Experimentation with light

Many of you know and a bunch of you don’t know that Photography and Filmmaking are actually all about light when it comes to the image. Light is the key to making an image look great. Not enough light and the image is noisy and the colors will look strange, the sharpness of the photograph will be terrible making the image look grainy. In film/video it’s even more of a problem. The sensors our camera use today is light years beyond what was available just ten years ago but even still, they aren’t even close to the old celluloid film and much less, the human eye with its big grey central computer with the far superior AI built into every model.

This last week, I jumped off the deep end and bought my first professional film/video/photograph light. I have never bought one before because of the high cost. With some models costing as much as twenty-nine thousand dollars, there was absolutely no way I would ever have a pro-level LED light of any kind.

The good news is, the technology always advances and the price comes down.

I searched the web and scoured the pro photography sites like B&H and Adorama and found that there is a brand out there that video/film creators have come to trust. The price point still being eleven hundred dollars for the buy-in though, I was hesitant. While I know that the price is pretty much the lowest it has been for this type of light, it is still a bit much. Actually, it is ALOT. I mulled it over and thought about the way it could improve my shooting. I wondered for a very long time if the light would actually be that much more powerful than the current Panel LED’s I was using. I scoured the internets looking for a direct comparison of the two types of light for weeks but found none. The unknown kept me from purchasing.

Then one night I was making a small thirty-second pitch to Imagine Impact about who My screenwriter Donald and I are and why out movie the “Conscript” should be made. I filmed Donald easily, as it was done in my home office against the couple of hundred books and an old manual typewriter I have laying around. Then I went to film my part. We wanted to separate the two of us and use the “atmosphere” to tell the viewer who we are since we did not have any time to use words for the explanation. I set up the lighting I had, two LED panel lights, in my yard against a spooky background. I wanted to use a Gel or a semi-clear plastic colored red to light the background and a blue, daylight color for my light or “Key Light”. I saw it in my head and it looked absolutely great. In reality, though, it was far from what I pictured.

The background was only slightly red and some foreground elements were red too. It is what cinematographers and photographers call “light Leak”. I tried to get it to look good but I couldn’t pull out the background with my Sony a7III SLR. I didn’t have enough light. It was such a colossal failure that Donald and I contemplated scrapping that idea and the footage to make something else. I hate having to go back and something again just because I cannot make it look right, especially when the performance was right. So, I caved and used it anyway.

Here is the final product:

It actually turned out pretty good and most definitely expresses that there is a major difference between Donald and me when it comes to the different approach to screenwriting and filmmaking. Mission accomplished, sort of. As a filmmaker, if I cannot match what I see in my head, it is actually a failure.

The only solution to my problem is to up my game when it comes to lighting. Because of the way I create is often spontaneous and usually happens fairly quickly, renting is out of the question. So the only choice I have left is to own the correct lighting so it is available when I need it. I have tried to plan shoots in the past but it hardly ever works out because of the commitments of other key players in the plan or lack thereof.

Aputure 300D MKII

So this last week I ordered the Aputure 300D MKII COB LED Light. It actually scared me to spend that much money on such a thing. I mean I have managed to pull off some amazing stuff in the past ten years with the absolute cheapest lighting gear I could find, and you know, thinking like that is probably what has held me back.

Now, I didn’t just order the light and go on, I know I am going to be faced with lighting challenges that are going to be super technical and I will need everything I know to get the job done right. That means I am going to need an arsenal of light modifiers to help me get out of any future tricky situation.

It does come with a very good light “can” as I call it and it is super useful. But that isn’t going to be anywhere good enough to make the 300D MKII a rounded tool that is capable of lighting multiple situations. The light by itself only lends itself to what is called “Hard Light”. If you have ever taken a photo with your phone during the afternoon and thought that it could have been a great pic but there is something that just isn’t right, that’s because you shot it using the hardest light out there, the sun.

So, I also had to get three hundred bucks worth of other things: a softbox, a Fresnel (pronounced Frenel), and some barn doors.

Light Dome

Fresnel (Spot Light)

Barn Doors

While you may not think much of these things, I assure you, they make a monstrous difference when trying to control light. The softbox basically softens the light, the Fresnel Sharpens, and amplifies light and the barn doors keep light from spilling onto unwanted areas or creating a “sliver” of light for more dramatic stuff. All of these tools can be used in extremely creative ways that add nuance to any Photograph or movie and boy was I anxious to try them out.

I ordered the entire set up on Monday and wasn’t able to get them for almost a WEEK! Seems that COVID19 has dropped the speed in which you can get your stuff delivered from two to three days to as excruciatingly long as one can wait while still being considered express. I watched the FedEx tracking number like a hawk. You can go to the website and see exactly where all of your packages are, or at least, where they were, whenever you want. It isn’t very accurate and it also shows you just how inept large companies can be at keeping inventory centralized. It seems that three of the four boxes this stuff came in weren’t even in the same location. It also let me know that FedEx runs at least two trucks at the same time from New Jersey to the Kansas City area. I wonder if the drivers ever noticed that they pass each other on the highway but never go to the same place? Anyway, half the packages landed in Kansas City while the other half landed in Lenexa Kansas, at almost the same time and only ten to twenty miles apart. I sat at my desk cringing and then cringing more until finally, it said: “on the truck for delivery”. Man, that was a long day. Finally getting my packages I put off tearing into them immediately for about an hour trying to retain some respectability. But, I couldn’t take it anymore and unpacked it all, put the light together, and trying out each attachment so I could see.

Oh boy, did I see

Getting the light out and setting it up, I compared it to the small light panel, praying under my breath the entire time that it would be substantially brighter and my money wasn’t wasted. Thank God I was not disappointed. Comparing the two lights I discovered that the small light quickly was overcome by the 300D. In fact, the 300D overtook the (now confirmed) dinky light panel with only Seven Percent output. Seven Percent! That means it would take ten light panels to create the amount of light of the 300D. Holy Cow!

So now it was time to put it to the test. I arranged for a model to show up at the house to be a guinea pig for my new found light source. I decided to only use the 300D and no other lights for the test. Because of its massive amount of light, I figured the best first test of its natural ability would be to recreate the old Hollywood lighting from the days of Noir and before. Truly a good place to start learning the nuances of the light. Plus the Fresnel is basically a spotlight so I could definitely use that for this type of photography. Two for one!

The day of the shoot was hot, muggy, and miserable. Within ten minutes of setting up, I was soaked to the bone with sweat. The model was suffering too, her hair, while straight and quaffed at the beginning, by the end it was crawling off of her head like Medusa’s snakes. Add to that the approach of a massive lightning storm moving in, well, I was in a hurry. When I am in a hurry, I make mistakes, as we all do. Out of all the photographs, every one of them was underexposed two to three stops. ug…

This is a photo straight out of the camera. I was using a manual lens with a custom white balance and I thought I took the photo correctly. Sadly, I didn’t. I have been shooting film and video long enough that you would think I would recognize when the image is underexposed this much. When shooting film/video I always over expose the frame to I can bring it down in post to keep noise out of my black or dark colors. For some reason, that strategy went out the window and I didnt pay attention to my camera when it told me I was under exposing.

Again, I was in a hurry because it was seemingly about to rain and I wouldn’t have been a happy camper if I immediately lost my light to moisture before getting to use it for the first time.

The saving grace, once again, was the power of the little Sony a7III. In movie mode, it only has six to eight stops of dynamic range but in stills mode that shoots up to eighteen. In other words, I can raise the exposure three to four times the brightness of the original without losing the range of color or introducing noise to the photograph and ruining it. Thank God once again for technology that saves my worthless butt.

Putting the photographs into Lightroom I was able to see what I was after. A giant sigh of relief was exclaimed and I began working on the photographs. While these aren’t the most perfect set of images in the world, I think they are pretty damn good, considering.

Filming a Zero Budget Movie in the year of the RAT

My God, where do we start? First, this is the year of the RAT, doesn't that make you feel better? No? I suppose it wouldn't. We have Civil unrest, Government intervention in society, and a Virus that is just as mysteriously as it is potentially fatal. It wouldn't be all that bad if it weren't for the fact that we aren't even halfway done. To make things even more difficult for someone like me, filming has all but completely stopped. Not just the Hollywood big budgets, even the local news has their reporters doing their segments from home.

I had planned on filming a neat little film this year in the spring when it wasn't too hot. Those plans are out the window as it is ninety-two degrees today. I think the humidity is almost 100 percent today, also—awful filming weather. Everything tends to overheat on a day like today, from the actors to the cameras, they just don't like it.

Being in Arkansas, no one is forcing us to stop what we are doing because of the "outbreak" but, since we are good folks down here in the South, we do as we are asked. Well, most of us do anyway. Not because we are slaves to the government but because we are friendly. We generally respect our neighbors in my part of Arkansas. Yeah, we do. Some of my friends that live in NWA might not see it that way, but I do. I have lived in many places in my life; for the most part, if you want to be left alone to do your own thing, NWA allows you that opportunity.

The downside of that is everyone is used to doing whatever they want without consequences from the community. Leaving us a little more narcissistic in our actions. Like someone that shows up for one day of filming and then never again because they are "busy." That's just not how filming works. You have to see the project through to the end, or you beach everyone involved in the project, and it is ruined. It happens when trying to have a party or putting together a picnic; the self-absorbed life becomes what is more comfortable and known. I get it. Even I have succumbed to that myself.

Since it is difficult in the best situations to get a low to no budget film made in the best of times, what will it take now!?

One thing that I wish would happen is that the film community in NWA pull together and get something done as a community. To this point, NWA has suffered from the hands of elitism amongst its directors and filmmakers. At least it seems that way to me. For what reasons are we all separated? Why do some believe that others are out to steal their work? Why do some think they can't work with someone because of points of view? Why do some believe that a lack of a "real" camera precludes someone from being any good? Or worse, someone doesn't share a specific political point of view, so they can't be worked with on a Film.

THAT'S ALL NONSENSE!

We are all filmmakers with stories to tell. I make films for the sake of the film, not the purpose of my point of view or politics. I am a good filmmaker, and I am proud of my accomplishments. Still, there isn't a planet in the solar system where I would refuse to work for someone because of some petty difference. Again, it's about the film.

With that being what it is: I am still looking to make a film this year, with or without help from anyone.

Why am I still a Solo shooter ten years in?

I started out taking photographs in High School I didn’t suck at it. I made films all throughout my life, even when I didn’t know what I was doing. I have always written stories. The first one I can remember was in sixth grade. It was awful and the actors were forced to be in it. But it was fun and I always have a story to tell. You can find my book listed on Amazon and Abe Books. You cannot buy one and there will probably never be another print run, but there it is.

I will probably write another book in the future. I actually have one that I want to finish called “Overwhelming Evil”. It is a story about a teenager who is being hunted by an evil entity only to discover that the real demon is something much worse. However, I have been writing that for about twelve years and I am only at thirty thousand words. Let’s just say, it will be a while.

The Beginning

I started down this trek of filmmaking as a hobby. I started making VLogs (Video Blog) in 2008 with just a webcam. I found the process to be more than just fun, I found it to be fulfilling. I bought a better camera and then got a DSLR. Thank God for the DSLR revolution! When I got my first DSLR or semi-professional camera, it changed how I looked at everything that I filmed. I realized that I could do more than just sit in front of it and talk. I could make my own programming. And make stuff I did. I made a bunch of little comedy shorts and a couple of dramatic things. I won my first film festival, then another. It made sense that I would keep it up. I really thought that I was on my way to something, and I still do.

I wasn’t schooled in the way of shooting or writing things those days. I just did it by the seat of my pants. My actors would sometimes ask me “what am I doing this for?” I would answer with “just trust me, it will work”. It did work for the most part. I only have one film I shot that no one has seen.

Summer Feature

I got to be one of the lead actors in a movie. too! You can find it on IMDB and it used to be on Amazon Prime but as of today, I don’t know where you can watch it. I had fun that summer. I got to run around and bother my co-star with crabby dialogue and somewhat witty banter. In post-production I had to save the movie from digital oblivion and probably should have received an Editor credit for that but, that’s ok. I got paid for that too. Always a plus. Made being out of work that year worth it. The really interesting part about the whole thing is that the entire thing was filmed on DSLRs. They didn’t have any studio type lights just panel lights as I use now, other than they weren’t as good. It was truly an independent film in every aspect of the phrase. I wish I could do that twice a year or even three times a year. It is, so far, as close to my goal of making a film as I have come and I didn’t even make the thing, just acted in it.

Live Television

Paul G Newton Live Broadcast TV Aircheck For Editing and Music.

About that same time, I went to work for 40/29 as the Chief Editor. It was a lesson in humility. I learned that no matter how good you are at your job, if you aren't on the TV, you are expendable. I suppose that is a little harsh, but it felt that way. I tried to be involved with the production and be a helping hand to make the show better every time it aired, I did. Anyone reading this that may have worked there when I did, I think you know that I just wanted it to be better. Or at least I hope they know this. But, in the end, I always felt expendable and more of a nuisance than anything else. In the end, I had to leave the station to retain my sanity. TV news can be the most stressful job ever invented to torture humankind.

Now, for the past few years, I have been doing product videos and testimonial interviews. It is fun, and generally, no one is breathing down my neck. But all these things I have created, the stories I have told, the commercials I have created, have all been done by me with no one helping. I did my own writing, filming, lighting, editing, and effects. Occasionally I would have someone helping with this or that (other than actors) but on a consistent basis, I did them all on my own and still make them by myself.

Product Videos and Commercials

Now What Do I Do?

That leads me to the question I put forth in the title of this blog. Why am I still a solo shooter? Why haven’t I been able to break through and start working on a production that tells a story not linked to a product? It flummoxes me to no end. I know how to do everything only because I have had to do everything. What can I do to move forward?

I am not one to settle and without some significant progress, I feel I am doing just that.

Since you are here and reading this, do me a huge favor and think about what you think it may take to break out. I know I need to relocate to where the stories that I love to tell and watch are being made and I am trying. It costs a ton of cash to just up and move.

What I think I need to do is make more films that tell stories. I need to create. But I know that is not enough. Very few people see my work these days. It is kind of scary to see the low numbers on my stats page. I do not aspire to become the next YouTube or Twitter star. I do not have dreams of becoming a millionaire from making films. I would be happy pulling down fifty to sixty thousand a year if it meant I was able to make stories people want to see. I don’t want to do anything other than telling great stories with great people.

I tried to make one this summer, here is a snippet. I hope I get to tell more this coming year.

I guess I will keep plugging along.

Movie Review: Bad Boys For Life

If you haven’t heard yet, Will Smith is attempting to rekindle his career in action movies. The box office success of the 1995 film “Bad Boys” has sparked two sequels. In 95’ the movie was welcomed with open arms with its signature song and the massive popularity of the main stars, Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. This movie helped to propel the career of Micheal Bay as a box office master of action and, what my dad calls “shoot em up” movies. By today's standards, the film didn’t make that much money, but by 1995 standards it was a smash hit making an estimated 140 million on a 90 million dollar budget. Bad Boys II came out in 2003 and cost almost 130 million to make and took in 273 million. Again, delivering on the promise of the first movie and, well, winning.

When Bad Boys premiered, the Miami lifestyle still had some “Miami Vice” reverberations and people were ready to see that vibe portrayed again. With audiences flocking to the other hits of the year like “12 Monkeys”, “Nixon” and the still-relevant “Seven”, we were all in the mood for a light-hearted action flick reminiscent of “Lethal Weapon.” Transferring the theme song from the hit TV reality show “COPS” didn’t hurt either. This movie didn’t let the theater-going audiences down as it delivered a healthy dose of camp, action, jokes, and star-power. I enjoyed the movie so much at the time that I bought it (there was no streaming then) and the soundtrack too. Although I found it “meth-lab” trailer park to play the theme song so I stuck to the other tracks when there was a possibility of someone eavesdropping on my musical choices. Bad Boys II might be considered a better film, and it made just as many people happy as the first, myself included

And now, in 2020, “Bad Boys For Life” has made itself known. For what, I am not entirely sure, but it might not be something good. It is playing on the same tropes as the past two movies with all the throw-back lines and situations. Nothing in the film was new and there is no twist ending.

CAUTION, SPOILERS AHEAD

---

The movie is almost a repeat of Bad Boys II when it comes to the interpersonal relationship between Smith and Lawrence. Sure they forwarded the story a touch with Lawerence’s family but nothing has changed between them and Smith is still unresolved as a character. In fact, I would suggest that neither character has any real movement and leave the movie as they came in, stagnant from the previous two films

The biggest issue I have with the film is that it resembles an 80’s or 90’s action flick a little too much. Most of the scenes were made fun of in one of my favorite movies “Last Action Hero.” In the film, they bring all the stupid things screenwriters do to make an action movie move forward without getting too much into the details when they have run out of things to blow up or minions to kill. In fact, much of the movie has those nameless, faceless villains wearing motorcycle helmets riding motorcycles and driving chase cars with heavily tinted windows. Our heroes can kill as many of them as they want and no one worries about the body count because they are bad guys after all. This movie even goes so far as to have them chewed out by their police captain who yells and screams like a little baby about how much these two guys wreak havoc on the city. Even after the blistering attack from the boss, the hero gets a new team with abilities unknown to Smith. But, we find out that the team is good, but they don’t have what it takes to be a real old school cop like Smith and Lawrence so they flounder.

Then there are the unnecessary and unreal explosions and weaponry. Cars do not blow up when they are shot with a rifle round, motorcycles cannot roam around the city with a military machine gun attached to the front of a motorcycle sidecar and grenades do not have enough force to push a motorcycle onto its front wheel. But this is the movies, so I may just let most of this stuff go. Ok, I won’t. It is just too ridiculous.

But there’s more.

In my humble opinion, when a screenwriter gets stuck or can’t see beyond their own creations eyes they do dumb things. Just like in the film “Batman VS Superman,” the duo is miraculously saved at the end of the movie when the team they left behind in Miami suddenly appears to give the crucial assist. This is amateurish and Smith and Lawerence should have been able to figure this out by themselves. It would have been a way better ending.

Instead, the screenwriters wrote themselves into a corner by having fifteen or so bad guys attack the guys in Miami. The rule of thumb for writing a screenplay is to make the next set of bad guys tougher than the last. Well, the only way they could do that is to double up on the number of bad guys since there was no set up for a supervillain henchman as that role was taken by the sub-plot of the super henchman being Will Smiths son. Yes, you heard me right, he had a child with the main bad girl. Explained to us in a reflective scene, we find that Will’s first assignment out of the academy was to be an undercover operative in a Mexican cartel. Just Another overused trope that this movie intends to cram down our throats in an unsuccessful attempt to make the audience care for the Characters that fails miserably.

Top all of that off with the Super Henchman (AKA Will’s son) is captured after turning on his mother and given a second chance to prove his worthiness even after killing the police captain, everyone’s dear friend, in cold blood just thirty minutes before. I mean Come On!

While I could go on and on about this film, I wonder if it will find an audience that revels in its creation. The world has changed and sensibilities have deepened. Can a 1908’s style buddy cop flick hold it’s own? If so, I can write that. And it would probably be better than this 1.5-star silly movie. Mostly because I always try to avoid cliché’s when writing a story. This movie leaves me wondering if our society has digressed to the point that a good story isn’t as crucial as making stuff blow up. The box office take for this movie will tell us and I hope it’s not bad news.

1917, Every tool a Plot driven Screenwriter can muster.

I watch a lot of movies. Most of them aren’t very good. Most of them are trying to be modern in their cinematic qualities and the stories have all the little things in them that the screenwriting books tell us must be included. They always add in the save the cat moments to make our hero seem likable. They have the sex at sixty or the love scene comes about the sixty-minute/page mark. When the hero finds himself in a position that feels impassable and all is lost, that is a screenwriting trope. The list goes on and on and sometimes it isn’t actually a good thing to see that every one of them is in the movie. Usually, that means it was written by someone that has lost their way when it comes to telling a good story.

I am going into massive spoilers with this blog about the movie “1917”, you have been warned.

---

The movie is doing well with nominations this year. It is a good movie. However, it isn’t a great movie. The story is all about the plot and not about the characters. In fact, it must be noted that the main character isn’t who we think is it. The character we begin following is killed in the first half of the film. The other character, George MacKay as Lance Corporal Schofield, is quiet and argumentative. Schofield (MacKay) is not empathetic and really is overshadowed by Dean-Charles Chapman (Lance Corporal Blake) until his death at the hands of a German Bi-Plane Pilot.

Dean-Charles Chapman (Lance Corporal Blake)

Blake (Chapman) begins the film by volunteering his friend for a special project. Schofield has seen up-close combat, supposedly, and his friend has not. Given the task of getting orders from the General to the front lines to fall back and call off a misguided attack by Col. Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) as the Germans fall back to a more substantial position to ambush the entire section of the British Army. To do so, they must pass through “no man's land,” the abandoned fortifications of the Germans, and weed their way through dastardly non-descript German soldiers who have no other reason to exist than to kill whoever is dressed as a soldier playing for the opposite team. And that’s about it for the story, plot and anything else that you can think of.

I am not saying that the story isn’t right. It is a good story and you are on the edge of your seat at the beginning. Every scene has the pre-requisite amount of tension and all the boxes are checked. That is unless you have a yearning for characters who do things that have nothing to do with the plot but everything to do with the story, like me.

I will concede, after watching an interview with the Director/Writer Sam Mendes, this was completely intentional. He stated that he kept the characters obtuse and unfleshed out to keep the tension up. I agree that it worked but in the end, I was left with nothing. Maybe that’s the point? Perhaps it is his way of commenting on what war can be and what it takes from individuals to be executed correctly. I can see the point and it does make a statement. But, sometimes, the statement you want to make, or the theme you want to get across, shouldn’t be the only reason for the story. Not saying that was his “theme” and it is more of an observation on directing in general, I would suppose.

The movie is shot exceptionally well. I enjoyed ninety-five percent of the shots and set up. I especially love the one-shot, one-take way they did most of the film. It is very compelling and demands respect as it’s the most technically challenging thing to film. I thought they had to be using a boom or crane on a vehicle to get the shots of the two men going down into craters that must have been twelve to fifteen feet deep without having any camera shake, and they did exactly that. Pretty cool if you ask me.

I found most of the sets believable except for the number of dead bodies lying and floating around. In those days they would call front line cease-fires for Collecting the dead and wounded. Chivalry was something that all the armies followed, for the most part. The dead loitering everywhere is really an embellishment of the director to horrify the viewer. Other intricacies of the film can be called into question, I suppose, but they really aren’t anything that takes away from the film itself.

What does take away from the film is the number of writing tropes they threw into it. Since it doesn’t actually tell a real story and just shows you the plot with no character growth from anyone on screen, I suppose the more mechanisms it can put into place, the better.

The first, and most apparent, mechanism this movie uses (well, not that obvious since it happens in the second act instead of the first) is the reluctant hero. Our main man Schofield (MacKay) tries to get Blake (Chapman) to wait until dark before heading out on their mission. He beleaguers the point, over and over again, until they top the trench and begin their trek. Then he tries to stall his friend and hapless leader when they find some rations left behind by the Germans. Of course, this is a trap meant to bottleneck the invading soldiers so they will get caught in a tunnel collapse when they gather to eat. Our hero, who we have yet to discover is the hero, barely escapes while his cohort is none the less for wear.

Not to let the point go, the screenplay then has Schofield ask why Blake choose him and not someone else. In retrospect, as I sit here typing, this is the most exposition of the entire film. Then, it goes away and never comes back.

---

At one point in the film, I almost fell asleep. No, really. I was so bored with what I was watching; it took everything I had to keep from snoring in the theater. Schofield, now on his own to complete the mission, has come to the town just outside the forest where the Colonel is preparing for the imperiled attack our hero has been charged with stopping. He is chased by a random darkly shrouded German Soldier into a small room with a fire burning. Schofield has managed to evade the German but finds himself presented with a pretty young French woman who has hidden there with a child. Schofield questions the woman and, in broken English accompanied by subtitles tells him that the child isn’t hers and that she randomly just found the fat baby (that isn’t an exaggeration, this baby is HUGE). He has a moment with her and then leaves to complete his mission.

This entire scene is something that I would have thrown out of my own movie as it has nothing to do with anything. Just an attempt at character building in a way that is utterly useless to the narrative we are watching. If you cut this entire scene from the movie, you have lost nothing. It is there because of the trope and mechanical tool that is called “sex at sixty.” It does nothing for our character and nothing for our movie. It also what clued me in to what the screenwriter was doing to make this story work. Then all the bells went off and I knew what, why and where everything happened as well as what to expect next. Essentially the movie ended for me during that scene and explained why I was trying not to saw an entire forest of knotted pine from my seat or at least sound like I was.

Overall, 1917 is a good film. Where it lacks in character everything, it makes up for in its artistry. The dialogue doesn’t miscarry and the characters seem mostly true; Schofield even has a mentor during one scene. The setting is bleak, as it should be and the war is represented in a mostly accurate way. The performances are strong. Albeit why wouldn’t they be when there is little dialogue once Lance Corporal Blake is killed.

Does it deserve Oscars for acting? I would bet there are better performances this year. Should it be given an award for the best screenplay? An absolute no. Cinematography, Most definitely.

Making short films always seems to turn into something bigger.

I love making films. If you didn’t know that already, well, now you do. Sometimes we have a fleshed-out script, and sometimes we don’t. The real fun of making films sometimes comes from not knowing what I am going to film and figuring it out as we go. I know that sounds dumb, but it always seems to work out.

This last weekend, we did exactly that. We had outlined a few scenes and practiced some stunts with the actors. It worked out alright; it was one of those times when working on a wing and a prayer just felt right.

What did she do?!

I made a few mistakes along the way, though. I accidentally recorded in SLog3 instead of 2 and damned near lost all of the takes. But I am a guru with Premier Pro and got most of it back. It took a little doing and a lot of noise reduction, but I think the footage is salvageable.

We did lose an actor along the way (a common occurrence), so I got to kill my screenwriter. Ok, no he’s not dead but its the only part that he can really nail. Yes, that’s a joke but not far from the truth. I am sure he will be complaining about me bashing him tomorrow. Screenwriters have thin skin sometimes.

Is he really Dead?

He’s just acting.

The short film I am working on is supposed to be a scary, art/horror piece that is meant to drive tension in the viewer. Through the use of heavy sound effects and long, arduous takes, the stillness of the film is intended to bring dread and dark suspense to the viewer. Maybe I am accomplishing that, and perhaps I am not. Only the final product will tell.

I’m trying to schedule a re-shoot for a couple of shots. All I can do is hope the weather holds out and they show back up. No one is getting paid for this and, if anything, it just costs me money. So I understand why people would not want to spend bucks to work for free. The thing is; to be a working actor, you must work for free and build that reel. Because, if you don’t have a reel, you aren’t getting any work.

And Honestly, that’s part of the reason I am shooting this on my own dime. That and I really love making films.

On the set; A film that took six years to make.

On The Set of

The “Tech Files” by Joseph Hitchcock

As you know, I love filmmaking. The one thing that always brings a smile to my face is when a project is finished, and the world gets to see. Just the other day, I worked on a film set with one of the most exciting filmmakers in NWA Joseph Hitchcock on a project that has taken six years to finish principal photography.

Yes, you read that right, Six Years.

For me, that is an insanely long time. I tend to get my projects done in record time. It works for me, and I consistently win awards for my films. But not everyone who makes films does it this way. Sometimes, for an artist to really get what they want, it takes forever. It isn't a good thing or a bad thing, it is just how they operate.

No, he is not related to Alfred, but I do share the same birthday as the heralded filmmaker of classics such as "North by Northwest) .

Alfred Hitchcock and I have the same birthday!

Many years ago, Hitchcock asked me to film an action sequence for him. It was in a parking garage somewhere in Fayetteville, and I was more than excited to do it. Remember, I think this stuff is super fun and would do it all day for free if I didn't have bills to pay. He had some shots he wanted to get, and I talked him into getting some extra stuff that I thought would be super interesting. The shoot ended and I thought that was the end of it. I looked and stalked his online profiles for about a year, hoping to see the final product, It never appeared.

Oh well, I thought, such is filmmaking. Maybe it wasn't any good, or perhaps the other shots were so different from what I shot that it blew up the entire project. This is something that happens when you have several different shooters on a film. One may be conservative with their shots, and another is super aggressive, causing the film to look disjointed and hard to watch.

Turns out, that wasn't the case with this film (called The Tech Files), it was more of a matter of not having the time to do it, I would suppose. In fact, Hitchcock just got back from Eastern Europe where he has been living for the past year or more, and before that, he was living in L.A. while he was touring the country for his music career. He just did not have the time and opportunity to finish the dang thing.

Action sequence I shot from the film “The Tech Files”

Come on man, get off the phone Hitch!

As always, there were significant hiccups with the production. The warehouse that was scheduled for shooting canceled. I hate that. Hitchcock was scrambling hard to find a warehouse to shoot in with only hours to spare. We brainstormed for a while and came up with a couple of solutions. Finally settling on a place called "Free Geek." The lady who runs the place is pretty nice, she let us use the warehouse without any restrictions.

For those of you that don't know, Free Geek is a non-profit that recycles old electronics. If you have a bunch of hardware left over from dead or dying computers, printers or whatever, that's the place to take them rather than throwing them away. If they can refurbish them, they do. If they are just dead, they break them down into parts and send them to the appropriate places rather than just the landfill.

Plus, if you need something, they probably have it at a price that's much less than new. They also help out the community when technology is, but there are few funds to pay for it. The non-profit I run, Arts and Entertainment Council, get stuff from there every now and again.

---

Needless to say, we shot some pretty exciting stuff. I am eager (once again) to see the final product.

---

On that note, I do have a few projects of my own coming down the pipe. I am holding the first rehearsal or table read for a three page short about a Queen who has finally captured the leader of the resistance. This should be interesting, and honestly, it comes right before the giant fight scene that would typically be there.

The other project of consequence is Three "twenty-somethings" who find themselves being hunted by the most dangerous supernatural monsters imaginable only to find that the supernatural is also what can save them as well as gain a great friend. Yeah, I am still working on that logline.

Screen tests and the a7III vs. the a77 in studio

As a filmmaker, I always enjoy talking to folks who might be, interested or are very interested, in making films. I like finding new talent. Yesterday I got to do both. I was invited to an acting class by a local lady who finds raw talent and sees what they can do. Not really knowing what to expect, I conscripted my screenwriter and gathered my gear. It was going to be the first time to use my Sony a7III in a real studio environment. And it didn’t let me down. My a77, the camera that I have been using for the past eight years, did. I honestly didn’t have any idea just how behind the times it was.

Acting Class lecture

The class went as expected. I gave my story which seems to be getting longer and longer as time passes. I guess I am going to have to decide what high points are the ones that I want to talk about; there are just too many good things. The class was full of novices, amateurs, and a few professional amateurs, so they mostly didn’t mind hearing my harrowing tale about how I went from a rusty photographer to an actual award-winning filmmaker/screenwriter. Those stories always go over great when the folks in the room have nothing to compare them to, lol.

View fullsize

Kendra went well with the background

I brought all of my gear this time around. Most of the time I just bring a camera, and that’s it, but I am tired of not being able to hear the folks or having poor lighting washing out the contrast. I set up a basic two-point lighting system, my boom mic, and recorder with the help of my screenwriter. The cool part is that the class was being held at the local photographer community room, so I was able to get a backdrop that wasn’t a bare egg-shell colored wall. Always a plus.

I set up both cameras, the a7III, and the a77, as an A and B camera. A is always the best camera with the lesser picking up slack where needed. The first thing I noticed was that the a77 had way too much contrast in it. The settings for that camera have the contrast set to -3; it was still way too much. The a7III was set to the same settings but with demonstrably less contrast and way better skin tone overall. This made it very difficult to edit the color in post. I guess I am going to have to boost the contrast on the a7III if I am ever going to get them to match without breaking the footage in post.

View fullsize

The contrast on the a77 is as low as it can go, the a7III is reduced by two (there are three in total)

---

The sharpness of the images.

Since there was only one camera operator (me) and only one director (also me) not all the a77 shots came out super sharp as I wasn’t overly concerned with it being in focus for every frame like I was with the a7III, my primary camera. It is a bit of an unfair comparison between the two cameras. The a77 is the best technology of 2011 competing with the best of 2018: the a7III. You probably already guessed part of it. I had the a7III set to record 4k while the a77 can only do a decent 1080p. Just as a matter of fact, the a7III is going to be a much sharper and more color neutral image.

View fullsize

Putting some Lightroom Color Correction on the stills killed the detail in the a77

As far as noise is concerned, there is no comparison. The full frame a7III will always outperform the crop sensor of the a77. I was expecting more out of my old war-horse though. I set the ISO to 400, and it was beyond terrible. The a7III had to have it’s ISO on 100 as it is an over-achiever when it comes to light sensitivity. The lenses, well, there is another rub. This is why I am not going to pixel peep in this review. I left on the Sony kit lens of 18-50mm on the a77 that isn’t that great while using a brand new Sony 50mm on the a7III. There just isn’t any way to critique the image with that going on. I chalk most of the sharpness up to prime vs. zoom and 4k.

View fullsize

Zooming in on the noise lets us know just how much there is.

Interestingly, there is quite a bit of speculation that the a7III footage in 4k at 8-bit color is actually akin to 10 bit color in a 16x9 format. You know what, I believe it. You see, it wasn’t the inability to adjust the color on the a7III that got in my way, it was the a77. To make them match at all, I had to color the 4k footage to match the 1080p stuff. Just another lesson learned. Thank God it happened on a day that I was goofing off and not at a paid shoot.

Of course, both cameras have built-in microphones. The exciting thing here is that the a77 has better audio than the a7III. I have also noticed this on professional shoots using the a7III with a microphone plugged into the audio-in jack. The a77 just does a much better job at handling the input and controlling the auto gain than the a7III. Yes, I know, only crazy people use the audio input jack to capture the main audio. All I can say is that when you’re a one-man band, you gotta sacrifice something or it will take all day.

Sony did update the color space the camera records, thank God. For those of us with the right eye, ALL Sony cameras had a slight green tint to them that you had to color-correct every time you would go on a shoot. With this camera, I have never had to do that. The color is better in every way in the a7III.

Everything being considered, I am glad I have the Sony a7III. I am delighted that I have the Sony a77 as well. After all, it’s better to have two cameras rolling instead of one.

Get Your Swag!

New podcast!

As of today, I have a new podcast available on Apple podcasts called “Aul G Newton on Everything”. Go to the podcast app on your apple device or visit the page or go to the page if you don’t have an Apple device or use iTunes. 

https://www.paulgnewton.com/paulgnewton-on-everything

Review of Thor Ragnarok

I finally gave in and went to see the heralded Thor Ragnarok last night.  I did not want to see it, really, but many of the screenwriting podcasts I have been listening to, like The Curious about Screenwriting Podcast, seem to love the story. While I felt it had some relative fun aspects to the movie, I did not feel that it left me wanting to see more or other films.

The story structure seems sound, its flow was not interrupted with randomness or unnecessary scenes that failed to complete the mission of furthering the story. It did have redeeming character traits that made the characters somewhat likable and, on the first watch, the story seemed succinct. That did not spur my imagination and left me with a feeling of emptiness when leaving the theater. It was not a bad movie, and it did everything right in the way that movies are doing them today, but it didn't do what I want a movie to do and create a lasting impression upon my psyche that I can carry with me on my travels through my own life.

I do have to applaud the movie for trying to stay true to its roots in the 1970s, 1980's motif that the first one had with its cheesy subtitles and crummy music but even that left me rolling my eyes because of the recent phenomena of the Netflix Stranger Things. It actually cheapened it for me because I hate pandering, especially in a film where the movie has to hold its own for the sake of itself. Even though, I must admit that no movie seems to do that these days. A practice that I believe should still be first and foremost in the minds of the creators of any film yet has seemed to fall out of favor. 

The film opens with Thor being trapped by a Devil looking creature that makes no literal sense to anyone like myself... but there is a reason for the creature as it is blatantly and needed for the movie to have an ending. Unfortunately for this film, I knew exactly what this character's purpose was at about three minutes in. Ultimately telling me the conclusion of the movie and leaving no suspense or tension to make me WANT to keep watching. Then it did it again and again... Every new character that was introduced strengthened my guess and eventually left me with two hours of my time taken from me while draining my pockets of the money it took to purchase the ticket. At the end of the film, I found myself ultimately disappointed in the plot and story because at no point did anything task my senses or make me second guess the ending that was already completed in my mind. In fact, the only other movie that was more blatant about its end at the very beginning was a terrible film that had so much potential but the worst story ever called "The Others" starring Nichole Kidman. This movie is about a mother and her children who are haunted by ghosts, but it turns out that they are actually the ghosts. Something that was very thinly veiled at the beginning leaving nothing to the imagination and thus ruining the story.

One thing that immediately set off my alarms is when Thor losses his hammer just shortly after his father dies.  The only recourse for the character is to take the throne from the bad, bad lady in the Maleficent outfit and kill her with the thing holding Thor prisoner at the beginning of the movie. I mean they didn't even try. The fact that her horns and the horns of what could be mistaken as the devil from "Pick of Destiny" look exactly the same are just some of the dead giveaways. Needless to say, any entertainment value from this movie could only come from the crude and silly jokes, insider trading of the Avengers prior films and fighting. None of which actually advance the story or make any sort of coherent point that might stimulate anyone other than fanboys who would watch any Marvel movie with exuberance just because it is a Marvel movie, regardless of its content or quality.

I tried to enjoy the movie, I honestly did. The laments of Thor as he tries to be cool but just isn't are humorous and usually might make him more human but fail miserably and only serve to throw us out of the film and remind us that we are in a theater and not somewhere else. Then there is the CGI. It is supposed to be, but it looks horrendous. None of the places looked real to me at any point other than the short scene on earth where they are talking to their father. Everything else was half baked and cheap. I know what it takes to make stuff in computer land look real and have done it myself, and I assure you, it could have been done much better for an extra couple of hours worth of work. Not only do the locations look very fake and seem to make us want to believe that outer space exists in the land of Roger Rabbit all of the animated characters look equally bad. At no point did I ever believe Hulk was in the same room as Thor and not just some cartoon skillfully drawn but poorly colored.

I would say this movie is worth a watch on Netflix or Amazon Prime, but that is about as far as I would go. It isn't a terrible movie, but it's not that great either. Films should challenge us, make us want to be right next to the character on the screen and endear themselves into our psyche when we are done watching them. Genuine cinematic gold must contain something of lasting value that stays with you. Thor, Ragnarok doesn't even come close to doing this on any level, and it is a waste of time. If you want pure entertainment for the sake of entertainment, watch something else because this doesn't even accomplish that. Terminator 2 is better at just tantalizing your brain, probably because it's endearing and leaves you different than you were before you saw it the first time. Something this movie and most of its contemporaries fail to do.