Matt Pacini

I realize this is a late post, but my two cents: 1. A $30 Radio Shack mixer is not a professional piece of gear. You aren't just getting 'effects' for the extra money, you're getting quality components that sound better and are more rugged. 2. I always record on separate tracks if at all possible. You have more control that way. Yes, it's almost certainly going to end up as mono after post, but that is no excuse to make that decision while recording, painting everyone else down the line into a corner. Matt Pacini

Wow, does nobody actually come to this forum, or was this a bad question to ask?

... or girls :) What's an average, saying working in a major city like Los Angeles, for both union and non-union work? And what's the best way to get work, if you were starting out? MP

I just can't afford multi-thousands of dollars for what I SHOULD be buying. I have a Zoom h4n, and I'm wondering... is there some way to get this to record SMPTE timecode? Perhaps an external SMPTE generator (if there is a battery powered version) that would record timecode on an extra track? Any suggestions? Otherwise, what is the lowest price typical unit someone would use that has timecode capability? MP

I disagree completely. And I'm someone who has shot an entire feature on Super 8. If it's worth shooting, it's worth shooting on the best format possible. The limited places that telecine Super 8 means that there's less competition - so it's not cheaper than 16mm to transfer to video. That, and it's so much harder to get a decent image on S8, it takes more time, and/or you end up burning more stock getting it right. I wish I'd have shot my feature in 16, even though it would have cost more in film stock - it was a really expensive for the telecine, and a lot of the film is really not too great looking. Matt Pacini

I don't think he was giving you general advice not to go to college. You absolutely should. The entertainment industry is one of the very, very rare professions where college doesn't matter that much, like 99.99999% of the 'real world jobs' out there. I would highly suggest sticking with the college plan, and I'm someone who did NOT get a degree, and I'm suffering for it now! Don't fall into the trap of 'just follow your dreams' and give up thinking about doing anything else for a living. (You only hear that from people who are the extremely small minority who 'got in'). It is HIGHLY unlikely that you will make a living in this business (I'm not). You don't have to ONLY know one skill to make it in the entertainment industry. There are many examples of people with other careers, even very difficult ones, who have also done very well in the industry, but the example I like to give is Michael Chrichton. He went to Harvard Medical School & was trained to be a doctor before getting into the entertainment industry. Check out his resume as writer/director/producer: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000341/

Well, this issue has been highly distorted and skewed by political propaganda. Just a few facts to enlighten: Nobody is going without healthcare in America, unless they choose to. I'll explain: In America, there is a federal law, that no hospital emergency room can turn you away for failure of ability to pay. So if you have a true emergency, you get it taken care of, period. In addition to that, most (if not all) states have free health care. There is Medicaid, Medicare, MediCal - the federal and state welfare agencies pay for free healthcare - our poor in fact get free healthcare (and dental and vision, etc.), but since we don't pay for EVERYONE, and it's not called 'Universal Healthcare" there is this incorrect assumption that poor people in America have no healthcare, which is false. And all the lefties who want the government to do everything the private sector can do, ignore, distort, or outright lie about this, and it's so common, that most people believe the myth. Now, before everyone chimes in and declares me a liar, perhaps you should check it out yourself. Here's what we have in California, for instance: http://www.medi-cal.ca.gov/ So us not having "Universal Healthcare", but having a system where you share the cost with your employer (if you have one), or the government picking up the tab (if you don't), is more fair, because it's asking people who CAN afford it, to pay it. Like my Dad used to say: "There's no such thing as a free lunch." We're all paying for it eventually anyway. It's a matter of HOW, and WHEN. And it's much MORE expensive when you are ALSO paying for the added expense of a gigantic government bureaucracy to manage the whole thing.

There are a lot of good points here, on both sides of the issue. But for us "old timers" here, a lot of this sounds old & stale (having heard of the imminent demise of film literally our entire lives), and yet film is still here. I heard all of this stuff when Blair Witch Project came out (it doesn't matter what you shoot on anymore, it's all about the story!!!), and that wasn't even digital - it was Hi8 analog tape! And yet here we are, a multitude of 'film-killing' formats later, with everything still NOT standing up to film in quality. There are pro's & cons to shooting any particular format, but EVERY electronic imaging format has major problems that film does not. And pretty much nobody 10 years ago thought film would still be going strong, yet it is. One thing I've noticed, is that every format that comes out seems to be considered 'dated' or 'no longer hot' in about 2-3 years time... except film. I think most of this is driven by the marketing cycles of the manufacturers, and not in any way based on what's best, etc. We're all responding to the same marketing propaganda that is used to get us to buy new cars every few years - the new ones are going to change our lives, then in a couple years, those same companies are telling us how stale and outdated the last product is, and we MUST buy the newer model to be cool. Matt Pacini

Just did a low-budget shoot this weekend, recording sound for a friend who was directing. This is always a problem. I always make a big deal to all the extras that they need to be absolutely silent during takes, and fake talking, but not actually make any noise. Even though you actually want talking in the background, you don't want it to actually take place while the shot is happening. The problem is, you're cutting different shots together in editing, if you're hearing extras talk, you'll be chopping right in the middle of their dialog and you might hear it.

A lot of this type of thing can be had at www.imdb.com Just search for any movie you're interested in, and look at "technical specs". Here's what imdb.com says about Carrie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074285/technical Camera Panavision Split Diopter Lense Laboratory DeLuxe Film negative format (mm/video inches) 35 mm Cinematographic process Spherical Printed film format 35 mm Aspect ratio 1.85 : 1

You are "saddened by the existence of B movies"? Well, I hate to say it, but yes, you do come off as being pretentious. But more than that, you illuminate (to this crowd, anyway) that you not only know little or nothing about making films, but that you are possibly destined to never make a film at all. We have all met countless film students who are committed to never making anything but masterpieces. You guys live inside the myth that you are special, and that the film industry are just waiting to hear your pitch or read your script, then they will no doubt hand you giant big bags full of cash to make your masterpiece. My advice? Make a film. ANY film. You will be humbled. As someone who has made a "B-film" myself, NOT intentionally, I can tell you that once you actually make a film, you will discover that feeling familiar to all of us on this board who have made actual films (not just discussed them in class with some instructor who probably hasn't made actual films either) that the entire universe is conspiring to keep you from getting your film made. The problem with movies, is that ANY ONE THING can turn your masterpiece into a B Movie. Bad acting, not enough money (to hire skilled people, build good sets & design, etc.), bad or even just a slightly problematic script, bad weather, lazy crew members... The list is endless, and these don't include the most obvious one - you will be a first time director, and it's almost inevitable that you will make crap your first time out. Literally every top director, writer, etc. has made what you consider to be crap. All you have now, is good intentions and a overabundance of false confidence. That's not a good combination. Matt Pacini

I think for the most part, what you are describing were not necessarily intentional, but the results of lower budget films. Some of those you list were shot on 16mm, for instance, and therefore would have more grain. Lens flares are what you will get if you either aren't using a Mattebox and/or shade setup, or you are sloppy and forget not to shoot into the sun or lights. Same with large amounts of over or underexposure. Some were a touch of 'run & gun' situations, like Easy Rider for instance, because of low budget and a bit of 'get the shot while you can' situations. Some will argue these points with me, but I'd say that most intentional applications of these things, started out as accidents & someone liked the look, so they duplicated it for a certain aesthetic. Matt Pacini

I have a LOT of Super 8 experience - I even shot a feature on that format! Over 350 rolls of experience. I would highly suggest NOT shooting on it for what you are doing. The reasons? 1. ALL Super 8 cameras with the exception of the Nizo 6080 are VERY noisy. I've shot with all the high-end S8 cameras, and I've tried everything to quiet them down, and nothing works! 2. There is no such thing as sound film anymore, so you will have to record sound separately. You can sync audio in your editing software, but DO NOT use an analog device to record audio. You will have problems. Also, the only non-modified S8 cameras with crystal sync are the high end Beaulieu's, (which I don't particularly like that much, but some do). 3. Only 2 makes of S8 cameras take lenses - all the others are built in (Some Beaulieu's, and I can't remember the other make - an obscure make, takes them. All the Canon's, Nikon's, Bauers, etc. have built-in lenses). I would shoot in 16mm if I were you, IF you really want the film look and have the budget. It's infinitely easier to get a quality image, they are generally quieter, it's easier (and usually cheaper) to get your film processed and transferred to video, etc. Matt Pacini

You need to give a lot more information in your question: What's your budget? What format? (film, digital, aspect ratio, film stock you're using, or digital camera you're using).

I'm going to assume you are in a small bathroom, and on a budget (both time and money). I'd either hang something directly overhead, and use bounce cards for fill where you need it, or I'd aim a PAR light at the ceiling from the floor (put a large chunk of foamcore on the ceiling to make sure it bounces white light). Either way, as stated above, use some black-foil to control spill. I'd keep some of your top-light off the walls with the black foil - you will probably get as much as you need coming off the bounce-fill. Matt Pacini