What I'm about to say is in no way meant as a criticism to the filmmakers of both films (actually 3, see the C300 example too https://vimeo.com/36512776). I really appreciate that they made these experiments and showed us their results.
I learned through their efforts that shooting with only moonlight ends up looking like bad day for night. I suppose we could almost call this night for day now. It generally looks flat, dull, and pretty lifeless. Again, this is not a criticism of the filmmakers - I appreciate that they did this and helped me understand how much more aesthetically-pleasing a skillfully-lit nighttime scene looks.
This could have its uses in some unique scenarios (docs, brief special scenes like dream sequences, etc), but after seeing this I would generally stick to lighting a night scene.
It's early days yet. Wait until NAB is over to see what else comes out.
Lame. The Sony RX10 has a constant f2.8 aperture 24-200 (equivalent) zoom with declicked and stepless aperture ring. For $1000. The only major thing it doesn't have is 4k, but I hope Sony will announce an RX20 to rectify that soon.
I haven't watched the short yet, but from a quick glance and noticing that the director is represented by CAA, and that they used a commercial spaceship set and CG effects, I'm guessing that the "limited budget" may have been at least in the six figures. Unless they pulled a lot of favors, in which case they may have found a way to pull it off in the five figures. At this level, however, don't expect them to reveal their actual budget.
Great post/interview! I hadn't heard about this movie yet, but will be looking for it.
I have a couple of tips that I learned through experience, one that they seem to have missed themselves:
1. Don't shoot the sky - avoid showing the sky itself, because it will give away that it is daylight unless you do some post-processing.
2. Avoid whites in the actors' wardrobes! It shows way too bright on a day for night shot, especially if it catches any direct sunlight.