I'd like to know the bitrate too. I'd love to get a Mavic but that low bitrate, man... Why can't someone just gives us 100mbps 4K in a drone like this? I don't think that is THAT much to ask for.

The main reason I'm making a cinematography reel is because I don't really see a ton of opportunity in my region for me to get hired onto a production as a writer or director (and, frankly, I wouldn't really want to be hired onto someone else's idea/script as a writer/director). I do think that there is a fair bit of opportunity for me to get hired onto other peoples' short films, commercials, and modestly budgeted features as a DP, though.

And it's not like I'm disinterested in DPing and editing. I do all the sound design on my projects, but I kind of hate doing that, so as soon as I can afford to that's the first thing I'll hand off to someone else. But I love cinematography and editing and I feel like a lot of directorial decisions are made in both disciplines, so as long as I can continue doing them myself I will. My big goal for the next year or two is to secure a low-six-figure budget for my next feature, and I'll definitely continue to DP and edit on that film. Keeping a lean crew is one of the ways I'll be able to get the most bang for my buck and shoot the film in 60+ days instead instead of 14 or less like most films of that budget.

I do kind of agree with Soderbergh on not just having your name all over the place, but to me that's an argument for taking something along the lines of the "Written, directed, and photographed by..." credit that Jeremy Saulnier took on Blue Ruin, not for using aliases or abstaining from credit.

So since this thread is still going, I should probably post the link to the updated reel. I realized that the clips from one of the projects featured in the original never got converted to the sRGB color space so they were displaying far too dark on YouTube. This version fixes that and makes another small change or two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZjgj2Xnh88

Haha, you can say that again...

"Kind of makes it seem like you didn't have the budget to hire the right people, or know enough people to pull it off."

That's exactly the case, though, and I genuinely don't get the running theme in this thread that I should pretend otherwise. The most expensive project featured in this reel is a feature-length adaptation of Pilgrim's Progress that I made for my church on a budget of about $2,500, which basically just paid for gas and food for people. Everything else cost a couple hundred bucks or less and was paid for out of my own pocket. If someone enjoys one of my films then gets to the credits and realizes that it basically had no crew or budget, they'll probably be more impressed. And if they don't enjoy the film but get to the end and realize that it had no crew or budget, they'll probably cut it some slack. Either way, I fail to see how being upfront about the hats I wear reflects on me in anything but a positive light.

Agreed. I think digitally de-aging an actor is an extremely effective tool when used judiciously. Marvel has it nailed. I thought the de-aging in movies like Ant-Man, Civil War, and Guardians of the Galaxy 2 were fantastic and very nearly seamless. They didn't pull me out of the film at all. I would have found a random younger actor not instantly recognizable as the character they're supposed to be to be a MUCH more distracting addition. I thought the Star Wars efforts weren't nearly as good, but Rachel looked great in Blade Runner 2049. This article is silly.