Mark Allen

I've not seen the new season (as I don't have television reception) - but a producer friend mentioned that they had a tracking shot where the camera went from oneside of the car to the other and back. Would this shot have been using a curved screen? Or do they sometimes shoot stage, sometimes shoot exterior?

I know you're grinning with this post - but because this mentality does exist, I would just point out - you would be amazed at who you can reach if you just pick up the phone. Write a letter to their agent, their manager, call the company ask to speak with them. Unless they are mega stars who are sick of being hunted down - people aren't that resistant to being shown respect and offering help often. Speaking of offering help - The original poster here should definitely check out this website written by one of the guys who wrote "Shrek" - it's probably the single best writing instruction website I've ever seen. www.wordplayer.com

I think it's a fair question. More from a directorial standpoint than a cinematographer's stand point, I might mention a few observations. As for composition - David Lynch mostly uses plain, staged shots. His composition is almost geometric - he isn't trying to "wow" anyone with his cool shots. He shoots people like they are fruit bowls. They're just there in front of the camera, as the fruit bowls might sit infront of a painter. He is generally trying to create a stillness in his composition - like you're waiting for the inevitable horrible thing that might happen. I think it's the honesty of this that creates the discomfort. Take a look at some of the furniture David has built - and some of his paintings even, that might give even more of a clue into how he is thinking. I can't really think of anyone else who has the courage to do what he does - most horror/suspense directors are trying to impress us with their David Fincher like management of visuals. I have a feeling Lynch picked the power of this from Hitchcock - but it may have to do with studying to be a painter prior to wanting his painting to move. The other thought I'd have is be very aware of empty space and open doors. Anything that creates insecurity.

Okay - I'll chime in on the tangent. In my experience directors who have had a theatrical background or some acting experience tend to do fewer takes and directors who have a more technical background tend to repeat scenes for tens of takes until it's just right or they see what they want. I would postulate that this is because if you are an actor or have done theater - you realize that there are many good performances and to try to extract the exact performance from an actor that is in your head is simply not necessary because just because it doesn't match what you had imagined exactly - you risk a very unemotional and sterile performance if they do it "just right." I've seen this stretch beyond the realm of actor's performance and slip into costumes, art direction (and to bring it full circle to the focus of the forum) photography and lighting. I find personally that when I go in knowing the core of what I want from everything, show examples or explain with a lot of adjectives where I'm headed generally actors, designers, and DPs will all perform much better and bring a lot more to the project than if I tell them exactly what to do in minuteau. And I'm totally aware that I just said a bunch of broad generalizations and there's exceptions to all of it - but I'm just sharing some of what I've learned along the way and I'm still learning.

Well congratulations! That's great progress! And of all the great studios to get story comments from! Pixar would be tops! Okay - had to counterbalance Phil for a moment there. I will say that if they were sold on your script - as in they thought they were likely to want it - they'd have optioned it - even if for a dollar, they would have secured the option. Since they didn't they are probably thinking it's a big maybe - so perhaps a 3 percent chance. So take their notes and learn and make a kick ass rewrite. If they don't want it.... What do you do? Well, you take it over to Dreamworks. Then Disney, then whoever else makes sense. (I'm assuming it's animated). You realize how many FX houses are starting animation divisions because of Pixar's massive sucess? So - there are tons of studios out there dying for great stories. Once you've gone through the big boys - you can look around some more - would it make a good TV show? Maybe a guy like me was and might still be looking for a good animated TV show. Etc. etc. etc. And while you do that... what do you do? You write another one. One script (even a great one) does not a writing career make.

If you don't have motion control and you really want to move the camera - there are a couple tricks - but make sure you have a competant visfx supervisor before you do them - or do tests or you'll be very unhappy. 1) If the motion is subtle, shoot your main plate - actor in background. Then fly a greenscreen to cover the foreground actors area over the background and shoot the foreground character - the track and composite him in. 2) If the background character is distant enough use a double with a track marker on his face and do a face replacement on him. You might think thiis would work best if the character is perfectly still - but it actually works best if the character is moving - but not twisting his head too much. obviously you need to have the main actor do the exact same head motions and then timewarp it to match. now... unless you have a really close double, you'll ideally have someone with a smaller head (bald guy) so that you more easily replace the whole head. My company actually has a shot like this coming up in a few weeks. lastly - don't assume you can't afford motion capture until you price it against the extra cost of fx work.

The last few studio shoots I've done, they used DA-88 as the recording format. records 8 channels which means you can get separate tracks for everyone if you mic that deeply.

With DTP (desktop publishing), and website designing, and now DV and even HD home filmmaking - it seems that what happens is that at first everyone jumps onto the new technology at first without any training of the craft beyond having seen the end results and lots and lots of really awful work is created. However, in a few years, there is a recognition for what makes someone good at the craft and the noise level dies down where the truly talented get the work and the truly desperate still do it themselves. I think that is going to be the pattern everytime new technology comes out which lets people do previously hired work themselves. I'm going to take your tangent and raise you two. first... I was in a conversation five years ago with some filmmakers and we were all talking excitedly about what would happen now that filmmaking tools were becoming more accessible. We were waxing philosophic about all the gorgeous and unique perspectives that would be infused into the marketplace. But that's not really what happened. Most people began to make their own horror films and action films. Some serious, some spoofs, but mostly immitations of what they had seen. Now, yes, there were some exceptions (Tarnation comes to mind) and I think the entire genre of documentary fiction that is becoming so prevalent is an interesting result - I'm very curious about the film shot in Iraq. However, the truly interesting work is still a rarity irregardless of the tools and it hasn't increased any in the last five years. And generally it's still being made by people who understand the underlying principles on some level - what makes drama. second... It's really common to hear about penny pinching idiot producers and variations thereof - but I just wanted to mention that just because a producer is concerned about the money he is spending - he is not necessarily the enemy. Now... trust me, I have dealt with as many producers who did not know what they were doing except how to manipulate people as anyone here - I'm not saying this archetype does not exist in reality. I am just putting it out there that there are also a lot of really respectible producers who go against the odds and resources trying to make something greater than their resources because of their passion for the project. I don't think that's so bad even if it means they use their editor and DP as their colourist.

Not with us, sorry. I didn't think to ask.

I think the process of HD is very appealing to many. I feel like until the Genesis, though, the acceptability range was too limited. Now, I realize that Rodriguez loves HD - but I honestly don't think the look of Once upone a Time in Mexico served the film or was appropriate. I thought, therefore, it looked bad. Spy Kids on the other hand, I think the HD worked fine - made perfect sense. If I could sum up my feelings about what I saw (which was very limited as I mentioned) - it would be this: The aesthetic range of the technology has widened greatly with this release of the technology.

Well... there's a lot of information here: http://panavision.com/product_detail.php?m...de=c0,c202,c203 As for other tests - I think the camera is relatively new and people seem to be testing for their own purposes which they probably don't want to release. Bascially if you can gather up the cash to rent one, you're probably working on something that you don't want out in the public domain. I was thinking of calling to ask if they had any other footage or raw files. Daviau's comments in milimeter.com included: <<Daviau cautions that the cinematography community needs to do further Genesis tests, ?really abusing the camera out in the field with available night-light exteriors? before the device's niche evolves. Besides, adds Daviau, neither Genesis nor any digital camera will equal film anytime soon. ?This camera produced a very good quality image, no doubt,? he says. ?But in terms of overall picture quality, you won't easily be able to capture exactly what a piece of negative captures. Film will always capture tremendous highlights and shadow information that will always exist on your negative, even if you won't be using it until sometime down the line, such as when you make new prints or digital transfers.?>> http://millimeter.com/mag/video_genesis_test/ I think this is where the huge price leap concerned me. It seemed like it was a great breakthrough for indies - far better than other digital options - no question there. But I think if money were no object, I'm not sure why someone would choose it over film. I see the market for the camera as the people who are on the fense of HD vs. film for cost reasons. I think the camera just needs to be priced in that range.

<<Mark I think you make it sound far more complicated than it actually is.>> If this was me, Mark, I actually don't think DI's are complicated at all. I actually like the idea of avoiding cutting negative though. While I realize pros get things right, you're not always guaranteed a pro at every stage. Related to the subject of this thread - I just posted the headlines of my thoughts on seeing a screening of the Genesis footage today here: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=4791#

I just saw a screening of the Genesis footage shot by Alan Davieu, ASC at Panavision. I remember years ago watching the footage he shot with the 900 at Sony. I didn't then and never have felt that the current HD format produced aesthetically pleasing enough results that I would want to shoot a feature with it. The Genesis, however, did. At least, from what I saw I felt it did. Here are some impressions I had after watching the footage. They show the same sequence of shots twice. They intercut between film and genesis each cut. I won't say which came first so as not to ruin the surprise for people. Could I tell? Yes, I could for many shots, but I've spent many years looking at this stuff and know what to look for - and, frankly, if someone had told me it was all 35mm I probably wouldn't have noticed. No one else in the room (producers/directors) I brought along had a sense which was which - except for a line producer who was right more often than not. But here is the real question... Do I think it has the quality to create the same aesthetic experience as film for a discerning audience? Yes. And that's what matters most to me. One thing I definitely was looking for and was happy with was that it seemed the skin tones were less smudgy that I see in current Sony HD (and I see HD every day). I've always felt that kept HD out of being useful for anything but high gloss or stlized. I could see more aesthetic impressions being created with this Genesis process. Now - know that in all the footage I saw - it was graded with the blacks crushed. I really would have liked to see the raw footage because then I could have guessed where it would have gone from there. If you see the footage, you'll note that the Genesis definitely is holding more information in the whites as well. If you don't, they'll point it out for you. Also know that this was the footage Panavision put together for us to see. I would be interested in knowing the DP's comments and will search the internet for them. Before I made a huge commitment to it I would like to see some raw footage - even if it is just something shot in the stage - but I was given confidence by what I saw that I would be happy shooting in this format. Now, the camera isn't going to be cheap to rent for a the next year or more. That's a downside. For films that aren't shooting a lot of footage, the savings might not be stellar. (All the technical specs are online, so I'm not talking about those - just aesthetics.)

It sounds like you have not had a lot of experience directing and that's what you desire. If so - I am not convinced co-directing with someone is really the right path. In fact, the people on the set you coudl learn the most from are the keys for every department. Gain insights from them - How does their job help tell the story. Then just study up and shoot some short pieces asking yourself - am i conveying any emotion here? Am I telling the story? Pick simple things at first - just see if you can capture a moment. Then when you feel you have a grasp on that - that's when I would think about trying to tackle a feature. Also - you could use some of your shorts to inspire some help. Huge advice though. It's better to make one really amazing thing than ten mediocre things. You'll learn more. You could look into grants when you are ready to move forward with the feature - but I would really take advantage of this DV era we live in. While it may be arguable for various people with other options to shoot on DV - it sure makes a lot of sense when you're just trying to get started. I think Pieces of April and Charlotte Sometimes were probably just as good as a lot of movies out there. (The budgets for those movies were in the couple hundred and tens of thousands respectively) - but you can do it for 7k like the director of Primer (who shot on 16mm none the less). You could spend two years trying to secure financing - better to do what you want to be doing - making a movie. If it's great - you'll get another chance and someone will foot the bill.

I've done the post path with film post and with HD intermediate (shoot film / HD post / back to film), but never a full film with DI. However, in my experience using the HD intermediate was simpler than standard film post production. It's certainly easier to get the look you want (unless you just want it to look like what you shot). Negative cutting and preparing for that is a big hassle. Also it just seemed like less "anomalies" would occur.

What's your motivation for making the movie? Is this an existing script or just a notion that you want to make a movie? What is the genre? All these things will dictate your process a lot. As for your question: Generally you have self-investment (and with DV this is becoming very common), grants, private investors, small production companies, mini-majors, and studios (and probably one or two I'm not thinking of right now). All of them have advantages and disadvantages. If you have a truly unique and well written screenplay in hand, more of these options are open to you than you might imagine - then it would depend on if you are experienced director or if you are willing to let someone else direct.

I sold my first script when I was 20. I credit it to two things. 1) Writing plays since I was in elementry school. 2) Interning as an intern for a production company as a reader doing coverage. While what I wrote before that experience might have had moments or been clever, nothing would have ever been something anyone would have paid money for until I had that internship. Yes, books help (books by Goldman, McKee, Egri, etc. etc.) - but nothing in my opinion matched reading over 100 screenplays (most of them bad) and having to figure out why they were bad or good. You end up seeing the same mistakes again and again and again until it's second nature to notice the problem (and avoid it) in your own writing. To counter balance it though I would go to the Academy Library on my own time and read the best screenplays to make sure I was getting an influence of what did work.

Try This http://www.blackmagic-design.com/site/products.htm - no DV A recommended DV add on solution via firewireis this: http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ADVC_sel...c_selection.asp

Depending on the codec being used on the AVID (and if it is decent quality enough), you can just get that codec and take the footage directly. I used to watch meridian codec files all the time on a G4. Then you could transfer some footage over for yourself. Ask the editors what the codec is and check for it on Avid's site or http://codecs.onerivermedia.com/ Other options. Where the images never transfered to tape? A dub to DV is a pretty standard thing, lots of places would do it.

If you are submitting for a budget though - consider saying 3:1 (without audio). Usually a producer is more happy coming in under budget than over that day. This is, of course, assuming you don't have to pay for all the hours you estimate if you run short. For your first telecine I've got to encourage you to be thinking it will take at least a 2.5:1

Just an anecdotal commenton this subject. The last time I color corrected something for national TV (US) - I used 200 dollar TV from Best Buy. I used to be a CD at a post facility and I cannot tell you how many times clients would come back and complain that the image they saw in the color correction was not what they saw at home or when it aired. This is the grand irony of color correction. You are making it look good for a set up that no one will ever see. Now, I totally understand how it is important to have a good true master and to keep it "in spec" - but I am also painfully aware that the *reality* is most people's TV's are over saturated, very red, very very bright, and a little contrasty. So, as an experiment I decided to color correct to a cheap consumer TV with default setup. I got to see the spot once on TV broadcast and several times on a "broadcast" monitor in a facility. Maybe in the facility it was slightly desaturated - which I sort of liked anyway - but on TV it was perfect. I saw it on DVD and VHS later on various TVs - perfect. In fact, I would go as far to say that this was the best looking project I'd ever done when seen broadcast. So - perhaps you'll be compelled to get a "good" monitor. However, keep in mind, you might want to check it on a cheap monitor just like recording engineers and mixers will keep a cheap pair of 15 dollar speakers to monitor what the real world will hear the mix as.

The Link in that thread isn't workng any longer.

My 2 quick cents. There is plug-in for After Effects by DigiEffects which has a pretty nice muzzle flash creator - looks surprisingly as good as just about anything i've seen and is easy to set angles and such. Art Beats also works. I think guns on the set are just way too dangerous. Also, the chance of actually catching the flash is too rare and too random. I am actually curious if there is any very safe way for a gun to be rigged to not make a ton of noise (so actors and crew don't have to wear ear plugs... and i fyou're not wearing them, you should) and not necessarily make a flash - but provide smoke! Smoke coming from the gun is harder to create and would be helpful to have on the set. Any tricks for that? As for residual light from a flash. We examined a ton of frames and discovered that the residual light is a lot less dramatic than you would expect. That was at least from the frames we were examining where some flashes were caught and some were not. Obviously a gun in a dark room, you'd notice it. (BTW - the best shot of Equillibrium uses this with phenomenal result.)

This is pretty much exactly what you are describing I think. You might need to prove validity as an industry member. www.inktip.com

That's the right question. I would do one thing and do only that. I would not let anything distract me from it. I would do anything I could to get closer to that one goal and check myself everytime I did something new or something new entered my life - was it taking me closer or further away from my singular focus. Some people here may disagree, but I would not advise pursuing being a director and a cinematographer. Pursue one, they're both hard to do and if you are willing to settle for anything but directing, you will. If you want to make a career change at some point, apply the same rules to the new choice. If you decide you want to pursue cinematography - do not tell people you have a desire to direct. Directors don't want to work with people who might take their job from them someday. Directors are insecure like that. Shoot a lot - shoot stuff for free if you need to build your reel. Shoot anything you can until people want to start paying you to reserve you. Live cheaply so that you are hungry for success and can dedicate time to developing your skills. Read all the advice that's been given here before and figure it's all 7% valid (except for mine which is nine percent valid because I make the rules in my posts).