Framing in cinemascope

[John E Clark]

Made this mini teaser of what the short will be like.

 

https://vimeo.com/123815840

 

I think it's still rendering. Shot the opening with my iphone 6 since the Canon 6D ran out of battery. I wanted it to be grainy, so I think it worked. By the way the short is about a call girl who is terrorized by some guy, it's what I could come up, but maybe it works, the performances weren't bad at all. :/

 

There are a couple of iPhone apps that allow one to have 'fixed' exposure settings. Then one would not see over compensation for the ceiling lights or the background window. Even if these are test/teaser shots, I think it would help in getting a better image.

[Miguel Angel]

Although I agree with David on that you learn a lot by doing the things by yourself, maybe it could be interesting to get in touch with a couple of local people to help you shoot maybe?

 

That way you increase your knowledge by gaining their knowledge! and you can experiment even more.

 

Framing in cinemascope is super super easy once you get to know how to work with it.

If you want to learn how to frame in cinemascope my suggestion is: If you have an iPhone or an iPad, get any app which allows you to create frames with your camera (The Panavision app or Artemis for example) and start taking some photos around you.

 

You will get used to the aspect ratio really quickly and then you will start seeing life in a wider format! :)

 

Looking forward to watching the short - film!

 

Have a lovely Easter!

[joshua gallegos]

Well, I'm not a cinematographer, I'm a guy who tries to learn by reading stuff on boards, I'm just trying to make films. Really, my interests are in creating movement and composition,but I want to primarily write and direct stories. If I had the advantage of having a cinematographer and a crew of amazing technicians, my films would be amazing, and I truly believe that. But, since I'm not some fancy AFI student who has the advantage of hiring/assembling a professional crew, etc. I have to film and do everything myself which is extremely difficult. Added to this, making films is costly- so when you don't have the money, you don't have the time, and when you don't have time, you end up getting sloppy images. But, I'd rather make a film than to not make one at all. I was looking at some short films, like the ones made by Lena Dunham , and this is where I'm at right now. I have to make something with nothing, and it's super difficult. But I'm not complaining, because I enjoyed it, and I'll do it again the same way if I have to. I'll get it better, I figure, why raise thousands of dollars to make a short film when you know you're not ready to spend that kind of money.

 

 

 

 

 

The rest of the stuff I shot is well exposed, since it was done with a Canon 6D. And the iphone shots don't look overexposed to me, if you're filming inside a building that means the windows are going to be completely blown out, that can't be helped John Clark.

Edited April 5, 2015 by joshua gallegos

[David Mullen ASC]

You're doing well, Joshua, just keep at it!

 

Better to shoot more often and make more mistakes and learn from them, because you can't avoid them and it's the best way to learn.

[Miguel Angel]

We all are learning but if you want to create movement, composition and you want to direct and write it will help having a couple of friends on board, just to help placing the lights and the camera maybe? :)

 

The first short - film I shot (in 2003) was made with a couple of friends and we all learnt loads! (I learnt I didn't want to direct ha!) and I'd rather shoot something than nothing at all.

As Mr. Mullen said, making mistakes is a way to learn.

 

If you weren't shooting you wouldn't be making mistakes and that's not good! :)

 

Have a lovely Easter!

[joshua gallegos]

I see what you're saying, it's like Orson Welles once said A writer needs a pen, an artist needs a brush, but a filmmaker needs an army.

 

The most frustrating aspect of filmmaking is not being able to get on camera the things that are in your head, I always imagine something and how it should be, but I end up with garbage. I was looking at my edit and everything is really terrible, it's so bad I refuse to show it to anyone and I'm contemplating of deleting everything, simply because it pains me to see something so terrible. I really respect all the great filmmaking artists and I can't measure up to what they do and it really tears my heart out, but I'm determined to continue, because I know that's not the best I can do. Having said that, I should've expected this, shooting 8 pages in less than a day is the dumbest thing I'll ever do (hopefully), and I'll never try anything like that again. I just didn't have the time to think things through. Anyways, thanks for the help and advice. My second effort was an abysmal failure, worst than my first attempt. yikes.

[John E Clark]

The rest of the stuff I shot is well exposed, since it was done with a Canon 6D. And the iphone shots don't look overexposed to me, if you're filming inside a building that means the windows are going to be completely blown out, that can't be helped John Clark.

 

I was referring to the changes in exposure as you moved. The app that I use for the iPhone allows one to fix the exposure, with highlights blown out, depending, but it doesn't change as windows or lights move in and out of the field of view.

[joshua gallegos]

Thanks, I found the app. Though, I'm not using the iPhone footage for the first cut. I managed to put it together last night, I think I exposed it pretty ok, maybe I was exaggerating when I said it was all terrible.

[John E Clark]

Thanks, I found the app. Though, I'm not using the iPhone footage for the first cut. I managed to put it together last night, I think I exposed it pretty ok, maybe I was exaggerating when I said it was all terrible.

 

The Wife is hyper critical and in many cases it become an impediment for her to get work out. Sure, take care, do the best, but at some point one must publish. Perhaps it is ok if one is working for one's self, but for work that is 'commercial'... the hypercriticalness is a killer. Hypercriticalness is a killer for one's own work because one may hang on some point rather than moving on and learning more.

Edited April 8, 2015 by John E Clark

[John E Clark]

hit the wrong button... delete this post.

Edited April 8, 2015 by John E Clark

[Justin Hayward]

 

Hypercriticalness is a killer for one's own work because one may hang on some point rather than moving on and learning more.

 

On the flip side, some people can't see their own work for what it is (And I'm not pointing at your work, Joshua. Just in general). At least if you can see something you did isn't great, you can try to figure out why it isn't great, and take steps to improve. Then when you see something you shot turn out great, it will send chills up your spine :)

 

Of course I think it was Sydney Lumet who said a healthy level of self-delusion is critical. Otherwise we would be afraid to shoot anything.

[John E Clark]

 

On the flip side, some people can't see their own work for what it is (And I'm not pointing at your work, Joshua. Just in general). At least if you can see something you did isn't great, you can try to figure out why it isn't great, and take steps to improve. Then when you see something you shot turn out great, it will send chills up your spine :)

 

Of course I think it was Sydney Lumet who said a healthy level of self-delusion is critical. Otherwise we would be afraid to shoot anything.

 

Then there Uwe Boll, who would rather go a couple of rounds in a ring with critics than make a 'good' film...

 

(of course he gets money some how some way... so most of his films technically are 'good' from that point of view...).

[joshua gallegos]

Here's the first cut of the short I made. NOTE! It is still work in progress! It lacks continuity and some of the cuts are comical! I was just trying to see how short I could cut it, and I took away necessary shots to maintain continuity and coherence! I'd like to be judged on composition and movement, if you have the time.

 

Thank you.

 

https://vimeo.com/124481443

 

I shot the whole thing in 8 hrs, so it's not my best effort, I could've dines tons of stuff to improve.

[Justin Hayward]

I liked it, nice job.

[joshua gallegos]

I wanted it to have a creepy porn vibe, hopefully all my porn watching paid off. I just know I can do better, I need to find a way to be able to do this everyday. I'm taking the video down since it's not ready to be seen.

[Bill DiPietra]

I see what you're saying, it's like Orson Welles once said A writer needs a pen, an artist needs a brush, but a filmmaker needs an army.

 

The most frustrating aspect of filmmaking is not being able to get on camera the things that are in your head, I always imagine something and how it should be, but I end up with garbage. I was looking at my edit and everything is really terrible, it's so bad I refuse to show it to anyone and I'm contemplating of deleting everything, simply because it pains me to see something so terrible. I really respect all the great filmmaking artists and I can't measure up to what they do and it really tears my heart out, but I'm determined to continue, because I know that's not the best I can do. Having said that, I should've expected this, shooting 8 pages in less than a day is the dumbest thing I'll ever do (hopefully), and I'll never try anything like that again. I just didn't have the time to think things through. Anyways, thanks for the help and advice. My second effort was an abysmal failure, worst than my first attempt. yikes.

 

Hey Josh, don't be so hard on yourself! Sure, there are always things you can improve upon, but that goes for just about every film! I know you are a young filmmaker who appreciates the true cinematic masters that have come before you/us and that alone will pay dividends in your future projects. So many film students don't even bother with film history.

 

I liked your concept for this film, but it felt bigger than it was able to be on-screen due to the limitations you had. The speech he gives her at the end was crying out (for me, at least) to be depicted visually. And I think a contrasty, single-source look would have fit the mood perfectly. But I agree with David...the main problem was trying to shoot 8 pages in 8 hours. And you're right...making a film is no cheap proposition. On my most recent short, I was able to complete principal photography in the allotted time (4 days) only because I had done extensive tests and pre-planned everything down to the very last detail. And it's still cost me about 8K so far.

 

But you have the right attitude...just keep it up! And if you ever happen to be doing a project in NYC, just let me know. I'd be happy to work with you. :)

[joshua gallegos]

Short films are a completely different form than feature films. For instance Darren Aronofsky wasn't great at making short films, but once he made 'Pi' he made something special. This was Aronofsky's last short film before making 'Pi', and I still can't figure out how he went from this to making 'Pi', but it just shows you short films aren't important, I'm personally not a fan of short films, but it's a good and inexpensive way of learning the craft.

 

 

[Bill DiPietra]

...but it just shows you short films aren't important, I'm personally not a fan of short films, but it's a good and inexpensive way of learning the craft.

 

We had this disagreement a while back, so I won't rehash it. But to say "short films aren't important" is just plain incorrect. I've seen many that have more going for them than some feature films. It's usually how everyone starts out, too. Also, if you don't feel short films are important, that attitude may be factoring in to some of the issues you're having with your current short.

[joshua gallegos]

I'm not voicing facts, it is my own opinion. If I never make a feature then I know I've truly failed. The shorts I am making are only excercises so that I can learn and eventually make a feature film. I've also learned how to write for a budget. If you look at someone like Mike Cahill who shot, edited, wrote and directed his film 'Another Earth' you'll see that it's possible. Stanley Kubrick did the same thing with 'Fear and Desire', and I intend to do the same thing. I've failed too many times to even care anymore, so this is what making shorts is all about, reaching for that next step.

 

The "issues" factoring into my current short is that I'm not where I want to be, I still don't feel ready to make a feature, and I never will be unless I try harder. I want to be the best at this, I want to be able to tell a story without **(obscenity removed)** it up and I feel I've learned something from these two little shorts I've made. No one remembers a short film, sure they're cute and creative, but they're not the real deal. It's how I feel, and look at Aronofsky or Jason Reitman's short films, they weren't great, but they learned a lot.

Edited April 13, 2015 by joshua gallegos

[joshua gallegos]

And another thing, I know my movies suck, but I know that's not the best I can do, I'm barely getting started, and I'll fail a million times before I quit. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't respect the art of movie making, but it's a craft and it has to be learned from the ground up which is not easy.

 

What issues are factoring into my current short? I welcome honest opinions. If you knew some of the stuff professional readers said about my screenplays on The Black List.... But I proved them wrong too. I never gave up and made the Top List on their stupid website. I wish people would be more honest and critical which I was looking for in this post, but no one said anything. I can take criticism, I welcome it, it makes me learn and improve faster. So, if you could please elaborate on those issues I am currently having, as I myself cannot see them.

[Bill DiPietra]

I wish people would be more honest and critical which I was looking for in this post, but no one said anything. I can take criticism, I welcome it, it makes me learn and improve faster. So, if you could please elaborate on those issues I am currently having, as I myself cannot see them.

Gladly...

 

-I did not care for the framing. At times is was offset to the right or to the left & at others, it was dead center. It felt like you didn't know where you wanted the camera to be. Also, the 2.40:1 aspect ratio didn't feel like it did anything for the film.

-AUTO-FOCUS???!!!

-The lighting could have been much more contrasty & expressive considering the subject matter. It was all rather flat.

-The music cut in & out with no real rhythm. You need to be more judicious with it.

-Hand-held is a dime a dozen. Put the camera down in one place and make the frame interesting.

-Sit down and plan out a color palette for your films.

 

And you were the only one who said your films "suck"...no one else. But my overall point in the previous post is how do you expect to make a quality short if you don't respect the form of short films in the first place? You talk about building from the ground up & you're absolutely right. But if you don't have any kind of passion for the films you are making now, how do you expect to make great ones in the future?

[joshua gallegos]

Well they do suck, I openly admit it. I wouldn't be on a board if I didn't know that.

 

I should also mention I did not use auto focus, that was all me, you should see the stuff I left out which was out of focus. The frame was 2.35:1 and I just wanted to experiment with it. As I mentioned before, I'm barely starting out and wouldn't want to spend thousands on a short, and I know I'm not good at all the technical stuff, but at least I know how it works. Thus far I've had two opportunities to do something and I've **(obscenity removed)**ed up. The smartest filmmakers surround themselves with technically proficient crew, and all they have to do is verbalize ideas and they end up looking like geniuses. That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be. So I can't help but to question myself as to why I want to do everything myself, and it's so simple. I want to know how it all works from beginning to end. So I figure, these past two shorts have been nothing but experiments. A drawing on the fridge if you will.

 

I hear the word "passion" being thrown around all the time. What is passion? Have you looked up its definition? Or have you shaped your own definition in your head and decided it applied to me? Let me give you its proper definition, and believe me this one little word has many. And this is THE number one use of the word.

 

Definition #1

any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling, as love or hate.

 

This is the part where I don't have to answer to you in that regard. You see I do have passion. My passion is to be the best mother**(obscenity removed)**ing filmmaker I can be. And I have intense emotions about that, because I am struggling with the technical poop. Being technical is the hub of all filmmaking of all creativity. Without any kind of technical ability, the work will fail abysmally. everything just becomes stifled and nothing will come through clearly. I haven't been smart by doing everything myself, and it's time to break away from that. I can do better, I have to allow the right opportunity where I have the proper funds and time to express my ideas.

 

Thanks for the feedback, i just didn't like the passion part. I mean you don't know me in that perspective.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's OK to see your own short films as exercises, sketches, experiments, etc. -- passion is important as a prime motivator, but now and then, being dispassionate, objective, and pragmatic can be useful too.

 

Whatever gets you to shoot more often.

 

But I don't want to see the whole genre of short films being looked down upon. They aren't second-rate mini-features; they are a legitimate art form separate from features just as short stories and poetry are just as legitimate as the novel in literature.

 

Besides watching other shorts, it might be good to check out good commercials and music videos that tell a story visually in only a minute or so.

[Dylan Sunshine Saliba]

"I hear the word "passion" being thrown around all the time. What is passion? Have you looked up its definition? Or have you shaped your own definition in your head and decided it applied to me? Let me give you its proper definition, and believe me this one little word has many. And this is THE number one use of the word.

Definition #1
any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling, as love or hate.

This is the part where I don't have to answer to you in that regard. You see I do have passion. My passion is to be the best mother**(obscenity removed)**ing filmmaker I can be. And I have intense emotions about that, because I am struggling with the technical poop. Being technical is the hub of all filmmaking of all creativity. Without any kind of technical ability, the work will fail abysmally. everything just becomes stifled and nothing will come through clearly. I haven't been smart by doing everything myself, and it's time to break away from that. I can do better, I have to allow the right opportunity where I have the proper funds and time to express my ideas.

Thanks for the feedback, i just didn't like the passion part. I mean you don't know me in that perspective."

 

 

As Cecil B. Demented said "Are you prepared to DIE for cinema?" That is what I personally take for passion. My AD said he is prepared to break his legs. You gotta REALLY want it, not just hobby on the side want it. I'll take it if it's convenient kinda attitude. Creativity comes from limitations. You need to study paintings and sculpture. You need to have activities like fencing or chess. "Technical poop" comes with proper experience listening to and learning from seasoned professionals.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Dylan Sunshine Saliba

[joshua gallegos]

But I feel music videos only visualize the things that are expressed in the music. In a sense music could still survive without a video, and commercials were broadcasted on a radio long before they were shown on television. I don't feel a Miller light commercial is telling me a story, it is just showing me a glass filled with frosty beer to stimulate my senses. Music videos are the same way, the song is already making me feel something, and videos only tend to externalizer those emotions.

 

The cinema tells stories about people and it requires time to set up from beginning to end on a written page. Short films are more in the moment and episodic. For instance a guy wants to kill himself, so he plans to jump off a bridge, then as he arrives on the bridge he sees a woman who is about to do the same thing, then it plays out.

 

How is anyone expected to tell a story in less than 10 minutes? Most of the short films I like are around 20 minutes long. In the early pioneer days a short film was a simple shot of a girl dancing or someone sneezing. And most of the shorts I see on Vimeo are people running in slow motion, and they're considered "films".