More ambitiousness, but for once, my creative surge is back- I'm now aspiring to make an animated film using construction paper. Unlike the flat images and simple animation of "South Park", however, I'm planning on pushing it a step further. This will likely be a short due to its time-consuming nature [last year, it took me an entire week to complete 12 seconds of dumbed-down, simplified animation], but I probably have enough material to make this feature-length. It is likely that the entirety of this project will be shot in MiniDV instead of a digital SLR or something of higher resolution, mainly because I want some moving elements shot in live-action, and it is my belief that a background plate being sharper than the foreground image creates a more convincing composite.

[I really can't be too hard on "South Park"; that show and its cheap look told me that I could make films, too! Just needs construction paper, imagination, and a camera to animate with]

More than ever, I'm really starting to buy into David Lynch's arguments for MiniDV- except the one that says "film is dead". For the still photographer and hobbyist filmmaker, it definitely is; but plenty of our directors are still very, very loyal to celluloid, and it won't die so easily. Not soon, anyway.

(and I still take photographs on celluloid. Black-and-white C-41, the kind that you have to take to the drugstore to be developed- not real B&W that you use in photography classes)

Seeing "INLAND EMPIRE", there were really only two things that bothered me about the cinematography, and both were due more to the camera settings and techniques used than the video medium itself:

1. Blown-out, overexposed backgrounds. David Lynch uses a prosumer Sony PD-150. I'm using a consumer Canon Optura60. If I can control exposure on my $700 camcorder, Lynch could have certainly done the same on his high-end camera. Adjusting white balance in post-production may make the video "grainier", but all 3 hours of "INLAND EMPIRE" already is.

2. Signs of what is obviously post-production cropping, used for extreme close-ups. While he argues that DV's being less sharp than 35mm and HD gives the audience more "room to dream", when it's zoomed-in and pixellated like that, we can clearly see it was an MS Paint job.

...and I really don't buy the anti-DV arguments that it looks overly grainy or pixellated otherwise. The grain/noise looks quite good and almost comparable to film, and if they know that much about resolution, they'd know about anti-aliasing, which keeps a natural DV image from looking pixellated around the edges like that. Only in the aforementioned extreme close-ups did the pixels really show.

If one aspiring independent filmmaker keeps himself from going into debt by saying this, it will have been worth it: you really don't need to shell out the money to shoot your debut feature on 16mm. DV is cheaper and it gives you good experience if you ended up screwing up majorly. Keep the camerawork, focusing and exposure competent, and it really shouldn't be that bothersome. As well, creating DVDs and otherwise screening copies for film festivals is cheaper when it's already in video, than some cheap telecine house for 16mm... or that telecine is going to drag you even further into debt!

I say this not from (feature-length) experience, but common sense and mathematics... and stories of other peoples' projects. Save the money for film when you're an even more competent and experienced filmmaker, on your second feature when some banker just might invest.

...and unless you have money and talent to build some really authentic-looking sets (or props) where the seams don't show, don't use sets or don't use HD.

Back to Dead Moose, Inc. business, the status on "Code of 'Con'duct I" I can only summarize in one word:

DAMMIT!

I didn't want this to happen, but it appears to be so- we can't film more scenes unless we can locate our actors and find out what times they're available. ...or get new cast membets. We need to get something new finished, and soon!

http://deadmooseinc.tripod.com/

It's easier to navigate through, easier URLs (i.e., fmii.html, not id82.html for "Fight Movie II"), and a dark background that's easier on the eyes.

I've also started a new set of filmmaking rules, entitled "AUTOFOCUS-O7", for a day of fun for the seasoned filmmaker. It's been getting mixed reception at Vimeo, with "but that's what I already do!" comments; I know this will have its participants, though, so I'm going to shop the concept around to people who are more likely to understand where I'm coming from... mainly, student filmmakers who deal with boom mics and manual settings. And they'll possibly understand the fun that comes from the challenges it presents.

The rules are at http://deadmooseinc.tripod.com/autofocuso7.html

The first entry in this project is a film of my own, titled "The Mugging"... even though I've received criticism that it's "too slow and clean" to be a mugging. It was quickly concieved at 12:00 noon, with the prop used built at 12:35 and finishing at 12:40, then the roughest script imaginable drawn out at 1:00. Filming finished at 3:00, and editing was finished around 4:00, and released soon after that. Not since "Fight Movie: a pilot" has any of our productions gone through the whole process that fast!

What I've learned shooting this is stuff I learned from "CHASE: a documentary"- keep things planned, and stop ad-libs if they get in the way. With luck, it so happened to be the same two cast members.

The camera used is a new one that I got: a Canon ZR600, bought for the purposes of being a VCR, only to upload footage to the computer. This is the once that it sees some action in the field, mainly because I called for a cheap, consumer-level camcorder. The ZR600 is quite limited- manual focusing and exposure control are both difficult, you can't hook up headphones and you can't control the audio levels manually. Since manual options are prohibited, it was simple enough to go to EASY mode. The lack of control over the picture lead to some planned shots were people were rendered as silhouettes, and therefore new angles had to be picked.

Editing on Windows Movie Maker (as opposed to my regular Adobe Premiere) was easy enough to learn- it just didn't stop being a very annoying tool to work with. The limited tools available did add to fun, and I'm allowed very limited brightness and sound timing. The sound effect used was recorded from an archival sound effects CD as played by my boombox, and the rotoscoping was done in Microsoft Paint; due to shifts in brightness between frames, the effect is obvious.

It really is like seeing what you can do going back to crayons again, now that you've had more experience at drawing. If you've worked with tons of equipment and advanced editing software, I invite you to make a film under the AUTOFOCUS-O7 system.

It took around half-an-hour to get the mask on Kevin for his role as the Killer, and we didn't stop hearing about how painful it was. Nearly every take took forever to set up, but especially the first shot outside, in which there was a pan down and onto Kevin. Little kids were watching us, and laughing, so we guessed the mask wasn't scary.

Finally, we progressed into indoor shooting, and after a couple of successful first takes, we got upstairs into the closet where things were significantly different. It's hard when you have a boom mic recording essentially nothing, but it's better to have that sound that could be potentially used, than raw camera noise which would have to be deleted for a sense of continuity to when we do record dialogue with the boom mic. Lessons in lighting were learned, as plenty of the shots were too dark; a lamp was brought in and was our main light source.

From the beginning of the shoot, I insisted we screen dailies after we wrapped, just in case there was stuff we needed to reshoot, and also to get an idea as to what takes will be used. It turned out to be useful; even though I judged Richie's TV to be far too dark, we re-shot a couple of things and changed the angles entirely.

Right when I got back home, I recorded more foley effects for "N" while I was still in the car. Getting back in the house, there was already an e-mail there of "lessons learned"... which I feel are useful enough to repeat here:

"1. I wanted to make a shot list but was unable due [to] my need to direct the costuming.
2. When crunched for time (as we were from the start) if something isn't working (like the costume) just drop it and go to a work around.
3. When timing is required, as with the pan from the cherry tree, spend time on it only if necessary. It may be usable, we don't know yet, therefore I think it was appropriate that we spent time on it. However, we should have tried to find a way to make the timing less sensitive due to our lack of ability to calculate the timing exactly.
4. If there is no plan in advance expect anyone to change their mind. I'm planning out loud and therefore it should be considered planning and not the final direction.
5. If things looked rough and you only have that day to film, use dailies.
6. Yuki's case taught me something. At the beginning of a session where there are people with uncertain time availabilities, have them write it down at the beginning. That way there are no nasty surprises later on.
7. Ten seconds takes a long time, even without dialog, when you're working with an unstable costume, tricky lighting/timing, and semi-improvised shot planning.
8. Wait for the person with the camera to say they're ready.
9. Film as soon as possible no matter what you think about the weather or the ability to do it tomorrow. if we started Wednesday we would have finished today."

Like with "SCHEDULE", Richie will shoot plenty of stuff, then decide what to ultimately keep in the editing room. Personally, I much prefer to stick with only the shots needed, as I just can't make those kinds of decisions in the editing room; otherwise, I could give you that director's cut of "Visions" right here and there.

Richie is hoping to submit this to the Monta Vista Film Festival. As for me, I don't know what I want to do for it yet. "N" is my best candidate, once I get all the sound mixing done; I'm also contemplating submitting to real film festivals, as I've printed out plenty of forms today. Really need to make sure the film is worth it, though, as these cost good submission money.

...and I believe today is 2 years since "another walk in the park" was shot. I don't know if I'll ever get that film tweaked to my satisfaction; it won't be on YouTube or anything of the like until it sounds comprehensible.

Today, due to inability to film, Richie took the opportunity to have a planning session for "Recurring Nightmare", as well as notes on "Productivity", which we've decided to re-shoot everything for a better-planned production. Gives me a chance to improve upon my acting, which I'm completely embarrased about.

As it turned out, the planning session was a good idea. We discovered without actors waiting, what did and didn't work. As I brought my camera and anamorphic lens with me (but not my boom pole), we learned what our limitations were in terms of angles. Estimates were done of what could fit in a boom operator, and what couldn't.

Before planning commenced, I uploaded the footage we shot to test out color adjustments as well as other directions he had in his screenplay (I had to check the downloaded file, as I deliberately crossed any stylistic and camera directions out in the hard copy. Leave those to the director; and even if the screenwriter is the director, the director should have his own notes).

Much rotoscoping is going to happen for a particular effect, which doesn't work with garbage mattes. Color adjustment should be much, much easier than this, especially since I've mastered the "Levels" function.

Due to the fact that I am very unhappy with the utter lack of views I'm getting on Google Video, I've looked for new video services. I'll use Revver once I turn 18, which is in a matter of weeks. iFilm's Terms of Use, until I get a lawyer to read into what they're really saying, I'm going to assume they own the intellectual property rights to anything I submit. I really can't stand these extremely complex legal terms and run-on sentences used in contracts, as there's always some kind of way they'll screw you over.

Finally, my next stop, YouAreTV, which claims it won't be taken over by any major corporation and supports independent filmmaking. Well, anything's better than the philistine paradise of Google Video, or YouTube, but I don't fully believe them. However, they seem like another friendly community, like Vimeo, so I'm all for it.

I'm going to ask Richie if he can come up with a better edit of Scene 25 for this film, because I've never been fully happy with the released cut currently out. As it turned out, a transcript appeared to help, but when I inked out the stuff I didn't like and found substitutes, the sound was awful! What really sucks is that these could have successfully trimmed the scene by 30 more seconds... enough to keep viewers still watching.

If the re-editing job is successful, expect a completely remastered edition of the film (with the original still there for purists, of course).

"Code of 'Con'duct I" appears to be back on track, and we're planning ahead for a filming session on Saturday. This should be a simple scene, but the 3-hour sessions aren't going to cut it. I'm still pushing for all-day filming; otherwise, with a complex script to work with, this is definitely not going to be done at the same one-week schedule the 19-minute original was.

Today, Richie, Jessica and I looked around for cast members to fill in the leading roles for "Code of 'Con'duct I". As it turns out, we didn't really need to search around for strangers we're far too afraid to talk to, as local cast members seemed to be available. Three actors are now signed on to our production from within our own group, and the rest is simply extras. While I had volunteered to play a supporting role, it looks as if I only need to play an extra, if even that.

Good. I'm still learning the ropes with this boom mic business. One thing I don't like about the Optura60 is something to do with the monitors on consumer cameras: they don't show the overscan area... meaning, I won't learn until editing if a good take was ruined because the mic popped into the edge of the frame, leading to the trouble of reshooting. I just might have to buy wireless microphones and hide them around the set.

"Productivity" is still going through rewrites, and apparently there's a creative control struggle. I've just been sent a Google Document on it, and hopefully it'll shoot pretty soon.