Max Field

Guys, I think we're overlooking the upcoming 2016 sequel to the greatest Christmas film ever made; Bad Santa.

My favorites are probably Chris Menges' work on "Local Hero" and "Comfort and Joy", and many Woody Allen movies, but those are all on the lower-key, naturalistic side, not really "lit" for comedy.

What exactly do you mean by "lit" for comedy? I understand different genres can have different styles, but is there always a set of guidelines for shooting for humorous tone?

Also thanks to everyone for your suggestions.

I looked at the construction of the lens. I assume it was designed for stills.

This was a problem I ran in to when I first got a DSLR with the 18-55 kit lens. Is the grip to pull focus directly glued to the front element? If so, every time your fingers make the slightest amount of contact, your image will wobble, no matter how stable the tripod is. Like literally ANY play at all on that front element and it will happen.

As for the auto focus feature, it might just be a "get what you pay for" deal.

Cheaper lenses made for stills won't be silent for video.

Stuff Spike Lee made that scored over 7/10 on imdb is cool when it comes around.

Superbad is very underrated in terms of people taking it seriously and remains my first recommendation for someone trying to learn comedy screenwriting.

My generic answer is the 50's "12 Angry Men"

Yes

Does it read that there is written data on it at all? As in GB capacity free?

I hear better things about SanDisk, also use it more than Lexar.

Are you turning the camera on while connecting it via USB? Make sure to browse using windows explorer and not a proprietary camera reading software. I've put many unintended files on things like FlipCams and transferred them from PC to PC fine.

Yes. A card reader also works. We're talking SD, right?

It's not really a genre people go to for cinematography, but it's interesting to see all aspects of a project fully utilized even if people are only going for one thing. As in COMEDY has to be the primary genre, not "dramedy".

I personally enjoyed the look of Crazy Stupid Love.

 

Or perhaps one can, by saying that’s precisely where you draw your superiority from, by explaining everything to anyone and showcasing how much you know.

I'm not calling anyone an "egomaniac" or whatever, but if David has a sense of superiority, has it occurred to that he's earned it? Like one of maybe three active members who've worked on projects I've actually heard of before joining this forum?

If you couldn't tell by now, I hold values of capitalism very near and dear. Never felt "superiority" or "ego" were negative words.

And I'm now batting .467 on starting threads that turn into fights.

It's literally youtube movie reviewer syndrome.

Who suggested that taking a class or doing storyboards would make you a great filmmaker rather than just a better filmmaker?

Not even great, just good in general. I don't mean to say that YOU personally are saying that, but things with titles like "MASTERclass" imply it. One of the many evils of marketing I guess.

You should cater their lunches.

So there's nothing inbetween talentless hack and genius? That's like saying there's nothing to be gained in studying musical composition because you're never going to be as good as Mozart.

 

Creating art involves talent and craft -- the first may be inherent but the second can be learned. Honestly, do you think a child is born with the ability to imagine staging a scene with a 200mm lens on a dolly?

The craft aspect I understand and agree with, but as far as the RAW essence of talent, that's just something people are either born with or pick up through life experience (not necessarily a filmmaking experience). In this scenario; raw talent is vividly visualizing that shot/scene before any piece of production is assembled.

Visualization is a very crucial part of the director's chair, so I suppose that's why I went with the Cameron generalization.

Whether you're talented or a hack we ALL need to study Mozart, Scorsese, Jordan, Picasso. My only disagreement was of the notion that one can go from literally talentless to great through reading a book or taking a class. I think we've heard a few users go with the analogy of "short guys playing in the NBA"?

We'll have to agree to disagree on that last point. Regarding the storyboards, it's whatever process that works best for you. What are you taking the class for? Is it be a better director, cinematographer, writer, etc.? Is it geared towards a specific project?...

General film studies courses where they would have you do a quick shoot a couple times in a year. And while we have different definitions for "genius", I'd still like to see anyone on this forum (or any forum) write a script as good as Moneyball.

I think anything that gets a filmmaker to learn to pre-visualize a shot is useful -- it can be time-consuming when a filmmaker doesn't know what they want until they see it, when sometimes that's too late.

Can one really be taught pre-visualization though? I understand teaching methods help with consistency, but it seems unrealistic that one can go from a director who lacks the ability to formulate creative vision to James Cameron. That's a major part of a director's talent, right? Perhaps we mean two different things.

I actually found his "no storyboards" point extremely true and was waiting for someone big in the industry to say it for a while. Storyboards limit a filmmakers vision if they lack geometric drawing capability. Sure they can deviate from their scribbles, but the film classes I've been to seem overly strict about planning the shapes in shots. Handwriting what the shot will be rather than drawing it out seems a better route for camera creativity.

Also didn't Sorkin just cut scripts for The Social Network and Moneyball? Both modern works of genius.

I'm personally in it for Sorkin's class.

Someone linked me this last month and I'm debating whether or not to drop $90 on one.

https://www.masterclass.com/classes/werner-herzog-teaches-filmmaking#/

A lot of them teach things going into the big picture of filmmaking as well as filmmaking itself. Overpriced fluff or worth it?

Comes with all necessary accessories except for a BNC cable. Even includes a 240GB SSD.

Asking price $500 + S&H

If you have any questions let me know. Thanks.

I once made a small video on DSLR video for beginners and every price I displayed for bodies and lenses was designated as "eBay's BUY IT NOW rate as of December 2015". Your price range idea also works, could be a reveal to which vintage lenses have become overrated relative to price.

This sounds awesome. Will there be price tags aside each name as a sort of economic ranking?

The hdmi output is still 8-bit. 4:2:2 is a compression ratio and has nothing to do with bit depth.

Seriously? It only outputs 8-bit? I never thought a new digital camera couldn't output 10-bit considering the feature's been out for so long.

 

Right, but there are FAR better 1080P cameras.

As far as long-take documentary and outdoor shooting, what are some things you feel are better in that price range of under $2500?

People still do these videos??