Can the iPad work as a field monitor?

In the blogosphere, there’s been a burst of activity surrounding the much-hyped release of the new iPad by Apple. Aside from the humorous jokes and witty quips about Apple’s glaring oversight with regard to the name (the now-canceled MadTV skit comedy show had previously done a sketch about a womens’ hygiene product called the ‘iPad’), many have questioned and begun brainstorming about possible additional uses of the iPad.

Movies, books and music are obvious uses, but – as with the App store for the iPhone – the iPad is a new market rife with prospects for software developers dabbling in small application creation. Some of the best App’s have been the most common-sense tasks, but have proven enormously helpful. Cinemek’s Storyboarding tool and the See4K app with RED One calculations are chief among them.

One idea that came up in discussion, primarily based on some forum posts regarding the quality of the monitor on the iPad, has been the thought of using the iPad as a field monitor. After quick discussions, the idea was ultimately deemed unworkable, but it did get me thinking about why it wouldn’t work.

1. Connectivity – The new iPad, for all its features, isn’t capable of connecting at the data rates necessary for a production-friendly picture. True, you might be able to send something wirelessly or across a Bluetooth connection, but it will still not be as seamless as a strong SDI connection.

2. Features – Certain features such as blue gun, pixel to pixel, underscan, overscan and more would not be able to be programmed/built into a viewing device such as the iPad. The additional need for interchangeable power supplies (multiple batteries, etc.) would also not make for a practical field monitor.

3. Pricing – As with the introduction of the iPod, the iPad is not the profit generator here. The digital content sold for the device will be the financial boon. Production monitor manufacturers have nothing else to provide for the needs of the business, whereas Apple is eyeing the massive dollar amounts to be collected for the digital content. The same holds true with Amazon’s Kindle. Amazon can afford to make the reader cheaper because they’re getting you on the other end with the e-book sales.

4. Durability – Regardless of build, there is a certain amount of rugged strength required for any equipment which will be subjected to day-in, day-out use. The iPad (and this is being said without the benefit of having been able to hold and handle one) just may not be robust enough for a prolonged shoot in inclement conditions.

11 Reasons why the iPad sucks.

1. No Multitasking
This is a backbreaker. If this is supposed to be a replacement for netbooks, how can it possibly not have multitasking? Are you saying I can’t listen music while writing a document? I can’t have my Twitter app open at the same time as my browser? I can’t have AIM open at the same time as my email? Are you kidding me? This alone guarantees that I will not buy this product.

2. No Cameras
No front facing camera is one thing. But no back facing camera either? Why the hell not? I can’t imagine what the downside was for including at least one camera. Could this thing not handle video iChat?

3. Touch Keyboard
So much for Apple revolutionizing tablet inputs; this is the same big, ugly touchscreen keyboard we’ve seen on other tablets, and unless you’re lying on the couch with your knees propping it up, it’ll be awkward to use.

4. No HDMI Out
Want to watch those nice HD videos you downloaded from iTunes on your TV? Too damned bad! If you were truly loyal, you’d just buy an AppleTV already.

5. The Name iPad
Get ready for Maxi pad jokes, and lots of ‘em!

6. No Flash
No Flash is annoying but not a dealbreaker on the iPhone and iPod Touch. On something that’s supposed to be closer to a netbook or laptop? It will leave huge, gaping holes in websites. I hope you don’t care about streaming video! God knows not many casual internet users do. Oh wait, nevermind, they all do.

7. No USB but Adapters, Adapters, Adapters
So much for those smooth lines. If you want to plug anything into this, such as a digital camera, you need all sorts of ugly adapters. You need an adapter for USB for god’s sake.

9. It’s Not Widescreen
Widescreen movies look lousy on this thing thanks to its 4:3 screen, according to Blam, who checked out some of Star Trek on one. It’s like owning a 4:3 TV all over again!

10. Doesn’t Support T-Mobile 3G
Sure, it’s “unlocked.” But it won’t work on T-Mobile, and it uses microSIMs that literally no one else uses.

11. A Closed App Ecosystem
The iPad only runs apps from the App Store. The same App Store that is notorious for banning apps for no real reason, such as Google Voice. Sure, netbooks might not have touchscreens, but you can install whatever software you’d like on them. Want to run a different browser on your iPad? Too bad!

Sooooo. What else can I say? Well, let´s have a deeper look:

What is it uniquely good/cool at doing?
It’ll have a super easy interface. It’ll have constantly live internet connection via 3G or WiFi. 3G data is rumored to be $40/month. Lame to spend more each month on streaming bit plans -some poeple have a land line phone bill, a cable bill, a cable modem bill, an iPhone bill, and now a tablet bill? Sheesh.

But now, lets say you can get one tomorrow for 1000 Euros. Or, with a 2 year data plan, for 500 Euros. Whatevah. What matters is this – do you want it? If yes, wait a week and see if still true (gotta wait for the Reality Distortion Field to disperse, the field is strongest Day Zero). Do you need it? Probably not, based on what I’m hearing. Unless a lot of content we’ve already been able to get for free online is going behind a paywall, I don’t think so.

It SOUNDS like Apple is going for the next big move in Internet evolution – that content needs to be paid for, and they are going to have the infrastructure to do it – to bring magazine and newspaper type publications back to an advertising and subscriber based income structure. This NEEDS to happen – so far, it has become VERY clear that advertising alone is not sufficient to support a full sized professional publishing effort, with professional writers, etc. (PVC notwithstanding). OK, that’s GREAT, all for it. EVEN IF that is what they are doing and they are successful at it….why does it need to ONLY be on the tablet? Possible answers:

What can this do that I can’t elsewhere?
ONE FILE ENTERS, NONE MAY LEAVE (chant in crowd ritualistically) – because that one door IN (Apple controlled), no doors OUT (no externally accessible file system), was required to get the bootleg averse content providers to sign on. While technically the same content COULD be distributed to laptops, desktops, iPhones, and (heaven forbid) AppleTV and other set top devices, perhaps it WON’T be because of licensing issues. On that basis, maybe content is EXCLUSIVE to the tablet (at least for now…until faith is built and content distributors trust the Apple ecology, and/or until a decent number of tablets have been sold).

(on that note, maybe AppleTV might get a shot in the arm – especially if the tablet has a 1280×720-ish sized display, as it is a “closed” piece of hardware with a more-trusted level of security – for instance, you can rent HD movies on a AppleTV, but not on a laptop/desktop via iTunes)

OK, IF this guess is true, it is good for tablet, but bad for the overall Apple sales ecology if iPhones, AppleTV, and iTunes equipped Macs/PCs can’t access this content (or a limited portion of it) – Apple likes simple, easy, consistent, unconfusing options. Tablet only content? Suxors on this basis.

Maybe iPhones get some of the content, at smaller size obviously, maybe cheaper video this size, but it’d kinda such on that small screen. Maybe that is part of the drive, that you can try on iPhone, but not see all the benefit therefore want the bigger device?

The exclusivity factor is only of benefit for Apple and the assurance of content distrbutors worried about device security and bootlegging. For the consumer, it is a total downside – there are no technical reasons why – at least the CONTENT, but not the OS/UI, shouldn’t be available on Macs/PCs, and maybe AppleTVs as well (Hey, I have one, and want more use out of it!). Content producers desperately want to find a way to monetize, and consumers have been trained that The Web Is Free. OK, so this new device with a new model means….paying for content.
I don’t think the market is going ot go for it at this point in time – “Hey! It is formatted a little better, I get to spend 500-1000 Euros to get it, and then pay as much as the print copy – WOOHOO! Let me get some!” Nope. The CONCEPT of a reader is great – but the tech isn’t ready yet, and here’s why I think so:

a.) Printing on paper is still dirt cheap. Publishing technology has come a long way, but I’m still AMAZED at magazine lead times, and not in a good way – come on, industry, 2-3 months for trade pubs? Really?

b.) you want a reader? Great, it needs to be better than the alternative from an overall price/functionality perspective. The functionality? I think it’ll be there. But technology is only as valid as its price point. The cost of a screen, CPU, storage, etc. – it is still too high. From what I can tell, the screen itself is a big chunk of the cost. For what this device needs to do – 10 inch multi-touch screen, CPU/GPU capable of full screen video and timely web performance, storage, etc. – for a reader to be viable, and I mean MASS MARKET viable, the price would have to be what – 200-300 bucks to make ANY sense?
It can’t be priced anywhere close to that level – not without a bundled data plan, which pushes the overall cost into the thousands over a couple of years – THIS is a better solution than mailing a magazine, and/or logging onto a website? Maybe this is just a demo of how screwed up the publishing/distro world is right now – so worried about their failing model, that a 500 Euros targeted delivery platform is seen as their most acceptable alternative.

Do we really need a new device and new data formats? Or can HTML5 suffice? With a dosh of PDF?

As for always connected?
We are this close to having that capability already, what with WiFi hotspots and with MiFi and other 3G based data offerings available for the laptops everyone already has, always-on connected just isn’t a big enough advantage, unless it were wicked faster than what we’re used to. And as AT&T’s recently well publicized woes have showed us, providing ubiquitous, CONSISTENT data access to a large user base is a non-trivial understanding. The 4G/LTE rollouts aren’t there, either, to support a few million of these floating around suckin’ down full screen content, either.

But it is likely to be expensive.
MacBooks start at a grand. Lets be generous and say Apple cuts 100 off that price, and puts the tablet 200 below that – that’s a minimum price of 700 Euros for this gadget.
If rumors of data network subsidies are true, lets say you get a data connection for a ballpark of 50/month for a 2 year contract, and the price goes down to 400 Euros now, but 1700 bucks for gadget and connection over two years. Yowza! That’s pricey. And in this economy?

I don’t see myself wanting one of these, nor wanting to use my non-abundant disposable cash to get one. Lets say I did – this is such an inbetween sized gadget. And that’s the terrible thing about it. For now, it seems to be pitched as a consumer/biz casual type device – you won’t use it in meetings, you won’t do all day kinds of work on it, it is your magazine, your Sunday paper, your movie watching gadget, etc. iPhone is GREAT because it fits in our pocket, AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT does all kinds of useful stuff.

When you think back across the history of Things We Carry Around, there’s Everyday stuff – at one point pocketwatches, cellphones, a buncha keys, etc. Things that are book sized? That is a subset of stuff most folks carry around, and even then, only some of the time. How often are you toting your laptop with you?

Biz folks maybe to/from work, but not to every meeting, not to every lunch date, etc. This form factor just doesn’t strike me as one which lends itself to being toted around all over the place – which the proposed functionality/content of the device would need to justify its existence – ya know what I mean? If it is bigger than pocketsized, it enters a class of “it doesn’t matter how much bigger than pocketsized, it might as well be WAY bigger since I have to carry it in a bag or under my arm.”

As an aside, notice that things get sturdier over the decades, as the tech matures. First it has to work, then it should be portable, then it should be conveniently small, then it gets ruggeder as the tech/size/price allow so that it can survive a pocket drop. Everything goes through this – would you imagine dropping the first small cellphones from 5 feet onto concrete and having them survive? Hell no. Car keys can be flung 50 Meters across a parking lot of concrete and survive, that is my metric of sufficiently evolved tech.

Until more tech comes in, in the form of electronic key fobs, then the durability gets set back. I digress here, but I foresee the tablet being a dainty thing – and something you’re supposed to schlep around at that size, with a presumably light weight, from Apple….I don’t see it surviving a hip height fall like a book would. Something you can pitch into your day bag/backpack/purse/briefcase. And I don’t think it is going to be that, based on current status of screen technology.

To sum up this point, it is going to be somewhat pricey, and somewhat delicate/frail is my guess unless they pleasantly surprise me. Think I’m wrong? Look at iPod/iPhone design from the get-go – what is the first thing you do with a fresh-born iThing? Put it in a &$*^#^$$ case so it doesn’t get mutilated by the environment. The delicate, almost sensual raw-ness, vulnerability of it, is part of the design draw I think – on purpose. Another aside.

OVERALL – unless Steve surprises me (and go for it Steve!), I think this thing is going to be Segway 2010.

**(For the record, I like and use mine everyday, but also read about the other devices that do So Much More, and I know why Apple will never add live TV, other format support, DVR capabilities, etc. to it – eats at their iTunes Economy.)

Sensor & Format Comparisons

Sensor & Format Comparisons

REDs neuer Mysterium X Sensor bei 2000 ISO

Diese Bilder wurden von David Fincher auf einer RED ONE geschossen. Die Kamera war mit dem neuen Mysterium-X Sensor sowie einer Master Prime bei T 1.3 ausgestattet. Das Keylight war nur ein Streichholz!

Als die Flamme erloschen ist, wurde Leo DiCaprios Gesicht dunkel ohne auch nur eine Spur von Rauschen zu zeigen. Und das bei ISO 2000.

Das Video wurde im Rahmen des RED Day in den neuen RED Hollywood Studios (den ehemaligen Ren-Mar Studios) zusammen mit dem neuen RED 4k (vorher Red Ray) und der neuen REDCINE-X Software vorgestellt, welche die bisherigen Module REDCINE, RED Alert, und REDRushes in einem Programm vereint.

Großartig, jetzt muss ich wieder zu meiner Equipment-Upgrade-Kaufwahn Selbsthilfegruppe.

Frank Glencairn.

New PL Lens Adapter for Canon 1D/5D/7D

Matthias Uhlig’s MBF Filmtechnik PL lens to Canon EOS adapter For the Canon EOS 7D and 1D Mark IV.

The adapter works with more lenses than I thought. Not just the Angenieux 24-290. Angenieux Optimo 15-40mm and 28-70mm zooms are perfect with this mount.
It also can be used with 200/300 mm Century 2000 and Arri Shift & Tilt on the 5D

No interference with the mirror, so you can pre-focus optically before switching to live view. The mount also works with Clairmont Swing-Shift lenses. Be sure to use lens supports and rods.

Splatter Sicherheits-Lehrfilm aus den 70er Jahren – Staplerfahrer Klaus

Splatter Sicherheits-Lehrfilm aus den 70er Jahren – dacht ich zuerst.
Allerdings wurde der film 2000 als Kurzfilm gederht und hat – bis hin zu Cannes – einiges an Preisen abgeräumt.

Viel Vergnügen!

Who cares about 3D?

Has it really come to this? I read in Variety, the film industry journal, that ‘Mark Thomas of Elsinore Films is producing a 3-D musical Hamlet targeting the Harry Potter and High School Musical market’. I am not concerned for Hamlet, which has been kneaded into so many preposterous shapes and survived. What horrifies me is the prospect of seeing the film in 3-D. Variety helpfully explains: ‘Hamlet lends itself to a 3-D treatment. The producers hope to include a ghost that hovers in front of the audience’s eyes, cannon fire that flies into the auditorium and a sword fight that appears to happen all around viewers.’ Yes, and no doubt Yorick’s skull thrust into our faces.

The 3-D process is an abomination that has died many deaths. It failed in the 1950s as a novelty, and again in the 1970s as a device to breathe new life into exhausted franchises. It even fizzled as a promising innovation in porno. Somehow, audiences didn’t find it erotic to witness the legs of The Stewardesses extending above them as they zeroed in on the money shot.

Simply put, has anyone ever attended a 2-D movie and thought, ‘If only it were in 3-D’? I doubt it, because 2-D creates a perfectly effective illusion of depth and dimension. When I see Lawrence growing from a dot far across the desert sands, it never occurs to me that I’m watching a 2-D image. When I watch 3-D, however, I’m constantly reminded that it’s in 3-D. Objects approach and recede alarmingly, drawing you out of the actual film.

Animators are among the worst perpetrators. They seem obsessed with a 3-D bungee effect, in which characters such as the Kung Fu Panda spring from far below into the near-foreground, their faces frenzied, and then fall back to earth like Wile E. Coyote. It crystallises much that is wrong with the process. The planes of a 3-D picture are rarely rendered into a seamless progression from foreground to background, as in 2-D, but call attention to themselves. Characters seem more concerned to demonstrate their dimensions than their personalities. And, by its nature, the entire 3-D image must be in focus at all times, depriving cinematographers of the use of focal planes. The process is an annoyance and a distraction.

Jeffrey Katzenberg, the high priest and snake-oil salesman of 3-D, has announced that all animation at his DreamWorks studio will be in 3-D. Pixar, the leader in animation, is apparently following. To promote his (pretty bad) Monsters vs. Aliens, Katzenberg barnstormed North America for a month, meeting personally with film critics and exhibitors. Two weeks ago, he keynoted an animation summit conference in Los Angeles to encourage cinema owners to upgrade to expensive new projectors and silvered screens.

Katzenberg knows animation. It is his infatuation with 3-D that is suspect. He masterminded the modern rebirth of animation at Disney in the 1980s with such titles as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. Disney later purchased Pixar, which will 3-D versions of its Toy Story movies this month. Most worryingly of all, Pixar has technology that can convert any 2-D movie into 3-D from scratch; an ominous development, like the outrage of colorisation, that threatens existing films.

Movie critics are sometimes asked why all movies cost the same to view, even though some may have cost $100 million to make, and others $500,000. It’s a reasonable question. I suppose the reasoning is that you get about two hours of movie either way. Now 3-D has provided exhibitors with a subterfuge to force consumers to subsidise their upgraded projection facilities — which is deceptive, because most theatres are upgrading to digital projectors anyway.

Do kids really care? My experience with a good many children is that they either

For a director who takes himself seriously, to add 3-D would be like a novelist choosing a distracting typeface. The only encouraging aspect of this marketing outrage is that eventually we’ll have more cinemas with better projection. But it still leaves a bitter taste in the throat.

James Camerons Pocahontas (Avatar)

Disney`s James Camerons Pocahontas Avatar

20 Reasons why most student films SUCK!

Why most Student Films SUCK!

Here is a list with 20 reasons.

1. Vertigo Effect (DollyZoom)
No question. This is the most egregious, blatantly non-creative, non-cool, total student film red flag. Sure, Hitchcock used it in Vertigo, Spielberg used it Jaws, but enough is enough. It’s cliched, overused, goofy, and overall a bad idea. By the way, what we’re talking about here is a simultaneous Dolly-in/Zoom-out or vice-versa which compresses the background while keeping the subject at a fixed size during the shot.
A student-film no-no. (The dolly/zoom is such a mark of a student film, it’s a joke in the opening of THE BIG PICTURE.)

2. The Tortured Artist Film
The story goes like this. A struggling artist (writer/painter/sculptor/musician — 90% of the time, it’s a writer) grapples with some sort of inner conflict, (a dead relative, writers deadline, religious confusion, etc). Our tormented soul encounters a muse (beautiful woman, endearing older character, magical artifact, etc) who helps the protagonist come to a sort of realization which ultimately opens the creative floodgates and allows the character to succeed (finish the novel, paint the painting, sculpt the likeness of the muse, or perform at the big recital).
The Tortured Artist Film usually involves a so-called “man vs. himself” struggle which is guaranteed to put you to sleep in the first two minutes. Related to this is the “introspective shot” which usually features the main character staring into space for a good minute (usually smoking a cigarette). File this under “Pretentious as Shit.”

3. Dream Sequences
If you don’t want your student film to look like a friggin’ episode of Kung Fu, stay away from dream sequences, Grasshopper. A dream sequence generally says “I couldn’t think of a better way to reveal information about the character than this.”

4. Time-Lapse Montage
You’ve got say, 15 minutes to get your point across in a short film. Every second of screen time should be treated like gold. A time-elapse montage not only demonstrates an inability to structure your film pacing-wise, it makes the audience wait unnecessarily. Try to find a simple and efficient way to indicate the passage of time without resorting to this too easy narrative device.

4. Bad Audio
You can have a real nice looking short film, but if the sound is bad, the film itself comes across as bad. Nothing gives away a student film like the soundtrack. Budgets are tight, sure, but many student directors simply don’t place any importance and give any thought to what their film sounds like. The result is often a beautiful picture with a badly mixed, distracting audio experience. In the same vein, if you’re making a 16mm film, be aware of how crappy the 16mm optical track is going to sound (which is REALLY bad) and try to prepare for it.

And now, free of charge, a canonical list of BAD musical soundtrack instruments:

Synthesizer (the “porn” soundtrack)

Your friend’s band (trust me, they suck)

“the lone, slow piano”

“the lone guitar” (flamenco esp.)

The “impish” clarinet

The cello dirge.

The “spirited” piccolo.

Any kind of wood blocks.

5. “Look at me, I’m a director!” shots
Examples include– the gratuitous “fishbowl in the foreground” shot, the “overhead for no reason ‘cept we’re shooting in a soundstage” shot, the “we think it’s cool canted dutch angle shot” and perhaps most insidiously the “fridge POV shot”, otherwise known as the “put the camera inside the trashcan/toilet/mailbox shot”. Ok, maybe you need to get this stuff out of your system, but just be warned, it’s total cheese.

6. Ultraslow Dialogue
A film professor once told me that on a film set, one second of “real” time equals three seconds of film time. Something to remember. Watch a student film and notice how often there are long pauses between lines of dialogue.
Why is this? I don’t know, but if you watch the average “real” film, you’ll see that the dialogue often occurs ultra fast. Maybe it’s because we can hear faster than people normally speak. Who knows. A side note– these pauses also extenuate bad lines of dialogue. A poorly written line is going to hang in the air like a fart if not closely followed by a fresh line to cleanse the air like a gentle breeze…

7. Blatant Miscasting
The audience can tell when you cast your significant other as the romantic object of desire. Don’t try to pass off someone who is shall we say, “fugly”, as a supermodel. In the same vein, why do so many student films cast SAG boy wonders as the “computer nerd” who can’t get a date?
Mismatched couples. Be honest: “Do you believe that SHE would go out with HIM?” Make sure the answer is “yes.” The audience can only suspend their disbelief so much.
Don’t have your friends play “older characters.” The baby powder grey hair trick doesn’t work. Neither do the fake beards.

8. “Eyebrow acting”
It may work at the Golden Tugboat Dinner Theatre, but it don’t come off on film. What’s eyebrow acting? It’s an overly expressive use of facial muscles more suited to miming than screen acting. This acting technique is only acceptable in films where the characters have sex within the first four minutes.

9. The “Nothing Happens” short film
A very common bad student film. Usually consists of a main character who spends his or her time talking to people about nothing of consequence. Nothing happens for up to forty-five minutes. At the end, some contrived “climax” comes out of nowhere and tries to wrap everything up, but because there has been no conflict of any sort for so long, the audience is asleep and misses it. Common threads of these films include the “personal discovery/epiphanies that go inside the main character’s head” film, the “warm remembrances of my childhood that no one cares about” film, and the “Slice of Life that is more uninteresting than real life” and “funny people I know come to life on the big screen.” Nearly 50% of these films include an alcoholic single parent.

10. The Feature Film Masquerading as a Short Film
If you’ve ever sat through a screening of student films, you’ll notice that often the ones that are best received are the shorter films. Now it could be argued that this is due to the simple fact that they suck and less sucking is better than more sucking. It could also be because the audience is sitting through many many student films in one evening and appreciates the shorter ones because it means the whole thing will end sooner. In the short narrative film genre, every moment is precious. It’s to your advantage to make your film short but sweet– for one thing, shorter films cost less, take less time to edit, and allow you more time to focus on making your film as tight and well designed as possible. Ask yourself when writing (and editing) the film– is this scene necessary? Is this moment necessary?
What does it do for the audience? We call this The “Get In And Get Out” Principal. Don’t cram a full length feature into the short film style. Do what your film needs to do and then get the hell out. Remember, longer isn’t necessarily better. Less is more.

11. The One Joke Film
A good short film has got to be a collection of good ideas, not one good idea stretched out for fifteen minutes. In any event, at least make an attempt to fill your time with stuff that’s actually interesting to someone other than yourself. I don’t know how many bad student films I’ve seen that are actually about the filmmaker’s uninteresting life or contain vignettes that go on and on and on. Before you shoot, make a list of all the “good ideas” in the script.
You should have lots of them. How’s that for a generic tip?

12. The “Walk into the Camera” Transition
This one is zany. A character walks INTO THE CAMERA LENS! And then we fade to black, or more commonly, cut to the reverse– someone walking AWAY FROM THE CAMERA LENS! OOOooo!
What a good idea…

13. Overused video effects

Keep dissolves to a minimum. They are not synonymous with cuts. Same goes for wipes, keys, etc. The 80’s are over. Video effects suck.

14. The “Dramatic Cigarette”

A character is having a dramatic crisis: So what does he/she do? Whips out a smoke and puffs dramatically as if to say, “Look, this is so serious I’m smoking.” YES, people do smoke when they are nervous or excited, or under pressure. But there’s no excuse for using the long, boring “drag ‘n puff” scene as a lazy alternative to finding a more original way to express the same thing.

15. Ramblers: The “Quest for Truth”
There are several permutations of this theme. #1. The Puzzled Scientist. The “story” deals with a puzzled reclusive scientist who learns to forgo cold, hard science for something warm, gushy and intangible, like love, god, morality, religion or free will. Films in this genre are usually condescending to the audience and set up bogus sounding explanations of scientific principals (look for glossed over references to Chaos Theory, Grand Unification Theory, Relativity, etc.) and far-fetched reconciliations of the two. Filmmakers, please: if you must write one of these and want to be taken seriously, at least do a little research so you don’t insult real scientists in the audience. #2. The Venting film. Broke up with your boy/girlfriend? Please, don’t make a movie about it! It’s dangerous– These self-examinatory “why my ex dumped me” films that turn into long diatribes about the nature of love, the nature of mankind, etc. are rarely insightful and usually about as interesting as listening to a friend complaining about a relationship gone bad. In short, philosophical examinations of human existence and relationships, when discussed on an abstract level, will almost guarantee that the audience will become bored and/or confused.

16. Shooting into Mirrors

Now don’t get me wrong, shooting into a mirror can be used to great effect when used at the right time and for the right reasons. But like so many narrative devices abused by student filmmakers, the “reflective” shot has become a staple of the bad short film. “Cool! So she puts her hand mirror right there and then we can see her boyfriend yelling at her behind her and it’s all in one shot. Man, I’m a genius!”

17. Interminable Credit Sequences
We know you’re excited about your film and you have a lot of people to thank, but please consider the poor audience member who has to sit through ten films. We’ve seen credit sequences that last longer than the film itself! Here’re some things to think about: (1) Scroll fast. Real fast. (2) Small fonts are great. (3) Title cards are fast but not every crew member needs one. (4) Must you really thank your entire family tree by name?

18. Scene One: The protagonist wakes up.
There’s nothing INHERENTLY wrong with starting a film with the buzz of an alarm clock, a hand slapping the snooze button, eyes fluttering open, followed by a yawn or an “oh my god, I’m late!” – But why so much of this? We see it all the time. It’s as if the writer/director woke up one morning, looked around and said “Wow. This is cool!” Uh yeah. Better go back to sleep.

19. Out of Focus Everything Handheld
Since we have the Canon 5D MKII and other digital still cameras seams to be a favor for this “Out of Focus Everything Handheld” style.
Actually this is not a style at all, but the inability to pull proper focus. It has nothing to do with film look (same goes to crushed blacks).

20. Zooms
There is nothing that screams more “hobby filmer” than zooming in or out.
If your camera has a zoom – just disable and forget it.
Frank Glencairn

Canon 5D/7D/1D – Preiswerter Timer für Timelapse Aufnahmen

Der LCD Timer Remote AP-TR3C von Link Delight ist ein sehr professioneller, aber dennoch günstiger (23,99$) Timer für die Canon DSLR Kameras 5D, 7D und 1D.
Er ermöglicht eine ganze fülle von funktionen genau zu steuern. Unter anderem Belichtung, Blende und sekundengenaues Auslösen.

Der Timer kann von einer Sekunde bis zu 99 Stunden für Langzeitprojekte eingestellt werden.
Alle Einstellungen werden auf dem beleuchteten LCD Display angezeigt.

Link zu Link Delight

Frank Glencairn