Motion picture: Our visual world

A lens is a lens is a lens

2011-03-24T12:14:00.001-07:00

Over the past few months I have been learning a lot about lens' and quality. In the past as far as video is concerned people buying cameras where mainly concerned with the feturs and quality a video camera, but totally neglect the lens as a part of the equation. And I totally and completely understand this mentality. Why? because for decades camera companies made us choose between crap image quality in comparison to a more crapy image quality. So consumers like my self are forced to buy in to CCD image sensor size that was smaller then an 8mm film image. Even george lucas' star wars episode 1 $100,000 camera that was a 1/2 inch did not even come close to the normal focal length 8mm film had.

American cinematographer September '99 Archives Phantom Camerawork

Carrying that depth was crucial, and required the deeper stop. If there were no bluescreens, we could work comfortably at a T2.8 or less.

The reason why they needed more depth is because the image size was way smaller then a full frame image on 35mm film.

If you talk to any real cinematographer they are often less concerned with the camera and more concerned with the lenses. In fact, the camera has no effect on the quality of the image only the lens has an effect on the captured image. No matter how you look at it we seem to be working backwards as far as technology is concerned. Red and Canon pioneered the way for inexpensive Digital cameras comparable to that of the film image then. We are now part of an ara that redefines the way we produce movies and content. And we are not limited to the old system. In fact, watching many of the 80's films movie makers where more concerned about story then any fancy effects. If you watched them you might find how simple the camera setups where. So now that we don't have to worry about our bank and we can fit all of our gear in one back pack what is the issue. There should be no excuse now for why we can't make a movie. In fact, I do own a canon 60D and I have a lap top and I have a back back to put that stuff in. Every thing is there even my lite tripod. and with the advent of Magic lantern

http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wiki

we now can capture at 60 (mbps) or more. So now Filmmakers have no more excuse to the limitations of the camera but rather the limitations of there lens quality and build. I remember the bigest reason why I ended up buying the Canon 60D was because I saw that the canon xha1 Panasonic Pro 16X9 Anamorphic Lens Adaptor was $800 and I compared that to the DSLRs later and found out that its not worth putting cheap conversion glass on a lens when I can buy a camera for the same price that is the canon T2i at the time which was under 900 with the lens Panasonic Pro 16X9 Anamorphic Lens Adaptor is $800. So the choice was crappy glass on a lens or great camera and good lens. The choice was obvious. However I would never sell my XHA1 because I still need a work camera that shoots on tape. Last thing I need is a corrupted card that I shot my clients event on. Not saying that cards are not great but they are more prone to fail considerably. But back to the lens topic. So the point I am trying to make is that when you take the capturing format out of the equation you are left with the lens. Great thing about lenses is that you can re use them that is if camera companies don't change there mounts. Last thing you need is adapters.

Some of the biggest problems in lenses is distortion and vignetting

this is what lens distortion looks like

Distortion free

imageBarel distortion

Pincushion distortion

Complex distortion

What is lens distortion?

A perfect lens would render straight lines as straight, no matter where they occur. Most practical lenses aren’t that good, though, and instead bend lines outwards (barrel distortion) or inwards (pincushion distortion). Wide-angle lenses and wide-range zoom lenses often suffer particularly badly from this.

another problem in lens' is Chromatic aberrations also known as Fringing.

Chromatic aberrations are caused by the inability to focus the red, green, and blue light wavelengths at the same distance along the optical axis. As a result of this, where some color wavelengths are focused at different points, you may see color fringes around the high contrast edges of a picture. This can be particularly noticeable when shooting with wide-angle lenses (especially when they are being used at wider apertures), where you may well see signs of color fringing toward the edges of the frame.


Lateral chromatic aberration	DxO Optics Pro Correction

this is what vignetting looks like

Optical Vignetting

Optical vignetting is caused by the addition of multiple lens elements, such as a telephoto lens, a macro lens, a wide angle lens, etc. Each additional lens piece, by continuing to refract the incoming light, also works to narrow the effective lens opening by which light enters the image sensor. This is an inherent element of lens design, made conspicuous by increasing the amount of refraction and thus vignetting that occurs. The vignetting that occurs as a result of this tends to be subtle and gradual.

The solution? Well, be careful with what lens elements you buy! Optical vignetting is more likely to occur with cheaper, less well-made lenses, but this is only a generalization. Research different lens elements carefully before purchase lest you make an unpleasant discovery regarding excessive optical vignetting later.

Breathing (lens)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Breathing refers to when a lens' optics change the apparent focal length slightly when shifting the mechanical focus. Some (often more expensive) lenses are designed to lessen the degree this effect. Lens breathing does not prevent one from racking focus or following focus with this lens, but it lessens the desirability of any type of focus adjustment, since it noticeably changes the perspective and composition of the shot. Not to be confused with the suction and expulsion of air from within the lens as its internal volume changes.

When searching for the right lens, these are all elements to consider when figuring out what to buy. Hence is why it is so expensive to buy a good quality lens because because good quality lens is precisely engineered to reduce or eliminate these optical issues. Also remember Better glass is typically more sharper, but also more expensive. Cheap glass is usually soft and produces color fringing.

Prime lens have a huge advantage because there is less moving parts hence no zoom, less glass and wider aperture settings. The draw back is you need Varinging lens with different focal lengths, which means you need more lens to buy and carry around. also when you use prime lens you also will find your self changing lens often during a shoot. Changing lenses often takes up valuable production time and you run the risk of dirtying the image sensor or film gate and even the back of the lens will get a bit dusty. Dust in the camera is inevitable regardless if you have the lens on all the time but it is more of a problem if you are constantly exposing your camera gate to the elements. Always remember to bring a can of air with you to every shoot and no do not blow on the lens or gate. First you will never get all the dust off by blowing on it. a can of air can do a much better job. 2, the humidity of your breath can make things worse but not always. Usually a simple brush for lenses and a can of air will work.

The typical bull head approach to shooting is to go from one extreem to another with the lens' aperture and focal length. All lenses have a sweet spot. Typically, the best way to achieve the maximum sharpness your lens can generate is by adjusting the aperture to F5.6 - F8. Adjusting your aperture on an open setting like F1.2 - F3.5 will cause strong Chromatic aberrations aka fringing and softening of the image a little. The same for the extreem smaller aperture such as F22-F36. No matter what lens you get you have to take in to consideration the boundaries you have. If you have an intentional look you are going for, use the rules to your advantage but keep in mind the benefits and draw back of your lens settings. Same goes for lens distortion. The wider the lens the more distorted the image will appear. Your image sensor size will determine the strength of the focal length. So on a 16mm film a wide lens may be a 10mm lens, but on 35mm film wide would be a 20mm lens. So be aware of the look you are going for and know your limitations when it comes to selecting the focal length for your shot.

Ok so now that I ranted a little about lens problems I wanted to talk about the best lens kit to have for your cropped sensor or your Full frame sensor. Honestly I would never buy a lens built for an APS-c camera because it means there is less image aria and your FF sensor will see all sorts of issue as described above. Plus you can't take full advantage of the sweet spot of the lens if you have a cropped sensor.

These are the lenses that are on my wish list.

The Tokina 11-16mm F2.8

the Tokina lens is actually used by cinematographers on the arri camera and the lens is modified to fit the camera. So you know you are getting a good lens if it is used for even the big budget films. This lens also is good because this lens is designed to reduce the amount of distortion found in other wide lenses.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens

I chose this lens Cause I am cheap and its a sharp pice of glass. However this lens has been known to break easy even with normal use. but for the price I think its a good start to the kit.

Canon EF 85mm f1.2L II USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras

Its expensive at 2k but the best lens out there to date as far as image quality. But if your on a budgit and need a good set you can go with this 85mm.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

Haven't tested it out but from what I read it is built like an L, color and saturation comparable to an L with out the red stripe. Just has some elements and features that are missing, but does not effect the image quality. So for $420 vs 2k I think this is a more budget option without the loss of quality.

So those are really the only 3 lenses I would get as a solid lens pack. It has your wide, normal, and long lens. I am sure you can add the

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

Not a bad pricing probably more worth it down the line.

Now if you are some one like me who Just can't afford the lens I would not worry and stick with the kit lens your canon comes with. I have a Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS UD Standard Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras It works fine and it comes with the camera. For movie making it works but it doesn't hurt to have good glass. So if you are in a position where you can't get the best of the best then don't. Shoot with what you have because at the end of the day you are telling a story not trying to impress some over paid critic.

By
Robert Sawin

Part 2 of 2 understanding CGI integration

2011-02-25T11:03:00.000-08:00

The point of this blog is to get you to start thinking 3D integration rather then educating you on any particular technique. Compositing and 3d Computer graphics design takes years to master so I wright this with no intention of saying this is the end all be all of how to view and tackle CGI. However, I will say that understanding some simple concepts can help you tackle even the most challenging of visual effects.

So where do I start? Lets start with the most common method of compositing and that is keying. Also known as color keying, croma keying, blue screen, green screen etc. The idea behind keying is to cut out a real world object from an image and pasting it on a background and possibly overlaying it with a foreground. That is about as complex as the idea gets. However when things get more complex we start talking about depth of field, motion tracking, color spill from the green screen etc.

The more movement you have in the shot or the final composite the more challenging it will be to composite it and make it look believable. Even a simple hand held camera can be a nightmare for some post people. So if your going to shoot green screen ask your self how much movement does this shot really need and does it fit the story. Any good compositing takes as much time as say a traditional animator would because you may have to manipulate each frame individually with a garbage matt. cutting out any unwanted elements or what have you. Good keying will solve any major problems in post. The type of keying you go with will ultimately determine how you deal with it in production. keying in post stays relatively the same sense your telling the computer that the croma keyed background is to be cut out and made in to an alpha matte. I would explane all this stuff but I'd be writing a whole book just on explaining rather then actually expressing how to tackle CGI from a real world perspective.

Back in the days when compositing was relatively in its infant stages studios would use an all black back ground to key out there subjects. Disney did this when they made Mary Poppins. You can see a good example of this in the DVD version of the movie where they show the behind the scenes. They used black to minimise spill and it was easier to key out for the most part. Later did we start using blue screen and green screen. The idea behind blue and green screen is that it is an odd color and does not really match anything in the shot. hopefully. The major problem with any color key is spill and unwanted color reflection. there is a number of ways to tacke the situation. The first of witch is to put your subjects farther from the background second is to light the croma key from the back, but you need a special fabric that allows light to illuminate it from behind. Its not a %100 but it works for the most part.

when color keying the matt that your using must be perfectly lit with no wrinkles or stans or any thing. using a light meter and soft keno lights will do the trick. You can also use daylight balanced shop lights but remember the entire screen must be lit balanced for the keying to work. Bad lighting on a croma key back drop will show up like a sore thumb in post. Its better to reshoot bad lighting on a color key then to fix it in post.

One of the bigest problems I see in making keying realistic is matching the back ground match the subject in compositing. One of the reasons these shots don't match typically is color temperature. The color temperature and direction of the light must precisely match the back ground. Even the quality of light must mimic the background. If you shoot a shot outside then odds are you will need to set your croma key out at the exact time of day at the exact position of the shadows shot in the back ground. This is the least complicated way of eliminating the problem of lighting continuity. As I said it before every thing must be controlled and precise if you do any level of CGI or compositing.

I might be nit picking on this but I believe image size will effect the realism of the final composite. The main reason is that the larger the image size on the camera the more depth of field it will generate. Also image size can change prospective a little bit even if the lens was matched to be the equivalent of the background for the final composite. So grabbing an image off the web in hopes that it will work may not work at all realistically. The reality is your audience can and will most likely notice that the image has been composited in some way. If you don't care or if the content your compositing does not need that level of realism then go for it. The ideal situation is to stick with the same camera and medium throughout the shoot even for convenience sake just work to make sure both cameras are the same shooting the same medium with the same lens.

lens focal length has a huge effect on the final composite. You can't expect to use a 100 mm lens and go in to the studio and use a 50 mm lens and think it will work. The back ground and the subject must have the same lens and focal length and the focus distance must be identical to that of the back ground. If your subject is 5 feet away shooting with a 50 mm lens then focus at 5 feet and and do the same for the composite background. I don't care if the back ground is out of focus or not it just has to match. The same goes for the lens aperture. The more open your aperture the more depth of field you will have. So take extensive notes when filming for CGI integration.

Also lens hight and angel will greatly effect camera perspective. If you shoot a high angle shot for an action sequence then expect to match camera hight angel and distance from the subject to the background exactly the same. So both shots must be shot identically with the same medium and camera if there is to be any compositing.

So if your shooting a long shot then expect to do the same when keying out your characters. lets say your shooting a car jumping over a bridge and you want your character to be under that car and the shot is 50 feet away. Then shoot the car jumping over the bridge and at a separate more controlled location shoot the same shot 50 feet a way with a green screen larger then the subject and key it out in post. It sounds simple but every thing must match.

In after effects there is a way to change image size and focal length so match that with your cameras lens size and image size if you want to maintain visual continuity.

If your shot requires movement at all no matter how complex you must decide what will move the camera or the subject. If you have both the camera and the subject move then you are going to have a more complicated time in post geting the shot composited right. The more movement you have the more complex it will be in post to get the final composite. If you are shooting movement of a simple object such as a spaceship it is better to have the model spaceship stationary and have the camera move but if you are shooting an object like a watch on an arm then it is better to have the camera stationary and let the watch on the arm move a little. Movement that is more controlled with less movement is ideal. But be ware complicated shots will cause a lot of stress in post especially if the shot is not planed. Keep any shot you do as clean and plan as possible. That means no fog or random objects in the way or what have you. You can add the effects later in post if you want.

Sometimes doing effects in camera is easer, but at the end of the day you have less control in the final composite. The main advantage is that you can controle prospective. The early star wars did this and it worked. Especially when using miniatures. In the case of miniatures, the rules change because you need to compensate for prospective. That means lens size lens hight and angel must be relative to real world prospective. Humans are used to seeing things from a certain perspective so you have to compensate for that perspective when in production. Both shooting miniatures and shooting for CGI cost about the same no matter how you look at it. There are pros and cons but its all preference. Personally I have no qualms about ether or. In the end its all about telling the story.

In the old days when CGI did not exist people would use glass and have artest to paint on that glass to make the effect look real like adding a city in the middle of a desert. Or you can have a person over looking the ocean and seeing pirate ships off in the distance. However, Those days are long gone so don't expect to see that FX any time soon.

There is new croma screening technology available that uses a gray screen with led lights attached to the camera. It eliminates a lot of the problems as described before, but the led must be attached to the lens. The light emitted is green and or blue so it could cause some color spill.

CKL-200 SD Dual-color Chromakey Light System

I believe "Van Helsing" the movie used this technology, but the draw backs is that you have to have the screen some what on a straight angle and the camera has to be relatively close. There are more specs on this product. From experience this product works, but it is not perfect. Just an alternative.

you can find out more information here.

LD-1 Dual Color LED Chromakey Ring

Another method of CGI in compositing when integrating the real world to the real is using digital wire meshing. Essentially digital wire meshing will creating a digital plan you can put any where you want the effect to be placed. for example you can put a wire digital mesh on a persons arm and make it look like he or she has something growing out of it. Using markers to track the image you can keep that digital computer generated image on the subject.

BLACK SWAN Featurette: Visual Effects Reel

There is nothing wrong with combining different visual effect techniques to as long as you can tell the story and the audience does not become distracted by the effects. If the audience does not know the effects are there then you have done your job. Causing attention to the screen rather then the story will cause the audience to become mentally jared and it could take 20-30 minuts for them to get back in to the rhythm of the movie. And yes one bad or jaring cut or graphic can cause an audience to loose focus of at least 20 - 30 minuts of the film. Even for a split second a bad cut or graphic can be devastating to a scene.

if you ever get a chance read Walter Murch "in the blink of an eye"

He explanes the phenomena of a bad cut on a psychological scale very well. "In the blink of an eye" is probably one of the best editing books I have ever read and I don't think there is another book like it. I know this blog is about CGI integration but the reality is if the audience feels any negative disturbance in the image then then the audience will in fact loose focus of the story as a whole. and there is nothing worse then loosing the audience during a movie when the objective is for them to become engaged with the story.

There are so many combinations to approach CGI integration and compositing. The trick is to break it down in to very simple concepts. The VFX your story calls for will determine how you will shoot the scene. If you are a visual effects artest or are working with a visual effects artest let him approach the situation in the best way he knows how. Trying to reinvent the wheel will cause all sorts of problems in post, time and money. Best idea is to start planing with your VFX guy early and have him on the set and along with you every step of the way. The VFX guy is the last person you want to leave out of the loop. The more involved your VFX guy is the better the end product will come out. Technology is always changing and sometimes for the better, but believe it or not these seemingly complex concepts are fundamentally simple when broken down. So worry about the story first and formost and when it comes time see what adjustments to the scripts make them then. Because finding a creative visual solution to challenging problem is always better then working with a bad script.

Robert Sawin

Part 1 of 2 understanding CGI integration

2011-02-14T09:52:00.000-08:00

Computer-generated imagery (CGI) intergeneration in any visual medium can add visual flair no mater how stubble or complex. In fact studies show that a commercial using CGI visual effects will ingage more audience members and increase branding potential over all. I would show you the findings, but I can't seem to remember what article it was when posted in creativity magazine. In any case, CGI integration or compositing in general can be easy and complex at the same time. For the average consumer, adding CGI can be exciting and fun to watch, but for the filmmaker it can be a scary thought.

My mom always asks me how do they do that when she sees some fancy CGI on TV and my initial response is there is probably 3 ways they could have done that. Then I tell her the ways and she has a blank look on her face and I am like why bother. With a little background in compositing I always know there are different ways to skin a cat. For the record I am not a 3D graphics designer in any respect nor do I clame to be. I am only speaking from a compositors prospective.

3D animation and motion graphics are two very different animals. In the world of profesional visual content making for the screen different people have different skills respectively. Especially when you get deeper in the tech side of things. When I find I have a limitation I except that limitation "not" because I want to quit because it gets too hard, but because I know my brain is made a certain way. I have dabbed with many 3D programs and I have learned that it takes a certain kind of person and there personality to fit in the world of 3D animation. The same for traditional animators.

One of the things that bother me when I look for work is I will see an ad posted and it will say something like "need an expert who specializes in photoshop, illustrator, in design,video, web design, html, C++, cold fusion, flash etc...." ads like this make my teeth hurt and Not only do I think the client is super cheap, but they have no idea it is virtually impossible to get someone who specializes in all those things. In other words they are inadvertently seeking a "jack of all trades and a master of none" or an incredibly good BSer. For myself I spend years learning motion graphics design and the image. Yes I have dabbed a little in everything, but it sure does not mak me an expert so why in the world would any employer expect to get quality out of anyone when demanding so much for so little.

If you want a production with CGI or motion graphics you need someone who specializes in that discipline. I have found that 3D animation folks specialize in modeling the anatomy with some or a lot of Computer programming experience and they are math savvy some what. From a compositors point of view I can do none of those things, nor would I try or clame too. There are other 3D animators that focus solely particles, But that is a whole other ball game. One thing about Motion graphics designers is that we can transition to the compositing world easy. During my time in school I learned a lot of software and I found that transitioning from after effects to shake was easy, but the environment could get complex very quickly the more it bridged in to the 3D world. I did touch maya once or twice and made some nice things with some fancy camera moves but, I no matter how hard I tried I was just not cut out for the 3D world. It just makes me feel like I was back in High school where people where divided into social groups. There where the jocks, the emo's, the geeks, the plastics, etc... I think that is how the art world works. People inherently have a cretin personality to begin with and there mind works a particular way. No matter how someone tries to be something they are not in the end our physical and mental limitations will cause us to fit where we belong in the natural order of things. In other words, as artest we must stay true to our self and our experiences if we are going to make good art the way it was intended. There is nothing wrong with experimenting, but that experimenting should show us what we are capable of. "Know thyself.."

Knowing one’s self is a lifelong journey and a journey which should be embarked upon with total trust in your personal observations and personal experiences to date. Truth is only known in relation to an individual's perception of reality. There is only one reality and your personal perception of it constitutes only one of many. However, who is the actual perceiver, "Who are you, really?" Reflect upon the following considerations to have an idea of how to view yourself holistically, as a part of reality, as well as to view your awareness as somewhat of a mirror of reality, such that to describe that of which you are aware equates to the truth about an aspect of reality.
One thing I have noticed even with the most successful or inspirational artest is that even they too have limitations. If you study any artest for a length of time you will find that he or she has patterns to there art. That pattern is who they are as an individual and it is that pattern that people gravitate too that makes them so successful.

Motion graphic designers are are really on the video side of things. We are very tech savvy and more in tune with 3D compositing and integration rather then 3D modeling. Merging the two worlds can be a bit of a headache because one needs the other inorder for the whole thing to work. Its almost like a wall of a sort. when you deal with algorithms, grading, lens focal length and depth both sides have to be in tune with one another for it all to work. CGI must comply with visual physics in order to translate accordingly to the audience. The human eye can easily detect flaws from the physical world to the animation world with almsot an 80 - 90 % accuracy. So if there is any attempt to add effects or realism to your shot be prepared to spend a lot of time, money and resources to get the shot just right. The average high end 3D graphics commercial cost an easy million or more. Some times its ok to have effects or graphics that are not realistic. That is if you are planing for a particular style.

Adding CGI must be very calculated before during and after the production process. The initial idea is to know visually what you want first and formost and know what kind of talent with what kind of skill level will be needed to complete the vision. Anything can be done in the visual world, the real question is what is it that you need and what are you willing to sacrifice to get those visuals.

By
Robert Sawin

HDDSLR, and the fueled Technological movement

2011-02-03T12:57:00.000-08:00

One thing that hit me the other day is how simular motion picture Film is to that of Digital, That is if Digital has the right components to mesure up to its big brother "Film." I believe film will never truly go away. The reality is we are coming to an age where the indi filmmaker and the consumer is demanding outstanding image quality. Even I, a videographer can no longer use my DVCAM because my clients are no longer accepting any thing less then. Is it an age of digital snobbery and mesturbation? Or are we the consumer rising up as a collective and demanding image superiority because we consume so much digital content. It might be a little of both.

For example, the gaming community fules computer development with leaps and bounds. The film community is such a small part of the visual pie. Tho we do tend to spend allot on our gear, it is not even close to some of the quote un quote "profesional gamers." If we did not have a world of gaming fanatics then the advent of the apple computer would not be where it is today for the indi filmmaker. The other positive side to the gaming community is that they are always looking for the bigger better deal and the computer industry know this and they are forced to compete by making semi quality products at blazing speeds at a price consumers are willing to afford. Hence is why we have the PCIe card slot. Its cheep to make and its faster and better then the other slots we used before.

Same for teen clothing, sense teens are a multi billion doller a year business they have a lot of say on what fashion they want and at what quality and price. The clothing business knows this all too well and today teens rule the clothing market. So thank them for the type of close and the quality of close we have today.

My point is Consumers still do have a big say and whatever they demand as a collective will cause massive leaps and bounds in the market they are consuming. Sense the advent of affordable HDDSLR, we literally have hit a new era of digital imagery. Its been thought that Redone Cinma Camera gave birth to the new era of the HDDSLR movement and in some respects that may be true, but Canon essentially and by blissful accident made there cameras with the intentions that only photo journalist would use the HDDSLR. If canon only knew at the time, but if they did they probably would have raised the camera price exponentially or worse messed up the design for something else. Whatever the case, they made the camera and it works. Hopefully, Canon will understand that the consumer will no longer use the small chips that we are used to in video cameras and start putting the full frame sensor in there prosumer models. Such as the xha1s. Not sure why this would be too hard or why this would be exorbitantly expensive, but apparently once you add an interchangeable lens all of a sudden they will mark the camera price up to $15 k. The odd thing that canon has proved we can have a camera for under $2k and still get fabulous pictures with interchangeable lenses. Why this is so hard to do from the start still baffles me.

One of the things that struck me about the similarities of the HDDSLR and film is that the noise or grain size increases the smaller the image size gets. For example, 16mm motion picture film is visually double the grain then that of 35mm on the big screen. So if a person shot 16mm at 500 Exposure Index (EI) then the rating is essentially dubbled on the big screen at 1000 EI. Keep in mind that 500EI film is a high speed stock. Digital, by nature has a blessing and a curse that it can essentially duble the EI rating of that of film and still get a beautiful image with little noticeable noise factor.

Nighttime Shooting with a DSLR
http://vimeo.com/17863811

Nighttime Shooting with a DSLR from Vimeo Staff on Vimeo.
Learn how to shoot video at night with your DSLR

Bump up your ISO -- if you have a full frame camera, you can push it up to around 3200 ISO without your image being super super grainy. With a cropped sensor, you can push it up to about 1600 ISO. If you bump your ISO to these respective settings and you still can't get a good image, you call always go higher, but your image will become more grainy. I recommend experimenting a little and go out at night and shoot video with different high ISOs to see the difference.

The point I am trying to make here is that the similarities between film and digital concerning EI rating are in essence almost identical. However, the noise factor on a Digital camera can be dubbled to that of film to get simular grain or noise patterns. The image size is dependent on the on the noise level the exposed image produces. We may never know what the true gain settings on small CCD pro video really represents based on the Db gain settings, but I am sure people can make educated guess' using a light meter.

Take a look at this and you will see what I am talking about when I mention image sensor size and grain. Its considerably noticeable that even an HDV camera such as a canon xha1 has a much higher Grain structure compared to that of a HDDSLR and that is due to the size of the CCD. The CCD of the canon xha1 is 1/3 inch and the canon 7D is a little over an inch.

Canon XH-A1 & EOS-7D: Gain/ISO Comparison
http://blog.infdv.com/?p=144

As you can see the image size has a lot to do with noise factor. So does the quality of the CCD and image processing, but that is relative and technology can improve that, but technology can not improve on basic principal of physics. which is what I am getting at. At a certain point the digital image and the film image will mesure up on a close one to one scale as it already is. The thing about Digital is that it is not as grainy as film, respectively due to image size and processing.

There might be a time in the future when the Digital image will have the same latitude and the only differentiation from film and digital will be that film will have a texture and mechanical judder often caused by the the film progressing threw the gate. Digital is a clean medium by nature and tends to deliver richer contrast. If someone where to judge a medium format digital camera from a printed image with that of a medium format film image the human eye could not tell the diference. But on a motion picture test it is possible and possibly always will be due to principal physics of the medium.

Where we have come and where we are going with technology has progressed with leaps and bounds. We as a human species should embrace technology for the better. Yes its nice to shoot on film, but when we live in a world where the the elite can only shoot on a particular format, only excludes the poor starving artest. Why take a brush away from Van Gogh or Picasso? Where would the world be if we did not have the girl with the pearl earring. Think of how many artest we have run over because they could not even have a chance to express them selves because they where imprisoned financially or socially from the craft. Who is man to say "you must be deemed worthy to pick up a camera."

Its all nonesense, the only thing separating art from the artest is himself and his passion or drive. Art is passion. The only people who I find that are not artest are the ones that do it for the recognition. To truly separate people who think they are artest from those who are true artest are the ones who create for the soul purpose of self expressing not for the expression to impress others. Artest are people who dedicate there entire life to learning there craft. They live, eat and breathe art. Its a way of life for us. Art is an obsession and if you can't obsess over your craft then you are not by definition an artest.

So find your obsession and Perfect it, Live it, Love it and Fight for it.

Robert Sawin

A topic on documentary filmmaking

2011-01-30T07:51:00.000-08:00

I was originally going to write about 3D integration, but I decided to right about documentary filmmaking. The thing about documentary filmmaking of any kind is that its all about the inquisitive. Its often a miss conception that documentary filmmaking is all about following the journey, but it is really about the curiosity following the journey. I think all great documentaries have this. News is simular, but news is a systematic investigation using experts and visual references. The person creating the news piece can be inquisitive about the subject mater, but the end product is all about informing the public about a curent event they should be aware about. Both documentaries and news can take on an unbiassed approach or a propaganda approach, but the the soul propose of news is to generate a balanced story as documentaries are to involve the viewer in a factual journey of a sort. In documentary filmmaking, you as the filmmaker must allow the subject mater to guide the story. Your job is not to investigate, but rather document the experience surrounding people and places. Remember let your subject do the talking and make opinions later. Finding many opinions will help expose trends. So in essence news goes to the source of information where as documentary filmmaking leads the viewer to the source of information. Thats the journey.

I think one of my biggest problems making a documentary is getting physically to close or too personal with the camera. When documenting a topic the filmmaker should be part of the journey. being inquisitive is a very personal and human behavior. It is natural for humans to be inquisitive and it is healthy too because it allows us to expand our world and opinions about our world. Good documentary filmmakers are paid for there ability to explore topics and ideas and develop conclusions and, hopefully, unbiased opinions of the surrounding matter.

There are two approaches to documentary filmmaking and both have benefits and draw backs concerning the matter and how information is gathered.

The first method of documentary filmmaking is the learn as you go methed. Meaning a sort of run and gun method of filmmaking. In the run and gun method, you follow the subject matter and experience a sort of new world for the first time. As your experience turns to wisdom, your ability to inquire intelligently is more effective and refined. The down side to run and gun documentary gorilla filmmaking is the bewildering factor. It can be a lot of information all at once and nothing is controlled. Sometimes even the style at wich you use your camera can evolve to fit the journey going from tripod to to steady cam to down right hand held and even as far as a crash cam or a lipstick cam. I think the run and gun documentary is really a before and aftermath effect from the filmmakers prospective. Meaning you have to constantly assess and pre determine your next move on a moment by moment bases. Kinda like Trama ER situations.

The second method of documentary filmmaking is controlled and scripted to an extent. Doing the research early on will help determine the style and direction the documentary will take. This method of documentary filmmaking is highly recommended for those who are working with a client. Scripting a documentary is really all about A, B, and C execution rather then a story script. There might be questions or host dialogue, but its really the journey will uncover the story. The story is always told in editing. It is impossible to take a journey and know the whole story. If you did then you would be god and or have the ability to foretell the future. So don't force the story, let the content uncover the story. Documentary filmmaking is a process that has to be experienced in order to produce a product.

We are all human and documentary filmmaking is all about the prospective of the human experience. no mater if the subject is good or bad or if its shocking or mundane its still part of the human experience. Approaching any documentary, one must have a child like, inquisitive audited towards the subject matter. Very simple and slow to understand. If you document with a dogmatic, know it all, attitude then your work will most likely turn people off. The last thing we need is a Perez Hilton doing a documentary. Perez Hilton is very opinionated and pompous to say the least. He may make a great critic but that is it. There is already too many critics in the world. As a documentary filmmakers we must filter out any lingering preconceived ideas and make the documentary film based on subject matter rather then our personal opinion about the subject mater.

Let your audience do the judging, if you do a good job then your audience will be effected enough to make informed and educated opinions about the subject and quite possibly be inspired to take action based on your Documentary. So get out there and enjoy the documentary film journey, remember to be very inquisitive and to not be afraid to get the shot.

By
Robert Sawin

Myths and problems concerning HD DSLRs

2011-01-23T10:16:00.000-08:00

In this new age of filmmaking every thing is going digital one way or another. The so called film school has become nothing more then a bunch of students running around town shooting there friends on an HDV camera they think will make them big some day.

There is nothing wrong with dreaming the dream, but we have come to an age of digital snobbery. Many students who graduate film school never even touch a film camera let alone learn about film technique and theory behind cinematography. I have even been shocked by my own school because they bought consumer grade cameras that cost around $200-$1000 and I have seen them buy those flip HD cameras for news broadcasting. Keep in mind this was a university. I was fortunate that my department had 16mm film cameras and wonderful cinema teachers who work hard to keep film alive and well, but university politics may cause those cameras to become extinct.

The main reason why I bring this up is the fact that most DV or HDV cams are full auto this and that and there is no more attention to detail or conservation of footage shot. Amateur filmmakers just set the camera on the tripod and hit the record button and let it stay running till they feel like they want to cut. Actual motion picture film is expensive because of development and telecine and so on. If you let film run threw the camera on a film set you would not only be fired but ostracized by your own film community.

Coming to this new age far surpassing HDV in to the DSLR revolution, filmmakers complain that there camera is not auto this or that or does not have port such and such. We basically hit a point of digital technology where in essence we are starting all over again. The Red revolution started a new era of filmmaking that many filmmakers adopted, but still the fully decked out 50 k hybrid DSLR monster is still expensive for many. Even my self, it was hard enough to get the Canon xha1.

What surprises me about this new digital age is how cheap DSLR are in comparison to the more expensive HDV cameras. I can buy the best of the best DSLR for under 5 k and have a fantastic DSLR for under 1 k that far excedes any HD camera on the market and still mesures closely to the red. and with the advent of the magic lantern firmware hacks we are in essence repeating history for the better. Even the sony F900 camera george Lucas used on his film star wars episode one the image size and quality does not even come close to some of these DSLR cameras. Sure these more expensive cameras are more ergonomic in design and function but the image size and quality far lacks that of film let alone 8mm film.

Philip Bloom on DSLR Movie making

Philip Bloom Canon Body Production "San Francisco's People"

Eastman kodak's the Brownie camera revolutionized the world with its cheap camera. The camera caused both amateur and and profesional art photographers to be bundled up. And the art photographers did not like how people could own a camera and just clame them selves experts the moment they receive the camera. I predict that history will repet it self and the red will compete with DSLRs because of there price points and cause every industry in hollywood to change there business modle because the consumer is no longer restricted by cost. More over hollywood will be forced to compete with the masses of amateurs and a this will force the system to restructure or adopt to the new standard. No longer will agencies afford to hord there talent for the sake of the elite few and will be forced to answer the calls of the indi filmmaker.

Mass amateurs

It was mass amateurs who eventually claimed the amateur title, becoming permanent beneficiaries of the industrial exploitation of photography. Mass amateurs were born out of the success of a single firm, the Eastman Dry Plate Film Company, which produced its first roll-film camera in 1888. By 1900 the company had released an entire line of easy-to-use, inexpensive cameras, and established the world's first commercial processing service. The Kodak system was so user friendly that in 1900 the company released a child's camera, the Brownie. Priced at 5 shillings ($1), it was affordable for most middle-class children; moreover, its use established picture-making habits that would carry over into adulthood.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/history-amateur-photography#ixzz1BpwJ4D9Z

I think For centuries studios have the leg up because they have a system that has money and power backing it up along with pricy equipment. People who begin in this industry are thrown at the mercy of the studio and power players for a chance to just be a part of any film let alone actually make a film in any respect. I see the new indi hollywood like the modern day music industry. for less then 10 k you can get the best of the best and still pull off a killer sound track and far excede music recording quality of that of a major label or recording studio.

I think the business modle pertaining to the music industry could be mirrored with the indi film industry. We will have so many revolutionary artest coming out of the wood work and agents will be forced to scout for the indi filmmaker and ask them if he or she is willing to be represented by them.

Things are going to be different and old hollywood is going to feel the growing pains not the indi filmmaker.

Now that I have ranted a little bit, I want to talk about DSLRs. I know I wrote a whole Blog about HD DSLRs and image and normal focal length. But now I want to discuses the arguments pertaining to HD DSLRs. I know these arguments because I was advising my film buddy to invest in one of these cameras. More specifically the Canon 60D. After a week of research I have come to the conclusion that the 60D is the most cost effective and filmmaker friendly camera out on the market. The T2i 550D is nice but has 3 draw backs. The first is the T2i does not have a swively screen and the second is the fact that the camera has a little more noise then the 60D. The third is the 60D's camera body is more solid and durable and less resistent to the elements. Many people don't know it but the 7D is really just a more expensive version of the 60D and the 60D is just better for filmmakers all around. there are still some button quarks but I am more concerned that the image then I am about ergonomics. It is widely known that these DSLRs cameras are definitely not intended to be cinema cameras and canon never thought that these cameras would have the effect it did on the filmmaking community.

Canon 60D vs 550D vs 7D - which one is better?

Now for the myths concerning DSLRs. The first major myth is the lens focal length multiplier also known as the crop factor. The Canon T2i, 60D, and 7D all have the same image sensor size respectively and all have a 1.6 X crop factor. I was so frustrated in what this means so I ended up calling canon reps and tried to sort this mess out. Keep on mind I was freaking out thinking the image it self was being cropped. But little did I know that the crop factor has nothing to do with cropping at all. All that means is the full frame sensor of the Canon 5D mark II is equivalent of that of a 35 the Canon T2i, 60D, and 7D is the rough equivalent of 16mm film.

Here is the math behind the whole length multiplier aka the crop factor.

the normal focal length 35mm film is a 50 mm lens. the normal focal length of 16mm film is a 25mm lens.

the crop factor on a 16mm fim compared to a 50 mm is 2

that is 50 / 25 = 2

the crop factor on a 60D compared to 50 mm is 1.6 that is 31.25 mm lens.

that is 50 / 1.6 = 31.25

because the CCD on the 60D is slightly larger then that of film it requires a longer focal length lens to be considered normal.

A 27 mm lens also works as normal focal length for these cameras too.

So basically what the whole film community may not know is that the Canon T2i, 60D, and 7D are all 16mm equivalent thus the normal focal length. The normal focal length on a 16mm camera is 25mm lens the normal focal length on the Canon T2i, 60D, and 7D is 27mm. What is more impressive is that the image sensor size is slightly larger then that of 16mm film. So in essence, us filmmakers are having to choose from a 16mm vs a 35 mm camera. I am totally fine with that, in fact, I love 16mm film and with the fact that these digital cameras out perform the low light factors then that of film is absolutely amazing.

Canon 550D Night Test

Canon EOS 550D a.k.a Rebel T2i.
Only light source is from a street lamp at a bus stop.
Lens is a Sigma 30mm F1.4. Used 1600-ISO and 1/50 shutter speed.

Zacuto's Great DSLR vs Film Camera Shootout

As you can see the results are stunning as even the toughest test performed by some renowned cinematographers and filmmakers stood up to even the toughest of Film critics. Even critics that where from kodak and fuji and film biased artest where blown away with the results. What is even more amazing is that the 7D and MKII have little to no diference. The 7D is so simular to the 60D in all respects. The fact is people can make a feature film and still distribute it on the big screen with these DSLR cameras. The whole misconception that the focal length multiplier AKA the crop factor hinders the visual quality substantially is un true to say the least. In fact even in the "Zacuto's Great DSLR vs Film Camera Shootout" youtube video said the 7D had some advantages over the 5D MKII.

We have entered a new era of filmmaking and yes there are some issues that need to be adressed such as contrast and highlights but low light of these digital SLRs exceed that of 35mm film. Film will always be vastly superior to any digital imaging technology we have out today. Its just a fact. And because film is so superior All digital imaging technology will have to campare them selves to film respectively.

There is some more concern with this DSLR revolution and that is moire and aliasing. But is it really a problem? Or are we Digital filmmakers just not used to seeing these defects in this level of image quality. The fact is moire and aliasing even occurs in film and even the human eye. moire and aliasing is just a part of optical physics and should be seen as something that is a natural phenomena rather then a digital hiccup. The thing about moire and aliasing is that it is more susceptible in DSLRs. Mostly because of the curent DIGIC codec. But it just means that the camera has a limitation just as all high quality cameras do. When shooting try to avoid patterns and you should be just fine.

Aliasing and moire

Aliasing

This article is about aliasing in signal processing, including computer graphics. For aliasing in computer programming, see aliasing (computing). In signal processing and related disciplines, aliasing refers to an effect that causes different signals to become indistinguishable (or aliases of one another) when sampled. It also refers to the distortion or artifact that results when the signal reconstructed from samples is different from the original continuous signal.

Moiré is something more seen with the human eye as a optical illusion.

Moiré pattern

"Moiré" and "Moire" redirect here. For other uses, see Moire (disambiguation).
In physics, a moiré pattern (pronounced /mwaˈreɪ/ in English, [mwaʁe] in French) is an interference pattern created, for example, when two grids are overlaid at an angle, or when they have slightly different mesh sizes.

So there is nothing to really be concerned with as far as the overall making or braking point when deciding between shooting on expensive film vs Cheap DSLR. Just avoid any thing with patterns and you should be just fine.

@robbiethehood If you turn down the sharpness on the camera, it's less likely to occur. Otherwise, try avoiding brick walls at most, or if there are brick walls in the background to your subject, use a low aperture lens that can blur out the background nicely thus avoiding aliasing. If you want the bricks visible in the background, then just stand relatively close to it, that also tends to prevent aliasing (as seen in this video)

There is one thing that can't be avoided and is a huge disadvantage that most or all DSLRs have and that is the rolling shutter. Film and many digital video cameras do not have this problem.

Rolling Shutter

As you can see this is not a desired effect and any fast pans should be avoided all together.

If you must have fast pans then you can always use Mercalli V2 from prodad.com

http://www.prodad.com/home/products/videostabilizing/300391667,l-us.xhtml

I pretty much tackled most of the myths and problems concerned with HD DSLR cameras in respects to filmmaking. As you can see there is nothing to be afraid of and many of the issues that there are not even big at all. So get out there and make movies already and stop worrying about all the hype and criticism theses cameras get from the media and friends. They are all mesurebators and nothing is ever good enough for them and when there is something that works they will just brush it off because its not film or whatever the case may be. Learn to love and respect the medium you shoot on and know its limitations. Only then will you understand what it means to be a true progressive filmmaker or cinematographer.

Robert Sawin

Bridging the Communication Gap between Producers and Crew

2011-01-22T08:51:00.000-08:00

From a producers prospective, communicating with your crew requiers a little more then ordering tasks and providing there resource needs. There are two different types of crew, the unpaid/lowpay crew and the profesional crew. Both crews have benefits and draw backs as far as personality and cost. The unpaid/lowpay crew works with the intention that there work will bring them experience and creditability. Most of the time I find that inexperienced crews need more direction and there is a tendency for egos to start showing in the mix. Egos are a sign of fear and weakness. A fear that says "I don't want any one to see me as weak and incompetent." A Professional crew is the opposite of that. A profesional crew tends to be in sync with one another because threw their experience they figured out the lingo and procedure, almost like factory workers on an assembly line. Typically its not good to mix professionals with green crew members. If you do mix them then they should ether be all green and one profesional or all profesional and one green. With a mix of all professionals and one green, you will find that it is easer and better for for the green person because he or she can look up to and learn from the professionals. With the mix of all green and one profesional then you have the entire crew looking up to the profesional and the profesional can share there wisdom and knowledge as the production moves on.

No matter what production you are producing, no one crew member's ego should influence or disrupt the normal chan of command. It takes only one person to cause resistance in a production. Wether its badmouthing the producers credibility amongst the crew or down right resisting command from you or other crew members. I can tell you from experience there is a huge world of a diference from an experienced crew and an inexperienced crew. I am fine with working with both, but both crew types require very different communication tactics.

With a profesional crew you have to think of them as an automatic transmission as aposed to a manual a manual transmission. During production just simply state the objective with minimal direction and let them have at it. Avoid any long speeches or special request. A wise person once told me that a good producer who makes all the preparation for the day of the shoot should not have to say or do anything during production unless something goes wrong. In essence a good producer can judge his or her success based on how little on sight direction they project and how little resources they need add to the production during the day of the shoot. Meaning do they need to send out a runner for something that was not planed for. It has been said that a profesional producer only comes on sight if there is something wrong with the production. Depending on the producers role in production, there role will dictates what he or she does.

A Producer's role changes depending on what is being produced. For instance a TV producer vs a film producer vs a commercial producer. For example, Show producers are generally concerned with cranking out the product under a budget and moving on to the next show. Depending on the size of production and budget allocated to that production dictates how many hats that producer will wear. A producer has to pick up the slack where needed. So wether that means picking up the shovel or telling some one to pick up the shovel. Producing is all about getting the content made. Producing is not a power complex or a positional role. Someone once told me that movies are not made they are forced in to existence. The success of the end product is determined by what actions the producer needs to take in order to force the content into existence. And by success I mean actually making the content a tangible medium, in hand, that can be distributed or aired.

I know I started this blog about how a producer should comunicate to his or her crew, but the reality all that good communication starts with action and preparation. Every time you produce content you should plan for the end of the world. Whatever can go wrong will go wrong and the last thing you need is a crew that has an ego or a crew that has little respect for you. You prevent these early communication problems by filtering out your crew during hiring and plan and prepare your productions down to the "T." There should be no questions or changing plans during the production unless there is an act of god. Such as rain or unforeseen incidences far out of your controle.

Leading by example and having your act together is a sure way to gain respect from your crew. No respect equals poor communication and execution. So if you see something that needs to be done and you know that you can't sacrifice a crew member away form there task, then do it your self. Don't be afraid to get in to the trenches. I know I said a producer who comes on set only means there is something wrong, but a good producer can show moral suport. Just by being there and listening to issues that need to be addressed will solve worlds of problems. Good producing really starts with serving the needs of your crew that is the key to good crew/producer communication and relationship.

The other thing that will establish good communication and respect early on is by being open and upfront about what you plan to do and how much you able to pay your crew. Both parties must understand each others needs and wants. So if you have it in your budget to only pay someone $200 vs $500 don't try to make false clames or false promesses of grater riches. Just say it like it is and let them make the decision of wether the benefits are adequate. Also If you are a producer with a budget and you are looking to shave money for other things don't do it with the crew. It just makes you look bad and your name will be distributed as a bad shark. Every time I produce I always tell my crew this is the budget I have to work with can you except this pay. Don't go on long speeches just say it like it is and move on. Just keep all your communication cut and dry with no apologies. Those are the producers that a good crew wants. Just be open honest and up front all the time.

A good producer needs to know when to cut there losses. So if you'r production is running late in the day and the crew says I need this or that and you know you can't give them there request because of time, money or resources then state that you can't do it and a short reason and leave it at that. A good crew can always improvise.

The other biggest problem that gives producers a bad name is overworking a crew without proper brakes. I know there are union rules and such, but I am talking about the producers that are indi and are trying to produce a content under constrictions. I know what the 19 hr days feels like and I know what its like to do every thing and it sucks. Long hr days only makes you sick, health wise and mentally. No one should ever force there crew to work more then 12 hrs a day unless its absolutely necessary. Meaning is it life threatening to the the crew or to the production to get the job done.

Some times a director or cinematographer will request a particular shot that could cause budgetary or time concerns. You as the producer have to really think hard about wether or not to say yes or no. Because you have to take in to account the money, the resource and the artistic viability. So when you come to that point and your crew says I need this money shot. The question you have to ask your self is at what cost. These split second decisions can make or break a film. Don't ever make a decision based on emotion. Your job is not to make friends, your job is to have an impartial view of the end product. The producers job is to bridge the artistic world with the business world and still keep every one happy. If your crew argues with you about your decision then tell them "how am I going to explane this to the money people that they lost all there money because we could not finish the movie on time and within budget." The reality is, its yours and there lively hood. At the end of the day every one including the investors must answer to the audience paying for the movie ticket or flipping to your tv show or whatever.

As a producer you have to be prepared for the worse and you always have to have magic tricks in your hat. One of the things a producer must do is keep 10-15 % of the budget tucked away and not let any one know you have that in the budget. That 10-15 % is your insurance policy incase something goes terribly wrong. A successful producer does not need to use that 10-15 %. because if the production is planed right then non of that money is needed. And that means the investors will be happy.

Good producing is all about filling the gap and serving the people who work for you. A producer once told me "a producer is someone who ads value to the production." So ask yourself, as a producer how are you adding value to your productions. This mindset will help you gain respect from your crew mates and open doors for better communication.

By
Robert Sawin

A depth of focus look at HD DSLR video and the image size

2011-01-19T22:17:00.000-08:00

I feel a little confident to post this blog. I am a filmmaker who loves the science behind filmmaking and I wanted to get to the bottom of the DSLR revolution in translation to video and film with regards to image resolution, size, depth of field and normal lens focal length. For instance it is common knowledge that a 35 mm film requires a 50 mm lens to be considered normal focal length and for you film buffs a 16 mm film requires a 25 mm lens to be considered a normal focal length lens. A normal lens on a 70 mm film requiers an 80 mm lens. Don't ask me what the conversion factor is but the fact is the larger the image size the longer the focal length of the lens has to be to be considered normal. Generally the larger the image size a stronger depth of field is present on the image. It is widely agreed that film and digital are different animals and rightly so. However, the basic physics of image size and and normal focal length of a lens can not be ignored.

Depth of field stays the same, but angle of view changes when you put that same lens on a camera with a smaller negative. Essentially the lens becomes the equivalent of twice the focal length when going from 35mm to 16mm, so you'd need to switch to a lens with half the focal length to maintain the same view. Hence why lens sets for 16mm tend to start at much shorter focal lengths.

Read more: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=12505#ixzz1BY4cxb3a

Depth of Field Explained

It is a common misconception that all DSLR camera is the equivalent of a 35 mm film camera. That could not be more false.

A full-frame digital SLR is a digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR) fitted with an image sensor that is the same size as a 35 mm (36×24 mm) film frame.[1][2] This is in contrast to cameras with smaller sensors, typically of a size equivalent to APS-C-size film, much smaller than a full 35 mm frame.

The image senser on a Full-frame DSLR is the equivalent of 35 mm film is 36 × 24 mm. 35 mm film's image dimensions is 18.0 × 24.0 mm. as you can see the ccd image is larger then 35 mm film.

I found that the 1" ccd with a normal lens of 16 mm is really the equivalent of 8mm film. Hence is why people for many years have been complaining about the depth of field and the normal focal length of the lens size. Its sad even the highest priced HD cam on BH photo video can't even come close to the same normal 50mm focal length that is so accustom to 35mm.

Digital still

In digital photography, the sensor "type" is not the sensor diameter:(*) refers to TV tube diameters that were standards in the 50s. The normal lens focal length is roughly 2/3 of the TV tube diameter.(**) this is a mathematical calculation because most of the cameras are equipped with zoom lenses.

Sensor type	TV-tube diameter *	Image dimensions	Image diagonal	Normal lens focal length **
1/3.6"	7.1 mm	4.0 × 3.0 mm	5.0 mm	5 mm
1/3.2"	7.9 mm	4.5 × 3.4 mm	5.7 mm	5.7 mm
1/3"	8.5 mm	4.8 × 3.6 mm	6.0 mm	6 mm
1/2.7"	9.4 mm	5.4 × 4.0 mm	6.7 mm	6.7 mm
1/2.5"	10.2 mm	5.8 × 4.3 mm	7.2 mm	7 mm
1/2"	12.7 mm	6.4 × 4.8 mm	8.0 mm	8 mm
1/1.8"	14.1 mm	7.2 × 5.3 mm	8.9 mm	9 mm
1/1.7"	14.9 mm	7.6 × 5.7 mm	9.5 mm	9.5 mm
2/3"	16.9 mm	8.8 × 6.6 mm	11.0 mm	11 mm
1"	25.4 mm	12.8 × 9.6 mm	16.0 mm	16 mm
Four Thirds^[3]	33.9 mm	17.3 × 13 mm^[4]	21.63 mm	22 mm
4/3"	33.9 mm	18.0 × 13.5 mm	22.5 mm	23 mm
APS-C	45.7 mm	22.7 × 15.1 mm	27.3 mm	27 mm
DX	n/a	23.7 × 15.8	28.4 mm	28 mm
FF (35 mm film)	n/a	36 × 24 mm	43.3 mm	50 mm
(6 × 5 cm)	n/a	49.0 × 36.7 mm	61.2 mm

Cinema

In cinematography, a focal length roughly equivalent to twice the diagonal of the image projected within the camera is considered normal, since movies are typically viewed from a distance of about twice the screen diagonal.

Film format	Image dimensions	Image diagonal	Normal lens focal length
Standard 8	3.7 × 4.9 mm	6.11 mm	12–15 mm
Single-8 (FUJI)	4.2 × 6.2 mm	7.5 mm	15–17 mm
Super-8	4.2 × 6.2 mm	7.5 mm	15–17 mm
9.5 mm	6.5 × 8.5 mm	10.7 mm	20 mm
16 mm	7.5 × 10.3 mm	12.7 mm	25 mm
35 mm	18.0 × 24.0 mm	30.0 mm	60 mm
35 mm, sound	16.0 × 22.0 mm	27.2 mm	50 mm
65 mm
70 mm	52.6 × 23.0 mm	57.4 mm

The Sony HDW-F900 only has a 2/3 image sensor the normal lens on this camera is 11 mm.

Even my Canon xha1 does not even come close with only a 1/3 image sensor and the normal lens for this camera is 6 mm.

Table of sensor sizes

Inch-based sensor formats are not standardized. Originally, they were the outer diameters of image tubes used in the 1950's. Exact dimensions may vary, but those listed are typical.

Type	1/8"	1/6"	1/4"	1/3.6"	1/3.2"	1/3"	1/2.7"	1/2.5"	1/2.3"	1/2"	1/1.8"	1/1.7"	1/1.6"	2/3"	Super 16mm	1"	4/3"	Canon APS-C	Pentax SonyNikon DX	Canon APS-H	35mm	Leica S2	Pentax 645D	Kodak KAF 39000^[8]	Leaf AFi 10	Phase One P 65+
Diagonal (mm)	2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	5.68	6.00	6.72	7.18	7.7	8.00	8.93	9.50	10.07	11.0	14.54	16.0	21.6	26.7-27.3	28.4	34.5	43.3	54	55	61.3	66.57	67.4
Width (mm)	1.60	2.40	3.20	4.00	4.54	4.80	5.37	5.76	6.16	6.40	7.18	7.60	8.08	8.80	12.52	12.8	17.3	22.2-22.7	23.6-23.7	28.7	36	45	44	49	56	53.9
Height (mm)	1.20	1.80	2.40	3.00	3.42	3.60	4.04	4.29	4.62	4.80	5.32	5.70	6.01	6.60	7.41	9.6	13.0	14.8-15.1	15.5-15.8	19.1	24	30	33	36.8	36	40.4
Area (mm²)	1.92	4.32	7.68	12.0	15.5	17.3	21.7	24.7	28.5	30.7	38.2	43.3	48.56	58.1	92.8	123	225	329-343	366-374	548	864	1350	1452	1803	2016	2178
Crop factor^[9]	21.65	14.14	10.83	8.65	7.61	7.21	6.44	6.02	5.62	5.41	4.84	4.55	4.3	3.93	2.97	2.70	2.00	1.62-1.58	1.52	1.26	1.0	0.8	0.79	0.71	0.65	0.64

So all this time Filmmakers are so frustrated trying to find the solution with what camcorder will do the trick to solve there filmmic look problem is so far off its not even funny. In fact you can not find a camcorder with an image size that will match the normal lens equivalent of 50 mm let alone a 8mm film or 16mm film. I kinda found this out today as I wanted to understand more about this whole DSLR revolution. The shocker is that the Canon T2i is the rough equivalent of 16 mm film as far as the 25 mm normal lens goes. The normal lens on a Canon T2i is 27 mm because it has the APS-C Image sensor (22.7 × 15.1 mm). Hence is why it has an incredible depth of field. The only major draw back is that it is an DSLR body rather then a Camcorder body.

Why its so hard for camcorder manufactures to adjust to this simple standard is beyond me especially when I can buy the Canon T2i for under $900. This is chump change for some of the prosumer HDV cameras ranging from $2,000 and $20,000. Even the best DSLR that shoots true HD video only cost $3,299.00 according to bh photo and video.

Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital Camera

The only camcorder that is on the market and is not even a camcorder at all is the Red digital cinema camera. The Red like a DSLR on steroids.

5Dmk2/7D lens comparison test

Field of View Comparator
http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

A Lens Is a Lens is a Lens

A lens is a lens is a lens, and it doesn’t know what size sensor or film gate is placed behind it. A lens projects light and the magnification size of that projection is determined by its focal length.

Nevertheless, there has always been a great deal of confusion associated with the focal length of lenses and their relationship to the size of the image area.

I’ve read many explanations in various books and on the internet over the years and authored some of them myself. But often written explanations confuse as much as they explain. If a picture is worth a 1000 words, I figure this video is equal to a small novella on the subject. Many people seem to use the various optical terms incorrectly or interchangeably, so I figured showing what happens would help demystify the concepts involved.

Its really a DSLR camera with all the bells and whistles that cinematographers need and probably don't need but its there anyways for glits and glamour. This camera fully decked out should cost around $50,000. It's a lot less then the $80,000 Sony HDW-F900R CineAlta 24P HDCAM that isn't even decked out at all. The CCD image size of the red is the Equivalent to S35mm (Motion) / APS-H (Still) lenses, hence it takes a normal 50 mm lens and rightly so.

Keep in mind I am not even talking about image resolution, Just the image size and normal focal length. The APS-H Image Format 29.2 x 20.2mm.

So where do you filmmakers go from here. Personally I am not entirely sure of that my self. But what I can say is we are one step closer to the age of independence from the Hollywood film studio and we have come to the age of the backpack filmmaker. I think there are allot of kinks to work out but the fact that I can make my feature work with only 5 - 10 k of basic equipment such as a mac laptop the Finalcut studio and the Canon T2i and a mic with the basic accessories then I am set. Funny thing is I know I can put all this in one back pack and probably have room for a light or 2.

++= Hollywood Studio

Right now the sony HD cam can capture at around 200 Mb/s + or -. HDV can capture around 25 Mb/s + or - depending on how its captured. DSLR's as far as I know capture at 15 Mb/s / 45 Mb/s depending.

However according to Magic Lantern

http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/550D

The creator has been able to hack the firmware and capture HD 24 fps video at a steady 66 Mbps. The setting can be higher but the buffer can only handle so many minuts of film too high then it can only capture seconds of film.

Just to show you How different the expensive red one Digital cinema camera is to popular prosumer DSLR's here is a fantastic video.

Red One, Canon 5D Mk II, and Panasonic Lumix GH1 Footage Comparison

Red One, Canon 5D Mk II, and Panasonic Lumix GH1 Footage Comparison from Birns and Sawyer on Vimeo.

http://vimeo.com/5981422

h.264 qscales

The Canon function mvrSetDefQScale(int16_t *) (2.0.8 0xff990188) sets the quality parameter to the camera's h.264 encoder. If the CF card is not able to keep up, the camera will display a buffer-level bar on the right side of the LCD and stop recording when it hits full. The parameter does not have any effect unless fixed bit rate encoding is selected via mvrFixQScale(int16_t *) (2.0.8 0xff9905d4).

The default q-scale is -8 in VBR mode and has a nominal 42 Mbps with the 2.0.8 firmware. The 24p tests were done with the camera on a tripod writing to a Lexar 400x UDMA 16 GB card with all Magic Lantern tasks disabled (no zebras, cropmarks, etc). qscales less than -12 occasionally stopped recording.
Q-scaleFPSMbpsNotes
+8 30p 7 Mbps Very low quality
-9 24p 32 Mbps
-10 24p 41 Mbps
-11 24p 51 Mbps
-12 24p 59 Mbps
-13 24p 62 Mbps
-14 24p 66 Mbps Best, sustainable in 24p mode?
-15 24p 68 Mbps 2 buffer bars
-16 24p 76 Mbps Only a few seconds

Keep in mind this is not megabytes per second its megabits per second. This data rate however is far better then the standard HDV 25 Mbps.

HDV Specs The basic idea behind HDV is to store high-def MPEG-2 video on standard DV media (DV or Mini DV cassette tape), and stream it across standard FireWire / IEEE 1394 interfaces. The HDV video format supports MPEG-2 compressed video (MP@H-14), at two 16:9 resolutions: - 720p (1280 x 720, progressive), at approximately 19 Mbps data rate - 1080i (1440 x 1080, interlaced), at approximately 25 Mbps data rate

So if HDV peeks out at 25 Mbps then 25 megabits = 3.12500 megabytes. The DSLR with Magic Lantern firmware can get 66 Mbps on a steady capture with out running out of cache. 66 megabits = 8.25 megabytes. With out the magic lantern the canon T2i can get full HD bitrate = 43 Mbps. make sure if you do record with these types of settings you use a class 10 SDXC card (read/write up to 25MB/S, speed of 10MB/S is guaranteed) or SDXC UHS-1 (Minimum data transfer speed of 10MB/sec) or a class 10 SDHD. The SDHD cards seem to be better priced but the others such as the UHS-1 should reduce in camera cache speed problems capturing at higher Mbps. Right now the fastes SD card on the market is the SanDisk 16GB Extreme Pro - SDHC - UHS Speed Class 1 - High Performance memory card at 45Mb/s. With the advent of the Magic lantern firmware reaching 60 Mb/s a second plus faster cards are needed in order to keep up with any demanding data usage. All cannons HDSLR cameras have a catch, but that only goes so far.

Note that the Canon 60D manual says "SDHC and SDXC cards featuring UHS (Ultra High Speed) enable a maximum writing speed of SD Speed Class 10". We asked Canon for clarification on this, and they said the Canon 60D is not UHS-I compliant but should work with UHS cards at up to SD Class 10 speeds.

Not sure if this means the magic lantern firmware fixes this limitation, but this is just how canon made there cameras. Not sure if it means anything, but in any case why risk having less performing, lower quality cards?

XDCAM HD gets 50 mbps on its tiny 2/3" CCD. So this little $900 Canon T2i with Magic Lantern firmware installed will out do the $40,000 camera in data comparison. Native HDCAM is 140 Mbps. 140 megabits = 17.5 megabytes. Even the best Sony HDcam only has 2.2 megapixels. The canon T2i has Approximately 18 Megapixels. I don't even think this is even a competition. Its more like a slam, bam, rub your face in do do humiliation kinda thing.

REDCODE RAW is a variable bit rate wavelet codec which allows raw sensor data at resolutions of up to 4,096×2,304 to be compressed sufficiently for practical on-camera recording. Two variants were offered previously, one with a maximum data rate of 28 MB/s (224 megabit/s), and one with a maximum data rate of 36 MB/s (288 megabit/s), but the camera was recently updated to record with an additional data rate option of 42 MB/s (336 megabit/s). Compared with the uncompressed data captured by the sensor, these bit rates represent compression ratios of about 12:1, 9:1, and 8:1 respectively.

Red can capture up two 6k raw. The reality is that 2 k is the standard of theater distribution and 4 k is really used for those high end epic movies. 8 k is only used for Imax cinema. 1920 x 1080 is so close to 2k its not even funny.

I am sure the future of these cameras can get better, but for now its good enough to do even the biggest feature project. I know because Star Wars - Episode I was shot on the fancy Sony HDcam and crank 2: high voltage was shot using the Canon xha1.

So what are you waiting for. Do you need some fancy million $ budget to make a good movie? Or can you do it for 10 k or less. In fact, crank was done for 10 mill but all the money went mostly into the cast and other things rather then the film medium and equipment.

The movie industry is changing rapidly and people who start looking for a new business model rather then focusing on the old hollywood methed will succeed. People don't care what you shot on or what fancy this or that you had. As long as you are able to get the shot and tell the story then who cares. I can name 2 major success movies that where shot on DV and the audence just keept coming back for more. First is Open Water and the second is Paranormal Activity. Open water was produced for 50 k and paranormal activity was produced for 11k. Both films did not have known actors or directors or fancy what ever you call its. People still love a good story. Yes its nice to have a nice image, but at what cost. If its going to stop you from making the story or even worse make the story turn out bad because the there is not enough in the budget then what is the point.

I have seen so many amateur videos using the Canon T2i and so many of them look like they came out of a movie. It just looks that good and I feel good knowing that I don't have to riesle with an inadequate image just because it fits the budget.

By
Robert Sawin

A perspective on Music video theory

2011-01-17T09:25:00.000-08:00

In my early teens I was fascinated by the music video. Music videos I believe is on of the most artistically stylized mediums to really be excepted by the corporation and the public. People who make music videos are free to be as avantgarde as they wish and still gain audience appreciation and engagement. Despite the negative press MTV gets about influencing bad behavior on a generation of people the truth of the matter is the MTV music video seen has captivated and inspired many a youth in this wonderful world of art and music. Both mediums of motion photography and music are synonymous with one another. Almost like a dance of the senses.

In all my research, I find there are only two categories of music video branding. The first type of music video is focused on just the artest or artests. This form of music video display the artest throughout the video non stop so people can associate the artest with and there music. This is a way of developing a social iconic figure. The second type of music video focuses on the song and the story or meaning of the song usually attributed with visual symbols or abstract visuals or colors to represent the meaning or emotion of the lyrics or instrumental rhythm.

There are many different types of music and that music translates into a visual standard and visual tempo.

When producing a music video one must take in to the account of the over all message of the song. This can be tricky and the fact is there are many songs that if you actually get the meaning behind the words the visuals may not be all that appropriate. That is, keeping the video PG13 to adhere to FCC regulations. The other thing is when reaching a large audience the video is really only there to brand the music and the artest respectively.

Carful brand management and image association with a particular music or artest is key in targeting a particular group of people. So before any planing, the filmmaker must find out what image that artest wants people to associate them with.

Once you figure that out then you can start dissecting the music and lyrics for visual translation.

I think there are three different of music video types. There is the emotional driven music video, the lifestyle driven music video and the mood driven music video. These music video types can be intermixed depending on the type of music and the style associated with a type of music. There is music out there that mixes different music categories. For instance rap mixed with classical or rock mixed with classical or rock mixed with rap or electronic mixed with rock and rap. The combinations of mixing different music categories is limitless. I think some of the best examples of this is:

Evanescence - Bring Me To Life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM

Gorillaz-Sunshine In a Bag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq-rmNNYqos

Metallica - Devil's Dance(S&M)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UaUUMQaKys

The combos of music categories can make for some pretty awesome music. The point I am trying to make is with every music category you have in a sound track is a another visual style you have to account for.

The emotional driven music video is typically associated music such as rock where the lyrics are intentionally symbolic in meaning from an experience and emotional connection. Often emotional driven music has a story behind it and in a poetic way, expressing inner desires and thoughts. This music tends to be abstract taking bits and pieces of emotional context and expressing wants and needs. Usually these types of music have a deep and powerful meaning behind them.

===

Come As You Are lyrics
Songwriters: Cobain, Kurt; Novoselic, Krist; Grohl, David;

Come as you are, as you were
As I want you to be
As a friend, as a friend
As an old enemy

Take your time, hurry up
The choice is yours, don't be late
Take a rest as a friend
As an old

Memoria, memoria
Memoria, memoria

Come doused in mud, soaked in bleach
As I want you to be
As a trend, as a friend
As an old

Memoria, memoria
Memoria, memoria

And I swear that I don't have a gun
No I don't have a gun
No I don't have a gun

Memoria, memoria
Memoria, memoria
(No I don't have a gun)

And I swear that I don't have a gun
No I don't have a gun
No I don't have a gun
No I don't have a gun
No I don't have a gun

Memoria, memoria

===

Everything To Me lyrics

I bet it makes you laugh
Watching me work so hard to reach you
You never gave a damn
About all of those things I did to please you

All that you wanted, you found somewhere else
And nothing could drag you away from yourself

Do you really know me at all?
Would you take the time to catch me if I fall?
Are you ever gonna be that real to me?
Everything to me

Lucky I've been through hell
Backroads and shortcuts I know them well
Baby just stick with me
We'll make it together, just wait and see

Do you really know me at all?
Would you take the time to catch me if I fall?
Are you ever gonna be that real to me?
Everything to me

The walls they close in
The air it goes out
We're left with nothing but a shadow of doubt
Nobody talks, no one is here
It's just you and me

Do you really know me at all?
Would you take the time to catch me if I fall?
Are you ever gonna be that real to me?
Everything to me

Do you really know me at all?
Would you take the time to catch me if I fall?
Are you ever gonna be that real to me?
Everything to me

I bet it makes you laugh
Watching me work so hard to reach you

===

as you can see these types of songs have deep emotional contexts that usually have a story behind them, but it comes from a inner emotional drive.

Lifestyle music usually associates with culture or social groups. In a sense, lifestyle music is more of a peer driven music. Rap is a good example of this because many rappers use profanity, and talk about money, sex, and power. Usually things that are superficial, but not always. Music videos like this typically have attractive people in the mix, money or things of high monetary value, party scenes mixed with drugs and violence or at least suggested drugs and violence. This may sound stereotypical, but its a fact that many popular artest express them selfs in this way. Rap is rooted from tribal music. A lot of rap is procession based with a rhythm.

These days, rap music is one of the most popular genres on the radio, in clubs and on television, but it did not start out that way. The music finds its origins in a number of places, including African tribal traditions and Jamaican folk tales.
Rap style dates back to the traditional West African story telling that it predates thedevelopment of the slave trade. Tribal history would be recited in a rhythmic manner to the drum beats and stamping of feet within the tribal village square and session would often last through the night or at least till early morning.

This style of storytelling never really died in the US and the Caribbean but was not considered music. During the slave years African Americans hung onto anything that gave them roots leading to rap rightfully being considered a parent style to blues, even to the extent of blues singers who incorporated rap into songs as far back as the 1920s.

The idea behind Rap or hip hop and so on relies on tribes or groups of people that tell a story based on life experiences such as money sex and power. Its only natural to see and have groups of people in a rap music video because the music itself is social and a collective. Unlike emotional music that focuses on the personal self, Lifestyle music focuses on a group and Social Influence and Conformity.

Conformity is the process by which an individual's attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are influenced by what is conceived to be what other people might perceive. This influence occurs in both small groups and society as a whole, and it may be the result of subtle unconscious influences, or direct and overt social pressure. Conformity also occurs by the "implied presence" of others, or when other people are not actually present. For example, people tend to follow the norms of society when eating or watching television, even when they are at home by themselves.

People often conform from a desire to achieve a sense of security within a group—typically a group that is of a similar age, culture, religion, or educational status. Any unwillingness to conform carries with it the very real risk of social rejection. In this respect, conformity can be seen as a safe means of avoiding bullying or deflecting criticism from peers. Conformity is often associated with adolescence and youth culture, but it affects humans of all ages.

Although peer pressure may be viewed as a negative trait, conformity can have either good or bad effects depending on the situation. Driving safely on the correct side of the road is a beneficial example of conformity. Conformity influences the formation and maintenance ofsocial norms and allows society to function smoothly and predictably.

Because conformity is a group phenomenon, such factors as group size, unanimity, cohesion, status, prior commitment, and public opinionall help to determine the level of conformity an individual will display.

Social conformity is a direct result of wanting to fit in to something that some how fits our desires or desires we did not know we wanted to have.

Emotional driven music is really an inner expression projecting an outer need or want, but lifestyle driven music is an outer expression that drives to attain an inner needs or wants.

Humans are pretty simple creatures and we tend to make things complicated because of our own selfish needs wants and desires. We all need the fundamental needs such as love, desire to be touched, to be secure and or stable, etc... Most all popular music out there has a universal theme connected to all humanity in one way or another. Wether we like the music or not, popular music is popular because people can connect with it. For instance the love song. There are billions of love songs out there because the whole world wants and needs to be loved in some way or another.

So when producing a music video do not over look the universal constructs. There is nothing wrong with having an abstract video as long as people can associate or connect with the visuals and the music in some way. Most of the time if an artest has a group of followers with a buzz then the odds are the visual elements are already laid out. The music is in essence the script. The lyrics are the key and the artest intent and inspiration behind the lyrics and music is the door. You must know and understand both before you can every make any interpretations.

If you have any visual techniques that you want to employ or if you have any locations you have in mind keep those in the back of your mind till you get all the details from the artest. Last thing you need is mixing your personal style with theirs.

let the music and the artest do all the speaking and suport that inspiration with the resources and creative techniques that match the music.

Mood driven music is another type of music that is harder to tackle because it is usually instrumental or

electronic. Why this is so hard is because describing mood is like describing color. No one can truly describe color we can only associate color with people places or things. Anytime you have mood driven music you can expect that the video is going to be very abstract and it may not make sense to any one. Connecting one image or color to the next can be very challenging but if done right those seemingly unconnected images can inspire in us a particular mood. For example the color blue can express sadness and if the music connecting the pice expresses that then the person watching the music video might feel sad or associate that as a sad scene.

I think blue man group is the most famous for mood driven music.

This is a good example of a mood driven music video.

Panic Girl "Burn And Rise"

Mood music is not always depressing it can be fun to like blue man group. Mood music really relies on color, texture and associated images that provoke mood. Mood music is typically disassociated with any particular event or experience, but rather the music it self along with the visuals should invoke the audience to have a particular mood because of the sounds and the visuals stimulus. Mood music is really about projecting energy that intern invokes our body to produce chemicals that cause us to resonate to that tone or rhythm. Color and texture is known to provoke mood in us and the combination with mood driven music allows for a more rich experience. I use the term mood music to define music that has little to no lyrics and when lyrics are used they are almost scattered and random as seen in short poetry. The words are there to effect thoughts, or ideas, but not to express a story as a whole. Maybe parts of a story, but this type of music focuses on moments in time where mood takes place or ideas, thoughts or actions.

Music videos many times will require a location to shoot, but not always. After studding many music videos I have found that there are three types of of locations to shoot the music video. The first location is the one that looks and feels artistically pleasing to the eye, The second is the one that tells the story and the third is a concert setting or studio.

I find the artistic setting to be annoying to watch because because I some times feel that shooting a location just because it looks good does not always stay true to the music behind it. Some times its ok not to follow the lyrics literally with visuals because those lyrics could be symbolic rather then litteral or NC17.

This is a good example:

"On To The Next One" Video! Jay-Z | Swizz Beatz

99 PROBLEMS

Jay-Z - Lost One ft. Chrisette Michele

I am not picking on Jay-z btw, I think he is a good rapper and the music videos are a wonderful example of videos that just use a location back drop primarily for artistic purposes with little visuals supporting the actual lyrics.

Music videos that focus on telling the story threw the lyrics is one of my favorite videos to make because it feels more rich and real.

Pearl Jam - Jeremy

Coldplay - The Scientist

Kelly Clarkson - Because Of You

These are very powerful videos that have varying locations to tell the story. As you can see from the video, the story uses more connective symbols rather then obvious linear story progression. These videos take visual parts of a bigger story that focuses on emotion or visual parts that lead to or segest emotion. Humans inherently associate people, places and things because that is how we connect to the world around us.

The concert setting or studio setting location I don't think I need to explane, but it has a lot of viability. there are people just want to see there favorite munitions on stage or see them during the process of recording. Its probably a more personal and real approach to a music video. But in many cases these concert locations or studio recording locations are not always pleasing to the eye. So judgment is needed for something like this.

Making a music video is not as complex as it seems, but nonetheless, A good music video has an element that makes it unique, like a twist or a turn in visual direction. Kind of an unavailing or surprise. AKA a hook and a payoff.

Don't forget listen to the artest and the lyrics and let it guide your visual direction. From the filmmakers perspective, making a music video is like doing an adaptation of a famous book, comic book or life story. A music artest work is just that, a life story of emotion and experience. The key to any successful music video is working within the confins of the artest's inspiration and expression.

Robert Sawin

Working with Scriptwriters.

2011-01-09T23:33:00.000-08:00

Communicating to writers is the most important thing you can do when developing a successful screenplay. It has been said that writers are sensitive creatures. I think the best example of how an writer acts and thinks is the movie Stranger Than Fiction (2006). Emma Thompson plays the writer in the film and I think she does a good job of that.

Good writers tend to be secluded animals by nature. They are constantly thinking of new story ideas and tend to focus a long time writing on one story. If you have ever met a true creative writer you know what I am talking about.

Writers are sensitive because they spend there lives developing structure, plots and characters. Its like a flower and often times these writers get trampled upon by other artest producers and so on.

Learning to mange your person and experience as a producer or director when working with writers is key. Remember all artest have different voices those voices interpret into creative tone.

For example, I love to make dark drama. I can add comedy, but its going to have a dark comedy feel. One time a writer came to me and asked me to reshoot a short film he wrote. When I watched the film I saw that it was funny, had dark comedy moments and a killer ending. But the technical aspects of the film was really bad. You could see power cords lying around, lights in the shot, fake prop tables. the production value was just not that great.

Normally I don't like making remaks of other peoples projects, but this was an exception. I worked for months with the writer and there where many times he was down right frustrated with me. The problem I had with the script was not the story but with the back story and the spine.

Many artest out there have big egos, but not all of them. Profesional artest are not so ego driven because the really don't have to fight to get to the top. An artest having a big ego is a huge sign of weakness but it could also mean he feels superior. So a major problem with working with some ego driven writers is some times they can be inflexible about changing anything in there story because they think there stuff don't stink. Those are the writers that you just have to move away from no matter how much you like there script. there are many writers that just get abused so often from people controlling them in a negative way that they have there defenses up and that will make changing there script harder in the long run. I have worked with both types of writers and I have to say that abused writers are not that bad once they are able to let there guard down. The important factor is building a relationship with that writer. Not the fake kind like wham bam thank you mam but a long lasting one that just makes life more full. Life is too short to claw over people for personal gain. why do it there is no good that comes from it and it only makes you look bad in the long run.

The fact is, very few writers are so good that the first draft or the draf acquired needs no work what so ever. when I say few writers I mean less then 1% of all working writers out there. If you find an non working writer with content like that you basically hit the jack pot. So what ever you do make sure you make there script or I will. :P

Writers who lack story structure, but are good with ideas are great to have, but tag team writing is a must for writers who lack that ability.

A cradle to grave producer is the first person to actually analise and structure a script with the writer. Writers must realize that a smart successful producer knows story that sell. If a writer can not respect his producers ideas then the two must split. If both people cannot respect one another then the script will go no where and will just be an unfinished product.

Knowing thyself and knowing what content both writer and producer to gravitate too sets the tone on how the script will be developed. Having a comedy writer and a horror producer can really mess up the original tone of the script. If this is the case then the director depending on if he is willing can come on board with the writer at an early stage to mold the script. The director is ultimately in controle of the vision, but the producer should guide the story as a whole from birth, to execution to delivery.

The producers role is to pick a project that he or she can be passionate about and make it work so it sells. Producers deal with the overall vision, but the director is controle of the details of that vision. Many a time directors have to be producers so the role can be interchangeable.

There is a reason why successful producers are successful because they know what sells and to what audience. Good producers also know structure or story spine. A script must have a beginning middle and end with a killer hook within the first 15 pages of the script and a killer payoff. The middle of the script is just as important because it maintains the storys rhythm and pacing. So no one part of the story can be over looked.

A good producer should know instinctively know how to dissect a script and break it down in to manageable pieces without messing up the selling points. The idea is to be a script Dr. of a sort. If a you are a producer and just don't like the story or feel the story has some potential, but has a lot of work then my advice is to not work on it. Yes its nice to have a writer who is ready and willing and has a script, but no writer is worth the headache of rewriting a whole story. Its just not worth it.

My experience has taught me that I need to find writers that are already good at there craft and understand how to execute story ideas with direction from the producer. Much like an actor with a director. A good actor knows how to take direction, interprets it and executes it.

Remember writers have minds too. So listen to them and take every thing they have to say to heart. You will be surprised at what you might get out of them. The producer writer relationship has to be a collaborative effort. Both have to feed off of one another.

writing for budgit

One thing about reading scripts is you have to be able to read the first 15 pages of a script. If you can't get past that then don't finish the script. To some writers this may seem like an offense, but the reality is a good producer is probably very busy. As someone who loves to produce and make films, I hate wasting my time with scripts where the writer clearly does not know his craft. Its more of an insult to me if I where handed such a script and someone says "here make me money with my story. let me know when your done with the film."

Personally, I dislike the writers that seem to not have time to make there story better or expect money for making it better. I understand there are writers guild rules but the fact remains if you have a script and its clearly not ready for making it into a film then why bother.

The thing I find about my self as a producer is I am always thinking about big concepts, but the fact is I hate writing. As I said before a good producer knows what sells. A producer should collaborate with a writer so that they don't have to make any changes to begin with. If both the writer and the producer are happy, then every one wins. The key is making sure both parties are happy with the content to begin with.

As a filmmaker I have a theory that you have to stay true to the story. Even if that story requires t rex to travel in to a neighborhood then do it. It is better to have a script stay true to its essence then it is to cut something because the producer or director can't figure a way to make it happen with in a budget. Scripts can alway be adapted for the budget later, But writing a good polished script with no intended limitations just makes the story better.

Don't get me wrong If you have only so much of a budget then why bother attempting to producing "I, Robot (2004)." As a producer picking a script its not worth picking a great script that you just know is not going to be made because of limitations in resources or budget. Trying to produce a mammoth film and kidding your self thinking I will fix it later is just silly. However, if you feel it will work and or you can see different options as to how it can be produced and financed then make it happen. We live in a time where movies can be done entirely on the laptop and with a digital camera.

a good example of this is the a fake zelda trailer. It was using the Panasonic p2 camera. There some back yard production going on. Its all really cool. :)

Legend Of Zelda Movie Trailer

Shooting the Legend of Zelda

The whole idea here is to make the script work for the masses so it can sell. Thats it. Producers don't have to be brain surgens and you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time you get a new script.

Think of it this way, there are a lot of cars out in the world just as there are allot of scripts in the world. Lets take a classic ford model T for example. Every once and awhile there will be a junker model T in the junk yard and if a profesional car restoration person comes by to pick it up to fix it up he is not going to make that car into a Hummer. For 3 reasons. One the amount of time money and resources it would take to make that model T into a hummer would be outrageous. Two, no sane person is going to collect a car with that level of modifications. Three, the car is more collectible if it was just restored. Some times cars are collectible if they are just left in there original condition. Same for scripts some script are just better if they are just fixed up and scripts can be shot as is and still the story can be just as good because of its flaws.

I think the best movie to ever be made on the first draft is million doller baby.

It was the first movie she'd ever made, actress Hilary Swank told me, where they shot the first draft of the screenplay. No revisions. No studio committees. Eastwood read the story of a veteran fight trainer and a waitress who wants to be a boxer, and he admired it, and he filmed it. So well did he film it that all three leading performances -- his own, and those of Swank and Morgan Freeman, playing his best friend -- were nominated.

My point being is some times a script just does not need to be messed with. and if tampered with then It could loose its value. But the truth is Clint Eastwood has a lot of stuff crossing his desk and hollywood has a stream of scripts floating around and only do the best flot to the top. This is where script coverage comes in. Every time a script comes in to an agency or studio coverage is done on that script and what ever that coverage says about that script goes and any new revisions will not be looked at by the studios or agency once it has been turned down. some times the names and places are changed to get the script re reviewed. Script coverage is highly coveted in hollywood and no studio or agency will let that coverage out of there sight. at least not intentionally anyways.

I have learned a thing or too about directing actors and some times the delivery of a line or move of a camera can make all the diference in the world. Hence why A list actors are paid so much because they can deliver. Same for A list directors. In Clint Eastwoods case he is the exception to the rule because he has the guts to go against the system and still dilevers every time on every level of filmmaking.

I know writers need there space to write, but usually when fixing a spec script its not ideal because they tend to go off track, which inturn messes up the spine of the script. Once the spine has been change mid way in the script it is hard to fix the script as a whole and could end up causing a need to rewrite the whole story.

Writers have a tendency to write in blocks. Most of the time when I work with writers I encourage them to send me the drafts as they finish each day or when they finish a portion or a scene. That way I can give them my notes on a day by day bases. The best way to do this is via email. Never do it over the phone unless you just want to talk about something that was already written or just brain storm. Some times talking over the phone can be little more personal, but ideas should be written out in email. keeping whose idea whose in email written format protects both you and the writer. In the event of a dispute or separation all ideas are property of who ever came up with the version. That means that the writer has to go back to the original script before he conversed with you about the story.

The other part to this is no more he said she said and you in essence attached your self to the script. This practice may seem shady, but if you think about it producers put there heart and sole into these projects and its only fair that they are not robed of there energy and time. If a separation where to occur then both sides must start where they left off and any ideas created threw those emails are property of whoever sent the ideas.

The big reason why producers have to work on the script in the first place is not only to get the script polished so it can get made, but because the shear cost it would take to have a profesional director baby the script from such a rough state to a polished state could take months. Its not unusual for writers to punch out a script in a matter of weeks, but to really sit down and analyze the script could take months.

Personally, I think its easer to have an already polished idea for a treatment and give it to a writer to write a script based on that idea and treatment. This works for two main reasons. One the producer already likes the idea because it is his and two because you don't have to spend eternity fixing a script because you weren't there to over see it. Its already hard enough trying to find that diamond in the rough, so unless you have magic elm workers working hard to get you that great script I segest working with a good writer whom you think could write stories that fit your production budget and style.

If your a producer like me then you already have the gift to see the idea before it is written from beginning to end. I am not sure why, but most writers that I have met usually have a hard time keeping the spine of the script straight and the hook and the payoff tend to be weak too. A good producer is a visionary and knows what he wants. Personally I wish all writers would trust there producer to deliver and just write how the producer asks, pay or not because in the end its the producers fult if the film does not make its money. Yes there can be bad writers, directors, and actors but that does not excuse the producer from owning up to his position. He must filter out these people and ideas. Movie making is very much a science as it is an art and the business of movie making is also an art as well as a science. The two go hand and hand and the producer at the end of the day must keep the two worlds together and happy.

If a writer where to say "That is not how I wrote the story. Your making the script in to something its not." But, you know deep down that this is what needs to be done, then so be it because how will your investors think and act if they found out that you did not have the script changed because you did not want to hurt the writers feelings. How will you the producer justify that you lost all there money as a result. Producers are responsible for the lively hood of not only the writer and them selves, but the crew, investors and every one else making the film happen. Its a tremendous weight. Sacrifices need to be made for the benefit of the film as a whole and every one involved in it.

As a producer you have to be strong with your criticism. Not abusive just be blunt and to the point. Your writer just needs to learn how to take a lot of criticism if he is going to make any kind of a living at his art, let alone see his work produced. Just let them know that you need to be to the point because it takes too long to beat around the bush and that he has to trust you to make the film a success.

As a producer it is ok for you to do rewrites or revisions. Just make sure you use a program like Final Draft and make sure the writer has the same program. No sense being lost in translation because of technical difficulties. There is a cool revision tool that makes marking changes easy. You can even make it so you know who made what changes where. Nice software. I know I have it and its really easy to use.

Remember a good writer is not a robot, he is not a laborer he is a creative mind and studies his craft. So respect him as a profesional and learn to serve him and his creative needs. A good producer is also a creative entity and business savy. Making films is a team effort not some god like dictatorship where everyone nods there head and says "Yes sir, how high."

leader ship starts with the leader. A leader must surve his crew and gain there respect by giving respect. Its leader ship by example. If your writer sees how hard you are working to make his script and knows you are not out to get him, he will follow you to the ends of the earth. At least that is the kind of leader I would follow.

Robert Sawin

Technical tips for Producing high end Indi film for theatrical distribution

2011-01-06T15:19:00.000-08:00

With all the talk about movie distribution and hd vs film, I thought I should clear up some myths and uncover the truth behind the branded stigma indi films get when shooting on an alternative medium with a low budget.

Native HD resolution is is 1920x1080 and 2k resolution is not far off by 2048x1556.

Understanding aspect ratio for theater format could help in the long debate of what to shoot on what medium.

Theaters have a standerd format called Academy. Academy ratio is 1.37:1. No matter what the final projected aspect ratio is, most theaters project the standard Academy format. 1.85:1 aspect ratio is the american standard aspect ratio. How this works is the image is squeezed on to the 1.37:1 and later projected as 1.85:1. the 1.37:1 aspect ratio is slightly wider then the 1.33:1. The same 4x3 square aspect ratio we see on a television set.

Academy format

In the conventional motion picture format, frames are four perforations tall, with an aspect ratio of about 1.37:1, 22 mm by 16 mm (0.866 in × 0.630 in). This is a derivation of the aspect ratio and frame size designated by Thomas Edison (24.89 mm by 18.67 mm or 0.980 in by 0.735 in) at the dawn of motion pictures, which was an aspect ratio of 1.33:1.[30] The first sound features were released in 1926–27, and while Warner Bros. was using synchronized phonograph discs (sound-on-disc), Fox placed the soundtrack in an optical record directly on the film (sound-on-film) on a strip between the sprocket holes and the image frame.[31] "Sound-on-film" was soon adopted by the other Hollywood studios, resulting in an almost square image ratio of 0.860 in by 0.820 in.[32]

[...]

In 1932, in refining this ratio, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences expanded upon this 1930 standard. The camera aperture became 22 mm by 16 mm (0.866 in by 0.630 in), and the projected image would use an aperture plate size of 0.825 by 0.600 in (21 by 15 mm), yielding an aspect ratio of 1.37:1. This became known as the "Academy" ratio, named so after them.[34] Since the 1950s the aspect ratio of some theatrically released motion picture films has been 1.85:1 (1.66:1 in Europe) or 2.35:1 (2.40:1 after 1970). The image area for "TV transmission" is slightly smaller than the full "Academy" ratio at 21 mm by 16 mm (0.816 in by 0.612 in), an aspect ratio of 1.33:1. Hence when the "Academy" ratio is referred to as having an aspect ratio of 1.33:1, it is done so mistakenly.[34]

Super 16mm film is natively an HD format. projected at 1.66:1 european standard aspect ratio or 1.78:1, commonly referred to as 16x9 widescreen.

In retrospect, the aspect ratios of 1.66:1, 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 are so close to oneanother that a person shooting on 35 mm vs a person shooting native HD will have very little or virtually no loss from cropping or by matting.

Theaters do project True HD content in 2K, for Flat (1.85:1) presentation 1998x1080 pixels of the imager is used. as you can see it is entirely possible to shoot, edit and distribute in HD.

The idea here is that if you choose to shot HD and project it in theaters, it is not only possible, but it is extremely close with limited loss in visual quality compared to a true 2k, 2048x1556, image projected in a theater.

Because super 16mm film and and HD are identical in aspect ratio and resolution, there should be no qualms over choosing one over the other in terms of movie distribution. Only difernce is film has a completely different look, feel and a higher latitude then that of digital.

Theaters could never truly display the huge range of latitude that film offers so shooting on digital is just an alternative if you don't have the money or the resources to shoot film.

If you shot a feature in native HD you can always take it to a film lab and have it dubed on 35mm film for theater distribution the results are nice and a good way to make your digital image look a little more like film. I know india has some great prices for film dubing and telecine. You can also go to Fotokem.

All film labs do is project the image on to color reversal film with an EI rating of 100. Its a thick grain stock, but it still gives a nice texture to that hd project. Film has to be scanned digitally then projected. Shooting HD skips the scanning step minimizing loss in quality.

Today, theaters are getting there content streamed to them digitally. So what ever you send them they can project with with no loss in quality. Most theaters project in 2k and most films are distributed in 2k. No matter how you look at it, shooting on HD or film you can get away with upresing the HD image or 16mm film to 2 k. But you don't have too.

Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI), a joint venture of the six major studios, published a system specification for digital cinema.[1] Briefly, the specification calls for picture encoding using the ISO/IEC 15444-1 "JPEG2000" (.jp2) standard and use of the CIE XYZ color space at 12 bits per component encoded with a 2.6 gamma applied at projection, and audio using the "Broadcast Wave" (.wav) format at 24 bits and 48 kHz or 96 kHz sampling, controlled by an XML-format Composition Playlist, into an MXF-compliant file at a maximum data rate of 250 Mbit/s. Details about encryption, key management, and logging are all discussed in the specification as are the minimum specifications for the projectors employed including the color gamut, the contrast ratio and the brightness of the image. While much of the specification codifies work that had already been ongoing in the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), the specification is important in establishing a content owner framework for the distribution and security of first-release motion picture content.

Image and audio capability overview

The ASC had a great example of HD content distributed to theater in there article talking about Star wars and its digital film exhibition:

To create the digital Phantom that was used for these presentations, an interpositive was struck from its master negative and transferred to D-5 HD tape at Modern VideoFilm in Burbank, California, under the supervision of THXs principal video engineer, Dave Schnuelle. Two transfers were done, each optimized for the respective projector systems. Colorist Skip Kimball corrected the transfer for the TI projector, and Greg Garvin colored the Hughes-JVC transfer. Both were done on a Spirit DataCine in 8-bit 4:2:2 at 1920 x 1035 resolution. That data was then compressed by the Panasonic D-5 recorder at 4:1 to 1280 x 1024. The D-5 tapes were brought to International Video Conversions in Glendale, California, where a screening room with a 24' screen was set up with three projectors: a standard 35mm rig, TIs DLP, and the Hughes-JVC ILA-12K. The movie was then compared and corrected to get [both telecine transfers and the film print] looking as close as possible to each other, submits Robert Lemer, who represents CineComm Digital Cinema, a company positioning itself to be a satellite delivery service from distributors to exhibitors with digital projectors.

The final HD data was transferred to Pluto RAID disk arrays (consisting of 20 18-gig drives) for presentation at the four theaters.

CineComm represents a key component in the proposed digital distribution paradigm. Were in a position to replace the labs and [the shipping company] in the delivery of films to exhibitors, maintains Russell Wintner, CineComms co-founder and chief technical officer. The film will be given to us by the studio, after which well compress and encrypt it, uplink it to the satellite and address it down to theaters. There, the information will be stored on our Theater Management System, a RAID array totaling about 350-400 gigs that will handle 10 to 12 screens.

The compression algorithm—at 50:1—is a proprietary development by QualComm. It uses an adaptive block size, whereas current MPEG and JPEG algorithms have a fixed block size. That allows our compression to be much more efficient because it compresses an entire frame without regard to the frame before or the one after, as opposed to MPEG, which compresses information based on the differences between the frames. The inherent difficulties of current compression technologies—such as motion artifacts—are eliminated.

when shooting 16mm film your EI resolution is dubbled when projected in theaters if stretched to 2k resolution. If you shoot a 16mm film with an EI rating of 500 it will be the equivalent of a 1000 speed stock. As a cinematographer or filmmaker you can use this methed to your advantage in order to achieve a certain look or feel.

If you push a stock you are essentially dubbling the film grain each time. So if you think about it if your 16mm stock is already rated at 500 and you push it 1 stop it dubles the EI rating to 1000 and if you where to project it it would be like 2000 EI equivalent. Its crazy numbers, so know what you are shooting and how you plan to distribute it. If its just for TV and the web then you are fine.

Remember standard 16mm is natively 1.33:1 aspect ratio also refereed to as a 4X3 aspect ratio or a square picture.

DV or SD is typically a 1.33:1 aspect ratio and when converted to 16X9 it is actually squeezed and made larger during projection and capture. Rarely are any DV cameras true 16X9 aspect ratios. At least in the consumer and prosumer cameras.

If you haven't heard the hype already, the Red Digital Cinema Camera hit the streets in 1999 and the birth of a new age of cinema was born. Why this camera is so revolutionary is because the founder Jim Jannard who also founded Oakley basically wanted to make a some what affordable digital SLR camera in to a motion picture camera. And that he did with great success. In fact these cameras fully decked out cost 45 k with all the accessories including fixed PL lenses and tripod. a set up like this shooting actual film or some other digital capture camera with all the fixings could easily cost up to 1 mill. Just for a profesional sony HD camera with the body cost an easy 100 k.

The Red Digital Cinema Camera Company manufactures digital cinematography cameras and accessories for professional and cinematic use. The company was created and financed by Oakley founder Jim Jannard with the publicly expressed intent to reinvent the camera industry. The company's main product is the Red One, which can record at resolutions up to 4,096 horizontal by 2,304 vertical pixels, directly to flash or hard disk storage. It features a single Super 35-sized CMOSsensor and a cinematography industry standard PL mount.

The reason why I bring this camera up is its ability to shoot 2k res and up to 6 k res.

Few movies are distributed with higher res then 2 k and film can not be scanned higher then 8k res. 8 k resolution films are distributed in via Imax. On a more epic film the highest resolution distributed for standard theater projection is 4 k. So it is safe to say that this camera can be a life long investment. Especially with the integration of inter changeable parts the camera is basically an erector set. even the CCD can be replaced with a bigger and better one. this will bring down the cost and worry of being out of date and constantly buying new cameras to keep up with demand.

So why fret? We have come to the new wave of filmmaking which is digital. Altho I love film with a passion I can not deny the expensive cost to make a movie in film. Its just too high. Even if you got the film for free you are still looking at cost for telecine, dubing, duplication, storage etc... Its all to crazy and I can do most of my work on a big hard drive that cost maybe 500 $ at the most and maybe buy the aja kona for realtime uncompressed video.

Its all there and ready for the consumer. I think if you wanted to start up a feature film company you can do so with all the decked out Redone + parts and editing equipment for around 100k. and quite possibly you will never need to make any major upgrades in the futre.

No matter how you look at it making a film is still and always will cost money. Even on a low budget film shooting 16mm will cost around 30k and up. This is with all the basic in a 16mm film production. Just to make it clear, Digital will never truly take over film because film has a texture and feel that you can never achieve with digital. Film is strictly a mechanical process. No matter how you look at it, film will most always be finalized on a digital medium. Producing films digitally ensures there is no degradation when distributed.

I am not trying to sell any one on the Redone, just making the point that we are at a point now where the frustrations of trying to produce cheap films under a budget and with quality is a reality. Why frustrate your self trying to get into hollywood without the chance of ever achieving your true goal which is making movies when you can do it with out breaking your bank and still deliver the same vision and quality that those major film studios do. I think the Indi film is going to change the face of hollywood with out a doubt and it has. The former stigma of the indi filmmaker being less then the corporate movie mongols will be no more and the rise to the backpack filmmaker will take over the film world. :)

By
Robert Sawin

The secret behind High grossing, blockbuster Movies

2011-01-02T10:37:00.000-08:00

I know a lot of filmmakers out there want to know the secret of making movies that make a lot of money and gain masses in recognition. The answer is somewhat simple, but complex at the same time because the fundamental human needs and wants must be adressed while focusing on the universal human expression.

In story telling, character motivation must drive on needs and wants. Needs take longer then wants. Needs are a fulfillment issue and wants are temporary pleasures and needs such as hunger or affection. often times wants are temporary and superficial to the characters true need.

All humans must have purpose. Without purpose we will die. Purpose is that hope we have to get up in the morning and its purpose that gets us threw the day. Purpose is also in tune with humans fundamental spiritual needs. Despite the diferences in religion or faith all humans have a fundmental desire to seek out god and meaning in life. Regardless, if one feels there is no god or not, the simple point remains that person has seeked out his answer and made his or her choice. Seeking answers and having faith in those answers is key in understanding plot. This seeking and faith in what we seek does not always have to do with god or religion. People seek for understanding all the time. The fundamental yearning for wisdom, knowledge and understanding is the driving force behind purpose.

humans also have a fundmental need for justice.

Justice is defined as

1. The quality of being just; fairness. 2. a. The principle of moral rightness; equity. b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

The the idea is that our belief and purpose when wronged, we feel the need to make right and if we are powerless to the wrong things or people in this world we most often times seek for something with greater power.

Power can come in many forums such as power in god, Power in a man, power in masses, power in money and power in position. Human perception of rightness or wrongness can vary.

Which brings me to my next point, humans ability to reason or justify actions, thinking or motivation. humans can justify or rationalize anything in there own mind as eye. Even a crazy person can justify or rationalize his or her behavior. This is what really fules the battle for good and evil. Both sides justify or rationalize there own position and one side must prevail and bring rule to the situation.

sympathy must be generated to tell the audience who or what they must root for. when an audience feels sympathy for a character and he or she is wronged then a feeling of justice should take place. Sympathy can be generated from anywhere. Filmmakers can even create sympathy for hitlers nazi soldiers if the right elements where set in place.

hence how propaganda is created.

propaganda is defined as:

Any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.

Propaganda in and of it self is not bad, its who controls it and for what purpose can it make it bad.

when emotions, attitudes and behavior are influenced a resulted action or reaction will occur. Wether directly or indirectly. These actions and reactions can go both ways. From the audience to the screen and from the screen to the audience.

The funny thing about humans is that if something deathly wrong with someone, the other person may voice there opinion and wave there finger, but simple actions to save a dyeing man on the streets seems farfetched. As if they where saying "its not my problem." This may seem out of place but it happens and happens often. It even happened to me when I was spear fishing and got stung by a sting ray and when I asked a man to carry a pole for me he refused like I was bothering him or something to that effect.

Regardless of what happened to that situation the reality is that all humans are inherently selfish. We all have a selfish desire of self pleasure or self preservation. There are people out there that are benevolent or compassionate, but the reality is even they too have selfish qualities. Another way to put it is we all have a desire to be our own god.

I have a theory that when man has reached a point where he is so powerful the true self comes out. I think bill gates and

Search Results

Oprah Winfrey is a good example. When there is no need or desire to protect our selves our true selves come out. Hence the term "acting out of fear." Very powerful people have little to fear on a worldly perspective. Lack of fear creates a lack of fear for the consequences of our actions and when a human is fearless with abundant power he can say or do things that a normal person could never express or act upon openly. "a fish out of water" story comes to mind. If a king where striped of all his power how would he or she act or react amounts the commoners.

The whole point here is there is a lot of underlining in human behavior, but these behaviors are a direct reflection of our desire for self and purpose. This desire for self and purpose creates needs and wants.

the key to understanding great films is understanding the fundmental human condition.

There are several theories as to what we as humans all have in common. A popular example is that humans search for purpose. We are curious and thrive on new information.

[...]

Certain movements, most prominently transhumanism, aim to radically change the human condition. Some thinkers, like Enrico Fermi and others, deny that human nature has really changed in any fundamentally meaningful way over time and that, despite all of the social and scientific advances that have occurred, humans remain essentially unchanged and have been merely transplanted into progressively more complex environments.

Humans are generally simplistic in nature and nurture; however, threw complex situations and complex life styles humans are forced to adapt willingly or unwillingly. Hence what makes sci fi works. All sci fi does is take a human with simple wants and desires and placing him in a complex often times futuristic environment.

The Four Quadrant Picture is a way of making a film financially successful.

A Four Quadrant Picture is defined as a:

A marketing term used to describe a film targeted to all audience quadrants: men over 25, men under 25, women over 25, women under 25.

The idea behind the Four Quadrant Picture is to not offend or ward off any particular gender or age or religious affiliation. The concept is universally natural and unbiased, but at the same time it adresses fundamental human problems, needs and emotions.

A good example of this is "Star Wars."

Another major inspiration for the Star Wars saga is the work of Joseph Campbell, the famous studier of myths and their common themes. He composed in The Hero with a Thousand Faces the theory of the Hero Quest an exploration of the Monomyth - a term taken from James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake. The Monomyth as Campbell described it though was the common set of themes found in all literature dating back to the Ancient Greeks and classic tales of Heracles and Odysseus. Best classified in his Hero Quest, it involved directly mapping out the path of a young man from the call to adventure to the status of Hero. Luke Skywalker follows the path almost exactly, becoming a modern incarnation throughout the Star Wars trilogy of the classical hero. In college level classics courses even now, Star Wars is cited as an easily recognizable example of Campbell's work and a modern reworking of classical themes, something Lucas intentionally did. Joseph Campbell himself quotes Star Wars as an example in the classic 1991 PBS series, "The Power of Myth".

Joseph Campbell

The Hero with a Thousand Faces (Bollingen Series) by Joseph Campbell

The Power of Myth is a book and six part television documentary originally broadcast on PBS in 1988 as Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth. The documentary comprises six one-hour conversations between mythologist Joseph Campbell(1904–1987) and journalist Bill Moyers.

The main diference between a blockbuster and typical motion picture is the target audience and the underlining content. Four Quadrant Picture's typically have all the human desires. The three types of desire are the desires for progeny, power and purpose.

1. Desire as mating need for Progeny:

From an evolutionary viewpoint, the human desire for sex which according to Freudian psychology is the basis of human survival is motivated by the need for progeny. Strong libido could be very positive for the human species and men and women with strong sexual desires would have evolutionary advantage and would be able to leave their progeny behind ultimately required for human species survival. The biological need to leave offspring could thus be connected to the Freudian explanation of sex and our desire to mate. Sexual drive is thus not about release but about release with the aim of species propagation. Freudian psychology and its emphasis on the libido is quite compatible with evolutionary psychology that would consider the sexual and aggressive drives as absolutely important for survival of an individual and the human species as a whole. The human needs for partnership, love, security are all aspects of this type of basic desire. All creative and constructive desires also have roots in sexual desire and the creative act could be itself considered as an act of mating according to psychoanalysis. Creative artists, painters and writers are guided by this type of desire.

2. Desire as manifestation of Power:

Desire is however frequently manifested in the need for power and control and the desire to be a parent could be motivated by an underlying need to exercise control on one's own children. The need for authority is mainly associated with aggressive impulses and the desire for power could be considered as motivated by both sexual and aggressive urges. Politicians, leaders, managers, directors and people in positions of power whether financial, social or political often manifest strong desire to control and dominate people and situations. The desire to earn more money, fame or attain certain social position is guided by the need for power and the need to protect and provide care through control would also fall under this category. All political, social and financial leaders manifest this sort of desire. The question would definitely arise whether celebrities (pop stars and film stars) are also guided by this need for power. Of course celebrities are motivated by a need for admiration (this is common even in authors and leaders) and the need for admiration is manifestation of subtle power rather than any aggressive need to dominate and control as seen more clearly in political leaders.

3. Desire as fulfillment of Purpose:

Desire could also be revealed as the need to fulfill a purpose and in this case the desire takes the proportion of a mission and achieving this goal becomes almost an obsession. This sort of desire could be found in social or political leaders motivated by the need for change and a sense of purpose although this is akin to self realization needs in psychology and all humans are guided by a sense of purpose, no matter how big or how small. Religious leaders and sages have a strongly developed sense of mission and purpose and are driven by this sort of desire. Some authors and creative artists may also be fired by a sense of mission while writing a book or creating a piece of art. Activists and social leaders and even terrorists and sometimes criminals are also motivated by this sort of mission or purpose. Many serial killers, terrorists, activists, social and religious leaders have a similar sense of purpose and the roots of this would be aggressive urges channeled either destructively or constructively depending on how the urges are manifested.

All human desires could be categorized into these three groups with the motivating factor being creation of progeny through sex and all creative urges would fall within this category; the need for power and all goals and ambitions to acquire fame, money, status would fall in the second category; and finally the category of desire associated with a sense of purpose explain self realization needs in monks, religious leaders, and a sense of mission in activists, spiritual and political leaders and even terrorists.

Usually a typical film might focus on one of these aspects of desire or all three. However its the roles we take on in society, wether by nurture or by nature, dictate our likes and dislikes. Whatever the case a target audience will most always gravitate to simular category of film. Such as action, adventure, romance, comedy, and so on. A typical Four Quadrant Picture uses all of these film categories.

Here is a list of the top grossing films of all times. See if you can spot the similarities I talked about. :) If your still having trouble just make a comment and I will respond :)

All Time Worldwide Top 20

Note: This chart is not adjusted for inflation. The figures represent the total amount of money a movie has taken globally over its lifetime.

	Released	Film Name	Total Box Office
1	2009	Avatar	$2,780,969,137
2	1997	Titanic	$1,842,879,955
3	2003	The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King	$1,119,027,325
4	2006	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest	$1,065,659,812
5	2010	Toy Story 3	$1,064,184,497
6	2010	Alice in Wonderland	$1,024,391,110
7	2008	The Dark Knight	$1,001,945,358
8	2001	Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone	$974,775,550
9	2007	Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End	$960,996,492
10	2007	Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix	$938,468,864
11	2009	Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince	$933,959,197
12	2002	The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers	$926,284,377
13	1999	Star Wars Ep. I: The Phantom Menace	$924,288,297
14	1993	Jurassic Park	$923,067,947
15	2004	Shrek 2	$919,838,758
16	2005	Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire	$895,913,036
17	2007	Spider-Man 3	$890,871,626
18	2010	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I	$888,840,000
19	2009	Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs	$886,685,941
20	2002	Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets	$878,979,634

There is one more element that can help a film in to the top charts and that is one with a high concept.

High concept narratives are typically characterised by an over-arching "what if?" scenario that acts as a catalyst for the following events. Often, the most popular summer blockbuster movies are built on a high concept idea, such as "what if a shark attacks?" (Jaws); "what if we could clone dinosaurs?" (Jurassic Park), and so on. However, it is important to differentiate a high concept narrative from an analogous narrative. In the case of the latter, a high concept story may be employed to allow commentary on an implicit subtext.

All this information can be a lot to take in, but given time I am sure you will be on your way to making great movies.

Happy filmmaking

Robert Sawin

"Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal"

2011-01-01T10:23:00.000-08:00

One of the things I find frustrating when communicating to some artest is when they have this notion that they want to create something that has never been done before. From every thing I have learned about filmmaking, I have found that when creating, artest must use existing resources and ideas and combine them to create something that expresses a voice or concern. Entertainment is nothing more then a manipulation of ideas, thoughts and resources translated in to a universal voice that the audience can ingage in, understand and relate to.

Its understandable that artest want to be new and original and rightly so; however, the old saying goes
"Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal." Originality and style comes from the self. Its the person who make the art unique because there is only one of that person. style is made up of experiences and personality. Many of the great artest in history had to be true to themselves and in large, use or take elements from the outside world to create something that effects the masses for generations.

I think one of the great examples of artest who use experiences to create there works is Jack london. Many of his great literary works where based on his experiences. Good writing in general must drive from experiences and personality in order to stay true to the craft.

There is a lot of detail missed when not writing from experiences or personality. Its the stubble nuances that make us who we are and its those nuances that creates a depth to storytelling. There is a saying that 90% of acting is reacting and how is one supost to react if he or she has never experienced the emotions.

It is impossible for a human to create something he or she does not understand. Children have this innate desire imagine and create; however, there limited understanding of the world can only take there imagination go so far. As a child grows up so does his understanding of the world. The complex and long term collection of information in the world gives the mind an amplitude of resources and ideas to combine, reference and steal from.

The god like want to create something from nothing is inherent within all humans. We all have the innate desire to create and controle our creation. Humans are generally social beings and the want or need to connect to one another is a huge part of our legacy. The combination of art, language and math is the connecting force between people and sometimes it can divide. Understanding Art is understanding the fundamentals of connecting with humans universally. Art is the only medium of various forms to connect people from all walks of life. Art is a universally excepted medium and dose not require any form of education to translate it into understandable and connectible information. Even abstract art can be understood universally. However, when an artest is not true to him self and his experiences, the art will show signs of missing information.

I feel that people who gather with a collective mindset can create content that is rich and diverse in experience and in personality. I have yet to come across an artest who can write a screen play by himself and still create a diverse set of characters with completely different voices or tones. I know there are great writers out there, but even those writers tend to have a particular voice because it is who they are and there experiences along with it.

Art is a science and can be learned. Talent is part of us and some people just have allot if it while others have to spend there entire lives perfecting that talent. No matter what the case we are still human and as humans we have limitations. So artest who connect with one another have a better chance of creating something with richness and complexity.

No matter what kind of artest you are there is always something to improve on. Remember, creating great art is only as good as the ideas, experiences and resources the artest takes from.

Robert Sawin

Perspective filmmaking and camera language

2010-12-31T09:07:00.000-08:00

I was never a huge fan of black and white movies and I am not ashamed to admit it. I hate to say it, but I never watched many of the popular B&W movies such as citizen kane, Casablanca and so on. Studding film, I was forced to analise and understand many of the techniques and history behind these old B&W films. I am not saying that these films are distasteful I just hate watching movies in B&W.

With this said, I have come to appreciate the era of the silver screen and learned a thing or two about them during my years at college. Alfred Hitchcock and the three stooges are the only movies I will watch in B&W. I think I watch Alfred Hitchcock because of the way he makes his movies. He has a particular style that I love and I am usually inspired to implement some of that in my filmmaking.

There is a lot to be said about Alfred Hitchcock and his movies but, I am going to be as focused as possible so I don't make this blog into a book. One thing about his filmmaking is Alfred Hitchcock focuses on storys that have a thriller or mystery like quality to them. Alfred Hitchcock is able to allow the audience to get into the mind of his characters by using the camera in such a way that shows the inner perspectives of the characters. When the actors are shot the camera often often shows them in there present emotional state with the appropriate matching camera angel and camera perspective.

There is a lot to be said about camera angle, frame size and prospective and the meaning behind each one and could take a whole semester just on this subject alone. But the focus I am going to talk about in this blog is the three types of filmmaking perspective.

The three types of filmmaking perspective are Inner perspective, Outer perspective, and nonobjective perspective. This theory can go hand and hand with the man vs man, man vs self and man vs nature theory. You can mix and match and some times even combine them within a given film. Remember the camera is a visual narrator of sort and can be described as such. during production the camera placement camera has a huge impact on how the audience will interpret the mood. The camera in a sense gives the audience visual clues that tell them subconsciously what to think or feel about a particular scene or character. Music does a simular thing in that it sets the mood and pace of a film. Music tends to foreshadow the action while the camera tends to narrate in the present.

The rules of camera technique do not change, its the motivation of camera technique that influences a particular shot. The key here is finding the motivation between each seen moment by moment. If you know what the motivation is you know who or what the scene is about and that will help you focus on that particular character or thing during filmmaking. Motivation is everything in filmmaking it is what keeps the rhythm of the over all piece and allows for focused storytelling. The script will tell you what the motivation is in any particular scene you just have to let the story speak to you the filmmaker. Perspective filmmaking and camera motivation go hand and hand.

In inner perspective filmmaking a low angle shot could could make a character seem menacing, invincible or powerful. Low angel shots could foreshadow impending doom for the receiving character. For instance, A low angle shot could show a big mean cat who corners a mouse. Likewise, the mouse could be shot using a high angle camera to show that it is vulnerable or powerless to the cat.

Inner perspective filmmaking typically has a lot of extreem close ups and angles. Its very up close and personal. The reason why inner perspective filmmaking has such extreem closeups and angels is to invoke tension or chaos or even a particularly intense romantic feeling to the audience.

Inner perspective filmmaking works is because people have a spear of comfort the closer or more exaggerated a position we are in the more mental chaos sets in. It creates a sort of analysis paralysis.

The term "analysis paralysis" or "paralysis of analysis" refers to over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation, so that a decision or action is never taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome. A decision can be treated as over-complicated, with too many detailed options, so that a choice is never made, rather than try something and change if a major problem arises.

When humans receive too much information it can cause information overload brain. Extreem Closeups and extreem angles make the audience make absorb too much information at once. For instance, an extreem close up shot of a face has a lot of detail that we would not see in a wide shot. Typically humans are not used to seeing people that close. Humans are used to seeing things and people at eye level and at a normal distance he or she is accustom too. When you combine a short duration of a shot with an extreem close up and extreem angle it can be a bit overwhelming and can cause the person to feel tension. That tension can translate to Sympathy.

Sympathy is a social affinity in which one person stands with another person, closely understanding his or her feelings.

Sympathy in this case has nothing to do with feeling, but rather projected understanding of a universal awareness.

This extreem methed of camera perspective is a forum of translated energy. Much like a person feeling shock or a burn of different intensities. The same can be said for visual intensity. The time it takes for the body to send and receive information throughout the body is most always at a constant rate of time. However the intensity of that information can cause the body to respond with the most appropriate chemical and Physical reactions the mind sees fit. This phenomena is something we can not controle. We have these built in us primitive, but instinctive reactions to help us survive. These instinctive reactions can effect our subconscious that inevitably effect our cognitive responses.

So in reality, inner perspective filmmaking has nothing to do with what the character is feeling, it is simply a visual way of manipulating the brains chemistry based off of a learned response. That response can be associated with that of the character on the screen. Hence causing us to think it is the characters reaction or emotional state. When in reality it is our own emotional projection. Its all about visual perception.

In outer perspective filmmaking, the camera motivation is focused on showing the relationship between characters. Orson Welles pioneered many filmmaking techniques and understudied how to capture the relationship between people within a frame by placing characters at appropriate distances from one another and at different hights. The combination of camera placement and character position sets a tone that translates in to a mood for the audience to understand.

Typically in outer perspective filmmaking the camera frame size is mor relaxed and natural with what humans are used to seeing. In inner perspective filmmaking if we where to view the action the way the say Hitchcock filmed his scenes then our bodys would be in all sorts of weird positions. But outer perspective filmmaking tends to take on the natural perspectives we are accustom too.

In outer perspective filmmaking, it does not matter if the camera is canted, or has a high or low angel or far or close its all about the intensity of those elements. The more intense the camera angels, frame size and camera placements are the more the it is translated in to inner perspective filmmaking. You don't have to go over bord with trying to achieve inner or outer perspective filmmaking you just have to know what camera placement will cause what effect.

Inner and outer perspective filmmaking is simular because they both use a variety camera techniques to achieve different emotional or reactive responses from the audience. The big diference in inner and outer perspective filmmaking how we define those camera techniques in relation to the motivation of the scene.

The definitions we use in camera technique can vary because of the perspective and motivation of the scene. So for instance, definitions in inner perspective filmmaking take on a physiological perspective between people, places and things while outer perspective filmmaking is more defined by the relationship between people, places and things.

lastly, Nonobjective perspective in filmmaking is all about the action in the frame. Think of Nonobjective perspective filmmaking like you, the audience member, sitting in a theater observing the performers on stage. The technique is very bland in camera placement frame size and angel. There is no motivation to this style other then to capture the action and reaction. The idea is to rely on the content or characters to tell the story. This technique is used for comedy, news, daytime TV dramas, documentary programs etc... The idea is to let the content speak for its self. There can be angels, change in frame size and camera placement, but this is only to capture the action and reaction.

lucille ball who is known for I love lucy Pioneered the 3 camera technique for television. The show is also an excellent example of nonobjective prospective filmmaking.

Many people find the show to be very funny and if extreem camera angels frame sizes and camera postions where used then the show would loose the comedy factor because the camera is causing the audience to receive mixed signals and will react accordingly. Probably with strong negative reactions to the content. Mostly because the camera is forcing an objective voice.

Objective filmmaking has more to do with the filmmaker telling the audience what to subconsciously think or feel based on camera placement and editing.

Non objective filmmaking relies on the action and reactions of the environment. Minimizing exaggerated camera placement, frame size and camera angel reduces or eliminates subconscious visual stress or tention that could cause conscious biased thinking from the audience perspective. In comedy, there can be no visual perspective stress to allow the mind to let it guard down sorta speak, reducing the flight or fight responses.

When a family sits down to eat dinner and watch a family comedy it serves exactly this purpose, to take the mental stress away. The family feed off of the visual energy that in turn creates a pleasurable chemicals responses in the body. Hence a way for people to relax after a long hard stressful day of work. In other words, the motion picture can be used as a sort of mental stimulus or drug. All drugs effect the brain function in one way or another and visual stimulus is another way of manipulating those brain functions.

So when creating a film, the script will ultimately tell you what perspective to use. These motivational perspectives can be broken down scene by scene and can interchange without causing disruption to the theme of the story.

By
Robert Sawin

How to assess and produce the corporate client's visual needs

2010-12-27T22:19:00.000-08:00

Communicating to clients in the art world is so important. Trying to get understanding on there vision or idea and projecting it back to them from a profesional and technical stand point is more important then our own creative freedom. Clients who come to you expressing a need already have the companies vision and direction in mind.

As professionals in the motion picture creative art world our job is to translate the clients vision so that they can connect to there audience in the way they see fit.

On your first approach about a client's project, there has to be an exchange of questions in order to move forward with the project.

Here is some questions to ask when when assessing your clients need.

#1. What are you looking to do?

The first question is vague and it lets the artest know the strengths of there clients overall objectives. In other words, does the client even know that they want or do they need your help in finding the most appropriate execution that might surve there companies overall objectives.

#2. what is the overall length of the finished product? What is the medium of distribution for the end product? Do you need any photos, graphics or animations made?

This is sort of a one part question because it lets the artest know the workload and the elements needed to do the project. Don't bother the client during the discussion as to the details of what you need inorder to finish the project. Your job is to keep the stress level down for the client so they can do there job. After all you are providing them with a service.

#3. What is the over all budget for the event or campaign, and how much are you looking to spend for Video production and or photography session.

asking them what they are going to spend on there events or campaign tells you the size of the event. For example a bride that sets aside 20 k for her wedding vs a bride that sets aside 5 k for her wedding. The diference here is understanding the budget constraints they may have and what equipment you are willing to take or rent for the event. If its a big major event then you really don't need to know the budget because the client knows what he is getting into and for the artest he or she can figure that the client has a healthy budget they can set aside for your services. Know your client and there needs before you make conclusions. Otherwise it just makes the artest look bad. Holding your words till the end will save you allot of embarrassment later or you could end up saying something that could cost you out of pocket and not your client.

Asking a client how much they are willing to spend tells the artest what size of production they are looking for. If your client says just give me a quote say ok and make the assumption that they trust you with your judgment to offer them a far and reasonable offer. You have to do your homework to figure out the details of what it would take to do the project. Some times clients don't know the first thing about what it takes to produce a video of any size or nature. Other clients might just be insecure about the numbers and could just be shopping around.   Simply asking your client what they are willing to spend just gives you the upper hand during negotiation. No reason to cut your self out of the deal because of a simple number conflict. A job is a job no matter how you look at it and at the end of the day you just have to take what they offer you work with it. This is a mutual relationship both partys must respect one another and not short change the other.

Don't undercut your self but don't over charge your client ether. Greed will be your down fall if you try to charge too much, but undercutting your services only causes you to not make a living and if your clients decide to spred the word about your good works and pricing your reputation is on the line because now you have new clients who expect the same treatment at the same pricing. It is just bad business to undercharge because if every artest gave in and undercharged then it just encourages businesses to abuse that because they know they can. There is a standard price range and then there is competition. You know how much you and your time is worth. You know how much your equipment and resources are worth. So why even bother doing charity work for the corporate company when they don't even care about your lively hood. There are only two reasons to do pro bono work.

One is if you want your potential reoccurring client to know that not only can you produce a product but you are willing to take a pay cut aka a gamble because you believe in your self and company so much that the work you produce will keep your clients coming back.

Two pro bono work can lead to a better reel and quite possibly future connections to things that are bigger and better.

If there was a three I would say do pro bono work for projects you have a heart for or that the people involved with those projects are close to you.

Remember, Build a strong business from the start. There is no reason to cheat your worth because you think competitor A, B, C will get the job. Yes there is competition, but your soul is worth the money.

If you get a job that you feel goes against your morals and ethics don't do it. You know who you are and you know what you believe so why jeopardize your soul for some money. There is always a way to live. Money can come and go, but it does not define who you are.

One thing I found is that the more an industry is morally or ethically questionable the higher the pay and the less competition there is. I know of people who got there start in this way. They sell there soul to the devil to build there entire empire. Studios and hollywood careers have been built on ethically and morally bankrupt people. And now a day the public idolize  these people with no idea of how they got there to begin with.   Yes its possible to gain great riches on earth in exchange for your soul and dignity, but can you really put a price on your soul and dignity?

Know your boundaries and live by them. No need to fear those people who try to take advantage of you. How much so will they be willing to take care of you in the future with such bad business ethics.

From experience, I know that keeping good clients is a prised thing and even if they are not the big shot money people there loyalty is worth far more. A healthy and steady client base is really the key to a good strong business.

After you ask your clients the questions needed to understand the project at hand you then need to write up a proposal. Just talking about it verbally is not a legal way of conducting business and it will protect your butt later. If I have not said it before I will say it agin. If it ain't on the page it ain't on the stage. Meaning have everything in writing for your own protection.

After writing the proposal send it to your clients to review and sign off on. Your clients must submit there approval in written form. Remember do do this all in email format because email is a legal document that can be used in the court of law. Many agreements and deals are made this way.

After the proposal has been approved and all revisions has been adjusted and modified if any, create a contract with the elements discussed and the prices. Also make sure that there is a place in the contract that says any modifications to the budget will be discussed and approved and added to the final payment.

If doing a bid for a gig my strong recommendations is have your clients pay 50 % up front with a no refund policy in the event that your client decides to cancel prior to the event date. The reason for this is you as a profesional is in charge of buying all the resources for the production and if the event was canceled for whatever reason you are not stuck with the bill of buying tape stock or rental equipment or what have you.

You are equally responsible if you miss the event or for some reason something went terribly wrong. But a good filmmaker will always have backup. I always have more then one camera on stand by and I always have more then one person on a big gig. If its something stupidly simple then I can see why you don't need an extra crew member. But never chance your gigs. I should not even need to tell you why you need be overly prepared. There is always something that can and will go wrong. Hell will freeze over every time if you don't take the proper precautions.

You must not do a production without a script. No matter how simple the concept. Its all part of keeping it legal. There is no winging it. Also you have to have the client write the content for the script. The client may hate you because he or she may say why don't you write the script. But the reality is your client already knows what direction they want there company to go in and they already have a target audience in mind along with a particular voice. A company should always know them selves more then any one else does. If your client says "No, I want you to do it. I am paying you aren't I?" If they ask this then say "You know your company better then I do. If you give me the script I could add unicorns, butterflies and rainbows and that may not be what you want. Remember you are a profesional and your clients are not. If your client was already a profesional he would not need your guidance and services. So the point I am trying to make here is your goal is to help your client achieve there vision and your goal is to help them achieve that vision by guiding them along the process with all your technical know how and resources they need to make that vision come alive.    You need to protect your clients best intrest at all times by explaining and taking care of things they do not understand. Your clients could want elephants in there production, but you must hold there hand the entire way so they know what to do and what not to do. If they want something big just tell them "In a perfect world anything is possible, but we do not live in a perfect world so we must operate with in the parameters we are given."

Some times clients will want to get a better bang for there buck, so they will often ask for freebees. like the client might ask for extra b roll or interview that has nothing to do with the curent project. If that is the case then just tell them that you must treat anything extra as a separate project and that anything extra will cost the more. But assure them you are willing to do it if they agree to the extra fees. If they say no then there is no loss for ether party if they say yes then do as they say. There are no discounts just because you just so happened to be there that day. You planed for the event and the script is what you need to stick with. Don't stray off of the script. There is nothing wrong with being accommodating, but be aware the more you go off of a script the more you could be held liable for missing content or changed content. Even if you are working with the boss and he is right there beside you just stick with the script. Remember you are the profesional. so act as such. Your clients are not and remember that they hired you to get the job done and if that means telling your client no we can't stray from the script because of time or other reasons then so be it. maybe next time they will understand the importance of the script and give more attention to it. The experienced clients understand this.

Here is another legal tip always make sure that you edit the footage don't stray from script. If the client keeps wanting to make changes then tell them that you must commit to the script because it was signed off. If they insist then just make sure that if they want any further changes they will have to pay extra for re edits or re shoots. If there are honest mistakes that you made in the edit or shooting phase then try to fix them to the best of your ability. But if it is a radical change and has nothing to do with the script or anything agreed upon then you have every right to charge them extra. Just make sure this was in writing prior.

Typically editing cost about 50 to 100 $ an hr. Less if you are working for someone full or part time. So let them know if they feel the need to change something. Don't let your clients take advantage of you. After all you have a business to run. But remember to be nice about it. They are still your paying customers. So treat them as such.

One thing I like to do in the post phase is edit in stages and let my client see the progress. This keeps reedits to a minimum. For me, I like to cut the interviews first, then add the b roll, then the text and lower thirds, then the graphics. By showing each stage to your client, he or she will be able to refine the video with you so it can be best tailored to there specifications. If your client can not handle the stress of reviewing raw footage then just edit it for them and tell them you stuck with the script. No need to be mean about it, but there are just some clients that are difficult. For weddings I never let the clients see the video because they are too picky every little thing. like the bride may say I don't like my mother in law so I want her edited out. If this happens just tell them it will cost extra. Most likely they will just not bother with the re edits because of cost.

After the product is finished, make sure there is an even trade of money in hand for the final product.

Just a simple, but life saving tip. Offer your clients the option to buy a hard drive to store the project in. If they refuse then just warn them that any data that you have stored on your drives may be wiped out. If you are smart you can just buy a project drive and warn them that if they want the project files in the future they will have to pay a very high fee of x amount of $. I really don't fell bad about doing this because if a client feels that backing up data is not important then so be it. It just means more power to you because you own them if they want that content back. However, they do own the media of which it was shot. So if your client request it then you are liable to give them there tape footage unless stated otherwise stated in the contract. I really would not fret about this because if you stick with the script then there is no reason for them to really use the content over and over. It is possible, but not really something you should care about. If they are good clients they will keep coming back.

I typically try to keep the master tapes because I know that for whatever reason that footage could be lost to a disaster in some part of the world. So the footage is better kept in your hands then your client because your client is more likely to loose the tapes then you are. Its just a fact.

The last client I worked with I always said I was more concerned with them getting a product they had envisioned then to worry about wether or not I was spending too much time on the project. You are not a true artest if you can't take pride in your work.

One pece of big advice. Never treat any gig as if it where less then just because it is simple and or you are not getting paid some big fat check. Treat every project like it was your own. It makes you look profesional and your reputation can gain because of it.

So go out there and get those clients. Remember these things so you can protect your self and maintain a good long client relationship.

By
Robert Sawin

The pandora's box in Scriptwriting

2010-12-26T08:50:00.000-08:00

I discovered the pandora's box effect in story telling while in college when analyzing the movie "Serenity (2005)" for a paper I did. This theory also clicked for me after watching "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (2003)."

Pandora's box is an artifact in Greek mythology. The "box" was actually a large jar (πιθος pithos) given to Pandora (Πανδώρα) ("all-gifted"), which contained all the evils of the world. When Pandora opened the jar, the entire contents of the jar were released, but for one – hope.[1] Today, opening Pandora's box means to create evil that cannot be undone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora's_box

The concept is simple all good scriptwriting and storytelling has a pandora's box. pandora's box itself is not a dramatic entity. The box dose not itself does not create conflict, It simply is. It is a constant. You can call it what ever you want, devine providence, fate, destiny, etc... pandora's box can take many forums in story telling. It can be a person place or thing. Where the drama comes in is when you have two elements that have free will and conflicting intrest or beliefs. Regardless, pandora's box, in the end, will ether be opened or stay close. That is up to the story teller or script writer.

For example the movie Deep Impact (1998) vs Armageddon (1998/I), Both movies have the same concept, a large astroid hurdling towards earth. The astroid itself dose not create drama, its the characters surrounding the issue that creates the drama. Drama exist when there is an element that disrupts both the protagonist's and the antagonist's world and that element is "pandora's box."

Pandora's box in story telling almost always has a liner direction. Plot twist and turns deceive the audience and the characters in thinking that pandora's box is either going to be open or stay closed. No matter what there is a beginning middle and end in story telling. pandora's box only has a beginning and an end because its a linear element, a constant. Name any great movie out there and I guarantee they all have there own pandora's box and conflict surrounding it. The pandora's box is what the story revolves around. Both the pandora's box and the characters need one another for the story to exist. Its a sort of a symbiotic relationship between the two.

It is possible to have a story with only one character and a pandora's box. The drama there will be between man and self and what ever element, place or thing, has been pre destined to come together. For example Event Horizon (1997) and Cast Away (2000), both movies revolved around a place. The place is pandora's box and the drama surrounding it was between man and self.

Drama exist in three forums. Man against man, man against self and man against nature. Pandora's box is the element surrounding that conflict.

So the next time you write your next story or screenplay try to figure out what that pandora's box is. This will help you identify the bases of what your characters will center around.

Robert Sawin

Tips for creating a shoestring filmmaking budget

2010-12-25T09:13:00.000-08:00

If there is any thing I have learned about movie making is how to keep a movie under budget. Even when shooting a short I never went past $600. Now keep in mind some times throwing more money at a production can make it look better, but from experience I have seen people spend money on unnecessary expenses that can drain a production budget quickly.

Food is one of those expenses depending on the amount of people you plan to have over at a given day. I have found if you do your homework you can almost always find some resteront. Just tell them you are a student filmmaker or an indi filmmaker that is looking for some food donations to the production. You might need to reach the corporate offices of some companies. Never hurts to look. Secretaries are always your friend and your best asset so be nice to them like you are talking to a boss. Trust me you will thank me later.

I think the most generous restaurant to donate to my filmmaking cause is pat and oscars.

Costco can also donate like a 25 $ gift card. Its not allot but you can be surprised what you can git with it. Just go to the manager and tell him or her your filming situation and your need for any kind of donation that can help.

Remember its always better for the filmmaker making the film to ask for this stuff because it shows more heart. I have found sending anybody else just makes it harder. if you are the producer then I guess it could work.

The point being is you never know where you can get donations. The larger the resteront chain the better chance you have of getting some kind of donation. and don't be picky take what you can get and be nice.

The reason why this works is because there are many corporations that are looking for a tax brake and they have a certain amount of money set aside every year to give to charity. Filmmaking is still an art and it is not begging its a mutual relationship.

Ok here comes the next million doller tip. foam core

make sure it has white and black on both sides, but if you find a sale then just take what you can get. One time I went to the 99 cent store and it was selling them. I bought 12 I think. they where all white, but I did not care. They where cheap.

In production these things have as many uses as gaffer tape. You can block light from windows, lights ect. You can bounce light from the light fixture to the subject or if you are out side you can put them on the ground to reflect the light up to the actors faces.

The Departed 2006

http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/October2006/TheDeparted/page1.php#

The article has a lot of good lighting tips but mostly I wanted to show it because they have a cupel of places they show lighting with foam core.

The quality of light these bords bounce is really nice. In all honestly I really don't like those silver and gold reflectors because it reflects too much of a sheen. It works if your doing a hot model on a summer day or if you are doing some kinda scifi flick or something along the lines, but its not a stubble look that foam core inherently produces.

Mirrors are awesome, but can be a pain because the sun's position changes throughout the day. there are mirrors that you can get at a rental facility that stick on a c stand but I don't see why you can't make one. its just a mirror sitting on a swivel. these mirrors can reflect the equivalent of a 10 k light or more. No power requirements and its cheap. make sure you have the outside edges taped with gaff tape. and see if you can put a frame with a backing in it to prevent any accidents.

Neon Paper has some awesome properties too.

Just put some neon paper on the floor and you can bounce up some crazy light on your actors faces. If you use a large glass bole you can put some water in that and set it on the neon paper and shine some light on that and it can create some neat effects with the water ripples. If you put blue paper down you can get that nice water reflection in a controlled environment.

white bed sheets are nice for a number of things. you can reflect or soften light from an incoming window.

Clear plastic sheets are great for defusing light of different sources.

This stuff I have used on a production where we needed a lot of light but we only had 1 k lights at my disposal. So what I did was bunched all the lights together and had the plastic sheeting about 5 feet away to avoid any fires or milting of the plastic. I was able to light the a whole room without too many shadows using this technique.

Florescent shop lights are great too.

You can use daylight bulbs to have a fixed color temp. Just set your cameras shutter at 100 to compensate for the balest flicker issues and you are set to go.

Florescent daylight bulbs are awesome too.

you can put a string of these things together and you got great even light.

I am not sure what these are called but I will call them shop lights for now. In any case, you can use these and they are super cheap to get.

You can use long florescent lights or the bulbs to a green screen or infinite white. I am sure your imagination can go wild with these lights alone. If you get the dim able florescent light bulbs you can controle the amount of light in your environment. Not to mention getting those nice close up shots.

Halogen shop lights also work ok but its a little on the warm side and a little muddy. I would use these for indoor and out door shoots because of the warmth it can produce. Keep in mind that these store bought halogen lights are like 300 kalvin. Tungsten is 320 kalvin. I would not bother jelling it. let the camera on daylight or tungsten and leave it at that. You can always color correct in post.

You can also use screen door mesh to cut out light from out side. It works kinda like a silk. If you have a screen big enough you can put it behind the subject on a bright sunny day and cut out about 1-2 stops from the bright back ground. you can also hang it over there heads to cut out light.

These lighting elements are all things you can find lying around the house. The diference between these penny productions and a big budgeted production is the amount of energy it takes to make it all come together. Having money to spend on a production cuts out some of the headache, but it does not make it any easer. Its just different. Putting stuped people in charge of any money will cause problems and will drain a budget rather quickly. These tips will help minimise budget related issues and make producing a film more realistic.

So get out there and make a movie already. With these tips there should be no excuse for why you can't make a good movie under a shoestring budget.

Robert Sawin

Free and cheap resources for filmmakers

2010-12-24T12:37:00.000-08:00

There is a ton of resources for filmmakers to learn from and there is a ton of things we can get that are free and very cheap. I am going to Share with you some of the free stuff I acquired over the years and It was all useful to me as an aspiring filmmaker.

"KODAK's Cinematographer's Field Guide:"

This used to be a free publication, but I guess now its not. I am sure if you went to Kodak in hollywood and in person and asked them for this stuff they will give it to you freely. They also have a bunch of detailed brochures about there stocks they can give you as well.

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Publications/Cinematographers_Field_Guide/index.htm

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/H-2_Cinematographers_Field_Guide_6-09.pdf

If you want there an "incamera" mag you can subscribe here.

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Publications/In_Camera/InCamera_Magazine_Subscription/index.htm

If you are a student that wants some discounts on film you can always call Gail Sanchez

her number is 1-323-468-2110

She is really good with students she gave me a great deal for my films. Kodak is famous for establishing great reputations early on with filmmakers and cinematographers allike. They get a lot of there business from filmmaker's word of mouth, just like my self, because of there excellent ability to help out starting filmmakers and cinematographers. Regardless of the competition, that is Fujifilm, and the different look there stocks create, they still get a loyal filmmaker following. I can't deny my loyalness to kodak because of there generosity.

Fujifilm is not a bad company its just different. Don't get me wrong I love there film stock allot because of its surreal look. Kodak's stock is more natural and has a good visual reproduction of the world.

In any case Fujifilm still has free stuff that has helped me immensely when studding film.

For a subscription to Exposure Magazine go here:

http://business.fujifilm.co.uk/motion/subscription.html

http://business.fujifilm.co.uk/motion/exposuremag.html

Fujifilm also has there version of the cinematographers manual.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/motion_picture/products/pdf/fujifilm_motion_picture_film_manual.pdf

I think if you went to Fujifilm they could give you a hard copy for free. They also have a ton of detailed brochures of there stocks too.

If you want a Free Fujifilm demo reel you can get it here. Its an awesome pice displaying what the stocks can do and profesional cinematographers explane there techniques in the demo. Kodak has a demo of there stocks, but you have to go visit kodak or call them up to see if you can get a free copy of there demo reel. While your at it ask them if they have any other free dvds or publications they can give you. Just tell them you are new to filmmaking and that you are a student.

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/motion_picture_film/demo_reel/order/index.do

"American society of cinematographers" also has a magazine and while it may not be free it does have a free digital archive for those who want to read the back issues. If you have the money I say subscribe to the magazine. Some of the best cinematographers got allot of knowledge from this magazine. The only negative side to the magazine is that most of the articles are about films that have used kodak as the filmstock. But still its a pretty comprehensive magazine.

http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/archive.php

There are a ton of free magazines out there but I am only going to name a select few good ones that you can get a lot of info from.

"Millimeter magazine:"

Millimeter is a good balanced magazine featuring both film and digital and has a lot of new tech gear being featured in it. The mag probably focuses more on the digital side but its the only one that I know of that does not do all Digital video talk.

http://subscribe.millimeter.com/subscribe.cfm

"Post magazine:"

Post is really a mag for vfx people, but there is no reason why filmmakers should not be in the loop of the FX industry.

http://www.omeda.com/cgi-win/post.cgi?mode=main

This is also another great vfx resource that is not free, but awesome nonetheless this magizene is called cinefx.

http://www.cinefex.com/

you can see all the back issues here

http://www.cinefex.com/back_issues.html

The only reason why I mention Cinefx is because every thing about this mag is so awesome and if you ever get a chance to read it, its almost like a piece of art in itself. Its just a sold visual FX magazine.

"Creativity Magazine:"

Creativity is a free magazine, but it is also a paid subscription as well. I like this mag because it has a lot of good advice for people in the industry not just movie makers. It talks about jobs, trends and tips.

http://creativity-online.com/register

Once you start subscribing to these free magazines you will find that there are other free mags out there with just as much valuable information.

Here is another resourceful tip one of the biggest events in the world to go to for new visual technology is the national association of broadcasters. The NAB is open every year and tho it may not be free if you are going to school for filmmaking you might be able to ask some one like a professer who got free tickets to the NAB to give you one. Its an awesome event to go to. I havent been but someday I plan to.

http://www.nab.org/

Another event to go to that is not free but you can still mingle with the players in hollywood is at the American film market. If you go, try not to embarrass your self there. This is a fantastic place for networking so sit in the patio have some lunch and try starting a conversation with the big players. Remember these are just people and they are all sharks one way or another, but still its not a bad place to network and exchange business cards at. So have fun there, relax and mingle. You never know who you might meet. You might even get an opportunity to get a job. who knows. The American film market is also a place to sell films. so if you make an indi flick show it off there you never know who might want buy it. people are known to getting a check in hand before leaving the event so find out how to display your film there. Also If you do have the money I highly recommend getting your self a pass. Its worth its wight in gold. Its kinda like gold mining there.

http://www.afma.com/

I am sure there are more great resources to dab into these are a few to start with and I am sure over time you will get some killer new leads for free and cheap stuff down the road based off of the info here.

Next time I will blog about free and cheap filmmaking tips to getting those productions done under $1000 using film or digital as a medium.

By
Robert Sawin

Uncovering the myth on Directing

2010-12-20T14:57:00.000-08:00

Directing is an art in it self. Often times people who start out wanting to be a director often have the want or need to controle, or take king ship over the set artistically with a Napoleon complex. I have been studying directing for a while and have directed a few short films and have come to the conclusion that the individual person who is welling to direct must be willing to take on the movie as a whole. Especially in guerrilla filmmaking. Humans inherently want to be god and directing is a way to get that feeling. But all to often there are a lot of wanna bee directors out there or rock star directors who decide to pick up the camera, wave the arme, and clame them self fame with a few cut frames of footage. I am sure there are allot of writers who want to be directors but the truth is every one and there mother wants to direct. The competition is just too high.

Part of the art of directing is working with other minds not just your own. Directors are just a small part of the puzzle, it is the group as a whole that gives a movie a more rich development. A director who relies Primarily on him or her self when making a movie has and will have a tendency make that movie feel like it has a single voice with no depth or soul. That is, all the characters will sound the same and the movie as a whole will be flat.

Young directors need to realize that the team as a whole is important on every level. There is nothing wrong with giving the script to every one and the janitor for Critique and revision. Every person on the face of the planet has an experience to share. Collectively with the direction of the director can mold the script in to a rich product. In a very rare case is any script so good that it only needs the first draft to go into production. Million doller baby is a fine example and some famous play rights are that way too. But don't hold your breath. To get a group of minds that think collectively in sink is not so easy and when you find those minds work hard to maintain the relationship.

The entire entertainment industry is built on relationships in one form or another. So get along with every one. You never know who will be the next steven spealburg. At the same time every one in this industry has there little black book of who they won't work with ever again. So learn to get along and know who you can and can not work with.

Every person in this industry has there weakness and strengths in the art world. Learn to play off your strengths as well as learning how to tap in to another artest for his strengths.

Respect everyone and there experiences. It is easy to look down upon those who don't have the clout, money, resources, talent etc. Everyone is valuable especially good people with good work ethics. As a director one must earn there respect amongst there peers by being patient, understanding, kind, compassionate, ambitious, and is not afraid to get in the trenches with there own crew on any level.

A director must be willing to be the servent to his crew and not the other way around. A good director must involve the entire teem in the filmmaking process and take impute from everyone and anything. A director must do just that direct. He must direct the ideas and talent accordingly so that a single vision is attained and the story essence is not lost.

People who write scripts and have no desire to become a director are more likely to actually make a film because the reality is hungry directors need good scripts and there are a lot of starving directors out there.

The point I am trying to make here is it is better to actually have a finished film then to say I must be this or that if I am going to make a film. Making a film in general is hard work. Making a good first film that stands out is an act of God. Any film produced is a miracle. movies are not made they are forced in to existence. Everything in the known universe is against you when producing or making a film in general. You need to have the confidence the size of an elephant, but you still need to be able to know how to bring the right minds and the right people to the set. No movie can afford to have narcissistic egos on the set. If it does it will fail.

A good book to read on producing is "So You Want to Be a Producer" by Lawrence Turman. Probably one of my many must reads. I recommend this because regardless of what path you want to take its good to understand relationship between the director and the producer there world. Both the director and the producer should work together artistically, creatively and on a business level. Both are not better then the other. However, it is sad that many people feel that one is better then the other. I have been on both sides of the fence and one can not exist with out the other. The roles must exist to suport the film.

Film schools over glamorize the directoral position to the point where every one seems to graduate as a director, or a cinematographer or an editor. There is no focus. Sure I like to direct but I'd much rather make a movie then sit and twiddle my fingers wishing for the day some one might ask me the honers. Big name directors come from all walks of life and A list directors account for less then less then 1 percent of the directoral pie.

A book I segest on reading about this topic is called:

The Working Director: How to Arrive, Survive and Thrive in the Director's Chair by Charles Wilkinson.

Great book for some one who just wants to know how to be a working director not a rock star director.

Its nice to have dreams in this world and directing is a nice dream to have, but not at the expense of other peoples money. How in gods name is anyone going to tust any person on paper when the numbers are not there. Let alone If you only got one shot to make a financially viable feature why blow it when you can suport the millions of cheap A list talent out there who are starving for the work.

Making a movie is not all about directing. Producing is probably the best way in to the game. From a producer's perspective, the movie is riding on him or her to make a good film, but you have a better chance to ride on the coattails of other well known talent who have proven them self and proven to the money that they can do it again and again. Not to mention that once you make enough the option to direct a movie based off of producing clout is not too far off.

a good example is the producer by the name of Nora Ephron. She is a fabulous well rounded artest. she started out acting in films then writing then producing and went on to directing. She is best known for her romantic comedies and is a triple nominee for the Academy Award for Writing Original Screenplay; for Silkwood, When Harry Met Sally... and Sleepless in Seattle. She sometimes writes with her sister Delia Ephron. Her most recent film is Julie & Julia.

I am not saying producing is the only way to directing but it is a way. The path to directing and producing are not so different from one another and both positions lead to the other and vice versa. In fact the two are interchangeable and many well known directors are also seasoned producers.

Movie making takes work no matter what you do. Establishing credibility takes even more work and having a movie that actually makes money is an act of God not to mention the fact of actually finishing the picture. Especially from a person who is trying to break in to the industry.

There is a way to the path of directing those big budget features and no matter how you look at it you still have to produce and direct and quite possibly write the films your self to get there. Hence it takes a lot of work, money and resources. The sad truth of the matter is you have to buy your way in to the industry ether that or someone you know takes you under there wing to get you to the top. I know this reality all to well. I have been on both sides of the playing field and lived to tell this tail. There is no doubt that in the shark infested world of filmmaking you need the upper hand but you also have to make friends with the devil aka the sharks. This is not to say you need kiss butt. Its a mutual power game. People who kiss butt are easily spotted and are considered the loest of the low because they will scratch there way to the top at all cost and will take and steal without any remorse and will have no fruits or offerings to the move making effort.

This is a big hint for all you future filmmakers. No matter what if there is no money and agreements not written in legal form it does not exist. Other wise its all talk. If this is scaring any of you then that is good. I hope to scare the pants off of any one who is not willing to fight the battle.

One major methed of becoming a director in the circuit of the filmmaking industry is festivals. After a movie is made you want to get the film lots of exposure. This exposure can be attached to the film on the based of winning awards. In the festival world, you have to submit to smaller festivals first then to bigger festivals. The key here is exposure. Films can actually be sold this way. Look at your options and don't be to greedy because your first big film should always be the slut. Pardon my french, but it is the truth. The fact is credibility is more important then your position, money or any thing else. So put all your standerds aside and hustle your film in to existence. The person with the film has what no one else has, an actual physical product in hand. A film is tangible once it has been put on disk or medium of choice.

The internet is nice, but its just a small way for people to get to know your work. But the film needs the illusion that it has been exposed to the right places. This whole industry is built on an illusion, yet in the end there must be a product and that product must see distribution in order for it to make sense financially. The old saying goes, "power follows money and money follows power." This craft of movie making is still a Business. In the end people still need to make money to suport there habits. The more a person is willing to compromise and pass the torch on to someone more established then them selves the more likely investors will invest in a film so it can get made. From the gorilla standpoint micro budget films have different rules, but if you want a bigger budget try getting an A list director with named talent. Who knows, if you go with Mr. A list director then you might learn a thing or two about the craft.

Building a filmmaking team starts when you go to school. Try to find the right people to work with. Establishing a good film team early is the key to not getting your self shafted later. If every one on the team can't respect one another then what is the point. I have learned this lesson the hard way and I will never do it again. It does not hurt to bring new people in once and awhile but caution and limited tolerance for negative energy and a lack of respect should not be a part of the filmmaking experience. Making a movie is already hard enough as it is. Why add an element that proves more of a headache and heartache.

Never invest your self in a film that you know deep down is not something that makes you passionate. Working on any film is already enough of a chalenge. If you can't believe in it and you are trying to force it in to existence then you will find your self going no where fast and your energy along with your spirit of filmmaking will just be wasted. Making a film takes a part of you and your soul. learning how to develop pashen for filmmaking is as much a part of the craft as the art it self. The business part of the art will never go away and the two must coexist in unison to exist at all. Both the business and the art can not survive with out the other, at least not long term. So if some one offers you a paying gig take it if it does not conflict with your personal beliefs or morals. Nothing wrong with being selective but you also don't want to be starving artest ether.

So get out and make films. Worry about status and the money later. It is better to make a film then to clame your self a title and wish you made a film.

Robert Sawin

Eye see TV

2010-12-19T10:33:00.001-08:00

Probably the most frustrating technologies to come out today is the new flat screen tvs with the super high refresh rate. At least to me anyways. The new refresh rate makes all them fancy movies look like fancy hand held handy cam productions. The reason why I am so frustrated with it is its messing with the intended look and feel filmmaker wanted there audience to see.

To put an end to this who haw I wanted to do a little research of my own and I found a lot of interesting facts along the way. These facts are a little jumbled so I have to sorta reinterpret what they are.

I came across a post that kinda puts the Hz myth in to prospective.

Regular TV (or the old style standard definition) consisted of 525 lines every 1/30th of a second. Problem was, all the odd numbered lines (1,3,5,7...) were drawn in the first 1/60th of a second, and then the even numbered lines were drawn in the next 1/60th of a second, so there was a complete frame only every 1.30th of a second. Someone got the idea that storing and displaying all 525 lines in 1/60th of a second, and then repeating it for the next 1/60th of a second, would somehow make it refresh faster and look smoother. It didn't. But those same people convinced themselves that it would also double the resolution since it drew the frames twice as fast. Again, it didn't.

Now comes HD tv, where a complete frame consists of 1080 lines, every 1/30th of a second, called 1080i. You still have the diehards who desperately want to believe that doubling the refresh rate will double the resolution, so Blu-Ray stores and displays a complete 1080-line frame in 1/60th of a second, and then repeats it for another 1/60th of a second, or what's called 1080p.

You cannot create what is not there. All the faster refresh rate does is show the inadequacies of the display.

The same problem surfaced when CD's first came out. Analog music was stored on digital discs, and the superior rendering of the digital technology only served to accent the inadequacies of analog mastering. When mastering went digital, then CD's were a good medium to reproduce the music.

As Lois Lane will tell you about Superman, faster is not necessarily better. Video games are produced in 1080p and look good in 1080p, but TV and movies are produced in 1080i, and trying to display them in 1080p only shows the inadequacies of 1080i. If you want to watch movies, set your TV for 60 Hz.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081011175144AA40laM

To reiterate, 60 Hz on a flat screen and the DVD signal to the tv projecting 23.94 fps is the resenation point the eye needs to see as normal. The new technology delivering 120 hz and beyond to consumers is only displaying the same 24 frame rate 5 times in a singel second.

The only way this 120 Hz and beyond tv signal will ever be properly adressed is if the movie industry decides to recognize the faster refresh rate and distributes the content with the intentions of displaying it on the 120 Hz tv.

In a sense we are already there. To project 3D properly to an audience you need double the 60 Hz signal to 120 Hz.

For years Filmmakers have been trying to prefect there craft and every time we get to a point in the industry where us filmmakers have it all figured out there has to be some grand technology that we have to try to adapt too. Its all unnecessary. We have so many digital cameras out with so many ways of capturing the image. Why we can't stick with the original concept of capturing one frame at a time is beyond me. The Red cinema camera is the only digital camera to truly understand the film to digital leap.

When consumers go out to buy there next new TV they are often buying under ignorance thinking just because the tech is new and improved it is automatically better. Its all an advertising gimmick. My friend seems to think this technology is here to stay and that I need to adapt to it as a filmmaker. In many ways that may be true, but now the entire tv industry has opened up a whole new can of worms. I don't think I can predict the future on this 120 hz projection technology. But if anything, something is going to have to give.

One thing is certain that no matter how we change the technology Humans are always going to be on the receiving end of media distribution. All humans have there limitations including the limited metheds of how we can receive information from the outside world and at what tolerances. One thing scientist still debate on is the refresh rate of the eye signal to the brain.

From what I understand american standard of shooting film is at 24 fps. The projected rate is at 48 fps. standard NTSC video is projected at 29.97 fps and is projected at 60 hz. Pal standard is shot at 25 fps and projected at 50 hz. So the common factor is we need to project twice the frame rate the motion picture was shot at. In other words, the resonation factor of the projected medium must coincide with the frequency projected in order to achieve resonance with the human eye that supplies signal to the brain.

according to wikipedia, The human visual system does not see in terms of frames; it works with a continuous flow of light information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

Everything in life works on frequencies of energy. Everything in the universe is connected threw energy of one form to another. Watching a TV is one way of receiving visual information in a frequency form. To our eye we need light in order to see things. If light did not bounce off of or project out of a source or an object then we could not see the object. What we see in the world is all based off of perception. Our brain has to interpret that information into what we think is factual information.

The average human mind revives and translates visual information at 1/10th - 1/15th of a second on average. hence is why we can see motion from a flip book projected at 10 frames a second. When the body's endorphins kick in during a moment of excitement such as a human experiencing a car crash or exposure to an attractive subject, the human mind revives and translates visual information at a maximum of 1/30th of a second. Hence is why we see that car crash or hot babe in slow motion because when our mind projects the memory back to us it is projected at half the speed the information was captured. Film works in a very simular way. If a projector is set to project a 24 fps movie and the film shot was shot at 120 fps then the information would be 5 times slower because it would take more time to project the 120 frames. But if the projector was set to project a 120 fps movie then the image would apear to be normal.

The human watching a tv is not totally in resonance with the medium being projected. A frame that is projected twice allows the mind the chance to register the signal.

This notion that we need to send projected frequencies at a higher rate then humans can process is not how we are made to receive information to begin with. In other words its not natural. Humans weren't designed to see the world threw a 120 hz handy cam 2D movie.

I think there is a connection here as to how we receive and project information. If the mind receives and interprets information at about 1/15th of a second and film captures that information twice that then to deliver visual information smoothly with out motion artifacts (blurriness, judder, etc.) has to be projected twice the speed as it was captured.

So 25 fps film is twice that of what the human mind can captures which is the reception of visual information captured at 1/15th of a second. I think there is a correlation here between projection and reception and the resonating frequencies connecting the two.

To project 25 fps it has to be projected twice the Hz or double the frames inorder for the receiving end, that is the human, to receive and interpret that information at 1/15th of a second.

I thought I should provide this fact so people can understand this whole shutter fraction vs Frames per second and shutter angel craziness.

A shutter in a film camera is a spinning disk. A circle is 360 degrees so a half-circle is 180 degrees, so 180/360 = 1/2. A camera running at 24 fps means that each frame exists for 1/24th of a second in the gate.

So 1/24 x 1/2 = 1/48th, the time the shutter is actually open at 24 fps with a 180 degree shutter. So if the shutter is 45 degrees (what "Private Ryan" and "Gladiator" did), then that's 45/360, or 1/8.

1/24 x 1/8 = 1/192, the time the shutter is open. So pick at shutter speed when shooting at 24P that is close to that, probably 1/200th or 1/250th, not knowing specifically what the camera offers.

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=15407

I am not going to get in to shutter angel in this blog but I thought the math might be nice to know.

as you can see there is a lot more going on then just ramping up the Hz on a flat screen TV to "make it look better."

So the next time you go out to buy a TV ask your self what applications is this really going to benefit and can the medium I have suport this technology.

Robert Sawin

Stop that

2010-12-17T11:00:00.000-08:00

I had an argument one day with a fellow class mate in collage. I still remember the argument to this day because I believe he made a moronic statement by clamming having a light meter on set of a digital production was not necessary and that one can see there results in camera.

I think I speak for most "profesional cinematographers" that the light meter is the most essential tool for lighting. I have to admit it is possible to light without a light meter, but when lighting without a meter you are blind from ever knowing the balance of lights. I believe that it is essential to light in stops especially in digital.

To the audience, bad lighting is noticeable and in digital the evidence of bad lighting is glaring. In digital the latitude is not there when shooting extreem lighting conditions. If I am not mistaken Digital has a maximum latitude of 4 stops maximum maybe more or less in some cases. I know this because I tested one of my DVCAMs under extreem lighting conditions. DV vs HD is vastly different in how it processes Lights and darks. Both have a tendency to clip out at a certain range. Such as shooting the sun on the beach. In the edit room there is a glaring problem when trying to adjust the color under extreem lighting conditions because of huge gaping holes of missing information. When adjusting the color, especially in DV there is a tendency for that missing information to take on the same color as the corrected hue.

In the case of the sun shot if I where to change the color correction to say purple then there will be a huge purple blob on the screen like a 3 yo took a crayon and colored it in. In film, having over or under exposure is allot more forgiving especially with the new stocks out today. Its actually pretty crazy you can get like 7 or 8 stops of over and under exposure and it still looks good. and even if you shot the image wrong you can alway push or pull the stock to compensate for the over or under exposure. There is just too many good things to say about film, but the glaring reality is the price to produce any level of production is just not realistic under tight budget constraints. Of corse I miss shooting on film but the producer in me always knows that it is better to make a motion picture on HD then it is to wish about making a picture on film.

As for the meter situation I strongly believe that lighting a set and actors in stops is the way to go because for some reason each stop exactly is the most accurate way to balance the lighting as a whole and the audience can see that. Maybe not consciously, but subconsciously they will.

I know the limitations of DV and HD and no matter how you work with it if it is not balanced it will show up in post one way or another. So what ever you have to do to balance the light wether it means to gell the windows or put a screen behind the actors to cut out the light or whatever, the fact is digital is very picky on what it can and can not shoot. In the post room digital will make it clear, like a big "I told you so." You can't always rely on those zebras ether. yes it can save your butt, but there is no better way to discover those holes then to use a light meter.

Even when shooting in dark situations for the effect you still want to light in stops. and don't make the assumption that film handle latitude better. If you are going to shoot in film or digital you have to adjust the lighting in strategic stops to balance it for post. So when you have the image in post you can then adjust the brightness and shadows accordingly. You can not adjust information that is not there.

Most digital cameras HD or DV will always have a tendency to act up in a night scene. Typically there will be a lot of digital noise in extreem dark situations. In film the same phenomenon will occur, but its not as drastic as HD or DV will produce. Film has a natural fall off. Digital will just simply clip the information.

It is important to understand the limitations on the medium you are shooting on because you can use the rules to your advantage on the set or just simply avoid the problem before it ever hits post.

One positive thing I will say about shooting digital is you can always manipulate the look in camera depending it's capabilities. For example, I can fully manipulate my canon XH A1 color temperature, the saturation and even individual color matrixes. By manipulating all these things in the digital camera you can over expose or under expose to your hearts content because all the color information was captured along with the image. But don't rely on this technique unless you have a specific shot in mind.

So go out and make that big movie and don't be afraid to make mistakes or bend the rules. Just know the limitations so you can better justify them when shooting.

By
Robert Sawin

The Actor look

2010-12-16T12:26:00.000-08:00

When casting for a movie, the look of the part can be equally if not more important then the acting itself. People often judge on appearances. It takes an average person 6-11 seconds to look, analyze and come to a consensus about a person, place, or thing and 6 months to a year to change or challenge that opinion. This human ability to judge based off of appearances is all part of natural selection. Humans are constantly looking for genetic and physical compatibility.

A stereotype is often generated in the minds of people and there initial reactions may cause them to behave or think a certain way. For example, if an individual sees an over weight person they might assume that he or she eats too much, is lazy, slow and probably has many health problems. Our minds may be naturally inclined to reject, invoke negative thoughts or actions towards the individual based on first impression or assumptions. The survival of the fittest theory comes to mind when an individual automatically makes assumptions based off of perception.

In story, there are a number of ways to play off of a stereotype such as empathy, guilt, pity, bullying and so on. Our human interaction to the world is based off of simple conclusions and made complex by the reactions man exhibits. Personal genetic wants and needs are inherently built within our genetic code and fostered by nurture.

The term "sex sells" is a big tactic and it works because an individual who has lust over another individual may develop endorphins. Those endorphins trigger chemical reactions in the brain and in the boddy. When this chemical reactions occurs our pupils may dilate and our mind may work overtime to absorbe the information is sees. This information is collected by the mind and it stores it for future use. Any other information left standing during this process is also absorbed, thus making the ad that much more effective. What we choose to do with that information is up to the individual. Regardless, the mind has already made judgments and assumptions in a matter of seconds. Hence is why it is so important to have the right look for the role.

Chrisma or charm is also an important deciding factor in the casting process because after the first initial judgment based off of physical appearances our minds already have a built up expectation or stereotype of what that person should act like. Within the first few moments, the actor's mannerisms well be the final point before the audience's built up expectations can be met or not. So if the person looks like a dork, walks like a dork, talks like a dork then as the audience will probably perceive that he is a dork.

How humans respond to one another may ultimately create an archetype of self image. Our behavior and self image is a direct and distorted reflection of how the world responds to us. This phenomenon can be described as a distorted mirror of reality. These images of self and our need to be social is what causes the need to fit in. Kind of like birds. There are many different species of birds and typically birds of a feather flock together. If there is an injured bird amongst the group or the bird is of a different species then that bird may be rejected amongst the flock.

Same goes for people. This natural selection can be called a popularity contest of sorts. Societies are often built around stereotypes and archetypes. This selection can be based on the color of skin, rituals, customs, habits, religion etc...

The connection between individual and groups of people can create a social filter for physical features, habits and rituals. As humans we constantly try to make sense of the world by Categorizing people in groups and as a biproduct, stereotypes are produced. Anything different beyond an individuals understanding can cause confusion and the individual has to work hard to try to find a connection or category to put that new information in. The idea when making movies is to allow the audience to connect to the story and characters as much as possible so they can absorbe the content or message.

Different cultures and and societies can have a different ideal for a character's look. When casting there has to be a target audience and that audience has a norm of what that a particular look should be.

In casting, it is possible to go against the grain, but the audience will have to adjust to the new archetypes. An alternative archetype may take away from the story or it could add a new element all together.

I think a good analogy is the Archetype of a pretty female. A female who possesses striking features will get certain reactions from the public as a whole. To the female she has a better chance of picking her "ideal" mate. The odds are she will give the not so hansom / nice guys a cold shoulder and bat the eyelashes to the ones with hansom features, but not so good personalities. After so many failed relationships the pretty female may build a hard heart and when the nice, not so hansom type comes along she will want to fall in love, but the damage has already been done and the nice guy is left to pick up the pieces. Hence, nice guys finish last syndrome.

The fight or flight response from the judgment of other people can often times lead to a learned response. The individual may develop defense and tolerances to filter these world issues. Much like our immune system does to foreign invaders.

There are so may variables to how and why people respond the way they do. But all to often, its the distorted world view which causes people to behave the way they do. In casting, we can use this phenomenon to our advantage. We can take the experiences and reactions of other people based off there looks and group them. Casting in this way can expose similarities between how a person behaves and how they look aka the stereotype.

So the next time you Cast for your next movie, ask your self what physical features does the actor needs to create a particular Archetype that will ultimately help tell the story.

Robert Sawin

endorphins

chrisma

Acting techniques and the Cinema

2010-12-15T11:10:00.000-08:00

As a filmmaker I often come across a lot of different actors with different disciplines. I am sure there is allot of opinions out there on what is the best discipline, but I have to make my own opinion on the subject because as a person who makes films I often see lacking in performance on camera and in the edit room.

I know of many actors who gravitate towards film will only use the meisner technique.

Meisner Training is an interdependent series of exercises that build on each other. The more complex work supports a command of dramatic text. Meisner students work on a series of progressively complex exercises to develop an ability to improvise, to access an emotional life, and finally to bring the spontaneity of improvisation and the richness of personal response to text. The technique develops the behavioral strand of Stanislavski's 'system', via its articulation in an American idiom as Method acting. The technique asserts this by emphasizing "moment-to-moment" spontaneity through communication with other actors to generate behavior that is truthful under imaginary circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meisner_technique

I find Meisner technique too stubble and often times it lacks a well roundedness if not balanced with theater.

Theater is the actores medium. It forces the actor to say large chunks of dialogue and forces him or her to use the whole body to project emotion to the audience. Theater also allows the actor to connect with the audience and the audience can connect with the actor. This connection allows for a moment by moment critique from the audience.

In filmmaking the actor is relient on the director for guidance. Tho director guidance may be necessary, the director is still human and may not always be able to express a specific execution. Therefore, an actor has to interpret that direction. At the end of every performance the delivery is still to the audience. If an actor can feed off the reactions of the audience he or she is better able to fine tune there acting skill on the spot and for future performance.

In theater there is a lot of repetition. Theater can be good for acting infront of the camera because it forces the actor to act on beats and hit the same mark every time delivering consistent continuity.

With the meisner technique the actor is too relient on the emotion at a given time and the performance is not always the same. Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with getting in to character, but to rely on emotion is disaster for any actor. One of the biggest chalenges for any actor is to act on demand. Hence, why relying on emotional readiness is not going to work if the actor is going to have to act on cue.

When I took a class on theater, I learned of the Stanislavski's system of acting. The Stanislavski's system is well rounded and most other metheds of acting derive off of Stanislavski's system.

Internal experiences and their physical expression are unbreakably united. Whether it is through a facial expression or the tapping of a foot, everything a human experiences psychologically is displayed through physical means. This is termed a psycho-physical union. On stage, if an actor experiences only internal feelings or only physical actions, then the performance is dead. The reasoning behind this goes back to the union of the psychological and physical—the two go hand-in-hand. For an actor to portray a character employing one aspect of the union without the other is to perform incompletely. Stanislavski developed a technique he called "the method of physical actions" to solve the dilemma of spontaneity in a created environment (stage or film set). In this technique, the actor would perform a physical motion to create the desired emotional response. For instance, if an actor needed to tear up, he could sigh and hold his head in his hands, a physical action that many who are crying instinctively do. The correct physical action does not come automatically for any psychological response. Many times, actors need to experiment until they determine what best works for them and for the character they are trying to portray. The best way to experiment in this many is through improvisation, and the best improvisers are those who can intuitively act and behave as though in a real situation. Through his work, Stanislavski reversed the human reaction system in which an emotion allocates an action. Method actors use actions to control their emotions. The best actors are those who "live" in silences and not only in words. Reacting is essentially emoting and includes allowing the body to outwardly express what the mind is inwardly experiencing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislavski's_system

I am sure there are a lot of actors that would love to argue with this idea, just as there are many different approaches to art as a whole. What I am expressing here is there are rules in the art of filmmaking and there times to bend those rules. The Stanislavski's system is often neglected, but without the Stanislavski's system we would not have all the other methods we have today such as the Meisner technique. The Stanislavski's system is really the whole system of acting and like anything in life the Stanislavski's system is really about balance.

For those who have already been taught using such acting disciplines as the Meisner technique, my suggestion is for those actors to focus on theater, especially Shakespeare. Some of the best actors I know act in theater and have done Shakespeare. The combination is enough to really polish the actors craft.

If any actor who is starting out I recommend reading:

An Actor Prepares

Building A Character

Creating A Role

These books are all by Constantin Stanislavski. I guarantee that these books will make any aspiring actor better in there craft regardless of there discipline.

The Stanislavski System: The Professional Training of an Actor by Sonia Moore

Sonia Moore worked directly with Stanislavski and understands his system much better than E. Hapgood. Not that the books vagueness is all her fault. It seems that Stanislavki goes to great lengths to explain things that are, nowadays, common sense. He certainly wasn't the first to ever think of these concepts; he was merely the first to organize them and give them names.

I find that most starting actors I work with lack presents on screen. I guarantee its because there is a lack in balanced acting and its because they have a lack of or no experience in theater or Shakespeare.

I believe if the actor understands the Stanislavski's system and acts in theater especially performing Shakespeare then there is no doubt in my mind that they will make better actor on the screen.

By
Robert Sawin

Cinematography: Lighting as focus

2010-12-11T09:09:00.000-08:00

A lot can be said about the art of lighting but some times the simplest lighting can often make the best lighting. A wise cinematographer once said "good lighting is the lights you don't turn on." I paraphrased that from a cinematography documentary. The quote is almost like saying "keep it simple stupid." I'd have to say my best lighting is when I used a lamp in the house and 2 hooligan lights I found out side.

I think there is a lot to be said about lighting when it is used as a means to give levels of focus on subjects of importance within a frame. These levels of focus can be designed in stops. The key element is at key and every thing else is dropped or raised a stop according to the look of the image. Say you are advertising coke and you want your audience to notice it. Keep the can at key and the subject one stop under the third object of focus should be 3 stops under and so on.

I remember doing a video brochure for a client with little to no exterior lighting or at least proper lighting and I was having the darndest time trying to focusing my eyes on the subject in the frame who was speaking. So I used a Vignette filter on the video. The filter helped isolate the subject from the back ground and helped the audience see the brightest object which was the subject.

The effect was so affective I used it throughout the whole piece. Normally as a professional video person I would never stick on one effect, but this situation proved it needed the effect to tell the story. Telling a story threw light can be an art in it self. Often times good lighting goes unnoticed by the audience, but bad lighting can be a glaring mistake and often distract the audience from the actual story.

How we focus lighting within the image is the key to how the audience responds to what they see first to last. It is a scientific fact that people will inherently go for the brightest part of the image first to the darkest part then on the most visually pleasing like a pretty woman or a fluid "S" shape. The term "visually pleasing" can be talked about another time.

One of the bigest mysteries I have come across is that humans naturally emit light and energy. If one where to meter an object vs a human under the same lighting situations then he would find that the human is one stop more in exposure. I am not saying you should rely on this in any means but it is a nice fact that humans have sort of a natural glow. so it does not mater whether you are black or white. the effects are still the same. Even in our natural world humans stand out because they are in a sense light and energy. This is all not new information and I am sure one could find this information readily available.

So the next time you are out lighting a scene, ask your self what is the most visually important for your audience to see first and what is the least important for the audience to see. If you can answer this question you can light almost any scene.

Robert Sawin

The motion picture and the physiological connection

2010-12-08T15:09:00.000-08:00

What are movies? Movies are a collection of images that that are presented in a linear fashion to invoke a cognitive connection. Watching movies has been said to be an escape from the real world . An experience that invoked or helps invokes certain feelings. From childhood to adults our minds learn and adapt in a autonomic fashion.

The people, places, things humans experience and get to know on a daily bases is all part of the human experience and how we learn to respond and react to the world around us. This cycle of connective behavior has a way of repeating in all humans. In other words humans are essentially predictable yet complex creatures under simple situations. Feelings such as love, hate, sadness, happens etc.. Are all chimerical reactions in our body designed to help us cope in the world around us.

The old saying goes "where only human" is probably the most elegant way to put our legacy as a race of beings. Good story captures the simple parts of human experience in a way that allows the audience to become emotionally invested.

Our minds seek to find reason in order to cope and connect with the world around us. If we didn't our bodies would be under constant stress. simular to an alzheimer patient. During early stages they can become confused, combative and unaware of there world. Later as the disease becomes progressively worse and they began to develop no recollection of who they are and what they are.

Alzheimer's can be hard on any family because the family may feel hopeless. Like the soul has left, but the shell is still there. As humans the only thing that connects us with one another is our legacy, our past. A person has once said "don't let your past define who you are." But it is our identity to the world that keeps us connected to it. Its our safety and our worse enemy. How we respond to the world helps define our selves and our direction in life. Humans, inherently, will always try to seek meaning and purpose.

Historically, there have been documented cases where US soldiers where captured in a WWII german concentration camp and they where forced to move large rocks from one end of the camp to the other. The task proved to be meaningless and with out purpose. The us solders who lost hope ended there life by trying to get the german guards to shoot them.

If the mind can not justify meaning and purpose then the person could loose hope and most likely die by ending there lives or simply die of depression.

In any good movie, people often look for a satisfying and compete ending. Even if its a doom and glume ending. The plot can still allows our minds to come to rest knowing the story had a rational conclusion.

Reason is a mental faculty (or ability) found in humans, that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose specific reasons, or explanations of cause and effect. In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

The elusion that our mind often generate conclusions from assumptions or premises is what keeps our bodies from developing stress. when the mind is confused the body can stress easily.

There are some things our mind cannot reason, but it just simply except. For example, color. what is color where does it come from why do we respond to it the way we do?

No one can explane color but we can explane what it connects too. for instance the blue sky a red apple and so on.

Our Dreams are not so distant from our experiences in the world. Simply put our dreams are a series of images that pass threw our mind. During a given day filled with activity our minds stor temporary information such as sight, and sound. However, if we are bombarded by information then our minds could shut down. Very much like a person studying for a test the night before. The mind can only take so much new information in a given time before it shuts down. If a movie is too confusing then the mind will do things like shut down to cope with the stress.

During REM sleep our mind has to organize that data. That data could be any thing. The more rich our experience was during the day the more vivid our dreams can become.

REM sleep in adult humans typically occupies 20–25% of total sleep, about 90–120 minutes of a night's sleep. During a normal night of sleep, humans usually experience about four or five periods of REM sleep; they are quite short at the beginning of the night and longer toward the end. Many animals and some people tend to wake, or experience a period of very light sleep, for a short time immediately after a bout of REM. The relative amount of REM sleep varies considerably with age. A newborn baby spends more than 80% of total sleep time in REM.[2] During REM, the activity of the brain's neurons is quite similar to that during waking hours; for this reason, the REM-sleep stage may be called paradoxical sleep.[3] This means there are no dominating brain waves during REM sleep.

[...]

According to one theory, certain memories are consolidated during REM sleep. Numerous studies have suggested that REM sleep is important for consolidation ofprocedural memory and spatial memory. (Slow-wave sleep, part of non-REM sleep, appears to be important for declarative memory.) A recent study[7] shows that artificial enhancement of the non-REM sleep improves the next-day recall of memorized pairs of words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_eye_movement_sleep

It is not unusual if a person has a traumatic day could be more susceptible to a nightmare. The reason being is during the day our experiences could generate certain chemical reactions like feelings of fear, or worry. During rem sleep our minds still have to process those feelings and experiences in to long term storage.

This can be a very complex subject, but the poing I am trying to make here is the images that pass threw our mind can be very confusing and can also cause stress for the body if it does not cope with all those random images. good or bad. For example, one instant we could see a horse another minute we could see a room and our mind will or could put that horse in that room and from there our mind will cope by wanting to connect those images and in such a way that it feels like we are having some kind of connective story. The story may not make a whole lot of sense but if our minds did not do that then we would only be seeing random unconnected images with no meaning.

A person can tell a story using totally un connected images in different parts of the world and the audience will inherently want to connect those images making some sort of story. A good filmmaker understands human action and reaction. Often times that filmmaker could have experienced things in his or her life that allows them to tell stories the way they do. This phenomena can be interpreted as an artest style. while I would like to say an artest has style we really don't. Artest simply take life experiences and preexisting concepts and puts them together in such a way that the general audience cognitively connects to those images in a specific way. For example, you can have one image that has a little girl and the next image where a group of people seemingly family members standing over a coffin with the little girls picture next to it. This can segest to the audience that the girl has died and the audience develops appropriate emotional responses of sadness to connect with the tragedy.

Emotional responses in movies are not always 100 %, but at least the audience should be able to connect to the images in such a way that makes sense cognitively. A good artest can arrange the images in such a way that everyone gathers the same impression of the connected images. Universal exceptence is where most or all humans generally experience the same thing. Like love, joy, hate, violence etc...

If there is no universal exceptince in a motion picture then our minds could be lost in the content and could deliver no rational closure. A film that is just random with no universally connective themes will cause an audience's mind to work harder then it usually does. The human mind could do a number of things to cope with the lack of connectivity from one image to the next. the first thing is a person could just shut out or zone out, the second is a person can become flustered or confused. Humans react a number of ways to things they don't understand. Which is why if an artest takes the time to do simple story telling by exhibiting universally connective themes then the audience will have a better chance responding to the story the way the artest intended. In other words art is a science there are rules and while those rules can be bent to express a particular point or emotion these rules are there so humans can connect with the sequences of images in a particular and intentional manner. Without connection to these moving pictures the audience will be forced to connect in there own mind of how they want to emotionally and physically invest in to the movie.

So the next time you or some one you know wants to tell a story sit back and ask your self how can people connect universal to this story. Other wise the story will be like a bad joke that no one else, but the artest can understand.

By
Robert Sawinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

Motion picture: Our visual world

A lens is a lens is a lens

Part 2 of 2 understanding CGI integration

Part 1 of 2 understanding CGI integration

HDDSLR, and the fueled Technological movement

A topic on documentary filmmaking

Myths and problems concerning HD DSLRs

Bridging the Communication Gap between Producers and Crew

A depth of focus look at HD DSLR video and the image size

Cinema In cinematography, a focal length roughly equivalent to twice the diagonal of the image projected within the camera is considered normal, since movies are typically viewed from a distance of about twice the screen diagonal.

Table of sensor sizes Inch-based sensor formats are not standardized. Originally, they were the outer diameters of image tubes used in the 1950's. Exact dimensions may vary, but those listed are typical.

A perspective on Music video theory

Working with Scriptwriters.

Technical tips for Producing high end Indi film for theatrical distribution

Image and audio capability overview

The secret behind High grossing, blockbuster Movies

Search Results

All Time Worldwide Top 20

"Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal"

Perspective filmmaking and camera language

How to assess and produce the corporate client's visual needs

The pandora's box in Scriptwriting

Tips for creating a shoestring filmmaking budget

Free and cheap resources for filmmakers

Uncovering the myth on Directing

Eye see TV

Stop that

The Actor look

Acting techniques and the Cinema

An Actor Prepares

Building A Character

Creating A Role

The Stanislavski System: The Professional Training of an Actor by Sonia Moore

Cinematography: Lighting as focus

The motion picture and the physiological connection

Cinema

In cinematography, a focal length roughly equivalent to twice the diagonal of the image projected within the camera is considered normal, since movies are typically viewed from a distance of about twice the screen diagonal.

Table of sensor sizes

Inch-based sensor formats are not standardized. Originally, they were the outer diameters of image tubes used in the 1950's. Exact dimensions may vary, but those listed are typical.