FILM & DIRECTION

2008-02-19T11:40:00.001Z

Directing Tips

What it really means to be a director

by Mark Travis | Published January 15, 2007

(THIS ARTICLE IS TAKEN FROM WWW.MOVIEMAKER.COM)

Many of us have made films (short films, long films) and we take great pride in saying, “I made that.” But did we really? We say we’re “directors.” We say we “make films.” We may even call ourselves “moviemakers.” But what do we really do?

Think about it: You had a script, maybe you wrote it, and you decided to turn it into a film. You found some money and then you began the process. You worked with the writer, found yourself a producer, hired or begged for the services of a cinematographer, production designer, casting director and a crew. You cast some actors and found an editor. Then you went into rehearsal and production. You shot for as many days as you could and then there was post-produc-tion. By the end, you had worked with many people: Writer, producer, cinematographer, actors, sound mixer, production designer, wardrobe, hair, make-up, special effects, editor, composer, mixer, etc. When it was all done and up on the screen you pointed at it and said, ‘I did that.’ But what did you actually do?

Chances are you did not operate the camera, play all the parts, build or dress all the sets, find all the locations, do all the lighting, mix all the sound, do all the editing, composing, mixing and color correcting. In fact, there’s a good chance you did none of these things, yet you get to say ‘I made that film.’

The real challenge of being a director is that you have to do so much—yet you get to do so little. It is your vision that is shaping the movie. It is your passion that is guiding and inspiring all of the other artists. You are a storyteller and you have elected to tell this story through the medium of film, which means you must collaborate. You must rely on the skills and artistry of others in order to achieve your goal.

So the question is: What do you do? Well, mostly you talk. That’s it. A voice is the director’s main and most powerful tool. You talk to actors, writers, producers, designers, cinematographers, editors and composers. You can literally “talk” a film into existence. Your job is to inspire each artist to do his or her best work on your film, with your vision as the guide. But in order to do that, you have to understand these artists’ language.

How do you talk to a writer? A producer? A designer? An editor? An actor? It’s a virtual tower of Babel. This is the challenge that you face every time you make a movie, whether it’s your first, fifth or fifteenth effort. How do you articulate to all of these talented artists what it is you see and hear in your head and feel in your heart?

I make films in order to make an emotional connection with my audience through a story. I know that in the moviemaking process it is my sensibility, my emotional connection to the characters and the story, that is the guide for every choice made.

Rather than tell my DP that I need a low angle, 50mm shot framing the house on the right and the lamppost on the left, with the moon cutting through the trees… I tell him ‘I need this shot to scare me. I want to feel that I am not safe, that no one in that house is safe.’ I know the audience doesn’t care about the camera angle, lens size, framing or depth of field. They care about the emotional ride. The audience is an open vessel, ready to respond. And they will respond to every-thing I put up there on that screen. My job is to stimulate that response as best as I can, using myself as the surrogate audience during the process of making the film.

You must communicate the result you want to your creative team. Let the costume designer know how a particular dress should affect the audience’s perception of a character. Let the production designer know how the audience should feel when they are first inside the boss’ office. Let the editor know how you want the audience to react when he cuts to the lead actor’s reaction to some devastating news. Let the composer know how you want the audience to respond to the music in connection with the events of the scene.

“What do you want?” is the most difficult question to answer—ever. Do you really know what you want? Not the shot, the angle, the performance, the texture or color. But do you know what you want to happen in the hearts and minds of the audience at this particular moment? This is what directing is really all about. As directors we are storytellers, and as storytellers we are constantly manipulating the audience. The audience expects it and we had better deliver. If you know what you want, if you know the results you want, you will be fine, as long as you can articulate your desires to the individual artists.

This is “result directing” and this approach will work well for almost everyone. Tell the cinematographer how you want a shot to impact the audience and he will be able to deliver. Tell a production designer how the set needs to affect the scene, the characters and the audience and she can deliver. (The same holds true for editors, composers, sound mixers, etc.)

But there is one area of cinematic storytelling where result directing will not work. In fact, it will be totally counter-productive—perhaps even disastrous. That is with the actors. Working with actors is arguably the single most important aspect of directing.

At the core of every film is a story and it is the characters in the story that captivate us, hold us and take us on a journey. This fact makes the actors the most important element in your film. All directors know this to be true and many directors struggle with the complex challenge of working with actors.

Here are some realities of working with actors that cannot be ignored:

1. Actors have the most difficult and the most dangerous job on the set.

2. Actors, in order to do their best work, must be working in a safe environment.

3. “Safe” means that only one person will be talking to an actor regarding his or her work—and that is you, the director. All actors will look to you for direction, guidance and inspiration and will expect you to protect them from the comments, criticism or suggestions of everyone else.

4. Result directing does not work with actors.

The reason that result directing does not work with actors is clear: We do not go through life trying to create emotions and responses. We go through life trying to achieve our personal objectives, to avoid as many conflicts and obstacles as possible and to remain in areas of comfort. To ask an actor to simply express the result of a frustrated or foiled attempt to fulfill an objective is to ask him or her to focus only on the result of the action, not on the action itself.

The solution to this challenge is difficult to achieve yet always delivers the most powerful performances imaginable. Stop directing the actors and learn how to direct the characters. Only then have you earned the right to call yourself a “moviemaker.” MM

PITCHING FOR FILM

2008-01-11T08:19:00.000Z

Hai friends! I have just gone through a site on film script pitching and to me it seems quite useful so i am sharing on my blog. Just go through it you may like it.

Some writers and filmmakers love to pitch their films. In fact, they can hardly wait to talk about their projects and whatever they have to say seems to result in big breaks and passionate support. Other folks struggle to pitch their projects, stumbling over sentences that sound like haiku and communicate about as much. If you're one of the many who just can't seem to get their pitch right, you'll find the following suggestions helpful. They are culled from years of pitching and watching others pitch, and they are guaranteed to help you pitch more happily and effectively in a short period of time.

1. Pitching is All About True Love

The first thing to understand about pitching a project is, it's all about True Love. When you are pitching someone on a screenplay or a film project you want them to invest in, you are really asking them for the world. It usually takes millions of dollars and several years to get a film to market. The vast majority of the people you pitch to are not going to be investing their time and money in your project. The only folks who will make that investment are folks who really love the thing as much as you do. At least, you hope so. If you honestly love your project, the worst thing that can possibly happen to you is to get someone involved who is only in it for the money. Because those folks will want you to add a moose to your project because one of their potential investors owns a hunting lodge. When you pitch you are looking for people who want to make the film you want to make, who understand intuitively what the film is about and why it is important.
Knowing that you are looking for true love makes things much easier. Because when you tell someone about your project, in the natural course of a conversation, you can "sell" it based on why you love it and not the millions its going to make them. Your first sentence will tell them what it is about, and from that moment on you'll know if you've found someone "cool" enough to know what's good. For those of us who would have invested in APOCALYPSE NOW, Coppola couldn't have gotten through "Its Conrad's Heart of Darkness set in Vietnam" before we were wondering how much money he needed to do it. Its just that simple. You can identify folks who are not good partners just as easily. You pitch APOCALYPSE NOW and they say stuff like "Why are you making a film about war? There are so many nice things to talk about." Send those folks off with a smile and a handshake. They are on this planet to make someone else's film and the sooner they find them the better.
Always remember that pitching has far more to do with the story you are trying to tell than it does with coming up with some way to trick people into liking it. Just come up with a sentence that describes your film the way you'd describe to friends if you saw it in a movie theater. That's your opening line.

2. After You Fall In Love, You Can Talk About Getting Married

After love comes marriage. A good pitch naturally leads to questions like "What's you budget", "Do you have any talent attached", "When do you want to shoot".
If you are really dedicated to having your project made, you'll have answers to these questions. Because the truth is all you'll want to do on God's Green Earth is make this film. Someone, somewhere has to love a film that much for it to get made. Someone has to be willing to paddle that canoe right up the river to the silver screen. If you can't answer hard questions about your film now, invest some time in getting answers to the questions most people ask. No one else is going to answer those questions if you can't.
Those pitching screenplays should have some idea of who they'd like to play the lead roles. Even if those folks never get cast, it helps people "see" and understand the film better. Those who want to have someone invest in their film have to have lots of answers because they are asking for lots of money.
In very rare cases the "right" answer to a question is "Well, what do you think?" Sooner or later a good partner will have thought about some aspect of your project you never considered. When that happens, its time to ask them for answers. After all, film is a collaborative medium. People who participate in the development of a film expect to play a role in its . . . development.

3. The Right Pitch Varies from Person to Person, Moment to Moment

The interesting thing about pitching is how often you have to do it, and how often what you say has to change. A writer, even when a producer is on the scene, is often called upon to pitch their script to actors, directors and investors. Why? Because they understand it best. Filmmakers will have to pitch actors, directors, investors, UPMs and members of the press. Your pitch will vary based on who you are speaking to and when in the development process you are speaking to them.
Actors tend to like to hear about the unique importance of their character in a project, while line producers want to know how many days you plan to shoot. They'll all want to know the overall story of the film, but in every case what comes next will vary. This is one reason why a "one size fits all" approach to pitching is invariably unsuccessful.

4. Your Pitch Has to Ring True

Another interesting thing about pitching is that if you have concerns about your project, they'll invariably turn up in the pitch. You can't pitch "around" a problem. If there is something that bugs you about your script or film project, fix it. The reason to make your script as good as it can be, and your business plan as accurate as possible, and your budget as complete as can be, is because it frees you to make impossibly good pitches. Frankly, I've seen actors handed scripts that had two errors on every page, and it never got mentioned because the writer was so passionate about the project that the actors just wanted to find out what all the excitement was about. This is not about the freedom to deliver a sloppy script. It is about the freedom to make a perfect pitch because you know what you are giving people is something you have every confidence in.

5. Your Pitch Has to Endure

One of the most amazing things that will happen to you when you pitch a project well is that people will become passionate about it. When that happens, you will start to hear other folks pitching your project for you. Your passion will have become their passion. Some words will change, the emphasis may be different, but a good pitch is as memorable as a good film. When you hear other people delivering your pitch you'll know you've done it right. Your pitch has given your project a life of its own.

A Final Note

Friends and relations are rarely the best folks to try your pitch on unless your last name is Scorsese and your uncle's name is Martin. Most folks can't imagine anyone buying anyone's film and their responses to a pitch are disheartening as a rule. So practice your pitch on folks that you want to help you on your film. Early on, you can pitch actors so they'll help you with table readings that let you fully explore your characters. Later you can pitch other screenwriters so they'll read the script and give you notes. As time goes by you'll develop a pitch that gets you whatever you need to make your film. That, by definition, will be a perfect pitch.

HDV vs HD

2007-12-21T11:54:00.001Z

HDV vs HD: A Primer
Article Focus:Emmy(r) Award winner, Tim Kolb discusses HDV and its place in the greater scope of HD production formats. Since the inception of the HDV format, we have seen many responces regarding the HDV format and how it fits alongside HDCam, DVCProHD, XDCam and other formats in the greater scope of the HD picture. In this article (which is taken from an HDV Format forum responce), Creative Cow's Tim Kolb gives what we feel is an exemplary job of dissecting the subject and clarifying the many components of the HD universe, HDV being one of those parts....There are a lot of interesting comparisons among various HD formats and the winner in each HD "category" - as well as the degree of how much better any one tape format or workflow is over another - is open to interpretation based on each user's experiences at this point. I'll do my best to throw out some general info without "coloring" it too much with my opinion...
OVERALL HD FORMATS: "HD" is a general term and it covers all the Hi Def formats including HDV really. But most people, at least most working professionals in film or broadcast, when they are referring to HD are talking about material acquired on HD Vision, HDcam, DVCProHD, Viper, or HDcam SR (or acquired on film and converted to one of those formats) using a picture size of 1920x1080 or 1280x720 and color sampling of at least 4:2:2 (HDcam is 3:1:1, but that's the exception).
COMPETING HDV FORMATS: HDV refers to a tape format that was really designed to be the replacement for DV, but for once the industry replaced a format with another format that uses the same tapes...hurray! On a DV videocassette, you can get two types of HDV footage: 1440x1080 frame size (as opposed to HD formats with 1920x1080), which has the same data rate as DV (25 megabits per second) but uses MPEG compression to create 15 frame (NTSC successor); or another popular HDV format uses 12 frame (PAL successor) groups of pictures or "GOPs." The basic compromise here is image quality as the image compression is very aggressive, a necessity to fit that much picture on a DV cassette.JVC's HDV uses a 1280x720 image size which reduces the data rate to 19 megabits per second and reduces the GOP to 6 frames. Progressive scan on a JVC camera also makes a difference in an increase in perceived sharpness...but on the flip side progressive scan can increase motion artifacts from camera or subject motion, particularly horizontal.
Since HDV is Transport Stream MPEG (and not studio profile) its color sampling specification is 4:2:0, as a DVD or satellite signal would have. This is effectively equal to the color undersampling that DV does with the 4 pixel blocks shaped as 2x2 in 4:2:0, vs 4x1 pixel blocks in DV's 4:1:1.
Both types of HDV have an 8 bit color depth, which indicates 256 possible values for each color channel.
DISSECTING SOME HD / HDV FORMAT SPECS:With the other HD formats mentioned, each frame is handled individually instead of compressed as a group. This increases quality, but there are some trade-offs in this group as well.
HDcam actually undersamples color to 3:1:1 (remember plain old DV is 4:1:1...3:1:1 is a bit better) and even though it records 1920x1080 images, it's really only laying 1440x1080 to tape to make the data fit.
DVCProHD uses 4:2:2 color sampling which is certainly better than 3:1:1, but Panasonic also needs to record a reduced res image to cram all the data on tape. The 1280x720 that the Varicam DVCProHD camera does so well is actually only 960x720 on tape.
HDcam and DVCProHD are both 8 bit color depth formats.
The Viper and HDcam SR both use far less compression, but require dual-link SDI to pump the video signal to a deck or a server and the equipment is currently not terribly cost effective for many projects that don't require impeccable quality and which have been budgeted accordingly.
In general, because of the nature of HDV, all the cameras that are currently available do not have interchangeable lenses and are just generally less expensive than the more "production-oriented" HD tape formats (for lack of a better term). The configuration of the camera can have as much or more to do with image quality than the compression and, generally, HDV cameras are configured to be inexpensive to fit their intended market.
JVC has two HDV cameras on their way which will have interchangeable lenses and will have what many of us old dogs in the industry might consider more professional "configuration attributes" based on what we're used to working with - but for price points that would range from slightly to substantially higher than we see in the existing HDV camcorder landscape.
HD / HDV POST PRODUCTION:The issue gets more confusing when post production is introduced as you can take your HDV footage and edit it "native" as MPEG or you can convert it into more conventional HD file-types and edit it with other types of HD content - or you can easily output it to other HD formats. Since HDV primarily uses FireWire as its main "pipeline" and other types of HD use HD-SDI, converting the footage can be an advantage in those situations. Some users would prefer to edit their HDV footage as HDV - it's been an on-going discussion as to the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
PROS & CONS OF "NATIVE" MPEG EDITING:
CON: MPEG as a codec wasn't really designed to be edited as the long "GOPs" require re-compression if they are cut somewhere within the group (which happens more often than not, of course - particularly with the 12 and 15 frame HDV).
PRO: Editing native assures that changing to some other format doesn't introduce any conversion artifacts into the pictures.
CON: MPEG takes more processor power to compress than to decompress, as it was designed as a distribution format. CoDecs (COmpressor/DECompressors) designed for editing tend to be "symmetrical" - or have a much more "even" processor load between compression and decompression. HDV native editing tends to be slower at previewing effects and transitions for this reason.
PRO: High quality "symmetrical" editing codecs tend to create larger files than the HDV MPEG files.
CON: Most of the available "intermediate" codecs (which you would use to convert HDV to for editing if you didn't use MPEG) tend to be of much higher quality over repeated generations of compression. This does not mean that your footage will improve so much as it has the potential to degrade far less through the editing/post production process. Some higher-end HD editing systems have 10 bit color codecs that increases the color depth to 1,024 possible values per channel. For extensive color correction or effects work, this 4X deeper palette can hold quite an advantage.
Also because of the processor loading, it can take a bigger system to edit MPEG with the same effectiveness as an intermediate codec, even though the intermediate files will almost certainly be larger.
PRO: With intermediate codec systems, output to FireWire for mastering back to the HDV camera or deck often entails additional steps.
CON: Many intermediate systems can output to virtually any HD tape format if you plan on mastering to something other than HDV.
There are also "this application vs that one" arguments on this as well, which I've left out of the discussion - and based on the software you use, these topics are searchable using the Cow's search engine.
This is just a scratch at the surface of the basic qualities of some HD and HDV formats...development won't stop anytime soon and new technology will continue to increase in quality and cost-effectiveness, and the lines will almost certainly become even more blurry.
...whoever said "You stop learning when you die.", may have actually worked in our business.
Note:Editing native or with an intermediate codec is actually an ongoing debate within the confines of the "other" HD formats as well. Apple uses the DVCProHD codec internally to handle Panasonic DVCProHD material allowing use of FireWire for I/O and keeping transcoding steps out of the process. The DVCProHD codec makes relatively small files so the speed of editing even on a software-based Mac can be rather responsive. HDcam and DVCProHD native editing are both available on various systems. Those who favor using an intermediate codec point to the fact that the DVCProHD codec is limited to 8 bit color and every time the codec re-processes the footage (every transition, color correction, effect, etc. results in the codec "re-compressing" the footage again), the material goes through the 1280>downsampled to 960>upsampled to 1280 for playback-process. The same type of processing happens with the 1920>1440>1920 processing of HDcam, with the addition of the limitation of 3:1:1 color sampling.
-->

Lighting for HD

2007-12-06T07:00:00.000Z

Is it faster to light on HD
This is down to technique and communication. Nothing mysterious. There are two aspects to this. One is the use of HD monitor the other is taking advantage of greater depth of field of 2/3 inch imagers (compared to 35mm) for given amount of light

HD Monitor
Communication is faster, gaffer sees the shot sees what you are up to faster with a decent monitor. During blocking he watches. He knows what is in shot and what isn't. Point to the monitor, a slash here a flag there, you are not gesturing in space you are pointing at the picture.

The monitor empowers the gaffer. Lots of finger prints on the monitor! In frame practicals, reflections, are faster to adjust.

Dropping light sources into a scene, observing where the light falls from the cameras POV is really useful. This helps gaffers and electricians drop in cutters fingers ect.

Light measurement across the image is instantaneous. No need to use a spot meter measuring 10 different parts of the picture, as a good monitor has 1920x1080 spot meters that you see at a glance. Their are also zebras for the real enthusiast.

Communication with a director is fast. It is very easy and quick to nail a look under the black cloth. (this is particularly useful when working with a new director)

Night scenes can be shot with absolute confidence. Worried about a colour temperature of a neon or a dodgy looking fluorescent?

Worried about subject failure? Strange casts?

Bounce light in particular is great fun and fast to play with on HD. The brain doesn't need to number crunch. No estimating what colour shifts are happening, you have a ringside seat on the image plane.

Lighting continuity is a breeze if you record a few seconds of every scene on a separate tape. recalling the scene file and switch between playback and live image to swiftly compare moods and tones from one location to the next. Particularly useful if something unplanned is occurring.

Depth of Field
Greater depth of field on 2/3 inch imagers. Less light required usually equals faster setup/derig reposition.

Can use ambient light levels, say in a night exterior as a base, rather than calling in Muscos.

Bluescreen, less light for same depth of field. Do you want to light a bluescreen studio and subject to T5.6 or T2? All the subject must be sharp for blue screen

No question pack shot lighting is faster on HD. Positioning products in respect to reflections, mini bounce cards ect is a breeze with a big HD monitor a few feet from the table. Assistants look at the monitor. Greater depth of field plays a roll here too. No need to hang a 1.2 with a Chimera from a truss or goal post, use a 800 watt bug light with chimera on a right angle arm. Easy to adjust. Extreme close-ups are much easy to light/meter. Fiber optics are great for close-up work but moving them half an inch equates to a few stops if they are close to a subject. Instead of setting the light then metering your are metering while you set the light.

These are lighting techniques that have lent themselves to video and have been practised over many years on video.

DPs and gaffers without video experience may not be tuned in...

My first feature I worked with a very established Italian gaffer who had worked with the greats. He had just come off his first HD feature and was looking stressed! After a week with me he was over the moon. In his words he felt after 25 years in the business he was actually crafting the light exactly (to the 1/4 stop) the way *we* wanted it and seeing it live he felt closer to the image than he had ever been on film. I invited him into my decision making process and gave him confidence in the HD monitor.

Filmmaking is a team effort the HD monitor is a brilliant communication tool. Even a small one is useful in this respect.

It just a matter of knowing how to do it, the right approach, ideally from all departments.

If you have a generator or butterfly frame it is simply a question of more fill or go up a level of diffusion on the silk, pop in a pola, or .6 grad, ensure makeup do their job, craft the image to look good. You will only be "stuck" if you and the director have an unrealistic expectation of what the combination of set, crew equipment format grading can achieve. In the whole scheme of a production, films superior dynamic range may be more critical for some projects than others. But one of the first HD movies was shot in a snow field. Are there special video cameras for the winter Olympics?

Now the above comments are more relevant to a tightly scheduled tightly crewed production.

Bear in mind whenever I talk HD it is usually across features docs commercials, not only high budget features where the established working practices of a production crew numbering 200+ remains pretty much unaltered regardless of format.(perhaps bluescreen movies is an exception).

About the Author
Director of Photography Michael Brennan specializes in shooting High Definition and is Europe's first HD owner Operator. He is experienced in High Definition Aerial Photography using Cineflex V14 as well as using Viper Filmstream for TV and theatrical release. In 2004 he began editing High Definition Magazine Europe's bimonthly specialist publication. In 2002 he founded ClipHD the worlds first HD specialist stock footage library.

FILM MAKING GUIDE

2007-12-06T06:36:00.001Z

What's involved in making a film?

It can be as simple or as complex as you want. Anybody who enjoys the cinema knows that when the final credits roll they include everyone who has contributed - Director, Performers, Best Boy, Gaffer, Foley Artist, Stunt Supervisor, Make Up, etc.

It usually takes over a hundred people working a year to make a feature film, ten people to produce a pop promo and around twenty to film a documentary. The reason so many people are involved is because films need to be made quickly and on budget.

Many famous directors started by making films completely on their own - Orson Welles, George Lucas, Robert Rodrigues. You may not have the special effects and big budgets of Hollywood but you do have time on your side. Use it to experiment and make a few mistakes. It's the way to learn. And that's where the fun begins. Go on; make a film.

Where to start

Open your eyes and ears to everything. Look at TV, films, games, the Internet, books, theatre and dance. Listen to your friends speaking, see how your relatives behave. Watch the trees in the breeze.
Keep it simple. Start with something that you find interesting - a hobby or a favourite story maybe.
Beg or borrow a stills camera. Ask yourself some questions (things like 'What makes me happy?' 'What's important to me?') And then take pictures that fit. Begin to frame your world.
Fill a scrapbook with images and cuttings from magazines, fashion articles and put your photos in amongst them.
Write down possible locations, characters, and action on your notepad.
Arrange them and rearrange them, add and take some away until it makes some kind of sense.
Think about your 'narrative', or story. Everything has a beginning, a middle and an end.
Think about the form of the film. Is it for the Internet, a music promo, a drama, animation?
What style is it? Film Noir, a video diary, a fly-on-the wall documentary. Maybe you've got your own style. Will the camera be on a tripod, or hand held?
Watch other films like yours on video, DVD or TV. Learn from the things they do well and avoid the things they do badly.
Believe in your idea absolutely. If you don't, no one else will.

Preparing for the Shoot

If you're making the film with other people, organize your cast and crew effectively. Make sure everybody knows their role and what day and times they're needed.

Give people specific jobs so they can become experts in their field. For example: Sound Recordist - listens to the sound through headphones as it's being recorded, holds an extra mike if needed.
Camera Operator - frames the picture, sets focus, checks the light and records the action.
The Editor- 'cuts' the picture together after it's shot (see next section).
Producer - is the contact point for the film. Makes sure crew and cast are there on time, talks to the press and organizes the budget.
a Director - has to make sure their vision is communicted. To do this everyone needs to be clear about what the director expects from each scene and each shot.

You may also need a Make Up Artist, a Choreographer, a Driver etc. However, you can quite easily make your first film on your own. Make a schedule that says which shots are to be taken where and when (this is called a 'Shooting Schedule') and when you've completed a 'take', cross it off the list. Remember that you may want to shoot 'out of sequence', e.g. shoot the last scene first, and the first last. Similarly if the film begins and ends by a tree in the park, it may make sense to film both scenes while you're there.

Continuity is particularly important in drama. Take a Polaroid camera and take photos to capture details. You may need to come back to a scene days later. When you decide your locations, consider whether you need permission to use the space, how noisy it will be and what the light will be like at the time of day you will need to use it. Is there power available? Are you likely to be interrupted?

If you're making animation or any computer generated stuff, have a space that you can control. You may need extra lights and you may need to leave work in progress. Make sure people living with you are aware what's happening, animation needs a lot of undisturbed concentration and patience. Keep at it and it'll pay off, Aardmann and Disney both started off at home experimenting with clay, pens and a camera.

Equipment

For a first film, DV or Hi8 camcorders are useful because they can play your rushes back through their in-built screen and you can also connect them to your TV at home. You can control focus and exposure and experiment with in-camera effects like 'strobing'. Remember to read the manual; it gives invaluable technical advice.

Film cameras are simple to use and excellent for animation as you can usually expose one frame at a time. In good light they give a colorful ('saturated') effect. However sound is limited and each film only lasts 2.5 minutes!

If you know someone with a camcorder, borrow it. You can also hire them from some camera shops, local video societies or regional film workshops. Details are available in the BFI Handbook in local libraries.
Buy or borrow a film camera. These are second hand (usually silent) film cameras that take Super 8mm film cartridges that last 2.5 minutes a time. The camera could cost from $10-$150 from a local car boot sale or newspaper. You may even find a friend or relative who still owns one. Films cost about $16 including processing.

Whichever camera you go for experiment before you start shooting and again, read the manual. Know how it works and you can get the best out of it.

You may need accessories like a tripod, to hold the camera still, a stopwatch to remind you how much film you've used and extra batteries for the camera if you're going to film outside for a long period of time.

Think about sound. For instance if it's a music promo, you'll need to play the music through a portable hi-fi for the dancers 'on set'. You may also need an extra mike strapped to a pole and plugged into the camcorder (this is called a boom mike). Borrow this with your camera.

Another tip is to record a clean piece of sound from each location you use (called 'atmos' or 'wild track'). This will help give a smooth effect when you edit.

Editing and Post Production

If you use a camcorder, try and find a friend with editing software on their computer. Using a technology called Firewire or I-Link, you'll be able to transfer your rushes and edit your film electronically. You'll find software like Premiere and Razor will combine music, pictures and text to create a very professional result.

If you haven't got techy friends, try using your camera as a play machine and your home VHS or another camera as a recorder. Link them up with SCART cables and use the record and pause buttons to build up the story. Some recorders have an audio dub facility, which enables you to add music or voice.

If you shot on Cine film, you'll need a viewer and tape splicer or a projector to edit and show your film. You can buy these fairly cheaply secondhand or borrow them from friends, family or film societies.

How do I get it seen?

Show your film to as many people as you can.
Organize a screening for your friends and family.
Look out for competitions in the local papers, cinemas and at school/college. Make several copies on VHS or CD ROM and send your film out.
Use the film as a 'stepping stone' to your next film. Show it to teachers, local filmmakers and broadcasters. Ask advice about your next movie.
If you'd like to study film at college, you can use your film as a way of expressing your interest. Arrange a visit and take your film. They'll be impressed that you've taken the initiative.
Find a mentor, someone you admire and who knows a bit about the film industry, maybe a filmmaker who lives locally. Show them your film and ask their advice about the next step. Remember, if you're meeting your mentor take a friend with you. Stay public, stay safe.

If you're online and have the know-how (or maybe a friend who's techy and helpful), there are many film websites that welcome contributions from makers. You'll need to make your film into a Quicktime or Mpeg and send it to them as a File Attachment.

Careers and Training

Look out for short courses at your local college or independent cinema. If you're interested in camerawork particularly, a good starting point is a Black and White Photography course. This will give you the chance to establish an understanding of light and composition, which is what all camerawork is about!

Be fanatical about film. Talk to as many people as possible about it. Take advantage of any seminars or talks by filmmakers in your area. It's important to exploit any contacts you have, so the more people you meet, the more people you can hit on for advice in the future. It's called Schmoozing and it goes with the territory.

Once you have put on your own event - you might like to think about following a career in film. Watch this space later in the year for more information about jobs, qualifications and courses. Good Luck and Good Filmmmaking!

How Video Formatting Works

2007-12-06T06:26:00.000Z

Inside This Article
1. Introduction to How Video Formatting Works
2. Frame Rate Conversion
3. Aspect Ratios
4. Letterbox and Pan & Scan

If you've watched many movies on video, you've probably read the words, "This film has been modified from its original version." But how has it been modified? The message that appears at the beginning of video tapes isn't very specific. As it turns out, there are a number of ways video producers modify theatrical films for video release, and elements of these processes have sparked heated debates about maintaining artistic visions.
In this article, we'll examine the methods and issues involved in formatting movies for videos, DVDs and television. We'll also take a look at the history of film aspect ratios and talk a little bit about the future of video formatting. By the end of this article, you'll be able to watch movies and videos with a whole new understanding of the process of their production!
What is Video Formatting?

There are a lot of things involved in showing theatrical movies on a television because movies and television are very different mediums. Movie film is a very physical medium. It's exactly like the film in your still camera in that it records visual information with chemical reactions on special material. Video, on the other hand, stores visual information as an electronic signal that can be transmitted via radio waves, sent through coaxial cable, etc. Because of this, film and video have very different properties. For one thing, they don't split up still images the same way. Filmed movie frames must therefore be reorganized into a video format before a movie can be shown on a television.
The more controversial formatting issue is changing the shape of a movie's picture so that it fills a television screen. Video producers significantly change most movies from their original theatrical presentation because standard television screens have a different shape than standard movie pictures. A standard television has an aspect ratio , or ratio of width to height, of 4:3. Another way to express this ratio as 1.33:1. This means that a television screen is 1.33 times as wide as it is high. Theatrical movies are filmed using several different aspect ratios, almost all of which are somewhat wider than a television screen. These days, the most common U.S. theatrical aspect ratios are 2.35:1 and 1.85:1, but some movies are even wider. As you can see, while a television screen is fairly close to a square, a movie picture with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio is more than twice as wide as it is high.
Consequently, modern movies do not automatically fit standard television screens. In order to release a movie on VHS video and DVD or broadcast it on television, video and television producers have to accommodate this difference. There are a number of ways of accomplishing this, each of which we'll examine. We'll also look at why televisions and theatrical movies have different aspect ratios in the first place and explore the "widescreen vs. pan and scan" debate. But first, let's look at the first step in video formatting, turning moving pictures on film into moving pictures on video.
Frame Rate Conversion
The easiest way to convert a film to video would be to project the film and shoot it with a video camera. This would give you a copy of the movie on video tape (this is how people make illegal video copies of movies that are only playing in theaters), but the image would have a constant flicker to it. This is because film and video have a different frame rate , meaning they show a different number of still images per second.
Most feature films are projected at a rate of 24 frames per second. This means that in one second, the projector shows 24 complete still pictures in succession. This is essentially the entire process of creating the illusion of movement with film. Video formats were designed to be used on cathode ray tube televisions, which work in a completely different way than a film projector. If you've read How Television Works, then you know that a television creates still pictures line by line, with an electron beam that passes over a phosphor-coated screen, in rows from left to right, top to bottom. When television was first developed, it wasn't feasible to create a system that could "paint" all the lines in one pass over the screen, so the cathode ray tube system was modified to paint every other line in one pass and then fill in the lines in between in a second pass. This process is called interlacing , and each complete pass of the electron gun is called a field . Technology has improved to the point where we don't have to build televisions this way, but much of the rest of television broadcasting equipment has been designed around this idea, so it is fairly entrenched for the time being.
The video used in traditional television signals takes this particular form, but specific formats vary from country to country. There are three commonly used formats:

National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) format: Used in the United States, Canada, Japan and elsewhere
Phase Alternation by Line (PAL) format: Used in European countries and other parts of the world
Systeme Couleur Avec Memoire (SECAM) format: Mostly used in Eastern European countries
On a PAL or SECAM system, the electron beam passes over the entire screen 50 times a second, which means the television presents a complete picture 25 times a second. This is pretty close to 24 frames per second, so if you make a direct conversion showing one complete film frame in every full video frame, the movie plays pretty well, just a tiny bit faster. The main thing you might notice is that all the sound has a slightly higher pitch.
NTSC format shows about 30 frames per second (60 fields), so it is a bit trickier. Mathematically, you can't easily spread 24 frames across 30 frames. But you can divide up 60 fields so that you show only 24 frames per second, if you use a block of five video fields to show two film frames. The math is pretty simple:
In one second of video, there are 60 fields.
So, you show five fields in 1/12th of a second (60/12 = 5).
In one second of film, there are 24 frames.
So, in 1/12th of a second, you show two frames.
If you record only two film frames for every five fields of video, you can create a video copy of a movie that plays at the correct speed.
Of course, you can't divide five by two evenly, so formatters have to stagger it. A video copy of a movie shows frame 1 for three fields, frame 2 for two fields, frame 3 for three fields and so on. This doesn't present motion exactly as it appeared when the movie was projected (pans aren't as fluid, for example), but the movie isn't sped up at all and the soundtrack isn't affected.
But how do you split up a movie this way? This is done with a device called a telecine . There are two different types of telecine, film chains and flying spot scanners .
Film chains are the cheaper option, but they don't make as good a copy. With a film chain, you attach a special kind of shutter to a film projector and project the image through a lens and off of a mirror to a specialized video camera. The shutter is rigged so that it projects each frame for the appropriate amount of time.
The other type of telecine, the one used for higher quality video copies, does away with the projector and the shutter. Flying spot scanners run a little light on one side of the film and a little camera on the other side of the film, so they can scan each frame of film. Once a film frame is scanned, it's very easy to divide it up into different video fields.
This process works a little bit differently with DVD movies. DVDs store movies in MPEG digital format, which compresses the movie file by using the same image information from frame to frame. For a full description of how this works.

Aspect Ratios
Theatrical filmmakers have primarily used 35mm film from the very beginning of movie production, and they continue to use it to this day. This is mainly because it is the established standard. The actual aspect ratio of 35mm film is 1.33:1, the exact aspect ratio used in conventional televisions – when television was developed, it was a logical choice to model them on the shape of films. This exact ratio was used for most silent pictures, but Hollywood changed the picture ratio slightly with the advent of talkies, to make room for an audio track. The new ratio, 1.37:1, became known as the Academy Ratio and was used for the vast majority of U.S. films until the 1950s. Most movies produced before the 1950s fit conventional television sets fairly well.
But in the 1950s, movie-makers began developing techniques to widen the aspect ratio of their movies. The primary reason for this was the increasing popularity of television; to keep people coming to the movies, Hollywood had to give people entertainment they couldn't get at home. They began making wider and wider movies, featuring spectacular panoramic cinematography. The main thing movie theaters had over television sets is that they could immerse the viewer more deeply in the world of the movie, and the best way to do this was to fill more of the audience's natural field of vision (which has more width than it does height because our eyes are positioned side by side).
In addition to the grandeur and immersing qualities of panoramic scenery shots, wider aspect ratios simply allow for more interesting artistic composition. If you go to an art museum, the vast majority of paintings you see will either be significantly wider than they are tall, a "landscape shape," or significantly taller than they are wide, for a "portrait shape." This is because a more rectangular canvas shape allows the artist to balance the elements of the painting more effectively, which creates a sense of visual harmony. Movies are the same way: A director and a cinematographer can compose shots that are much more pleasing to the eye when they use a wider aspect ratio. The shape of a television screen, which is more square-shaped, severely limits the possibilities for interesting visual compositions.
Since the 1960s, almost all major filmmakers have used a wide aspect ratio when making a theatrical movie. They still use 35mm film with a 1.37:1 aspect ratio, however, so they have to somehow impose another aspect ratio on that film. There are several ways of doing this, and the method the director chooses determines the video producer's options for modifying the film to fit a television screen.
Today, the most common methods of imposing a wide aspect ratio are:

Anamorphic lens
Hard matting
Soft matting
Each method has advantages and disadvantages, and directors often have a personal preference.
Anamorphic Lens
One of the most popular ways of producing a wider picture is to "squeeze" it onto the narrower film. This is accomplished with an anamorphic lens on the camera that horizontally condenses the light it takes in. On the actual film of a movie made with an anamorphic lens, all the people and things in each frame appear unnaturally tall and skinny. In the movie theater, the projectionist attaches a similar anamorphic lens to the projector to unsqueeze everything. The advantage of this format is that it uses the entire film area to record the movie picture as it will finally appear, so it doesn't sacrifice any resolution in creating a wide aspect ratio picture. This method limits the depth of focus somewhat, however, and images in the background are sometimes distorted.
Hard-Matting
A filmmaker can hard matte a film by attaching a special mask to the camera. This mask blocks off the top and the bottom of the scene in front of it so that the film is only exposed to the desired rectangular image. This is cheaper than using anamorphic lenses, and it is a good way for a director to completely control the cinematography of his picture, but, because it only uses the middle part of the available film area, it sacrifices image resolution somewhat.
Soft Matting
A filmmaker using this method simply exposes the entire area of the film but composes his picture with only the middle part of the picture in mind. The camera may show only the middle part of the film to the director and cinematographer, or it may have an outline on the entire image that indicates the borders of the desired aspect ratio. When a soft-matted film is projected, the projectionist has to mask it correctly so that only the middle part of the picture appears on the screen. If you go to a lot of movies, you've probably spotted a boom microphone creeping into a shot or seen a movie where people's heads are cut off or there appears to be too much empty space at the top of each shot. These things happen when a projectionist doesn't properly mask a soft-matted film.
Letterbox and Pan & Scan
No matter how it was filmed, the best way to present a movie on video as it was originally created is to letterbox it. This format presents the full, wide picture on the middle of the television screen, with black bars above and below it. This maintains the movie's original theatrical aspect ratio, so that you see everything the director intended you to see. Because they preserve the original cinematography of the movie, letterbox, or widescreen , videos have become more and more popular in recent years. The format is particularly common on DVDs because their increased storage capacity can hold both a letterbox version and a full-frame version, a presentation that uses the entire television screen. Also, their increased picture quality helps counteract the loss of resolution caused by shrinking the movie picture.
The problem with letterboxing is that it shrinks the viewing area of the television screen, which, if you have a small set to begin with, can make it fairly difficult to see the movie. For this reason, letterboxing is not the most popular formatting option. Most viewers are bothered by the black bars at the top and bottom of their screen more than they are bothered by the idea of not seeing the picture as it was originally filmed, so full-frame movie presentations are much more prevalent than letterbox presentations. But if you are a student of film and want to fully experience the movie as a work of art, then the letterbox format is the only way to go.
Squeezing & Cropping
If a movie was filmed using an anamorphic lens, then the complete picture already exists in a 1.37:1 format and so can be shown full frame on a television without cutting much of the image. The problem, of course, is that this image is severely squeezed , so that circles appear to be eggs and everyone's face is creepily elongated. Most viewers find this distracting, to say the least, so this formatting option is not used very often. Some video producers did release movies this way when home video was just starting out, but these days, the only time you're likely to see this is at the beginning of movies, as a means of fitting wide opening credits on the screen. The more popular option in recent years has been to letterbox the opening credit sequence
Another method from the early days of home video is cropping . This term is sometimes used generally to describe cutting off part of the original theatrical picture, but it also refers to one specific formatting method. In this original cropping technique, the video formatter simply presents the middle part of the theatrical picture on video. Cropped movies frequently have rotten cinematography and can actually be hard to follow. This is because the technique blindly ignores anything that happens on the side of the screen, playing the odds that most of the important action will appear in the middle of the screen, at least in part. If a minor character only shows up on the far left side of a wide-aspect ratio shot, then he may not even show up in the cropped edition of the movie. A particularly maddening scenario is when two characters in conversation stand on either side of the picture. The viewer sees the entire conversation with only the very edge of each person's face appearing on their screen, and nothing but blank space taking up the rest of the picture. Fortunately, this technique has mostly fallen by the wayside.
Pan & Scan
The method that has mostly replaced cropping and squeezing is panning and scanning . In this process, a video technician views the movie with its original aspect ratio and decides which television-sized chunk of the movie to show at any one time. Usually, this means focusing on the elements of the picture that are most important to the plot, which is obviously a subjective decision. If you have two characters at either end of a widescreen shot, for example, the pan-and-scan operator must decide which one to show. The operator will probably show the one that is talking, or performing the more conspicuous action. A careful pan-and-scan operator will try to represent the different important aspects of a shot by "cutting" between the two halves of the screen, so that what was originally one shot becomes multiple shots. The operator can also create a pan from one side of the picture to another (hence the name of the process).
Your browser does not support JavaScript or it is disabled.
To see what you might miss when a movie scene has been panned and scanned, click several times on the left or right arrow.
If a movie was shot with an anamorphic lens or a hard matte, the two main formatting options are to letterbox the movie or pan and scan it. If the movie was shot using a soft matte, however, there is a third option.
Open Matte
We know that a filmmaker using a soft matte exposes the entire film area when shooting a movie. If 35mm film is used, this full image has an aspect ratio of 1.37:1, fairly close to television's 1.33:1 aspect ratio. One formatting solution is to leave the matte "open," making the video copy of the movie from this entire film area. The picture then fills the entire television screen and only crops a small amount from the sides of the filmed image.
The success of this method depends on how the director shot the movie. Some directors compose each shot with both the soft-matted picture and the full image in mind. When they look through the camera, they see the entire picture exposed to the film and a superimposed rectangle indicating the theatrical aspect ratio. In this case, the main thing you lose in video formatting is visual composition. So if you are mainly interested in following the plot of a movie, and not so much in cinematography, a full-frame version of a soft-matted movie will probably suit you fine. A full-frame picture of this sort doesn't cut out much visual information, so you aren't as likely to miss details or plot points as you are watching a panned and scanned version of an anamorphic or hard-matted movie.
The full-frame picture of a soft-matted movie is not always usable, however. A lot of directors will use a soft matte but completely ignore what's outside the theatrical matte. If you take a full image from this sort of movie, you might very well see boom mikes, lights and unfinished sets. Also, if the movie includes special visual effects, there's a good chance they were added only to the theatrical aspect ratio portion of the image. It might be that some shots are usable and some are not. In this case, the video formatter may choose to combine full-frame shots with panning and scanning of the soft-matted theatrical picture.

Digital vs. Film: The Real Low-Down

2007-12-06T06:08:00.000Z

Digital technology can never surpass, let alone match, the unassailable superiority of film. Or so say the photo purists. Silver halide crystals, so goes the argument, are inherently superior and will always produce images with higher resolution, better tonality, and greater color fidelity than pixels. This article of faith is just as vigorously challenged by digital photographers, who swear that pixel-based images can capture more detail, higher dynamic range, and more accurate color.
Digital images can be counted and compared by the numbers: pixels, color bit depth, and image file size. Film can be measured and analyzed by densitometers and photospectrometers. While it's easy to compare different digital cameras to each other according to the numbers, as well as discover the relative merits and attributes of different films by their measurements, there's no direct way to do a head-to-head, point-by-point comparison between these two technologies. However, looking closely at some of the physical and chemical characteristics of film will give us clues of what a realistic equivalence with digital might be.
Just as pixels are represented as tiny squares on monitors and output as round rosettes by printers, images on film are recorded on tiny silver halide crystals, which in photographic parlance are called grain, or granules. This is why film is often referred to as being fine, medium, or coarse grain film. The finer the grain, the more detail it can record. The tradeoff, however, is that fine grain isn't as photo-sensitive as medium or coarse grain, so it is said to have a lower ISO rating. Conversely, coarse grain film, also called high speed film, is much more light sensitive, but like a pixelated image, the granules may be so large that they are annoyingly visible to the eye. Furthermore, they record far less detail.
There are other differences. Fine grain film, because it can record so much more detail, has inherently better tonality and gradation. Coarse film has very large granules that cannot resolve great detail, and is high contrast because it captures very little tonality.

Which Argument is Right? And Which is Better, Film or Digital?
While it's possible to directly compare a film's grain count with a pixel count, the number would be irrelevant because of the nature of the granules. Pixels have associated bits, called bit depth, that define color and grayscale. In a professional digital camera, each pixel can have anywhere from 36 to 48 bits of data to describe the state of a single pixel. For instance, if a 1x1" CCD has a density of 2000x2000 pixels and a color bit depth of 42 bits, the total number of data bits is 168 million bits, or 21 megabytes.
A single frame of fine grain 1x1.5" 35mm color film has an estimated 13 to 15 million individual silver halide granules. However, film is analog, not digital, so the state of each granule is, theoretically, infinitely variable. The combination of more tightly packed grains and infinite variability in each grain allows film to capture true continuous-tone images, while digital always has a fixed number of steps or grayscale levels limited by the bit-depth of the pixel.
To set the scale of detail, a digital camera's resolution is measured according to the total number of lines it can resolve before they begin to run together. A typical 3 megapixel digital camera has a resolving power of about 1,000 lines over the entire image sensor. So, if the CCD is 1/2" in size, that amounts to a total resolution of 2,000 lines per inch. By contrast, the resolution of fine grain 35mm Kodachrome film is about 2,200 linesper millimeter That's more than 50 times better raw resolution than digital. Using this for comparison, film scientists sometimes peg Kodachrome's digital equivalent as a 100 megabyte file. Of course, larger film{}2 1/4x 31/4, 4x5", etcwill yield correspondingly more data and overall resolution than a 35mm frame.
In real life, however, the resolving powers of those respective technologies are actually much closer than the numbers would indicate. That is because of differences in gamuts, or the range of data capable of being represented and reproduced by various input and output devices such as image sensors, film, printers, and monitors. The gamut on film is much higher than digital, but they both come up against a seemingly inexorable bottleneck: the output device's gamut. For film, that's how many lines photographic paper is capable of resolving, and for pixels, it's the number of lines that can be reproduced by an ink jet printer or computer monitor. Both paper technologies are similar in terms of clay coating, brightness and opacity and gamut. The net result is that with all the extra resolution film captures, it will produce about the same amount of detail in print as is captured by an image sensor. The only way you can make use of film's much greater resolution is either by enlargement{}a 35mm frame can be blown up to 14x17" or even 16x20" without an appreciable loss of quality or viewing it via transmitted rather than reflected light, as with a slide projector.
Digital vs. Film

The same scene, taken with 20, 35, and 100mm lenses pitting the Canon D30 Digital Photo versus the Canon EOS1V Film Photo. While it's not possible to truly demonstrate the differences between film and digital on your computer monitor, you can at least get an idea that for monitor output it's hard to distinguish the difference

	Digital	Film
20mm
35mm
100mm

Tonality is also a tossup, since analog film can, by its very nature, produce greater tonality, while some digital technology, by design and engineering, can capture an appreciably higher dynamic range.
Because the photosensitivity of each granule is set according to its chemical composition and size, it has limits on how much light it can register and absorb. Too little light, and no photochemical reaction takes place. Too much light, and the photons overwhelm the granule and blow it out to a uniform monochromatic black (which, upon reversal, turns all white). The range of normal sensitivity of light to dark is called a film's dynamic range, and it is expressed, not in decibels like an image sensor, but as a logarithm of those decibels, on a scale of 0-5. A medium grain film averages a dynamic range of about 4.0, depending upon the brand and emulsion. That translates into about 6-7 f-stops on a camera lens. Anything above or below is expressed as monochromatic black or white, with no detail whatever.
Some digital camera image sensors are capable of capturing significantly more detail than film in the highlights and shadows A typical high end image sensor, such as the Philips 2x2K CCD found in many professional camera backs, can capture 11 or more stops of data, roughly double that of a comparable film stock. But again, the extra dynamic range is useful only if the gamma of the output technology allows it to be accurately reproduced.
There are other technical differences that translate into digital or film superiority, such as color fidelity, saturation, etc. But at the end of the day, a good professional photographer can get comparable quality from either technology. And yes, it's entirely possible to use a digital camera to produce images that can be output as Ansel Adams-like museum-quality prints.

NINE ROUTES TO BECOMING A DIRECTOR

2007-11-29T06:09:00.000Z

There are nine routes to consider when launching your career as a director. Before you decide which route to take, research the careers of directors you admire and see if you can see which route they followed. Remember that there is no such thing as a route - only a route that is good for you: one that allows you to maximise you abilities and talent.

1. Studio/Guild Route
After securing the necessary minimum days of on-the-job training, join the Directors Guild with a signatory production company and work your way up the ladder. Some companies allow you to shadow a director, which gives you valuable training.

2. The Independent Route
Learn how to identify or create a low budget, 90-page script which you feel has something controversial to say. Scrape together some money and execute a 4:1 or 6:1 shooting ratio with high production values. Hire a sales agent and sell the film at AFM, Cannes, MIFED or Raindance, and make a profit for your investors. Repeat this process until you are discovered, or are considered a worthy risk for investors. Examples: Woody Allen, Steven Soderburgh (Sex Lies and Videotape), Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs), Hal Hartlyey (Swoon).

3. Screenplay Option Route
Write or purchase a script/story and sell it, releasing the screen rights only when you are hired as director. This technique is called holding your script hostage. Example: Return from Alcatraz

4. Student/Festival Route
Make a short film or ultra low budget feature and enter festivals, demonstrating your talent, gaining exposure to future clients and agents on the lookout for emerging talent. Hire a publicist to promote yourself,even if it is at the expense of your film. You are aiming to achieve notoriety or celebrity status. Examples: Buffalo 66, Trees Lounge, Blair Witch Project

5. Agency Packaging Route
After associating with celebrity actors or writers from a common agency, convince the agency to represent you as part of a package that they sell directly to production companies with you attached as director. The agency will usually attach name stars to your project as well. Example: Copland

6. Establish Yourself in Commercials
By offering to direct test commercials or pop promos for unknown bands,demonstrate your talent and original ideas,and convince a producer to hire you to direct. Examples: Ridley Scott, Tony Kaye (American History X).

7. Become a Master of the Short Form
Write and/or direct short films which demonstrate your talent. Enter festivals and competitions. When you have gained confidence,select several of your short films and approach either a production company (number1 above) or talent (number 5 above) and convince them to let you direct a long form film (feature). Example: Shane Meadows

8. Start as an Assistant Editor
This has been the classic route to directing used by many directors in the1940s - 70s.Offer your services for free as an assistant editor:log shots, sync sound, until you are promoted to editor. When you have cut several films and impress with your knowledge of shots, get hired to direct a feature. Examples: David Lean, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese.

9. Become a Successful Stage Director
Most stage directors do not realise how well equipped they are to direct film. Blocking, timing, storytelling and working with actors are all essential directing skills that many film directors lack. Why not start a theatre group with a few close friends (like Steppenwolf in Chicago, or Second City in Toronto) and build a reputation for exciting stage shows. Invite reviewers and agents, and wait to be discovered by a producer,or turn a stage show into a movie yourself. Examples: Sam Mendes, Stephen Daldry, Andrew Shea. on services film and video production services film and video production services film and video production services film and video production services film and video produ

FILM DIRECTIN TIPS

2007-11-28T13:45:00.000Z

Film Directing Tips

1 - Shooting in Slo Motion - Peter D. Marshall
You know those wonderful scenes where the actor is walking in slo-mo and his long coat is blowing dramatically in the wind. (Think of Nick Cage in Face Off when he gets out of the car at the airport.
A trick to get the coat to billow like that is to have your costume designer either purchase a coat made of light-weight material, or they can creatively rip the lining out of the coat. This lightens up the material so it will move easier in the wind. And by the way - 60fps and 90fps are good frame rates for the effect.
2 - Shooting Comedy Scenes - Peter D. Marshall
Nothing can kill a comedy scene quicker than the lack of pace. The pace of comedy needs to be faster than drama - but not so frantic that there is no time for reactions. And never over rehearse a comedy scene - use rehearsals to block out actor movement, then turn on the camera and see what happens!
3 - Page Count vs Camera Set-Ups - Peter D. Marshall
When you look at the 1st AD's call sheet and see all those scenes and pages you have to shoot each day, remember: it's not the page count that matters as much as the number of set-ups (shots) youhave each day.
4 - Use Your Hand as the Foot for a Great Hit! - Peter D. Marshall
Want to get a great CU of Person B getting hit in the face/head by Person A's foot?
Take the shoe, sock and pant leg of Person A and dress it on the stunt coordinator's hand and arm.(re: fit the pant over the arm, put the sock and shoe on the hand). You can then move the camera in close and use the stunt coordinator to swing at Person B's head right beside the camera. You get a great looking shot and you have more control of the "kick." I've used this technique several times in fight sequences and it looks great on camera.
5 - Screen Direction in an Fight Sequence - Peter D. Marshall
Which way an actor looks, or which side of the camera he exits or enters, is called Screen Direction (the "180 degree rule"). Maintaining proper screen direction is one of the jobs of the Script Supervisor and is very important to the uninterrupted flow of your story. But should the screen direction rule always be "obeyed?"
During fight scenes, "crossing the axis" adds a dramatic sense of confusion to the action - where punches and gunshots come from odd angles and characters enter and exit unexpectedly. And whenyou add slow-motion, dutch tilts, hand-held cameras and jump-cutting techniques, you can create a ballet-like scene that is stylistic and dynamic.
6 - Work Expands with the Time Allotted - Peter D. Marshall
In a TV Series, you should know what scenes you want to spend extra time on (more coverage or more time with the actors) and which scenes you will shoot quickly (to make up for the longerscenes). Give the 1st AD this information so he can help you out in the schedule.
Remember, if you are shooting a low-budget movie or a TV Series, it's "Gone with the Wind" in the morning and "Duke's of Hazzard" in the afternoon!
7 - The "Walk and Talk" Scene - Peter D. Marshall
Two actors have to walk from Point-A (a hallway) and finish their dialogue when they reach Point-B (an elevator or a door). A quick way of deciding where they must begin (in the hallway) is to havethem start walking FROM Point-B to Point-A. Where they stop (finish their lines) is where you can start them for the scene.
8 - Learn to Balance Your Scenes - Peter D. Marshall
Every script will have scenes that are not necessary; scenes that have nothing going on; or scenes that are only for character development. But if they haven't been omitted, (by the producers or writers) you still have to shoot them. The trick here is to not spend a lot of time on these scenes - just shoot them fast and get onto the next one.
9 - Character Objectives - Peter D. Marshall
Actors and Directors have to come up with as many objectives for a character as possible. A character's objective should be something that will engage the other characters in a scene; it should create it's own obstacles; and it should be something the actor can believe in and commit to.
But there is one important rule to remember when choosing objectives for a character. An actor can only play ONE objective in a scene! Always ask yourself "What is the character's need in this scene?" and then make sure the actor plays that objective!
10 - Advice on Making Short Films - by Luciano Bresdem
My name is Luciano Bresdem, I am from Brazil and I have made some short films. I would like to share some directing tips that I have learned.
For me, the most important part for a director is knowing the script: structure, characters, space, plot,... You should know the material that you have in your hands. Second thing: You should know what you want to say with this film - if you don't know what you want to say, you will lose the control over the material, actors, and crew. And the last thing: You should find the ways to say what you want to say. Discipline and organization are important here. Make a list, in detail, with every aspect of the production (Performance, Location, Direction of Photographic, Sound,...) and remember that "there's no unimportant decisions in filmmaking".
11 - Communicating to the Crew - Peter D. Marshall
An experienced director should be able to talk to key personnel in their own terms.
That means you should not only know the techniques of acting when talking to actors, but you should also understand lenses when talking to a camera operator and DOP, you should understand costumes when talking to the wardrobe department, you should understand the basics of hair and make-up....etc.
Does this make you a better director? Not necessarily. But it will help you to communicate your ideas and vision to the people that have to make it happen!
12 - A Quote from Frank Capra
Here is one of my favorite tips - and it comes in the form of a quote from the legendary director, Frank Capra.
"There are no rules in film making, only sins. And the cardinal sin is Dullness."
13 - Dealing with Actors who Change Dialogue - Peter D. Marshall
When dealing with actors who want to improvise and change their dialogue, make sure they know what the intent of the scene is first. Once you and the actor both agree on the scene intent, they can go ahead and improvise their dialogue - and the objective of the scene will still be met.
14 - The Director and 1st AD Relationship - Peter D. Marshall
In Television - The 1st AD works WITH the Director FOR the Producer
In Features - The 1st AD works FOR the Director, WITH the Producer
15 - Directing for an Audience - Peter D. Marshall
As a director, it's important to properly gauge the length of time the viewer needs to digest the information in a scene. (the greater audience involvement, the more successful the film)
Remember, an audience will accept as pertinent almost anything portrayed on the screen, even if it seems to make little sense. (If it's there, it must be for reason.)
16 - Actors Should "Do" Rather than "Say" - Peter D. Marshall
When working on your script, and when shooting on the set, make sure you have the actors "do things" rather than "say things."
17 - Developing Small Character Roles - Peter D. Marshall
Any character in a script that is worth keeping is worth developing. Allow the smaller roles to have offbeat remarks or unique bits of action to make them memorable.
18 - Understanding the Business of Film - Peter D. Marshall
Understanding the differences and similarities between both TV and Film is essential to a successful and productive career in the film business because of one word: POLITICS!
19 - When to Use a Second Camera - Peter D. Marshall
Shooting with a second camera is a must if you want to save time on the set.
1) Action Scenes - you should always use several cameras during Action and stunt scenes.
2) Dialogue Scenes - you will need to work closely with the DOP, and the soundman, about when to use the second camera, what it is covering and what lens to use.
3) Filming kids and animals - this will help you get the shot on the first or second take as both children and animals will never do the same thing twice.
20 - Night Shooting - Peter D. Marshall
Shooting at night takes more time than shooting in the day so make sure you are totally prepared. It is also helpful to know how to cheat your reverses - so you can spend less time lighting and more time shooting.
21 - Working with Visual Effects - Peter D. Marshall
Most film and TV programs today utilize some form of special visual FX (Green screen, motion control, computer screens etc.) Because of the complexity of these shots, make sure you work very closely with the Visual FX Supervisor to properly schedule all of the plate shots, reference shots and green screen shots.
22 - Blocking a Scene Tips - Peter D. Marshall
Having a shot list will help you during the blocking process. The shot list is like a map: it gives you a path to your destination but you don't always have to follow ita) let the actors show you what they want to do first, then, when you make a suggestion, it is based on something you have already seenb) in Television, speed is essential, so try and block some scenes so that your action takes place in one direction (to avoid turning the camera around for reverses)