Mark Allen

When I was studying theater and film scoring for my BA at UCLA, David Raksin was my teacher for film scoring and he happens to have a pristine 35mm print of Citizen Kane which he would show to his class once a year. It was Melnitz Theater, so a few lucky friends always got to sit in that day. I'd seen the movie on video maybe 10 times, but to see it in a no-need for restoration quality print was pretty impressive. Almost as impressive as all the behind the scenes stories he would tell.

Sorry - I forgot that might not translate. it is simply me saying kudos (congratulations) for a well shot production on such a limited crew. I'm inspired and impressed. It's like me tipping my hat to you and poking you in the rib at the same time, but in a friendly way.

Show off. ;)

....the more complicated method involves motion control cameras. but you can actually have actors cross by using rotoscoping as well.... in fact.... Here is a little something for you to watch: http://effectscorner.blogspot.com/2006/01/...ing-part-1.html

$35,000 US is about $35,000 more US dollars than anyone in the US can get from the government for their movies - so that's a great thing for you. But if you have a burning passion to make movies.... why would you be doing a remake? Is the "immense gap in your soul" for telling stories or for telling people you make movies. Make sure it's for telling stories or it's going to be a big disappointment for you.

I think you should step very carefully and not spend too much energy on it until you have a complete assessment. There have been a handful of people who have contacted me out of the blue over the years. One of them ended up being a guy who had directed over 30 movies - but what he wanted from me was very well defined and made sense (eventhough his first two emails were a tad confusing) and that was a successful thing. Most of the other people ended up wasting a lot of my time. So be open, but keep careful tabs on all "opportunities."

You might find this article of interest: http://www.slate.com/id/2136723/ Keep in mind that the Academy is not a group of divine beings - they are just a bunch of people who have worked in the industry - mostly on or in connection with studio in office or corporate capacities. The majority of them are "older" rather than "younger." There is a great story of one filmmaker who found out who all these members were and went out and interviewed as many of them as he could and then made movies specifically for them and won some Academy Awards as a result. And it's always sentimental and it's often off the mark. It is true though that it is one of the few things that can help give a movie longevity. I think the best thing to do is if you love a movie you've seen - promote it yourself. Help the filmmakers just by letting people know you loved it and why. Viral marketing is going to be the paradigm shift of the independent market. It's the only way to compete with 30 to 50 million budgets. Will it lead to Academy Awards? Perhaps - Pieces of April (from InDigEnt, shot on DV) had an actor nominated. But most importantly - it will lead to awareness of the film and filmmaker.

Remote Exterior with a budget of near 500k to me says "Shoot on 35mm" instead of HD. I'm all for shooting things on HD, but film has certain advantaged areas and you're jumping right into two of them. 1. Remote 2. Exterior

I don't have a link to the actual laws - but essentially - you can't use anything without permission. Period. You can't even use a computer software's sounds without permission. And remember even if the song is old and beyond 75 years past the author's death - there are lots of tricky ways that people are keeping songs out of the public domain. Also - whoever recorded it still owns that recording of it. The good news is that there are tons of royalty free libraries to purchase - and tons of musicians who are able to record their own music and are wanting score for their reels.

Now recorders can grab 192hz at 24bit pretty simple, so the analogue advantage is decreasing as the digital resolution is higher. The "harsheness" audiophiles talk about is bittiness from the sample rates. I still wouldn't argue the point - but I would wonder out loud how much a difference it would make once that warm analogue sound is processed through the protools dialogue editor's system and then passed on to some pretty serious digital enhancement on the mix stage.

I'll have to just skim the surface on this one due to time, but I'm compelled to respond... I think the approach might be what defines an artist in any field, so I'm not sure you'll find any consistent rules. For myself, there are a lot of things to figure out about the movie. What's the mood? (Frantic, Serene, etc.) What are some major themes in the movie? (Is there an underlying sexuality (ALIEN) or stillness (THX1138) or etc) I try to identify story archs and character archs and then figure out if there is a way to present this. If the character is going from owning the world to being lost and desolute - perhaps I'd lean twoards shooting him low and slowly move the camera up slightly during the movie.... will that read? David Mammet would say no, he might have a point. But if it doesn't take anything away from the movie... maybe it will help. If nothing else it gives something to work with. Does the mood (mise-en-scene) change during the film? Would it help the movie if I made it change? I could go on and on, but I think the basic goal is to reach underneath what is on the page and create an environment out of that and let it enhance the experience of the movie. I'm not into secret messages and codes and intellectual symbolism as much as what the audience *feels* from the shots (or production design in general).

Here's a totally untechnical opinion. A while back I was evaluating 16/S16 taken to HD as a capture option over HD or 35mm and, personally, I found the majority of the footage to look grainy. When I saw the movies "Tigerland" and "Jack and Rose" - which were shot on S16 and upped to 35mm. I thought some shots seemed extra grainy though they had the full filmstock lattitude - so there was a trade off. I'm not sure why the material I saw on HD seemed more grainy than what I saw in the theater, if anything I would imagine that the degraining technology on telecine's would have made it less grainy. Perhaps they were not used. Check out everything that people suggested. Personally, I was disappointed in the amount of grain that was exhibited in what I saw (even in the best cases) and actually leaned towards shooting F900 for what I was doing. If it was a heavy exterior I would maybe feel otherwise UNLESS that exterior involved a lot of solid color ranges (filed of grass or snow or desert) because that's where the grain showed up the most. Just my evaluation, your and others views may vary. And i'd be curious to hear them. (BTW we just recently went over the question again for another shoot and decided on the F900 over S16 again except for the exterior where we are going to use 35mm 3 perf.)

yikes - even more reason to avoid a screen key - especially on something with linear lines like a blade of grass.

You have a 3D character right? 3D grass is not as hard as 3D character. Animating it could be semi-automated by collision or null deformers etc.. Probably easier and cleaner than the roto.

Seems like with all new technology... 1. Things do change. 2. They change slower than promised or predicted. 3. There's usually something different and unexpected about the way it changes. I absolutely think the future will have a market of internet downladed movies. I think with the incredible incrase in the number of films created each year people will be hunting down niche markets. If you're a filmmaker I wouldn't be thinking of this as a main revenue source quite yet. Make your content for technology which exists today. Besides as Ted Turner says, "If you want to be successful at something, be the second to do it, not the first." (PARAPHRASING)

Edward Jay Epstein published an article yesterday on this (original) topic. http://www.slate.com/id/2135544/ On the tangential subject of structure, I would submit that many filmmakers and editors would say that the mere process of putting two images together on the screen is the processes of creating a structure. Whether these two images were shot 2 months apart at different locations and are trying to seem like one cohesive location. Or if they were shot in the same room, the same day and intended to be completely unrelated. Or if they are completely unrelated or if they are the same shot just 48 frame later. You are creating a structure and are, in fact, telling a story therefore even if you feel what the film or video contains as content has no story. If you have no cuts, then it's up to whatever happens in front of the camera. But we humans have this crazy ability to see objects out of clouds and stains - we'll put stories and recognizable images to just about anything. Hard to keep us from seeing anything as a story. Whether we are affected by it on some level, no that's a different question.

I don't have enough information about your shot to comment on the approach specifically. However, if you end up haveing to need blue material, you could try this place: http://store.yahoo.com/cinemasupplies/chromkeyfab.html As far as the approach - after you board your shot, think of how you could split it onto as many different layers as possible. Can the bushes be on a totally differnt layer as the background? Even if you have a huge screen you place in front of them, or shoot some branches on a separate screen. The problem you'll have with the suit is that it isn't exactly the character, so you are going to have to be doing tons and tons of clean up roto. If you have the labor force for that - no big deal. In someways though the suit could end up causing more trouble than if you wired the brush to move. Also consider just doing the brush in 3D as well and have it mixed in. You could base the bush 3D on actual live 3D. The more you mix things up - the harder it is to find the effect. Just ideas.

I think if yah gotta have that dolly shot (or a few of them), know that stablization technology has gone crazy with both shake and aftereffects and as long as you can keep it within the range, you can actually stablize a lot of shots. You lose resolution though. Just a thought. Wonder if you could stablize a wheelchair dolly or a handheld. one of my artists stablized a shot from the back of a car went over a bump - no bump. Loss of resolution though.

Reposting this link as it addresses this issue. http://lafcpug.org/Tutorials/basic_storage_soltz.html

First of all... I'm Apple biased because I've used all three platforms (OSX, XP, and SGI) professionally and I found the OSX to have a lot of hidden advantages of functionality. (I wish it had more Game engine support and sometimes wish for the few greater 3D options on the PC... but other than that, the Apple's performed stronger and more reliably. But even if you were going PC, the only thing I'd consider Dell for is the monitor... and I would consider a Dell monitor. Too many fellow users have gone dell computers and gotten into technical nightmare land. For editing... I get by with a 24" Dell. It's very bright though - almost too bright. RAM - don't buy it from apple - it's crazy too expensive. Lots of options. I buy from www.macsolutions.com - never a problem - guaranteed. There's mushkin.com as well (but maybe more expensive). You don't need 8 gig ram to run FCP. I'm using 1.5 GIG which is slightly light. I think 4 GIG is way in the range of solid. As for drive storage - check out: www.lafcpug.org actually... here's a link http://lafcpug.org/Tutorials/basic_storage_soltz.html Check out www.hdforindies.com as well as Mike Curtis likes to obsess over this very issue. Read his FAQ.

Just a note about sales tax. If you live in california, you are required to pay sales tax on everything you buy - even if it is outside of california. They have not been very adamant about it until the proliferation of internet purchases. This is also, however, the reason that there is the 3% tax law for post-production services. (Meaning you DON'T pay 5.25% of the normal tax when purchased for post production purposes. For filmstock, I would imagine that any stock used for Answerprints would be in that cateogry.) Perhaps the production lobyists need to get together and cut sales tax as well or face even more production leaving California. But - on your state tax returns, you are provided a place to claim your purchases from out of state.

I'm speaking with a few accountants in the next couple weeks about this very issue. I'll try to remember to share any brilliance I glean. There are many sites on the internet which discuss this issue and they all resolve to "Consult your tax attorney."

I would research the movie "Primer" and listen to the commentary on the DVD and then figure you're doing it with 35mm instead of 16mm and make the appropriate calculative differences. He made his film for about as cheap as anyone could have shooting on 16mm. Same method in 35mm would be more expensive. I wouldn't recommend shooting 35mm unless someone hands you everything for free unless you have enough budget to bring the rest of the production value up to the specs of the capture format.

If you're in Los Angeles, put your casting notice in Backstage West and you'll get thousands of responses. Try getting the word out through managers especially for leads. These actors won't alwayss be searching backstage west as they have a manager. You can post your sides on showfax - a service which will allow actors to have sides faxed to them. You can post them online as well. Put directions to the casting studio or office available by fax and online as well or you will spend a LOT of time on the phone giving directions. After you have gone through all the submissions, call agents of the actors you want (or the actors themselves at times) and assign a time. "We'd like Joe Ator to come in on Tuesday at 12:30pm - will that work?" If it doesn't, they'll say so. But if you try to let them pick times, you'll never get anything done. Schedule one actor every 5 minutes (assuming the material isn't long). Not every actor will show up allowing you time to catch up if anything gets slow. Don't spend 10 minutes trying to coax a performance out of an actor. That's what the call back is for. First auditions are for seeing them in person and seeing their energy. Do not on a first audition give a ton of sides - just enough. Be respectful of the actor's time in that they need to memorize all that stuff and good actors will work it as well. Never give actors 10 pages if you're only going to use 5. Try to keep it down to 2 if you can - even for leads. Add more for a callback. It works out better - they can perform it memorized the first time and when you decide it is narrowing down to them, you can give them more sides and it will be worth their time. There are some thoughts.

I shot in a cemetary with a 16mm camera in Hollywood once with actors... and for free... and with permission. I just asked them if I could shoot there because I was a student. Maybe I was lucky. They said... Okay - but do not shoot any names. This is a common request. So, even if you decide to steal the location. Be respectful of where you are and don't shoot any names. (aim the other way) We actually found one stone that simply said "MOTHER" and nothing else and we did include part of that as it was a pure generic. You can get away with a lot if you are a student and ask for things. In that same movie I got the right to use the theme song and audio track of a top ten show back then. Again, just asked... asked about 5 times though. :)