Liam

So... if I switched to youtube, my biggest concern is I feel like I'd never be able to get my videos even close to the right audience or be able to discover other decent filmmakers in the same way. Tips on how to use youtube more like vimeo in that sense? Is there an equivalent to "groups" that I'm not seeing? On youtube I just always feel like the views I get were accidental clicks by people looking for.. you know, bad videos.

So... if I switched to youtube, my biggest concern is I feel like I'd never be able to get my videos even close to the right audience or be able to discover other decent filmmakers in the same way. Tips on how to use youtube more like vimeo in that sense? Is there an equivalent to "groups" that I'm not seeing? On youtube I just always feel like the views I get were accidental clicks by people looking for.. you know, bad videos.

Yeah, I changed my mind about he video. But I'm not saying whether I was being sarcastic before, so who knows what I'm thinking now

Yeah, I changed my mind about he video. But I'm not saying whether I was being sarcastic before, so who knows what I'm thinking now

Yeah, I changed my mind about he video. But I'm not saying whether I was being sarcastic before, so who knows what I'm thinking now

Yeah, I changed my mind about he video. But I'm not saying whether I was being sarcastic before, so who knows what I'm thinking now

Yeah, I changed my mind about he video. But I'm not saying whether I was being sarcastic before, so who knows what I'm thinking now

Yeah, I changed my mind about he video. But I'm not saying whether I was being sarcastic before, so who knows what I'm thinking now

omg ?
im starting a new thread on this: "What's Liam Thinking?"

Yeah, I changed my mind about he video. But I'm not saying whether I was being sarcastic before, so who knows what I'm thinking now

Yeah it's gross
 

I agree with this advice more than what I wrote before.
(Apologies for coming off as prescriptive, I didn't mean to. I recognize that "exception that breaks the rule" is a silly thing to write and presupposes you haven't done your research. You can look up previous Sundance–or whatever festival of your choosing–selections on IMDb and plot their run times if you want a purely objective metric. It might be worthwhile to if you haven't. Of course, this would be boring and require a large sample size to be useful, hence me relying on aphorisms instead of research.)
I'll caveat agreeing with @Thomas Hill with this:
Film festival submissions follow the same logic as FaceBook posts. 
Maybe you want to get a like from as many people as possible. So you work hard to say what you think people will like. You'll probably get a lot of likes!
Maybe you want to share something with fewer people but within a group whose values you share and admire. So you target your thoughts toward that group and only share it there. You'll probably get fewer likes, but they'll mean more to you...
Maybe you just want to scream out into the world and bare your soul. Or bare your soul to your closest friends, or a select group you admire. Riskiest gesture. Most fulfilling? Maybe? Maybe not. Sometimes just being part of a community is fun. I think the 48 Hour films (which I have no use for personally but have nothing against) cater really well to that.
Likewise, maybe you're making something to get into a festival (in which case the statistics of run time matter) or maybe you have a story you really want to tell and share however you can, in which case put that above all else. We don't know what you're after. Only you do. Know what you're doing, what your goals are. Be comfortable with them and their trade-offs. Ultimately, all media are social media. You can answer your own question.
(But imo, make what you want to make. Festivals aren't special. Your vision is.)

A 30-40 minute film is a risk but sure there are exceptions to the rule... so the question becomes... do you think your script and film will be that exception?
I guess if you’ve already attempted to tighten the script as much as possible or to lengthen the film by exploring subplots but you’re still passionate about the script, then go for it... who knows. 
But to address your original comment... if you set out to write a feature and end up with a 30-40 minute script then there is something wrong with the story, or the idea isn’t conducive for a feature.
Personally, I think 70-75 minutes is the sweet spot for a no budget, indie film.
At 30 minutes, you are kinda in no man’s land... it’s a lot to cut for a short and a lot to pad for a feature. But even at 30 minutes, if you explore a subplot or two and then when you add B-Roll you may be able to push it over 60 minutes if you let your scenes play... but that main story better be damn good... especially your first 10 minutes.

Personally, I do think there are stories that are too complex for a 10-20 minute short, but too simple for a full feature. I will often scour Amazon and Youtube specifically for longer short films from unknown directors/writers. I think there's a sweet spot around 40 minutes.

For what it’s worth, the Edinburgh International Film Festival considers anything >30 minutes a feature. Less than that a short.
https://www.edfilmfest.org.uk/press-industry/submissions/submission-rules-and-regulations

@Liam i agree with everyone else lol
fwiw, heres how things have gone with me lately...
i recently got a lot of good feedback in this thread about length regarding a proposed episodic series of short pieces
long story short (pun intended), i decided that id be better off with a short film – under 10 min. i figured that i could boil down my ideas into a shorter piece. so i wrote something, 10 pages, and although it came out ok... i just wasnt in love with it. its not me. my original concept was for a horror thing with verrryyy slow shining like pacing, and trying to turn that piece into something much shorter just didnt work for me. i have to borderline love anything i write in order to try to shoot it, and what i had come up with felt cliched, and at the least, something someone else could write
but doing all that was really good for me. once i saw things clearly i released my grip on that concept, and then was my paw was open to receive new blessings of filmmaking!!!
and somehow all that stuff totally resulted in me coming up with something almost completely different:
• its short as can be, like 5 min or less ( = easier)
• theres no dialogue ( = omg easy)
• theres ~3~ characters instead of like 14
• theres one location instead of many
AANND
• MOST OF ALL, i like it way better. it feels like something id make, as opposed to something thats kinda forced
so, whats the moral of this story, and how does it relate to this thread? i dont know @Liam, i dont know
 

I do understand why that's practical, but I can't imagine expanding a 40 minute film to a 90 minute film..
maybe if I'm basically combining a couple middle length ideas.
But the latest film I'm working on that got me thinking about the topic again was basically interesting to me as a project at the moment because it was a more substantial film than I had done before but only requires 2 actors and 1 location. I could combine a company piece that's also somewhat simple, but at the least it would double the work. Expanding scenes of dialogue or adding.. no idea what.. to make it "long enough" would kill me.. maybe I'll see if I can split it into episodes, but that doesn't feel right for this project either.
Just rambling. If anyone has lengthened a piece by a lottttt, it could be interesting to hear from them

I had a short script then took that concept and wrote a feature. But I was never quite happy with the feature script, so I did a big re-write and ended up with a script that I and others like a lot. But after all that, you could read the short and the final feature script and not see much evidence that they have anything to do with each other.
I haven't really had an issue with ending at a middle length. My shorts range from 3-12 pages. When I'm working on a feature, it never enters my mind that I'm finished short of 80 pages. I usually have plenty of story either in my head or in actual outline form that I know it's feature length before I start writing.
I have a mostly two-character road trip feature percolating now. If you'd like to bat around ideas more specifically, feel free to drop me a dm.

A few friends of mine got a 25 minute film into SXSW and were able to secure over a million dollars in funding for a subsequent feature from its success. Long shorts aren't necessarily a bad thing... if they're good.
As a rule (and festival programmers repeat this to me), 12-60 minute is a no man's land for festival entry and for viability on streaming platforms (for original content). Under ten minutes is the new guideline for shorts, even. That article mentions a few medium-length projects that got into a few unnamed festivals... and yet you have hundreds of traditional format shorts (and features) getting into A-list festivals every year. So the article is at best pointing out the exceptions that prove the rule, and at worst being provocative and misleading.
As Sandy McKendrick wrote, ""Student films come in three sizes, too long, much too long, and very much too long." Even if we consider ourselves above student films (I don't), it's true for festival entries, too. Your job, if you want to secure financing, is to leave people wanting to see more. In which case, nothing is worse than something that's too long.
....except something that's not long enough to get the point across in the first place.
If you have a story to tell, the story will determine its own length. But a medium-length project will 99% of the time be more challenging to get into a festival or staff pick:
http://filmmakermagazine.com/99583-shorter-is-better-sundance-programmer-mike-plante-offers-advice-on-short-film-strategy-at-the-sundance-next-festival/#.WkqNNSOZMlU
The self-fulfilling prophecy of the equation is that 20+ minute shorts must be EXCEPTIONAL to get programmed. As a result, they'll stand out not just for increased duration leaving a stronger impression, but also for being the best of the best at a given festival.
And if you just want to sell a feature, make a feature and sell it. But that's a separate can of worms...

Don't ever make something longer that 15 minutes for a short. If your at ~40 minutes expand it to a feature.

The last short film I worked on was 27 minutes, the runtime absolutely killed its festival potential. Because the festivals can either pick your film or 2 others. Don't force them to make that choice.
This is true though, half hour to an hour is okay if your aiming for TV.

Yeah I drastically disagree with that article, as a medium length one won't help your career much more than making a short would (unlike a feature film), yet is nearly as much effort and cost as to make a feature film!
 
The one exception: if you're making a doco for TV distribution and needs to fit in the standard one hour slot. (Minus adverts!)

Well I believe there used to be a rule with the MPAA regarding motion picture length, for some reason 70 minutes sticks out in my mind, but I could be off. I believe most festivals consider anything over 45 minutes a feature. And I have seen a few features listed on amazon prime at around 60 minutes. So I guess it really depends on what your goal with the screenplay is?
If you’re looking to sell the script to a production company, 50 minutes isn’t long enough and any Hollywood producer would tell you, you aren’t writing a feature or you didn’t tell the story properly.
If you’re looking to make your own films from your script, then there are self distribution outlets like Amazon Prime that a 50 minute length is acceptable... but I would try to stay  at 60 minutes or more.
But this is a very interesting topic that I have been thinking a lot about lately, so thanks for posting it. 

if you're talking about resolution in video, you can get the idea based on your experiences shooting photos with vintage glass (so, probably fine)

Well hello there EOSHD forum readers,
I've just posted my short film, Axiomatic, to Vimeo.
Shot with an older version of the 5D3 Raw hack without the audio component - remember when we had to reload the Raw modules each time after restarting the camera? Ah well...it still worked flawlessly and I cannot thank all the ML developers enough for what they unlocked. 5D3 raw is simply amazing.
Spanish, French and English subtitles are available for whomever needs them and viewer discretion may be advised as there is brief nudity, violence and coarse language. However I tried to make everything as tasteful as possible.
Hopefully you can take some time out of your busy day to view it and please feel free to share it with any of your friends or contacts that might enjoy some dark Canadian cinema.
Kelly
http://filmshortage.com/dailyshortpicks/axiomatic/

Today I played around with the video in the D500 for ten minutes while waiting on a train.
I only had a 75mm equivalent and no ND so the footage isn't very fun.
The frames are HD so not as knife sharp as the 4K would be.

Just wanted something to play with in color finale.
There really is room for pretty much any creative look but without taking up any space worth mentioning on the card.
These are all just quick adjustments, 2min on each, max.
You have to click twice for full resolution, otherwise they will look even softer.
Straight from camera

 
Quick adjustment in FCPX using the regular color tool.

 
Random LUT and intentional crushed blacks using the three way color corrector.

 
Quick vintage with Fuji LUT and slight crush of shadows using the three way.