I don't disagree with anything mentioned; all good points. I mentioned that Rodriguez shot many videos, before making EL MARIACHI. I believe it was with his dad's VHS video camera. You don't need expensive equipment to learn the craft. Use what you have, household items, for example: clamplights from Home Depot, with printer paper for diffusion. C-clamps and pieces of cardboard for flags. Use a bedsheet to diffuse sunlight and tin foil to reflect it. Shine lights through tree branches, curtains and blinds. You can achieve pro looks for next to nothing, if you work at it.

Certainly, you want the best sound and picture for cheap, which is why I suggested getting the Tascam and the T2i, along with a good editing program. You could use those for years and wouldn't have to suffer any quality concerns. (Of course, any mic is capable of good sound, if you put it within 2' of the actor's mouth. That is the real trick.) By all means, don't break the bank. If those items are too expensive, then go with what you can. Perhaps, between a group of friends (fellow students), you may have enough between you to not have to spend extra on gear. Bottom line is that the more movies you make, the more you will learn. Crewing on other projects will teach you, at no cost other than your time.

www.midnightsunent.com

Using El Mariachi as an example isn't necessarily the best thing for aspiring filmmakers. He reportedly spent a few thousand of his own money to make the "cheap" version, but what everyone actually saw was the version AFTER the studio bought it and fixed nearly everything, bumping it up to 35mm and adding a cleaned up soundtrack.

For every mythical story about how some "nobody" spent just a little money and got a career, there's a true story behind it whereby the movie or the person isn't just "discovered." Rodriguez worked hard to make the contacts necessary so that "influential" people would see his rough movie. He did what he could to make it the best it could be, but didn't break the bank on the movie itself. He put time and effort into marketing HIMSELF just as much as he marketed the project.

The movie CLERKS cost nearly $30,000 and looks far "cleaner" and was essentially a finished piece, so it is a better example of what it takes to have a total movie on a low budget.

Probably the most profitable indie movie to date was "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" which reportedly was made for around $1.5 million. Obviously that budget is far above what people here are thinking about, but the point of bringing it up is to illustrate the differences in quality that money buys you from the very rough El Mariachi to the relative high-quality of SL&VT.

So, running out to buy a prosumer camera that costs less than $10 grand is just a start and not even the most important element toward making a successful project. It takes smart writing first. Then it takes a fundamental understanding of the filmmaking process so that the logistics don't waste time or money. You also need quality people, including a cast who know how to act. There are so many things that go into making a Director a "great!" Director and owning a camera isn't even really on that list.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

From my perspective a director owning a camera like the XH-A1
JayLethal mentioned is a good thing. And it can be one of the
things on the list to do to become a great director.

A director who wants to make a few shorts on their way to making
that first feature would greatly benefit from owning a camera. Not
your belief Brian, but certainly mine.

Different perspectives.

But boy do we disagree on using El Mariachi as an example. It
seems an excellent example of what some talent and poor equipment
can produce. Many, many beginners started because of that film.
Most failed. But what a fine example for aspiring filmmakers!

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by bjdzyak

Using El Mariachi as an example isn't necessarily the best thing for aspiring filmmakers. He reportedly spent a few thousand of his own money to make the "cheap" version, but what everyone actually saw was the version AFTER the studio bought it and fixed nearly everything, bumping it up to 35mm and adding a cleaned up soundtrack.

---

What matters is that it cost Rodriguez 7K. Studios fix up every indie, like BLAIR WITCH, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, etc.

There is no wrong way with this discussion. Brian is right. So is Certified Instigator. What matters is the path you (the prospective director/filmmaker) prefer. If you live in Hollywood or New York then you can possibly put yourself in a circle of good people, by who you know.

I started making movies in a small town (Sedona, AZ) of 10,000. I had no professional circle to turn to. In that case, you gear up! The filmmakers I most respect, started out from nothing and put themselves in the driver's seat by making their own movies:

Peter Jackson - BAD TASTE (Somewhere in the CLERKS range, 20 - 40K)
John Carpenter - DARK STAR ($60,000) Breakthrough was HALLOWEEN ($300,000)
Sam Raimi - EVIL DEAD ($384,000)
David Lynch - ERASERHEAD ($10,000)
Robert Rodriguez - EL MARIACHI ($7,000)
George A. Romero - NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD ($114,000)
Kevin Smith - CLERKS ($27,000)
Ed Burns - THE BROTHERS McMULLEN ($20,000)
Robert Townsend - THE HOLLYWOOD SHUFFLE ($100,000)
Tobe Hooper - THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE ($140,000)

Some others:

NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (under $400,000)
PARANORMAL ACTIVITY ($11,000)
PRIMER (7k)
OPEN WATER ($130,000)

Apparently, you don't need a feature to be discovered. How about a $400 short movie on Youtube?! Some big and small name examples, below.

Fede Alvarez - PANIC ATTACK ($400) got the director a 7 figure deal with Raimi's Dark House films.

Neill Blomkamp - ALIVE IN JOBURG got him the gig on the HALO movie, which fell through and became DISTRICT 9, instead.

James Wan SAW ($30,000 short)

Ricardo de Montreuil - THE RAVEN ($5,000) got a deal with Universal.

Patrick Jean - PIXELS got a deal with Columbia.

Carl Erik Rinsch - THE GIFT starts a bidding war between Fox, Warner Bros and other studios.

Steven Spielberg AMBLIN ($10,000)

Vin Diesel - MULTI-FACIAL - got seen by Spielberg, who cast him in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

I'm sure I'm missing many important others.

quote:

---

For every mythical story about how some "nobody" spent just a little money and got a career, there's a true story behind it whereby the movie or the person isn't just "discovered."

---

You don't necessarily need to be "discovered," but getting distributed and paid may be enough. Anybody who sticks with it long enough can achieve that. Honestly, I'm a fricking nobody. But, I'm content that 3 of my features were being sold at last year's AFM.

One of those features is the 100 minute long, THE AWAKENING.

http://www.pollystaffle.com/independent/theawakening.shtml

The budget? .... Under 6K. (rough breakdown in the above link) Considering the kind of action we had in it - explosions, guns, marines, black ops, tipped over vehicles, including a real van flipped with tow straps. I think we accomplished a lot.

I'm 4 for 4, getting features distributed, and they are the cheap-ass kind! ?:)? (click my site, below, to see some DVD covers). Granted, THE AWAKENING was by far the cheapest, I found that upping the budget 10 fold didn't necessarily mean more money. There are no guarantees, but don't underestimate what is possible with a prosumer camera and some fresh ideas, especially if you produce something a cut above. Nowadays, distributors are looking for better stories and quality, so be sure to give it your best.

quote:

---

Probably the most profitable indie movie to date was "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" which reportedly was made for around $1.5 million. Obviously that budget is far above what people here are thinking about, but the point of bringing it up is to illustrate the differences in quality that money buys you from the very rough El Mariachi to the relative high-quality of SL&VT.

So, running out to buy a prosumer camera that costs less than $10 grand is just a start and not even the most important element toward making a successful project.

---

I love that movie. It's on my shelf and it is well done. However, success-wise (money made) there are some interesting figures:

SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE - 24 million gross.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=sexliesandvideotape.htm

Cheapo camera movie, BLAIR WITCH - 248 million worldwide
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=blairwitchproject.htm

Even cheaper camera movie, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY - 193 million
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=paranormalactivity.htm

Many others that I listed, above, are budgeted well under a million and also grossed big numbers (HALLOWEEN, NAPOLEON, TEXAS, NIGHT).

Speaking of which, I see you worked on GHOSTS OF MARS. Awesome! Carpenter has long been my main inspiration. I even started scoring movies because of that guy.

quote:

---

It takes smart writing first. Then it takes a fundamental understanding of the filmmaking process so that the logistics don't waste time or money. You also need quality people, including a cast who know how to act. There are so many things that go into making a Director a "great!" Director and owning a camera isn't even really on that list.

---

I agree with all of that, save the last. The way I see it, Penny Marshall and Clint Eastwood didn't need cameras. But, they were already connected and powerful. But, I do think that a newbie should forget about dating and sleep with a camera.?:D? The knowledge needs to become second nature.

You are right about needing quality writing. It was some interesting concepts that turned a lot of no budget horror flicks into mega-hits.

If you lack connections, getting a script recognized by an agency is a longer shot than just making it into a movie. Syd Field said that he read 2,000 scripts just to find 40 worth recommending for possible production. If you are really good (top 2% of writers) then this is your route! ?8D?

While directors should be putting their all into a good script or finding a writer, I can not imagine ever being without a camera. I'm not talking about a RED, Varicam or F900, but something halfway decent. Otherwise, it's like a songwriter without an instrument. The director has to visualize the script and then imagine how to communicate it. Some people just need a detached viewfinder, but that subjective view is key to figuring out what to show.

There is the language of the script and then the language of filmmaking. Off the top of my head - establishing shot, longshot (zoomed compressed or wide angle?), medium longshot, medium shot, medium close up, close up, extreme close up, macro close up, dutch angle, fish eye, medium angle, wide angle, handheld, P.O.V., Hood mount, door mount, floor perspective, low angle, high angle, bird's eye view, pan (fluid head or whip pan?), tilt, concussion shake, crane up/down, dolly in/out, steadicam, track left/right, zoom in - dolly out simultaneously, Dutch angle, overcrank, undercrank, 24fps film motion, 22fps fight scene, 26fps graceful, 48fps slo-mo, 64 fps slo-mo, 60i smooth motion, (also good frame rate for post slo-mo), slow shutter blur, fast shutter action, polarizer filter for windows, dark blue skies, ND filter to create shallow depth of field, 80A, 85B indoor/outdoor/windows, Deep focus, rack focus, anamorphic twist, compressed space long zoom for helicopter strafe, etc.

Every director should be familiar with what these words mean. They can associate them with actual images (dolly zoom from JAWS, Long zoom from BLUE THUNDER, etc.) After I write or get that great script, I often make a shooting script, which is my text version of a storyboard. VERY IMPORTANT, unless you are a boring filmmaker and always uses Master Scene technique for shooting. (I use it for quick shoots, when there is no choice or time.)

I recommend a chronological "shot list," where each scene is broken down into shots. Example:

SCENE #2 WAREHOUSE EXT. DAY

1) Establishing shot of warehouse. A RED MUSTANG pulls up to the building.

2) Medium shot of MUSTANG entering frame - pan until it stops. The driver, Ray, gets out of the car. He pulls a GUN from his SHOULDER HOLSTER.

3) M.C.U. of GUN. pulled out.

SCENE #3 WAREHOUSE INT. DAY.

1) C.U. of door latch. It turns slowly.

2) M.C.U. of door opening. The GUN probes through the opening, followed by Ray looking in.

3) Wide shot of sparse warehouse.

4) M.S. of Ray stepping in. He closes the door.

5) Handheld P.O.V. shot, from behind a CRATE, looking at Ray. Someone is watching him. There is a sound and the camera ducks behind the crate.

6) M.C.U. profile of Ray. He whips his head and points his PISTOL at the CRATE.

Again, screenplays should have no camera instructions. Just the shooting script. This is a shot template that the director has previsualized and even rough edited - which is important for planning creative transitions, as in HIGHLANDER (fish tank/lake) or EVIL DEAD 2 (head roll out/shovel spade in).

Often, location shooting reveals some details that might not be in the script or shooting script. There may be a better way to show it. That's fine. At least, you have something to give you an example, especially when all those actors and crew are asking questions. This can be overwhelming for someone who hasn't shot/storyboarded and is trying to figure it out on the spot. This is common when directors are last minute replacements (ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU Frankenheimer for Stanley) or sequels are greenlit, before scripts are written (Poor Joe Johnston on JURASSIC PARK 3 ?:D? ).

I also make a separate Character and Props Scene List, where I list the Scene, Day or Night and People and props for that scene. I also list things, like Fog Machine, Generator, Stuntman,etc., Depending on the scene's particular requirements. This Character and Prop Scene List is only about 5 pages, but it is what I use for scheduling and seeing which scenes are left, at a glance.

It's easy to sit down with your crew and figure out how many days you will need Ray (20 scenes), Betsy (6 scenes) and anyone else. Script, Shotlist and Scene List. That's how I've done it.

My point is, the director needs to know the language, which means knowing the process in and out. A good script is only half of the story. (I've seen indies ruin good writing with bad production - wide shots and on camera audio, for example!) How is it going to be told? What filmic style or point of view?

Sure the Hollywood guys have FX supervisors to help them plan shots and get plate footage. I don't have that on my shoots. I have to figure out if we have enough points of reference for motion tracking a new object into the Z plane of a scene. I have to think about which plates to get and if the lighting is changing, as I'm shifting actors in and out of an effects shot.

Imagine a director not understanding the 180 degree rule. He just tells actors what to do, as opposed to thinking about matching eyelines, etc. "Reverse it in post!" For myself, it's all about previsualizing scenes subjectively.

Sorry for that ramble, but what a great discussion!

www.midnightsunent.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scoopicman

... but what a great discussion!

---

I agree! 🙂 Exactly the kinds of things that aspiring "filmmakers" and anyone who asks that question "What camera should I buy?" needs to hear. Yes, a camera is beneficial, but it is just ONE tool in the toolbox that it takes to make a movie and aspiring Directors need to understand that.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Quite a ramble, Scoopicman. Great stats and interesting
advice.

These "what camera" and "what equipment" questions very
often start an interesting discussion. I started like you did.
In an area (Santa Barbara, CA) with a small population.
Though at 60,000 much bigger than where you started.
There just wasn't the option to work with people with skills
where I grew up. So that's why my advice for a new wannabe
director is to buy a camera and even equipment.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

Quite a ramble, Scoopicman.

---

Hee hee! I was up late, when writing that. I'm back, looking to see if I got too goofy or not. ?:D?

I got the whole "rough edited shot list" approach, after studying Alfred Hitchcock's storyboards. I don't think he did much with a camera, but I was amazed at how he would previsualize the whole movie in his head, before stepping onto the set.

NORTH BY NORTHWEST storyboards:
http://www.lst.inf.ethz.ch/teaching/lectures/ws05/229/RecitationSlides/Recitation%203.pdf

Cropduster scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbUnzErVAjI&feature=related

That kind of planning is what makes a good director, for me.

www.midnightsunent.com

I want to thank everyone for all the great advice. Scoopicman can you recommend me some books that will teach me all these different terms you mentioned all filmmakers/directors should know (like the different shots ect.) Thank you so much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JayLethal84

Scoopicman can you recommend me some books that will teach me all these different terms you mentioned all filmmakers/directors should know (like the different shots ect.)

---

A great starter book (85 pages) is "The Bare Bones Camera Course for Film and Video" by Tom Schroeppel. It's outstanding and to the point. I'm sure his book "Video Goals: Getting Results with Pictures and Sound" is also worth checking out.

Instead of paying $50 on Amazon (some great reviews of it there), go directly to his home site and they are about $10 each:

http://www.tomschroeppel.com/index.htm

I can certainly go through most of the terms I mentioned. Filmmaking is deciding how much to show of something. If you have a fake cockpit, you don't want to see the open walls and wood supports on the side of it.

You light it right and bring the shot closer, so the audience only sees the finished set. You focus their attention on the parts that you can sell them on.

This may seem obvious, but the typical approach of a new filmmaker is to get a wide shot of everything. Someone with more experience is going to emphasize where the audience should be looking.

If you have a wide shot of a guy and girl talking, you are going to want to see a closeup of his face, when she tells him she's been sleeping with his best friend. Maybe he drops his drink, bites his lip and clenches his hand. You may want closeups of each of those things, instead of just a boring wide shot that doesn't move.

This isn't a stageplay; you want to see the characters up close and intimately. But, you don't want closeups of everything. You have to balance those with shots of the environment and surroundings, so the audience understands where they are. In order to figure out the shots, you need to define them.

Establishing shot Sometimes the opening shot, it establishes where the scene or movie is taking place, like the opening of STAR WARS - we see stars and the camera tilts down to Tatooine. It could be a shot of your city, San Francisco skyline, a house in a valley, etc.

Longshot It could be a shot of you from across the street, including your house and the street. It could be a shot of you standing and we see you from head to foot.

Medium longshot A shot of you (and maybe a friend or two) from the ankles or knees up to your head.

Medium shot A shot of you (and maybe a friend - "2 shot") from the waist up to your head.

Medium close up Chest, shoulders and head. Aka "Bust shot."

Close up Your face fills the frame.

Extreme close up Your eye fills the frame.

Macro close up Many zoom lenses offer a Macro setting, so that you can focus on ants and very fine details, like the lines of your skin.

Dutch angle A tilted shot that adds "weight" to one side the frame. Used on submarine and sinking ship movies. Even if the set is level, you can tilt the camera to give the illusion that it is not. Also used to convey artsy or weird.

Fish eye Very wide angle lens (8mm - 10mm) that gives the image a convex distortion, such as looking at someone through the eye hole on your front door.

Wide angle, medium and Zoom! A lens that is shorter than 50mm, such as 18mm, 20mm, etc is wide. Good for shooting in small rooms, these lenses will make the room seem bigger than it is. Pay attention to this part - a 50mm lens is standard on many still cameras and is considered a "normal look." Wide lenses will distort facial features, which look more 3 dimensional. The nose pops out more, the shorter the lens is!

Wide angles are great for moving cameras. The jerky movement is smoothed out and a really wide lens will look like steadicam. Wide lenses gather more light and are great for low light situations.

A long lens or telephoto (longer than 55mm) will do the opposite. It compresses space, making faces flat. A really long lens is good for making dangerous action look closer than it is to your actor. I use the BLUE THUNDER example of the cops on the bridge. The helicopter rises up and looks like it is right next to them. In reality, the scene is shot with a very long lens and the copter is at a relatively safe distance.

Long lenses need more light. They emphasize movement, like camera jerkiness, so keep them on a tripod. This info is true for zoom lenses that go from wide to telephoto.

Handheld and P.O.V. CLOVERFIELD, BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, etc. Usually a Point Of View is handheld or steadicam. Remember the UNTOUCHABLES scene, where the Italian with the knife enters Sean Connery's apartment? The steadicam took the role of the killer/stalker. If you want the killer watching from behind some bushes, the shot will usually be handheld.

P.O.V. shots don't have to be shaky as hell. They just need to make the audience see through the eyes of whichever character it is, such as.... your dog! In that case, you would put the camera down low and look up at the human who is petting it.

Hood mount, door mount Anything that mounts a camera to a hood or door of a car.

Floor perspective, low angle, eye level, high angle, bird's eye view Where you place the camera can determine the power or size of your character. Looking up at Biff (BACK TO THE FUTURE) makes him look more intimidating than an eye level shot. Looking down at Marty makes him look smaller and more fearful. Where you place a camera can affect the scene differently. If your character is a mouse, then floor angles would be appropriate.

Pan (fluid head or whip pan?) Technically? "A horizontal rotation of the camera about its vertical axis." Or, left/right movement. A fluid head on a tripod will allow for adjustable resistance, so that your pans (and tilts) are smooth. However, you may want a fast pan or whip pan. In old TV shows these were used between scenes as transitions - quick pan (fast moving, blurred background) and some loud music. Another example shows a character exiting the room. The camera pans left (cut/blend in the next shot) and stops on another door (but in a new location) and your character enters. It looks like it all happens in one shot.

Tilt Looking up or down, or a vertical pan. This is the most common movement for introducing a character, starting with his/her feet and looking up.

Concussion shake Or camera shake. Often used on STAR TREK - the Enterprise would get hit, the camera would shake (or Dutch tilt) and people would fall down. Old trick for shaking a static set.

Crane up/down The camera sits on a mechanical lift that goes up or down, smoothly. Craning down is a common intro to a scene. A friend of mine rented a Genie lift to get this effect.

Dolly in/out Spielberg's favorite move. The camera is on rollers or a dolly cart. It goes towards or away from the character.

Track left/right If characters are walking and the camera stays with them, it is tracking. It is also usually on tracks or parallel PVC rails. Tracking shots are "money shots," since they take some setting up. Often times, a slow dialogue scene will have the camera track along a dinner table or from behind a piece of furniture and revealing the actors on the couch, etc.

Steadicam A counterweighted gyro camera support harness worn by the camera man, so he can get smooth camera moves, even on stairs and rough terrain.

Zoom out - dolly in simultaneously (or vice versa) Classic shot of Roy Scheider on the beach, when the shark attacks, in JAWS. Zooming out will decrease the size of your background, but dollying in will bring your character closer. Doing both at the same time will keep your actor the same size, while it looks like the background is falling away from him.

Overcrank, undercrank Film camera and Varicam terms for slow and fast motion. When a camera was overcranked, it went through film fasters. When it was played back, the motion was slow. With video, you can do the same thing with variable frame rates (like on Panasonic Varicam and HVX cameras). If 24 frames per second is normal film (24P video) speed, then 48 frames per second will produce slow motion and vice versa. Slow motion can also be done in editing, but is not always as smooth.

24fps film motion How many frames a film camera shoots in one second. 24P (P = progressive full frame, as opposed to interlaced) video cameras have been fairly successful at giving video film-like motion. Traditional video is 30 (29.97 actually) frames per second, made up of 60 "fields" (60i). Each field is made up of half the frame or lines of resolution. Two fields = one interlaced frame.

22fps fight scene Speeds up the motion by 2 frames per second. This is a trick used in martial arts films to make the fighters look fast and still be believable.

26fps graceful Slightly slows down the motion and makes it look a little smoother.

48fps slo-mo, 64 fps slo-mo Different rates of slow motion.

Shutter speed When you click an old still camera, you hear the shutter open and close, once. On film and video cameras, the shutter is opening and closing continuously. A slow shutter speed, say 1/24th of a second, will allow you more light (good in darker situations), but can blur action (which you may want), especially when the camera pans. A fast shutter 1/500th will give you clear shots of your action, but needs plenty of light.

Depth of field Video is notorious for having a deep depth of field (everything in focus), whereas film was known for having shallow focus, which is good for masking bad sets, background, etc. Shallow focus allows for clever shifts or racking focus from a near actor to a far actor. Filmmakers like this for the ability of putting the audience's attention right where they want it.

The Canon DSLR cameras are currently being ultra-exploited for their shallow DOF ability. You can fudge other cameras, by opening the iris all the way and zooming in. Opening the iris lets in light and it can't be too much. This can be offset by using the ND neutral density filter and using fast shutter rates.

If you are going into 3-D filmmaking, then you want everything in focus.

Polarizer filter A glass filter that you screw on top of your camera's lens. This cuts down on reflection, so you can shoot through a car's windshield and see the actors more clearly. It will also darken the sky and make it look more blue.

ND filter Neutral Density filter that cuts light, when too bright. You can buy gel sheets of this and put it on windows, if the background is washed out.

Color Temperature Indoor Tungsten lighting = 3200 degrees Kelvin. Outdoor sun = 5600K. This difference is why it is very tricky to mix daylight and interior tungsten shots. (see below)

80A filter Color Conversion. Raises the color temperature, causing a 3200 K tungsten-lit scene to appear to be daylight lit, approximately 5500 K.

So, if you want to shoot at night, but fake the daylight - place 80A color gel sheets over your lights, via C-47s on the barndoors. :>) Then set the camera on the daylight setting (white balance).

85B filter Converts 5500 K to 3200 K. So, let's say you are shooting indoors, with tungsten lights. If you put sheets of 85B on your windows, you will balance that daylight coming in.

I worked on a movie, where we were shooting day for night. We gelled the windows with a midnight blue gel, which made the sunlight look like moonlight. It worked well.

You can look any of this stuff up. In fact, Wikipedia has a whole section on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Film_techniques

www.midnightsunent.com

There is also a glossary of everyday terms that are used on sets in the back of my book, "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood." You'll also find detailed descriptions of what everyone on set is actually doing every minute of the day.

I wrote it so that an aspiring "filmmaker" could get the experience of following everyone around all day to observe what they do without actually having to be there. Sort of like an internship in a book.

Even if you can't afford to have all of those people on set doing their specific jobs, you'll learn all of the things that MUST BE accomplished so that when you do only have fifteen people, you'll have a better idea of how much work each person will have to do as you divvy up the responsibilities.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com