This is so true. Without someone there to remind you to stay focused on the entire project you can get focused on little details of perfectionism. You can only sustain that for so long though and you have to decide if you want a "perfect" unfinished film or an "imperfect" completed film.
Looking back, I now understand that my first attempt at a feature "failed" (it was salvaged into a short) because of my perfectionism. I was so picky about all the details and I didn't keep the larger picture in view and I just burnt out with the whole project.
I wish now that I had just been more sloppy with it. Just got things done. People are very forgiving of flaws in your first feature if it works well on other levels.If the story is good or it shows them something they had never seen.
In fact nowadays flaws can be looked at as a look. Recently I showed my that film I mentioned to someone and he asked me what plug in I had used to get that "great bad 16mm look" and I said "bad 16mm".
Thank you. This helps me a lot.
Does anyone know if it matters if you use ProRes 422 instead of ProRes HQ for keying?
My capture device seems to have problems with ProRes HQ capturing and I've been using ProRes 422 instead. I can't see a difference myself but maybe there is one. (The camera I feed into it is 4:2:0.)
I love that one with the rug being pulled away. It's funny. The best experimental films tend to be strange comedies.
One thing that I notice is an oversight on IMDb is that "Experimental" is not in their list of genres.
I'm of two minds. One is that with so much automated, what sort of work will be left for anyone to do? Are we all to be unemployed while machines do things for business people who are desperately looking for a market?
On another topic, I predict that someday an editor will replicate the look of an automated edit but mess with it. Much like in the '90s when professionals started making things look like amateur-shot home movies.