Archive for the ‘Tools’ Category

No, I Won’t Write Your “Sure Thing” Idea for Free.

I see that the Writers.ca website has a handy “What to Pay” page that gives a rundown on market based range of pay for different writing jobs in Canada. They aren’t extravagant but you’d be surprised at what some people want to pay.

It is a handy link to keep for those times when someone offers you five cents a word to write for there website or wants you to ghost write their ever so exciting idea for free with the promise to pay you 10% of the profit when it sells to Random House or Steven Spielberg.

RED #351

My_R_sf_2917

For a while, I had been looking at getting a Panasonic AG-HVX200. While it has some resolution issues I was enamored of the P2 storage and the variable frame rate not to mention that the codec they are using is far superior to that used in HDV cameras.
I was counting my pennies and looking at accessories.
Then earlier this year Jim Jannard, the guy who founded Oakley, started talking about building a new camera company. The Red Digital Cinema Company was going to build the best digital cinema camera that technology would allow. It was going to have a 12 megapixel sensor to capture a phenomenal 2540p with variable frame rates up to sixty frames per second. That sensor would be the same size as a Super35mm frame and so would be able to use cine lenses to get a nice shallow depth of field.
I thought that would be a pretty sweet camera to rent for when I get to the big show. The few cameras with specifications that got even close to that were renting for $9,000 for the minimum three day rental and weren’t for sale… but if they were it would probably be for well over $100,000. The Sony CineAlta HDW950 can only capture at 1920×1080 and it is way on the other side of $100,000 when it is ready to use.
I figured that Red would try and sell the Red One for under a $100,000 but that it would still be way out of my price range. I went back to looking at the Panasonic.
Then Jim said he would sell the Red One body for $17,500!
Okay, that is all well and good but a cine lens can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars so it is still out off… what’s that, they will make adaptors to use the relatively inexpensive lenses in the 35mm still camera line from Canon and Nikon? And Red will make their own line of cine lenses that will be far lower priced than the Cooke or Zeiss Ultra Prime cine lenses?
With formatting options unmatched, they would also allow you to window down on the sensor and only use the center so that you can use 16mm lenses and get 2k footage, 1080p HD or 720p HD… from 1 frame per second on up to 120 frames per second.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I got the vibe that Jannard and the rest of the Red team were earnest and genuine in what they wanted to do but they were talking about coming in to a new field and doing something that the established players insist is years away yet… and that more than one film snob is saying couldn’t be done.
And then Mike Curtis, a guy who writes it as he sees it, had a chance to see some of the footage off of the very first working sensor and he was very impressed. So impressed that at least one of the other camera companies he works with took exception to the laudatory nature of his post.
With them showing footage at IBC 2006, this really seems to show that they are on target and that it just might come about.
The upshot of it is that I now have a rather spiffy hunk of milled titanium sitting on my desk signifying that I’ve put $1000 in Jim Jannard’s hands and am now standing 351st in line to get a Red One digital cinema camera. As well, I’ve sent in the form to lay $750 dollars towards a $9,500 18-85mm f2.8 cine lens. If you add in the cost of storage which would be $2000 to start off with… and then there is a follow focus and matte box… and a rail system to support it… were looking at somewhere just on the up side of $30,000 US to get it ready to go. Sure that is more than close to three times as expensive as a similarly kitted Panasonic AG-HVX200 but seeing as how it is an order of magnitude better I’m going to see if my budget can stretch to it.

my-titanium-r-2-580

Software – Celtx, Open Source Screenwriting Software

I’ve kept an eye out for open source software for script writing and while there have been a few half hearted attempts at it, nothing has been good enough to make it past the cursory look. Now I’ve stumbled across celtx. Still beta at version 0.8.4, it looked pretty decent so I figured that I would give it a try.

celtx_new

It was a relatively small download at 8.6 MB and it installed without a hitch. I fired it up and resized the window for the first screen cap. I then went to size the window back where it was and the bottom right corner of the window started playing keep away. Whenever the curser hovered over the resize hash on the bottom corner the window would resize away from it.
Not a good sign when the first thing you do shows up a bug.
Oh well, it is a point eight and I don’t expect it to be bug free. So I resized by grabbing the side bars and then clicked on Create a New Project. This changed the window to a clean three pane layout with grayed out text in the larger pane saying Click here to create a slug line. It didn’t ask for a name or anything so I guessed that came with the first save.
Now, I believe that to test a program you really have to use it. So I am going to write “The Club” using this software. It is chancy, and it will be a pain if I have to abandon celtx and convert it into Final Draft format – but that is the nature of testing… especially beta software. Hell, have I mentioned that texo.ca is built on a beta service? I like to live dangerously no?
I also eschew the documentation at first as well. Something as straight forward as a word processor, even a specialized one, shouldn’t need a document reading to get started.
Anyway, I clicked on the Click Here and wrote out the first slugline. Once I hit enter, the slugline showed up in the left upper pane under the “Resources” heading and the cursor dropped down and into the action field. It won’t take long for the resources pane to fill up but it looks like it will be a nice feature as long as the most used resources bubble to the top and they implement auto complete for character names and sluglines… you get used to that in Final Draft.

celtx_page_one

It is a simple and straight forward process to move through the elements. Hitting enter from a Slugline element gets you to the Action element. Hitting enter from an Action element gets you to the Character element where you can enter the speakers name and hit enter to get to the Dialogue element – or hit TAB to get pushed back to an Action element. Hitting enter from the Dialogue element moves you into another Character element.
Parentheticals are a little tricky to put in there but since they aren’t really liked by a lot of readers, maybe that isn’t a bad thing.
I wrote out the first page and then saved. Hmmm? It didn’t ask for a name for the project so I’m left unsure if it actually saved or where it saved to. To be on the safe side I selected File–Export. This gave the one and only option of HTML but it is something… even if it produces about 60 lines of styles. Not as bad as MS Word but still not all that clean.
I selected File–Close to close the project and that quit the program despite there being a Quit on the list as well. I think that the Close is for the project but the program just got carried away and shut everything down. I started it back up to see what had become of my project and celtx now had the option of opening an (untitled) project and that was The Club. But how do I name the project? I can’t see it anywhere and so open the Help file. Hmmm, online help only eh?
It turns out that naming the project is down a level inside File–Properties where the only properties to set are Name and Description. It would make more sense to me if this popped up when you create a new project or at least when you go to save.

celtx_properties

So far, the writing aspect of it seems to be a little behind the dedicated commercial programs but a big step ahead of the MS Word + macros option. I had been thinking of writing a set of macros for Open Office but they would have been no better than those for MS Word and so this already seems like a better option than that. If a programmer where to get into the Open Office source and code in the functionality of Final Draft there would be a challenge but from what I see so far, it looks like we finally have a viable free script writing program.
And I haven’t even delved into the collaboration and production aspects of celtx yet. Despite the teething problems that come with the beta territory, this looks very promising. And for those with a patriotic bent, it is a Canadian outfit that is creating this. Good going guys.

StoryView 2.0

There are those writers who feel that writing isn’t something that you should plan, plot or structure. You can generally call these writers “unpublished” or “unreadable”. Few (by which I mean very few) people can pull that off but generally it tends towards a rambling and unfocused piece of… work. Now if that is what you are aiming for, then StoryView isn’t for you.

StoryView is a visual outliner that uses a timeline format combined with a user customizable “events”. The timeline can be page, line, frame or traditional time constructs like minute or week. Structured under these are events that can be set to anything from two line stanzas to the full 300 episode series of a television drama.

As an example, here is a StoryView document that I’m working on for a prospective television series called Brave New World disOrder.

storyview_screenshot

The timeline is in minutes since network television is very structured around the commercials. Even if you get a gig with HBO, they want to sell the show to the networks so it would be easier to structure it this way and simply drop in the commercials later rather than try to find breaks after the fact.

The top event in dark grey is the Episode event and there can be as many of those across as you want. In here I would write out exactly what I wanted to happen in this episode. What happens in the A and B story and if there will be a C story or not. (If things get that far, I can add another event above it for Seasons, enclosing six, thirteen or twenty-four Episode events underneath it.)

Nested underneath the Episode event are the Acts events, shown in light grey. Each show is slightly different but they all have a particular act structure. Mine is a half hour sitcom with a 1:30 teaser, two 9:30 acts and a 1:30 tag on the end. In here, I write exactly what needs to happen in the act.

The light green events underneath the Act events are the individual Scene events. While the Act events would be kept relatively rigid, the Scene events are as fluid and malleable as I want them to be. The Teaser and Tag have only one Scene event sitting in there right now but I could slam through nine scenes in that minute and a half if it was called for. The Scene events can be simple outlines of what needs to happen in the scene or it can have the scene written right out in full script format.

If I wanted to go all obsessive on it, I can have Character Arc events that run out over seasons, Story Arc events that run over multiple episodes or break each Scene event down into Beats events that could encompass only three seconds of the timeline.

You can be as loose and flowing or as tight and regimented as you desire with this. I feel that it is an invaluable tool that allows me to start with the big picture and keep tunneling down until I feel that the show, feature or novel is clear enough and well enough thought out that I won’t write myself into any dead ends.

Then I start to write.

After a script formatting word processor like Final Draft or MM Screenwriter, the next piece of writing software I would buy is StoryView. The only thing that keeps it from getting a 10 from me is that it is more complex than I think it needs to be and as such has a bit of a learning curve.

StoryView 2.0 gets a 9

PSPCasting

Podcasting has become a serious distribution arena for radio style shows. What we have with the Sony PSP is a device that can take that to the next level with video. Sony originally expected to sell about 800,000 units per month but after only a few days of phenominal sales, they have upped production to 2,000,000 units per month.

Two freakin’ million. Every month. Even if they don’t get close to that… maybe they barely top a million per month, that is still a lot of devices. Polishing the old crystal ball tells me that there will be 19,379,412 PSPs sold by 10:31 AM, March 27th of 2006.(damn thing still refuses to give me lottery tickets, stock tips or winning horses though)

I’m thinking that a free pilot and then $1 per 20 minute episode or $15 to subscribe to a 20 episode season is a work able b-plan. Give it a few years and we have a lot of potential viewers and while there are ten year old and fifty year old gamers bracketing the core, that core is still the advertiser coveted 18-34 males who have fled television of late.

While intrusive commercials would work, it would make more sense to use sponsership and product placement. The advertising industry has to grok that viewing habits are changing and trying to force your audience to watch old school commercials is a lose lose proposition. They fear anything other than stone age broadcasting and are throwing lawyers at anyone who tries to move into the bronze age of PVRs and filesharing.

Advertisers have to look at integrating their ad into the show in a nonintrusive way. With that done, it shouldn’t bother them that the files are shared.

Now all we need are the tools for setting up a virtual television network.

The Sennheiser ME 66 Shotgun Microphone

The Sennheiser ME 66 microphone was chosen with the criteria of a camera mic only. It has acceptable sensitivity in a relatively narrow field – a good shotgun mic. That is all well and fine, it is a very good microphone for that purpose… but if I was going to do much vocal recording, I’d add the MKE 44P. It’s about $1100 versus $700 for the ME 66 but the stereo capabilities would be very nice.
The ME 66 is good sturdy stuff that does a job that is acceptable for feature film work, so I’ll press it into double duty and shouldn’t really be complaining about short comings that are really advantages for its primary function. The short of it, get the ME 66 and you won’t be (overly) disappointed when you ask it to work outside of its field of expertise as I am on the radio project.
Remember folks, this is all about getting acceptable equipment and then asking it to work a little bit harder than it was designed to.
Here is a good review of the Panasonic AG-DVX100P that has a passing endorsement of the ME 66 while extolling the virtues of this sweet camera.

On the Panasonic AG-DVX100P

We are talking about aspirations exceeding grasps here folks. I want to be doing things that the big dogs are doing but I want to do them on little puppy budget. If I had my druthers I would be buying Panasonic’s sweet AJ-HDC27 VariCam. But I don’t have $63,000 US to spare… that would work out to around $100,000 Canadian by the time you’ve added in the taxes!
Nope, my means are much meaner than that. And that is were the AG-DVX100P comes in. It is as close to a film camera as you can get right now with standard DV. There are some film snobs that will want to lynch me for this but I say that it will beat out an 8mm film production. It won’t take out 16mm film but it will be a LOT less expensive to work with and if the end result is going to be television then it will be so close that only the aforementioned film snobs will note it. If the scene is lit well and the results don’t go anywhere but to NTSC television sets then this will look as professional as I need for now (I could wish for more but as a wise man once said – “And if wishes were horses we’d all be eatin’ steak”).
There are a few reasons for this camera specifically, one of them is that it will record in twenty-four frames per second. This is the same rate as 35mm feature films are projected at and what is converted to show on television. Television normally works at quasi thirty frames per second. But it then takes one frame and creates two frames, the first with the even lines and the second with the odd, then flicks through this showing what is in essence thirty frames stretched out to sixty. (this is a simplification so don’t be emailing me with “it’s actually 29.97 and 59.94 you twit”). The short of it is that twenty-four frames per second is visually what we are used to associating with film.
This brings us to another tasty tidbit about the AG-DVX100P – it records the images progressively. Instead of breaking them into even and odd lines, it records all the lines together on the single frame. It is much cleaner.
Leaving aside more specifics on the how, I’ll look at the why. It looks more like film than any other DV camcorder. For $5900 Canadian, I’ve gotten a camera that will produce a great image while teaching me technique and handling that will carry over to when I pick up the High Definition 24P camera and run with the big dogs.
The Sony PD150 and the Canon XL1s are both fine cameras but they weren’t in the running. Over the next year or so there will be the first of the sub $10,000 High Definition cameras released… but for now this is the one and only, accept no substitutes, workin’ man’s movie camera.