Max Field

Are you just asking the difference between t-stop and f-stop? The wording confuses me slightly.

But couldn't song lyrics create a narrative? In turn if the video played out to the song lyrics it would create narrative video. Just to clarify I don't believe every song has narrative lyrics and that every video follows them.

If by RCA you mean composite video (because a lot of things use RCA connectors), good grief, are you still using that?

Yes. And you never know when the Nintendo needs to be hooked up in the same room you work. Is any kind of screen decent for grading or do you need to get one with a natively flat response? (like headphones or speakers)

Have been looking into getting a new work monitor for a very long time. Currently using a 22 inch LED TV with dried food spat all over it (mostly Burger King and Chipotle). The only thing I love about this current set-up is the fact it has RCA inputs, which I find coming in handy every now and then even with the connector being phased out for video.

Does anyone here know of an LCD/LED TV/monitor with a decent color response that also features an RCA input?

Is this something I could just grab at a Best Buy? Do not need a size bigger than 38 inches.

Thank you for your help on this oddly specific matter.

Kill me. Kill me now.

Okay.

LOL! But the whole point is to do what you love and get paid for it.

The people I've met doing that love it. If I personally had to resort to complaining about video games on youtube for 20k a year I'd brush my teeth with bleach every morning.

The problem is, it costs money to build a successful formula.

If by "money" you mean more than a couple hundred, then no it does not cost money to have a successful formula. Buy a Blue Yeti microphone, pirate Adobe Audition, and write quick condescending reviews for every movie/video game/album that comes out and why you hate it for arbitrary reasons, and you have yourself a winning formula. Have come in contact with plenty of dudes making at least 15k doing that (if you know how to budget, it's technically a living).

That's just one example, and that example requires the talent of sounding intellectual while speaking (If you're British, half that job is done). If you can draw, buy a hundred dollar Wacom Tablet and pirate Flash CS3, get in with the right animator crowd (not hard) and the gate to making at least 5 digits a year has been opened to you.

Those two formulas are multi-year commitments, but I'd invite anyone here to give their story on how they started making bank off cinematography in a month.

 

Yes. That's the thing. The majority of stuff will not be that rewarding, or making that much money. But the sheer size of youtube means there must be exceptions, ie. those who do make money. But it's the majority of material that defines the rule. In other words, as a rule, you don't make much money (if any).

 

The rule works against you.

Well my only question to that would be, do you apply this thinking to the rest of show business in general? If yes, it really comes down to a difference in who's motivated for what, and it wouldn't make sense for us to go on about what essentially comes down to an opinion on way of life.

I'm not particularly holding this up as an example of cinematographic beauty, but it is, broadly, narrative fiction, and it is being done on youtube for money.

 

 

Big brand names, too.

I believe the problem some other guys in this thread are having is the fact you can't get a nice following without using said brand names. Yes that sucks, but society is wired by familiarity. The average Youtube viewer prefers to watch the same flavor over and over while rarely trying a new subject. Even if the familiar source stops making content, they will still subconsciously refuse to explore new outlets.

you would have to do very high quality work to attract enough of an audience to generate any money

While it sounds like I've been defending Youtube, I would like to reaffirm the average talent of guys currently making money off Youtube is extremely lackluster compared to TV/Film.

 

The same as yours.

 

R,

Just in the confines of the definition we have both agreed on, thousands of people are doing that very thing on Youtube and making 5-6 figures (sometimes 7) or a "living". "Thousands" is still the minority, but telling someone it is impossible may not be the best route. "Hard" would be a better descriptor in this situation.

I could get on a Skype call with you and break down how people rise to cash flow on Youtube in an hour. Not hit sensation cat videos, actual content. Content that neither of us would love, but still content that matches our criteria of a short.

The idea that you're going to have any sort of a lifestyle for 10+ years working full-time, 52 weeks a year, as a short filmmaker is just plain ridiculous.

 

R,

Depends on your definition of a short. Mine is a video that had a writing, recording, and editing process, what's yours?

Color me interested. Do you also have PL to OCT-18 adapters lying around for sale?

Also any stills taken with them?

but it'll require a lot of work

And that right there is the biggest factor holding people back from accomplishing anything Youtube or not. Plan your ideas around your budget, not the other way around. Core talent will always shine through to some extent if you have it.

 

And the making a living part?????????????

 

R,

Check the channel check the hits???????????????????????????????????????????????????--sorry my key got stuck from all the ringpop residue on my fingers.

The FilmRiot guys get their living off of monetization and sponsorships, I wouldn't rule out that they get other commissions on the side, but many of those opportunities were made possible by their following on Youtube. Again, FreddieW is another prime example of this.

 

I'd like to see an example of someone making narrative short films, showing them on Youtube, and making a living.

 

R,

I can show you some guys pushing poor plots, but narratives nonetheless

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6znipZ9dK9A

 

Don't get me wrong: I have no doubt one can build a YouTube audience... My question is, "with what?". I've rarely seen much success come from channels showing dramatic or comedic or genre narrative short films. Some have a few thousand views, but I've not ran across any narrative shorts that have received a lot of views, short of the LotR project I mentioned above - and it got there because it was a fan film from one of the highest rated properties ever made. Unless you're making the next LotR or Harry Potter fan film, I doubt you'll find such instant success.

 

Now if you're into episodic content - you CAN build up an audience pretty fast that way. Though I'd still say for narrative episodic content, you're better of pitching it on a site that regularly deals with narrative works rather than cat videos.

I would say to look to animation if you're wondering how to build an audience with screenplays falling closer to the festival flavor. Julian Smith comes to mind as a guy who's done well for himself on Youtube with live action.

With Youtube, most of the stuff you do has to be either comedic or musical. I had the chops for joke writing so it worked well for me. Grabbing attention early is another key element, no one will sit a minute for a payoff if there isn't other things along the way leading up to it. I don't mind it that much, but sometimes it'd be nice to play with other gears of speed.

 

Sure there are exception to the rule - don't count on being one. Of course, you can make a mint if you can get your cat to jump through a hoop of fire or your baby to gaggle some cute phrase. I'd love to know of an effective short film that has done well on Youtube. I don't mean the type of episodic content that is rampant on Youtube either, that is not really a short film more than it is internet television show.

 

That deals in absolutes a little too much. If someone understands the market, has a moderate amount of talent, and busts their ass they can start picking up a 5 digit following easily. You may become a slave to a niche, but you will be making a nice amount of money.

I've been at the Youtube end of things for about 3 years and have worked on/created multiple videos that hit over a million hits. Your first "hit videos" will have to be parodies/critiques of IP that already has a big name, but after a while the gate opens up for creative efforts that don't involve other brands.

It's understandable why someone wouldn't want to put the work into Youtube, cause once you're on the top you still aren't really famous or well respected. However to imply it is completely based on luck is misrepresenting the grind some of these guys go through. Only SOME of these guys lol.

I would love to meet the filmmaker that pays all his bills as a short filmmaker. Maintains a house, a car, maybe has kids, and health insurance?

 

Seriously, where is this person?

 

They don't exist FYI.

 

R,

Depends on what you consider a "film". Youtube guys can make millions of views plus a middle class living uploading their shorts. Granted, the standard for screenwriting and direction is not very high and the technique would be unimpressive to people on pro-am specialist forums like these, but they do exist. Look up like FreddieW or someone like that.

Again, standard is not high and the writing is rarely impressive.

If you're looking for nothing but eyes and not money, Youtube might well be a better option. In either case, you'll need to drive traffic to either one. Many people think Youtube is easier to get views on because its so accessible and has so many visitors. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Lol have you tried Vimeo or Dailymotion? Youtube is actually very effective if you know how to engage quickly.

I remember Blade Runner was received very well for that.

I caved and did his homework lol. Not sure if you needed full paragraph answers or not.

I have a few friends in animation, would you say the process is a bit different for cartoons when it comes to shorts? Rather than getting a feature deal, getting a multi-episode deal.

Nowadays, could a well received short perhaps get you a deal with a company to produce a feature with them that they would then distribute? Or is the likeliness of that happening still next to impossible with only a short?

I feel intentionally adding something from your own culture/up-bringing, which could be clothing, makes a director's style much more fleshed out in the long run. Spike Lee is a great example of this, in multiple films (She's Gotta Have It or DtRT) Lee has some form of antagonist as a Boston Celtics fan or wearing a Larry Bird T-shirt. At first it seems silly to use your platform to denounce a professional sports club, but looking into it further it tells the story of where he came from and the emotions that surrounded in Brooklyn.

As for a background character who's on the screen for 5 seconds, I can't really see how doing something fun (within reason) to their costume design can significantly devalue the efforts of a filmmaker.