[Alex Huber]

Thanks Gary–

I’d assumed not– but it never hurts to ask. I wasn’t sure if Machina was actually hardware-specific, or actually an app that COULD work elsewhere. Probably a screwy question, yet I have seen far more disparate combos of stuff actually work when you would never think it would.

Thanks for the clarification–

A

[Alex Huber]

What??? A question about FILM in a cinematography forum???

You will probably have to flash in camera– it is hard to find a lab that will flash a neg anymore, either pre or post shoot. I suppose they didn’t want to bear the responsibility if the results were not as expected, as well as the risks involved with the extra handling of the stock.

I always thought it would be cool if you could buy pre-flashed stock– like maybe a 10% flash. I guess the manufacturers would not want to keep the latent flash on an undeveloped neg for an indeterminent length of time– results might be unpredictible. I myself have had better luck flashing Fuji stocks but I cannot really say why I prefer them– have flashed Eastman as well.

I like the Varicon a little better if only because you can fairly reliably see in the viewfinder or VA what is really happening. It is however somewhat a more cumbersome rig than the Panaflasher– but I guess that is not an issue since you are probably not shooting Panavision.

I have not seen a Varicon in a while. You would think most Arri rental houses would stock them but I think they are actually a bit hard to come by now– so I would track one down and book it well in advance. Be prepared for at least one actor or crew member to say “Something is wrong with the camera!” when they see the glowing lens– it always happens.

[Alex Huber]

[Steve Wargo] “My analogy is the guy who wants to set a new “Land World Speed Record” but he only has a Pinto and $187 that he stole from Aunt Minnie’s purse, but, he knows it can be done because Bob said so.”

Yep… and the guy is welcome to try to set that land speed record. I just don’t want to be in the passenger seat with him.

That’s why I think if one were going to try this route, it would be incumbant on the fellow to inform his cast and crew that he doesn’t know what he is doing yet, and long before he pulls trigger so they don’t sacrifice any jobs with professionals in the meantime. People give of their valuable time, attention, and resources to help make a film, and most of us do projects where we have some expectation of good results. I know personally if I were involved in a project and then some time into it discovered that the DP didn’t know the difference between a T-stop and a T-bone steak, well, I would be pretty pissed to say the least.

Fortunately, I think it will be evident pretty quickly.

[Alex Huber]

I have to jump on the bandwagon here with Jeffrey and Todd, also without the intent of saying anything disparaging.

But realistically, Clint, you even titled your post “Lenses 101,” for crissake. Someone in that position simply has no business shooting a “feature film” and expecting anything less than poor to marginal results.

If you went to an auto repair shop and saw the mechanic reading a book called “How Cars Work 101” would you trust your car to him? If you were wheeled into the oprating room and saw the doctor reading a copy of “Surgery 101” what would you think? Same thing.

I’m sorry, but there are no shortcuts. Any art takes skill to perfect and any craft takes times to learn. I can appreciate your “excitment” for your project but that doesn’t forgive the lack of your expertise or experience, or your refusal to take the steps to learn such. No one is going to watch your movie and say, “Well it looked like crap, but I can tell the DP was really excited.”

We’ve all seen it a thousand times– a low budget project where the photography direction was really done by a “videographer” pretending to be a cinematograher for the day, but in the end the thing that he shows most clearly is that he doesn’t know what he is doing. Some things can save a project like that: great acting. An unbelivably engaging story. Inspired direction and editing. But visually, it will still look like crap. I’m going to assume you don’t want to be one of those guys.

Again, there are no shortcuts. If you simply “don’t have time to read” or time to learn but instead hope this forum will give you the magic secret in 100 words or less, I’m afraid you are not going to find it. You are fundamentally saying that “I’m going to do this project in a hurry, because I don’t have time to learn to do it right.” That is either ignorance or arrogance. No one gets any points for doing it quick or trying to cut corners.

I’m probably coming across like a mean jerk and I certainly don’t mean to. I’m just trying to give you a dose of reality. If you don’t believe me, post your query over at cinematography.com (where the ASC shooters hang out) and sit back and watch the fireworks.

Best of luck,

Alex

[Alex Huber]

I’ll keep it short as you have been given great advice already.

Firstly, congrats on getting out there. Once you find work and your customers find you, I bet you will vow to never work for any other empolyer again.

Based on what I’ve seen I think your work is definitely good enough to get clients, if you can find each other… so…

Ok… I won’t pull any punches here. Your website needs work. Especially for someone in our creative realms, your website needs to reflect the best of what you can do, since it will be the first contact many potential customers have with you. Not to be harsh, but your present site is very scattered, hard to visually follow, cluttered, and frankly just isn’t attractive design. It needs to look as slick and professional as possible.

I’m not trying to be overly critical there — GOOD web design is tough, and is a narrow specialty in and of itself. I know many GREAT broadcast and print designers who couldn’t design a good website if their lives depended on it. It’s just something that not everyone is good at (me included). So… find someone who IS good at it. Pay them, bribe them, beg them… whatever it takes to get a site that is reflective of the quality of the work that you hope to do for people

Secondly, I think you should narrow your focus a bit. Not everyone is good at everything. You may indeed be one of those jack of all trades who has expertise in many different realms… but most people don’t, and potential clients may have a hard time with the concept of a one-man company being able to do many disparate kinds of things well (even though you might be able to).

Therefore, I would focus your time and enegry on selling the services that you think you do especially WELL… and those same clients might end up coming to you for the rest as well. You may have a different opinion of your strengths (and if so, I defer, you’ve seen a lot more of your work than I have)… but I think your strength lies in the “finesse” work… things like rotoscoping, and such… followed fairly closely by editing in general. I’d say music comes next, (but that is such a disparate field that it might be difficult to bundle), and finally graphic design.

So… when you get down to marketing, be careful how you bill yourself. For example, since your editing is stronger than your graphic design, promote yourself as an EDITOR (who can do some graphic desgin when needed), rather than an EDITOR AND GRAPHIC DESIGNER. People tend to think “specialists” are better anyway.

Good luck!… it will be a scary time, but exciting, too.

A

[Alex Huber]

[Tim Ward] “The tapes are NOT the same.”

Really…? Hmmm… learn something every day. Honestly I always thought they were the same. We have never had one lick of trouble using Panasonic tapes in DVcam machines or Sony tapes in Panny machines. I know,I know, you’re not suppose to mix tape types… but in a pinch we have had to do it on more than a few occasions in the past ten years or so. I know other people who regularly mix them as well.

But hey better safe than sorry, I won’t do that anymore.

To William, I was going to suggest trying another deck, I was suspecting a problem with that.

A.

[Alex Huber]

[Nate Graham] “The news photographer told us that as long as the camera is on public property anything it can see is okay”

Unfortunately that is not true. Also must remember that news crews operate by a different set of rules (or sometimes, a lack of). Projects deemed to be “in the public interest” would function differently than commercial projects. For example, you probably could not (at least not without their consent and release) shoot a person eating at a back table at a restaurant from a camera located on the street. That person is not on public property and has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Think about all the reality TV shows you’ve seen (I even saw this on an episode of MTV’s “Jackass” just the other night). There were several instances of people wearing tee-shirts with logos, and they had taken time to blur out the logos. Several instances had people on the street, and their faces had been pixelated. This was done for a reason, not just everything on the street is fair game. However most of the other guidelines seemed correct. When in doubt, consult a MEDIA attorney, there are plenty of them just a phone call away in NY and LA. They will charge you for their time and opinion of course, but it will be a pittance compared to avoiding a lawsuit.

[Alex Huber]

[Theguybehindtheguy] “Im having some color issues.”

And some posting issues, too, looks like.

[Alex Huber]

Great reading… but I’ll go one further and say it’s not only for young or inexperienced filmmakers. I found a couple of things or more that old hacks like us should be doing, probably used to do…but got tired, lazy, or complacent.

A.

[Alex Huber]

Hi Dan…

Are you absolutely totally sure that the films in question are completely and totally in the public domain? Can you throw us an example or two? I ask because a film that is completely unincumbered by any rights-holders is a pretty rare thing.

AH