fuzzynormal

We can't think about everything. Americans got enough on our plate (that's literal, not metaphorical). For instance, our Olympians are changing their gender 40 years after they were in the spotlight, so you shouldn't expect us to concentrate on lesser issues.

You got the idea. I'd tweak the structure. This would be more work, but... think parallel editing and more intensity. No dialog. I'd even go straight up melodrama, over the top sort of stuff. This technique will work good with creating short advertising length commercials. Also, keep it non-linear. So: the scene of a lifesaving drama unfolding in a hospital intercut with the scene of the guy rushing to the hospital. Our main characters: "Hero Guy" and "Saved Patient." Secondary characters: "Similar Guy" "Similar Patient." Start with CU of a blinking red light. Sound of medical drama and intensity, cut to action and an emergency in the ER. Lots of chaos and attempted lifesaving going on as doctors try to help "Saved Patient." Meanwhile intercut with this "Hero Guy" wakes up receiving a phone call, we absolutely DON'T hear what it's about. When he hangs up, he looks to his bed/wife, takes a deep breath and then makes the decision to leave. His journey begins as you say. Rushing, no taxi, etc. We then see a similar guy pick up a phone in a similar way... Never sits up in bed though. Doesn't even put the phone to his head, just looks at it. At the ER, the chaos continues, instead of seeing one team of doctors and nurses working hard, we eventually see that it's two teams/doctors/nurses both working on serious injury victims. Similar guy putting the phone back on the receiver. Hero guy arrives, and as he does he passes a nurse who reaches frantically for a phone and starts dialing. Our hero jumps into the chaos and docs start the transfusion process. We see the other docs getting frantic and desperate. The nurse on the phone places it back on the receiver and she returns joining the more desperate doctors. Hero guy looks over to Desperate Patient girl. He reaches out and holds her hand, the doctors lean back as they realize she's stabilizing. Congratulations, smiles, slaps on the back and such. Other Doctors have the opposite reaction, they loose their patient. Sadness, clerics enter as doctors leave. Crying parents in background. Long beat. Cut to shot of phone at "Similar Guys" home. It sits unmoving in the foreground, dolly or tilt down to see red message light blinking. We see "Similar Guy" roll over in bed, hold for a beat. Cut to end-slate. I like your initial idea. Thats' my twist on it.

​I don't think Andrew Putschoegl is exactly the next best Vince Gilligan, but maybe the dude has a darker side.

​Anyone in marketing that would think this is a good idea probably shouldn't be in marketing, but that's corporate culture for you. If it were me, I'd be hiring Kendry (for the same budget they spent on this mistake) and just let him do his thing. Whatever he came back with at the end of a month would get people excited. Not only what he did but how he shot it. Heck, spend a day on Vimeo and you could track down hundreds of talented filmmakers. This particular movie strikes me as the perfect example of a talent challenged film maker* devoted to the tech and the idea of making a movie --while not having enough well rounded artistic talent. The film is amusing to me in the sense that It does illustrate how the fundamentals of making a good film has pretty much jack-squat to do with the camera. *full disclosure: I consider myself as such so I recognize the limitations.

Good idea, but...yeah...unfortunately not so great for talking head interviews is it? Can't hide the thing. If that does't matter to you, then no problem. Make a version with an input for a high-quality lav mic and I'd certainly be more curious.

Well, doing "this" certain look or doing "that" certain look is nice and all (and you should strive for a cohesive aesthetic--even if it's just doing the whole thing on a cheap 50mm lens) but you should really save more particular image considerations for the bottom of the want-to-do list. Ultimately, nothing is going to make your film more viable and successful than a good bit of considered pre-production planning. And most of that stuff has nothing to do with lenses or cameras. Also, it's free. Arguably, you could shoot the whole thing on an old VHS camcorder and if the story was solid, people will watch it. Heck, I'd argue that the IQ low-fi quality of such would be a helluvalot more compelling than contemporary electronic imaging. Obviously, good IQ is great for a film, but certainly over-emphasized here. An old NEX and a kit lens is more than good enough in capable hands...IMHO. Especially for a western where the limitations of a "softer" camera fit the rustic quality of the setting. Would great dynamic range be nice to have? Yes. Is it a necessity? Well, I guess that's for you to decide. Again, the most solid advice I can offer since you're on a time constraint, is definitely do the storyboard. If you're real ambitious, slide-show your story board and then do a real time edit with a dialog comp/music track. This can be fun if you have willing and eager players involved to do their voices (it's even a sort of rehearsal) and it'll also illustrate any camera-shot holes you might have...before you're on set. Recently I made an experimental short film wherein I attempted to film actors on-locations in a documentary style. While successful on certain levels, ultimately it didn't hold together as too many shots where absent, the production went way too long, and the talent floundered too much. A director with more tenacity and skill probably could have tied things together better and artistically, but I definitely ended up stretched beyond my capabilities. So, knowing what to do going in is the best bet. At least it was from my experience. If nothing else, all that pre-pro that helps you stay on task. Ironically, it seems like you have the initial insight and (most important) helpful crew, that'll allow you to be more accomplished at this --more so than some aspiring "pros" like myself would be. Obviously, come back here and post your results when you're finished. I would love to see it. I wrote a Western script last year that made it deep into pre-production before the investor pulled out...and I have a soft spot for that genre...hope it goes well for ya!

​Looks dated and middling. Since it's unlikely to garner serious web traffic what would be the point?

Oh my, one can be too old for this shit? I may be in trouble. I'd say the big thing would be to storyboard it.

You want a professional or prosumer camera? I used to shoot a ton with Canon's XH cams, and that line has evolved into Canon XF300. Although, the 300 is not 4k and the build of the camera does look a little high end. Still, I was always able to make my XH-A1 look pretty good on documentary shoots. I have stuff from years ago that easily rivals stuff I've done recently. Maybe Panasonic's HC-WX970 would be a good stealth cam? It looks very unassuming, as does the Sony AX-100. Not sure how you'd stretch things to a full day of recording, especially with 100Mps 4k shooting. Still, swapping a card would only break shooting for about 5-10 seconds...assuming you have a camera operator doing that. You could rig a external battery without too much trouble to run all day.

​Then again, an accomplished race car driver in a modest sedan could easily lap a kid in a Ferrari. It's not always what it does, but how you do it.

Well, there is improved light sensitivity too. Personally I'm not enamored with the FF extreme DOF look anymore, but it does offer advantages. The shallow DOF at f1.4 is pretty useful for interviews, but (IMHO) not for other shooting.

​So true. Which is why I don't tend to sweat it too much if I'm not using the latest and greatest imaging device.

​I'm on a selection committee for a film fest. Honestly, we see a lot more creativity from people working with a lot less. Point is, this film is lame. I'll agree with ya. Anyway, a good aspiring film maker will recognize that it's not the camera failing here. Of course, many aspiring film makers don't always know what the hell they're doing, so they could be swayed negatively with lousy films. I mean, "Reverie" wasn't exactly great narrative, but at least it used light in a good interesting way. Yvonne's cinematography is sterile and ... well, just bad. Samsung should've pulled the plug on this film and left it alone. --And putting it on YouTube with an open comment section? Whooo-weee....good luck with that.

Well, you should know that lots of other cameras have better quality than Canon or Nikon right out of the box. But, you should also know that a Canon ML (Magic Lantern) hack will give a Canon camera some of the best image quality on the market. You have to work a bit harder in post to deal with that footage, however, but it's probably the most affordable way to get some awesome motion picture imaging. Ultimately, I went with M43 gear, but it was't just because of IQ (which was pretty impressive from Panasonic).

Wow. Talented stuff on display there. Good editing. I appreciate your style and understanding that small can be a huge advantage. I shot a doc in November with a GX7 and GM1. No problems. Great images and very nondescript.

"I began to wonder if the ‘space race’ of camera technology may have lost sight of what actually makes a flattering picture." Yup. And it ultimately ain't really the camera, is it? What should happen when a filmmaker gets their hands on a camera where the spec sheet is more or less ideal? At some point it's got to be about what we do with the things. ...if anyone wants to buy me a A7R II though, let me know ;-)

I'm curious about that Bolex. What's your take?

Panasonic LUMIX G 42.5mm f/1.7 Aspherical Power O.I.S. Lens Micro Four Thirds I'm a M43 shooter most of time. For me, a 40mm-ish lens offers an ideal focal length for cinematic imaging. I find I like doing a lot of my shots at this focal length on M43. Often it's all I go out into the field with for certain gigs. I do this to keep my sessions aesthetically cohesive. I have an Oly 45mm 1.8. I might carry along my Pany 20mm for some wider stuff, but I'm just not as enamored with it as I am the 45. The documentary I'm currently working on is about 75% shot on my 45mm, and almost all those shots are making it into the edit. Zooms I don't really like. I use them for corporate work, never really for my own shooting. I like to recommend people shoot with only one lens for stuff. It's really great limiting your focal length options; forces you to think in a certain visual vocabulary. The last short I did was all with a 25mm 2.8. Primes are the best!

Well, here's her sentiment directly for reference:

​Yeah, that's pretty much what she had to say about it. And I also find it fascinating that even as the ability to afford one's "brush" gets cheaper and cheaper, it's always going to be a relevant part of the process. It's an art form that's more demanding of the craftwork than other mediums, I think. The simple nature of it being (mostly) collaborative produces an energy and momentum not seen in many other types of solitary art. --One of the reasons I find the collaborative are of dance and live music so captivating as well.

FWIW, here's some more insight from the filmmaker I quoted:

It would be so much easier to be a painter or a writer. You don't have to have equipment. You don't have to do all the things. You're not at the mercy of gear. You're not here and you're not there. It's a terrible pain to be a filmmaker, because you not only have the creative problems, but you have financial problems that they don't have. You have technical problems that they don't have. You have machines that are breaking down in a way that paintbrushes don't break down. It's just a terrible thing to be a filmmaker. And if you are a filmmaker, it's because there is something in the sheer medium that seems to be able to make some sort of statement that you particularly want to make, and which no other medium to you seems capable of making in the same way. Not my words, but I do like them. As much as I go on about it's only about what you do with the equipment, not what equipment you have, filmmakers are tethered to the technology. It's the blessing/curse. If you're curious about from where and whom the above sentiment comes from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH8FvTjESvU

It would be so much easier to be a painter or a writer. You don't have to have equipment. You don't have to do all the things. You're not at the mercy of gear. You're not here and you're not there. It's a terrible pain to be a filmmaker, because you not only have the creative problems, but you have financial problems that they don't have. You have technical problems that they don't have. You have machines that are breaking down in a way that paintbrushes don't break down. It's just a terrible thing to be a filmmaker. And if you are a filmmaker, it's because there is something in the sheer medium that seems to be able to make some sort of statement that you particularly want to make, and which no other medium to you seems capable of making in the same way. Not my words, but I do like them. As much as I go on about it's only about what you do with the equipment, not what equipment you have, filmmakers are tethered to the technology. It's the blessing/curse. If you're curious about from where and whom the above sentiment comes from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH8FvTjESvU

If you can't realize the profundity of cat videos, you're dead to me.​

​50p slowed to 25p as needed. And I agree. I also do the 30p to 24p thing every once in awhile for a subtle motion effect.