Jump to content

jacob larsen

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jacob larsen

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
  1. I will go with that :) At this stage my purpose/idea of having an imdb-presence is only to have a relevant 'calling-card' I can reference when being in contact with people. So I can at least show I have some level of dedication/commitment to all of this. I don't think me being on imdb, in and of itself, will do anything for me. But I'm thinking that being able to show a link to an imdb-page, with a little non-overwhelming info that at least hints at me having some varied experience, might make some difference (in the good direction) to how I might be perceived and thus my potential chances. Well, that's what I hope at least :) Thank you to all who took time out to reply to this. I appreciate it :)
  2. @Tyler Purcell My initial plan was to have 3 titles on imdb, to not appear like a 'one-trick-pony'. The short, to show something that was fictional/drama The documentary, to show something that was non-fiction (and the documentary actually had a crew. It was only the short-film I made completely solo) And one music-movie (a kind of extended music-video I suppose), to show something music-related since that's what I do most. And the music-movie I have planned is also non-solo work. Those 3 I think reflect a nice variety of my work, while still being such a small sample that it's still 'digestible' :) At least that is what I planned before asking the budget-question :)
  3. @Bruce Greene Yes, that's another very good point. Thank you. The short I got on imdb is not one I had thought of trying to sell though. I actually placed it in creative-commons, since its purpose is more to function like a 'business-card' to attract attention to myself (and to basically just get started with the whole imdb-process) The short is also not new, but one I made in 2012. I just never took it further than putting it on youtube and vimeo back then. But I'm just trying to get more organized now and establish some kind of 'real' presence for myself and my work (and in turn hoping it may lead to some more opportunities in the future) But for future work (commercially oriented) I can see how having a history of making 'cheap' stuff may be a bad thing. Wow... there is a lot of things to consider regarding this. It sounds like even attempting to do solo-work is not a very clever idea. But that getting some kind of agent/agency/representation is needed even for producers (I was under the impression that that was really something to only consider further down the road and not very early on (except perhaps for those who only do acting and not multiple aspects of the production)) @Tyler Purcell Thanks. I'm about to add an older documentary I did, to imdb, which is more 'serious' than my personal short. Perhaps for that I should consider a budget reflecting what it would actually cost if it was a paid job? I guess I'm more of a movie-maker than a business-person :)
  4. In the movie itself you mean? If yes, then that's how I do it too. I do not have a long list of credits in the movie (or any other solo video-production I do) with my name showing up over and over :) I agree that would be outright foolish :) But on the imdb-page for the movie I had my name listed several times (6 times actually)
  5. @Michael; Ooh a ghost-crew would scare me. It's funny you mention it though, because with my music I use several pseudonyms for the various genres I do. But they are band-names and also serve a kind of 'legit' purpose; making it easier for listeners to know which songs are in their preferred genre. They also do avoid 'artist-fatigue' though (a different pseudonym may make the listener think they are listening to something new and fresh, even though it's still the same person behind the music), which is similar to what a ghost-crew would do, so I guess I should perhaps not feel so alienated to the idea in movie-making. It does have connotations of cheating to me though. I mean, with pseudonym band-names the purpose is not really to hide that I'm the person behind it. But rather to associate different genres to an easy to recognize name. But of course it does indeed obfuscate the fact that it's still me behind the music. I'm really torn about that idea, but perhaps that's the kind of thick skin that's really needed in the business :) Because I do get your point about coming across as the odd rabbit in the field if all my credits are for my own productions. And obviously, as a small-timer, I don't have all that many collabs to brag about yet, so most of my productions are ones where I do most things. So I guess I'm kind of caught there, for the moment at least. I will have to sleep on that idea, because I do get what you're saying. I don't want my imdb-page to just become another facebook-profile, but without an agent I'm obviously left to making it myself. Thanks for your words :) @Brian & Phil; Thanks again. I still have a lot to learn about these new (to me) side-aspects of movie-production :)
  6. I have done some compression-experiments with the "VP9 .webm" codec, and one of the features is that you can lower the frame-rate in sections of the intra-frame that has little difference between adjacent temporal inter-frames. Basically this means you can have a main frame-rate of 60fps (or whatever is the main frame-rate of your video) and then smaller sections of the image can have an individual lower frame-rate. I believe the purpose is to decrease band-width and/or increase compression-ratio relative to your quality-target and I see it frequently on LIVE-broadcasts (somebody doing an interview on some outdoor location, for example) on TV (mostly when they seem to use internet-connections for their ENG-links, which appear to happen more and more often now)
  7. Thank you for your insight on this. I had not really given the 'signal-value' much thought, but I recognize its effect on myself now that you mention it. And how it can affect what you expect of a production and lead to a kind of prejudice (and one that may even still color your opinion after seeing the production) That's certainly something to think about. I am just not sure who is the broader target-audience for the budget-listing on imdb (who you really list the info for), and thus what the norm would be to list there. Personally I rarely look at the budget-listing when checking up on a production there (I mostly just read the reviews and the technical specs :) ) So I was in doubt if it was mostly listed to benefit your reputation among other professionals (to make you appear more attractive for work-opportunities and such, in which case it would make obvious sense to follow whatever established norm exist) or more to satisfy the curiosity of the general audience (in which case the 'signal-value' point becomes more relevant) I don't have any experience with how imdb is used from the pro-side of things, as I have only used it from the audience-side myself so far. But if pros don't really need the budget-info listed there, then it may be smarter for me to omit it (and go by 'less is more', or at least 'less info is less clutter') since I generally don't have big budgets to play with anyway. And then I can always submit it on a case-by-case basis, for example if trying to submit work to a festival that requires it or such. Thanks Phil :) Living is learning.
  8. I just got my first short-film listed on imdb. Yay-me :) (I'm just a small-timer, but it is a great feeling all the same.) I have a question about the most appropriate thing to put in as the budget. I used my own equipment and my own time, so technically it did not cost me anything extra to make the film. Would you... 1: list the amount of money you were willing to spend to finish the film, even though you perhaps ended up spending much less. 2: list the amount of money you figured it actually cost you to do the film (basically just the electricity used during the hours it took to make the film, edit it, etc) 3: list the amount of money it would cost you if you had to rent/purchase equipment and crew, including expenses on meals you had during production. Even though you did not really have those expenses related specifically to the film (since you spent those money buying the camera/computer/etc for your own use at an earlier stage) Sorry, the post got accidentally posted before I had typed it out (because I hit ctrl-enter on the keyboard, as I thought it would do line-formatting and not posting)
  • Create New...