Posted by Mat on 16th, 2008
Welcome to the DOJO!
As an indie filmmaker I am a firm believer in the power of digital cinema and filmmaking. I’ve owned and been using various forms of DV cameras since I shot “Bite Me, Fanboy” back in 2001. However, like almost every indie or guerilla filmmaker on the planet, I still love the look of a project shot on film. There is just something ingrained into my being that will also respond to the look of a 35mm or, as a fan of 1970s exploitation films, 16mm film. To me, video almost never looks quite right.
The rise of digital cameras with the ability to shoot at 24p (24 progressive frames per second) has helped the look of digital video, but there was still something missing. Truthfully, the main thing missing from most DV (or HD or HDV or whatever your preferred digital filmmaking format is) is creative color correction and post processing, but that’s not what I’m going to talk about today. What is missing on consumer and “prosumer” digital camcorders is the power of a great lens. Sure, a lot of the higher end digital video cameras have some very good lenses on them these days. However, they still don’t quite hold a candle to a professional 35mm camera lens.
In specific, what most dv cameras lack is the ability to change your focal length and the ability to get a great shallow depth of field. For those of you out there who aren’t sure of what the term “depth of field” means or why you’d want a shallow one, I’ll explain…for those of you who already know, I give you permission to go ahead and skip past the rest of this paragraph. Your “depth of field” is basically referring to what is in focus on screen (or in your camera). A deep depth of field means more is in focus (or everything in some cases) and a shallow depth of field means a small portion is in focus with everything else blurred out to varying degrees. You’ll notice in most films (but not all), when a character is in close-up, the background is blurred out. That statement over simplifies things, but this post is a product review and not a treatise on DOF (depth of field). All you need to know is film lenses allow you to obtain a very shallow DOF, which allows you as the director to control what your viewers see on screen and is an important part of film storytelling. If you want to know more, Google the damn phrase and leave me alone. 
Full Story →
Like this post? Buy me a beer to keep the site going!
Posted by Mat on 9th, 2008
Welcome to the DOJO!
It’s another exciting week here in Southern California. And by “exciting” I mean “really freakin’ hot!” Earlier this summer I promised my beloved wife I would refrain from using our airconditioner as much as possible. It was an easy promise to make back in early May when the weather was a balmy 75 degrees. Now that it is early July and it’s hotter than Mila Kunis, I’m very much regretting that promise.
In an attempt to stave off my upcoming heat stroke, I’ve decided to start documenting the development of my next low, low, low, low, (you get the idea) low budget film. It’s a horror flick (or, perhaps, comedy-horror is a better classification) called “The Hog” (WGA #1184043), which I originally wrote a few years ago. I had been given the task of writing the sequel to a terrible little movie called “Tail Sting” — the sequel was called “Tail Sting 2″ at the time, however it was eventually released as “Stinger” in most of the world. Unfortunately for everyone involved, I really hadn’t done a whole hell of a lot of screenplay writing at that point. I had come up with the story for “Bite Me, Fanboy” and then co-wrote its screenplay, done extensive re-writing on the “Judge Dredd” screenplay for Shoreline Entertainment and written a bunch of comic books, but that was the extent of my writing experience.
Heck, I went to art school and was thankful I could even read at all! The thought of sitting down and writing out 120 pages of text for a screenplay was a bit daunting. In an effort to become more familiar and, hopefully, more skilled with the process, I decided to bang out a low budget horror screenplay in advance of doing “Tail Sting 2.” Full Story →
Like this post? Buy me a beer to keep the site going!
Posted by Mat on 1st, 2008
Welcome to the DOJO!
Like any red-blooded, American, male indie filmmaker, I have fevered dreams of putting together a bad-ass action flick with a ton of martial arts and…most important…Guns. However, like a lot of you, I have been completely baffled as to how to pull it off safely and on a budget. Anyone who has done any sort of research in regards to obtaining prop guns for a film has come across the standard options. Let’s take a quick look at those options:
Real guns loaded with Blank Rounds. This is the choice for most big budget flicks. What looks better than a real gun? The problem for an indie or guerilla filmmaker is the added expense of hiring an armorer to manage the guns, as well as the high cost of both real guns and the blank ammo. And let’s not forget the biggest problem with real guns firing blank load ammunition: safety! With a semi-experienced crew, short shooting schedule and microscopic budget, safety can be a major issue when it comes to prop guns on an indie film shoot. What does this mean? Well, it means real guns with blank ammo isn’t an option for for most of us.
To tell the truth, I’m not sure I’d use real guns as props even if I had a budget to support it. In this age of digital filmmaking, do we really need the safety hazzards and risk? I’m way too paranoid. Full Story →
Like this post? Buy me a beer to keep the site going!
On Facebook
On Twitter
On Google+
On YouTube
On Linked In
On IMDB
On Amazon
On SmashWords
RSS Feed