Toby, wow. What a great article. Thank you soooo much.
Now, conceptually it all makes sense. But the success or failure lies in the details. What did your emails, phone calls, in general your communication look like? Any principals, does & don'ts you can share? What words, language did you use? Is phone better than email? In person meetings? Maybe that is worth another article?
I think the article is too enthusiastic about this wireless technology. If you just move a few feet away the images starts to get choppy on the iPad or iPhone. Just a few more inch and you actually lose complete control. So, no its not for using it on a copter or in a car where there is additionally lots of interference.
The main thing between those aspect ratios is actually not where it will be screened. Because today many filmmakers and creatives don't screen it anywhere else than online. So why would we have different aspect ratios? The main reason is that different aspect ratios have different psychological perceptions and the type of film you are making. I. E. If you want a film being perceived as "more expensive" you shoot 2.35. The same is true for a more narrative story since we are used to the 2.35 storytelling format in movies for cinema. If I produce a fashion advertising hence more expensive I'll use 2.35 as well. Now, if I produce a regular commercial or promo or TV narrative/soap 2.35 doesn't make so much sense here. Most people go for 16:9. Again: the wider you do your aspect the more it's perceived as expensive/glossy/cinematic. The narrower it's perceives as normal/functional/cheaper.
I have two points that might eliminate all of your 10.
1. Most people go heavily into debt, often tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. The ratio between debt and income are out of line for most people. On a side note, no student should ever go into debt for a degree. Period. There are always alternatives, unless you truly have the cash to spend. That leads me to point 2.
2. Once out of school you start from the bottom anyway, a director major doesn't start working as a director. With a degree or not most people start from scratch when they enter the industry. In the meantime you spent 4 years, tens of thousands of dollars, slept with numerous bodies and bamboozled your brain with substances instead of using your time as wisely as if you would have given only 9 more months to live.
Here is my alternative. I call it paid film school. Skip school and start in the industry. Build your network there, play with the toys that clients will pay for and stop procrastinating. School is usually a bunch of procrastinators and professors who are failed filmmakers.
Btw. when we hire often the worse candidates come from film school. Not only do they think that they are somebody already but more so their work ethics is slightly out of line and needs to be reshaped. We usually hire people coming in from the side lines.
I've shot events myself and I think shooting events is not really good for an aspiring filmmaker since the budgets for those type of projects are really minimal and you have to do a LOT of those to sustain yourself. Mind you you still want the time to do your own films, right? Shooting events is just a commodity and clients who need a shooter for their events often look for the cheapest alternative.
You might be better off to build a small side business in a super niche. For example you could specialize in the field of medical promos, or real estate advertising. Meaning to say choose a field where there is MONEY and build a clientele there. With this you can do 1-2 projects every 1-2 months that take no more then 2-3 weeks from start to finish and you can easily earn $10-20,000. That should give you enough cash to sustain yourself for a few months and work on your own projects.
Yeah, it's the real deal. I did it last year. No gear sale. Pure lessons. Helped me greatly as a DP. And it's a bargain. Imagine what you would pay if you would attend the presenters own class lessens i.e. Shane Hurlbut ones? Cost you beyond $300 to attend. Grab it.