Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 You said you where going to rent an HD camera in the summer and show us all, especially me, that you can produce work worthy a "cinema film." Now you seem to be saying that you are NOT making a "proper" film. There is a difference between art and a film that people sit down to watch in a cinema. The project I will be shooting in the summer is based around a fundamental story line, but it's mainly a work of art. If I can produce top quality art then shooting an entertaining film is in my reach. My point is that I am shooting this project as a piece of art, it's not exactly a film you would sit down and watch in a cinema. But cinematography wise it exceeds the average cinema film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 "My point is that I am shooting this project as a piece of art, it's not exactly a film you would sit down and watch in a cinema. But cinematography wise it exceeds the average cinema film. " I see, now you are no longer creating cinematography that is just equal to the "average cinema film" you are going to exceed it!! Wow! This I can't wait to see. Just so we're clear I interpret "average cinema film" to be titles like: "Finding Never Land" "Million Dollar Baby" "Boogeyman" "Hitch" "Son Of The Mask" My list is based on films currently in theatres and main stream distribution. And your work is going to be BETTER than what I see in these movies. Well that will be a treat can't wait. Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 "My point is that I am shooting this project as a piece of art, it's not exactly a film you would sit down and watch in a cinema. But cinematography wise it exceeds the average cinema film. " I see, now you are no longer creating cinematography that is just equal to the "average cinema film" you are going to exceed it!! Wow! This I can't wait to see. Just so we're clear I interpret "average cinema film" to be titles like: "Finding Never Land" "Million Dollar Baby" "Boogeyman" "Hitch" "Son Of The Mask" My list is based on films currently in theatres and main stream distribution. And your work is going to be BETTER than what I see in these movies. Well that will be a treat can't wait. Richard <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well I'm not sure about some of those movies, I haven't seen "Million Dollar Baby" yet but I've seen short parts of it and it seems quite good. Although it won't be far off films like that, if not it will match them. But yes it will exceed the typical films, i.e. Team America, by far. I have a lot of the shots planned in my head already, and I'm soon to start making storyboards. But if the film goes the way I imagine it, it will more or less match films like "Lord of the Rings". Guarantee you that now. IF it goes the way I imagine it. Thing is I have almost the entire film planned in my head, all I have got to do is transfer those ideas onto camera. I will use this film as my show reel, and hopefully win some awards with it. Believe me, it WILL be that good. The stories not fantastic, but I can almost guarantee you the cinematography will be. I will be directing, producing, and now I think I'll DP. It's going to look really great. Although it would be easier to hire a DP to operate the camera and just tell him what I want, I might as well do it myself and then take all the credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 " it will more or less match films like "Lord of the Rings". Guarantee you that now. IF it goes the way I imagine it." Great! Can't wait to see it. Peter Jackson sure was stupid to spend 100 million on each of those movies. He could have created the same look if he'd only hired Mr. Daniel J. Ashley-Smith and given him $50,000.00 per picture. Provided of course Daniel J. Ashley-Smith would have taken the 50k. Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frank Gossimier Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 "it will more or less match films like "Lord of the Rings". Guarantee you that now." Ok that takes the cake!! :o Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe Perez-Burchard Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 Thing is I have almost the entire film planned in my head, all I have got to do is transfer those ideas onto camera. i.e. where experience, and teamwork (you seem to want to do it all yourself) play a big part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 "it will more or less match films like "Lord of the Rings". Guarantee you that now." Ok that takes the cake!! :o Frank <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Perhaps. But, just wait. You guys can say all you want now, and I can't exactly blame you, but, just wait. I've just got to hope I can get the look I want out of the camera. A lot of it will be done by filters, although I will probably touch up the rest digitally. Either way, if this project DOES look how I want it to, yes it WILL match films like Lord of the Rings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 (edited) Daniel, I mean I'll admit that I get ahead of myself some times, but even Im not saying my film will be the next "Lord of the Rings", I'll be lucky if its something I can be a little proud of. But I thin saying "My film will looks just as good as the lord of the rings" is a little fare. That is assuming you have 35mm cameras and a VERY large lighting and grip package. And a VERY experianced crew. I know your excited about this film you will be doing, as I'm excited about the one I MIGHT be doing. Just dont tell people It'll be something that chances are it wont be. If it is Lord of tghe Rings quality, then you can really be proud of yourself, then people like Rachard will be praising you. But if you say it will be that quality, then by some fare chance its not, then, well you get the picture. I'm not trying to act like some "Wise man" he by telling you this, only that If you say your film will "Lord of the Rings" quality, it HAS to be. I hope that makes since and I dont come over as being to mean or anything! I'm not saying you cant do it, just be sure you CAN do it before you tell a lot of very experianced people you can. Thats all. This question has been asked and answered before. IMDB does not generally list people involved with say, commercials. Are you going to knock the very significant group of DPs that ONLY shoot commercials? Many of these guys produce stunning work and are quite wealthy as a result. DPs who work in music videos may also not be listed on IMDB, is their work insignificant? You are clearly implying that my work is of no signifigance since I am not listed on IMDB. Then there are all the people that actually do have solid credits from their work in film and are not listed on IMDB. The reasons are numerous and IMDB provides the best explanation for this. I would be very careful if I where you moving forward. You will not ingratiate your self to working pros by walking up them on set and saying, "Gee I can't find you on IMDB so you must be a nobody." Im sorry if that offends you richard, I never really looked at it that way. But still, I just think the way you where talking yourself up made you seem like you where freakin Emmanual Lubezki or something. Im interested in seeing some of your work though, what TV stuff have you done? Edited February 28, 2005 by Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Yeh I think I got a bit carried away on that one. Well, if it does look the way I imagine it, then yeh it will be Lord of the Rings quality, then again things won't always go the way I imagine them. Have to wait and see what it comes out like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Worth Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Yeh I think I got a bit carried away on that one. Well, if it does look the way I imagine it, then yeh it will be Lord of the Rings quality, then again things won't always go the way I imagine them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just a dose of reality here: your film technically cannot match the quality of Lord of the Rings simply because you would be shooting it in an inferior format (HD vs. 35mm). You seem ambitious, which is good, but you also need to play Devil's advocate. Example: I went to a screening recently in Los Angeles for four post-grad USC films. Three were shot on HD. The one that was visually most appealing to me was a film entitled Sacrifice. It was shot on HD (most likely HDCAM 24p). Although the visuals were stunning and the 35mm print was of very high quality (probably a 1st gen interpositive from a laser-recorded internegative), you could still tell it was HD. Blown out highlights and muddy blacks were the giveaway. You can watch the trailer here: http://www.sacrificemovie.com/ The DP, Nelson Cragg, also shot one other film in the series (The Taking) which was also stunning. This one was on 35mm and was noticeably richer, with smooth highlights and dark blacks (not to mention the lack of depth of field in many shots, adding to the feeling of drama). Watch the trailer for The Taking here: http://www.subtitledfilms.com/ The point is you are expecting more than your equipment and experience can provide. I am all for putting expectations high, but when you're talking about renting an HD package and doing everything yourself, it is bordering on unwise. I think you need to humble yourself and take a step away to put everything in perspective. Being ambitious is a good thing, but be realistic. When I was your age I was the same way. But I soon realized my limitations and approached new challenges with a slightly different attitude. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 (edited) Well, I dont know about the look of it, but as fare as story goes I'll take "sacrafice" over "The taking". Does anyone know where they got that song in the trailer to Sacrafice? It's spooky as hell! Edited February 28, 2005 by Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Just a dose of reality here: your film technically cannot match the quality of Lord of the Rings simply because you would be shooting it in an inferior format (HD vs. 35mm). You seem ambitious, which is good, but you also need to play Devil's advocate. Example: I went to a screening recently in Los Angeles for four post-grad USC films. Three were shot on HD. The one that was visually most appealing to me was a film entitled Sacrifice. It was shot on HD (most likely HDCAM 24p). Although the visuals were stunning and the 35mm print was of very high quality (probably a 1st gen interpositive from a laser-recorded internegative), you could still tell it was HD. Blown out highlights and muddy blacks were the giveaway. You can watch the trailer here: http://www.sacrificemovie.com/ The DP, Nelson Cragg, also shot one other film in the series (The Taking) which was also stunning. This one was on 35mm and was noticeably richer, with smooth highlights and dark blacks (not to mention the lack of depth of field in many shots, adding to the feeling of drama). Watch the trailer for The Taking here: http://www.subtitledfilms.com/ The point is you are expecting more than your equipment and experience can provide. I am all for putting expectations high, but when you're talking about renting an HD package and doing everything yourself, it is bordering on unwise. I think you need to humble yourself and take a step away to put everything in perspective. Being ambitious is a good thing, but be realistic. When I was your age I was the same way. But I soon realized my limitations and approached new challenges with a slightly different attitude. Good luck. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeh I see what your saying, but I mean you can still get very good results with HD, close to film. I mean a director I was talking to once showed me a film of his, I could have sworn it was shot on film, but it was actually shot on the HDW 750. Perhaps my technical advantages can't compete with LOTR (I mean just look at their budget) but framing wise and getting the right effect, shouldn't be a problem. Just won't have that edge. But then again being a students film being made for £1500, it wouldn't have that "edge". But, for what we have it will be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted February 28, 2005 Author Share Posted February 28, 2005 Daniel, making a movie in the likes of LOTR sounds difficult but far from impossible. Read all that you can about the making of the film, technical specs, stock choice, filters, lighting designs and most importantly, if possible, look up any mistakes they made while shooting. Next, plan EVERYTHING ahead of time. Literally. And make sure you're emotionally, physically and mentally ready to handle any and all problems you may have while shooting. Make sure your script is 100% solid, your actors know EXACTLY what you're trying to acheive visually and emotionally. Buy some stock and shoot some test shots first. Carry your camera instruction booklet and a copy of the ASC manual in case anything happens. As unprofessional as that may seem, imagine being stuck on set because X part of your camera decided to stop working and not know how to deal with it. Now I'm pretty sure you know all of this stuff already.. but if you have the movie stuck in your head - "edited" and running at a consistent pace (if it isn't, polish your script), you know the ABC's of cinematography and directing, have a team of friends -willing- to work with you and some decent gear - all that's left pretty much is applying EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE EVER LEARNED ABOUT FILMMAKING. It has to be perfect because your idea of perfect at the moment seems like it's coming from watching other people's perfect work (LOTR). This is after all your first movie isn't it? Just have fun and make SURE you prep for each and every shot like your life depened on it... Then it'll look like LOTR - or at least good enough in your opinion. And that's all that should matter for your first film. Bloody exciting ain't it? Good luck man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Thanks Jonathon. Unfortunately I can't afford to run any camera test before hand, but that's why I'm hiring someone who has used these cameras before. (Being that they cost round about £500/600 to rent a day) No not quite my first movie, but my first movie where I am actually 100% in control of things. (I'm producing, directing and DP'ing) Thing is so far in almost all of my films I have worked *for* someone. Obviously I have done small projects at home by myself, but when it came to the larger projects I started out as a PA, then camera assistant. In a recent project I was DP, but of all the luck, the director was power crazy and wanted everything done his way. So this is my chance to do whatever the hell I want, and make it how I want. It has to be perfect because your idea of perfect at the moment seems like it's coming from watching other people's perfect work (LOTR) Yeh. This may sound weird but I know this film will be perfect because I already know what it's going to look like, in my head at least, my only fear is making sure it comes out how I imagined. So my experience does have downfalls, i.e. for some of the scenes I will need filters, trouble is I'm not sure what strength I need. But a bit of digital editing will cover up for my mistakes (hopefully) Not to sound arrogant here, but I'd like to go around saying it's just a little students project I'm doing, but really I'm making it more than that. I want it to come out THAT good that it can be entered into some of the big film festivals e.t.c. and use it as my reel. I?m really going for this project. I'm most likely going to shoot the project in July (22nd). So I have a huge amount of time to plan it, and I've already started on a lot of the work already. Today I'm starting work on some storyboards. I could probably scan the in and post them on here, although I must warn you I'm a terrible artist. One of my concerns right now is, is it worth it. i.e. spending £1500 on a film that I'm never going to see a penny of again. I was speaking to a few people and they said I am just wasting my money. I'm torn between my own opinion, and theirs right now. As it stands I'm going for the project, although hearing those comments does kind of put the enthusiasm of it all down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Dan, I was under the impression you where HIRED to dp a project, not a project of yours. I was under the impression you where just the DP, not the Director AND producer. And the HD camera will cost more than 600.00 a day.... In american money it will run about $1,2000.00/day + accessories. I dont know what that is in your money (Pounds or Euros). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 (edited) Dan, I was under the impression you where HIRED to dp a project, not a project of yours. I was under the impression you where just the DP, not the Director AND producer. And the HD camera will cost more than 600.00 a day.... In american money it will run about $1,2000.00/day + accessories. I dont know what that is in your money (Pounds or Euros). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was hired to DP a project, but this upcoming project is my own. Nope, £600 a day from Optex, and that's for the HDW900 I believe, I'm only getting the HDW750. My only concern is lenses and filters. But yes, producer, director and DP, on this project. Edited February 28, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 (edited) One of my concerns right now is, is it worth it. i.e. spending £1500 on a film that I'm never going to see a penny of again Im probably not going to see a penny from this DV project of mine either, but thats no reason for me to back out. Thats just the way it goes, you have to loose money to gain experiance. I MAY be lucky in this case, where a $50,000 job was offered to me. That dont happen everyday. Of course Im not putting any of my own money into this either, so... Edited February 28, 2005 by Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted February 28, 2005 Author Share Posted February 28, 2005 I say go for it. It sounds like you're ready... If you have the option of shooting for free -- GO FOR IT. Network, talk to people, put up ads and fliers, make it seem like the big event it is and maybe someone who can help you will be watching. Either way, it sounds like you're going to make this movie work and that's what's ultimately important. Yeah man, I hear ya about finally being able to have 100% (more or less) creative freedom. Puts a different perspective on things doesn't it? So - IMO, as long as you earn your crew and actors' respect and keep this mantra in mind, everything will probably work out nicely: "So this is my chance to do whatever the hell I want, and make it how I want." If you run in to any problems concerning format, budget or any money related issues just remember that this is about telling a story not about making your first movie. "Unfortunately I can't afford to run any camera test before hand, but that's why I'm hiring someone who has used these cameras before. (Being that they cost round about £500/600 to rent a day)" Good idea. Better safe than sorry. "I'm most likely going to shoot the project in July (22nd). So I have a huge amount of time to plan it, and I've already started on a lot of the work already. Today I'm starting work on some storyboards. I could probably scan the in and post them on here, although I must warn you I'm a terrible artist." If there's any way I can help with your storyboards let me know. I can draw quite well and have a friend who's an absolute pro. He might end up doing some animation for my first movie. Network, dude. Network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 why I'm hiring someone who has used these cameras before That will cost.... A DIT will run you about $600.00 USD a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Cheers Jonathon. And thanks for the offer with storyboarding, should be ok though, tnx anyway. Yeh I'm hoping to cut down on rental costs by borrowing some of the equipment if I can. I'll probably check with my college tomorrow, see what goodies they have got in stock. Either that or I might visit a few film schools and ask to borrow their equipment, and in return their students can come down and see how films are made e.t.c. That will cost.... A DIT will run you about $600.00 USD a day. I can get someone for free, shouldn't be a problem. I was on the phone to Optex today, apparently the HDW750 runs at £450 a day. And some other lenses at round about £200 a day. (I need one wide angle with clear wide angle distortion, and one standard zoom) Looking at my budget, things should go ok. Although trouble is, it's not just the equipment rental costs, there are some expensive scenes involved. One of which could cost, well, too much. A kid jumps off a bridge with a rope tied around his neck in an attempt to kill himself, the rope then snaps and he falls into a river. I am going to have to do some serious looking into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted February 28, 2005 Author Share Posted February 28, 2005 "Although trouble is, it's not just the equipment rental costs, there are some expensive scenes involved. A kid jumps off a bridge with a rope tied around his neck in an attempt to kill himself, the rope then snaps and he falls into a river. I am going to have to do some serious looking into this." There are ways to show this without having to fork out extra cash on fancy camera rigs and what not... example: KID balances himself on the rail of a bridge. CRANE UP/TILT DOWN. (heh... bear with me) CU on his shoes. Laces untied. Left foot slowly edges forward... KID breathes heavily. A beat. Right foot inches forward... Suddenly - CU Right foot slips over the edge - ROPE tightens - then snaps CU on the severed rope as it's dragged over the rails STATIC CAMERA: KID splashes into the river. A beat. KID reaches the surface, gasping for air. In other words, you don't have to necesarily show the 'money shots' i.e. KID falling from the bridge, underwater shots etc. Try working the scene from a different angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 "Although trouble is, it's not just the equipment rental costs, there are some expensive scenes involved. A kid jumps off a bridge with a rope tied around his neck in an attempt to kill himself, the rope then snaps and he falls into a river. I am going to have to do some serious looking into this." There are ways to show this without having to fork out extra cash on fancy camera rigs and what not... example: KID balances himself on the rail of a bridge. CRANE UP/TILT DOWN. (heh... bear with me) CU on his shoes. Laces untied. Left foot slowly edges forward... KID breathes heavily. A beat. Right foot inches forward... Suddenly - CU Right foot slips over the edge - ROPE tightens - then snaps CU on the severed rope as it's dragged over the rails STATIC CAMERA: KID splashes into the river. A beat. KID reaches the surface, gasping for air. In other words, you don't have to necessarily show the 'money shots' i.e. KID falling from the bridge, underwater shots etc. Try working the scene from a different angle. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I like your idea, and yeh there are always ways around it. (As you have clearly shown) But the thing is I have a really dramatic shot for this scene, it would probably be the highlight of the film. Although, yeh if things do get out of hand with money e.t.c. then I'll have to choose and alternative. It'd be nice if I could get it in though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucy Davis Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Hi guys, i am currently in college and i believe that a teen can make a great movie! sure experience is a valued thing to have but the imagination, views and perspective of a youngster is also a totally differnt thing. DANIEL, IM BEHIND YOU 100% :P there have been times when people put you down just because of age and i for one want you to prove people wrong. EVERYONE needs to understand that apart from a guys "tools" the other part of being a good DP is THE WAY HE/SHE PUTS THE FILM TOGETHER and creating a certain desired effect on an audience and mood. i would also like to see the outcome of your movie, since it is a project, something simillar to what i would be doing next year. i believe the starting post of this disscusion was about a screenplay?? i have written part of a screenplay and writing a film which is intended for cinema viewing, who knows maybe when im older and experienced..... (WAIT A MINUTE) this is the type of views which is held by most people, even me. wat the HELL!! hey if you know you can do it DO IT!! scrap wat i just said about older wiser ... WATEVA im gonna start on it as soon as possible. i say GOOD FOR YOU DANIEL hey, i also live in england so post back to me! maybe we can chat about things reguarding film making SAFE XX1XX :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeremy edge Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 (edited) Well ,I must say these kids have some balls...especially the way they just argue head to head with the pros.And I don't doubt all the naysayers will just give them more fire and motivation to produce something great. Its amazing what the human will can accomplish and being young and hungry and having antoginists doubting you every step will produce a strong will. So i say go for it ,and I would love to read your filmaker's diary Landon...I think it would be interesting. But always remember a few things ,being young and cocky will have its advantages but its disadvantages as well. If you stubornly dont listen to advice from those more experienced you will be frustrated with your results. Remember things almost never turn out the way you imagine and something almost always goes wrong. be prepared for stumbling blocks. One thing I don't understand being a newbie myself is why every beginner wants to shoot a feature. why not get experience shooting shorts,commercials ,music videos first? Get your skills honed hardcore before diving into something that will take up a year of your life? I agree, good equipment does matter...but experience matters more. From the sounds of it you guys could easily rent a good camera for a day or two and shoot a short project.repeat the process until you have a handful of things that you feel you are very happy with and make yourself a sick reel. Then you have something to show an investor to motivate them to back you with an indie feature. Landon may be already there...if his investor comes through. Best of luck to all of you. We'll be watching. Edited March 15, 2005 by jeremy edge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now