Hey, Chris!

You are most likely the youngest member on this board, and possibly one of the youngest aspiring filmmakers out there. If you have ever heard Spielberg's life story, you will know that he started making films right about your age.

FILMRIOT is great and all those tips are certainly valuable, but they don't teach the fundamental stuff about filmmaking. Luckily, there are many places out there online where you can learn the whole process. They often say the best way to learn is to go and shoot movies. This is because most aspiring filmmakers end up reading a lot about making films, discussing even more what equipment and software, debating about merits of casting friends vs. aspiring actors, but never end up jumping in and making the film. You obviously don't have this problem. Therefore, for you, the best, most effective to get better at making movies is to learn the process. The filmmaking process has evolved over the past century and it is what it is today because it is the most effective, reliable way to make a good movie. Respecting all phases and steps of the process (Development, Preproduction, Production, Postproduction, Distribution) will help you immensely in organising everything. Absorbing all these things may be overwhelming for a 10-year old (I should know, I have one at home...), but I'm sure it will ultimately be fun.

If you can afford to buy some books, sift through Amazon and pick one of the filmmaking titles (Filmmaking for Dummies, or Idiot's Guide to Independent Filmmaking, or if your attention span is very short, Moviemaking Course: Principles, Practice, and Techniques).

As for your camcorder choice (HF-200), it is the next step up from your original Samsung. The reviews from last year praise its high image resolution. If you have an opportunity to get it in the US, I would suggest doing that, rather than buying EU model. US model offers 24p and 30p frame rates (in addition to 60i), while EU model only has 25p (and 50i). Besides, it is much cheaper.

The RØDE VideoMic is an excellent video microphone. It may or may not be the best choice for you. If your goal is to shoot documentary video, then a good shotgun mic that mounts on your camcorder is essential. If, on the other hand, you want to shoot feature movies, the mic will rarely, if ever, be mounted on that camcorder. Instead, you'll have a boom operator holding it above your talent's head(s). For this particular purpose, you should be able to get cheaper shotgun microphones (plus a fishpole) that would work well. RØDE shotguns are a bit expensive, but you could get an Audio Technica for about $100, and there's even a cheap Nady for about $25!

Final Cut Express is an excellent package for those who find iMovie too restricting. It gives you a lot more freedom in editing your movie. It also uses the same interface as Final Cut Pro, which seems to be the golden standard these days.

I'm sure others here will chime in with their advice, so I'll wrap it up with the remaining bit of advice: be persistent, read as much as you can, write as many scripts as you can think of and shoot as much as you can. If you have talent, you'll have a very good shot at getting a break.

thanks!

chris

Welcome to filmmaking.net!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrisieb

My Questions: rode video mic: good?

---

It sure is.

quote:

---

How do i become a Movie Director? do i have to start by being the guy who
holds the boom microphone? lol

---

Don't for a second think the boom operator
is an entry level job. Those people are just
as important and just as talented and skilled
as the director.

You become a movie director by directing movies.

quote:

---

What do you think about final cut express and Canon HF200??

---

Both are excellent. iMovie is an excellent program,
too. One way to become a movie director is to
learn to use what you have. The better you can
be within your limitations, the better you will be
when you get access to better equipment.

quote:

---

Do I have any advantages?(bilingual)

---

No. You language skills don't make any difference.
There are many movie directors who only speak one
language. It won't hurt, but it won't give you any
advantage.

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

What about a lavalier mic used in a short film?

chris

Lav's can get complicated. On the surface they seem kinda cool. A
small, hidden mic that picks up more signal and less noise. But
then you need one for each actor. A scene with four people
speaking will need four mics. If you use the cheaper mics that are
wired, you now need to hide the wires on the actors, run them to
the ground and all the way to the camera. Four wires then need to
be plugged into the camera and you restrict the movement of the
actors. So wireless lav's seem like the obvious choice. But good
ones are expensive and cheaper ones are prone to a lot of RF
(radio frequency) interference. And then you need a receiver for
all four signals and someone to monitor and mix the audio.

Of course it's less complicated and expensive if you only get two
lav's. But then you can never have a scene in your movie where
more than two people are talking. That's a bit restrictive. You
tend to get a lot of clothes rustle when the actors move and
hiding the mic element from the camera can be difficult.

So a nice shotgun mic on a makeshift boom pole only means one crew
person (the boom op) and one cable going into the camera and you
can have as many actors speaking and moving in a scene as you
need. That's why I mentioned that a boom operator is a very
skilled job - a good one is a very valuable asset to a production
- and not just someone pointing a mic in the general direction of
the actors.

As you get more experience and make more ambitious projects you
can add a sound recordist to your crew who will monitor and mix
the audio coming from the shotgun mic.

thanks CI

chris

Is it me or Nady sells only dynamic(mic for interviews, and shows) microphones? I can't find any shotgun mic. I found one but for instruments

chris

Check out the Nady SGM-12. Inexpensive but not very good. If it's all you can afford it's better than the on camera mic.

You tend to get a lot of clothes rustle when the actors move and
hiding the mic element from the camera can be difficult.
I second the rustling sound. Ruined a lot of takes because of the slightest movement. Putting the mics on with mole-skin or whatever they use to limit the rustle is an art and my sound team weren't up to it. Eventually I put the wireless mics away and used the boom entirely.

RJSchwarz

"Don't for a second think the boom operator
is an entry level job. Those people are just
as important and just as talented and skilled
as the director." Ci

Yes, but lets say I did a very good movie.. my first one... how does it appears in the theaters??

chris

Well, the chance of you making a very good, theater film right around now is very slim. It's not that you don't have a creative mind, it's that (and I've definatly researched this profoundly) the cameras that can make videos able to be blown up to the big screen proportion start at around $1000 and that's only one camera; the Vixia 200 or higher. You also have to be very educated on editing (not color editing but chopping up each shot to make the angle changes look right) and you have to make sure the camera you use doesn't have bad aliasing or lines it's image.

The thing about the revolutional Vixia hf200 (or hf20) is this camera has no lens addition, meaning you have almost no depth of feild unless you zoom in, and even then, it's not much. This constant clear tone will make any film look like a commercial, despite great technology and quality behind the cam, but you can shell out a bit more money for a lens adaptor, which solve many problems, but means you have to hold your camera upside down

The alternative to this is using the also 1000$ DSLR camera, the Rebel Ti2 (the Eos 550 in some countries). This camera indeed gives a better image and beautiful control over the depth of field, but because of the extreme aliasing problems with this cameras software, there's not many open clear shots you'll be able to do, which is required just as much as close, depthy shots. This camera absutely cannot fil
houses, fences, clothes, ect from a good distance away.

Basically, the summary is, while you may have good story ideas, you have to have a very good education in camera technology, lighting systems, all the behind the scenes stuff, and you also have to have a big budget to buy cameras made for the big screen. Even the cameras mentioned above haven't been tested for the big screen, and prolly wouldn't work. The best thing for you to do is buy a cheap but 720p camera (perfect for your current needs) and do some short films, or do a feature length film that you may get it into some small screen film festivals/showings, but not theaters. Festivals are what you should probably concentrate on a the moment.

On a distributive note, the final steps in getting a fil
in theaters is presenting your film to a distributor, just like a job resume.

"You become movie director by Directing a movie?"

Well, yes!

But are you really asking if you can become a PROFESSIONAL Movie Director by directing a movie?

The answer is "maybe."

The professional entertainment industry is very very fickle. Even established Directors have trouble maintaining a career as their previous movies and financial issues contribute to what gets made and what doesn't.

As a newbie, all you can really do is throw your heart into your projects and do everything you can to get them seen by those who have the power to finance your next project.

It isn't about "getting a job" as a Director. It doesn't really work that way. It's about working one "job" at a time and the first one (that attracts a Studio/financier) being the most important. Once you're "in," then you do your absolute best to try to get the next gig. Then the next and the next. If you happen to make a movie that is a blockbuster, then you have that much more freedom to do more of what YOU want to do. But if your last project just made some money, then you'll have a job but struggle with not enough budget.

Only a scant few people in the world get to make the movies that they want to make, and even then, those few people have to make "commercial" projects that allow them the freedom to make their own movies.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSmitty

Well, the chance of you making a very good, theater film right around now is very slim. It's not that you don't have a creative mind, it's that (and I've definatly researched this profoundly) the cameras that can make videos able to be blown up to the big screen proportion start at around $1000 and that's only one camera; the Vixia 200 or higher. You also have to be very educated on editing (not color editing but chopping up each shot to make the angle changes look right) and you have to make sure the camera you use doesn't have bad aliasing or lines it's image.

The thing about the revolutional Vixia hf200 (or hf20) is this camera has no lens addition, meaning you have almost no depth of feild unless you zoom in, and even then, it's not much. This constant clear tone will make any film look like a commercial, despite great technology and quality behind the cam, but you can shell out a bit more money for a lens adaptor, which solve many problems, but means you have to hold your camera upside down

The alternative to this is using the also 1000$ DSLR camera, the Rebel Ti2 (the Eos 550 in some countries). This camera indeed gives a better image and beautiful control over the depth of field, but because of the extreme aliasing problems with this cameras software, there's not many open clear shots you'll be able to do, which is required just as much as close, depthy shots. This camera absutely cannot fil
houses, fences, clothes, ect from a good distance away.

Basically, the summary is, while you may have good story ideas, you have to have a very good education in camera technology, lighting systems, all the behind the scenes stuff, and you also have to have a big budget to buy cameras made for the big screen. Even the cameras mentioned above haven't been tested for the big screen, and prolly wouldn't work. The best thing for you to do is buy a cheap but 720p camera (perfect for your current needs) and do some short films, or do a feature length film that you may get it into some small screen film festivals/showings, but not theaters. Festivals are what you should probably concentrate on a the moment.

On a distributive note, the final steps in getting a fil
in theaters is presenting your film to a distributor, just like a job resume.

---

I'm not sure where to start with this post. Too much inaccuracy to really deal with.

Ok, so, as far as camera technology goes, you will NOT get an image of quality to be screened from a camera that is less than $50,000. That's the low end. Consumer and Pro-sumer cameras do NOT produce images on par with 35mm or uncompressed 4:4:4 video.

To get it to a screen, you need a quality image PLUS being able to attract a distributor. This means having a quality product that will deliver a profit. As a Director, you do NOT have to really know about the nitty gritty of camera and editing equipment. That's what specialists are for. As a Director, your job is to "direct" the creative and technical skills of other people. It isn't to KNOW how to do their jobs for them. Of course, the more you know about everything, the better direction you'll be able to do within the parameters of your budget and schedule, but having to KNOW HOW to do all of those jobs is NOT something a Director needs to know.

And almost NO "big budget" Directors or DPs own their own cameras or editing equipment. For the most part, everything is rented on a project-to-project basis. High-end equipment is very expensive to purchase and very expensive to maintain, so it makes very little financial sense for anyone to actually own it unless they are earning a rental fee from it.

The bottom line is that if you want to be a professional Director, you WON'T spend money (you likely don't have) by buying cameras or editing equipment (that is likely less than you need) and instead you will concentrate on the things that professional Directs concentrate on, like scripts and stories and marketing themselves. Buying expensive gear is NOT what most professional Directors do.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrisieb
Yes, but lets say I did a very good movie.. my first one... how does it appears in the theaters??

---

This is a very, very difficult question to answer. If there were
one path from making a very good movie to getting theatrical
distribution, everyone would follow that path. If I knew that
answer, my movies would be in the theaters.

One path that several directors have takes is to make a very good
movie, get accepted into prestigious film festivals and get picked
up by a distributor who releases it in the theaters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSmitty
it's that (and I've definatly researched this profoundly) the cameras that can make videos able to be blown up to the big screen proportion start at around $1000 and that's only one camera; the Vixia 200 or higher.

---

If this is true then how do you explain movies shot on standard
definition video that were released in theaters? Cameras without
the HD features or 24p found on the Canon you mention?

Is it possible that the camera isnt the primary thing in getting
a movie shot on video to the big screen?

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