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?

My sound guy just found out that I was looking into that camera and got mad. He said the footage looks bad. I'm going to have to try to test one out at Best Buy or something. I don't know what to think now. :(

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.

In my experience the term lens breathing is when the camera tries to focus on its own. In the manual mode it would try to pull its own focus and the focus moves like a breath for a bit. This is on the XL-1 though and I was told was because the camera needs to be cleaned.

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?

You're ignorant and arrogant. Don't make films

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.

Hmmm, an interesting concept. You'd work a crew who has chosen to volunteer their time until the conditions become unacceptable enough that they choose to not return.

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.

I don't find it rude at all. You're asking people to donate their time and skills for nothing. My way (i.e. the usual way) at least everyone gets lunch out of it.

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.

Ask around town for people who can donate a sub platter or a pizza for a credit in the project. You might get some crafty that way. A sheet pizza costs $20-30 and can feed probably 8-10 people. Sub platters come in different sizes and can feed different amounts of people. I wouldn't go for the pizza unless you have to as it just shows how low budget you really are. Sub platters might be a bit more expensive but since it kinda comes with veggies and it's a bit healthier it's the way to go.

 

Also try to have a veggie platter, fruit platter, some cheese and crackers and a bag of candy on set.

 

For low budget productions I usually do around $75-100 for crafty which really isn't a lot. This is what I usually do for around 10 people...

 

Breakfast: a dozen assorted bagels, cream cheese, a kuchen, fruit basket

Lunch: sub platter, chips, fruit basket, veggie platter

Savory (mid-afternoon): cheese and crackers, candy, fruit basket, veggie platter

 

Then have lots of water, coffee (caffeinated), Gatorade (if you can afford it), and soda in coolers throughout the day.

 

All of the professional producers that I've worked for say if you're not paying your crew and/or talent or you're not paying a lot you NEED to have good food.

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.

If you're not paying people, I think it would be very rude not to feed your crew. Why should they do good work for you if you're actually costing them money to work on your film?

 

Some shows, BTW, do just release the crews for lunch like every other job. Those shows pay their crew, though.

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).

Correct.

 

But I'm curious how a union could possibly infringe on artistic freedoms? :unsure: All a union exists to do is ensure that workers aren't abused and are treated like human-beings. How do fair wages and safe working conditions POSSIBLY infringe on anyone's artistic freedoms? :unsure:

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.

I view movies as art, and as such, I feel the unions infringe on our artistic freedoms. Besides, there are better alternatives to unions when it comes to taking care of workers. A change in the taxation structure of the country (taxing the rich), for example, would provide better distribution of wealth than unionization. Public health care would negate the need to demand health care from an employer. Working hour limits could be enforced by law, so that nobody has to work beyond what is healthy. If the government wanted to help the people, it could. For now, it seems to be content in helping only the rich.

Lastly, though every young filmmaker thinks that they have something important to say, 99% of the time what they have to say is trite because they lack life experience.

If that's the case, then 99% of what anyone says is trite. Young adults are capable of tapping into their imagination, more so than older adults, and that results in some fairly original thoughts. Some of my most creative ideas came to me when I was a teenager.

What will he need in order to get into directing? Not a degree, just an idea and a chunk of money (for gear/locations/actors/props/permits/insurance/wardrobe). Where is your son going to get that money? If not from rich relatives, then probably he'll have to earn it himself. If he can get a college degree in some useful vocation (check the 2-year vocational colleges for quick and practical fields), he'll be able to save up that money much faster. If he eventually has success in making his movies, he can drop his regular job and go into directing full time. If directing never pans out, he'll have the credentials to work a regular job.

Also, if your son can keep his costs and expectations down, he could direct movies right away using just a cheap consumer camcorder, free locations and unpaid actors (probably friends to start). He can learn the craft by reading books and making his own projects, and he can network with people on the cinematography boards. He can also probably crew (unpaid) on micro-budget indie features that are shooting in your area.

Ultimately, if he wants to get into big feature directing, his project portfolio (and financial ties) will be far far far more important than his school credentials.

I live in the states, so volunteering is a-okay... I hope...

 

Anyway, I have already told the actors that they will be doing this on volunteer basis, but I just wanted to be extra careful. Here's something I drew up:

 

VOLUNTEER RELEASE FORM

I, ____________________________, hereby acknowledge that I am participating as an actor in a student made short film called “(title)” (the “Project”) being produced by (production name) (the “Producer”).

I hereby irrevocably grant to the Producer, its licensees, agents, distributors, successors and assigns, the right, but not the obligation, in perpetuity throughout the world and in all media, now or hereafter known, to use (in any manner it deems appropriate, and without limitation) in and in connection with the Project, by whatever means exhibited, advertised or exploited:

 

• "Behind the scenes" footage/photos/recordings of me shot on or around the

production set or at any other Project-related meetings or activities

• Any suggestions and/or ideas I contribute to the Project

• My name in relation to the Project

I understand that I am working entirely on a volunteer basis and that Producer is not promising me any compensations, ownership or attachments to the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Producer agrees to accord me standard credit on versions of Project distributed with other crew credits. I attest that I have voluntarily agreed to participate in all parts of this production, and that this document contains my entire and complete agreement concerning the topic herein.

 

If, for any reason, that I am injured in any way, I will not hold the Producer reliable. All disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of or relating to this contract shall be submitted binding arbitration in accordance with the applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect.

By signing below, I have read and agreed to all the statements above.

 

Name (printed): ____________________________________

Signature: ____________________________________

Date: ____________________________________

Address: ____________________________________

____________________________________

Telephone: ____________________________________

 

is this good enough? or shall i need to add more?

If you want a solid contract, you should try to find a book that has professionally made contracts. Modify one of those contracts ever so slightly to fit the situation, but don't get involved in writing entire contracts from scratch unless you're very experienced in it. I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice.

I've seen this movie many times on TV since I was in high school, but only

in pan&scan versions.

 

It has finally come out on DVD, So now I was able to see it in CinemaScope as God had intended it to be seen.

 

There is a fifteen minute pre-title sequence which opens with stock shots of an Atlas and a V-2 being readied for launch and the Atlas taking off.

Of course none of these look like the rocket that crashes on Venus after the main titles. That footage is from 'World without End' and turns out that the rocket was designed by Cheseley Bonestell for a late 40s movie that was never made. The model was used in the Cinecolor film 'Flight to Mars'

 

I was certain that that all of the stock shots, including a matte painting of an Arabian Nights palace used for the Venereal city, were all stretched out. The use of non-squeezed footage in a scope movie helped to contribute to the over all ambiance of cheapness.

 

But I was shocked to see, that except for one shot of the V-2 and the palace, there was no anamorphic distortion. The stock shots had been converted to undistorted CinemaScope! Initially I began to doubt my memory. The trailer on the DVD had some of the Atlas shots in it and they were stretched out. I compared the framing between these shots and the same ones in the feature, & yes, the footage had been SuperScoped! At least they were noticably grainier than the live action.

 

Should this sort of tampering be allowed?

What next? Coloring B/W movies?

 

If this film had been declared a National Treasure this desecration would not have been allowed.

 

If one still has the urge to see stretched out aero-space footage, watch 'X-15', directed by Richard Donner with the Marlboro Man, Charles Bronson and Mary Tyler Moore.

World Without End was a great movie. I hope that one comes out to DVD.

Is it possible that The Queen of Outer Space preview is not a 1:1 representative of the original movie footage? The preview might have been targeted for 4:3 televisions rather than wide theater dimensions, in which case maybe the original theater presentation used the same undistorted footage that is used in the DVD presentation. Or, it might have been an unintentional mistake in the transfer process that nobody caught, and if discovered they might have figured it wasn't significant enough to worry about. Most people watch a movie for the plot and overall content, rather than the aspect ratio of the introductory scenes, so that would be a reason to let it slide.

Fast forward to a few months back and the band want another live DVD to accompany their new album, so we are hired to film the show. We were paid a sum for equipment and crew for the one night.

 

The footage looks great and the band instruct us to start editing the show straight away. We have put in approx 100 hours so far. At the same time the band hires another company, a far far bigger and better known one to produce their new music video, as we are busy handling the live stuff.

If they paid you to shoot footage at their concert, then it's classified as work-for-hire and they own the raw footage. They don't own the edited footage however, unless they paid for edited footage. Give them the raw stock if that's all they paid for.

When they subsequently instructed you to edit the footage, did they say they would pay for that service? If they didn't mention that they'd be paying you for the editing, then you probably spent 100 hours working for nobody. You could argue the issue in court, implied fees and all that, you might even win, but the legal hassle probably outweighs the financial reward. Plus, even more relevant to your profits, most bands have a tendency to network with other bands (backstage talks, music stores, music forums, etc.). If you burn a bridge with that one band, you could end up burning lots of other bridges as the news spreads. If you're good to the band though, that positive reference might spread too. So, perhaps think of the 100 hours as time spent advertising.

But in the meantime, as a practical approach, maybe try mentioning to the band that you've already put in 100 hours on the edit, show them what you've finished so far (explain the laborious aspects), and then ask them if they want to pay you to finish the edit.

Also, even if they turn down your edit this time, when they get the other company's version it might not be any better. The band is going to think back to your version, and they might just say "hey, on this next project lets use that first guy. His work was as good as the mega corp and he didn't take as much of our money."

Lots and lots of chewing gum.

The police were involved. That was the problem. There is a big difference being interrogated and questioned. I know a guy that was thrown into a pit in Bolivia for three months because he looked suspicious. Being questioned by the police is not the end of the world.

That's a lousy situation in Bolivia. I'll have to avoid that country if I decide to shoot footage in a tropical location.

What we have in America is certainly better than a lot of places, but we have to fight for our freedom otherwise our rights will erode away. If we don't do anything about it, we could end up with interrogation pits just like Bolivia.

So, back on the topic of permits, I'm now also wondering about permits in foreign countries. What countries (or major foreign cities) are open to letting people shoot video without permits?

Goodbye civil freedoms, hello police state? Facist police? You have no idea what you are talking about. I have a good friend who had no less than 100 of his family and friends disappear completely. You don't know how lucky you have it here.

There's a balance between complete lack of police intervention and total police intervention. If people are disappearing, then there are issues that might need police involvement. In my area, police seem to focus on trivial issues and traffic tickets. I've been interrogated by police while photographing time-lapse freeway pictures downtown. I was interrogated by a forest ranger while doing time-lapse photography out in the sticks. Once, I was out for a walk after dinner (no camera), when two squad cars stopped me for an interrogation. They told me they thought it was odd that I was out walking in the evening (never mind that it was daylight and I was a few hundred yards from a public park). After they took down my home address, and discovered that my house was a few blocks away, they left me alone. But that's the kind of police activity we have in this area.

More recently, traffic cameras have been installed all over the place so that the police can keep tabs on where everyone goes. Safety is one thing, but I think things have gone way too far.

I am happy to hear that Philadelphia doesn't have permit requirements. I'd like to hear about any other cities that don't have permit requirements.

I want to shoot footage in cities, not for any particular project but maybe for stock footage or just to kill some boredom. It would be me, working with a very big video camera on a tripod.

But my plans have been foiled by permit fees and insurance requirements (goodbye civil freedoms, hello police state). So, I'm debating whether to pay for the permits or just shoot without any paperwork. If I buy the permits, I'll run out of money after just a couple of cities. If I shoot without permits, I might have to deal with fascist police and penalties in court.

So, what is your take on permits? Do you buy them or not?