Mark Allen

And minimum wage in Indiana is the Federal minimum of $5.15 - so it's still 136% above minimum wage.... plus popcorn ;)

Without seeing it's hard to know, but here are some thoughts: Make sure you have detailing on your cameras turned off because that can create edging which when keyed can look like a halo at times. Sometimes people think it's good to send some backlight on the actors to separate them from the screen... don't do this - it makes a natural looking composite impossible and has a "haloish" effect - unless the scene itself is set that way But from the follow-up comments - it really sounds like it is your software. All compositing software is different - kelight, primatte, and ultimatte all work pretty well, but I prefer keylight as ultimatte is pretty uncontrollable and it's spill killing creates awful artifacts.

I think it's all three of those and add in the fact that ticket prices are so high. Here's a little theory of mine... Ticket pricing should have some sort of correlation with minimum wage. Back in the early 80s this was the case - both minimum wage and ticket prices were just over three dollars (in California at least). (Which in today's dollar would be about six dollars, but the point being that they are equal numbers) Now, today Minimum wage is just under 7 dollars, but movie tickets are 10 to 14 dollars. It makes a difference for the mass crowds which most of these movies are aiming for. Especially when you have the option of just renting a movie for maybe 3 dollars and watching it at home with as many people as you want. But this is just one additional factor to consider, as I said, I think it is all the considerations. The largest one, though, would have to be the fact that the home watching environment has become very good - a competitor to movies. But the studios are benefitting from that too. How will this affect movies in the future? I think you'll find that theatrical movies are "big event" movies - the Star Wars's - the Spidermans - the big franchise movies with toys and such. But also the big romantic comedies and such (for dating - cause people gotta go somewhere). The indies will probably be mostly DVD rentals and internet pay per view downloads eventually. The proliferation on digital projection could change this - but I think it would only be indies with a very specific exploitable aspect that would ever hit the theaters.

I watched Star Wars on a DLP (AMC in Santa Monica) and thought the DLP looked aliased which was disappointing and alarming - though I'm told there are no 4k projectors in LA yet. I actually agree with Jim about the skin tones being muddy. I've noticed this in several HD shot movies. I did not notice this on the Genesis test footage - I very much look forward to seeing a finished Superman to see if the this might be something which comes out of the digital after being processed. About the CGI discussion. I think if the story is engaging, most people wouldn't care if the models were CG or bigatures (as the WETA folks call miniatures). One huge flaw in the prequel trilogy is that Anakin is just a whiney bastard and not a tragic hero. And Padme is stupid for loving him - so you end up respecting neither one of them. The idea of Anakin going to the dark side for a good reason is fair enough - but since episode one he's just been a whining brat. If Padme were to love him it would be in that "I can change him" kind of love - but that's not shown here. As for the structure - lost has been the concept that the action is where the movie moves forward. I felt like the entire film was cutting between a huge battle scene and people sitting in chairs talking to move the story forward.

Just a note for clarity. The budget figure at boxofficemojo and imdbpro doesn't include marketing which is going to be a large ambigious number - 10 to 30 million. Ambigious because if a movie is successful costs from other movies will be snuck into it. Note that Titanic has yet to make a dime in profit according to the record. For many years the rule of thumb has been that it takes 3 times the budget of a movie to show a profit once you include prints and ads (including what people other than the producers make as profit). That said - profit is made at every step - especially if it is a studio movie. But most people are making a salary off the movie, rental companies are making money (which is nice for the studio if the studio is the rental company) and so on.

it's.... www.resellerratings.com - go figure ;) Royal Camera btw is 2.3 of 10 stars.... not.... good. www.bhphotovideo.com is always a good bet. $3,599.95 there though.

I'm not flaming on your Tarkovsky mention at all, but it did inspire me to just to wax philosophic a bit. I think there is often a confusion between story and plot. I would almost say that Andrei Tarkovsky would believe that story is everything. But you can convey story a 10 minute shot where nothing happens. I don't know if Mike Nichols said this originally, or if he is being credited for it recently - but here goes: "Plot is the king died and then the queen died. Story is: the king died and then the queen died of a broken heart." I think that's a fantastic summation. I would then argue that the story is happening in the moments of a broken heart. You can have a 10 minute shot where nothing happens yet the entire story is contained in there - it's the Remember Tarkovsky was hugely inspired by Haiku and how the addition of one line in the middle or end can put a whole subtle spin on the other lines. Even if unrelated, they become a story. I think a cinematographer really can take his work to the next level by looking for how his work is a part of the story.

Landon - I'm gonig to skip over makng any comments and just take the opportunity to share my list of favorite screenwriting resources: www.wordplayer.com - read every article there (this site is incredible for free information - it's written by the author of Shrek and some other films.) The rest are books: Adventures in the Screentrade - if adapting books is your thing, you must absolutely read this. And it's absolutely entertaining as well. Story - Robert McKee (best book on story I've ever read) How to Make a Good Screenplay Great (helps to point out common problems... having been a reader myself, i found it right on and insightful.) _______ Those are absolutely must reads - if not for the knowledge for the vernacular. These books are the language that people (in Hollywood at least) use and if you are familiar with it, it doesn't bode well and it will show in your work. Here are a couple other next in line albiet more difficult reads: Poetics - Aristotle (people reference this a lot) Art of Dramatic Writing - Lejos Egri (Frankly I think this book is poorly written, but the information is good to have read at least once) Writing with Style - John R. Trimble (I've never seen other people recommend this one - but for me, it was really the book that turned my writing from pedestrian to something which conveyed an idea successfully. It is about writing, not screenplays.) ______ Then - if you want to expand from there I will recommend some more screenwriting books. The book by Richard Walter The book by Lew Hunter The book by Syd Field They all have their own gems of knowledge. Then... read read read read screenplays with this knowledge and see how it works and doesn't work. After about 50 screenplayes, you will be in the rythm of it. I had my frist script option at 19 and I totally attribute that to the fact that I was a reader for a production company while I was 18 and read all the good and bad scripts and watched a few of them get turned into features along the way and watched how the page translated).

David - that's very quotable, keep that one on hand. As for some of the various subjects brought up: Storyboarding software: I've tried the demos of all the softwares available in the last few years, additionally used Maya and Electric Image and Poser (all 3D programs) and hand sketched... but my favorite method - not unlike John Tomas - digital camera. Doesn't matter where - I've done it in a living room. As long as you have at least one other person, you can whip through shots, then load them up, quickly paint out the backgrounds, throw in some backgrounds I've sketched or found on the net and manipulated. I do it very quickly in photoshop and eventhough I'm doing it "sloppy" it ends up looking very professional and gives everyone the best idea of what the shots were. I did a whole bunch of boards in Poser once and no one "got them" - made sense to me, but I was really intrigued that they didn't read that well - certainly no better than hand sketches. Digital photos are fast too. If you can have individuals representing the various actors, it's best. Of course, you want to have a shot list before you start, but if you know the shots and the blocking you have in mind, it takes very little time. It also addresses the issue that J. Lamar pointed out very accurately - half the boards people (including me) draw are geometrically impossible. David's mention of talking to the director about blocking: Yes - it is important that anything that has to do with the actors go through the director. The reason is not to protect the Director's ego, but to protect the actor's focus and reduce confusion. The commotion swirling around the actors seems a bit more chaotic to them because they're not privy to what is going on and anything to reduce where their focus is going helps. Additionally, the minute someone other than the director starts to give "direction" to the actors, the floodgates will open up and producers chime in, the AD chimes in.

Actually there are lots of movies listed which are purely based on intention. Usually when you look at major producers/directors/actors - int heir future films are one or two which will eventually disappear of the list.

What was the best under 300k movie you've seen?

Actually I watched it after watching four other low budget movies shot on DV and I was so thankful that the story was intriguing and the acting good that I didn't really care about the look of it. In some ways I thought the fact that it had a home video ish look to it was sort of interesting because of the whole vacation aspect to it.... you know... how you see past vacations... or how I see other people's past vacations as I've not taken a vacation. ;)

His perfectionism leads him also to being a very hands on director who likes to do things himself - so I think perhaps he is wanting ultimate autonomy in his work at this point - bring his efforts back to his roots as a painter who simply wanted his images to move and make sound.

I didn't see them in their first run, but ended up seeing a back to back screening of both later on in college and was riveted. I think with Koyaaniquatsi especially - I found it incredibly touching, moving. It's not a narrative film, it's not a documentary. It's sort of a story of a moment in the history of Earth and it's fascinating. It's not Star Wars - it's not The Conversation - it's its own thing - so check it out if you haven't and just go along for the ride. I think Lucas and Copola are really only there in name only to get it seen like the various "Quentin Tarrantino presents" films. I doubt they had anything to do much with the creation of the film - but I don't know.

For a better looking picture, get a camera with a larger sensor, it will capture more lattitude - clip less. Stay away from the most expensive cutting edge ($2k+) stuff because it will go outdated and you're not using it professionally. You can get a good sensor sized camera for under $900. The Canon Digital Rebel and the Nikon equivalent (D50 or D70) to it are good contenders - but the technology is constantly changing - check out www.dpreview.com - it is a much heralded resouce. I'm totally unfamiliar with the Kodak one - it might be amazing, check the reviews.

Congratulations Amat - Question... we had a discussion in a different thread about the grain of S16 showing up especially in shots with a lot of monochromatics and skies and focus being hard to keep tight because anything that is off is exagerated. Did you have any of these issues on your film? thanks.

I just saw the movie. I thought the look was rather generic. It was a huge movie - but I think they failed to capture the geography - especially with Jerusalem. It became so obvious the far shots were a matte because we would go from this way distant shot to an innercity shot that felt nothing similar. When the fighting was around the walls, I got the geography then, but I was still lost as to how deep the city was for the most part. If the city wasn't there, that would have been a great time to at least do a few set extension shot inside the city just so we could feel we were inside of it. I would say the same problem held true for just about everything in the film - it all felt glossed over and therefore lost it's epic feeling. The first city we were in felt like the middle one, felt like the next one - seems like there should have been more visual clues as to where we were - maybe shoot the locations differently. I feel that in the battle scenes it was purely choas. I want a battle where we follow little stories inside the battle. I want to see the mini goals no just a whole bunch of crazy clashing of shields and swords. A combination of wide and tight and mid - whatever it takes to show us what the character's dilemma and actions against it. Fast cutting can't replace good drama. It wasn't a painful movie to sit through, just an unnecessary one.

You can use multiple sets of markers. In tracking them, you would change your marker set and then line up the change points. It's not a one click deal of course, but it's possible. If your several pixel tracking marker becomes the size of a basketball - you're not going to be able to track to it anyway. If you're on a chroma stage then there will be noting else to track to but markers - so they will be key to have. If you're on a set that might have a hallway or something, you can often find objects in the hall to lock onto. For this kind of shot you definitely need to bring a visual effects supervisor in to consult with you. Or at least the compositor who will be doing the shot. Setting it up right will be a huge financial savings for the producer in post side. added later: If the first paragraph wasn't clear - what you would end up having is a series of markers along your path, like a two level air strip. If they can be kept out of the range of moving actors - all the better - other wise it will require a touch of roto.

Well... I think it depends on the 16 year old. I had a visual effects company for many years and for a while one of our main artists was 15 - and he was devastatingly talented and the artist that the clients liked the work of. Meanwhile there were 30, 40, even 50 year olds submitting their work and it wasn't as good. Skills are learned and some people are open to learning at a young age, some people are closed their entire life. (Side note, he ended up not going into design and instead went to an Ivy league college and last I heard was studying to be a doctor - though he had done some fascinating papers on 3D lighting.) I look at films from people of all ages and the quality never has anything to do with the age of the director. I do think 16 is very much on the young side simply because even if someone is open to learning, there hasn't been that much time. I also agree with some other people here and expressed in detail that I think the whole investor situation is highly suspect, but I've already made that point in another thread, so I didn't want to go there again as I already made that point. Would I invest? Actually... I won't go into the details of it in this thread - but in 2 years my company will be including investment in projects which are highly reliant on the filmmaker's passion - HOWEVER - those filmmakers will have to have done something which shows they've got the skillset and simply need the financing. It won't matter if what they've done before has been shot on video or film - but it will matter that they know how to tell a story and we trust they have the energy and knowledge to carry off the project (and they'll have a nonintrustive but experienced producer helping them).

I'm guessing the investor's plan is to take advantage (and I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way) of a 16 year old's ability to make things happen. I made an hour long movie when I was 18 for basically nothing and this is of course because you can ask for things and if you're not in Los Angeles or New York (which I wasn't at the time) people often think "Sure, I'll help! It's cool you're doing a movie!" Even when you're 30, you can do it, ask Shane Carruth (www.primerthemovie.com). There was actually a studio (who will remain nameless) that was having a contest for UCLA and USC student many years ago - and the winner would get 60k to make a movie. Now, the rights would be owned by this company with the filmmaker getting a small percentage - but it was totally expected that the student's ferver for making his first film would be what they would be banking on. Why bother making a student short when you can ask all the same favors and make a feature? You could argue that the company had no ethics and were horrible - but on the other hand, I would have absolutely loved to get an opportunity to make a $60k feature at that age and would have gladly asked everyone to help me out. (And those movies were shot on film. No DV back then and no one was doing BetaSP features.) I think all filmmakers can do the free and favor movie once. After that - you need to start compensating 'cause people know that either your first film didn't do any business and you might not be a good investment for their time or that your first film did do business and so you should be able to pay something.

Jacob's Ladder: The shot of the shortened wheel along the hellish hospital floor becaus it was the most perfect way to capture everything going on at that moment. Also the shot of jacob in the tub simply because it was simple and, again, caputred the moment beautifully and perfectly.

Adding my two cents. I can't speak for anywhere other than Los Angeles, but here it is. There are three things that are required to get work. And while I'm writing this about being a DP (from the perspective of a Director/Producer), it applies to almost any discipline.) 1) Talent 2) Connections 3) Personality All three of them can be learned - but I think number 3 is hardest to change. Breaking them down.... 1) TALENT - Obviously this is required, but you also need to learn to have the ability to evaluate your own work. If you think everything you soot is amazing - you might need to work on that. This will grow. Be sure to experiement and discover your own style. Shoot project for free, shoot projects on your own just for your reel and experience. Then, when you have a) learned what looks good and B) learned how to create that... then you're ready for the next one. (By the way, this is why I don't really flower my reactions to people's reels when asked my opinion - that's damaging and slows growth in any art form.) 2) CONNECTIONS - Of course you start making these from day one... However... and this is something many people blow... don't go start showing your reel to people and pushing yourself until it's ready. And when you are ready - don't push it on the wrong people or you'll waste your time. The wrong person would be a studio director when you've only done a few shorts - the studio won't hire you, you need to do a few low budget features at least first. Do not, however, underestimate the power of "This guy came out of nowhere and wow!" I once asked an amazing artist why everything he did was so good and his reply was so obvious, "I never show the bad stuff." How do you get conections? If you're in LA and you have a solid reel - just start showing it to people and people know people who know people. Talent is a valued commodity. If your reel look like Khondji - you will be getting some meetings. Mentioning Khondji - I will add this... It is not a bad idea to show a variety of styles on your reel because people watching them have no imagination. They want to see what they are looking for on your reel so they feel like they know you can make this happen. 3) PERSONALITY - Once you get the meeting - you will click or you will not. The person Spielberg likes might not gel with what Coppola likes or whomever. The one thing I will say is that the ability listen and find solutions instead of problems - the ability to be positive and thoughtful in your approach - the ability to mange a team efficiently - these are things which help pretty much anyone.

I do not think this movie is photographically notable. It doesn't have any distinct style per se. Semi-cinemaverite - free form. Casual. The lighting is mostly soft and faces are covered well. Some unfortunately out of focus moments. The film itself is exactly what you think it would be from the trailer - if you think you'll like it fromt he trailer, you will, if you think you'll just tolerate or hate - you will. Myself I found it interesting enough, but not a "rush out to see this." However, I will say this - of all the movies I've seen in the last six month (and I've seen a lot) - this is one that I've definitely thought of some nuances of and remembered some moments and thought about the people. Nothng profound though.

If you're worried about resolution and your program will be shown off DVD and not, in fact, DV.... you can gain a little for your resolution by creating it anamorphic for the dvdplayers to decipher. Talk to your DVD authoring person about this if that's your final destination. DVD players will play it wide on wide screens and letterboxed on normal screen. I'm always surprised that more people don't take advantage of this.

Here's a still from your site after you color grade it: and before...