk cards for my digital film capture. In the past I have used Lexar Compact Flash devices, but mostly Sandisk even then. I have the Blackmagic Pocket camera, and have not had any dropouts in RAW mode on the U3 80-95/mbs type cares (the 80 mbs wasn't 'officially' listed... but worked for me...).

Say, isn't that one of those early 'induced color' examples as well, when the zebras were put on lunge lines and made to run in a circle real fast, the motion of the zebra pattern induced a 'color' in human vision.

Their own... to each their own...

I recall from a BTS clip, that the 'pre pro' included designing a digital camera, which when Seale came on was tossed in favor of ARRI for the main camera, and several types of 'low end' digitals such as the Black Magic and Canon offerings. There is perhaps some sort of 'agism' going on with some of the reasoning... I couldn't wait to toss my SLR (actually the Wife's SLR, I hadn't purchased a 35mm camera since I bought a Minolta in 1973.. Ok... I did buy the Lumix GH-1... but almost strictly as a 'motion picture camera' the stills were a 'bonus' feature I rarely used...) in favor of a digital solution that had the quality I required of a SLR, and of course a price I could afford. As soon as that happened, Still Film Film was history for me. There were issues to be dealt with, but those were not insurmountable. I can't be so unique as all that whether for stills or motion pictures.

Would the robot have to be a union member to shoot the film?

I began my renewed interest in 'moving picture' capture by purchasing a DVX-100B, ca 2005. I used it for a number of years then graduated to a GH-1... and later to a Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera. The DVX was the most expensive camera I bought, and at the time it was pretty much 'the in camera' for shooting at 24 fps (23.97...). The DVX when shooting at 23.97 fps progressive, encodes the media as 3:2 pull down, and so can be 'played' via standard NTSC displays. But for editing that pull down needs to be removed(*). At the time I found it better to process my DVX footage by using a free tool, JES Deinterlacer (Mac tool...) to produce a MOV with Apple Pro Res encoding. That seemed to work best for my editing in Final Cut Express, and later when I got Adobe Premiere. *I had briefly flirted with the idea of getting a 'grey market' PAL DVX100, which shoots at 25 fps, per the PAL standard, and could be 'adjusted' to 24 fps by slowing the time line down a few percents. That would also give a slight more horizontal lines, and hence slightly more vertical resolution. As it was I bought the standard NTSC version as I did want to have the warranty. I had mentioned 5DtoRGB in a previous version, but I think that was a tool for converting AVCHD to something usable for my GH-1...

For me the telling difference between 'film' and 'digital'... is very obvious from the following sample. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xKiyH6vuEQ Young whipper snappers apparently have never had to wade through such 'intermission' or pre-movie crap... and have the Feature (Double Feature even...) print in about the same condition, depending. On the other hand, probably everyone but me was able to view only Hollywood's finest on pristine prints, in well maintained projection rooms, and further, an audience that actually had an interest in the film, rather than sleeping and snoring, or in the case of drive-ins, with Bobby Jack humping Sally Sue in the backseat while Billy Joe and Emma Jean tried to look interested in the film while fumbling for the popcorn box. As it is for me the 'filmic look' has far more to do with set design, set dressing, color schemes, etc. and... uh... acting... than any difference these days between digital or film capture, or presentation.

It's early, but I think the following would give an approximation for the delivered light to a subject for an arbitrary lamp/reflector. A rough approximation would be: Assume the reflector is near 100% Take the beam angle A, and calculate the area of the base of a cone at distance X from the light. The area of the base of the cone is BaseArea = pi * R ^2, where R = tan(A/2) * X With the area then Lux or Footcandles = Lumen/BaseArea given the units used for distance X.

ARRI has an online calculator and an iPhone app (may have an android one as well, but I don't have one...). http://calc.arri.de/calculator https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/photometrics/id733009338?mt=8 Of course they are all targeted to ARRIs product lineup. The problem is unless the manufacturer produces the chart, it is really difficult to determine from 'fundamental principles', especially with off brands that don't even bother to indicate the Footcandle/Lux values... but more often just indicate wattage consumed. To besure there's a Watts -> Lumen conversion factor, but the lamp shape, the reflector shape figure into the amount of light delivered on a subject at distance X...