Zak Forsman

i have one and love it. I don't see a loss in sharpness and have shot with a 25mm SLR Magic taking lens wide open at T/.95. that creates razor-thin DOF, and have found that aiming for a T/2.8 to T/5.6 will be my goal. the optics are fantastic, it's super easy to assemble or swap out to a different scope. the ring that locks onto the taking lens is nice and snug. you'd have to try very, very hard to twist it out of alignment. in fact, while that has happened to me in the past with other setups, it has yet to happen with the Rectilux. And I'll be surprised if it will. Build quality is off the charts. And I just had a custom-made gear delivered from Helicopter Sean at followfocusgears.com.  My production company just wrapped a movie, so this week i plan to finally go out and shoot more substantial camera tests.  And if all goes well, i'll be using the Rectilux/Kowa B&H to shoot my third feature in August.

Bahahaha! Everyone raves about how the A7S opens up new creative possibilities, than slams the first real short to make use of its capabilities, even though some of you apparently paid so little attention that you didn't even know where the film takes place! I love it. Do you have any idea how hard Kubrick--hell, ANY filmmakers from before digital--would've creamed themselves over this? 

As a writer, a filmmaker, and a published critic, my opinion is that the short is good. The acting is good not great, the story is clear, concise, and kept me interested, it has a unique, ethereal look, and it the title left me with something to ponder. My friend, a very passionate physics major, insists that space is the next frontier, we'll die out eventually if we don't get out there, it could hold the answers to so many global problems, blah blah blah. But what if what's out there isn't our refuge at all? What if it's a trap, and we're the refuge for it?
That's not a lot of meat on its bones, but it's better than shaky street scenes, travel videos shot from the tour bus/boat, and endless boring landscape montages. 

It's important we give credit to the craft. After all, isn't that why we're all here?

I don't know about that. My experience is limited to the GH4, but I can see a huge improvement in detail and noise by shooting 4K scaled to 1080p in post, rather than shooting 1080p in-camera. And in my 8bit vs 10bit comparison tests, it's nearly impossible to tell one from the other on a 10bit monitor until you start to aggressively grade it.

​to put it in camera terms, bit rate is like dynamic range and sample rate (kHz) is like frame rate. 24bit has a range of 144db while 16bit has a range of 96db. the latter is more limiting in terms of how from you can swing between your lowest lows and highest highs. But just like how cameras also have a "useable" dynamic range, the noise floor in an audio recording device is also a limiting factor. either way, 24bit gives you more room to work with.
a sample rate of 48khz is adequate for dialogue, but if you were to be recording sound effects that you might want to slow down in post and manipulate to create new sounds, you'd want to record them at a higher sample rate (higher resolution) to capture more detail in the audio. in camera terms, it's like if you wanted a slow motion shot. if you shot at 24fps and slowed it down to half speed in post, you'd be doubling frames. but if you captured it at 48fps and slowed it by half, it would still be smooth in a 24fps sequence.

in my experience, crowdfunding campaigns at this level have much more to do with backing the person behind it, and less to do with the content of the project. aaron demonstrated an eagerness to continue his growth as an artist and that's exciting to me. his pitch video was polished enough that I know this will be executed well, whatever it turns out to be. so it's my pleasure to throw him a couple bucks if it will help give him an opportunity to learn from the kind of experience that only comes from doing it.

in my experience, crowdfunding campaigns at this level have much more to do with backing the person behind it, and less to do with the content of the project. aaron demonstrated an eagerness to continue his growth as an artist and that's exciting to me. his pitch video was polished enough that I know this will be executed well, whatever it turns out to be. so it's my pleasure to throw him a couple bucks if it will help give him an opportunity to learn from the kind of experience that only comes from doing it.

in my experience, crowdfunding campaigns at this level have much more to do with backing the person behind it, and less to do with the content of the project. aaron demonstrated an eagerness to continue his growth as an artist and that's exciting to me. his pitch video was polished enough that I know this will be executed well, whatever it turns out to be. so it's my pleasure to throw him a couple bucks if it will help give him an opportunity to learn from the kind of experience that only comes from doing it.

donated! good luck!

I crowdfunded a feature on Kickstarter a couple years ago. You'd be surprised what happens when your project gains traction. I'd say i personally knew about half our backers before the campaign started, and had met in person even fewer. We even had two backers that gave $5000 each. One was a complete stranger to me that was browsing Kickstarter looking for movies that offered executive producer credits. The other was a screenwriting student of a friend of a friend. 
Our goal was $30,000 and we hit that a week before the deadline. The campaign ended at about $38,000, plus I had raised another $10,000 from people who didn't feel comfortable using Kickstarter and preferred to cut a check.

I wrote this article for Filmmaker Magazine detailing everything I learned about the process.  Hopefully it's useful to you.
http://filmmakermagazine.com/32284-the-microbudget-conversation-down-and-dangerous/

I crowdfunded a feature on Kickstarter a couple years ago. You'd be surprised what happens when your project gains traction. I'd say i personally knew about half our backers before the campaign started, and had met in person even fewer. We even had two backers that gave $5000 each. One was a complete stranger to me that was browsing Kickstarter looking for movies that offered executive producer credits. The other was a screenwriting student of a friend of a friend. 
Our goal was $30,000 and we hit that a week before the deadline. The campaign ended at about $38,000, plus I had raised another $10,000 from people who didn't feel comfortable using Kickstarter and preferred to cut a check.

I wrote this article for Filmmaker Magazine detailing everything I learned about the process.  Hopefully it's useful to you.
http://filmmakermagazine.com/32284-the-microbudget-conversation-down-and-dangerous/

I played with the Rangefinder at Cine Gear. Works as advertised. has a 77mm rear thread. Eddie from Vid-Atlantic was there too and it worked on his Isco Ultra-star.

It is much more challenging to innovate rather than taking the screw it path, I don't have an original thought so I'll just go as dumb as possible and call it as satire/ironic/parody.
I don't see this as any anti-Hollywood statement, other than "more stupidity for your money"

​Coppola also said (I think in the same feature) nothing is so terrible as a pretentious movie. 
What is a pretentious movie? For us ambitious filmmakers? 
All people are losers in one way or other. That's a fact. No one measures up to everybody's expectations. Some just manage better to pretend they do. The wiser I become, the more I learn to distinguish between right and wrong goals. If I try to impress others, if I try to prove something, I'm on the wrong path already. 
Interesting films, good films, can deal with serious subjects or just be big fun. Bad films are a waste of life-time, for the makers a well as for the audience. Nobody really cares if they were executed with expert skills or if they had slider-shots or the like. 
But once I really love a story (narrative) or I'm really intrigued by something I encounter in reality (doc), I will try to depict it in the best way possible. Never the other way around. Life is too short to pretend. People are worth to be met with (even blunt) honesty, passion and bravery. 

I beg to differ. unless you're saying that a little fat girl + her daddy's video camera + a $630,019 budget for 30 minutes of content is somehow a game changer. I've seen better, made with fewer resources. we all have.

This was all at T/4. I didn't have enough ND to get much more wide open. But the blades on the SLR Magics are rounded so the bokeh stays smooth-ish.  I have shot at night with the 25mm at T.95 and the Kowa and the only complaint I'd have is purple fringing, which can be reduced/removed in post, but still. But it's still sharp. Sharp enough anyway.

Okay, whatever you say. I'm not arguing distributors don't want 4K content. I'm saying that globally, even 1080p is overkill in many of the 130+ territories a movie will be sub-licensed to by your distributor. Profit motive will always come first for them. Also, when it comes to physical media, in my experience it's very easy to get a DVD deal. You'd have to have made a real dog of a movie not to get one. But it's much, much more difficult to get a distributor to commit to a Blu-ray release. 
I just renewed VOD and DVD rights in the US and Canada for my first movie. It was made in 2007 and shot on a Panasonic HVX200. The master we delivered is in Glorious 720p!!!

Okay, whatever you say. I'm not arguing distributors don't want 4K content. I'm saying that globally, even 1080p is overkill in many of the 130+ territories a movie will be sub-licensed to by your distributor. Profit motive will always come first for them. Also, when it comes to physical media, in my experience it's very easy to get a DVD deal. You'd have to have made a real dog of a movie not to get one. But it's much, much more difficult to get a distributor to commit to a Blu-ray release. 
I just renewed VOD and DVD rights in the US and Canada for my first movie. It was made in 2007 and shot on a Panasonic HVX200. The master we delivered is in Glorious 720p!!!

That looks nice. Fairly light. I had a DP7 for GH4/BM and it was so heavy (1.5 lbs) that I just couldn't take it anymore. I sold it and got a SmallHD 502 which is feather light. It stays on top of smalls cameras with ease.
EDIT: The main reason I love using SmallHD with GH4 and BM is the LUT feature. It helps to have a custom LUT to see in the field when shooting LOG or Cine D.

they've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, this advice works every time! 

never in a million years will a distributor let something like "it's not 4K" stop them from distributing a movie they think they can make money on. 

ask away, i'm happy to share. this is our first feature film to make a healthy profit and we're not even counting future revenue from the paramount release. believe it or not, it's a very good feeling to be able to pay residuals to your cast because the thing is actually making money. we've made enough to make two more movies this year. and we plan to make a small slate of movies following this model (quickly, before it changes yet again). working with a micro budget still enables us to pay our tiny cast and crew. but will also keep us profitable so we can do it again and again. we work within the parameters of genre movies so they can be sold as such, but the content is still personal and challenges us creatively.

​i missed where he said if you don't shoot 4K, you're in trouble. what I heard him say was it can be an advantage when dealing with places like Netflix who are leaders in providing 4K content. So of course, if you shoot and finish in 4K, you're checking a box for platforms looking for 4K content. But out of the thousands of regional distributors all over the world, that's an extremely small number.
also, notice at the beginning he says they finished their theatrical exhibition DCP in 2K. the current reality is that there are so few places where 4K can be delivered to an audience that it's going to be the case for a couple years. remember, I just licensed my movie to Paramount Pictures for int'l VOD a few months ago and their requested delivery specs didn't go any higher than 1080p.
all that being said, a distributor will take a movie they think they can sell, even if it was shot on SD and upres'd to 1080p. they aren't going to let something like resolution get in the way of making money.

Distribution has 0% to do with what kind of camera you shoot on. It's all about the story, target audience, cast, etc. Look at Tangerine: picked up for distribution by Magnolia pictures, shot completely on the iPhone 5s. You could shoot on the best camera in the world, with the best lighting, but if your story doesn't connect with an audience, you won't find distribution.
Now, getting hired to film on the other hand, that's a different question. Producers always want to shoot the best quality they can afford that still works with the story, so being a DP with a 4k camera is probably a good idea.

Look for other horror films like yours that are out there, with good ad-supported multi-platform distribution and contact those producers to find out who their domestic and international distributor was. chances are, they have a "type" that you're likely going to fit. I went with Gravitas Ventures for domestic and they have been fantastic. 
if you're looking for contact info, you can ask for an introduction, or get an imdb pro account and call them up. Also, I remember getting a compiled list of direct email and phone contacts for a ton of distributors as a member of the film specific web site.

This is another existential filmmaker post spawned by a few recent threads. You've been warned. Also spoilers for a film.
Recently I saw a film that articulated a question I didn't know I was asking. That film was "Frank" the story of a talentless, wannabe songwriter/keyboard player who is recruited to join a band led by a man who wears a fake head at all times. You might have seen it floating around Netflix, and maybe you even disregarded it because it sounds gimmicky, or the poster looked like quirky nonsense, but I decided on a lark to watch it, and it was absolutely devastating. The "protagonist" of the film seems like a nice, sweet guy in the beginning, until he starts exploiting Frank's talent by secretly filming and posting videos of their rehearsals to youtube, eventually earning them a slot at SXSW. He tells Frank "People love us." to which Frank replies "People love us?" The pressure of the show, and pleasing an audience cause Frank to have a nervous breakdown. This film resonated with me in a major way. I watched it once, over a week ago, and I'm still thinking about it. I thought about how fame and success never occurred to Frank. He just created music for the art and expression of it, and when faced with the pressure of a major debut performance at a festival, he creates a terrible song that he thinks is his "most likeable song ever". The entire experience breaks him.
The whole film forced me to think of my goals as a filmmaker. I've wanted to be a filmmaker since I saw the Making Of Jurassic Park on TV when I was six years old. In high school, I got serious about having a career in film after seeing Pulp Fiction and El Mariachi. I then discovered the French New Wave and John Cassavetes, and I wanted to make honest, devastating, achingly truthful and beautiful masterpieces of cinema. I made my first feature at 21...and now I'm almost 28, with not many shorts, and not a single follow-up feature since my first. My first feature was extremely disappointing to me. I was obsessed with it for years, and even tried to make a quasi-remake of it, which was a disaster. I've been struggling to come up with an idea for another film that I like. I haven't been able to finish even a first draft in two and a half years. I used to be able to crank out script after script, draft after draft with all the blind confidence in the world. And since my feature, I've come to the realization that I only really have a few basic themes that I keep going back to, and I keep trying to force myself to think of something different, to be a different filmmaker, but I'm not. And now I'm questioning my goals.
I've wanted a career making indie films so I wouldn't have to work a crappy day job. I've been working the same crappy day job for almost four years straight, except for the nine months where I moved to LA to pursue my career. I could't even find a day job to pay the rent. Toys R Us interviewed me twice and wouldn't hire me to work in the stock room during the holidays. I sold a bunch of my lenses, and the DVX100 I didn't use anymore, for rent money. I moved back to my hometown a year ago, broken and miserable. A year later I'm in a great relationship with a woman I'm moving in with in a month. She also has a three year old daughter, and though I thought I never wanted kids, now I can see myself raising this child with my girlfriend, and marrying her. We both see it. She's extremely supportive of my filmmaking, and doesn't want me to give up. But I just feel discouraged. Discouraged that my films will never look good enough, have good enough acting or be important enough. And I still want to make films, but I'm wondering why I want, or need, to be successful at it. Before I got "serious" about it, I used to have fun making movies. The same group of friends and I would get together and film shorts on the weekends. Most people here I'm sure had the same experience. I think all I want now is to form a troupe of actors/crew members and make cheap movies in our spare time for fun, and perhaps never even show them to anyone else. I'm accepting that I'm nowhere near the level of talent as Francois Truffaut, Paul Thomas Anderson, or David Lynch, and it's okay. I'm giving up on success. I just want to make shit.