Mark Bonnington

That does help, thanks!

I'm drawing a storyboard for the first time ever. Is it normal to have 16 pictures for one page of script? I'm drawing a different picture for every change in camera angle, is that the proper way to go about it?

That camera hasn't been released to the public yet, so he probably doesn't know what he's talking about. If he's referencing the 7D and 5Dmk2, there's footage throughout the Internet showing what those cameras can do, and most of it is very good. Where the current DSLRs fail, is in the task of recording long takes - they can't record HD for longer than 12 minutes at a time. Though if you have multiple cameras and cut between them, restart the one camera's recording while the other is still going, you can get coverage until the scene is done. It's just a lot of work compared to letting a camera record on its own for the whole scene. Also, some of the DSLRs have slightly slow refresh rates on their imaging chips, resulting in slightly skewed objects when things move quickly through the frame. You can mostly avoid that distortion by keeping your camera motion to slow speeds. And even if you do move things quickly, the issue is usually pretty subtle, some people are more critical of it than others. Take a look at some of the footage on the Internet and it should help you make a decision.

That's not breathing, more like short-circuited electronics. Or, it could be called self-instantiated auto-focus hunting with quantized focal drift positioning.

In regards to the piracy aspect, it probably depends on how the overall economy is doing. People who like a movie, and have a pirated copy, might want to buy the DVD in the future if they watch it enough. But they aren't going to spend that money until the economy recovers and they have extra income to spend. Right now, I would expect most people will pirate. Three years from now, when the economy has recovered a bit, I'd expect to see a sudden jump in DVD sales. In general, even with economic recovery, I'd expect third-world sales to drop (for outsiders) because they'll be growing their own filmmakers soon enough. It just depends on how soon the equipment falls within their price range. Regarding profits on DVD's, it's an interesting question to ask how much it will typically earn. It's a question I asked a while ago, before I realized that the answer wasn't really important. You probably asked the question because you want to hear someone reply "six-figure income is typical", or something along those lines, so that you can justify the time and expense you're about to put into making a movie. Maybe you want to try to balance some sort of cost estimate with probable returns. But, the reality is that you have to spend what you have to spend. Just keep it as cheap as possible and that's all you can do. From what I've heard, even a thousand dollars profit could be a stroke of luck for an unknown. It all depends on the movie, the effort and effectiveness in selling it, luck, and of course "who you know". If it helps, try to justify the effort by telling yourself "It won't make any money at all, but..." a)it'll be a fun project. b)it's good for conversation if anyone asks me what I've been up to. c)it'll help my resume. d)maybe someone in my movie will get famous, thereby improving my own position in the industry. e)it's better than sitting at home all day. f)<any other reasons you can think of> There's the distinct possibility that we're shifting from movies as a profit source, to movies as an art source. Meaning, the act of creating the movie will be what brings you pleasure, rather than gaining pleasure from the concept of the financial earnings. There are already so many movies in existence, it's only getting harder to punch through the noise, especially without millionaire money behind the advertising. If you can't handle losing money from your movie (really losing money, not just tax tricks), then don't make a movie at all. If you can deal with the financial loss, because you *really* want to make the movie, then go for it. Just be sure to have a regular job to pay the bills.

Try using Celtx. It's a free screenwriting program. They also have screenwriting forums on that site. And if that doesn't help, check out a screenwriting book from your local library.

Okay, the vastly overpowering vibe I'm getting is that the books I read are correct, in that providing food is mandatory. My actress friend also supports that concept... she yelled at me when I mentioned getting rid of the craft table. Here's a summated list of reasons for providing food on set (thanks to all the thread info): -Preventing lunch hours from running longer than expected. -Keeping crew energy levels high. -Keeping crew hydrated. -Helping to prevent hypoglycemic problems. -Making the crew feel appreciated. -Giving the set a more professional look (good for behind-the-scenes shots). -Providing a place for non-active crew to mill about. -Improving the director's skill at making low-cost culinary creations. Looking at this list, it seems providing food is actually cheaper than not providing food, due to time improvements and increased performance by the crew. That being the case, I'll simply have to save up more money before I shoot my movie, enough to cover the food budget. I have 10 actors in many scenes of my current script, so the quantity of food I'll need is pretty large. I'm writing a new script now, using only two actors in most scenes, to minimize the food cost. In the meantime, do any of you have any other recipes or ideas that make for good, cheap, large-quantity food?

Brandon, I'm posting on a "First Time Filmmakers" forum, which by definition introduces my discussion as ignorant. Beginners are always ignorant, that's one of the characteristics that classifies them as beginners. As for arrogance, I haven't proclaimed superiority in this field, I'm simply discussing the issues and explaining my view on them.

No, what I was getting at is that a crew who is working for free should be getting something out of a project. If for some reason they aren't getting enough from the project, for example if they don't find the work is improving their skills, then they might decide to leave the project. Or, perhaps people will leave a voluntary project if they later find paying work. Whatever the reason, if somehow providing free food can magically work wonders for a project, which is what people are saying is the case, then it's worth bringing food into the project to see if it quells a disappearing crew. If a crew is truly being put into deplorable conditions, then free food wouldn't do anything for the situation. Frankly, I'm surprised that some people are driving people on 12 hour days. 8 hour days seem long enough to me.

Well, personally I was going to offer deferred payment, but for practicalities sake that isn't much better than working for free. Even so, the people involved would be getting experience from the project, and building their resume. If they were getting absolutely nothing from the project, then they wouldn't bother to show up. And if that happens, where people simply don't show up, then it will become painfully obvious that lunch is in order.

I'll keep those items in mind. Having bagels on set makes sense if only to keep stomachs from growling and ruining the audio. I'd have to stay away from pizza and other greasy foods, because it's going to weight down the actors performance. The sandwich solution sounds like a good option.

It's rude not to feed the crew, but it's also rude for the crew to expect a poor person to buy them lunch. So, the two rudenesses cancel each other out. I'm hoping that people who get involved with "no budget" productions will do good work because they want to build a quality product for their resume, or because they enjoy the creative process.

Apparently food is extremely important for low/no budget productions. Everything I've read about the subject says you *must* feed the crew, no exceptions allowed! But, if I'm making a "no budget" movie, it's because I have "no budget". As in, I have no money for craft services. So, how exactly can I go about feeding the crew? Are there secret methods to doing it cheaply? This also brings up the question, should the movie industry join every other industry on the planet and simply ask people to be responsible for their own lunch needs?

If you want legal advise, your best bet would be to talk to a lawyer. If you want my opinion, not to be taken as legal advise... I'd recommend that you let it all slide. If your contract says you're responsible for the equipment, it gives them a pretty good position in court. You could argue that they should split the cost between more of the crew if everyone signed the same thing, but that's a shot in the dark. Consider chalking it up as a costly experience - in the future never sign anything that says you're responsible for the equipment. Or at least have it in writing that your total financial responsibility for equipment loss/damage is capped at a fixed price (something low enough you can take the hit without worrying about it).

If you want to make a movie, but you can't meet the union's financial costs, then you won't have access to a huge chunk of acting talent. As an analogy, it would be like an impoverished painter not being allowed to use the color blue, simply because the color is owned by the union. Even if SAG actors want to work on your film, for free, the unions will not let them. Additionally, some unions require that their union be praised in the film credits (check out item #17 in the SAG Ultra Low Budget Agreement, http://www.sagindie.org/docs/sag-ultralowb...sample2009.pdf). Forcing the artist to add a statement into their art, especially one that the filmmaker might disagree with, is an infringement of the artist's freedom of speech.