Mark Allen

I agree that the quality varies a great deal. Studios will often outsource their movies for compression to different facilities and they don't all do it the same. In addition to having the cleanest source, the art of compression techniques really is a craft and not a button push. Some facilities understand that and some don't. A good compression house will customize the compression for the movie - making sure that scenes with a lot of pans have enough data rate while still ones can loosen it up. You'll also find that the data rates are vastly different depending on the length and special features on the DVD. That's probably the largest difference right there. If your quality level is 3 vs. 6 - that's obviously a big difference and even studio movies will have to go down to 3 in order to fit the whole movie and all the features. ABout still frame - some dvd players can recognize material that was telecined and will actually take out the pull down for the stills. Some will even remove the pulldown for the movie altogether. However, in order to get this to happen, you have to prepare the movie right.

Actually the hardest school to get into is UCLA (because it can be so very affordable - even for out of state students after you move to California (1 year is therefore costsly)). NYU is probably the next one down. USC - is notorious for people paying their way in. It gets most of its reputation because of the powerhouse people who buy their kids in and therefore you've got lots of powerhouse nepatoids running around. (Just what I hear.) From USC students I hear the big complaint being that it is very structured so that some students get all the glory. If your the people who don't get to do the big movie - then you might be a little unhappy. This is as of a few years ago. Are you local to Los Angeles? Go there - talk to the admissions people - have them introduce you to students and get their honest opinions. ANY school is going to be all about what you do with it. Personally... I would take the $150+,000 that you would pay in tuition at USC - bank that - go to a cheaper school to learn some basic skills - then take taht 150k and make a feature as your own thesis. However... I will say this. USC is very tied in and you might make those golden connections IF you're a mover shaker. Most people aren't. This isn't the most helpful, but since there weren't a lot of responses I thought I would toss out what I know. You know there is also "Art Center" - if someone told me "I want to be a DP or I want to direct commercials" - ART CENTER (pasadena).... they are hardcore for visual.

I just wanted to ad this link to the discussion: http://www.elementalfilms.co.uk/solid_air.htm - shot on HD http://www.elementalfilms.co.uk/projectx/hd24p_text.htm - a very detailed discussion about it

Sure - (sorry for the OT sidebar) - Imagine you're a DP wanting to make your reel. You have lots of sources beta, Digibeta, etc. You go to a facility and capture them all in DV format because you've got your DV editing system at home, then you'll just cut together your reel and burn it to DVD. But that's a bad idea. Capture uncompressed and edit it on an uncompressed system then save it uncompressed - then use that to make your DVD. The mistake people make is thinking that DV and DVD are using the same compression - they aren't. Even if their sources and process is uncompressed, sometimes people will save their movie out as DV before making their DVD - not good, might as well have captured at DV then. That clear it up?

David hits the major points.... and yes - cahnging light on the faces is hugely helpful - however, don't OVER do the light changes - don't make it like a train is passing (common mistake). Also - for windows, personally I like them if they are reflecting enough to get the actors on the inside of the car. That adds a great reality to the shot. I also like it if they are catching some of the light. Almost always when doing a real key, you do a garbage but form fitting roto on anything that isn't moving in the frame and keep the rest of the key light enough so that refelections and detail remain - and soft parts of the hair. My favorite keying software is keylight by the way. If you're doing this in DV... DV is hard to key because the compression is square blocks which makes edges aliased. But... people do it.

It is a pay function - BUT the first two weeks are free! it's right up there on the right hand side of the tabs on the normal imdb page. The Hollywood Reporter also has a ranking system which costs $10 per session - HOWEVER, you have to be a premium HR user already to use it and I think that's a pricey membership - I forget how much. Also, there are the Q ratings but those are seriously like $2,000 per actor... yikes! The ultimate thing is to just run names by a distributor if you can get to one. If you are at AFM, you can. Some people pay the $600 or so fee just so they can walk the floor and when they see a distributor selling movies like theirs - they say "Hey what do you think of Andrew McCarthy in an action film." "You got to be kidding." "What about Joe Actor?" "Who?" "What about Joe Television Guy?" "Hey! that's interesting." etc. (AFM is now in November though) Personally - that's sort of a pricey way to do your research. Remember btw that the imdb rating is HIGHLY suseptible to recent news... so you gotta use a little common sense. I've not sued Hollywood Reporter's but I will when I'm about to push on something next Feb.

Thanks for the numbers. If you're in Los Angeles, you can get a better deal on telecine - message me if you need a pointer. Additionally - I have found that if I do my own audio synching I can get a full range (for later color correcting) film to HD transfer at 3:1 - but nothing less. I think if I were to have them synch it would be more like 5:1. Since you're researching this - I know people like to have this stuff on DVCAM - but I really have to recommend or suggest the idea of capturing proxies. It is such a smooth system and keeps you at 24p. If you in the mac realm - if you capture FCP and use poxies, then do all your effects in FCP and even color correction in FCP using those proxies, you can do an HD online really quickly. I've got a bid from a place at $1k/day with FCP HD system and a D5. In the end, though, I don't think there is any way around the fact that HD is going to be a little cheaper. That's why this topic is so darned prolonged!!! And that's why we keep getting excited about unavailable, unfinished, and unconstructed cameras like the Genesis, Kinetta, and Arri20 which could bridge the gap. As for David's commnt "This is partially because a feature-length optical printer blow-up, even counting the costs of the dupes, runs under $30,000 usually while a laser recorder output is often twice that." - There are actually much cheaper ways to take HD to film now and the quality is what even scrutinizing people would call "negligible." I forget the name of the one system, but if you want to know more contact Ken Garf and www.in24p.com as he can arrange time on these machiens. I am sure it is less than an optical print last I remember. Also, yes it's true that there are lots of opportunities for HD to be projected at festivals.

HDCAM is a compressed format. However, if the decks are capable of doing clones as you suggest (which makes sense), then all the quality loss is coming from once I pull it into our machines and then send it back out again because it would have to recompress it at that stage. That is no longer a clone. It's like the mistake people make when making DVD's - they cut in DV format and then go to DVD format creating just hurrendous amounts of compression. In our case we delivered on the same tape they provided the rough shot on so I asked them to dub to D5 as well. I will research to confirm that the xfer is a pure clone. thanks

Well - one way is to get a really excellent pitch line (for a finished script) and then email their agents, managers, producers, production company - or even a production company that has worked with them - and get right to the point with it... I have a project for Joe Actor about a man who is living in a world where everyone has magic powers but him and he needs to find his magic powers. (btw that plot is stolen from a recent screenplay sale to a major studio.) There are 1000s of possible types of movie and 20 of them are going to be interesting to one actor or another one because of some thing in their mood or whatever - and the agents might generally know this (the managers definitely should know). You're trying to get them thinking "Hey - that's actually unique." But don't complain that no one listens until you try everyone. I'm not saying your guaranteed to get someone - but you never know. Really unique ideas are the key though when you're coming from the outside. It will hard to get anyone to read the "story of two brothers in the desert" drama even if the actual script is the most brilliant work ever written. You get to sell/make that one when your name gets you in the door. I'm always on the look out for scripts for two well known actresses - but I can honestly tell you - while maybe 10% of what comes our way is good writing or a good idea, the chances of that 10 percent being what they are looking for is like another 10 percent of that. And, yes, it can be as simple as "I don't want to play the 2nd character, I want to play the title character. I don't want to play someone i their 20's, I don't want to play the same role I just played. I don't want to play... etc." - but there are things they do want to play. I've seen actors latch on tightly to movies that other people didn't think were as good - but they loved this script - they tried to help the unknown writer get it made because they thought it was so interesting/good/perfect for them, whatever. Happens. By the way - if anyone has a screenplay for a well known attractive female in her 30's who plays strong characters well - send me a pitch for the finished script to my message box here.

David - as always appreciate your knowledge and demeanor... I wanted to simply mention on this though that there is actually a shocking amount of noise on HDCAM (compared to D5). On a TV show I worked on, they were shooting to HDCAM, then dubbing certain shots to HDCAM for FX, then doing the effects and going back to HDCAM and you could really see the difference in quality - each transfer added a ton of noise. After that, D5 was used as the intermediary - it does make a big difference. Just wanted to put that out there for anyone working with this.

David that's really excellent information. 100 is probably too ambitious - I do wonder what 200 would look like. Just adding to the discussion, I'm not sure if anyone linked the (obviously biased) Kodak stories about this subject: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...0.1.4.3.4&lc=en

Seems like you have plenty of movie suggestions, but for a 3D version of this sort of mood, check out: http://www.studioaka.co.uk/picas/frame1.html as a reference.

Do keep in mind that the average theatre going audience isn't going to see a movie unless a distributor picks it up and these folks are not the average theatre-going audience. In actuality - I would be really curious to know what the average audience would think. I mean, most televisions are cranked way too high on the picture and chroma levels because they seem to sell better in the stores that way. (Though while I may say this looks worse, it does demonstrate a preference "hoot." - but just one.) The real question is would the experience of the movie be different. If you've ever watched non industry people watch uncolortimed footage and then see the colortimed afterwards they do comment that it looks better.... so they have perceptual skills for these sorts of things - they prefer the look of DVD to VHS. They prefer the HD to the NTSC. All this tells me that they would have a greater aesthetic experience with an appropriate medium to the subject. Then again - I could be wrong. Maybe if 5,000 people saw a movie shot in DV and 5,000 saw the same movie shot in Film - maybe there would be only a discrepancy in opinion of the experience by 20% or less. I might be wrong about the mass audience. I don't think I'm wrong about distributors though. All this said, if the Panavision Genesis or other cameras with larger sensors really are as impressive as people are commenting - I definitely think there is a range where it really won't make a difference to the average audience. The question is only in where is that cut off. I would gladly sacrifice 3%, maybe 5%, of what I perceive to be as quality for the convenience of HD.

Ha! Good call. Interesting, I was told it was shot on DV when I went to see it at the theater and it certainly had that look. Apparently the director had been the Production Designer on "Three Kings" and was really inspired by how much post processing they had done to create vastly different looks. She decided to try that trick herself. If you watch the film (in the theater at least) the end result of her look is basically that of DV - with all it's blow outing glory. So - that certainly proves the point that if you shoot in a medium that is superior, you can downgrade it. If it doesn't prove that point, it would prove that super 16 looks just awful when blown up. Knowing now that it was shot on super 16, I'm sort of shocked that she went so far with the the look - I thought she was doing her best to try to salvage the look of the film.

Hollywood behavior (though these notes could apply to many businesses... or maybe even dating I'm sure): Try to be positive when possible. Every mover shaker I know has this trait. Maybe they'll lean over at one point to me and say "boy that guy's film was a real dissapointment" - but they'd never say it publically or to anyone who would talk. People respond to positive people here. Never be a fan to anyone because you're positioning yourself as a subordinate. On the flip side, try to make everyone feel good about themselves because it reflects well on you. Whatever it is you want to do is obtainable and you don't have to be the best, you just have to follow the steps that will take you there. Everyone has a huge connection and a huge project that will never ever ever happen. Everynow and then someone has something that's real. Learn quickly to discern between the two. Hint: Most things that happen happen quickly. Everyone loves someone who loves what they do and really knows about it. Everyone prefers people they know to people they don't know at all. Hollywood is a string of communites that are all linked somehow. There are definitely certain communities who look out for eachother. There are definitely some people who are in and some people who are out. There are two ways of going from out to in. One way (which is the dream of most independent filmmakers) is to do "the thing" which gets everyone's attention and suddenly everyone wants a piece of you. The other way is to blend into the crowd slowly by simply being around, becoming familiar, being reliable, being someone people like and respect. Takes time and most filmmakers are impatient because they are artists! Even if your goal is to be a DP, I know several DPs who courted these executives just by getting to know them, then the exec would suggest them just because they liked them and before long they were working. Well... "favors" perhaps - "special favors" - no. Don't position yourself as a subordinant while you do your favors. Meaning - keep your sense of self, if you break that - it will show and no one else will respect you. If you keep it, you can do a favor for someone that genuinely helps them out. For example... good favor: "Hey TSM, I need some coverage done by tomorrow morning and I have to go meet Spielberg tonight - can you do it?" Yes, do it. bad favor: "Hey TSM, go down to USC and score me some smack." - No, don't do it.

I'm only "defending" here just to clarify that I would not ask people about their impressions when in Best Buy - they were just talking among themselves until I'd but in and ask why they felt that way. My assertion is simply that people are affected by the aesthetics whether they can label it or not. I've even heard kids ask why Soap Operas look different than movies.

I absolutely believe people can sense a difference. In fact I had to study this for a project I worked on a few years ago. But for all the research, some of the most telling moments were just being at a Best Buy when the HD TVs first came out and non industry people would walk up to it and say to their wife or son or husband, "Wow - look at at that picture. That sure is beautiful. Look at the hills there." Once I heard this I started hanging around it casually and I would ask people acting like I didn't know, "What do you think makes it so different?" Most of the time they'd say "It just seems more life like." If they can tell the diffrenc between SD and HD, it means they can perceive a technical difference and it has an affect on their aesthetic experience. Now - that said - an aesthetic experience is just that and the filmmaker gets to be in control of that - but the choices he or she makes should resonate from the subject matter and be an intentional part of the mood of the project. So - "Thirteen" and "Pieces of April" - would these movies have been better on 35mm instead of DV? Those films? I don't really think so - I think you could feel the energy of the small camera, the looser flow. "Charlotte Sometimes" - now that movie might have been better on film had the budget been there - I think it was such a quiet movie that it would have been better to have more clarity with the actors in the quiet moments. There were a lot of still moments which would been better served by more visual range. "Spy Kids 2" - shot on HD - I don't think it made a bit of difference - in fact, I think HD might have even been a better choice than film because he really wanted that color pop and smoothing skin tons, occasional blow out - all those were fine. However, "Once upon a time in Mexico" (same director also shot on HD) - Personally the story seemed to be better suited for film from an aesthetics stand point. So - Titanic. If it had been shot on DV it would not have had the same impact - it would have had to be shot totally different. Maybe if it were told from the perspective of the folks in the underbelly of the ship - something a little more fervent. Obviously all of this is just my opinion based on what reactions I have and what I've seen other have. In keeping with the spirit of the topic here, I'm simply saying that there's a time and a place for any look if it makes sense with the story - but I do think audiences are going to be responding to that whether they can tell you why or not - it makes an aesthetic difference. When the digital mediums are capturing a range like the analog mediums - then they'll be providing enough leeway to make whatever "look" you want and the choice can be made by convenience. I, by the way, am a huge advocate of the digital intermediate process even if that is being done with HD on D5. I think having that type of color control for your projects is supremely desireable. Also, I find that the HD on D5 has enough range to hold most of what I would want from the film anyway.

I think it depends on a few things: 1. Only ever intern at a place that you really like what they do. No one cares that you interned somewhere, it means nothing on your resume. You are doing it to get in with this company and these people and they all like what this company is doing, so if you don't - it won't do anything for you. 2. It depeds on your personality. If you're the kind of person who can make friends and connections just by being around and generally make a good impression - then it will help you meet people that will end up as agents, producers, running studios... not everyone, but you'll know who when you're there. 3. You have to be able to put your ego aside and keep up the energy eventhough or even if you are doing really mundane things. Ask questions when you can. If you know what you want to do, let people know that. Don't be ambigious ("I want to be a writer! and I also play in a rock band." - it might be true, but that confuses the issue.)

Special Effects is a world of specialties. Even inside the world of 3D alone you could spend years mastering just the art of textures. When I was a visual effects supervisor I had one artist who was 15 and amazing (I had seen some of his work he'd posted online and thought I could use him and did). I assumed his parents were artists and he'd been studying art all his life - but, in fact, no. His parents were scientists and he had learned how to focus on problem solving and was exceptional at being aware of his work - he had the ability to see problems in his own work, then ask himself (and others) how to improve on them. (Most people (especially adults) do not have the ability to objectively see their own work.) He'd also spent a summer working as an intern at a video game company's 3D department at 14. Simply to say - it's not always how many years you try to learn something, it's your approach. So learn that now, while you're in highschool, and you'll be way ahead of the game. Now - resources. There is actually a school for special effects in Los Angeles called "Gnomon" and found online at http://www.gnomon3d.com - they have about 80 DVDs availabe or more covering everything for analogue media to 3D techniques. Originally they had relatively unknown artists - but recent DVDs have included Matte Painting by Dusso and Conceptual Design by Syd Mead. Those are some big names. But most of the DVDs are very well thought of. As for free resources, the web is obviously full of information on this stuff. I would, however, recommend trying to figure out what aspect most interests you and then become the best at that. Specialists find it easier to get work and they get paid more. Generalists think they will have more options of finding work, but in actuality they often have split their time up too much be one of the "best out there." Good Luck! Send me a private message or post in a follow up link any online samples of your work.

I just ran across this and thought is was an appropriate link to this discussion: http://digitalcinemasociety.org/TechTips.p...=Fact+Sheet+101

An agent or manager is going to help you get a meeting if you've just got an idea or an existing script and nothing else. If you have a good script with a name actor - and they really are famous - (say, top 1000 of IMDB at a minimum and preferably top 300 as a ball park) - you can call a studio on your own. Do not attach an editor, or cinematographer, or anyone else unless they are Academy Award winning or generally thought to be the top of their field. That actually is thought of as a negative (baggage) on a project. When your playing the Hollywood game, you need to always have things as succinct as possible and then a secondary follow up which is also short. You are probably not going to be calling one of the major four studios though - you'd more likely be contacting a production company who has a deal with them. Here's a sample process. You have a action script with Joe Actor (imdb ranknig 212 - he's a rising star, people know his name). You do some research and find a handful of production companies with studio distribution deals and you find the ones who make movies like the movie you have (not identical, just that genre). Then you find out who the head of production is (John Head). And the conversation goes like this. SECRETARY Minimajor Studios. YOU I would like to speak to John Head about a action project I have with Joe Actor. SECRETARY Is he aware of this project? YOU No - but I thought you guys would be interested in it. From there - it is all dependent on what they feel about that actor, what their production schedule is like ....but that actor is the key... so, maybe she turns you away and you go down your list and you finally get a company that for them Joe Actor would be a coup to have in a movie and you get through to Fred Head there. FRED HEAD So tell me about this project. YOU It's a blah blah action thriller with Joe Actor as blah blah who blah blah's the blah blah. FRED HEAD Interesting - how did Joe Actor come to thr project... then you chat for four more lines and they ask to see the script. The key is that you have something they want. That's how the star system works. It's supply/demand (very capatalist). (By the way, they may ask for a letter of intent from the actor.) If you don't have a star - that's a whole nother thing, but that wasn't what you asked. Questions - What if my star is 1789 on IMDB? Try smaller companies or try doing it totally independent. Why didn't I try to pitch to the studios? You can, try it. But they can get whoever they want usually - they're heavy financed, they can throw millions into an escrow account to get an actor to read something if they're resistant. You gotta focus on what you have that is valuable. Is a great idea valuable? Not really. Is a great script valuable? Absolutely!!! - Especially if it's castable. How do I get an actor to read a script? Well, when an actor is really hot - they're getting way too many scripts - and it's hard. But when an actor is six months out from their heat - that's when the coolness starts and they want to work... they probably had three top producers promise roles and none of those got made - reality is settling in. Now they are reading - and they want something great... and great is really really hard to find. I was part of a team looking for a movie for an actress who is about 30 years old to play an interesting, powerful, attractive woman who is the lead role (not 2nd role). We scoured the earth and inktip.com, asked friends, we had 200 pitches or more... nothing was actually that good. All very derrivative. Finally, the project had to be generated from inside. You'd be amazed at how few good scripts there really are. Are imdb ratings absolute? Not at all - they are just decent guidelines when you get under 1000 or so. Paris Hilton is in there, but obviously people aren't clamoring for her to be in Merchant of Venice. But if you had some sassy stupid sex comedy... maybe.... but still, her fame is more from being notirious and your really don't consider those anomalies. Good Luck.

When producers ask me the difference between film and HD - this is what I tell them trying to stick as much as possible to things I perceive as facts: Film will capture more gradients in the skin tones which is often perceived as "quality." HD will smooth out the subtleties in skin tones which is sort of like having an invisible mist filter on the lense. While some actresses might love this, it takes away some of the reality. (Note that I had a DP once say he could remove this and he tried and it never worked, it's true with my hgh end digital still camera too.) With HD you have to be more careful with your specular and whites on the set - You have to always be concerned with too high lumanent contrast which can create blow outs which are often perceived as "low quality." When you have an HD monitor on set, you know exactly what you are getting and you know that you have it safe on tape - the lab can't ruin it. With film, you rely on experience of knowing what it will look like and there is always the chance a lab or some chemical malfunction or unseen camera malfunction will harm the footage. In HD you can take more shots because the tape is so much less expensive than film. Bottom line for me is that the process for shooting HD is preferred, but the quality of film is preferred. Sometimes the process matters more than the look because the process will end up affecting the final performance. Someone in the forums here once argued that we are used to the film look and that preference will fade overtime. While I find that an interesting argument - I think audiences will always respond more to what more closely approximates how our eyes see things - and regard that as more impressive. If there were an HD camera which looked the same as 35mm, but retained all the production advantages of HD - would any really say "no, I would rather use the 900 or 950 because I like the look better."

Why can't one just capture the footage into FCP and post directly in the program? Isn't that supported?

Perfect - so - you certainly saw the film in the theater.... what are your feelings about how it looked? I've heard "grainy" said now and then - but also heard that there were some digital intermediate problems which caused the night time grain. If you were given the choice of shooting HD to blow up or super 16 to blow up - which would you choose for quality sake? Is it truly more grainy? Does the enhanced range make up for that? I've not seen it yet.... came and flew out of Los Angeles before I'd even heard of it.

Yes..... When you shoot in 24p, you should edit in 24p, and send out all your web movies in 24p. When you finally go to video, you'll want to add in the pull down to make it 29.97. Adding the interlacing is always the final step. When you go to DVD, if done correctly, it will actually flag the player that the source is 24p and the play will remove interlacing for still frames. nifty! Unless the frames were added on the capture, you should be able to salvage your edit just fine - if it was captured at 29.97... that's going to be some eye matching.