Those of you who have been anxiously awaiting the completion of "Adversity Conquered!" will be pleased to learn that I have decided to jump ahead and complete the epilogue "Stargazer"!
When I take on a project I don't fool around. "Adversity Conquered!" is the most technically complex film I have yet undertaken. In the real world, a film of this type would include a sizable post-production staff. But when one of the goals is to create the ultimate showcase for yourself, you want it to be clear who's work is on the screen.
If you haven't yet seen the "Behind the Scenes" update from March 2010, please take a look before reading on (or not):
"Adversity Conquered" - March 2010 Update, Behind the Scenes from Bruce Bertrand on Vimeo.
For those of you able to enter my mind and see the backlog of film ideas, you will note one prevalent signature of mine as a writer-director; a nighttime siege followed by a colorful sunrise wiping away the last remnants of evil. Hmmm - the Early Films logo is a sunrise. Are you all in my head now?
Shortly after Steve came to me with the concept of "Adversity Conquered!", he composed "Stargazer" and everything fell into place.
Technically speaking, "Stargazer" is infinitely simpler than "Adversity Conquered!" The entire setting is a computer generated landscape with a lake and waterfall, one shot tracking live footage to the CG "camera", and one shot tracking the CG background to the real camera . The remaining CG effects consist of starfields, galaxies, intergalactic tunnels and a whopper of a meteor explosion! Easy stuff.
"Adversity Conquered!" includes the aforementioned CG landscape with the addition of bat demons, little dragons, tree monsters, hell-hounds, a fire-breathing water monster (one is enough), various furry things, other miscellaneous underworld critters, Mr. Grim coming to reap, an enormous demon (one is enough), and what may be the Prince of Darkness himself (not necessarily the one you're thinking of)!
On top of all that are effects that include tracking several hand-held daytime shots to insert a CG night sky, tracking guitar movements to add the "weapon" elements, along with blowing up and burning a lot of stuff! Oh yes, then there is the complex soundtrack and editing rhythm.
Wait.....let me catch my breath.
So there you have it.
When "Stargazer" is completed, it will be posted for a limited time ONLY to Facebook and YouTube friends, Vimeo contacts, and LinkedIn connections.
I will post some snippets publicly, including 3D anaglyphs of a few starfield effects.
At one point, I began rendering all of the CG effects stereoscopically. When 2D to 3D conversion becomes affordable, I would like to stereo-fy the entire video. It would have been great to shoot in 3D from the start, as I've been years ahead of the curve with regard to the 3D thing. This time it simply wasn't an option due to the lack of access to a second pro camera identical to mine and the difficult shooting conditions.
However, using two small consumer camcorders and the makeshift 3D tripod head I had whipped up for Super 8 years ago, I have shot one of Steve's recent rehearsal sessions in 3D just for the fun of it:
Steve Yank - "Monsterworld" Demo in 3D from Bruce Bertrand on Vimeo.
BTW, despite being a big fan of 3D, I do think Hollywood has gone overboard - especially with the overabundance of 2D to 3D conversions. But that is a blog post yet to come.
I am looking to complete "Stargazer" by sometime in January. So pitch your tents and set up your lawn chairs on the virtual sidewalk!
Friday, November 26, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Editors are NOT button-pushers!
One of the most valuable experiences a film or video editor can have is to work in a broadcast news environment. But the stripes one earns as a result are often torn off and trampled by the shortsighted attitudes of others.
There is too often a tendency by some to make assumptions about a person's abilities and aptitude based on jobs they have held in the past. Such is the case with both videographers and editors who have worked in broadcast. As with any form of prejudice, people are judged according to the lowest common denominator of their peers.
The perception is that people whose job involves operating equipment are nothing more than "equipment operators". Yet, cinematographers and editors in other venues, particularly feature films, are hailed as creative geniuses and given awards for their work.
This discrimination is the result of how rules in union environments are interpreted. In a broadcast union house, editors and videographers are actually forbidden from making decisions regarding content! The last time I checked, deciding content is the definition of an editor! Likewise, reporters and producers are not allowed to operate equipment, yet outside the broadcast environment they are highly respected, while exceptional photography and editing of their news pieces is attributed entirely to their "guidance". Sadly, a lot of this attitude comes from outside the broadcast environment from people who haven't actually been in those trenches and are basing their opinions on assumptions.
In the newsroom itself, reporters and producers are highly appreciative of the truly creative editors and videographers, and easily distinguish them from any "button-pushers" that may actually be on staff. There will often be a race by newsroom personnel to the side of the real artists. Reporters in particular often have extremely long days chasing stories and producing scripts. Why should they want the added burden of holding the hand of a videographer or editor? Very often when a reporter is blessed with landing one of the creative editors, they will record their track, choose the sound bites, then leave the editor to work their own magic. This saves the already overworked reporter valuable time to work on their next feature story or perform other tasks. For this reason, the union rules forbidding any crossover are really unnecessary. Everyone is just too busy to do more than one job!
Yet in less stressful and non-union environments, such as some corporate video situations, I have seen the union structure implemented. They assume editors need someone sitting behind them making all the edit decisions. In these situations that system is totally wasteful and would be far more effective overall if they hired field producers who are also editors - or vice versa like myself. A field producer who understands editing can more clearly envision the final project and plan their shots more effectively. But as I've discovered, some field producers refuse to edit because it is apparently "below them". Some of these producers actually came out of broadcast environments. I can only assume they were either saddled too often with the not-so-creative editors, or they went in with preconceived notions and saw what they wanted to see.
I have spoken to a number of other editors and videographers over the years who like myself have seen or been victimized by this concept. There was one case I had witnessed, in a non-union production house, where one of the producers was utilized as a videographer when they discovered he was also a photographer. But once he picked up that video camera, he was suddenly treated as if his IQ had dropped 50 points and was talked down to in a manner totally different from when he functioned as a producer. It was mind-boggling! Movies and TV shows that depict broadcast news environments are definitely no help. Look at how technical staff is depicted in them. Need I say more?
Yes, I do need to say more. Let's go back to the first paragraph where I mention how valuable the experience of broadcast news can be to an editor. You learn how to meet tight deadlines by paying close attention to all the footage you scan, so that in a crunch you can fill that large hole with those decent thirty-second shots you remembered. After cutting a good number of news pieces, you come to learn just how much time you need to be especially creative and how far you can actually go while easily making air.
My personal record is cutting a 90 second piece in 15 minutes - just in time for air! The reporter knew I could handle it and specifically requested me while on the road to the station. He dashed in thoroughly organized 10 minutes before the start of the 10:00 news. After belting it out, we took a breath while watching someone else sprint down the hall with the tape. It was ultimately a lot of fun! In fact, despite being nervous about working in this high-pressure environment when I was first hired, I came to enjoy it thoroughly and constantly looked forward to the next day's adventure.
All venues have some kind of deadline, but the TV newsroom is by far the best boot camp for editors!
There is too often a tendency by some to make assumptions about a person's abilities and aptitude based on jobs they have held in the past. Such is the case with both videographers and editors who have worked in broadcast. As with any form of prejudice, people are judged according to the lowest common denominator of their peers.
The perception is that people whose job involves operating equipment are nothing more than "equipment operators". Yet, cinematographers and editors in other venues, particularly feature films, are hailed as creative geniuses and given awards for their work.
This discrimination is the result of how rules in union environments are interpreted. In a broadcast union house, editors and videographers are actually forbidden from making decisions regarding content! The last time I checked, deciding content is the definition of an editor! Likewise, reporters and producers are not allowed to operate equipment, yet outside the broadcast environment they are highly respected, while exceptional photography and editing of their news pieces is attributed entirely to their "guidance". Sadly, a lot of this attitude comes from outside the broadcast environment from people who haven't actually been in those trenches and are basing their opinions on assumptions.
In the newsroom itself, reporters and producers are highly appreciative of the truly creative editors and videographers, and easily distinguish them from any "button-pushers" that may actually be on staff. There will often be a race by newsroom personnel to the side of the real artists. Reporters in particular often have extremely long days chasing stories and producing scripts. Why should they want the added burden of holding the hand of a videographer or editor? Very often when a reporter is blessed with landing one of the creative editors, they will record their track, choose the sound bites, then leave the editor to work their own magic. This saves the already overworked reporter valuable time to work on their next feature story or perform other tasks. For this reason, the union rules forbidding any crossover are really unnecessary. Everyone is just too busy to do more than one job!
Yet in less stressful and non-union environments, such as some corporate video situations, I have seen the union structure implemented. They assume editors need someone sitting behind them making all the edit decisions. In these situations that system is totally wasteful and would be far more effective overall if they hired field producers who are also editors - or vice versa like myself. A field producer who understands editing can more clearly envision the final project and plan their shots more effectively. But as I've discovered, some field producers refuse to edit because it is apparently "below them". Some of these producers actually came out of broadcast environments. I can only assume they were either saddled too often with the not-so-creative editors, or they went in with preconceived notions and saw what they wanted to see.
I have spoken to a number of other editors and videographers over the years who like myself have seen or been victimized by this concept. There was one case I had witnessed, in a non-union production house, where one of the producers was utilized as a videographer when they discovered he was also a photographer. But once he picked up that video camera, he was suddenly treated as if his IQ had dropped 50 points and was talked down to in a manner totally different from when he functioned as a producer. It was mind-boggling! Movies and TV shows that depict broadcast news environments are definitely no help. Look at how technical staff is depicted in them. Need I say more?
Yes, I do need to say more. Let's go back to the first paragraph where I mention how valuable the experience of broadcast news can be to an editor. You learn how to meet tight deadlines by paying close attention to all the footage you scan, so that in a crunch you can fill that large hole with those decent thirty-second shots you remembered. After cutting a good number of news pieces, you come to learn just how much time you need to be especially creative and how far you can actually go while easily making air.
My personal record is cutting a 90 second piece in 15 minutes - just in time for air! The reporter knew I could handle it and specifically requested me while on the road to the station. He dashed in thoroughly organized 10 minutes before the start of the 10:00 news. After belting it out, we took a breath while watching someone else sprint down the hall with the tape. It was ultimately a lot of fun! In fact, despite being nervous about working in this high-pressure environment when I was first hired, I came to enjoy it thoroughly and constantly looked forward to the next day's adventure.
All venues have some kind of deadline, but the TV newsroom is by far the best boot camp for editors!
Friday, March 5, 2010
Wha? There was something before the dome?
Every now and then you find students with a true interest in what existed before their time. Such is the case with SU Students Gordon Brookes and Erick Ferris who looked back to a time before the Carrier Dome and chose as their senior thesis film project a documentary on Archbold Stadium.
I was a freshman at SU during the final semester of the stadium and happened to have a dorm room overlooking the stadium. I had shot Super 8 film of the final game and posted it on YouTube. Actually the YouTube posting happened a couple years ago - had you thinking for a moment, didn't I?
In their search for footage of the stadium, they came upon my posting. I provided them with my raw footage and photographs then submitted to an interview. The result was this fantastic documentary embedded below!
N-joy!
I was a freshman at SU during the final semester of the stadium and happened to have a dorm room overlooking the stadium. I had shot Super 8 film of the final game and posted it on YouTube. Actually the YouTube posting happened a couple years ago - had you thinking for a moment, didn't I?
In their search for footage of the stadium, they came upon my posting. I provided them with my raw footage and photographs then submitted to an interview. The result was this fantastic documentary embedded below!
N-joy!
Archbold Stadium, The Story of '78 from Gordon Brookes on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
