Max Field

What was it shot on?

Have you ever used an F900R before and it didn't have the menus? I recall asking someone about the R camera in 2017 and they might've mentioned it also needed a Miranda converter for a truly clean capturable signal. Stating that none of the 900s could go straight SDI out

Shane Hurlbut might be the best free resource on Youtube: Also some shorter ones out there:

As someone working similar shoots most of the time. Tungsten is a good investment given how cheap it is. You can always ditch them for a quick buck later on and upgrade to something fancier. The heat is a complaint for some talent (usually when they're in coats or overweight) but 650s or 1Ks still pack a nice punch even through very saturated gels. It can be annoying to have lights you need to be careful with especially as a one man crew, but you quickly learn to adapt.

Shane Hurlbut actually had a good piece on this when it came to shooting height differentials for The Greatest Game Ever Played (child and adult actors in one scene). Picking an aspect ratio of 16:9 as opposed to cinemascope can really save you when trying to keep all the characters in frame. As for the close up stuff, have your shorter talent stand on an apple box or have your taller talent widen their stance to land a bit lower. People aren't going to thoroughly dissect little height difference cheats if your script is engaging. You'd be surprised how much stuff you can get away with that the lens isn't pointed at.

Yeah I love scrolling through the comments to see virtually no one commenting on what the video was shot on. They could've shot this on an iPhone and the feedback would be identical. My point is in the ROI margins. Also most Gen Zers kinda view Drake as a meme at this point. I'd like to think we're discussing productions that don't have the entire machine behind them? Billionaires can spend whatever they want, half a million is a drop in the bucket to them.

I fail to see the logic when everyone here seems to agree that regardless film or digital, it's all about the screenplay and production design for making a good movie. So with that in mind, multiple posts here have stated that just producing a final feature print for projection is around $10,000+? Why should we cling on to far more expensive methods when the majority of moviegoers won't even care?

Not arguing that but what percent of active CalArts students make up the total number of people in narrative production? Less than 1%? How many of them continue trying to secure film for their projects after the school is no longer providing handouts/discounts? I'm getting at an economic issue. Rather than trying to save film we should be pushing digital companies into better color capture methods.

The average age on this forum is well above 40 trying to comment on what kids are doing. I'm on sets and productions with Gen Zers all the time and none of them even consider film for a second. Betacam and early CineAlta is the cool vintage scene to them. The only time I ever catch wind of someone under 30 shooting film is when it's for gimmicky skate-footy

For what purpose? Gimmick shooting or entire narratives? Do they say the amount?

Please define "young" and "the number"

Sorry but I need numbers on this. I exclusively work with young people and film isn't even a fathomable option in that demographic.

I recall IMAX screens being a surprisingly regular thing at various DC Smithsonian Museums. Did you view any of the other IMAX screens on the mall?

Rather arrogant to assume the earth is round, globehead!

Don't worry by 2065 the film fanbase will have died off.