626

(13 replies, posted in Off Topic)

A film crew (dozens to hundreds of people, all getting paid) can take days, weeks, whatever, to choreograph, build, light, block, rig, produce, and make a single scene happen. Locations, equipment, sets, lights, cranes, talent, whatever. Big productions aren't cheap. A longer take on a bigger set with more people just takes even longer, so costs more money.

So then you get into the actual logistics of a shot, where if something goes wrong, you have to reset and do it again. It's high risk. More time, more money.

There's a lot more to the cost of making a movie than the acquisition format.

627

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

628

(13 replies, posted in Off Topic)

629

(30 replies, posted in Off Topic)

630

(30 replies, posted in Off Topic)

631

(81 replies, posted in Off Topic)

632

(98 replies, posted in Episodes)

The DGA usually opposes co-director situations for this among other reasons, but discourse with someone from there, or anyone who deals with arbitration may provide some ideas.

That's pretty foul. Since there's nothing she can do contractually and the prints are struck, the best course of action off the top of my head would be to contact IMDb with the video where's she's mentioned as director and make a case for her to get her listed as such, but uncredited.

635

(44 replies, posted in Episodes)

636

(32 replies, posted in Off Topic)

iPad Safari and Linux Chrome are working fine on my end.

637

(90 replies, posted in Episodes)

638

(15 replies, posted in Off Topic)

639

(26 replies, posted in Off Topic)

640

(15 replies, posted in Off Topic)

641

(15 replies, posted in Off Topic)

642

(15 replies, posted in Off Topic)

643

(50 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Enthusiastic nomination for Edinburgh as the best place.

Just realized I didn't consider alcohol in the protecting the lowest common denominator angle, totally debasing whatever meager point I was exploring. Oops.

Guess it comes down to the degree of cultural acceptance, and since alcohol has been around since about the birth of agriculture, it's become pretty ingrained (grain haha beer get it). The long shelf life and dense caloric content made alcohol really valuable anywhere there's a winter. Prohibition proved it's kind of past the point of no return. The fact that it's a poisionous depressant's just an unfortunate side effect. PCP won't keep you chubby until the spring.

Cannabis was demonized at some point in US history for financial gain, right? I don't know the whole story, but wasn't weed outlawed in the first place because Hearst or some news magnate bought a wood pulp paper factory instead of hemp? And ever since, pressure from cotton and tobacco lobbies have helped keep it that way? Willing to toss that as upset stoner rhetoric hearsay if it is, never bothered to explore it since I don't smoke.

It's a weird thing. You can start arguing that if a substance can cause sudden death it should be controlled, and then consider alcohol poisoning. You can argue that a drug that can inspire violent insanity should be controlled, then consider again, alcohol.

Drug regulations are difficult laws to deal with, since the effects and repurcussions of the substances are tied to the individual's biological/psychological makeup. Legislation tends to protect the lowest common denominator with the highest chance of dangerous, crippling addiction. The slope, she is a slippery, and there's a pile of sad junkies at the bottom where it evens out.

That said, an exciting bonus of moving to California last year was the prospect of registering specifically to vote in favor of legalization.

646

(22 replies, posted in Episodes)

Holy damn is that fascinating. Just ordered the book, looking forward to flipping through it.

647

(26 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yeah, just elaborating, since I suppose I wasn't clear. Which happens a lot. I suck at English.

648

(26 replies, posted in Off Topic)

649

(26 replies, posted in Off Topic)

As mentioned, shutter artifacts from the way the camera draws a frame will fuck up tracking. The Foundry has a cool tool to compensate for that, but it's not 100% reliable.

Keying gets really hard because of the (8bit) compression algorithm used in the camera starts to degrade significantly when you introduce some arbitrary level of detail that's beyond the functional bitrate of the video. Then your edges go to shit.

Renting/borrowing/thiefing cameras for different projects will teach you a lot more about the pros and cons of the tools than any amount of forum discussion. And  (this is where I was less clear) if you're only looking to do a project once in a while, just renting a camera for shooting days can be the better option financially than dropping big bucks on your own for something that may not be used enough to justify the expense.

That money could go to more important, longer lasting aspects of your development as a filmmaker (like booklearnin or watching/buying more movies) Your brain and your ability to tell a compelling story is a lot more important than talking about sexy bokeh and compression artifacts.

But then again, can't underestimate how much you can learn about light and composition from shooting stills in manual with a prime lens. Which you can do with a 7D. If you just want to hear someone say to go buy a 7D, I'll say buy a 7D. And a 50 mil f/1.4. The sexiness-per-dollar ratio of that thing is unrivaled at the moment.

650

(26 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Rent a few different kinds of cameras and kit on a per project basis a couple times and try them out yourself. Better use of money, and you learn different systems. There are way too many variables against someone's specific requirements to say which they should buy and why.

And as you mentioned effects stuff, the Canon Ds are bad news for 3d tracking and greenscreen.


Use the several hundreds of dollars you save over buying a prosumer thing and pick up a handful of books about on set lighting and the ASC manuals, so when you actually do buy a killer camera, the investment is even more worth it.