Responsible for the edit only on this one, and it was a quick turnaround -- got footage in the afternoon; started work around 6pm; had a nap; and it's 5am now.
Intro/outro are of course very simple; didn't have time to experiment with motion graphics; and don't have the skill/experience to improvise. Music cost me $50 to buy from a royalty free site; couldn't find anything more suitable that was cheaper, and the clock was against me. This will cut into the already small fee I'm getting for the job, but anyway...
Quite interesting, to edit someone else's footage. Makes you aware of differences in camera techniques and strategies. For instance, the main videographer here evidently used a handheld camera, and employs a bunch of techniques I, shooting on a monopod, very rarely use -- rolling the camera, circular dolly movements, dolly forward, crane up. He also overcranks, to film in slow motion (which I rarely do either -- my main camera doesn't have the capability).
Found I had far too much footage. So, instead of incorporating something from the actual surfboat race, I just restricted myself to footage of the girls. And, even so, I ran out of time with this. Fairly satisfied with it, but for the final shot -- it's too bright. Colour grading needs to be tweaked.
Two editing discoveries:
-- If you raise the black point in your Levels effect, you make the colours look a lot more "candy". Not sure why.
-- Pretty much any sort of music goes with beach shots...
Avoid if at all possible. Shoot, instead, with one clean background plate, and then with actor, if you need to do any VFX.
Green screen usually doesn't work even in multimillion-dollar Hollywood films. Pros can tell it's green screen. The normal audience member can also tell it's green screen; they just don't realise they realise.
I paused the DVD player on shots in Harry Potter and in The Machinist recently, asked girlfriend, "Notice anything?" Answer: "It's green screen." But maybe she's been around me too long.
Things to look out for include: edge is too sharp; edge has bits of green in it or shimmering colours; quality or grain of image doesn't match; lighting doesn't match.
Ways to get away with it include:
-- make it a very short shot
-- cover it up with all sorts of crap composited into the image
-- as someone once said, smoke and darkness have sold any number of visual effects
-- use it as part of a music video. You can then get away with anything.
So, today's adventure was a beach shoot. Following promo girls around a surfboat competition. Will try to complete the video tomorrow, but here's some details.
Traditionally, viewfinders on cameras were black and white. Why? I don't know why, to be honest. Google it. Probably to do with limits of technology.
Even when colour viewfinders became possible, pro cameras had black-and-white, consumer cameras had colour. My guess is that either black-and-white viewfinders were still technically superior in terms of sharpness, or they were simply cheaper
To be honest, not satisfied with this one. It doesn't have the sort of build up and narrative progression of the first, and doesn't seem to have the same sort of wow moments. Emotions are much less distinct and more muted. Messages are perhaps less clear. Some of the images have annoying overexposed bits, and there's bad framing in the third (chair) shot. There's less camera movement (if any) on the whole as well
If you're ever in the position of filming some sort of journey, or chase sequence (by car or foot) -- having lots of shots of people moving gets old fast. Now, they're running down the stairs, now they're running round the corner, now they're running along the boardwalk, now they're running down the street...
Now, you might vary the location, you might vary the camera movement or composition or angle, you might vary the shot size. Music (especially if it has a number of surprises in it or different moments) does do a lot to sell such sequences. But in the end, to put it bluntly, imagewise it's the same old shit. The audience loses focus because there's no work for the brain to do; there's no new information. It drags
-- Her name is apparently Alyssa Kramer, a 14-year-old from Poteau, Oklahoma. Video was posted June 10, 2011, and only "went viral" around 28 January 2012.
-- There's at least three ways of saying things backwards. You can pronounce a word as it sounds when played in reverse. You can pronounce the phonemes in reverse order. Or you can do what Alyssa apparently does -- see the word written in reverse, and pronounce it as if it were a normal English word spelled that way (for instance, she pronounces the last "e" in "garage").
-- Isn't 100% consistent. Sometimes misses words, and doesn't consistently follow the rule of pronouncing words as they would be pronounced if spelled backwards (for instance, says "izpep" instead of "isspep").
-- Useful discussions (including info about other people with the same or similar skill) at MSNBC and Language Log and Daily Dot.
Footage looks very different to Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity, et al. Could be 35mm, based on depth of field and dynamic range! Also doesn't look handheld -- tripod, crane or steadicam, surely.
Does this detract from it?
The bits of the ending sequence shown in the trailer look spectacular.
Cinico, still blogging, yes, but not very frequently .
Anonymous, I think that might be one of the most incisive comments anyone's left on this blog. Thanks very much for it.
I don't think it's so much a part/whole distinction, though. There's probably two sorts of claims I'd push.
1. That the word "meaning" is normally used where there's "intention, free will, reference, thought, clarity", but that strange problems occur when you try to use it outside the normal contexts. This doesn't necessarily mean it should be avoided. But I'd claim it's useful to be aware of this strangeness.
It's a drum I've beaten with respect to other words. For instance, I've been quite interested in looking at when "consent" is and isn't appropriate. I've run the same line with "free will". And Arendt suggested something similar to do with "moral" -- that if a concentration camp commander tells you that either you shoot a fellow prisoner or he'll shoot five people, there are reasons to think that this apparent choice is no longer in the moral realm.
2. Secondly, I'm claiming that When people talk and think about "meanings", they believe #or act as if# meanings are more than physical -- more than the physical parts. It's this "more than the physical" that I'm sus of. #I'm sus of "propositions" for the same sort of reason.#
Consider mental states. If you're a thoroughgoing physicalist and are suspicious of mental state talk, or it somehow seems strange or unclear to you, what are your options? You could try to explain and clarify it, or the useful part of it, in terms of some other discourse that you feel is better understood #behaviourism, functionalism, identity theory#, you could claim it's a big mess and, in many contexts, best to avoid it altogether #eliminativism#, you could claim that, for some reason or other, ordinary language is already in good order #I suppose this is a "quietist" position#.
Where I am re meaning is wishy-washy. I think there's something funny about meaning talk. At least when you think about it in particular ways. But I don't know whether meaning-talk should be "reduced" to some other discourse, or avoided, or whether there's good reasons why language is already in order -- or even whether all positions could be embraced simultaneously.
Hi Tanilo, I don't think this is the reply you wanted, but here are some thoughts:
* I want to try to avoid making any generalisations that I don't feel I can back up with persuasive evidence. Are Christians more deviant, sneaky, manipulative, than other religions? I don't know. Perhaps some Christians are sneaky, and some aren't, just as in the general population some people are sneaky, and some aren't.
How would one would measure degree of sneakiness? Are there more sneaky people in Christian than Buddhist countries? I don't know.
* I suspect (without knowing) that it's more a matter of personality and of socioeconomic factors than of religion.
* If one wanted to measure crime rates rather than general sneakiness, that might be a more tangible question. But it would also have its own complications. How do you separate the influence of religion on criminality from all the other factors (gender, class, wealth, culture, etc)?
Even if you can measure this, what conclusions should you draw? Is the religion with less criminality necessarily a "better" one? I wouldn't say so. They might be bad for other reasons. Police states might have low rates of crime, but I don't think this makes them more desirable social arrangements.
Also, whether a religion is desirable surely has a lot to do with whether it's true. I don't think you can judge religions by results alone. So I could imagine a Christian saying, "Yes, Christians are more sneaky, but it's still a good religion, because it's the true one."
* It's true that there is that Bible verse about believing, and you will be saved, but I don't know how often people will interpret this as, "The only thing you need to worry about is believing. You can sin as much as you like, as long as you believe."
In Roman Catholicism, I think the priest has the power to absolve you of any guilt, as long as you genuinely repent, but I don't know that people will necessarily interpret this as a get-out-of-hell-free card -- as a licence to sin as much as they like.
It's an interesting suggestion that people might interpret this way, and this might encourage them towards immoral behaviour. Is the suggestion accurate? I can't commit either way.
Only place in the world -- basically yes, as far as I know. Dodgy, dodgy films though. I say "basically, yes" because, a year or two back, AFTRS did something similar. But I think this was mainly with graduate students. I'm not sure how that film fared.
I reckon, if you have the balls, you should make your own film instead of working on someone else's. Get a copy of The Guerrilla Filmmakers Handbook. Watch the commentary to Rodriguez's El Mariachi. Buy Dov SS Siemens' DVDs. There's lots of resources out there to finding out how to go about this. If you don't have the balls to do it now, will you be in a much better position after pouring three years and a tens of thousands of dollars into a degree course?
Sydney Film School -- I know very little about this, but I used to go to high school #and university# with the guy who runs it. I know nothing about quality of instruction, and have never met anyone who goes there. I think they bought Red One cameras a few years back. If they can afford such things, they must be doing well. This would make them one of very few places in Sydney #or Australia# that has such equipment #costs around $1,000 per day to rent normally#. How much time students actually get to play with the cameras I don't know.
What they charge per year, I don't know; but the thought sickens me of spending $20,000, $50,000, $100,000 per year on any film school, even if it's allegedly the best in the world. The sheer waste of money. Give me just $10,000, and I'll make a decent film for you. It's a bit like the way acting classes are a limitless black hole that you pour your money into, the teachers preying on the dreams and desperation of the students.
About money for Participate, I think I might as well make a few quick notes:
-- In addition to your course fee, you're expected to raise money for the film, and to pay for your living expenses while making the film #which add up a lot since you're not working at the time#. The idea is that the course fee does NOT go towards the film, but goes towards the teaching throughout the year. Repeat: students must raise money to pay for the film #and for associated living expenses# in addition to their course fees.
-- Money is raised through any fundraising idea you can think of -- holding a band night and charging a door fee, selling chocolates, running a lottery... My year performed pitiably in raising money. Maybe $2,000 among among half a dozen or so students. The year before us apparently raised $12,000 with around a dozen students, the year before them $25,000 with two dozen students. The year before that was much larger #some 80 plus students#, and they would have raised much more again.
-- If you don't raise money, basically you must pay out of your own pocket. The producers #student producers and Art# simply assumed #without discussing it with the rest of the class# a discretion to spend on items they thought were necessary, and to hand us the bill afterwards. It must be said that, at the end of the day, they didn't spend that much money in the scheme of things. Would have cost each of us a few hundred at most. Expenses not accounted for #but which presumably could be deducted as business expenses for running the school# include things like petrol, stationery, phone calls.
-- The films themselves don't cost an awful lot, but expenses build up fast. The main expenses are food #for yourself, actors, etc#, accomodation, transport, consummables. In some cases, damage to equipment #eg a broken spreader for a tripod#. You'll find on any low-low budget production that food is one of the main costs, and costs more than you might think. I think -- it must be said -- that most of the damage expenses would have come out of Art's own pocket #albeit that pocket was lined with course fees#. For instance, I think some actors damaged the lapel microphones when they yanked them off their clothes, and I don't remember being separately charged for the cost of these.
-- Consummables: most expensive were light globes #can run to a few hundred each# and tape stock #Art used to shoot on DVCPRO 50, which cost a few thousand#. Other stuff included gaffer tape, and various bits and pieces... Also, thank you presents. One great thing I learned from Art. He was big on emphasising "leave the location better than you found it" -- tidy up all garbage, including stuff that you didn't create -- and also give anyone who helps you a six pack of beer, or a bottle of wine, or some other gift.
-- There were also expenses in post production. For instance, the purchase of several large hard disks to edit on and use as backup #much cheaper now than it used to be#. And potentially unlimited expense in organising any marketing, etc. As much as you can afford. I'm not sure of what expenses are involved into transferring into a theatrical format #eg DCP#, but this wouldn't be cheap, and for our year probably came out of Art's pocket/course fees rather than the collective students' pockets.
-- Most locations we got for free, but some we paid for #including a hospital and cemetery -- each about $200/$300 per day#. On one occasion, we rented a house for a week, and both lived and shot there.
-- Art supplied all equipment #camera, lights, sound, grip equipment#, so there were few times anything was actually hired. A girl in our class used to work for a company that hired out roadwork equipment #like lights and cherry pickers#, so we got those for free! Occasionally rented a car to transport gear. The value of all this gear, if we had paid for everything, would have been a fair bit. Mind you, we didn't need everything he had; people have made better feature films on a lot less.
-- Actors and crew on deferred payment. If there's a profit, it gets split. The trick is that "deferred" means "never". I think everyone accepted that and wasn't doing it for money. It was never specified how much each person would get in the event of profit; the contracts simply said, "up to discretion of producer". Also, when you say that PROFITS are alotted, this means after expenses have been recouped. And there's so many ways to inflate the number. For instance, Art could fix the hire rate of his equipment at whatever price he liked, and could charge for his own time at whatever price he liked.
VWill, I've tried a few times to write a lengthy reply, and Orble has been stuffing me around. Here's the short version.
Most established school is AFTRS. But what I'd recommend is to enrol in Metro Screen's 3-month full-time course, or to save up money and buy your own gear.
TAFEs are OK.
From what I've heard, avoid everything else. Universities, JMC (unless doing animation), Sydney Film School, International Film School, etc. If you want to know why, ask.
I couldn't in conscience recommend it... Here's some quick thoughts.
The price is neither here nor there. Who cares if it's cheap. Metroscreen is also cheap, but it's a great place to go to -- 80% of grads get employment in the industry, allegedly.
I think the price is probably commensurate with the qualification offered and the hours of instruction (a Saturday each week for a year, as opposed to full-time study in other places#. Previously (up to 2010) there wasn't a qualification. Now, there's some sort of diploma.
Incidentally, there are other costs that will inevitably come up. The course fee isn't all you'll pay. Be prepared for that if you want to do this course. People are expected to raise a budget before the film starts. If you fail to raise the budget, you'll be paying out of your own pocket for many things. Consider the lost income when you have to take weeks away from work to work on the film. Consider the living expenses if you have to shoot on location. And there is also a personal cost -- plenty of people have lost girlfriends and boyfriends because they've neglected them to work on the film (on the other hand, there are some cases where people have hooked up).
Learning -- not great, compared with what I've experienced elsewhere. OK, fairly terrible. Sorry, any Participate people out there; that's my opinion, and you're entitled to yours. I honestly think very very few ex-students would recommend the school or want to work with Art again. Mind you, I think most film schools are missable. You learn more by following Phillip Bloom's blog, or visiting Video Copilot, or hanging out on DVXuser, etc.
A lot of the learning at Participate was simply watching DVDs -- in particular, Dov SS Siemens' DVD and the Hollywood Camera Work DVDs. Some industry people occasionally (very rarely) came in and taught for an hour or two, but their classes, while often full of insights, were unsystematic, and I doubt very much that they taught sunk in or connected to actual practice. A lot of classes and homework were pretty irrelevant. Things like reading, "How to win friends and influence people" (I kid you not), or instruction on how to build a team.
On the other hand, you learn things like rolling cables and taking care of gear that I don't think you're properly taught in other places. I know a lot of cameras at TAFEs get roughed up, for instance.
As for Art deciding the script... That's pretty much true. If you did write a script that appealed to him, I think he'd consider it. But if it doesn't appeal (which is the most likely scenario), then he'll tell you that he's funding the whole thing, and what he says goes, and you have to use this other script instead.
But if you're prepared for him to do all this, then you won't feel hard done by.
It's the same for every creative decision. Most of the time, he'll simply take over. The whole thing is Art's show; you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
The unavoidable interpretation (and this might NOT be true; who knows what Art thinks) is that he's simply using people to provide money and labour to make his own films, to provide vehicles for family members with acting aspirations, etc.
This is how it looks, and how most ex-students see it (I've talked to them!). Art knows that people think this. Of course, I don't know if this is what Art actually thinks. In fact, I'm skeptical that Art is consciously manipulative.
I believe he rationalises it to himself. I think he thinks, "They're struggling. I have to step in, or the whole thing will be a mess." There's some truth to this -- anyone who's been on a student set knows how long it takes to get things done (not that Art was that much quicker from my experience -- spent hours fiddling with dedolights). But there's also the fact that, by constantly stepping in, Art is preventing people putting anything of themselves into the films (they simply become automatons, workers), and he's also preventing people learning from mistakes.
Basic message -- adjust your expectations. You're going in there to work on Art's film, not to make your own film. In my year, Art chose script, actors, locations, directed, was cinematographer... This wasn't what I'd signed up for, so I was disappointed. But if I'd known what to expect, then maybe I'd have thought differently.
You learn things about how to get movies made -- how to get locations, how to save money, cut deals. You learn things on set that it might not be easy to learn elsewhere -- taking care of equipment, working under a lot of frustration and pressure, working long, long hours #sometimes around 16 hours a day#, and how to cope with copping a lot of abuse from Art #he regularly speaks to crew in a way that would be unacceptable elsewhere#. You also learn plenty of things not to do.
So the experience is worth something; where else will you get the chance, while a student, to work on a feature film, albeit a feature film at the very, very low end? And as crappy as the results are (and I'm not being mean -- let's be honest -- they're all kinds of bad), the process still has some degree of professionalism, and the results do get theatrical release (through a relationship with Hoyts Fox Studios and others), and probably will get entered in the AFI Awards.
Would I have done it if I knew what it was? No. I'd have saved my money for gear and taught myself.
Did I learn something? Yes.
Was the learning good? No. But things may have changed. Who knows.
Could I have learned more elsewhere? Yes. But there are also some things I probably wouldn't have learned elsewhere.
Necklace, you're responding to the next post, right? Well, I think there's a lot of truth in what you say, but also that it's not a complete explanation. Check out my reply to Adam re his initial suggestion that a malicious intention might be the real reason one is insulted.
Adam, I think that's what a Brit might call "a fair cop". Post does kind of peter out.
What's the point? To explore what can be said to the psychopath to persuade him/her to be moral. Claiming that there's not much one can say #as I end up doing# does kind of fizzle things out.
Why care about this imaginary situation at all? A good question. The issue is probably of little practical use.
I suppose it's similar to asking, "Why care if there's any knowledge beyond doubt?" in the way Descartes tried to prove.
Maybe, at the end of the day, it's only an issue for those whose brains are programmed to worry about such trivia. Most people don't care very much if knowledge is beyond doubt; they just get on with things. Similarly, most people don't care if their moral beliefs are based in reason; they just get on with things.
Looking into foundational support for knowledge or morality does have the potential to revitalise your beliefs -- to lead you to new knowledge, to revise what you thought was right or wrong. But it also has huge potential to go nowhere, except to confusion, doubt, aporia, and more questions.
For some people, though, the very conclusion that "This is the limit of what can be said on the topic", if they're certain of that conclusion... Well, that can bring a satisfaction in itself. Perhaps one no longer needs to worry about asking a question if it can never be answered.
Add Comments
Read More
.
Comment by Nonymous
on Backwards Talking Freakazoid - AMAZING!
Philosophy Blog
-- Her name is apparently Alyssa Kramer, a 14-year-old from Poteau, Oklahoma. Video was posted June 10, 2011, and only "went viral" around 28 January 2012.
-- Makes an appearance on the Today show.
-- Might be saying "Huh?" to stall for time.
-- There's at least three ways of saying things backwards. You can pronounce a word as it sounds when played in reverse. You can pronounce the phonemes in reverse order. Or you can do what Alyssa apparently does -- see the word written in reverse, and pronounce it as if it were a normal English word spelled that way (for instance, she pronounces the last "e" in "garage").
-- Isn't 100% consistent. Sometimes misses words, and doesn't consistently follow the rule of pronouncing words as they would be pronounced if spelled backwards (for instance, says "izpep" instead of "isspep").
-- Useful discussions (including info about other people with the same or similar skill) at MSNBC and Language Log and Daily Dot.