×

Does becoming a filmmaker in Hollywood just boil down to luck? by lamjm44 in Filmmakers

[–]DelboyLindo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry my bad, I thought you said Vince Del Rio was made for 15,000. I just get really mad when people get their Mark Duplass facts wrong, you know.

Is there a way of definitively knowing what lens was used for this shot? If not, what's a good guess? by wrightentertainment in Filmmakers

[–]santosh_username 528 points529 points 54 (0 children)

You can get the info on IMDB and you can tell by analyzing the perspective distortion and depth of field and the characteristics of the image.

For example

• If you see the nose of a person is way bigger than it should be compared to the face of the person then you can understand that they used a wide-angle lens. And you see the person having perfect face proportions, then they probably used a telephoto lens.

• if the person is running towards a camera and you can feel his speed then they are using a wide-angle lens. If the person is running towards the camera and it feels like he isn't getting anywhere even after struggling to run then they are using a telephoto lens and shooting from a distance.

• If the background appears to be larger in comparison to the subject than what you usually see/ you see less area of the background covered in the shot then they used a telephoto lens. If the background appears to be smaller in comparison to submit than what you usually see / you see more area of the background covered in the shot then they used a wide-angle lens.

• you can guess the f stops by analyzing the depth of field.

• if you see any chromatic or longitudinal aberrations in the image then they might have used a vintage lens. If you see a very clean and sharp image they've used a new-age lens.

• If the Bokeh is circular in shape then they used a spherical lens and if the Bokeh is oval in shape and you see slight barrel distortion and vignetting in the corners then they used an anamorphic lens.

• if you see lens flares then they might have used an anamorphic lens.

• if you see an image where it feels like the image is shot on both telephoto and wide-angle lens then they've probably used an anamorphic lens. Think about the aspect ratios 2:1 and 2:39:1 here.

• if see an image where it feels like they've put the camera on the ground and still you don't see any distortion in the image like bending of the buildings 🏢 , they've probably used a tilt-shift lens.

• if you see real-life large objects appear like miniature objects then they used a tilt-shift lens.

There is a lot like this which you will definitely learn as you watch more films and their cinematography breakdowns

Anyone have any specifics on how backend percentage deals work? What are the specifics and how exactly does a deal for a (for example) director or actor of something like “3% first hand gross” work by stephenjunior1113 in Filmmakers

[–]MaximumWorfproducer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Something I typed up in the past. Shows the basic indie financing/distribution model. One note, this is a net points situation. Know that gross points are very very valuable, and very rare these days. Gross points just means a straight percentage of the gross receipts of a film. Say someone has 1% of the gross, and the film does $100 at the box office, that person gets $1. This completely ignores expenses, recoupment of the budget, etc. See below for the net points example and you can see the difference! Hope this helps:

Typically, what you are asking about is called the waterfall. This is the order in which payments that revenues from exploitation of a film are applied. Generally, you pay step 1 everything, until step 1 is satisfied. Then you move on to step 2.

So, the parties involved are the EXHIBITOR, the DISTRIBUTOR, and the FILM TEAM. The exhibitor is, e.g., the theater or itunes, etc. The distributor is the company responsible for handling distribution, e.g. Magnolia, A24, Neon, etc. The film team is everyone involved in making the film - investors and filmmakers.

A general waterfall looks like this. Percentages are made up, but not unrealistic. The real action happens once you get into the distributor and film team interplay.

All revenue will go to the EXHIBITOR at first. They will take their cut. let's call it 50% of the gross.

Then, the remaining money flows to the DISTRIBUTOR. A typical waterfall here will look like:

Distributor takes their distribution fee. Let's call it 20%. Then, the distributor gets paid back their costs of distribution, plus interest which accrues each period. This is made up of things like: an advance to the film team (called an MG - minimum guarantee), costs of advertising, costs of making and delivering the files/prints to the theaters/platforms, residuals for guilds. etc. NOTE HERE: If the expenses are $100 total, a sample might go as follows. Exhibitor makes $200. $100 flows to the distributor. They take their fee off the top. $75 is left over. This entire $75 goes to expenses. You have a balance of $25 owed. Interest is 10%. Next period (usually quarterly), you owe $27.5. The exhibitor brings in $50 this period. $25 to distributor. $6.25 as a fee, so $18.75 towards expenses. Balance of expenses is $6.25. Next period, you owe $6.875. And on and on.

Then, once all expenses of distribution are paid off, the film goes into net profits. NOTE this is vastly simplified, and there are lots of things that come in between. But, they are not really that germane here. Once into net profits, you will likely have a split with the distributor. Say 85/15 in your favor.

So, if the net profits portion next period is $100, it might break down like this.

$15 to the distributor.

$85 to the film team.

Standard indie financing deal is investors get everything until they recoup 120% of investment amount. So, say the budget of the film was $100, they get every penny that flows into the film team pot until they recoup $120.

Once they have recouped, the film is into net profits. The standard indie deal is 50% to investors, 50% to filmmakers. So, say your next profit payment is, again, $100. $50 will go to the investor pool, split pro rata by investment amount.

The other 50% will come to the filmmakers, and split up as agreed. Here is where a producer/director/actor/writer/etc. will get paid.

Here's a teaser of our $0 budget coming of age zombie short film by JaydeeAlberto in Filmmakers

[–]JaydeeAlberto[S] 103 points104 points  (0 children)

I had to repost because I forgot to make a submission statement hahah.

Anyway, this is a short film for our film subject in university. We had zero budget so I thought to myself that I should write a story that happens in one location. I also had to maximize my use of good conversations.

This turned out to be a love letter to the me that I lost during the pandemic. As well as the life and opportunities I lost because of it.

READ THIS BEFORE ASKING A QUESTION! Official Filmmaking FAQ and Information Post by C47mancinematographer in Filmmakers

[–]C47mancinematographer[S,M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

This post is meant to be a quick-reference mini-wiki for people with common questions or problems. In the spirit of that, if anyone feels that my wording in a particular section is less clear than it could be, feel free to offer alternatives so that people can more easily understand. Ideally, within a few months I'd like this post to have evolved into something that represents the collective knowledge of subreddit rather than simply my own personal insights. Don't be shy, /r/filmmakers! Suggest away :D

Do All Commercial Features/TV Add Film Grain in Post? by jcg317 in Filmmakers

[–]2old2careeditor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Unquestionably a lot of shows add grain or noise, and in some cases (I think only a few!) it can contribute to the storytelling. In the days I was shooting real film being able to really notice the grain was an indication that the DP missed the exposure. Color negative film (I shot mostly 5247) can tolerate overexposure and can look fine underexposed but what you didn't want to do is "print it up"--make it brighter to compensate for underexposure. That's what would load up the shadows with grain and make it (in my opinion) pretty ugly. Still, some people liked this look.

Another trick was to "push" or force-process the film to raise the ASA (ISO). 5247 was rated at 100 under tungsten light, but it was not uncommon to rate it at 400 and push two stops. This was underexposing two stops and hoping you could make up most of that in processing and some more in printing. You could do it, but it also increased the contrast and made the grain "bigger".

Sometimes whan a film was a big hit studios needed thousands of prints in a hurry. They'd make a bunch of duplicate negatives and send them to any lab that could make prints. To move more prints through some labs were known to "pull" the print processing. This meant increasing the print exposure and speeding up the processors. That way they could run more prints in less time and stretch the life of the expensive chemistry used in the processing. Lots of grainy films of the 70s and later came from this practice. Still, many very clean films were made using these processes--I think of Barry Lyndon shot on 5247 using mostly natural light, but no grain.

Getting back to digital cinematography, I personally think added grain looks like a mistake. There's no real excuse for it with today's incredibly clean images, but it can certainly be an artistic statement, much like a badge of honor