Guys like this are the ones that are pulling the camera market down

[Barry Sanders]

Here's an interesting analysis. The same person made these comments.

"I might consider a trade for a CANON 5D III, and eventualy fast primes, cause I need one for time lapse photography..."
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?108321-RED-ONE-MX-EUROPE

---

"Do you thing a RED ONE MX values less than a 5D camera?"
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...e-MX-Package&p=1290654&viewfull=1#post1290654

 

[Nick Morrison]

I basically agree that making a successful indie feature may be the hardest thing todo in our industry. It's the Holy Grail, what everyone wants, but as with most myths, few people get there (cuz it's so, so hard). But I applaud all the brave who are willing to try. Most just talk and never do. So kudos to anyone willing to try. One day I may join you on this fool's errand!

Best of luck to all.

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

I basically agree that making a successful indie feature may be the hardest thing todo in our industry. It's the Holy Grail, what everyone wants, but as with most myths, few people get there (cuz it's so, so hard). But I applaud all the brave who are willing to try. Most just talk and never do. So kudos to anyone willing to try. One day I may join you on this fool's errand!

Best of luck to all.

Depends on what you consider successful.

 

[Steve Das]

...But I applaud all the brave who are willing to try. Most just talk and never do. So kudos to anyone willing to try. One day I may join you on this fool's errand!
Best of luck to all.

Actually there is a bunch of people who don't just talk...they do it..probably too many do it..12,000 submissions to sundance this year is
a new record. Usually there are 2,000 feature domestic and 2,000 foreign competing for like 50 spots in the competition feature
category. The rates for submission go from like $45 for early shorts submission up to $100 for late feature submissions.
So that could ad up to near a million just in submission fees.

http://www.sundance.org/festival/ar...ssect-the-2013-sundance-film-festival-progra/

Depends on what you consider successful.

That is a very good point or question.
Moneywise very few of even the sundance winners in recent years have done
any box office at all. But probably Upstream Color hit a good balance of commerial and artistic appeal.
Shot with GH2 and Rokinons and no-one complained it wasn't shot in 4K.
$400,000 in box office...maybe $50,000 budget and the director owns the whole film.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?98858-UPSTREAM-COLOR

 

[shashbugu]

The harshest critics of indie flicks are filmmakers (rightly so). As a filmmaker, you have to realize that audiences get more and more sophisticated with each passing generation. They expect better than they are already used to. Even teenagers want wittier, much more clever dialog, plots and story-lines. In the nineties movies were about clever endings with so so plots. in the eighties movie just sucked and pandered to hollywood pop culture. inthe seventies every movie, even the B list ones were awesome. thee days movies just suck period. HBO shows are just better. And i think 2 hours is just not enough for a movie anymore. we have become a muti tasking society, with a multitude of devices vying for our attention. When do give our attention to a movie we want to be fully satisfied, no need to cram a good story into two hours anymore. let it ride

 

[shashbugu]

Actually there is a bunch of people who don't just talk...they do it..probably too many do it..12,000 submissions to sundance this year is
a new record. Usually there are 2,000 feature domestic and 2,000 foreign competing for like 50 spots in the competition feature
category. The rates for submission go from like $45 for early shorts submission up to $100 for late feature submissions.
So that could ad up to near a million just in submission fees.

http://www.sundance.org/festival/ar...ssect-the-2013-sundance-film-festival-progra/



That is a very good point or question.
Moneywise very few of even the sundance winners in recent years have done
any box office at all. But probably Upstream Color hit a good balance of commerial and artistic appeal.
Shot with GH2 and Rokinons and no-one complained it wasn't shot in 4K.
$400,000 in box office...maybe $50,000 budget and the director owns the whole film.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?98858-UPSTREAM-COLOR

true very true

 

[Nick Morrison]

The harshest critics of indie flicks are filmmakers (rightly so). As a filmmaker, you have to realize that audiences get more and more sophisticated with each passing generation. They expect better than they are already used to. Even teenagers want wittier, much more clever dialog, plots and story-lines. In the nineties movies were about clever endings with so so plots. in the eighties movie just sucked and pandered to hollywood pop culture. inthe seventies every movie, even the B list ones were awesome. thee days movies just suck period. HBO shows are just better. And i think 2 hours is just not enough for a movie anymore. we have become a muti tasking society, with a multitude of devices vying for our attention. When do give our attention to a movie we want to be fully satisfied, no need to cram a good story into two hours anymore. let it ride

I feel like there are always good movies being made, sometimes you just have to look harder. The 80's had many great films. There are superb movies being made now. I don't think they are getting better now - just different. Often style is dictated by technique, so movies now tend to have more coverage (more cameras) and are cut faster (on NLE's), and are more fantastical (better CGI). But better? I still think Bringing Up Baby is one of the best comedies ever, and The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep and Casablan still rank as some of my favorite movies all time, and most of them are almost 80 years old.

I think it's easier now to make a movie than ever (more affordable tools), but also possibly harder to understand what goes into a movie. So many of us are self taught (because of the internet, and access to equipment) but I think we also risk making more "critical" mistakes because there's no substitute for experience and mentorship with industry veterans. However those that overcome these hurdles I think stand a chance of doing pretty good work. That we have industry leaders like David Mullen on these boards is certainly a step in the right direction.

 

[shashbugu]

Heh, heh... no need to concern yourself with the narrative.

But I find it interesting you focus on the narrative and not on the equipment imbalance.

And I can see where you could identify my statement as a setup for a student film, so I guess I need to give a few more details to defend my stance.

First of all, I'm pretty sure you are envisioning a complicated story line with many sub plots and probably taking place in a city or at least a crowded location. I, on the other hand, am referring to a planned feature of my own that takes place in the wide open spaces with a few inexpensive props and a storyline that pulls together disparate characters into one central theme. The main cast will be small (2 males and 3 females) and first contacts are alright with a small per Diem and a participation in revenue.

99% of the movie will be outdoors and about 80% of that will be in the daylight. (Night time stuff will be in the light of a camp fire or led practicals hanging in sight to light a camp.) I can flood the campfire scene from a camera position on a cliff above the firelight, just enough to add a soft glow but not enough to cause shadows. If it does cause shadows, I will position my actors facing the camera position and the audience will attribute those shadows to the firelight. Or I can shoot a full moon shot and cut that into the movie to justify any shadows. The led floods come in many different color temps including 3000 to 6000 so no need to gel if you buy (~$50) the right color temp... and they only need ~50 watts of power so batteries, not generators to power them.

As for concentrating on Dragons... this is not going to be my first rodeo... er, movie. So why not go ahead and get the upgrade now and take advantage of the extra DR and color science?

As for budget, I'm thinking in the $25,000 to $50,000 budget range to pay for travel, lodging and meals plus the *per Diem for actors... and expenses for second unit travel to get footage of a Longhorn cattle herd. A few extra props as well, even though I have already accumulated most of what I'll need in regard to wardrobe and props.

*If I'm able to raise more money, that will go toward hiring recognizable actors and the per Diem will go away. In the event of the small budget, I will caution the actors that there is no guarantee of success and if the story doesn't resonate (it has what some purists may see as disturbing undercurrents) their per Diem will in fact be their pay, so the should approach the role with that in mind.

How many weeks will the shoot be?, $50,000 i a very workable budget if you are shooting a character driven feature. if you can break the whole feature down to 14 days of build and rehearsals, 12 days of principal photography and a 10 days of pickups. depending on where you are, You can hire a good indie gaffer with a truck with light grip, and electric for about 750- 1200 a day. You won't have to worry about led lights etc. For daylight he'll have rags, 20 x 20 bounces, silks etc. Honestly the lighting will add more value than having a dragon over the current epic. As you know these days an epic is about $500 a day for a three day week. if you are out doors then support like a good tight mattebox with filters is key.
As far as actors go, in my experience, actors who work for free mostly do it for the credit. That's a dangerous rope to dangle off. Actors have to be fully invested in the story and not their careers, it will take a good two weeks of rehearsals to actually sniff them out. It will cost you more time and money directing an actor who does'nt understand how they fit into the progression of a story. If you spend a little extra time audition and finding actors as opposed to being happy with the few who accept your per diem terms, you will save your self the headaches in shots to print ratio. Sound is key, especially in the outdoors.

Elsie, I know you have way more experience than I do in film making, but try not to do everything or make all creative decisions all by yourself. The difference between the look ofa major indie and a no budget is usually the lighting and sound choices. if you spend money on just a few really good professionals on set. Your post work will be a breeze.

 

[shashbugu]

I feel like there are always good movies being made, sometimes you just have to look harder. The 80's had many great films. There are superb movies being made now. I don't think they are getting better now - just different. Often style is dictated by technique, so movies now tend to have more coverage (more cameras) and are cut faster (on NLE's), and are more fantastical (better CGI). But better? I still think Bringing Up Baby is one of the best comedies ever, and The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep and Casablan still rank as some of my favorite movies all time, and most of them are almost 80 years old.

I think it's easier now to make a movie than ever (more affordable tools), but also possibly harder to understand what goes into a movie. So many of us are self taught (because of the internet, and access to equipment) but I think we also risk making more "critical" mistakes because there's no substitute for experience and mentorship with industry veterans. However those that overcome these hurdles I think stand a chance of doing pretty good work. That we have industry leaders like David Mullen on these boards is certainly a step in the right direction.

I Agree fully, its just that, (correct if i'm wrong) these days movies are... I honestly don't know how to express it, movies re so so. with all the big cgi, big cast, perfect lighting etc, movies are just not memorable once you step out of a theater or turn the blue ray off. Where as premium tv shows have plenty to offer

 

[Nick Morrison]

I Agree fully, its just that, (correct if i'm wrong) these days movies are... I honestly don't know how to express it, movies re so so. with all the big cgi, big cast, perfect lighting etc, movies are just not memorable once you step out of a theater or turn the blue ray off. Where as premium tv shows have plenty to offer

Yes but there are many great small movies out there. Beasts of the Southern Wild last year was amazing. Shame last year was great. Killing Then Softly looks insane. I thought Drinking Buddies this year was superb...shot on Scarlet (and many more films this year I'm overlooking). I think it's hard to generalize and say movies now aren't great, its too broad, to simple. It's not that different than any kind of generalization...it often falls apart under tougher scrutiny.

What's clear is the studios are PUSHING big tent pole movies more than ever. So our culture may feel more saturated with "safe" blockbusters. But that doesn't mean underneath that there isn't a large swathe of interesting films being made...there are...I'd argue more than ever. Then again I live in NY and have access to BAM, Film Forum and Lincoln Center, so maybe these movies just seem more obvious and accessible to me.

I have eternal faith in film-making. I strongly believe there are always great films out there. The human condition by nature is creative and I can't imagine artists being any less hungry now than they were before. Our access to their art may be changing, we way feel more over-saturated by the mainstream, but it doesn't mean great works aren't being made...we just have to look a little harder to find them...but they are there...deep within your cable box or at the far end of your art-house cinema.

 

[shashbugu]

Well, you are right, I shouldn't generalize. And yes we do need to look a little harder to find them.

 

[Elsie N]

How many weeks will the shoot be?, $50,000 i a very workable budget if you are shooting a character driven feature. if you can break the whole feature down to 14 days of build and rehearsals, 12 days of principal photography and a 10 days of pickups. depending on where you are, You can hire a good indie gaffer with a truck with light grip, and electric for about 750- 1200 a day. You won't have to worry about led lights etc. For daylight he'll have rags, 20 x 20 bounces, silks etc. Honestly the lighting will add more value than having a dragon over the current epic. As you know these days an epic is about $500 a day for a three day week. if you are out doors then support like a good tight mattebox with filters is key.
As far as actors go, in my experience, actors who work for free mostly do it for the credit. That's a dangerous rope to dangle off. Actors have to be fully invested in the story and not their careers, it will take a good two weeks of rehearsals to actually sniff them out. It will cost you more time and money directing an actor who does'nt understand how they fit into the progression of a story. If you spend a little extra time audition and finding actors as opposed to being happy with the few who accept your per diem terms, you will save your self the headaches in shots to print ratio. Sound is key, especially in the outdoors.

Elsie, I know you have way more experience than I do in film making, but try not to do everything or make all creative decisions all by yourself. The difference between the look ofa major indie and a no budget is usually the lighting and sound choices. if you spend money on just a few really good professionals on set. Your post work will be a breeze.

Shash, all good generic advice... as budget permits.

But unless I go well over my ask, I have to allocate to the most needy parts of the production such as travel, food and lodging. And I've already personally budgeted for my personally-owned 2 cameras to be upgraded to Dragons that I will be "loaning" to the production. I've not shot a feature yet but in my experience with the things I have shot over the past 6 years or so, starting with my two R-1s, convince me I can get the through-the-lens data from the setup I currently own (screw on NDs, various Stills lenses... yes, bounce cards and umbrellas even '-)

As for the actors, I will hold auditions electronically at first, then the ones that seem to be the best fit I will invite to collectively further audition in person and even read lines between characters to see how they play off each other. As for their being unpaid talent, depending on how this turns out they could be VERY well paid. Like a baseball player entering his year before free agency, I expect the actors to perform well and be cooperative since putting in the time and giving their best performance will go a long way toward increasing the amount of deferred payment they receive. And while highly trained actors can understand and give the right performance, those less skilled will require more takes to reach that goal.

And that is why, to address your time line for the production, I'm in no hurry. That is, I will be utilizing time in lieu of money. The things I cannot afford in my budget I can do myself, which will take more time... LOTS more time.

Shash, I get that your advice is well intended and there is nothing in it that is in error, for the most part.

But my own experience is that if you have to make an image look good with filters and lighting, you're using the wrong camera. '-)

And as for sound, why does it have to be a pristine or warm sounding etc. etc. mic choice? The audience doesn't know if a character sounds a little different in real life than they do on screen. If I get clarity I can change the pitch or shape the sound however in post if I want a certain sound. And I've just ordered a TASCAM DR60 D from Amazon to mount on camera or tripod and recording 4 channels. (I should have ordered 2--one for each camera--when they were priced at $250... now back up to $350.) This will give me a recording on that unit as well as allowing me to go from there directly into camera for the ability to synch up in post.

And before anyone disparages the audio solution I'll be using, I'll wager it is numerous times better than the audio equipment used for classic movies like GWTW and that seems to have gone pretty well.

As for doing everything myself, that's not my first choice. But if that's what I have to do to get my movie made, I will take the extra time and when done, will trumpet that as a hook for getting people to go see it.

 

[andy black]

Yes but there are many great small movies out there. Beasts of the Southern Wild last year was amazing. Shame last year was great. Killing Then Softly looks insane. I thought Drinking Buddies this year was superb...shot on Scarlet (and many more films this year I'm overlooking). I think it's hard to generalize and say movies now aren't great, its too broad, to simple. It's not that different than any kind of generalization...it often falls apart under tougher scrutiny.

What's clear is the studios are PUSHING big tent pole movies more than ever. So our culture may feel more saturated with "safe" blockbusters. But that doesn't mean underneath that there isn't a large swathe of interesting films being made...there are...I'd argue more than ever. Then again I live in NY and have access to BAM, Film Forum and Lincoln Center, so maybe these movies just seem more obvious and accessible to me.

I have eternal faith in film-making. I strongly believe there are always great films out there. The human condition by nature is creative and I can't imagine artists being any less hungry now than they were before. Our access to their art may be changing, we way feel more over-saturated by the mainstream, but it doesn't mean great works aren't being made...we just have to look a little harder to find them...but they are there...deep within your cable box or at the far end of your art-house cinema.

I concur with all of this, but i'd go even further and say that they are not hard to find at all and that there are more good films than there ever was, every year seems like there are more good films than the last to me. i usually find people that say the contrary are purely speaking about hollywood- of course if thats all there was than yes pining for the 70's is an acceptable response. Modern audiences are more cynical, harder to please and more easily distracted than they were, i think thats where the differences are. I also feel that whilst obviously improving of late, television is still so far inferior to film on almost every level(that we judge film on). I don't consider it even reasonable to compare them really. Two different mediums that function differently.

Off the top of my head just this year so far(i'm in the uk so a lot of the awards stuff doesn't open here untill jan/feb)- upstream color, the great beauty(surely sorrentino's masterpiece), rush, mud, gravity i'd say were all of the highest level. last year amour, beasts of the southern wild, life of pi, skyfall, martha marcy may marlene, similarly were all exceptional and none of these, except upstream color, were small films, mostly oscar winners/contenders. Of course these things are heavily subjective. Whats even more encouraging is that many of the best recent films are by shockingly young directors, Zeitlin and Durkin are 30! Nichols is 35, Carruth 40, Sorrentino about the same. These guys are just getting started.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Maybe you just need to broaden your experience. '-)

500 indy screenings - maybe more- politely attended - I think I'm way broad enough. Crap is crap.

 

[shashbugu]

I concur with all of this, but i'd go even further and say that they are not hard to find at all and that there are more good films than there ever was, every year seems like there are more good films than the last to me. i usually find people that say the contrary are purely speaking about hollywood- of course if thats all there was than yes pining for the 70's is an acceptable response. Modern audiences are more cynical, harder to please and more easily distracted than they were, i think thats where the differences are. I also feel that whilst obviously improving of late, television is still so far inferior to film on almost every level(that we judge film on). I don't consider it even reasonable to compare them really. Two different mediums that function differently.

Off the top of my head just this year so far(i'm in the uk so a lot of the awards stuff doesn't open here untill jan/feb)- upstream color, the great beauty(surely sorrentino's masterpiece), rush, mud, gravity i'd say were all of the highest level. last year amour, beasts of the southern wild, life of pi, skyfall, martha marcy may marlene, similarly were all exceptional and none of these, except upstream color, were small films, mostly oscar winners/contenders. Of course these things are heavily subjective. Whats even more encouraging is that many of the best recent films are by shockingly young directors, Zeitlin and Durkin are 30! Nichols is 35, Carruth 40, Sorrentino about the same. These guys are just getting started.

Great list of films. I guess you are right this a really subjective realm of discussion.

 

[shashbugu]

Shash, all good generic advice... as budget permits.

But unless I go well over my ask, I have to allocate to the most needy parts of the production such as travel, food and lodging. And I've already personally budgeted for my personally-owned 2 cameras to be upgraded to Dragons that I will be "loaning" to the production. I've not shot a feature yet but in my experience with the things I have shot over the past 6 years or so, starting with my two R-1s, convince me I can get the through-the-lens data from the setup I currently own (screw on NDs, various Stills lenses... yes, bounce cards and umbrellas even '-)

As for the actors, I will hold auditions electronically at first, then the ones that seem to be the best fit I will invite to collectively further audition in person and even read lines between characters to see how they play off each other. As for their being unpaid talent, depending on how this turns out they could be VERY well paid. Like a baseball player entering his year before free agency, I expect the actors to perform well and be cooperative since putting in the time and giving their best performance will go a long way toward increasing the amount of deferred payment they receive. And while highly trained actors can understand and give the right performance, those less skilled will require more takes to reach that goal.

And that is why, to address your time line for the production, I'm in no hurry. That is, I will be utilizing time in lieu of money. The things I cannot afford in my budget I can do myself, which will take more time... LOTS more time.

Shash, I get that your advice is well intended and there is nothing in it that is in error, for the most part.

But my own experience is that if you have to make an image look good with filters and lighting, you're using the wrong camera. '-)

And as for sound, why does it have to be a pristine or warm sounding etc. etc. mic choice? The audience doesn't know if a character sounds a little different in real life than they do on screen. If I get clarity I can change the pitch or shape the sound however in post if I want a certain sound. And I've just ordered a TASCAM DR60 D from Amazon to mount on camera or tripod and recording 4 channels. (I should have ordered 2--one for each camera--when they were priced at $250... now back up to $350.) This will give me a recording on that unit as well as allowing me to go from there directly into camera for the ability to synch up in post.

And before anyone disparages the audio solution I'll be using, I'll wager it is numerous times better than the audio equipment used for classic movies like GWTW and that seems to have gone pretty well.

As for doing everything myself, that's not my first choice. But if that's what I have to do to get my movie made, I will take the extra time and when done, will trumpet that as a hook for getting people to go see it.

Updating two Epics is easily 18,000, not to mention the edit system upgrade with rocket x and double the storage with two cameras churning out 6k images and subsequent transcoding and edit versioning etc. That's close to $25,000 right there. At least upgrade only only epic x, use the dragon as A cam and the epic-x as b cam for close ups where DR won't be an issue. The DR 60d looks like a promising recorder. How about getting a sound devices mixpre-d to sit in between the recorder and mic as well feed the camera excellent scratch sound. You should also get long shotguns, shotguns and lavs since you'll be outdoors. Use the balance of the cash to get a dope grip and gaffer with truck. I know this for a fact. Lighting your own movie whilst blocking and directing actors in a motion picture is a nightmare. Surely you can do it yourself, we have all done it from time to time, but it will tire you out for a feature length movie. I suggest you be your own DP, camera operator, 1st AD and editor. Leave the sound and light to professionals you can yell at. If you do insist on doing it all yourself, remember just as there are aspiring actors, there are aspiring, DPs, gaffers, grips, art directors, sound mixers etc who will work on a promising feature for per diem, food and credit. They can learn from you as you instruct them on your needs for your picture, I'm already excited about your movie. Take a cue from Steven Soderbergh's girlfriend experience. Micro crew, non professional actors great camera, sound and light.

 

[Chris Henze]

500 indy screenings - maybe more- politely attended - I think I'm way broad enough. Crap is crap.

You seem to have a lot of strong opinions Robert. I'm just wondering what experience you bring to this forum to level such strong assertions? A web search of you points to not much more than 4 videos on Vimeo highlighted by a Steadicam test and a few weird interviews. The way you talk I'd guess that there must be more than that. So I'm confused, am I missing something? Awards? IMDB? Let us know and we'll keep listening.

 

[Elsie N]

Updating two Epics is easily 18,000, not to mention the edit system upgrade with rocket x and double the storage with two cameras churning out 6k images and subsequent transcoding and edit versioning etc. That's close to $25,000 right there. At least upgrade only only epic x, use the dragon as A cam and the epic-x as b cam for close ups where DR won't be an issue.

My plan is to use a two camera setup on almost every scene. Reason is, if I must use "new" actors I'm convinced they can give me what I want at least once, but that good performance may not be repeatable so I need to get two angles. When editing I feel lost if I don't have more than one angle to cut between. And if I'm going to do that, I need the cameras to match.

And with the newer graphics cards, I've decided to forego the Rocket X as a money-saving option. As an early adopter, the upgrades will only cost $17,000 and I've been upgrading my computers to handle Dragon footage for some time now. Maybe a couple of more Redmag SSDs, and then I've got two offloading stations (one for each camera) with their own dedicated laptop.

The DR 60d looks like a promising recorder. How about getting a sound devices mixpre-d to sit in between the recorder and mic as well feed the camera excellent scratch sound. You should also get long shotguns, shotguns and lavs since you'll be outdoors.

The 60 D has the ability to both capture and pass along the sound to the camera, so I'm good there. I'll be using RODE NTGs, Beringer B-1s and a Beringer B-2 for dialog, plus 4 inexpensive Chinese made cardiods scattered around the location and recording in to 2 TASCAM DR 40 recorders. Also have two lav setups I plan to use when they aren't conspicuous. I'm certainly no professional but I've played around with sound over the years and made some mistakes... which I hope I've learned from.

Use the balance of the cash to get a dope grip and gaffer with truck. I know this for a fact. Lighting your own movie whilst blocking and directing actors in a motion picture is a nightmare. Surely you can do it yourself, we have all done it from time to time, but it will tire you out for a feature length movie. I suggest you be your own DP, camera operator, 1st AD and editor. Leave the sound and light to professionals you can yell at. If you do insist on doing it all yourself, remember just as there are aspiring actors, there are aspiring, DPs, gaffers, grips, art directors, sound mixers etc who will work on a promising feature for per diem, food and credit. They can learn from you as you instruct them on your needs for your picture, I'm already excited about your movie. Take a cue from Steven Soderbergh's girlfriend experience. Micro crew, non professional actors great camera, sound and light.

Yeah, I agree this is going to be tiring. My past experience has been on long and hard shoots that may last only a day, and sipping on a 5 hour Energy Drink (a third in the morning, a third at noon, and the rest around normal quitting time) has gotten me through with ease. And I think the latest nutrition additions I've made has my body and mind in a mode that should see me through a long drawn out production.

And yes, I will have some crew and they will likely be untrained and unskilled... adventuresome types. But as I said in an earlier post, most of the movie will be shot outdoors, so I'm good with using available light, with occasional fill.

Thanks for your statement that you are excited about my movie. Even with our different approach to shooting, I think you get the possibilities that new technology offers low-budget movie makers, even in a remote area such as the one I live in, to turn their thoughts into pictures.

 

[Steve Das]

My plan is to use a two camera setup on almost every scene. Reason is, if I must use "new" actors I'm convinced they can give me what I want at least once, but that good performance may not be repeatable so I need to get two angles. When editing I feel lost if I don't have more than one angle to cut between. And if I'm going to do that, I need the cameras to match.

Actually Elsie I think this is kind of a big mistake on multiple angles you're making here... But if you've worked this way before and had good results..well then it
clearly works..and will work for you going forward.

But generally to shoot 2 different angles takes away from your ability to light and really push the lighting. In general you'd
want to light from one side and shoot from that one side only with 2 different cameras one very tight and possibly roving around for hand motion or eye motion..and then
the standard locked off shot camera.

Also for actor performance usually the repeatability is usually not the problem. It's not like there is going to be one Academy performance that the actor will never be able to duplicate. No it's not so much an actor is going to hit a "homerun take" and we're going to miss it...the problem is just getting all the actors to show up at the ballpark in uniform and ready to bat. The problem is just getting the communication and ideas into the actors understanding so everyone on set is in sync with script and performance style and tone.

I'll be using RODE NTGs, Beringer B-1s and a Beringer B-2 for dialog, plus 4 inexpensive Chinese made cardiods scattered around the location and recording in to 2 TASCAM DR 40 recorders.

Don't know much about sound myself but when I look up this recorder on B&H website and click user reviews and then sort them by lowest
rating..well I get a bunch of scary posts titled as such..Complete Fail for this Product....Noise...and You have Been Warned...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/821259-REG/Tascam_DR_40_DR_40_4_Track_Handheld_Digital.html

..I've just ordered a TASCAM DR60 D from Amazon to mount on camera or tripod and recording 4 channels. (I should have ordered 2--one for each camera--when they were priced at $250... now back up to $350.)..

And on B&H the first three negative reviews for the TASCOM DR60 D are titled...Not For Pros...Distorted Audio...and Best For Hobbyists...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/929347-REG/tascam_dr_60d_4_ch_track_linear_pcm.html

Your really don't want to be so camera rich and sound poor...something like the new sound devices 633 would be so much better...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1015171-REG/sound_devices_633_6_input_field_production.html
http://cinescopophilia.com/sound-de...nput-mixer-with-integrated-10-track-recorder/

 

[Elsie N]

Actually Elsie I think this is kind of a big mistake on multiple angles you're making here... But if you've worked this way before and had good results..well then it
clearly works..and will work for you going forward.

But generally to shoot 2 different angles takes away from your ability to light and really push the lighting. In general you'd
want to light from one side and shoot from that one side only with 2 different cameras one very tight and possibly roving around for hand motion or eye motion..and then
the standard locked off shot camera.

Also for actor performance usually the repeatability is usually not the problem. It's not like there is going to be one Academy performance that the actor will never be able to duplicate. No it's not so much an actor is going to hit a "homerun take" and we're going to miss it...the problem is just getting all the actors to show up at the ballpark in uniform and ready to bat. The problem is just getting the communication and ideas into the actors understanding so everyone on set is in sync with script and performance style and tone.

Steve, both you and Shashbagu have given me pause to think, and I appreciate that because if I can't defend your concerns to myself then I need to rethink my approach. And really, all I can do sitting here in front of my keyboard is recall past experience as well as visualize what I think to be true in re: something I haven't tried before.

As I've mentioned, I'll be using available light for the outdoor daylight scenes and in some of the dual character scenes I'll have a camera trained on each one and hopefully get the full dialog in the scene in one good take. These I can position in regard to the light source and throw a little fill for each one as needed.

But you've given me reason to think about the scenes with two angles on the same scene, probably shot as a medium close-up on one camera and the other as a wide shot. Some of that I think I can match with available light through positioning the scene in regard to the position of the sun. Possibly needing to keep camera angles small so the light falls similarly on character in question... as you suggested. That's one good thing about shooting in the wide open spaces... you've got 360 degrees to use.

Still, one scene that comes to mind where Shonell takes a nightly meal up on a slight rise to the young dying fiddle player who is dying from radiation exposure but follows the group in his last attempt to gain fame in an oral history sort of way, will have a 90 degree camera angle between the two cameras. The setting sun will frame the one angle in silhouette and the shadows that are cast will be prominent in the other. Maybe I'm wrong but I am putting my faith in the Dragon sensor to give me all the information I will need from either shot done with available light.

As to the problems with the actors, I'm hoping I have the patience and the wiles to keep them on point. I've purposely written the script so there are 5 main characters in the vanguard with the herd trailing some miles behind. I can shoot the central characters first and since only one of these characters will interact with the herd and the lead character in that setting, I can shoot that separate from the more important part.

Don't know much about sound myself but when I look up this recorder on B&H website and click user reviews and then sort them by lowest
rating..well I get a bunch of scary posts titled as such..Complete Fail for this Product....Noise...and You have Been Warned...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/821259-REG/Tascam_DR_40_DR_40_4_Track_Handheld_Digital.html


And on B&H the first three negative reviews for the TASCOM DR60 D are titled...Not For Pros...Distorted Audio...and Best For Hobbyists...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/929347-REG/tascam_dr_60d_4_ch_track_linear_pcm.html

Your really don't want to be so camera rich and sound poor...something like the new sound devices 633 would be so much better...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1015171-REG/sound_devices_633_6_input_field_production.html
http://cinescopophilia.com/sound-de...nput-mixer-with-integrated-10-track-recorder/

There weren't many reviews on Amazon but the ones I saw were mostly positive. Granted, the ones you are referring to are probably written by more experienced sound people. And while I think reviews are helpful, especially if there are a lot of them, I kind of grade them on a curve since (in some cases) I think people put up bad reviews hoping the seller will reduce the price. Should also mention that I suspect the occasional shill for another brand of similar products may post damaging statements about a competitor's product. '-)

I've used a couple of TASCAM DR 40s and under the right circumstances have gotten what seemed to my ears, acceptable sound. The DR60 is supposed to be revamped as a recorder so as to be even better. But I will test to see if it is something I can live with. The sound devices 633 is just way out of my price range.

But you are right about sound and I will not go to war with a rusty sword, so I may end up using something different from the DR 60D.

The 2 DR40s with the 4 cheap shotgun mics are mostly for foley, but depending on what they pickup they could be useful to combine with the main track for something captured serendipitously.