On Adobe, Apple, BlackMagic and 'being careful' ...

[mtheory]

Your argument strikes me as being this: I'm a DIY builder. I love to build stuff in my spare time. I particularly like to build chairs that hopefully people will be able to sit on. Here's the thing though - there's builders out there who have done apprenticeships and been working for a very long time and they make these amazing chairs that everyone loves and are perfectly sturdy enough to sit on. Why am I expected to be able to make chairs that are good enough, and sturdy enough, for people to be able to sit on, when I haven't spent years working to be a builder??

Exactly, it's this weird entitlement that I can't figure out. It's like someone is holding a gun to his head to produce Hollywood visuals and he complains how hard it is...as if respect and glory are some human rights being denied to him and should be given automatically instead of being earned with years of hard work. Bizarre.

Its simple...if you don't have skills...if you don't want to have the skills...and if you don't want to get someone on your team who has the skills...then don't worry about expectations, I doubt anyone will expect much from you.

[Axel]

Its simple...if you don't have skills...if you don't want to have the skills...and if you don't want to get someone on your team who has the skills...then don't worry about expectations, I doubt anyone will expect much from you.

​Talking about expectations: what do you expect? To build up your own company, work professionally, satisfy the expectations of your clients? Just between us fellow EOSHD members, what is this all about? 

[mercer]

Exactly, it's this weird entitlement that I can't figure out. It's like someone is holding a gun to his head to produce Hollywood visuals and he complains how hard it is...as if respect and glory are some human rights being denied to him and should be given automatically instead of being earned with years of hard work. Bizarre.

Its simple...if you don't have skills...if you don't want to have the skills...and if you don't want to get someone on your team who has the skills...then don't worry about expectations, I doubt anyone will expect much from you.

I swear it is like you don't know how to read. If you did, you would understand my original point was against your elitist comment regarding... real color grading.

But the fact is... no matter how hard you try, no matter how much money you spend on equipment, you are not going to perfect every discipline required to make a feature film, so you do the best with what you have.  If that means using those lowly LUTS then you use them.

It doesn't matter anyway, story is king and all the surgical color grading in the world won't fix a bad story or a poorly directed film. 

[mtheory]

I swear it is like you don't know how to read. If you did, you would understand my original point was against your elitist comment regarding... real color grading.

But the fact is... no matter how hard you try, no matter how much money you spend on equipment, you are not going to perfect every discipline required to make a feature film, so you do the best with what you have.  If that means using those lowly LUTS then you use them.

It doesn't matter anyway, story is king and all the surgical color grading in the world won't fix a bad story or a poorly directed film. 

Firstly, I think its your writing that's jumbled and unclear. Start with a central point first, then add sentences as supporting arguments. 

Secondly, my comment was not elitist. It's just that you are insecure about your skills and felt attacked personally when I explained the difference between putting a LUT and color grading. Using a LUT is like choosing a film stock...DOPs have been doing it for decades, it gives a specific look to the whole film....color grading is a further shot-by-shot adjustment of color and tone..its about deciding the look of each shot individually, guiding the eye within each shot, and colorists have been doing it for decades too.

These two processes are complementary to each other and are optional to every filmmaker. You do not NEED to color grade. You do not NEED to have a LUT either. You don't even NEED lights in your film if you can shoot in natural light, how you distribute your time and budget across a production is always your choice and really what filmmaking is all about.

In your case I'd also allocate some budget for emotional therapy before you step on the set though...

[Axel]

 

In your case I'd also allocate some budget for emotional therapy before you step on the set though...

​I don't know what tempted you to react in such a condescending way to a forum member - as a moderator -, but it could be worth the effort to find out. Must have to do with our self-perception as filmmakers (in the broadest sense), and that's the point of this thread as I see it. 

[jax_rox]

But the fact is... no matter how hard you try, no matter how much money you spend on equipment, you are not going to perfect every discipline required to make a feature film, so you do the best with what you have.  If that means using those lowly LUTS then you use them.

It doesn't matter anyway, story is king and all the surgical color grading in the world won't fix a bad story or a poorly directed film. 

No, you will never perfect every discipline required to make a film. That's why there' same giant crew list at the end of every film. That's why people specialise. 

Do you do the best with what you have or do you look to employ other people as the creative HODs to work with you in order to deliver your vision on screen..?

[AaronChicago]

Check out Hitfilm 3. It is effectively both Premiere and After Effects.

​I'm too 'stuck in my ways' with AE. I've been using it since I was 14. It would be really weird to relearn an effects program.

[jcs]

​I'm too 'stuck in my ways' with AE. I've been using it since I was 14. It would be really weird to relearn an effects program.

The best skill is learning how to learn ;).

In first time testing, Hitfilm was much easier to figure out vs. AE and more importantly, much faster. Because AE is so slow and archaic, I only use it as a last resort. AE is long overdue for a rewrite and GPU update. PPro can already use many AE plugins- hopefully Adobe will roll AE functionality into PPro soon.

[mercer]

No, you will never perfect every discipline required to make a film. That's why there' same giant crew list at the end of every film. That's why people specialise. 

Do you do the best with what you have or do you look to employ other people as the creative HODs to work with you in order to deliver your vision on screen..?

I am a no budget filmmaker... So essentially I am a one man band. I do the best with what I have, but unfortunately I can't know everything.

Does that mean I shouldn't bother because I don't do real color grading, or don't have access to an on set sound guy? No, I don't think so... I make adjustments and cut corners, but still attempt to put out the best product I can.

For some reason a reply I made earlier gave other members, or a moderator, the impression that I was whining and expecting a different standard. That is not what I wrote, nor what I meant. 

[mercer]

The best skill is learning how to learn ;).

In first time testing, Hitfilm was much easier to figure out vs. AE and more importantly, much faster. Because AE is so slow and archaic, I only use it as a last resort. AE is long overdue for a rewrite and GPU update. PPro can already use many AE plugins- hopefully Adobe will roll AE functionality into PPro soon.

I have Hitfilm2 express, or whatever free version they gave out a little over a year ago. I never really messed with it, but the interface looked promising. Of course, I know very little about color correcting/grading... Maybe I'll have to give it another look. It's on my old computer though, I wonder how many licenses you get with that free deal. Anyway, thanks for the tip. 

[mtheory]

Axel, don't confuse extra responsibility with extra authority, a moderator is not a cop / authority / father-figure but a dude like you who does a little extra community work by cleaning up spam and trolling when other users request so. If you see me as condescending its because you've put me on a pedestal, I'm actually speaking right beside you, not down to you.

Mercer responded to an informative explanation with accusation of elitism...the great irony is that I don't even like color grading workflows myself, think they are outdated and clunky in its current form and myself detest the elitism of the expensive Flame / Inferno / Quantel Pablo hardware crowd. ( DaVinci and SpeedGrade were actually considered to be pioneers in making color grading easier from a previous generation of elitism that cost literally in $ millions, if only people appreciated it ) I eagerly wish color grading workflow becomes easier, cheaper and more accessible, - right now it is still a luxury that only a few filmmakers can afford.

[mtheory]

 

 

Part II shows you the real meat of how grading is completely different from using LUTs.

 

 

[hmcindie]

In first time testing, Hitfilm was much easier to figure out vs. AE and more importantly, much faster. Because AE is so slow and archaic, I only use it as a last resort. AE is long overdue for a rewrite and GPU update. PPro can already use many AE plugins- hopefully Adobe will roll AE functionality into PPro soon.

​

Fusion is crazy good. You learn that beast and you won't need much else for compositing. AE is better for motion work with titles and stuff but for compositing, you can't beat Fusion. Except with Nuke. Node based workflows are smarter and easier to manage. I really suggest people learn softwares that professionals use. Why? Well if something ever happens and you need to change jobs, it's just easier if you know the programs that VFX / Production companies use than to say to them "I use hitfilm".

Learning new stuff should not be a chore. It's pretty much mandatory now-a-days.

[hmcindie]

you are not going to perfect every discipline required to make a feature film...

​I don't know about that. VFX is an area that requires years and years to perfect. And it's an area that is never perfected anyways.

But excluding VFX, pretty much everything else about film making on a feature level is learnable. Audio work is not rocket science, directing, lighting and operating a camera is not that difficult. Location scouting and producing are hard but they're not impossible to learn. Editing / grading, all learnable.

I'd say with maybe 10 years of real good practice and doing mistakes in all-of-those areas and you could do a feature film all by yourself. It would just take a lot of time. The biggest issues are time and money (you still need to get a cast, catering etc)

But I would exclude VFX. Atleast on a heavy level.

[Hans Punk]

 

[AaronChicago]

The best skill is learning how to learn ;).

In first time testing, Hitfilm was much easier to figure out vs. AE and more importantly, much faster. Because AE is so slow and archaic, I only use it as a last resort. AE is long overdue for a rewrite and GPU update. PPro can already use many AE plugins- hopefully Adobe will roll AE functionality into PPro soon.

​What do you use Hitfilm for mostly? I use After Effects for motion graphics and I dont' really have complaints about speed in that regard. Can you do motion graphics and video at the same timeline in Hitfilm?

[jcs]

​What do you use Hitfilm for mostly? I use After Effects for motion graphics and I dont' really have complaints about speed in that regard. Can you do motion graphics and video at the same timeline in Hitfilm?

​I briefly tested Hitfilm. Without reading any docs, was able to quickly mix video and particle effects, etc. Yes- you can mix video and motion graphics in the same timeline (there's also an editor/mode for the VFX layers). However, I prefer node-based designs, as they are ultimately the most general and most powerful.

Since I have limited time to create video projects (part time), I have a basic constraint for all the tools I use: they must be real-time or nearly so, otherwise I won't use them. Premiere Pro, FCPX, Motion 5, Resolve, and 3DSMax are the current real-time tools in my toolbox. For the green screen laser fight scene our short film, Delta, I did everything in Premiere Pro, and it ran in real-time (or nearly so). After Effects would have required rendering previews and waiting: prefer interactive real-time, and as a video game developer, know most video-related tools are way behind what is possible with current CPUs & GPUs.

[jax_rox]

​I don't know about that. VFX is an area that requires years and years to perfect. And it's an area that is never perfected anyways.

But excluding VFX, pretty much everything else about film making on a feature level is learnable. Audio work is not rocket science, directing, lighting and operating a camera is not that difficult. Location scouting and producing are hard but they're not impossible to learn. Editing / grading, all learnable.

I'd say with maybe 10 years of real good practice and doing mistakes in all-of-those areas and you could do a feature film all by yourself. It would just take a lot of time. The biggest issues are time and money (you still need to get a cast, catering etc)

But I would exclude VFX. Atleast on a heavy level.

No way. In ten years, maybe you'll be able to have a rudimentary knowledge of many disciplines, if you spend the whole 10 years learning and practising your guts out. A comment like this simply shows a lack of understanding of how real feature films are made.​

At the end of the day - even if you spent 10 years focusing on, say, sound and learning how to give your film great sound - if you're going to direct it, you're going to have to give the boom to someone else who probably doesn't have that same knowledge, unless you're paying them.

Garbage in = garbage out. You can try and clean that garbage up, but if you record garbage audio, it's going to be really damn tough to be able to get audio for a full feature film that is even able to attempt to compete on the same level.

The reason feature films look and sound the way they do is because they have teams of the best professionals who have spent at least 10 years (in most cases more) perfecting their one specific craft. Even if you somehow could perfect everything to that same level, it would not take you 10 years and you're still only one man - are you going to write your own script, go and find your own locations, write up your own budget and your own contracts, design and construct everybody's costumes, special props, buy extra props you don't have, get to set, make the actors coffee and breakfast, dress the set, build any special set pieces, set up lights, setup the camera, set up a dolly, mic the actors, set up a boom somewhere, figure out some way to keep an eye on the performance, operate the camera, and ride seperate audio levels for each actor for each shot, while also pushing a dolly... Then load all the footage into your computer, do a picture edit, then compose the music, build a Dolby compliant mix stage for your sound mix, record ADR, record Foley, design the sound, mix the sound, then complete rudimentary VFX, grade the film, produce a cinema compliant DCP, purchase an Arrilaser and master to 35mm for those countries/cinemas that still exhibit in 35mm.

It's impossible - yes many lo/no budget filmmakers attempt to do this all by themselves, but there's no possible way to be able to do it all to the same level as a normal feature film, even if you spent the 10 years learning and then  easily 3-10 years actually making the film.

That's not to mention everything else involved in a film - from gettiing permits to picking up cast at the start of the day and dropping them off at the end of the day.

It's impossible. If you want to make something just to make something, then sure it's potentially achievable, but it will be unlikely to ever be at any kidn of level where it could compete with real feature films. So I guess it depends if you want to make films that are commercially viable, and in a position to be picked up at Sundance, or if you want to make films to show your friends and family.

 

I am a no budget filmmaker... So essentially I am a one man band. I do the best with what I have, but unfortunately I can't know everything.

Does that mean I shouldn't bother because I don't do real color grading, or don't have access to an on set sound guy? No, I don't think so... I make adjustments and cut corners, but still attempt to put out the best product I can.

For some reason a reply I made earlier gave other members, or a moderator, the impression that I was whining and expecting a different standard. That is not what I wrote, nor what I meant. 

​To be honest, that sounds like what you meant - 'why is there an expectation of me to produce films that are of the same level as everyone else, despite the fact that I don't have the same amount of money'.

That expectations is put on you by yourself. There is no expectation, unless you want to compete in the same level. If you were a hobby car builder, you could pull scrap parts from everywhere and fashion it into some kind of car-like contraption. But if you want to compete in the F1, you have to build a car to a certain standard - including safety features for the driver, and the ability to be able to go. You're going to need people who have more knowledge about cars than you advise you in making choices, decisions etc. about your car. 

It's fine if you don't want to compete in the F1 - but if you do, even if not today, then one day down the track - would you rather try and network with people who can help you get there? Perhaps focus on one aspect of car-making to enable you to be able to team up with other people who are good at other aspects of car-making to be able to make the best car possible to be able to compete in the F1? Or would you prefer continuing to attempt to make that car by yourself, hoping one day that a major car manufacturer will see your car at a local car show one day, or your car's pictures on the internet, and take a gamble on letting you oversee the production of their newest F1 car? 

It's up to you - you've made the choice to be a one man band, rather than honing a specific area of the craft, or teaming up with others. If that's what you want to do, then that's totally fine. But in the same way that a car competing in the race is expected to be able to start - if you want to compete in the race, you're going to have to build a car that can actually start.

If you don't want to compete in the race, then continue on.

[mercer]

No way. In ten years, maybe you'll be able to have a rudimentary knowledge of many disciplines, if you spend the whole 10 years learning and practising your guts out. A comment like this simply shows a lack of understanding of how real feature films are made.​

At the end of the day - even if you spent 10 years focusing on, say, sound and learning how to give your film great sound - if you're going to direct it, you're going to have to give the boom to someone else who probably doesn't have that same knowledge, unless you're paying them.

Garbage in = garbage out. You can try and clean that garbage up, but if you record garbage audio, it's going to be really damn tough to be able to get audio for a full feature film that is even able to attempt to compete on the same level.

The reason feature films look and sound the way they do is because they have teams of the best professionals who have spent at least 10 years (in most cases more) perfecting their one specific craft. Even if you somehow could perfect everything to that same level, it would not take you 10 years and you're still only one man - are you going to write your own script, go and find your own locations, write up your own budget and your own contracts, design and construct everybody's costumes, special props, buy extra props you don't have, get to set, make the actors coffee and breakfast, dress the set, build any special set pieces, set up lights, setup the camera, set up a dolly, mic the actors, set up a boom somewhere, figure out some way to keep an eye on the performance, operate the camera, and ride seperate audio levels for each actor for each shot, while also pushing a dolly... Then load all the footage into your computer, do a picture edit, then compose the music, build a Dolby compliant mix stage for your sound mix, record ADR, record Foley, design the sound, mix the sound, then complete rudimentary VFX, grade the film, produce a cinema compliant DCP, purchase an Arrilaser and master to 35mm for those countries/cinemas that still exhibit in 35mm.

It's impossible - yes many lo/no budget filmmakers attempt to do this all by themselves, but there's no possible way to be able to do it all to the same level as a normal feature film, even if you spent the 10 years learning and then  easily 3-10 years actually making the film.

That's not to mention everything else involved in a film - from gettiing permits to picking up cast at the start of the day and dropping them off at the end of the day.

It's impossible. If you want to make something just to make something, then sure it's potentially achievable, but it will be unlikely to ever be at any kidn of level where it could compete with real feature films. So I guess it depends if you want to make films that are commercially viable, and in a position to be picked up at Sundance, or if you want to make films to show your friends and family.

 

​To be honest, that sounds like what you meant - 'why is there an expectation of me to produce films that are of the same level as everyone else, despite the fact that I don't have the same amount of money'.

That expectations is put on you by yourself. There is no expectation, unless you want to compete in the same level. If you were a hobby car builder, you could pull scrap parts from everywhere and fashion it into some kind of car-like contraption. But if you want to compete in the F1, you have to build a car to a certain standard - including safety features for the driver, and the ability to be able to go. You're going to need people who have more knowledge about cars than you advise you in making choices, decisions etc. about your car. 

It's fine if you don't want to compete in the F1 - but if you do, even if not today, then one day down the track - would you rather try and network with people who can help you get there? Perhaps focus on one aspect of car-making to enable you to be able to team up with other people who are good at other aspects of car-making to be able to make the best car possible to be able to compete in the F1? Or would you prefer continuing to attempt to make that car by yourself, hoping one day that a major car manufacturer will see your car at a local car show one day, or your car's pictures on the internet, and take a gamble on letting you oversee the production of their newest F1 car? 

It's up to you - you've made the choice to be a one man band, rather than honing a specific area of the craft, or teaming up with others. If that's what you want to do, then that's totally fine. But in the same way that a car competing in the race is expected to be able to start - if you want to compete in the race, you're going to have to build a car that can actually start.

If you don't want to compete in the race, then continue on.

I think my point is still being misconstrued. Obviously, I am not making myself clear enough. 

[IronFilm]

The best skill is learning how to learn ;).

In first time testing, Hitfilm was much easier to figure out vs. AE and more importantly, much faster. Because AE is so slow and archaic, I only use it as a last resort. AE is long overdue for a rewrite and GPU update. PPro can already use many AE plugins- hopefully Adobe will roll AE functionality into PPro soon.

​Premiere can use HitFilm Plugins :-) Which is a more than good enough reason for many people to get HitFilm 3, even if they don't intend to use it as a standalone NLE.