Search results

I NEVER use their online screeners. I always send a DVD. If the festival only accepts online screeners I don't enter.

All lenses are softer wide open (and fully closed) than they are in the 4 to 8 sweet spot. Also, without a good external monitor and/or some kind of focus assist it's very easy to think you are in focus, but you are actually slightly out.

For narrative I'm a 100% prime lens guy, but zooms make a lot of sense for docs.

That is a good exercise. Also, with the shotgun 18" from the speaker's mouth you should be able to have the gain at a level that while the environmental sounds are certainly there they are well in the background.

Very possible. However, the average director cannot.

John Waters. Not a technical maestro by any means, but an amazing eye and probably one of the two or three most important directors of the late 20th century.

My DP has been operating everything from Panavision film cameras to DVX100s to 5Ds for about 25 years. There is NO way, me (or you) could pan, tilt, follow, do smooth handheld, etc... as well as he can.

HUGE difference between a $200 field monitor and a $1K field monitor. Between a $1K field Monitor and a $2K field monitor, not so much.

Yeah, for interview style stuff or sitcoms (where it's used heavily of course) where you are just soft lighting the whole space nice and evenly it makes a lot more sense.

Lots of guys swear by multiple cameras, but that's not the way it was done for most of the history of film making... for a reason. Crashing two trains into each other, one chance is all you get, makes perfect sense. The rest of the time.. eh.

That is amazing. 15 pages is about twice what I have ever gotten done in a day and some of those were 16 hour days.

We're a mostly PC Workflow. Edit in Premiere on PC and do first level of audio on Sonar on PC. Portions of the audio post process are MAC based though. Final stage of audio is done on Pro Tools on MAC and portions of the music mastering is done on a MAC based system also.

Wrote and directed it. It drags really bad. 33 minute movie should have been about a 20 to 25 minute movie. Also has some almost criminal level acting in it, but it does have a cameo by Lloyd Kaufman and full frontal nudity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMSX08194Tw

Hard to pick, but Lolita might be my favorite. Partially because of the great performance by James Mason and the genius of Peter Sellers.

Sweetie summed it up pretty well. I have a day job. I have no interest in shooting every weekend for 3 or 4 months, with all the logistical nightmares and additional expense that comes from shooting that way. If I do a feature I want to do it in a straight 14 to 20 day shoot with no breaks...

I have in excess of $10K of my own money in my four shorts over the past 4 years and maybe $2K of other people's money (crowd funded)

Because before you try to build a Ferrari in your garage maybe you should try to assemble a pedal car first.

Orchestra, pretty tough. we have in the past used a live stribg trio though (violin, viola, cello). It's nice to have musician friends and access to a recording studio.

The time we did it we juiced the lighting with some additional fires out of frame and as Steve pointed out a 2K giving some light to the background.

Yep. I am doing a very retro style. I don't even use any vfx. In all the stuff we've done some slight frame cropping and a digitally added camera flash is the entire list of non-practical effects we have ever used... ever... in 4 films.