Mark Allen

Quinceañera (2005) A double winner.... nice! Congratualtions.

It seems like the underlying importance to this issue is that you're at a point in your life where you are realizing you are defining what your life will be. That the paths you choose now will define what your life experience will be. And you're right. Lucky though that you are discovering this now though because most people in the world stumble into their lives without much of a plan. I'm guessing you're young twenties and just out of college and it seems like this is usually the age at which people set a direction which seems to last for at least a decade. (The sensation of time increases exponentially, so a decade can zoom by.) Seems to me that people who end up with success at some point are the people who have been very focused on one thing. Usually because the time eventually timing comes around where you'll be in the right mindset, right place, right time. People who jump from one thing to the next seem to always be a tad too late (or too early). Just make sure in all your focusedness, you do take some time out to enjoy the fact that your body doesn't hurt in the morning. :) Also - listen to people's stories. You might find yourself fascinated and inspired by what some people have to say. Just because someone isn't in the arts, they still might have a fascinating stories. You don't have to talk about film, you don't have to talk at all. People are more than willing to share themselves - and it's very much like a movie. You can control it to some degree, fish for certain paths of information. I forget the source, but I remember in high school I came across the dating advice... "If you find yourself really nervous about going on a date - it's because you're putting to much of the focus on yourself. Put the focus on them instead. They'll appreciate the attention, you'll be off the hook and less nervous, and you might find out something you didn't know." Works for business meetings as well.

Now, I can actually draw a little, but my number one favorite way of storyboarding... photographs. Digital photography makes this even better. Begin with a shot list of thumbnails (which can literally be stick figures) and then get some friends to pose every shot for you. You would be amazed at how fast this goes. You can keep it as simple as just getting body positions or you can use some lights to convey lighting direction. If you want to go nuts, you can then comp them onto backgrounds... but... that's not really necessary - remember that storyboards are usually just pencil on white anyway. You can do an entire film very quickly if necessary. The detailing at the end can take a long time if you want to go far with it. Next - yes, you can draw or learn to draw... but somehow reality always gets bent, sometimes too far in the blocking while drawing. But the ability to add emotion to the drawing is a potential advantage even if the drawing doesn't adhere to reality. On the downside, drawing takes a long time and causes a lot of stress on your wrist and fingers. Another option is using Poser. Poser is the ONLY 3D application I will recommend trying for storyboards because it is the only one with a huge library and 3rd party libraries... huge... and it is relatively easy to use if you bother to learn it. You can learn just posing or you can go nuts and learn how to create characters - but learning to pose (and even animate) characters is quite easy. Another 3D option is UnrealEd - the unreal engine editor is being used by many effects companies for previsualization. It is a very very interesting option - espeiciall if you want previs more than just boards. Only problem will be when you want some custom models, you'll have to learn how to take models made from poser and convert them and import them - cause you are unlikely going to learn a modeling program Frameforge... haven't tried the version that came out just a few days ago, but the first version I felt very mediocre on and think poser was more promising though it did have some nice features it felt too clunky overall... but try the demo and decide. (poser has a demo too.) Maya, XSI, Lightwave, Cinema4D, Blender, etc. etc. etc. - not unless you plan on changing careers. Come on, people spend a year studying everyday just one aspect of these applications (especially maya). It's totally not realistic to think you can sit down and do some boards in this. so... photographs... it's something you know already... think on't.

Major B... unless they are going to be in some super crazy world... don't shoot this greenscreen. Greenscreen and DV don't mix. Greenscreen and HDV don't mix. Not for long extended dramatic shots. Seriously consider all options prior to greenscreen unless you have some experienced artists who are putting this together in post... and not shooting on DV/HDV. BetacamSP is better than DV for greenscreen imho. The concept of shooting "plates" is very much an ultimatte requirement, not so much for keylight - but either way only matters if the cmera is locked or motion controlled. The plates are used to help let the software find the screen. (So it can go "oh - anything that looks like this blank plate here should go away.) For tracking - you need markers, preferably multiple layered ones for any 3D tracking needs. Tracking isn't rocket science as much as keying, frankly. Here are some links: http://www.fxguide.com/fxtips.html http://www.fxguide.com/fxtips-273.html

I saw DIVA about eight times on video before ever seeing it in the theater and it was a totally different movie. i understand what you mean. That said, this is one of the very few times my point of view might differ, David. Not saying that I want it to be this way or am pushing for it - but I think the industry is goiing through another paradigm shift. As big as when Video came out, bigger than when video became DVDs. If a studio could make the same money releasing everything at the same time - that means money comes in sooner and they get to move on to marketing the next big thing. The current methods are only in place because it is assumed that this makes more money - not because people want it more (though they might). If this is proved wrong, then it will change. I agree that an art house film with non-actors is the best test for this. But a successful experiment would probably encourage a studio to try it once. Look for Disney, who is more interested in the franchise, to give this a shot first.

UCLA is one of the hardest schools to get into in the country. It's a great school and it's really cheap in comparison to everything else (state funded) for residents. If you're not a CA resident. In the UCLA vs. USC question - If you can get into UCLA, you should go there, then take the 200,000 you'll have saved and make your first feature when you graduate. Is this for undergrad? Also of note are AFI and Art Center (Pasedena) - both graduate programs I believe. Connections are what you make of them. If you want connections, intern at a production company, an agency, etc. during your education. Some people are good at connections, some people can be in the heart of all connections and make none. It's a learned skill. Learn it and anywhere you are you'll make contacts. The way things are going in the film industry, I would encourage directors to focus only on "How can I make my feature independetly when I'm ready and have a story to tell."

For the Bernie Mac show, my biggest clue was the 30 or so HD tapes sitting in my office labled "Bernie Mac." :) By the way, one of the only shows I've seen on TV (actually on DVD since I don't have TV reception or cable) is Battlestar Gallactica - which is definitely shot on HD for the series. You can tell just by the way the highlights look, but they also talk about it in the commentary. I think it's a great looking show. I think it has really owned it's look irregardless of the capture format.

30 to 40 grand a year? How many years? Consider.... going to a cheaper school where you can get some hands on experience. Volunteer my services on shoot for free to get real world experience. Then spend 20,000 on shooting your own work to put what you've learned into practice and then reserve 10,000 for marketing yourself. I think sometimes schools do offer a great way to meet future contacts, but being "out there" doesn't hurt either. just a thought.

Director's note: If you're shooting a quiet dramatic scene where the actor has worked themselves into the right mindset and you're ready to shoot. Be a hero and suggest a tail slate. The clapping can really be distracting for the actor at the beginning of a performance. Doesn't matter so much at the end because the "cut" will be of more significance than the tail clap. I usually even say "Go Ahead" or something soft rather than "Action" just to avoid changing the energy during sensitive scenes.

With my FX company, I prefer to let the production team decide so I can blame them later for making the wrong choice. :) In actuality, given a choice and not knowing any details, I'd choose green. It works slightly better in most instances. But first and foremost I'll ask what kinds of clothes are being worn, what kind of set pieces are being used. Those matter first. BTW Khaki - lots of green in it usually.

I use www.site5.com and have been very happy with their service. I went through about five different services before settling on them. There are a handful of options if you google, this one is the only one I have experience with. others I've come across but not tried are: www.powweb.com and a small one called www.punboy.com Google "affordable high bandwidth host" and you'll find many options.

The TV series Battlestar Gallactica is shot on HD and I think it looks good. If you watch it thinking "Does this look like film?" The answer is no, but they have embraced the look they create quite well.

Many of you have shot a lot in Los Angeles, probably many various locations and can maybe remember something that is similar to what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a location which at first blush didn't seem to be difficult, but I'm having a hard time finding an affordable option. It basically needs to seem like an underground facility. Nothing fancy. Cement everything. Higher celings would be fantastic, but not required. A few hallways and a few rooms. Could be an underground of a building or school or shopping center. A large bunker. You get the idea. I'm checking out an abandoned Jail next week... but I'm going to need more options as the initial pricing on this one seemed a bit high (mostly because of the security cost). It's for a 3 weeks shoot. All suggestions very welcome.

Josh - you have a nice reel here. I like your natural lighting style. I'm going to try to give you an idea of what might be taking away from the reel more than adding... All comments are in the play order: Trim tail of shot with brunette sipping drink - just holds too long shot of brunette in class room isn't necessary neither is the next shot of kid with green. Take out the shot of setting up the camera. The getting in the car shots are nothing special, I'd remove those There is a dark scene where a few of the shots are so dark I don't know what is going out of context of the rest of th emovie. (And a producer is going to see this and get scared "well, I want to see what's goin on in my movie!") Shots on beach are just shots, could take those out I like girl with water on face shots very next couple shots in hallway could go, but aren't bad. girl sad next to lamp.... good performance, but soft focus? Love the girl sitting on the leaves... uniquely beautiful shot. Girl covering her ears and dinner table shots... these are kind of plain and nothing to hire from. (going to have to be quicker on the rest of my notes because I have to leave) Something is wrong about the guy behind the counter - is it the quality difference or just a bland shot, I'm not sure. The black and white with the guy getting shot seems... fake... but the last shot of that with the writing on glass is good. Hope some of this helps.

Here are some links: www.vfxblog.com - excellent gathered source www.vfxpro.com - forums & jobs

It totally depends on movie and the company doing the trailers. Lower budget movies are often telecin'ing to HD, cutting HD, finish and grade HD, then printing from HD to 35mm. I think this method makes a lot of sense. Large budget productions get a little more inefficient for the sake of meticulousness and it goes something like this (remember will vary depending on the studio or movie)... Telecine to beta or 3/4" load that into an offline nonlinear system (AVID or FCP) Take the list from that out to a Fire (or other high end >HD system) and conform the offline tapes to Fire Scan to DLT the footage that will be used in the trailer. Load that into the Fire. Change the cut, cut it into the offline nonlinear, conform on fire, re-telecine again. And repeat this process about eight more times as different people in the company finally see the cut and decide to give some input. Also as temp effects and titles are added. Create various versions for different projection methods. export to DLT DLT to film color grade Why people still go to tape before going into their nonliear edit systems is still a little confusing to me. And if they do want to go to tape... why not go to a progressive 24 frame format? I asked this question of an Academy Award Nominated Sound Supervisor as to why they take 30i tapes to work with instead of 24p digital files (all audio programs has the ability to playback from HD) and the answer was... Because everyone works with the 30i. Foley has their decks, music has their decks... etc. etc. etc. TVs are 30i. Hm. So, I guess it is worth the inevitable mistaken slip because everyone has $250 TV monitors already installed. This will change in the next 3 years I'm sure - just as I'm sure the trailer process will simplify. So - to answer your question. It varies a lot. Obviously some methods are more efficient. The greater the marketing budget, the greater the allotted inefficiency.

A note about budgets. The minute you pay for anything, you've opened a can of worms. Either you're doing it Primer style where no one gets paid and no one is really on the set and your Mom is preparing cheap food for your friends and you're finishing all the post on your own or you're literally looking at about 200,000 - maybe 150,000 if it is DV. I know three filmmakers who started out doing "30,000" DV movies which ended up hitting the 150,000 plus mark by the time they were done. It all starts when you pay for anything. Not that paying for things is bad; it's just when it all starts. Even at the (semi-standard) lowest possible favor payment of $100/day. A 10 person crew is racking up 1000/day plus meals (another 15/day). An 18 day shoot and you've hit 20,700 for crew alone. In the last decade there's been a lot of gloating on how low someone has shot a film - but credit never seems to go to the people who helped him or her. And people working for free isn't necessarily a viable economic model. Now, if someone wants to gloat about making a movie for nothing and then making a big profit and then sharing that profit with everyone who helped on the film... then I'll be really impressed. Maybe there is some of the future of things to come - group filmmaking efforts. Most crew members though would prefer the $100/day to a piece of a percentage of back end. Perhaps wisely.

The short into feature thing is very very rare. Note that as far as I understand, the money to make the feature version of Napoleon Dynamite came from the parents of the filmmakers. Perhaps the success of the short gave them confidence to invest. But I don't think most people's parents have that kind of money. If you were asking this question to a group of filmmakers in Los Angeles they would say, "First of all, forget about the short. If you're going to gamble, gamble on something that makes profit. Make the feature." If I were having to ask people for money to make something. I would certainly feel less guilty asking for an investment in a feature than a short, because at least there is the realm of possibility of financial recoupment. Kevin Smith and some other filmmakers recommend credit cards. I'm not sure I would concurr on that point. Also - another option instead of making like a 20 minute short is to make the 30 second short. Just as effective to show off your skills and might even be able to become an internet favorite. Anything above 1 minute and less than a feature really becomes a work of passion because the bang for your buck isn't there. (To speak in colloquial terms.)

We have a little shoot coming up that we wanted to rent or buy the HVX for - so we could test it out for future uses. But there is a dirth of availability here in Los Angeles - so it looks like the XL H1 is going to get it. I'd rather be playing with the HVX. Even the rental stores here only have 1 each it seems (and they're all booked out). Is there anywhere that we can go to shoot some of our own tests even if we can't actually rent it? When will the the HVX be more avaialble?

I'm going to second Paul's suggestion of looking intot he LED light. I used the kino ring light once and wasn't very pleased. Simply said, it wasn't pretty or flattering. Was using with an DVX100a.

The advent of 16mm had a huge impact on how films were made and who was making them. Similar to when film cameras got lighter. The changes in technique have changed the way movies are shot drastically. I'm not saying the HVX200 alone will have that power, just pointing out that there is a cause/effect relationship.

I believe there is make up which will catch the light and create additional luminescence as it was offered to me as an option on one shoot. Talk to the make-up person if you want to really go for the effect.

Some of you who have been in the discussions about the mini35, guerilla35, etc. Might find this link interesting - especially the mechanically inclined. http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index.htm

I will confirm the use of "marsha" on a set for the same explanation as previously stated which launched into a variety of celebrity related renamings including many named here plus a gary coleman etc. Things like this I find interesting because it's the process of building a culture - forming a nomenclature which can't be found in books; therefore, reserved for those "out in the field." The movie Saving Private Ryan was entirely structured around this idea where the learning of an acronym was the growth process for the writer/translater who goes along with experienced platoon. Nope, don't think I can overintellectualize this much more than that tonight.

I suppose also it's good to keep in mind what is in the trailer is hardly representative of the movie. I know in the past I've worked on doing an effect for a trailer in about six hours that in the film was worked on closer to six weeks. Also who knows what processing has gone on for the trailer if they were rushing it to the theaters or not. But I agree - longer shots, more dialogue scenes - that will be good to see.