In a perfect world the only document that would determine the articulation of a project into production would be the screenplay itself. Alas the world aint perfect and so the process of moving a cinematic project from concept to production involves a range of distilled writing manifestations. Treatment, Synopsis, Outline, Tag Line, Step Outline, Concept statement - this list seems endless.
It's arguable that these ancillary documents have little purpose other than to serve as means for producers to comprehend the story and make decisions on it without actually reading the script.
That's the cynics perspective anyway. The more positive way to look at the various documents that accompany the screenplay is to consider them as building block components of not the writing process culminating in the screenplay, but rather the production process culminating in the movie.
Treatment, synopsis, outline are just tools not religious objects and writers should be free to use them as tools not end products. It's often suggested that a screenplay should start as a treatment first but if the treatment is really a 'pitch' document, a way to succinctly present the screenplay ideas in a short form, then this makes little sense. Rather, writing a tightly presented treatment after the screenplay appears more logical - a distillation of the screenplay not a precursor to it.
Likewise and conversely the Step Outline of one sentence descriptors of each scene in the screenplay is often lauded as a production document, a distillation of the screenplay to its bare bones. And yet there is a strong logic that points to the Step Outline as a structural organization tool to precede the writing of the screenplay.
This document from the Australian Film Commission provides a detailed and pragmatic overview of the various treatment, synopsis and outline documents. But at the same time it shouldn't be forgotten that its the script that counts and everything else is simply a set of assisting tools. Some can be exploited to facilitate production, others for purposes of pitching and attention getting. Still others for the development of the screenplay itself. There are no hard rules, just a set of tools to be exploited as needed.
Its easy to think that filmmaking has latered radically - that the idea that you can shoot, cut and deliver a film of quality with nothing but a handycam and a laptop is radically different to the past. But amid the excitiment of wanting to use the term Revolution we cant forget that the 8mm heroes of the past and the low-fi indie approach has been extant for some time.
What has changed and which allows for the digital accesible tools of today to be Exploited is the culture of filmaking enmasse and the network of cooperative suppourt structures that facilitate the DIY ethic. The technology gives us the illusion that Filmmaking has changed but in truth its the cultural change that is far more significant.
Thats where we can look to Indymogul as one of the great champions of this cause. Their site is densely rich in resources and suppourt for all kinds of filmmakers and never forgets that filmmaking is Fun!
This episode form their indymogul.blip.tv channel on how to make a cool space helmut for $20 bucks sets the tone beautifully.
Best known for his ground breaking title sequence designs which virtually invented the art that has become 'Motion Graphics', Saul Bass was also very engaged with more philosophical explorations of Creatiity itself.
This excerpt from 'Why a Man Creates' is (partriachy aside) a facinating examination of history and creativity that won an oscar in 1968.
Scott Simmons over at the Edit Blog has stumbled upon a facinating tidbit of information regarding backward compatibility of FCP version increminents.
He writes:
So the other day I noticed an older version of Final Cut Pro (6.0)
opening a project created by a newer version of FCP (6.0.1). This came
about after a new install of Leopard. I was quite surprised by this as
it?s not supposed to be possible. Just to make sure I wasn?t going nuts
I created 4 different projects of varying complexity in FCP 6.0 and
they all opened in 6.0.1. But then I tried to update to 6.0.2 on the
Leopard partition and Software Update wouldn?t see it or any recent
Final Cut Studio updates. I had a feeling that I needed a new version
of Quicktime. It wanted to update my QT to 7.4 but since there have
been issues with that version I got the stand-alone Quicktime 7.3 installer and installed that. Then I was able to update all of the Studio applications.
After that the magic was gone. No more backward compatibility. I
have always believed that Apple could allow an older version of FCP to
open a project created in a newer version. Maybe not FCP 1.0 opening a
6.0.2 project most definitely within the same version number and
probably at least one version prior. This has to be possible and I
don?t think anyone can convince me otherwise. There?s just not enough
different in 6.0.2 and 6.0. Yes there are XMLs but it?s still not the
same thing. I don?t think it will ever happen as that?s a sure-fire way
to sell upgrades. But I can dream can?t I?
Scott seems to be able treat this with a less infuriated tone than I might. Apple are certainly not alone in this deliberate and technically unwarranted hobbling of their products to force users to upgrades, but they've certainly been one of the more consistent corporate entities to screw their users.
Why should simple incrimental updates NOT be backward compatible. In fact i know of no other NLE on the market where simple 'point' releases render project files unable to be opened by previous point releases. Premiere Pro, Vegas, Avid all have multiple point releases updates that have no bearing on the project file's usuability within the same numbered version.... So why Apple?
The past year has seen an array of technological newness that has pointed firmly towards the future directions of interaction, interface and visual experience. Obviously complex bleeding-edge systems like Photosynth shown at TED or the multitouch table shown by Mirosoft jump to mind. But on the smaller, more intimate scale we've also seen the I-phone and I-pod touch with their now famous 'pinch' control.
Now we have PicLens which presents an extrodinary image viewing mechanism delivered as a simple browser plugin.
Working with a host of comon online image systems such as Flickr and Google Images the PicLens plugin allows for the online image selection or collection to be viewed as a 3D video wall. The wall, stretching on almost infinately, as far as the image collection continues, can be zoomed, scanned, tilted and navigated in a highly fluid interactive paradigm.
The great achievement of PicLens is to rise above the status of visual gimmick to present a very functional and fluidly effectivly viewing environent and experience. Seeking and locating a desired image is actually easier and in many ways more efficient on the PicLens image wall than simple scanning through thumbnail pages. Moreover, the developers of PicLens have implimented their image engine in a very system light manner that functions well even over slower bandwidths.
Along with the browser plugin PicLens is also availible as WordPress blo engine plugin allowing users to host their own PicLens image galleries.
Audition: The audio app that should have shipped with CS3
Once upon a time there was an audio tool called Cool Edit Pro; a humble, unassuming digital audio software
system that none the less garnered quite a reputation for efficiency,
flexibility and an easy learning curve. CEP also made a very smart
market share building maneuver in allowing access, of sorts, to their software for free.
The
Trial version of CEP didn't time out and instead allowed for only a set
number of selected features to be turned on - the choice as to what
left up to the user. What this did was make CEP very popular with
zero-budget students who then went on to become professionals and very
often stuck with CEP. By this process CEP built up a formidable user
base in the face of an overpopulated DAW market. CEP particularly
found, by its easy entry point and learning curve, a solid user base in
radio and journalism.
This is the legacy Adobe inherited when it bought CEP developer Syntrillium and re badged it Audition. Adobe has traditionally had no set piece in audio production and Audition filled a vital vacancy on its path to presenting a complete end to end production solution.
There's no denying that the venerable HVX solid state HD camera from Panasonic made a significant play at the hearts and minds of the digital indie filmmaker. Whilst much was made of its 422 recording and non-GOP DVCProHD format, it was really the excellent 24p and over/under cranking that was its real asset.
But its been some degree of years since the HVX arrived and the landscape has changed. 24p is now standard stuff and the Sony XDCAM EX1 has undeniably thrown down the gauntlet in a camera that meets and exceeds the HVX in virtually every way.
Of course, since the EX1's arrival the talk has been of What would Panasonic replace the HVX with? and When would it come?
Press Releases awash this past week brought news of the new Panasonic HMC150
On the surface this appears to be Panasonic's replacement to the HVX; at least thats what many are declaring, but I'm not so sure....
If the HMC150 is the replacement for the HVX and intended to be the new solid state competitor to the EX1 then Panasonic have truly under-delivered with a decidedly backward step from the HVX. My guess is they have another camera still to come which is the real replacement for the HVX as an EX1 competitor and this HMC150 is an in-between; something really aimed to compete in the Sony Z1 or even A1 category of camera.
1/3" sensors (compared to EX1's 1/2") and Panasonic have dumped P2 (as I and many others have long predicted they would) in favour of standard memory cards. The HMC150 shoots all the flavors of HD but there's no mention of over or under cranking ability. They have also dumped DVCProHD format (again the writing was on the wall for DVCProHD due to its high inefficiency and the fact that Panasonic themselves had ceased development and were moving to AVC_Intra) Instead the HMC150 uses AVCHD format at a bitrate of just 13mbps. This may seem absurdly low but there is argument for AVCHD as significantly more efficient than the Mpeg2 of HDV and so can achieve an image of the same quality for a lower bitrate but we are still talking MASSIVE compression on the image, far far more than the 35mbps Mpeg2 of XDCamEX.
That Panasonic went to AVCHD is not a surprise, but that they opted for such a low bitrate when most people talking about using AVCHD for 'pro' cameras are talking about 15-25mbps or so as a benchmark seems very odd. Also very interesting is that after YEARS of decrying long GOP, bagging out Mpeg, slagging off HDV and XDCam and championing the virtues of Intra-frame codecs for acquisition, Panasonic seem to have backflipped and now embraced Long GOP AVCHD....?
The image of the HMC150 resolves to a res of 1440x1080 the same as HDV with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.333:1. Again the EX1 offers no stretch at all, native 1920x1080. If this IS indeed Panasonic's answer to the Ex1 and its replacement for the HVX then they have really and truly dropped the ball... The HMC150 might compete with the Z1 as a solid state HDV alternative but its not even in the same league as the EX1.
But Panasonic are not a stupid company - belligerent and often misleading (along with everyone else) but not stupid - so I really will be stunned if this is the HVX replacement; i'll be stunned if there isnt something else in the wings. Something Solid-State, something AVCHD-Intra based, something not using P2... If there isnt such a camera on its way from the Panasonic factory then there'll be a rush on EX1's and second hand HVX's will become rare as hens teeth as everyone hangs on to them dreaming of what might have been.....
This is not a 'best of' list or any kind of award, but rather a list of the most influential tools of 2007.
I've long held the belief that the broad industry and community of
media creators need to be proactive and dynamic in their criticism of
creative software and hardware developers. Such developers become
complacent and self-serving when their users are not clamouring for
'better' and demanding "more."
Every developer strives for the
coveted 'brand loyalty' but such loyalty is nothing more than the
deliberate crafting of user ignorance to ensure that customers
aren't tempted to jump ship to a competing product when the product
developers drop the ball. Brand Loyalty is nothing but a corporate
directed insurance policy design to keep users singing the product's
praises even when the product is ill deserving of praise.
Brand
Loyalty does the industry no good; it does the tools we use no good.
Brand Loyalty begets Blithe Acceptance and that hamstrings innovation
and creative possibility. So its from this perspective that I take a
very serious approach to reviewing creative tools and make no bones
about being highly critical of almost all the major developers. Now,
with that said, one must also take the 'Credit where Credit is Due'
approach to ensure that when developers do good, they continue to do
good.
So very often its the simple things that contribute to the production process in such profound ways.
My very favourite 'little thing' of late is DX Pad What does it do...? It's a note taker; a digital scribble pad, a binary notebook.... But what makes DXPad so special is that it's a plugin.
Running a simple DirectX plugin, DXpad can be 'assigned' to any project in software that supports DX. This includes virtually all DAW's and some more adventurous NLE's such as Vegas. You simply assign it to an audio channel as if it were an effect and it pops open a floating notpad window where you can scrawl notes, ideas and concepts about the project. The beauty of this plugin is that the notes you make are embedded in the project file itself, thus going everywhere it does. Its a perfect system for annotating processes, methods, formats, workflows and so on specific to the rpoject for archiving. Just open up the project, pop open the DXPad and you have project specific notes whenever you need them in the future.
Yes indeed there is one.... Not just an comic invention by some bored or desperate editor locked in a sunlight deprived haze for too long - but an official, Papal sanctioned, (1958 Pope Pius XII) Patron Saint of TV.
St Clare of Assisi.
Apparently she achieved this status by conjuring up an image of the mass on her bedroom wall when she was too sick to attend. A forerunner to the hospital, wall bracketd TV's that are always up loud enough to piss of the anyone in the bed next to you.
Now usually such saintly, 'miraculous' events are truly uninspiring. A statue of the Virgin Mary leaking olive oil in an abscure grotto in Europe is hardly worth getting excited about. If thats the best God can pull of his production budget must have really been slashed.
But with good old Saint Clare we finally have a Saint who pulled off something truly impressive. Analogue broadcast...
So as we move into the age where analogue is put to pasture we should all construct a small grotto in our edit bays dedicated to good ol' St Clarry.
I have of late been examining a range of real-time 3D animation systems for Machinima and pre-visualization. Recently this has focused on Antics and a full review will be appearing shortly on DMN sites and here on the basin. But in looking at Antics I was prompted to reflect upon another such machinima software system that I was beta-testing last year; Moviestorm, a new system in beta from ShortFuze. Antics and Moviestorm have the same aims, the same impetus. In terms of features, aside form the fact that Antics is older and by virtue more developed, the feature set is remarkably similar. But in spite of this the two are very, very different in conceptual approach and the paradigm they present to users.
The distinction between the two goes to the heart of something much deeper than a laundry list of capabilities or the one-ups-manship of software competition. The distinction points towards ideas of software 'language', the desires of users and the power of perceptions.
The interface of Moviestorm has a very appealing look and feel about it. Spartan and lacking in detail in places but that's obliviously going to fill out in development. But it is an interface that distinctly plays against all the traditional and established 'windows' paradigm language. Of itself this isn't necessarily a problem depending on the nature of the user group intended for the application.
For any software developer the central question to ask is the obvious - Who the app is for? But also, what is often neglected, is to also ask Who do those users want to be? And how do they see themselves?
Lets say for example that a key target market is 15-25 years old gamers who have an interest in movies; and movie enthusiasts with a bent for computers and games. That in particular both these groups are not professional movie makers or digital media producers. In this simple context a non-standard interface such as Moviestorm that is very accessible, very simple, even best described as almost 'cartoony', could function very well. A look and feel that is not like typical software, and which doesn't feel like a complex production tool, might have a certain cache in bringing new and inexperienced users to Moviestorm. Theres a strong potential for the tool to be seen as fun and funky. Laid-back. A piece of cake to use.
BUT... (and I think its a very big but...) This doesn't account for, and indeed flies against, how these same people perceive themselves rather than who they might actually be. A 15-25 year old gamer/movie enthusiast who is into computers, I would argue, perceives of themselves as a technology sophisticate and a wannabe professional. Any person in this category with enough enthusiasm to try and make a machinima film is more often than not going to have designs on actually becoming a full-time filmmaker, game designer, TV producer, etc.... Whether they ever achieve this is not the point, the perception is built of desire and its the desire that drives the perceived 'needs'.
In this context I would argue that you have to design the software not for who the target user is and what their skill/knowledge levels are, but rather design it for the type of people the target users perceive and wish themselves to be.
In this regard I think there are two very significant issues with Moviestorm interface paradigm; one that doesn't follow traditional Windows drop-down menu language conventions. The first is pure functionality; functionality born Not of good design but rather of familiarity. Right off the bat Moviestorm is harder to learn because it doesn't follow normal computer paradigms that are widely understood. Its a simple as that. In working with the beta release I spent far longer than I should just working out how to click, where to click, how things would pop up, and when they wouldn't. Not to have a standard interface model means your user has to learn a new language from scratch. Their prior knowledge and expeirnece is rendered in large part not useful. The double kick with this issues is that by dis-empowering the user of their familiarity (and in the case of Gamers and Computer Geeks you have a personality that prides itself on that familiarity) you steal confidence with the tool. The user is on the back foot right form the start. Now the Moviestorm interface is very smooth and uncluttered but when I got stuck i was really stuck because I could not relay on the usual trouble shooting methodologies. Its like being lost in a country where you don't speak the language is a far deeper state of LOST than being lost in a country where you do.
In such cases instinct was to go to the tool bar at the top and click HELP, except its not there so then i have to go looking. Things are not named with text but with icons, so i have to hover over. When i find it it has a special icon I have to remember that icon because its not like any icon I've ever seen. And so on and so on... The moment I step into a GUI which forges its own paradigms, its own language I move from being a confident user to a dis empowered one; even more so that I would ordinarily feel with a new software tool.
Obviosuly Moviestorm is a software tool that, being born of Gaming is using game-styling for its unique GUI. In the case of Moviestorm the major influence is the Sims. But I do question the wisdom for using Gaming itself as the basis of the GUI as it leads into conflict with what I see as the second issue, that of Perception.
Do the developers of Moviestorm wish to have their app viewed 'as' a game? Certainly that's what the interface suggests and likewise how its designed to work. If the user group is, as I believe they are, driven by a perception of themselves and what they'd like to be (filmmakers) rather than the reality of what they are (gamers, hobbyists, amateurs) , then this approach is fundamentally problematic.
People who perceive of themselves as 'filmmakers' and digital artists, who want to make films that people will want to watch, that hope to be paid one day to make movies; these people I would argue, do not want to use a 'game', or a 'toy' they want to 'feel' like they are using 'real' and 'proper' tools for 'serious' production. This certainly doesn't mean they want the tools to be complicated or hard to use (quite the opposite), but that they do want to feel like filmmakers and using serious tools, that look like serious tools, makes them feel like a serious filmmaker.
The example of this 'culture' I'd use to illustrate is the marketing of the Final Cut Pro editing system from Apple. 75% of all users of FCP are independent, semi-pro, hobbiest, enthusiast, student filmmakers. And yet, all the advertising for FCP, that Apple push so hard, is focused on FCP's use in large budget feature film production; how high-profile Hollywood directors Walter Murch, David Fincher, Francis Ford Coppola use FCP to cut their films. That high end is absolutely Not the main market for FCP but what Apple understand so very well is that perception is reality. That whilst the overwhelming majority of their users are at the low end, they all Want and Desire to be at the high end. So Apple marketing aims to sell the fantasy, they sell the idea that FCP is a high-end tool so if you want to be a high-end filmaker this is what you should get, even if right now you're doing low-end.... Its a pile of marketing bullshit that has no actual validity I real-terms but it is highly effective and taps into the aspirational element of the digital age of accessibility. Developers need to 'sell the dream'; tapping into what the users Want to be and perceive themselves as being.
This concept I believe is the same with Moviestrom and points towards it's fundamental difference with Antics. Antics offers all the same tools as Moviestorm, a software system for real-time 3D machinima and pre-visualization. A self-contained tool that allows for staging, animating, virtual directing, virtual cameras and export of video sequences and even finished movies. But where Antics differs is in how it presents itself. Antics presents as a professional digital media production tool and almost every element of its interface toolset borrows from other digital media tools. It's movement of 3D objects is commensurate with those in any major 3D tool such as 3DS Max, its timeline window very much in touch with the timelines from NLE's such as Première and animation tools like Flash, its browsing and asset management features not at all removed from those found in any digital production system.
By doing this anyone who has even a modicum of experience with any of these applications immediately comes to Antics with an internal familiarity that aids a confidence with the software. At the same time the 'experience' of using Antics, the perception it presents, is a professional, detailed, consummate production environment; an environment that very much matches the perception its uses have, or wish, for themselves. Moviestorm by comparison could easily be mistaken at a glance for being a game, a children's toy.
Many, many independent video producers I have known, working for corporate clients, have often commented with despair that it's not their show-reel that got them the job or impressed the client but the size of the camera they were using or the how flashy the hardware that filled their studio looked. Along these same lines Sony have recently released the HVR-1000u HDV camera, a remarkably inexpensive camera that on the inside is a low-spec, little more than consumer grade, sensor with mediocre lens and significant shortage of features and recording options. On the outside however it's a shoulder mount, bulky camera that looks the impressive professional part. The 1000u is seemingly a camera conceived by market research that pointed towards the power of perception.
These two elements are at the heart of what might make or break a new software tool; Language and Perception - Designing a GUI and a production paradigm that taps into existing language tenets and the Presenting of a perception of what the user aspires to be rather than what they may actually be. So many of the greatly successful creative software tools on the market have found their success in exactly this combination and Apple's Final Cut Pro is the prime example. FCP brings virtually nothing unique to editing but rather it borrows enormously from its predecessor Adobe Première the language of editing tools and then packages itself into a clearly defined perception of the aspirational Professional. Subsequently you can read any given review of FCP over its history and see the same rhetoric surface 'The Professionals Choice' and 'Intuitive, easy to learn'. Both these are really, simply, the product of a crafted market perception of association, and the exploitation of established language frameworks.
It's both these that Moviestorm, as a creative platform, is overlooking. There is no argument here about right or wrong, good or bad, but simply that Moviestorm may have misjudged the aspirations of their desired users.
Robert Rodriguez has long championed the 'Rebel' culture of indie film production and much of this approach is embodied in his much lauded 10 minute film school videos. Inherent in this is the mantra of Film Is Dead and its this idea much expanded on here in his "Film is Dead: an evening with Robert Rodriguez".
It's easy to become complacent about the impact of technology and new communication landscape of open exchange forged by the Internet. A video interview with Peter Horrocks Head of Multimedia News at the BBC is one thing... That same interview conducted by 8 independent media professionals from all parts of the globe as an online interactive Vlog represents something else all together.
The project is the brainchild of seminal UK video journalist David Dunkley Gyimah And presents a broad and eclectic set of questions that probe Peter Horrocks for his perspective on the changing face of news, current affairs and the culture of digital exchange.
I had the pleasure of taking part in this global vlog project and Peter Horrock's answers show a tremendous amount of forward thinking which has in the past been lacking in the major media institutions.
Game Probe Ep 5 - Portal: story, space and metaphor
story, space and metaphor Episode 5 in the Game Probe series looks
at the fascinating mechanics of Portal. With the manipulation of space
and physics as its central vehicle, Portal points to new constructions
of story and metaphor embedded in the walls themselves.
You can watch the others in the Game Probe series at gameprobe.blipTV
There are inherent problems in the way we think about, understand and
even make cinema in the digital age and this is an area i'm persuing in
a new book. Here's some of those thoughts in attempting to re-define
cinema space.
?cinema, as we know it, is based upon lying to the viewer. perfect example is the construction of cinematic space.?- Lev Manovich
In
all its forms, modes and manifestations cinema is a construction; an
artificial built environment where communicative meaning is assembled
through the leverage of tools, processes, mechanics and methodologies.
Whether viewed from the perspective of experience, process, medium or
entity; cinematic form is never divorced from the collaborative and
inter-disciplinary notion of assembly. Of disparate pieces put into
place and meaning derived from both the placement and the act of
placing ? placement in time and composition, placement in the frame,
placement in perception and experience and, at the core of all these, a
placement in space.
Of course, defining what that space is and
considering how that space is understood, in both broad and
holistically complex terms, is no simple task. In order to make that
investigation in a meaningful way, one that ultimately provides a
robust and flexible new theoretical framework for understanding the
full extent of cinematic form in the twenty first century, we need to
start with the axioms of what cinema is. Or, more importantly, what
cinema has long been known and accepted to be. These axioms then become
the tangible pillars at which we can hurl the stones of of new
technologies, new modes of seeing and new concepts of media making like
a techno-cultural Hajj.
Borge has commented that:
"It
is quite feasible to produce a film without actors, but a film without
a camera is a sheer impossibility. So the history of the film is to
some extent the history of the camera, for it is the camera which
actually takes the photograph, arranges all the separate shots in
sequence, and which evokes the illusion of a live picture, an illusion
which depends on the imperfection of the human eye."(Börge, V. 1962)
Whilst
this idea of cinema being inextricably linked to the camera as a
physical and photographic-based apparatus is highly questionable in the
current era (indeed this issue will be specifically dealt with in
subsequent chapters) the concept of cinema being inextricable from
mechanical and technical construction of illusion is certainly
difficult to question. So what we have is a distinct techno-cultural
form whereby technology and culture, mechanics and aesthetics, are
conjoined ? howwe make effecting whatwe make.. Similarly, whilst the
visual and aural aesthetics of cinema may consistently vary and morph,
the cinematic form itself remains rooted in technological components.
What are the accepted techno-cultural pillars of cinema; those elements
born of technology and technical process that dictate the cinematic
experience?
There are essentially three key axioms that we
might adopt from the outset from which to govern an understanding of
the established and accepted modes of cinematic form as a
technologically mediated process, experience and medium. These axioms
are not gospel-like in their rigidity and the cannon of cinematic work
is peppered with exceptions and fringe works that challenge such
axioms. But they do, none the less, present, and are therefore useful
as, guides for understanding the established patterns and dominant
discourses of cinema; for it is these discourses that have served as
the pillars for established cinematic theory over the past century ?
mise-en-scene, montage, the role of the viewer and the role of the
maker are all built from their accepted norms.
[Read More]
