Really uncool Bait & Switch article. It starts out long windily stating the problem how to get the film out there, then you write: "I decided to opt for strategic self-distribution. The film was picked up by AMC Independent, promoted heavily, and released to theaters across six major cities."
Basically leave out any suggestion/tip what you actually did and then, AHA, here is the promotion: "This is where my book comes into play."
I'm not against promotion, but an advertising camouflaged as a real NoFilmSchool article and then not adding any bit of value for your reader to get an idea or a take away is a new thing that hopefully you guys (Ryan?) will stop. If you want to advertise be transparent, or make a useful article for your reader and THEN sell them something at the end of the article. But Bait & Switch is like the good ol' Frank Kern days in the 2000s.
Wow, one of the best articles on this topic. This is exactly how we have built our production company. And most advise out there ignores most of it what you raised here. Really well done. Thank you for creating this post.
Great article. I use the Lectrosonics and a Sennheiser EW100 set and Lectrosonics outperforms Senneheiser by a long shot. Don’t forget that choosing the right lav mic is equally important. I found this lav mic test that goes through the most regarded and used lav microphones for wireless systems.https://youtu.be/rIttDNuWcvk
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.