Mark Allen

There are two ways of investing. One is to invest in the publicly traded company itself. The other is to invest in the funds these companies set up. If you're a player (meaning you have lots of high risk captial), you could talk to a broker about these funds. Disney did have some specific film funds for quite a while that people with lesser sums were able to invest in with a lot less money. The other route is to just take that capital and decide that you are going to invest in 10 different independent movies and search or contact agencies for their best indie scripts, hire an experienced producer who can set them up and follow your gutt on making these much less expensive films hoping to make the money back. Sounds crazy? Well, I know a handful of investors who have done well. A handful have lost everything. Honestly - I think a lot of it had to do with the investor. However, the smart investor spreads the money out over a few films. (I'm not a broker and I don't play one on TV)

Actually, Nintendo would be the publisher if it were an NES game, no? But, it's true you might need to contact the developer of the game and Nintendo would not be the end-all in every case. But it's a place to start.

outside of final cut express, I was under the impression that FCP only came in the studio bundle now. It's a great bundle though. The number one thing that will get you work is getting to know people who hire editors and then do a decent job and be reliable. Personally, I would absolutely understand how after effects works just to know that much more. Knowng how it works and mastering it are totally different things. First get a mastery of the editing programs. Try to get around the editing environment. Even if it means being an assistant. In college I asked an actress friend to watch a cut of my movie - she made a few comments which I thought were pretty astute and she had fun. I told her she should try to get some experience at Corman's studio. She got an editorial internship gig there. Next movie - an assistant gig... Five years later, she was editing for Francis Ford Coppola. I can't tell you how many super talented people I know who are never working because they never let their ego go enough to do what it took to just get in the room and be known. For anyone wanting to be in the industry, I can't state enough how important it is to just get around the people doing it and make a good impression. Be the "go to guy," "the person with the answers..." etc.. There is a dirth of people who know what they are doing and are in the right room at the right time. So get in the right room and be ready.

"about" is a big word. If you're making a spoof of the game, you're in luck because parody is a protected right. If you're making a documentary - similar. If you're making a movie that is set in the world of the game.... you're getting into a tricky situation. Not to say the obvious, but you'd want to contact nintendo and as for cost... either it's going to be incredibly expensive or free. So you're going to ask them if you can use the elements for a short project. That's if you need to ask them. Read this for more info: http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/

Note that in practice you end up having more trouble with corporate owned distributors who don't want a very very long list of competitors to any of any of the corporations products to appear int he movie than you will with any legality of showing things which happen to appear in your movie. Except Audio. Even interface sounds - be careful with those and do some research. I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV.

My comment was assuming that you were not using tape btw. I don't know anything about using tape with this camera.

I can only answer that FCP 5.0.4 (the 4 matters!!!) on a G5 will work with the HVX200 just fine. 5.1 if you're on an intel (I believe). I didn't need any additional drivers. You'll need some way of bringing the data into the mac by way of either the camera itself, a p2store, a fs100, or (I THINK) using a g4 powerbook with a p2 slot.

Here are some thoughts, Bellizzi. Let's call this the Mark Allen Film School... Filmmaking 101 1. Read these books: There is a book called "Film Directing Fundamentals" which is very comprehensive if you are just starting out - it is literally a film class in a book. Make sure you watch all the movies he describes when he first brings them up. Advancing for there to some important details...Read "Story" by Robert McKee - because filmmaking ends up being storytelling even if you string a bunch of random images together so it helps to understand the concept. Read "Film Directing" by David Mammet because he talks about some really important issues regarding directing not brought up anywhere else. Read "directing shot by shot" to start thinking about shot design. Read "Film Art" to start thinking about film at multiple levels. Watch "Visions of Light" DVD to start thinking about photography. There are lots of good books - that's a good place to start. There is a book called 2. Start watching movies that appeal to you with a critical mind and a note pad. Try to start analyzing how a moment was built. Notice things like... how tension is built, or humor... try to figure out how the editing or cinematography helped the moment. Feel the timing. I used to both watch movies without the sound and then listen to movies without the picture when I was studying them early on. 3. Get into any acting class you can. Now. You must study acting even if you never ever appear in front of the camera (which is probably best unless you've been an actors for many years). 4. Don't worry about the technology at all - worry about constructing scenes and creating an emotional reaction. DV is just fine - i'ts easy to use - simple to edit - etc. Do this until you feel like you really got the hang of it - might take a long time. 5. Try to get around people who have been doing this for a decade or more and observe how they do it. Don't assume they are doing it right - but try to find in what they do what seems to work best for them if you can. It's always good to learn from people. If you can't, you'll just learn by trial and error. Good luck.

Knowing David from the forums and once in person, whatever he said was probably very conservative and polite - at most cautionary - unlikely inciniary. I actually think that the resolution people choose to shoot at will depend on if there is a super nice codec that can be handled by the post production process - that said - I think if the 1080 looked great, the indies would still be thrilled. arnih - I'm hopeful and excited about the camera's future - but I don't know if it would be "the DV revolution all over again" because for most people $17,500 plus lenses is still going to be way out of the realm of possiblity. And most of the people doing DV movies are really not in the "rental" mindset. I don't think most of them realize how much more there is to a movie than the camera. For the people who shoot regular enough though the price is just in the realm of a purchase instead of rental. My reservation number is 89 (would have been lower had I been at NAB and not working) - and everytime I have to rent a camera now I shake my head thinking "Boy - if I only had this camera already." (And then I think... "Damn, I'll have to buy a tripod and a fluid head.... and should I buy some track... geeze... what about...?" ;) I think if they achieve their goal they will for a time own a huge segment of the professional demographic (professional meaning a production where people are being paid for their work). I would imagine that many TV shows that had a meeting about switching off film or that are already on HD would convert. I would imagine nearly every indie movie with a remote budget will convert. I don't think, though, that it will be in the hands of filmmakers who are doing movies like "Tarnation" - but definitely the choice of people doing films like "Me, You and Everyone We Know" (and all the InDigEnt movies if they are still making them.) So more of a professional's revolution than a cultural revolution.

The personality of the film is director's. His or her inclinations have selected everything to tell the story. If you are engaged by the movie on an emotional level - that is the director. An actor can give a truly engaging performance it's true and a cinematographer can deliver an image which is beyond beautiful and enters into storytelling itself... however... if all of these elements are working in perfect synch - then everyone is working together and that is the director's job. He or she finds the story in the script and makes sure that everyone else working on themovie has found the same story. Like many printed materials - 10 people can read the same script and have either totally or slightly different visions of it. Beyond the storypoints there is the entire mise-en-scene. What is that? Here's an example... as a child I read "Mrs. Frisby and the rats of NIMH" and was really engaged by it. I imagined it as a movie and was really excited by the caves and all the l ittle details. The organic quality of everyting. This book was made into an animation film called "The Secret of NIMH" and was totally different than how I imagined it. All the things I thought were exciting about the book were lost. I pick this movie because it was a perfectly successful film (and doesn't involve live cinematography being an animated film) - but just to illustrate that what Don Bluth saw in the same book was so incredibly different than what I saw in the book. Would my movie have been successful? Who knows, but it definitely would have been different. Imagine if Uwe Bol had directed Blade Runner. It would have had a totally different personality. Also a director brings about a different performance from the people involved. For example - Natalie Portman in the Star Wars films is a different actress than she is in, say... Garden State or Closer or The Professional. This is just as true for designers and the other key artists involved in the film. Enough text from me.

If you're curious to hear a first hand opinion on the the first images off the "mysterium" sensor - check out Mike Curtis's latest blog entry: http://www.hdforindies.com/ direct link: http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/08/hd4nds-...-mike-sees.html

If you mean the HVX200, I've used it on location shoots when I needed to do greenscreen work (which is does well because of the 100mbits bandwidth at 1080. Good keys. I like the look of it - but it goes grainy fast and despite the 1080 it isn't the sharpest camera out there. The autofocus seems to not even work - thankfully it has the focus enlarger for the manual focus. All in all a good camera. seems to have the best 24p as well. You could get a technically better image if you can tether to a comuter and capture direct to disk on one or more of the competing cameras probably - but in practical use, I think the higher bandwidth is good.

victor - you might look into searching "filmstrip" in the help files - but I would highly not recommend photoshop for this task because the whole need for AE is that the clone stays consistent. If there are single frame only scratches you could simply save the frame out under file menue an the reimport it (hint name the file with the time code). Always remember that these tools are well explained in the help documentation under the help menue. For the original quetsion, the most common error with clone stamp is that people don't realize (even in v. 7) you have to paint onto the layer you want to paint onto. I forget anything but 7, but in 7 you can clone for a different source if you want. in FCP you could in theory just duplicate your clip ontop of another one, then mask OUT an area you want to remove and then shift the bottom layer to a fill point. I do this in AE instead of using the clone tool. Much better.

I just shot two music videos with this camera. i used BOTH the P2 and the Firestore because I was renting and I needed more storage than I could rent in any one format. Here are some observations: 1. Firestore does not do slow motion from what I was told by the rental house. 2. Firestore DOES do 1080/30p eventhough the documentation is unclear about that. 3. Firestore makes a littel bit of fan/drive noise which I personally found a concern, but I wasn't recording audio so I don't know if it would read or not. 3. Firestore is much easier on set because it holds so much data. However, if you had 12 8 gig P2 cards, they would be easier because it's really easy to swap P2 cards and you would then have nearly the same data storage. Both were easy to work with and imported just fine on the first try though I've read in forums where Jan recommends that you check your loaded in footage prior to deleting your footage. I was using a P2store on set so that would not be an option. If I were to do it again I'd keep an OLDER G4 powerbook on set with FCP 5.04+ standing by and import them directly as we went, check the footage (scanning) really quickly and then delete the card and move on. We had 2 8gig cards. One odd thing about the firestore and I've never heard of anyone else having this problem - but some of my shots once imported were not split at the right point. the cuts were in the middle of takes and the split points were in the middle of shots. However, no frames were lost, was just incorrect split points. I was wondering if the process of "prepare for p2" did something prior to import to cause this to happen. To sum it up - if I could buy 3 32 gig cards or even 12 8 gig cards for the price of a firestore, I would do that. However, the firestore works, is a great deal for the footage and if you can live without variable speed - will do what you need. Investigate the import splitting to make sure ours was user error somehow and investigate any audio concerns with the drive noise.

If anyone looks this up in the future, the answer is: www.jrlighting.com My contact there was Bill.

Thanks for the advice... We ended up using a 744 with a Time Code Slate. We could have gotten by with the powerbook to camera solution - but in the end the client was high profile enough that we thought we'd better have a slate if for looks alone - and that hunch proved to be correct. Thanks for tips and info!

Set experience is important. Do you have to go through a big program and get "official" PA days on a union shoot? No. Do you have to work every job? No... but working a variety of jobs will make you both a confident and sympathetic team leader. I been on quite a few shoots where the director obviously didn't know how sets operated at all and it did not instill confidence in anyone (including the actors). And for goodeness sakes take acting classes. It's good for writing and directing. Don't direct unless you've studied acting (if you're directing drama). Every working writer/director I know personally has years of acting experience - even if not professional.

I need to do an audio playback for a couple hours for a music video. The talent will be lip synching to the track. We will be shooting on the HVX200. What is the best method. For a film shoot we'd use crystal synch and a clapper board. For video - is it the same deal? If I was going totally guerilla could we just use a portable computer to play it back and some external speakers? I don't want to "BOOM" the audio anyway. And with no clapper, just use the recorded audio on the camera to synch and then eye it in? OR feed the camera audio from the computer as well? Thoughts and tips appreciated.

I am shooting something in Vegas (where I've never been). Can someone recommend a reliable place to rent some lights - dedo and kino's? (if they rent video cameras as well even better - but not necessary.) Thanks.

I'd have to agree. I don't have any relationship with the guy - in fact, when I met him at cinegear he gave me about three words of his time. Which was fine, I had nothing really to ask or say anyway. However, I will say that all the Red folks I did talk to are very aware of the difficulty of what they are trying to achieve - yet they are trying to do it anyway. They're not saying "this is easy!" They're saying "this is hard! Let's try!" I've noticed in the last month or so that Jeff Krienes (Kinetta) has also been lambasted on the CML. Another guy who is trying to push the technology both forward and into the hands of more people. Now - i was at a Panavision seminar and heard some vaguely snide remarks sort of kinda in lieu to "marketing hype" on things - and I can understand their point of view. Its a competitor. But why on earth would filmmakers be standing on the sidelines of what is essentially a marathon race and be jeering "you suck!!!! You're not going to finish!!!!!" I'd rather my fellow filmmakers look at everyone who is innovating in this industry - especially with their own financing and on spec and say, "Wow - good luck to you! We'll check it out when you're done."

Actually I thought the Dalsa booth was the most interesting thing at the show. I liked that they were really showing what their equipment did from every perspective. I didn't bother getting all the punch card things because I'm not much for swag, but they had some nice swag for sure. But what I liked most was the fact that everything was being shows and that it looked really nice. Yes, the camera is huge. But... I'm sure it will get smaller. I'm not sure the AE demonstration was really serving the purpose one might want it to have and the composite wasn't tweaked well for it... but... some of the other samples really showed off the technology well. I thought the genesis footage looked okay - it was being shown on a film projector in my screening though and I'm told it could look better. I also did not find their trailer where they were showing the same footage - probably got lost in the 4 hole golf park and never saw the trailer where the actual footage was showing. RED (the trinket people to whom, by the way for disclosure purposes I have sent 1k) really had nothing to announce or show because they pretty much announced everything at the get go. I guess we wait until september to see stuff and April to use it (or get a refund). I was hoping to see SI there, but they weren't there. And sorry to miss any gathering, but I haven't been reading these forums as I've been on a project.

I just want to make sure that you (and anyone reading this) know that I'm not looking for someone to blame. I recognize there is an issue. And I 100% understand the issue of directors and editors choosing the softer take. I've done it. I was in a conversation with the editor of Kapote who did it in that movie... it's really hard to let go of the best performance. What I was trying to do is just recognize there is a problem and see if there were anything that could be done at all about it using any existing technology. Sounds like for these sorts of instances - there might be. There were some interesting thoughts brought up - I want to reseach the cinematape thing. Even if they're only used specifically for moments where you might only get one best performance moment (tears).

Yes, 99% of the time when I see something as a focus problem, it's just the actor i the middle of the frame, NOt moving - usually in tears (which is why they still use the take verses an alternate). I realize the actor was probably moving before this moment - but this is why I thought it would be easier to nail with some sort of automated focus pulling system. I might be biased because a friend of mine is an actress in MI3 - but I think overall - this was my favorite of the MI movies. I DO think there were some holes in the plot - but I enjoyed the rushed pace without being unintelligible and I appreciated the fact that the performances were strong and the emotional content was clearly tied to the action. I do feel that Woo's films often go cold and that there is a disconnect where the action just becomes action. The scrpt plays a large factor in this of course as well but it is the director's responsibility to bring it to life.

I'll toss out a couple thoughts: 1. Flat and safe lighting. Television has a tendency to be timid when it comes to it's imagery and tends to want to have everything well lit in the frame - as opposed to some variation. 2. Headshot and after headshot. Most shots for TV are head and shoulders because it's a smaller screen and they want you to identify with the characters. Long shots are rarely used and that shrinks the scope of the picture. 3. Cheesy rim light. In my humble opinion, TV lighting relied heavy on rim lights to make character pop out from the background and it creates a very artificial look as it is overused and overdone. 4. Shot variety. TV schedules are rushed and they don't often get in there to grab a more unique and perhaps more appropriate shot or insert shot. Movies will often have many shots in them which are only seen once. TV will usually fall into the classic coverage mold.

Please do not take this as a disrespectful comment about AC's - but simply as an understanding of "yes, with this technology, that'd be hard!" But why would this invention not work. The AC has a laser which he can aim at what he wants to be in focus and the machine reads the distance and auto adjusts focus. Now, of course you wouldn't want to use this all the time - there is an art to focus pullling, I get that... however... there are soooooo many times where I've been doing a shoot where we are dollying in, or the actor is moving and the good performances end up out of focus. The technology is there for this sort of thing, is it not? It seems to be there in consumer cameras - why not just make it into something you could aim and hold focus?