Mark Allen

I want to tell the DP of a show I'm working on to do something to get rid of this black line along the rim of the face... and I get one shot at it. What do I tell him? It's shot 24p HD - I think with a 900 or 950... probably a 950. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

I don't know about that. I think a big screen too bright can lead to a lot of wrap around which is not good for compositing. good things - 1) mask off whatever is not behind the actor or their shadows (if you're using shadows). Minimize the amount of green showing as much as possible - if the floor is green and your shots are waist up - lay down the duvateen. Spill is the killer. 2) just not that most light khaki is not a green friendly color - it likes to absorb it and then key out. 3) get your actors as far away from the screen as possible (if they are far enough away even defects in the screen will blur out. 4) personally i don't worry about cables or lights or anything that isn't in the way of something i want in the movie 'cause it all gets garbage matted out anyway.

I'll agree with "All is full of love" in that it is a fantastic combination of live and CG elements which really tell the mood of the moment. It's difficult picking the best effects because ideally they go by unnoticed - so you end up picking the best CG and minitures that stood out yet also looked good. I, for example, would not pick Van Helsing because I just felt the effects integration was very sterile. I would pick The Matrix because I thought the design (though completely borrowed for the most part) was very freshly integrated. I would not pick Matrix 2 and 3 because they became sterile and self conscious.

Yes... on both accounts. Even (or especially) if the screen is only covering the moving element. this is a trick that is totally underused though. People will do a location shoot and then go "back to the studio" for the screen work. While location shoots are generally more expensive, if it's just one or two shots - it's going to be cheaper on location and it has a lot more potential for selling the shot. Now, when you are blue screening because your actor is sick and couldn't make it to the location... not much of a choice there.

Rough translation I did just so I could know what was said - I left in the gramatical errors because I didn't want to assume anything and, frankly, I like the dialogue this way: Charlone, who was nominated al Oscar in his last edition by the God City photography, recognizes that the pressure when is filmed a production with so much money in between is very large, although clarifies that he was ?in a very comfortable position? in the filming of Man in flames. He counts Charlone: ?at first to my did not he interest me to do the work. Tony Scott, that is a very charming person, he was very experienced when United from States to Brazil he called me to offer me the work. In the first place I told him that he did not accept: 'Already I am 52 years old and I am not in age to do camera', I told him, excusing me. Then he very experienced asks me: '¿how long is it that you work in movies?' 'Thirty years', I respond him. '¿And you do not die of curiosity by knowing how is a superproducción of Hollywood inside?', tells me. And, the truth, yes had curiosity. Then, Scott insists: 'you Give him, veníte. Mirás how is all, entertain you and you ganás a good twine'. No longer I was able to say that not. I took it me as a vacation pay. In the hours free I dedicated me to observe and film everything that saw in a species of Chronicle of a compatriot in Hollywood. One of the things that more the attention called me was the fear with the ones that work the technicians. There it can have what is called "summary expulsion". The producers see what is filmed daily since their offices and suddenly they send a letter that says: 'to say good-bye al director of photography and to their three users of camera'. The people works with a lot of fear to that absent figure, that is the producer?.

Probably most of the really functional effects are old ideas because they relate directly to story telling rather than trying to think up a new idea. The only thing new about them is that they are easier and cleaner to do now so filmmakers are leaning towards doing more of them. Here's a neat little 3D representation of how a composite was acheived many years ago on "O'Gill and the Little People": http://www.dominik.ca/motion.html (click top right movie). Then imagine how it would be done now. However - the audiences are getting more and more demanding and sophisticated. Georges Méliès set the stage (literally... a pun!) when he was making films at the turn of the previous century - He did a ton of special effects right off the bat (check out Voyage to the Moon (1902)). I think special effects are integral to the nature of filmmaking... but if they are used purely as an exploitational element - then it's no better than porn... not to say that people don't like porn, just to say it isn't really pushing the art of drama and storytelling anywhere. My point is scattered - but if I were to sum it up in relationship to the orginal post. I don't think filmmakers should gage their use of special effects by budget as much as by storytelling need.

I was a producer on a low budget trilogy where those requests came up daily and at first everyone's first answer was "no." Eventually we started getting silly and actually started trying to make all this happen. The filims, honestly, were no good so we figured the least we could do was try to experiment and R&D speed techniques. I have to say it was a great learning experience that the production benefited greatly from... but, for the most part - this comment points directly at the kind of requests CG people get AND how producers don't have a good sense of bang for their buck with effects. When things are planned out well in advance and shot correctly, CG can be very affordable production enhancers. We're doing a production this year where one of our goals is to use all the tricks we've learned to add some production value. For example - here's an easy one... set extensions... these make perfect sense - shoot your actors on the set you have then just build out the top of the set. Renting a stage that is 50' high for one shot isn't really worth it... and would be very expensive... great time to use a CG effects for the establishing shot.

I was a visual effects supervisor for about 8 years and I still consult now and then. I've always felt that the Academy Awards for special effects should keep in mind budget and situation - which, of course, it can't - but I always feel that these guys with 30 million dollar effects budgets and who can spend a year and a million dollars developing a cool effect are deluding themselves into thinking they are genious. I'm always impressed with the guys who do cool things for little time and little money and manage to schedule it so it finishes on time. What I have found sells effects better than anything else are these: 1) They're integral relationship to the story or the moment. It is a waste of money and effort to do things that are big camera tricks - it's much cooler to sneak effects into the movie just to make things more incredible, dramatic, fantastic, etc. 2) Shot design. So often directors will hand effects people shots that have people standing very stilted in plateaux form. DP's - don't let your diretors do this - might as well just put a card up saying "effects shot" 3) Sequence design. If all the shots are swinging around or panning and suddenly we get to a still shot that is the effects shot - it's all for naught. (we actually usually blow up the shots at this point and pan inside them since it's just too silly to have everything stop for the effects.) Essentially - I think effects when used as tools to enable options that weren't otherwise avaiable are effects used well. Definitely low budget people have more limitations - but larger budget shows keep trying to push harder and harder into the fantasy realms with more and more fantastic unreal or unobtainable locations. All that is a good excuse for an effect. A side note that probably half the effects shots though done in hollywood are for fixing things. "Oh - that box looks too much like Cocoa Crispies - change it to something else." "Oh we don't have permission to use the LG logo - remove it." "Our actor couldn't make it to the set - we shot him on green screen later - put him in." etc. etc. errors, ommissions, and bad luck. 20 years ago all those shots would have just been tossed out - now they save them. There was a network television show that I was the supervisor on from day one and one day I was on the set and they said "how is this for you?" "I said - you know - it's not good - we're going to have all kinds of trouble with those cables and the way the light is hitting the subjects." They looked at me disappointed. "How much extra would it cost to fix that?" I replied, "Maybe four thousand dollars, maybe five." "Well it will cost fifteen for us to change the shot - so take four thousand and deal with it." That was the last day I was on the set that season. There was no real point as my job for the most part was just "make it work.... whatever it is." Saved a lot of driving and scheduling time too - worked out great.

a cheap movie that made $44 million... of course they will want to make a sequel. The only thing I think that could stop them is that, honestly - I thought the movie was humorous - but midway through, I was about done. I think the movie had amazing characters - but like many SNL skits - loses steam before the end. It's the reason the universe created "the plot twist."

Koyaaniquatsi would have to be my pick if the goal were to show us as we are.

I don't have the technical info - but just fyi - season 2 DVD has a behind the scenes movie which shows lots of behind the scenes footage. seems like they have one steadicam and one dolly camera at least on every shot.

No. The word crisis has two elements "danger" and "opportunity" but the opportunity in this case is more like "photo-op" than the traditional positive understanding of the word. Essentially this word "crisis" means more "an opportunity for danger."

I totally agree. When VFX shots are so over conceptualized and lose track of telling the story - it takes you out of the story. But no one ever cuts them out because they cost a lot to produce.

Most film and TV composers I know use Digital Performer. The Mach 5 is the MOTU sampler and matches well with it (it's every bit as good as the gigasampler). I had a minor in film composing (for the film history buffs - David Raksin was actually my primary teacher) - and while I had no programs back then, in recent occasional compositions I've been using Logic Pro with it's built in exs24. Logic requires some deep breaths and perseverance but "everyone" raves about it once you can actually use it.... think about it like having to load and process film verses throwing in a tape. ProTools is one of my favorite apps though - the midi isn't as intense as Logic or DP - however without the "dv tool kit" you don't get time code - which sucks for composing sometimes... though if you do it classically bars/beats - it's not the worst thing because you can use a digitial picture for synch. I also should mention that Garage Band which is free is a great great little application that I'm continually impressed with - but i don't know if you can do digital picture and it has no time code bar - it's a simple little app. So! To sum up - the majority of composers probably use DP, Logic is a quickly growing favorite. On the PC side, cubase is the choice. On either platform you might gander protools as well to make sure you have your bases covered. I looked around a lot and tried everying (including nuendo) and settled on Logic because it has incredibly powerful tools for sampling and effects built in - and it uses the native processing power incredibly well such that you don't need external gear. Someday if Apple user friendlies the interface it will own that market... until then it's a learning curve. Have fun!

I do not know the newest book, but an "old" book that was somewhat of a Bible to many is Gregory Goodell's Independent Feature Film Production : A Complete Guide from Concept Through Distribution. When I read it "DV" wasn't a known term and "Sex Lies and Videotape" was the ultmate indie film - but it was widely considered the best overview then and filmmaking (except for editorial) hasn't change that drastically. I'll try to answer some basic questions of your original post. What many people strive for is 50 / 50 Limited partnership split (or Limilted Liability Corporation sometimes). Basically whatever the investors put in, they get back their money first when it sells - then everything is split between investors and filmmakers 50/50. Filmmakers includes everyone who has points on your project. Lots of people on low budget projects will expect points (percentage) - all of that comes out of the filmmaker's percentage. Now - that's what many people aim for, but often the golden rule applies - those that own the gold, make the rules. Just get a deal that you feel comfortable with. Know how much you are bringing to the table - do you have all the production and post equipment? Do you bring a team of talented workers all willing to cut their rate for you? All these things help lean towards the 50 / 50. If the investors come in and are basically the producers and they are bringing in a lot - such that you are almost a hired hand - then your percentage might go down to 10% - but the advantage of doing nothing but being the filmmaker... so evaluate the roles early on. As for determining the budget - once you set a range (i.e. "lowest possible" or "1 to 2 million" or "five to seven million" - whatever) - then do you budget accordingly. Yes, you should hire a producer who knows how to get this stuff done - your investors would certainly require this. You'll probably have to have a lawyer help you figure a little bit of the contractual agreements out if the budget goes over 500k. Be very very clear with your investors of what their role is. Either they get to make suggestions or they don't - establish that rule from the start. Begin with the end in mind - meaning - know where you are taking this to be sold eventually. Hoping for Sundance? Going to sell it at AFM? Who are your potential buyers. SAG - get to know these contracts - http://sagindie.com/contracts.html - on a low budget film the SAG rules more than anything determine many logistics. SAG has loosened up a lot over the years, but they are still very strict and commanding. If you don't have any major stars and are trying to keep the budget super low, consider non-SAG. So many actors are able to slip into the SAG pool, that you'd be surprised at how many good non-SAG and bad SAG actors are out there. Now, people who work a lot - there is a definite set ettiquette and familiarity bonus there. You're probably looking at a Limited Exhibition Agreement - don't use an experimental agreement with investors because the fine print on those basically states that any SAG actor can basically say "hmm... 'I want 90% of the movie since this is now going to be released.' - the Limited exhibition is the next cheapest... SAG low budget modified is the most straightforward. For selling your movie - do not underestimate the advantage of celebrity leads in your movie - but do not overestimate many people's celebrity. Distributers view celebrities like the US Justice views porn "They know it when they see it." Sure, there are the obvious ones, but the gray area ones - not as easy to determine. Drama and comedy genres rely on celebrity for sales more than horror. Good Luck!

Check out information about Primer - www.primermovie.com - read those forums - read the interviews with the filmmaker. I enjoyed his information because it was humble, observant, insightful and... did I mention humble?

I thought the look of the film was great for the mood. I thought a lot of the filmmaking aspects were great - but as a whole it did not grab me. I wanted to like it, but simply did not. However, in thinking about it, there was one huge huge script change that seems so obvious but would have made all the world of a difference to me. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU DON'T WANT THE FILM BLOWN FOR YOU... I think I've made my spoiler warnings enough... but don't read a word further or the movie will be "ruined" So - since the big surpise is "oh! it was him." And he DID, in fact, look so totally different as the thin guy. The film would have been so much cooler with all the supernaturalness removed - focus totally on his perception and on the fact that there was "some guy" who caused trouble. I loved the stuff with the car he's hunting down - maybe it has been sitting in the machine shop parking lot the whole time. maybe he's bothered by it - he sees pictures of this guy - but this guy is him! long hair sort of cubby but clean shaven guy.... and his whole getting thin is then made sense by his desire to be someone else. I love that ...would have been a classic - but it feels like either it got lost in rewrites and adds, or it needed a few more to really nail what the cool part of the movie was. Maybe that's just me.

I think sometimes there is an obsession over capture format especially for newer producers. It's tied to the fantasy "if I could just shoot a movie like I shoot my home movies... it would be so easy!" But then it looks like a home movie. Now... Sometimes it's fine and appropriate to shoot DV and I am not going to argue that no movies should have been shot this way - but if you're spending 600k on a movie... it seems a little crazy not to ad the extra 50k and go HD if your movie is a little bit grander and might be served well by the greater look. I guess you could argue why not add another 50k 70k and go with 35mm and a limited shooting ratio... but HD at least puts you into the realm of the feature feel (I know not all projects need this, but most are trying for that). I've known two filmmakers now who did "cheap DV" movies that ended up with budgets over 200k because they had worked on enough sets to know how movies are made - and to do it how hollywood does it, it costs a lot of money. I mean you still have to have a full crew there if you plan on shooting with any speed at all. You still need great sound. If someone is shooting DV, I really would hope their entire budget would be under 50k. Not a lot of movies that didn't have a star or star director that was shot on DV that actually got out there on a national level. "Charlotte Sometimes" did, but never really made a profit... it's tough. Just my 2 cents on that. Summary: People should think about their entire budget before trying to take all the savings on the capture format. Oh - and just as a point of interest on those 2 DV movies I mentioned - one will actually sell at a small profit - the other one will never sell and has been permanently shelved. Oh - something else... damn it if I'm not just as guilty as anyone else for thinking that it'd be great if I could shoot a movie as easy as I could shoot a home movie. Damn my hipocricy! :)

In Hollywood people are simply marvelling about how much money the guy who invested in the movie is making. Basically - He saw this short that these two new filmmakers made and decided to give them a million dollars of his own money to make it as a feature and produce it. (He had done lots of movies as a producer and was looking to get in on the cash side with some of his earnings.) Well, he liked what he had and stuck to his guns until he found a distribution deal which allowed him to keep a huge majority of the profit - 80% with limited outlay for P&A. And he won big - to the tune of tens of 55 million dollar US gross. This guy is set for life. I think it's interesting that it has a high rating on imdb yet on Rotten tomatoes it is floating under 50% positive reviews - I suspect it is just so niche that when you like it, you love it. As for the cinematography, from what I hear the gaffer, Yaron Levy, was largely responsible for the look of the film on this one. That's just hearsay though.

Just wanted to put out a "thank you" for having a Mac OS X version!

I thought Tarkovsky's book "Sculpting in Time" was one of the most powerful books I ever read as a filmmaker. It speaks at a very deep level - but be prepared to be destroyed by recognizing anything impure in your instincts. That said, I honestly cannot say that I love his movies - though I feel like I should... I feel alienated by them rather than expanded by them. I would be curious if anyone would want to recommend the "must see" contemporary Russian films. Also - on the note of propaganda, I wanted to mention a quote that I don't know where it came from... if you do, let me know... it's a dialogue exchange between a russian filmmaker and an american filmmaker during the cold war. AMERICAN Russian films are packed with propaganda. RUSSIAN So are American films. Everytime you open a refridgerator and it's loaded with all kinds of food, that's propaganda. He goes on to say it's like an advertisement for a "better life over here" Sorry for the incredible paraphrase, but the concept I thought was interesting.

Avoiding a long discourse on all the things which play a part - I would suggest that what your noticing is the lack of design aesthetics. In still photography amateurs will shoot around their house without any lighting plan and quite often really beautiful shots are happened upon - the reason is that there is a natural texture design to people's homes - the mess, the deterioration. Additionally - natural light is often very attractive. Now, when people decide to do a movie they often clean spaces up or they are going to a set and suddenly the art direction becomes very sterile. That's a huge difference... and the same goes for the lighting. If you are trying to fake what might happen naturally, you have to understand very well what would happen naturally. Why are so many documentaries so beautiful when in nature and so many TV shows so horrible in nature? same thing - one is recording what is there and the other has a whole bunch of different agendas. So - if you want to create something that has a little more aesthetics than other people - first thing - look at the environment like an artist - look for texture detail... look around you at how the light really works in a day to day basis and take note of when lighting is notably attractive. Notice how light often paints itself onto the walls. Don't overlight - try turning off as many lights as possible and then paint your image by justifying each light source using the mood you want to create as the guide as to how far you go. These are just thoughts to get you thinking in the right realm. I would highly recommend watching the entertaining and educational documentary "Visions of Light"

J.S. - did you notice or remember by chance if the tonality leaned towards the smooth tonality that most HD cameras create now? If you're not sure what I mean, just think of skin tons and how for the most part they are smoother on HD than film. Smoother to the point that it almost looks like a little too much make up was used. thanks again.

so - to sum that up.... D20 = RAW or whatever you want..... availability unknown Kinetta = RAW.... availability unknown Dalsa = RAW... availability unknown Genesis = Tape (HDcam)... limited availability next year. But ALL of them have a larger sensor - the Genesis having a 3 chip. John Sprung - When you saw the Genesis... did you notice anything in the footage shown that a normal HD camera would have had issues with? How about the D20? thanks.

I'm putting this out to make sure that I'm understanding it right - that these both shoot RAW which will be recorded to disk. If you were to download your disk to some mass storage soltion every night - by the end of a shoot for a 90 minute feature with a 10:1 shoot ratio you would have about 15.5 TERRABYTES of uncompressed data - once you converted them to an uncompressed HD editing full rez format - you'd have something like 9 terrabytes. That would require a $26,000 storage solution if it were used online. On the flip side - if you converted and layed them to tape every night or two (because you were to edit in proxy mode and then do an online later) - you could edit the thing on your powerbook - however - you would be sourcing now from d5 tape. In this latter case there would be an inherent advantage it seems of using the Genesis which records to hdcam and saves a lot of steps - or are people feeling the inherent compression of HDcam plus the lack of ability to play with the depth offered by RAW format would make up for this? Thanks in advance for any thoughts.