mercer

Yeah, if there was a paint by numbers method of making a successful indie film, we would all have movie deals by now. Look at the Mumblecore movement. Swanberg makes his features for about a grand and he was the darling of sxsw for years. I don't love his films but the man figured out a way to have successful festival showings... Could be the full frontal by all his cast members though.

You can't really use Sundance as a metric for true indie films. Very few true indie films go to Sundance. It's not like it was 20 years ago. And I am not arguing with you, I think people should spend their time and money however they want. If they want to spend 10 grand on a short film... By all means. More power to them. If I want to spend 10 grand on a feature... More power to me. In the end I think story will prevail over technical perfection. But if I had the means, I would choose both.

But you make some good points and worth thinking about. Btw, have you heard of the recently released horror movie called Memory Lane? If not, Google it, the guy made it for 300 bucks. The reviews say the best thing about the movie is the story. The sound and mix is supposedly horrible. The acting is adequate but the visual style and writing propelled this movie to being released and got him an agent and a movie deal. Just something to think about.

Yes, the short vs. feature argument. I know it all to well. Back in the 70s and 80s directors made shorts to promote themselves, usually USC, or UCLA students who utilized their situation to develop a "calling card" short. In the 90s when I first became interested in filmmaking, it wasn't in fashion to make a short, or go to film school... You used that money to make a feature. Making any movie is hard work, akin to moving mountains... The thought process was why should I spend a crap load of money and time on a short, when I can spend a crap load of money and time on a feature. Remember El Mariachi was shot for 7000 bucks and that was shot on 16mm film. So, I think I am still in that mindset. But distribution channels have changed, so the short film has once again become a viable way to market yourself.

I watched that Rodriguez video a long time ago. I should watch it every day. Thanks for posting it.

Thanks mtheory. I don't. Obviously, I didn't go to film school. In fact, I haven't made much for the amount of time I have been self schooling. I come from a screenwriting background, only the past year or two have I seriously considered directing something. I have a lot to learn and a lot of bad footage to shoot. But movies are my life and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the process with others.

Axel, sorry but I think something is lost in translation. Correct me if I am wrong but I thought we were arguing the same point? Unless, I misunderstood your comment. If so, sorry.

Yeah, I actually have that 25mm aps-c lens. I used it in my nex a bunch but haven't tried it my eos-m yet. And I can confirm it is a nice little lens. I like it better than the Fujian. It has a more clinical look as opposed to the dreaminess the Fujian often renders. And yes I got in on that deal... I think I paid $190 for my eos-m body. Best 200 bucks I ever spent. Now if only I was smart enough to buy the BMPCC when it was 500 bucks last year.

This is an excellent point. Back in the 90's when there was a big indie movement, you would specifically design your story around one or two locations. Today, the concept still exists, and in fact, was very popular a few years ago as the "contained thriller." But in the 90s, most indie filmmakers were still shooting 16mm, and even if you used short ends, the cost was enormous. Now with the simplicity and availability of digital, the restrictions are less, but you still need access to locations... which a lot of people don't have. So, you have to design your script around the locations you have accessible to you. IMO, you also want to write a script with the least amount of dialogue possible... good actors are hard to come by, sound is a pain in the ass, and writing quality dialogue is a craft in and of itself. So, you're left with a story with few locations, a small cast and little dialogue, which is why horror has always been such a popular genre amongst indie filmmakers. Well, that and the marketability of horror without needing known stars to sell tickets in fact, having a big name star can hurt a horror film. It can take the visceral feeling away from the project because Tom Hanks, or whoever, is starring in it. But sometimes limitations can spur the most creativity. If you were told you had to create a story that takes place in one location and has 5 or less actors. What could you come up with? To take it a step further, add specific props that would have to be used. You would be surprised what a creative person could come up with.

Mtheory, first I want to apologize. My comment was unclear and it was rude and immature of me to suggest you couldn't read. Yes, you can make a short. Obviously. But what if you want to make a feature? My point is that a filmmaker does not need to follow every filmmaking method the pros do to make a good product. For instance, I don't record double sound. It is too time consuming of a process and requires extra crew I don't have access too. So, I mount a shotgun mic on the top of my camera, or cage, or sometimes just plug a lav directly into the camera, sometimes through a preamp. And I make sure I do a couple takes as close as I can to the actor. Is it as good as double sound, obviously not, but I usually get a decent track that is usable and if not... ADR... Which is what Hollywood does the majority of the time. So, I think the original point I was trying to make is that, for me, as a no budget filmmaker, I have to make sacrifices where I can that will have the least amount of impact on the overall product. I thought a lot of indie filmmakers do this, but the more I read this site, I realize I am definitely in the minority. But what I find amazing is how much a lot of filmmaker's look down on me for that.

First off, sorry about all the quotes, kind of new here and I have no idea how to quote specific parts of people's comments. Thank you Axel, this is very close to my original point. I'll use the BMPCC as my example. When that camera came out I was excited to see the feature films that were going to be made by low budget filmmakers. I am so low budget, I couldn't even afford it when it first came out, but I was very interested to hear filmmaker's experience with the camera. When I went over to the forums and read that people are rigging up this camera with rails, and matte boxes, and follow focus machines, and screens. What? The camera is called a Pocket Camera, it is designed to look like a consumer camera. Why in God's name would someone rig up that camera? Imagine the possibilities of taking a legitimate cinema camera into a restaurant, or a bar, or a hospital... And people think you are holding a point and shoot? Your production value would rise incredibly. I don't own the camera but I now understand that it needs stability to function well, but do you really need a full, professional rig, for every scenario? We, as filmmakers, are in such an amazing time with this digital revolution. A cheap, consumer camera can be used to make a very good looking movie. I mean Blair Witch was partially shot on a Hi-8 video camera ... Surely a better film could be made with this new technology. But if you're going to hold stringently to how the pros do it, you probably will fail? So what do you do, if you have little money, little crew but a big desire to make a movie, with a good concept and a great script, or vice versa? To Be Continued

I think my point is still being misconstrued. Obviously, I am not making myself clear enough.

Hey tupp, maybe it's your subject but I didn't notice the artifacts. I think it looks great. Hmm. I really may have to give ML/TL a go. How is the focus peaking with it? I also have a NEX and the focus peaking really is great with manual vintage lenses, but I just like the iq of the eos-m much better and I need to raise some money, so the NEX must go.

How stable is Tragic Lantern? I've been tempted to load it on my eos-m but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Also, I saw the speed booster for Nikon lenses, but that is all. Do you know if they make them for any other mounts?

My main cam is the eos-m as well. I just love that damn little camera. I have been using it with a set of Minolta MC lenses, lately, and the images I've been getting are just incredible. The funny thing is, I have been looking at the gopro with the ribcage mod as well. I have a bunch of c-mounts I use with a Pentax Q7, for fun mostly, and they may pair well with that mod.

I have Hitfilm2 express, or whatever free version they gave out a little over a year ago. I never really messed with it, but the interface looked promising. Of course, I know very little about color correcting/grading... Maybe I'll have to give it another look. It's on my old computer though, I wonder how many licenses you get with that free deal. Anyway, thanks for the tip.

I am a no budget filmmaker... So essentially I am a one man band. I do the best with what I have, but unfortunately I can't know everything. Does that mean I shouldn't bother because I don't do real color grading, or don't have access to an on set sound guy? No, I don't think so... I make adjustments and cut corners, but still attempt to put out the best product I can. For some reason a reply I made earlier gave other members, or a moderator, the impression that I was whining and expecting a different standard. That is not what I wrote, nor what I meant.

I swear it is like you don't know how to read. If you did, you would understand my original point was against your elitist comment regarding... real color grading. But the fact is... no matter how hard you try, no matter how much money you spend on equipment, you are not going to perfect every discipline required to make a feature film, so you do the best with what you have. If that means using those lowly LUTS then you use them. It doesn't matter anyway, story is king and all the surgical color grading in the world won't fix a bad story or a poorly directed film.

Not to mention... What does, "consider yourself a pro..." mean? Seriously, I can consider myself a pro all I want but until I get paid as a narrative filmmaker, I am not a pro... I am an amateur. I can shoot the occasional wedding video and be a paid videographer but that doesn't mke me a professional filmmaker.

I had to like this comment because I have no idea what you're talking about? I never said anyone owes me anything, nor did I ask for anything. I was merely explaining my opinion on some notion that an indie filmmaker, specifically no/low budget, must wear the hat of producer, director, cinematographer, screenwriter, editor, colorist, art director, actor, sound designer, grip, gaffer, food services, etc. To think you can master every aspect of this collaborative media is insane, yet no/low budget filmmakers are held up to the same standards as big budget productions and the professional craftsmen that produce those films. The idea is unfair to the indie filmmaker and it is offensive to the professional craftsmen that spent years honing their craft.

I think here in lies the problem. As no/low budget filmmakers we are forced to wear a lot of hats. It requires a jack of all trades mentality. The professionals spend years honing their craft, in their respective fields, and we're expected to have the same level of quality? It doesn't make sense. I'm not a colorist. I don't want to be a colorist. I just want my footage to match and have a filmic look. I have recently started working with color correcting and it is like a goddamn mystery. I'm not trying to code a video game. I just want my highlights and lowlights to match, from shot to shot, and then... maybe give the footage an overall look... Depending on the project. So, I like these consumer based products. iMovie is s fantastic little program, for what it is. FCX is an amazing step up. Now if somebody would make the iMovie of Resolve, then I'd be happy.

Oh okay. I picked up the 50mm 2.8 a couple weeks ago after watching your 35mm Flektogon video and then, even though it was a budgetary stretch, I got a good deal on the 35mm too. Great lenses. The 50mm, I bought, has an aperture issue though... It works fine until I put it on an adapter and then it doesn't want to open. I figured the pin wasn't engaged, but my adapter is hitting it. I never really took a lens apart, but I figured I'd have a go of it, and maybe declick it while I'm in there. My 35mm is declicked, so I might as well have them match. Do your lenses have similar iq's? I mean, does the c-mount Zeiss's iq blend well with the M42 versions? Which 28mm do you have? I also saw they have a 29mm, I assume it is identical to the Pentacon 29mm. I want a 20mm as well, but they are pricey... That lens would probably double the price of your Zeiss collection.

Just picked up a Cosmicar 75mm 1.9 c-mount. I have heard some good things about the lens, has anybody ever used the lens? I have the 12.5mm 1.9 and the 25.5mm 1.9 and they are both excellent. Right now I use them with my Pentax Q7 but I hope to have a BMPCC to use them on.

I, personally, love vintage glass... So I would go with the FDs but to be forward compatible you may want to go with the Nikon because they will adapt to any mount, making them essentially future proof depending upon what camera you go with but to get a really good set of Nikkor primes, you will probably spend a bit more than you would with the FDs. As long as you stay mirrorless, you can't go wrong with FD lenses. I have a set of the earlier FL, which is the same mount, and they are amazing. But, you could look into and M42 speedbooster and get a set of Takumar lenses... Great lenses, buttery smooth focus, the 50mm 1.4 should be in every filmmaker's arsenal, but even the 1.8 is a nice lens and the best part is the most common focal lengths are dirt cheap... like less than 50 bucks a lens in a lot of cases. The 1.4 will be about 75 but still if you use the lens, you would probably pay more, that's how good it is.

Very nice. Are they all c mounts? If so, what other focal lengths did they make? I assume the bolex is a s16 sensor? With the 10mm, the 16mm and the 50mm you really only need a 25 or a 35 and you'll be set. Unless they make a 7.5mm?