It's up to you to test any filter options, there are a number of filter manufacturers. Here's one streak filter.

Schneider Clear True Streak Filter Test on Vimeo

In spooky movies, one typically sees a start filter used when videoing someone with a flashlight walking down the stairs into the basement with cobwebs around, or peering into the attic.

Yep - torches never do what they do in real life!

In spooky movies, one typically sees a start filter used when videoing someone with a flashlight walking down the stairs into the basement with cobwebs around, or peering into the attic.

Yeah that will work for mine. I thought I could also use it for streetlights at night as well.

Star filters on street lights aren't that spooky.

what if, inside the star, you saw THE FACE OF YOUR DEAD GRANDFATHER??????

Might if he was a 1970s glam rocker!!

When it comes to how I handle approaching filmmaking, another fellow filmmaker I worked with before, told me that I keep trying to do everything and be a jack of all trades, instead of mastering any.

He said that if I want to become a director, than I should stick to directing. Leave, the camera duties to a DP, sound to sound, let set designers, design the set, etc, and just direct, and have departments do everything else. Then my skills have a better chance of shining if I try to master one skill, and job, rather than want try to master everything.

Do you think he has a point?

Hasnt every single person here been telling you that in every single thread?

Oh well I was told before that I should take on videography jobs and be a one man band though, which I find difficult to be a one man band though. Unless I should just do directing only and forget about one man band jobs.

I think we're talking about two different things.

If you're trying to do whatever you can to make a living in a film-related industry, i.e. video production, then the one-man band jobs are about the lowest place you can start other than interning or getting an entry level job at a video production company. This in no way guarantees (and it is pretty unlikely) you will ever get close to feature filmmaking...you could be doing weddings, corporate videos, training videos, commercials, etc. forever. But at least you would (theoretically) be making money/a living doing something vaguely related to your field of interest.

If you're trying to make your own films, then probably not focusing on mastering booming techniques and whatever else and focusing solely at getting better at directing, and everything that entails, would be the way to go. This may mean you make zero money and never get anywhere but at least you'd be focusing on what you want and not hacking away at the outermost edges of that world the way you'd be in videography.

If you wish to get into drama directing and you don't have a range of skills in other areas, assuming you're not doing this as a hobby, you need to be in a location that will get you entry directing jobs. These days that's TV or productions intended for streaming services, this probably involves initially getting work in a job somewhere in the production side of things, location management or 3rd assistant director is not that unusual.

This is because you're an unknown quantity as a director and currently have the skill levels of a trainee. If you wish to process to that level you either go to the Canadian equivalent of the National Film & TV School in the UK or work your way up getting experience and building up contacts on various productions. You can direct your own drama films in the mean time, but best regard them as practice pieces, rather than productions you'll make a profit from.

You can also keep writing scripts, but you need to have your own voice in them and not writing by numbers.

From everything you tell us you don't sound like you have the aptitude to be a director. Every time you take these small jobs you're never in charge and you avoid directing duties. And when it comes to feature film projects you want to co-direct because again you're not comfortable with the primary duty of a director (working with the actors). Whether it's a feature film or small commercial work require you to think on your feet which you don't do well. You seem to have the desire to do things you don't have the aptitude to do. It make more sense to get a job for an organization doing a simpler specific task and do the film stuff on the weekends with your friends for fun.

Oh okay is it just the martial arts small job, or other small jobs as well? I never thought I was uncomfortable working with actors. I am always happy to work with actors. It's just I was told the performances were not good so I am wanting to improve in that area, but I never thought I was uncomfortable doing it. If I don't have the aptitude, then perhaps I can try developing my aptitude.

If you want to improve performances, short films are the place to that, not a feature film, which brings it's own pressures. You can go for a longer short, however, greater length reduces the chances of being selected for festivals, although you could aim at the commercial half hour TV slot length that a number of successful shorts have used,

Okay thanks. It's just difficult to write a short that is so short though, and have a full beginning, middle and end story. Write now I have a script for one that is 14 pages. I can try that perhaps, and maybe I can cut it down some in editing.

I was told by other filmmakers I worked with though in the past, to get better actors and a better DP, and if I pay more for those, even if it means bringing them in from different cities, it will really pay off talent wise, if they are right?

Here's the thing...you're not trying to be a WRITER, right? so who cares if it's a beginning/middle/end traditional three-act structure?

Do a simple 3 minute scene.... the idea is to practice working with actors, blocking, pacing, putting shots that work well together and flow, etc. DIRECTOR skills.

It can be a vignette/slice of life/isolated scene.

You wanna work on action/horror? Create a single horror/action scene. Who cares about how they got there or where they're going after?

Oh okay thanks, I actually tried that, just write one scene with two scenes. But people said they didn't wan to make it. I was told by a couple that it was just because it's only a scene and not story. So I was not able to generate interest that way. Funny thing is, that after that I wrote an 11 page script, the time travel one I posted the finished product on here before, and that one generated quite a bit more interest in comparison. Could it be that a whole story has a better chance?

You keep asking us these questions but it doesn’t matter what we think. Either you have the ability or you don’t. This is a sink or swim industry based on results. Making a feature film is complex and difficult process that needs a lot of things to go right to be successful. While it might make for interesting topics of conversations on a message board, it all comes back to whether you have the ability.

Oh okay thanks. Well I think what I need to work on is schmoozing. Like getting location owners to say yes, being able to get a much better DP to say yes, or better actors, like I was told to get, etc.

Or I could just hire someone who is good at schmoozing to do a lot of for me. But I think that is what I have to do first and foremost, for things to go better, and turn out a better product.

Another thing is, I feel whenever I think outside the box on how to fix a problem, I am then told do not do that, so that makes things more difficult for me. It's like when I said maybe I should co-direct the feature, to make things easier but then was told it's a bad idea, or how I asked what if I produce it only and let someone else direct for a first feature, but was told producing a feature without having directed one first is a bad idea. So I feel that whatever ways I try to come up with to make it better for myself, I am told will just make it worse and to direct the entire thing therefore.

I'm not sure how you're coming up with these things. No one said producing isn't a good idea if you've never directed, there are plenty of successful producers who have never directed anything. Producing is a different job, which shouldn't be regarded as practice as a director, although some producers can't let go because of the amount of time and effort involved to get a film into production , but that;s another matter.

Co directing isn't thinking outside of the box, people were pointing out that it mightn't be what you think it is.

Multi screen should be used with care, there some 1960s films that use it, but it tends to be used as part of the style of the whole film. It can be distracting and draw attention to itself, without having any emotional impact on the audience. Works best if you've got Steve McQueen cool,

Oh I was told that by a filmmaker before do not produce a feature if you haven't directed one yet... But if it's not true, it's not true.

There is also another technique I want to try for a possible next project, if I can get it off the ground. In the plot a cop is waiting for back up and is trying to get the go ahead to search the villains residence, and inside the villains are trying to clean up all the evidence, and then escape.

I thought I could show this using a split screen effect, the cop waits for back up and a warrant, while the villains clean up and try to escape before back up arrives, on a split a screen. However, when it comes to timing the two, does anyone have any advice, on how to get the timing correct, so one is not more short than the other if they are being shown simultaneously, as oppose to cutting back and forth between the two? I thought it would be a good experiment to try.

When it comes to shooting the split screen, I will still frame the shots as if it is 1.85:1, because that way in the editing, if a split screen is not the way to go, then I still have the shots framed in 1.85:1, along with the rest of the movie, just in case.

You can experiment, just be aware that how an audience views something mat be different to how you view it,

Best training for a producer is a law degree,

That's true. How does a director know how an audience would view something compared to themselves? I always feel that I best tell it how I feel the audience would want to see it, but is that not a good way to go, since it seemed I was wrong before?

You can't tell how an audience will react until they watch it. That's why they make films that fail at the box office, they don't plan for it and that's despite of some of them not being bad films.

Yeah true, I guess I can just do the best I can and hope for the best. I was told before on here that I tend to over-analyze things. Does that sound true though?

Ryan as making ‘normal’ films is such a problem and don’t yet have that ability your split screen idea seems foolish in the extreme and already instead of planning the story telling you’re thinking picture ratios and pixels. Story first! The only ones I remember being good to watch involved a plot where time and how multiple scenes played out coming towards a common aim. A disaster counting down so seeing multiple time lines heading for it added pace! I’d avoid this till you can handle basics like your martial arts project. If you cannot sort this simple product there’s little hope for complex ones!

Oh okay well I thought I would try something new, but isn't split screening part of planning the story though? But why is it that your mind went from split screening not being part of the story to being about pixels and ratios? What can I do to make people think it's part of the story therefore?

Get inside the head of your characters and use the camera, action and art direction to reveal them. So far you're just giving cinematic mechanics, you need the audience to emote with your characters. Sometimes not showing things and letting the imagination run works better than showing everything.

Story is nothing to do with split screening, at the most it's just a way of doing the plot

Good lord! We’re now on to split screens and he wants to be a producer. I imagine him reaching into a hat each day and randomly picking a new job title and cinematic effect.

Reading Ryan's plan for it his proposed multiscreen sequence, it's not fully thought out, since one of the elements is missing - the other cops trying to get to this location and the various delays/cock ups that they meet, possibly preventing them getting there on time. Without that you're just got a cop pacing up and down looking at his watch, which isn't interesting.

What we have is the college handbook for movie production, and Ryan is intent on using every technique listed in that book - no matter if the plot needs it!

It would be good to go back to the script for the time machine production and start again. Using the script to drive what we see. Unless Ryan can convert scripts into interesting shots and content - he's making no progress.

Oh okay, but when you say that the plot doesn't needed, what's wrong with using the split screen technique to try to generate more excitement in the timing. Is that not called for?

Also, the cop doesn't pace around for long, he hears commotion and a scream and decides to investigate the scream, etc. It won't take that long timing wise. As for the cock ups, he hears about it all on his radio, so wouldn't you still have the cock ups since he's communicating with them?

And yes, one person said I should stick to producing only before I do more directing to learn more. But then another said since I want to direct, I should stick to that and have other people do other duties instead of trying to multitask everything. I think I will listen to the second person.

You're getting confused, the plot is just the mechanics of how you tell the story. If they're both the same you'll have a superficial film.

I assume you're not making a radio drama, you need to show things. Drama is about overcoming difficulty and conflict, if you don't have any of these it'll be a dull film.

If it doesn't take long, why are you using split screen? This takes time to work effectively, it's not a couple of shots thing.

Well I wanted to save on actors. Instead of showing hang ups on the other police's end then, I will instead show hang ups on the main cops end instead if that's better.

I imagine you saw or read about split screen and decided to add it to your movie. Last time I remember seeing it was in the TV show 24 which worked well because of the way it was used. You seem to be too reliant on gimmicks rather than crafting an interesting story.

ryan for realz needs an in person mentor. One of you should jump out of a van, put a bag over his head, kidnap him and take him to Toronto and force him to work in production under you. He’ll be confused and scared at first, but those feelings will soon be replaced by gratitude.

I imagine you saw or read about split screen and decided to add it to your movie. Last time I remember seeing it was in the TV show 24 which worked well because of the way it was used. You seem to be too reliant on gimmicks rather than crafting an interesting story.

Oh I didn't think I was relying on a gimmick, I just thought that if I show two things timed out simultaneously, it have the maximum effect on trying to generate suspense, timing wise.

You want to use it to save on actors? .............. That's the silliest reason to use a technique like this. People have already told you it can be very confusing to watch, UNLESS you need to tell two different elements of the story at the same time. I seem to remember it being done in the Andromeda Strain quite poorly as it just made the story confusing. Airport, around the same time used it to good effect.

Unless the story screams for it - avoid it!

No I am not using the split screen to save on actors. I just thought that other actors could talk through the radio, so I don't have to change the location. The split screen has nothing do with saving on actors. I didn't intend for you to jump to that conclusion that one had anything to do with the other.

I was told before not to compare to other movies, so perhaps therefore, we shouldn't compare to movies that have done it before then, and just concentrate on my reasons for using it? Plus it was said before not to copy other movies and come up with my own techniques to tell the story, and this is a technique I thought of to tell mine. Shouldn't I be coming up with my own, like I was advised to before, rather than following other movies? So I come up with a technique to tell my story, and now it has said that i am following a 'gimmick'.

In this case you haven't come with a good reason for using this technique. To work it really needs to let run, it's not an easy solution, multiscreen is something that needs to be carefully thought out, with some flair in it's use, otherwise it becomes distracting.

It has been used the same way you're talking about, but I doubt your film has the style to pull it off

Oh okay, so you mean let it run for a longer amount of time? When you say the style to pull it off, what style are you referring to?

If you don't know that yourself, no one can give you an answer, it comes from within the director and them having a strong personal vision that drives the film as a whole. Currently, this sounds like a scene bolted onto a bog standard daytime TV cop drama.

#635
Well I wanted to save on actors...

#640
No I am not using the split screen to save on actors.'.
huh?

When I read your posts it’s like pinball game of random ideas.

If you don't know that yourself, no one can give you an answer, it comes from within the director and them having a strong personal vision that drives the film as a whole. Currently, this sounds like a scene bolted onto a bog standard daytime TV cop drama.

Oh okay, well I know the style I want, so I feel it would fit into that style, and just going by what I am interpreting. Well what I ask the question how long does it have to play out for to be effective, would you say? When you say it sounds like the style of a TV cop drama, which TV cop drama were you thinking of? Plus it was never said why it wouldn't work for mine, other than it's probably not shown long enough, and that the film does not have the style to pull it likely. Those aren't very specific reasons though.

You keep asking questions that no one here can answer. You seem to want precise details to things that should be thought out by you on long walks or where ever you keep running this stuff through your mind, keep rewriting these scenes.

A split screen will give him the chance to use two different star filters at the same time! Woo-hoo!

Just checking in and the drama continues. Heck of a lot more interesting than what the news media has to offer.

Pete - you did good, my man!
#635
huh?
When I read your posts it’s like pinball game of random ideas.

Disclaimer: Have to say I'm no advocate of split-screen so here's my take.

Don’t need no split screen if one writes the score [Edit: script] right.
Take a cue from the Big Bopper and his rendition of Chantilly Lace when there is only one person talking but we know what the conversation is about.

This script writer … er, lyricist, was able to write a conversation in such a manner that we know what was said (Edit: communicated) even though we only know only one side of it. Not only that, the lyricist did it in such a manner so it would fit the measures and stanzas in a song. Not given the constraint of musical requirements surely one can come up with a one-sided conversation where the viewer understands what was communicated.

The Big Bopper had a one-sided conversation in his popular song: "Chantilly Lace"

Hello Baby
Yeah, this is the Bib Bopper speakin
Do I what?
Will I what?
Oh baby, you know what I like!
What’s that, baby?
Pick you up at 8 and don’t be late
But baby, I ain’t got no money, honey
Oh, alright, honey, you know what I like

Perry Mason had one-sided phone conversations in his famous long-running detective programs.

One does not necessarily require both people to be viewed in a split-screen to know what the conversation is about. Basically, a two-way conversation can be understood even if we only hear one side.

Oh okay, I just thought it would be fun to watch two characters in a cat and mouse game come to merge in timing on a split screen, when I thought about how this would play out.

Fun and thriller don't really go together, you can't put things in for fun, even in a comedy. There has to be a driving 2+2=5 reason for doing so.