- articleWhat prompt structures and pre-production steps reduce wasted AI video generations (concept, storyboard, timeline prompts, model choice, post)?
Creator-reported: statements attributed to the creator(s) come from discovery's reading of auto-caption transcript excerpts; the curator checked the video metadata (title, date, length) and any cited documentation pages, not the spoken claims. Nothing was tested; promotional or sponsored framing applies where stated. Dan Kieft (2026-05-27, Higgsfield-sponsored) names five mistakes: (1) prompting before thinking - first fix a concept (subject, action, environment, style incl. shot/lens/camera, audio) and a storyboard: he has Claude turn an idea plus a character sheet into a six-panel storyboard prompt, renders it as one image with GPT Image 2, then has Claude convert panels into a 15-second timeline prompt with time codes, one action per shot, and a character/style block at top; (2) blindly pasting long LLM prompts - an over-detailed prompt made the model skip actions and drift the product design; use references plus a structure; (3) use systems: simple (style + action + camera), "Se...
- articleHow can you build a whole AI short shot-by-shot locally with consistent characters and voices (LTX 2.3 + FLUX.2 Klein), and what licences apply?
Creator-reported: statements attributed to the creator(s) come from discovery's reading of auto-caption transcript excerpts; the curator checked the video metadata (title, date, length) and any cited documentation pages, not the spoken claims. Nothing was tested; promotional or sponsored framing applies where stated. Mickmumpitz (2026-05-04): per shot, FLUX.2 Klein generates a start frame from up to 4 references (character face close-up + slightly turned full-body image auto-merged into a sheet; environments/assets too), then LTX 2.3 generates video with audio; an "LTX ID" LoRA plus a voice sample keeps the character voice consistent; each shot group can reference previous shots and color-match the first shot; a shot duplicator and assembler build the edit, and swapping the reference images and voice sample re-casts the whole film without touching prompts (keep character description vague in prompts for this). Paid version adds a 360-degree environment and crop group for consistent ...
- articleHow do you build a local AI VFX shot pipeline with mask + driving video + control nets + reference images (Wan VACE/Phantom merge), and what fails?
Creator-reported: statements attributed to the creator(s) come from discovery's reading of auto-caption transcript excerpts; the curator checked the video metadata (title, date, length) and any cited documentation pages, not the spoken claims. Nothing was tested; promotional or sponsored framing applies where stated. Mickmumpitz (2026-03-30) uses a community merge of Wan 2.1 VACE (in/outpainting guided by depth, Canny edges, pose) with Phantom (up to four reference images for identity), published as Inner-Reflections/Wan2.1_VACE_Phantom. Building blocks: (1) black-and-white mask (only white is regenerated), (2) driving video = modified plate + control signal, (3) reference images (one = start frame; more = style freedom), (4) detailed prompt (LLM-"proofed" but without camera description). Controls: tracking markers drawn as white squares let the model reproduce camera motion; Canny keeps exact detail, depth allows more new detail; OpenPose plus a back-view reference kept a creature ...
- articleDoes any openly readable shot list, camera/blocking breakdown or continuity form carry viewpoint, eyeline/look direction or screen direction as an explicit field, and if not, which existing field should carry them in a camera/blocking handoff?
Negative result with scope: of seven shot-list or continuity templates read (SetHero shot list, Filmsourcing advanced shot list and log, Studiovity guide, the FSU handbook camera log, a textbook-companion log and a form headed School of Filmmaking), none has a dedicated look-direction, eyeline, screen-direction or intended-attention field. Viewpoint appears only as the value 'POV' of an Angle field or abbreviation; blocking and intended attention are left to free-text Description, Notes or Scene Notes. The only explicit Screen direction and eyeline fields found are on a vendor-described facing page (candidate -01). Proposal (synthesis, not a documented template): add Viewpoint owner, Look direction, Screen direction and Intended attention fields to each shot-list row, keeping Angle = POV for optical viewpoint.
- articleHow do directors and cinematographers in guild/society publications say they decide blocking and coverage - rehearse first, plan on paper, or neither - and with what scene-level examples?
Partially verified: the curator re-read S22, S23, S24, S25; S27, S28 were not re-read by the curator and rest on the producer's pinned reading. Four first-person accounts show different orders of work: Mendes rehearses one to two weeks and then plans each day with his cinematographer and first AD; Nolan avoids shot lists and storyboards (except action) and keeps coverage in his head; Roach had dolly track laid before blocking was right on a first day and pulled it; The Studio's crew found coverage on set during rehearsal. Individual methods, not a common rule.
- articleCan I estimate a film's running time from its screenplay page count (one page = one minute)?
Follows (2026-03-30) reports, from his own dataset of 2,520 US Letter feature scripts vs IMDb runtimes, an average of about 55 seconds per page and 18.2% of scripts within 5% of one page per minute; A4 subset 1.02. These are the author's reported analysis (third-party reported_execution), not observed by curator. Final Draft (2026-07-13) presents the rule as a useful estimate (95-110 minutes for 100 pages); the vendor-vs-data tension (aggregate usefulness vs per-script accuracy) is preserved as offered. Curator addition: the same article also reports about 54 seconds per page of story after credits and 22% in range in its 2018 version.
- article1916 practice plus a proposal: what check can an agent run to decide whether a scene needs a close-up and how to write it, using Sargent's rules?
Agent check, labelled 1916 practice plus a proposal. Eight steps from Sargent (Ch. XXXVIII): (1) try to alter the action so players come forward; (2) else stage a new position; (3) name the job of the close-up; (4) pair it with a return to the big scene; (5) choose cut-back for contrast or close-up to hold interest; (6) stop when the effect is got; (7) write it as a separate numbered scene without camera bearings; (8) give every cut a reason. The order and combination are mine; Sargent supplies each rule but no test, and states no number. A related check for intertitles and inserts is C3-B289-S96-08.
- articleHow does Sargent (1916, Ch. XXXVIII) say to write a close-up in a script: numbering, wording, what to leave to the director, and what about a moving (truck) close-up?
1916 practice: a close-up is its own numbered scene because the action and the turning of the camera stop while the camera is brought to the new position. The entry reads 'Close-up of [subject] -- action -- action', often alternating with 'Big scene' entries that name the wide action again. The writer asks for the close-up but does not say where the camera stands ('no compass bearings'): the director sees the actual scene and places it. A gradual-enlargement close-up on a camera truck is rare and mostly trick work, so write the straight close-up and let the director substitute the truck.
- articleIn a narrative 360-degree video, do on-screen guidance cues (arrow, radar, automatic reframing) send viewers to the main scene and help them follow the story, according to an independent open-access head-tracking study?
Ortega-Alvarez, Matheus-Chacin, Garcia-Crespo and Ruiz-Arroyo (Multimedia Tools and Applications, CC BY, published 8 June 2022; version of record read) tested three non-diegetic visual cues in a 4-minute staged 360 story with 52 adults (13 per group, between subjects, head orientation logged every 0.1 s, no eye tracking). All three cues moved the head toward the main scene more than no cue (Tukey p<0.001), but only the Radar (+1.85 of 8 points, p=0.027) and the Auto Focus reframing (+2.31, p=0.004) improved a story-comprehension score; the Arrow did not (p=0.623). Auto Focus was the least accepted cue. This corroborates the earlier batch (C3-B204-UO-AS04) that forced rotation is disliked and that cue effects depend on cue design, and it adds a comprehension measure that candidates 03 and 04 of that batch lack. It cannot corroborate the diegetic-cue findings (sound, moving light) because only non-diegetic overlays were tested. Small groups, one staged scene, a phone-based HMD (VR BOX...
- articleI am new to script-supervisor paperwork: which of its forms is supposed to hold screen direction and eyelines, and do the downloadable blank forms actually have those fields?
One 2026-07-22 vendor page describes four script-supervisor documents and puts 'Screen direction' and an 'Eyeline diagram' on the facing page (the sheet kept opposite the script page), while the continuity log, lined script and daily progress report are described without such fields. The blank downloadable logs inspected here (a textbook companion form, a Filmsourcing sheet, a copy linked from a blog that says continuity logs track 'eyelines') have no eyeline or screen-direction field at all, so on these forms the fields live in the facing page, which no inspected blank file provided. Evidence is a vendor's description plus blank-form inspection; no studio, guild or film-school facing-page form was obtained.
- articleIs there a peer-reviewed study of AI-generated 3D environments for previs with filmmaking professionals, and what does its abstract say was assessed?
Leininger, Weber and Rothe (IMX 2025, pp. 60-78) report a pilot study with 15 filmmaking professionals comparing three AI-generated 3D environment types (Depth Mesh, 360 degree Panoramic Meshes, Gaussian Splatting) in an Unreal Engine 5 prototype called EnVisualAIzer. The abstract says splats suited high-fidelity previsualisation and panoramic meshes suited rapid ideation, and names limited interactivity and customisation. The abstract states no time saving. Only the abstract (via an index record) was read; the full text could not be read within the rules.
- articleWhich dated, attributable shoots or prototypes used an AI-generated 3D world or scene, and for each one what number does the source actually state and who stated it?
Seven jobs were read first-hand (pages fetched as raw bytes). Six state a quantity, but every quantity is a company or named-person statement with no described measurement method: over ten environments in one afternoon (Moonshine/VIVE), hundreds of worlds over a few weeks and weeks-to-days (Pixomondo/World Labs launch video), months to about an hour (Veles/Volinga), 15 set-ups over five days (Quite Brilliant, image-based backgrounds, not 3D worlds), ten environments (Promise, Final Twist; no time figure), under an hour for a prototype (one VIVERSE developer). Gaussian Mansion states no number. No source gives a baseline that was actually run, a version, or a quality rating.
- articleAGENT CHECK (1916 practice and a proposal): what checklist can an agent run on a scene list and its set grouping using only what Sargent's Chapter XXX states, and how might that map to a present-day shot list or set breakdown?
[1916 practice] Sargent's Chapter XXX supports seven checks: each scene is labelled interior or exterior; each set is listed once with all its scene numbers; close-ups sit under their set as separate numbers; no set exists for a single scene if an existing set would do; interior sets stay within six in the first reel and four more per added reel (advisory); essentials, and only essentials, are flagged in a scene line; a return to an earlier set is written 'Back to N' and a changed set is noted. His own caution: counting shows only that every number is present, not that it sits under the right set. [Proposal, not Sargent] A present-day shot list or set breakdown could be checked the same way by grouping shot or scene ids under sets and testing coverage, single use and state changes; no source in this batch documents present-day practice or AI use.
- articleWhen does Sargent (1916, Ch. XXX) say to combine or split scenes and sets, and what does the chapter leave to the next chapter?
1916 practice (Sargent): Chapter XXX gives no numeric rule for merging or splitting scenes. What it does say: reuse an existing set instead of adding one for a single scene, but do not force the action into an unsuitable room; a character's walk out of a house can be one panning scene or two scenes, and he judges two cleaner because many companies restrict panning; a cut-away that interrupts continuous action gets its own scene number but is played as one scene and cut up; a bust or close-up is listed as its own number under its set; a set that has changed gets a new reference. The definition of the action scene is in Chapter XXXI.
- articlePROPOSAL (1916 practice as the basis): what would an agent-readable scene record look like that keeps Sargent's numbering distinctions, and what checks can an agent run on a numbered script?
PROPOSAL, labelled as such: the 1916 rules in candidates -01 to -03 can be turned into a scene record (id, order number, set with as-in reference, present-tense action lines, leaders and inserts attached to a scene rather than numbered) and a checker for them. The schema is the writer's design; only the rules it encodes are Sargent's claims. Present-day scene-numbering conventions were not read, so the mapping is untested.
- articleHow did Sargent (1916) say scenes are numbered, and how are inserts, leaders, busts, dissolves and returns to a set counted or marked in the numbered script?
Sargent says scenes are numbered consecutively from one, through all reels of a multi-reel play, but each serial part restarts at one. A camera stop, bust or close-up, or dissolve boundary takes a new number; cut-in leaders and inserts do not interrupt a scene. In his examples a cut-in leader is marked inline (the word Cut-in and quoted words) inside the numbered scene, and a return to a set is written "as in No. N". In Ch. XXXI-XXXII he gives no separate number for a leader or insert (bounded to the passages read).
- articleWhich script choices does Sargent (1916, Ch. III-V) say make a story cheaper or harder to produce, and how might that map, as a labelled proposal, to budget-aware writing or previs today?
Sargent's Ch. III-V cost levers, in his words: locations usually cost less than building sets; a place with a specific look is cheaper to travel to than to fake, for large productions; directors avoid crowded city streets; real interiors need a costly lighting setup; and the director's taste for exteriors, interiors or trick effects decides whether a script is taken. Grouping by set or location regardless of script order is his description of shooting. The mapping to today's previs or budget tagging is a proposal that has not been tested.
- articleWhat does the director decide or change from a 1916 script (Sargent, Ch. V), and which script traits does he say decide whether a director takes it?
Sargent describes the director as the studio's autocrat who may pick his own stories, so exteriors, interiors and trick effects are matters of his taste, and a good story can be returned for that reason. He says few directors work from the script as written, the assistant prepares property and scene plots, all scenes in a set or location are shot together regardless of script order, and the assistant logs the action as played. These are claims about 1916 US studio habit.
- articleAccording to Sargent (1916, Ch. IV), when does a scene go to a real location instead of a built studio set, and what does he say about location cost?
Sargent says the choice between a studio-built exterior and a real location is the director's, made on cost: build when a set is cheaper, move the company when the story needs a convincing distant place (his example: Cuba), and locations usually cost less to hire than the inside sets cost to erect. Crowded city streets are what directors avoid. His one cost range is 'a cigar to several hundred dollars' for a location, without year or unit.
- articleAccording to Sargent (1916, Ch. III), what physical limits of the studio stage and built sets should a photoplay writer write within?
Sargent says the studio stage is narrow for practical purposes (about six feet wide, four to six deep), interiors are built from light flats and usually show only two sides of a room, and a set is struck once its scenes are shot. He tells the writer that real interiors lit by portable lamps widen the available scenes but carry a costly lighting installation to be counted. These are 1916 US studio claims by a trade-paper editor, not measurements.
- articlePROPOSAL (1914 practice as the basis): what steps could an agent follow to flag a script's production cost drivers from its text, using only what Phillips (1914) names?
Agent check, labelled 1914 practice plus a proposal: from Phillips's chapter an agent can build a driver table, not a price. Drivers named in the chapter: supers and principals, interior sets, props, costumes, difficult scenes, exterior locations (foreign ones in particular), night exteriors and effects, colour-dependent points, child roles, animals, period or military costume, and caption/insert length at 15 and 20 words. Phillips gives workarounds for foreign, night, lightning and colour but only 'do not send' for animals, children and period dress. The table is the proposal; no source tests it, and the chapter gives no dollar figures.
- articleGiven a short-film scene plan, how can an agent check it against the 1914 rules in Phillips's 'Rules of the Game', keeping what is 1914 practice separate from what is the worker's proposal?
A nine-step advisory check (proposal) that applies Phillips's stated 1914 rules to a scene plan: count camera setups against 25 to 50 per reel and 75 to 200 an hour; weight durations by bearing on the climax; flag scenes over two to three minutes without dialog; flag told-not-shown events, stories within stories and backward turns; check present tense and time lapses; audit exits and entrances; check identity and reflective links. The rules are labelled 1914 practice; the runtime scaling, the unit mapping, the severity and the report format are labelled proposal. Phillips supplies no checklist and says rules should not lead you by the nose.
- articleIs there a primary source (a named previs supervisor, studio or published study) giving a proportion of previs that is used versus discarded?
No proportion was found in the sources actually read. The one pinned primary statement is a qualitative one from a named Third Floor previs editor (Ian Differ, ProVideo Coalition interview, 11 August 2018): sometimes previs work ends up in the film and sometimes it does not. A '99 percent' figure in the same interview is about where handheld camera shake comes from, not retention, and should not be cited as a discard rate. The negative is scoped to the pages read plus web-search leads that were not fetched.
- articleWhat did a microbudget director say happens when you plan to shoot minimal coverage and post-production later demands changes to a scene shot as one take?
In a first-person MovieMaker piece (published 8 December 2014, updated 31 January 2023), director William Dickerson says he does not shoot coverage for its own sake. On Don't Look Back (14-day shoot) a scene he shot as one continuous POV take drew a producer demand in post to halve its length, jump time and adjust performance, which a oner cannot support; he reports solving it by reframing the shot as looking through a 3D camera's viewfinder so cuts could be motivated. It is one director's self-report and does not show how common the problem is.
- articleHow does a working director of a low-VFX thriller say large storyboards are used on set, and what does the guild report he said about discarding them?
A Directors Guild of America event page (12 September 2022) reports Zach Cregger saying on Barbarian that the team put huge storyboards up on set and shot to them, and that a director must be ready to throw all of that out when an actor has an idea. The page is a guild summary of a Q&A, not a transcript, so the quote is a reported claim; it says nothing about how often boards were abandoned or about budget.
- articleOn a low-budget feature, what do the people who made it say actually happened to the storyboards, scene coverage and lens plan once time and location problems hit on the shoot?
American Cinematographer's March 1998 article on the low-budget feature Shopping for Fangs (co-directors Quentin Lee and Justin Lin, cinematographer Lisa Wiegand) quotes Lin on three plan losses: a storyboard thrown away after a power outage, a scene cut by a third after a late start, and longer lenses dropped for lack of time. Lin also says boards helped him find the essence of each scene so he was prepared when a crisis occurred. This is one reported production from 1997-98 shot on film, with no measurement of how much of the plan was lost.
- articleHow can I plan coverage from a scene's beats, deciding which beat gets a wide, medium, single or close-up, and what do sources say about the cost of that choice?
No inspected OER gives a beat-to-shot-size rule. Three sources give partial, checkable rules: Leake et al. (2017) encode four dialogue-editing idioms (start wide; keep the speaker visible; reserve close-ups for strongly emotional lines; emphasize the character reacting when the other has a short line); Esenwein & Leeds (1919 revised edition) show scenes 42-50, where single-character close-ups isolate expression between returns to the wide view of the room; and Reich/Wikibooks tie medium shots to conversation and close-ups to emotional peaks. Tradeoffs are documented only qualitatively (shooting efficiency; floor conditions; running whole-scene takes).
- articleDo the BFI page-length and content statements agree with Screen Australia's ranges for outline, treatment, scriptment and mini-bible, and which other agencies could not be checked?
Comparison of the BFI statements (this batch) with the Screen Australia ranges recorded in S53 (outline 3-10 FAQ / 4-12 guide, treatment 10-20, scriptment 20-50, mini-bible 5-15). BFI gives only a treatment figure: up to 10 pages (7-10 in delivery clauses) for a first-stage feature treatment, which sits at or below the low end of Screen Australia's 10-20. BFI gives no outline, scriptment or series-bible figures in the text read. Only one further agency (BFI, two pages) was obtained; Screen Ireland, Screen Scotland, Telefilm/CMF, Creative Europe, BBC Writersroom, WGGB and WGA are not covered.
- articleWhere does a treatment sit in a funder's development sequence, and what does the BFI say it is for and when it is too late to fund one?
BFI frames the treatment as the first funded stage, before the screenplay: the Early Development Fund wants fully formed ideas without a full-length treatment, excludes projects that already have a completed treatment or draft, and says the point is a sufficiently developed initial idea to pitch to producers or financiers. The producer-led BFI development fund costs 'treatment, first draft and revisions' as stage one and second draft as stage two. Script-stage work and a script editor are not supported at the treatment stage.
- articleFor a first feature treatment, how long does the BFI say it should be and what must it include?
For the BFI NETWORK England Early Development Fund (writers without a producer, fiction feature or long-form immersive, live action or animation), the page defines stage one as funding a full treatment of story outline and structure, characters, themes and related materials such as mood boards, in up to ten pages; the delivery clauses say seven to ten pages. It is a funding requirement and deliverable, not general craft advice, and it applies to this England-based writer fund only.
- articleWhat story documents does the BFI ask for when a producer applies for National Lottery development funding, and does it say how long a treatment or synopsis must be?
At the pinned BFI development-funding page (observed 2026-10-22), the applicant attaches 'relevant project documents' that give a full and clearly articulated story, which may be a synopsis, treatment, visual deck or draft script, plus a story/synopsis in the form and a budget for one stage. The page names these documents but, in the text read, gives no page ranges, section list or failure modes for any of them. The BFI therefore leaves form to the applicant here, unlike Screen Australia's FAQ page budgets (S53).
- articleItem by item, which of Baker's 1919 scenario requirements and failure modes carry over to current Screen Australia guidance, which do not, and what checklist can an agent use to produce and self-check a treatment, outline or series pitch document?
This is a synthesis across Baker 1919 (cited only through C3-B194-S47-01..-03, not re-read) and Screen Australia's guide and FAQ. Shared ground: the short document is a problem-finding tool before drafting; events and actions rather than named effects; selection over completeness. Differences: Baker prescribes a persons-list-then-settings header and sets clearness before brevity for stage plays; the agency prescribes page ranges by document type, a series engine, and a funder's self-analysis of weaknesses. Not found in the agency texts read: Baker's withheld-key-fact failure by name, any scored test, any rule for referencing other works (the bible instead asks for antecedents or references). The checklist below is a PROPOSAL, untested.
- articleWhat must a TV series pitch document (development or pitch bible and series one-pager) contain, how long should it be, and how does it show the series has an episode engine?
Screen Australia's guide distinguishes a long, detailed production bible from a succinct development (pitch) bible of about 10-15 pages with nine areas: logline; one-page synopsis (1 page); genre, concept and themes (1); setting and storyworld (1-2); format (1); characters (1-2 paragraphs each); episode summaries (1-2 paragraphs each); look and feel (2 with images); creator's statement (1). The series proof is sustainability: the storyworld must be the engine, the format must show a repeatable episode shape, character entries must hint at trajectory, and a serial one-pager shows character narratives and escalating stakes rather than plot. The funder lists a mini-bible of 5-15 pages maximum as an acceptable story document. The guide states there are no hard rules.
- articleHow long is a story outline or step outline (scene-by-scene breakdown), what must it show, and what do the sources say it is used to check before drafting?
Screen Australia's guide separates the outline (generally 4-12 pages; motives, cause and effect, built around the dramatic question and escalations, revelations and reversals, selected rather than exhaustive) from the scene breakdown (a scene-by-scene prose outline, also called a step outline, from one-liner list to beat sheet with a short paragraph per scene). The scene breakdown is the document the guide says is used to check scene order, remove repetitions, red herrings, dead ends and superfluous scenes, decide point of view and timing of reveals, get script-editor approval in a writers' room, and prove readiness to draft in an application. The funder FAQ lists an outline of 3-10 pages as acceptable story document and requires a self-analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. Compared with Baker 1919 (S47-02/-03), both use the short document as the place to find structural problems before dialogue or drafting; Baker's reader questions and ordered revision have no counterpart order...
- articleWhat must a film treatment contain, how long is it, how should it be written, and what failure modes does a screen agency name?
Per Screen Australia's guide (July2018 header), a feature treatment is generally 10-20 pages (the funder FAQ, updated 2 July 2026, also lists 10-20 pages for a treatment story document). It narrates the plot in the order it unfolds in present tense, covers every key structural beat, makes the character's journey apparent, includes subplots and shows how they integrate, and conveys mood and tone, confining prose to what a viewer can see and hear and rarely stating context or subtext. The guide names one failure in terms: mechanical "explaining" reduces the reader's engrossment; it also warns that more complex plots invite more detail. Compared with Baker 1919 (C3-B194-S47-01..-03) the shared core is action told in order without naming effects; the persons list first and setting block that Baker prescribes are absent from the treatment guidance.
- articleWhich development document should I write for a feature, a serial drama, a self-contained series (sitcom) or an interactive project, and how long should it be?
Screen Australia's guide routes by format: features use one-pager, outline (4-12 pages) and treatment (10-20 pages); serial drama uses an outline and a bible with episode summaries and a one-pager that cannot hold plot detail; self-contained series (sitcom) skip the dedicated outline and use synopsis plus bible with episode summaries; interactive projects add the audience role to the one-pager. The funder's own requirement for development applications is a story document within stated page ranges (outline 3-10, treatment 10-20, scriptment 20-50, mini-bible 5-15 maximum, draft script up to 120), so the funder's number governs when writing for that funder.
- articleWhat are the standard short development documents for a screen story (logline, one-paragraph and one-page synopsis, outline, treatment, scriptment, bible, scene breakdown) and what is each one for?
Screen Australia's public info guide (header July2018, served 2026) defines eight document types and says the names are used loosely in the industry, so its definitions are one agency's usage. Each rung is a tool to find problems before drafting: logline (one specific dramatic problem), one-paragraph synopsis (genre/theme, opposition, goals/stakes, inciting incident), one-page synopsis, outline, treatment, scriptment, series bible, scene breakdown. For its development funding the agency requires a longer "story document" (outline, treatment, scriptment, mini-bible or draft script) and says a synopsis is not enough.
- articleWhat is actually measured about viewers missing events or fearing they will miss events (FOMO) in 360-degree film, and which statements are only claims or hypotheses?
In the open full texts read, FOMO and missed events are asserted or hypothesised, not measured: the 2019 review hypothesises that guidance reduces fear of missing something, the 2017 abstract reports that some viewers seemed afraid of missing something and cites a case study (Syrett et al.) of missed storyline, and two practitioner accounts treat missing detail on a first viewing as expected. The measured CHI 2021 study (Aitamurto et al., 'From FOMO to JOMO') could not be fetched (ACM and UIC copies blocked or JS-gated), so its reported findings (a search snippet: FOMO did not reduce presence and fell on second viewing) are leads only. The closest measured proxy in retrieved texts is that over a third of viewers did not follow the best cue in a 32-person study.
- articleWhich diegetic cues (sound, light, motion) were reported to change where 360-film viewers look, including targets outside the field of view, and how does the 2019 taxonomy organise cue choices?
Rothe, Hussmann and Allary's 2017 VRST extended abstract (head-direction heat maps from one within-subject viewing of a staged kitchen movie; participant number not given in this two-page report) reports that new sound and moving objects or lights changed viewing direction, static lights did not, and guiding at the start of a scene is hard. The 2019 Rothe-Buschek-Hussmann review (CC BY) organises guidance methods on seven dimensions (diegesis, senses, target, reference, directness, awareness, freedom) and offers use-case advice that is the authors' own proposal. The fuller 2018 AVR paper by the same group is already in the catalogue (cr-063 claims); this candidate adds the 2017 abstract and the 2019 taxonomy.
- articleDo a central arrow and a peripheral flicker differ in how well they send a 360-video viewer to a region of interest and in what the viewer remembers, in an eye-tracked HMD study?
Schmitz, MacQuarrie, Julier, Binetti and Steed (IEEE VR 2020; accepted manuscript read) tested a central arrow and a peripheral flicker with 25 adults (analysed n=24 for eye tracking and memory) in an eye-tracking HMD, guiding them to 14 regions of interest across two panoramic videos. 81.25% of cues were followed and neither cue type changed the number followed, time to reach and observe regions, memory or engagement; the flicker moved gaze farther in the first 500 ms (10.99 vs 6.02 degrees), but most users preferred the arrow. The authors conclude traditional central/peripheral attention assumptions do not transfer cleanly and that cues should be optional. The sample is young, small and the cues were conspicuous overlays, not diegetic cues.
- articleIn a controlled comparison of attention-guidance methods for 360-degree video (including forced rotation, a follow-the-object cue, an actor guide and gestures), which worked best, and under what conditions and sample size?
Speicher et al. (TVX 2019; 32 participants, within-subjects, 8 methods x 2 devices = 512 trials, short static-camera party-game clips without sound) report that every tested guidance method beat no guidance on identifying a blinking target, with a coloured follow-the-object sphere best and an actor who guides second, forced rotation not significantly less accurate than the others but lowest in user experience with the most disorientation, and an object-blink halo poor. More than a third did not follow the best cue. The result applies to this task (spotting one blinking object), seated viewers, static camera and no audio; it does not measure story comprehension or missed story events.
- articleWhat staging methods have Google Spotlight Stories people publicly stated for 360 / mobile VR animation (Pearl, Back to the Moon), and which statements are first-hand versus reported by someone else?
Reported Spotlight Stories methods are: helper characters and music changes to bring viewers back to the action (TechCrunch's 2016 report of a Google I/O talk), framing action from a fixed passenger seat using the car's geometry (Pearl, director's account), roughly twice as many cuts in the 2D version than in VR (producer, Google blog 2017), and, from a blogger's second-hand report of a 2018 Jan Pinkava talk, a front/side/rear zoning and an 8x45-degree story table plus a real-time story that waits until the viewer looks at it. Only the Pearl blog is first-person; the other items are journalists' or a blogger's paraphrases, and the '70% frontal' figure is unsourced.
- articleWhat did Oculus Story Studio say it actually did about viewer attention and staging in its first 360-degree VR short (Lost), and how reliable is that account?
Saschka Unseld's 2015 first-person post (read here from a 2017 Wayback snapshot because the live oculus.com URL now redirects to a generic Meta blog) reports that the Lost team tried audio cues, a flying bird and set design to steer gaze, found heavy use felt forced, and instead opened with a firefly 'ritual', gave viewers about 40 seconds to settle before using the bird, and aimed for story content in all directions. This is a practitioner's account of one four-minute piece: it gives no sample sizes, no measurements and no test of whether viewers actually missed events; the post itself calls the lessons suggestions, not rules.
- articleWhat does a script clearance report (or checklist) cover for a fiction script: which names, brands, titles, places and clips get flagged?
Public texts name what gets listed for clearance review in a fictional script: character names (first and last), business, product and organization names, artwork, photographs, book/magazine covers, posters, trademarked or copyrighted material, stock footage and clips, portrayals of well-known people, derogatory references, telephone numbers, locale and time of story, and whether the story is based on fact. An insurer form adds a cast negative check on fictional characters and entities and a check of organisation and product names to avoid inadvertent identification. No public sample finished report was found.
- articleHow do kamishibai makers design around the nuki (pull-out) reveal, and what transition and pacing rules do documented performers use that an animation or audio storyteller could borrow?
A 2013 Japanese college bulletin on training childcare students to make kamishibai documents design consequences of the pull-out (nuki) mechanic: the cards are pulled from right to left as seen from the audience so figures walking forward must face left; the script goes on the back of the previous scene; margins hidden by the stage must be measured; students exploit pulling for stepwise reveals (a rainbow gaining one colour per scene) and for participatory riddles (a coloured paper interposed between silhouette cut-out and picture is pulled after the audience guesses). A US performance handout adds timing guidance (vary the pull speed: sudden cuts for surprise, dissolves for suspense) and cautions that overdoing character voices can steal focus from the art. No open source read names or describes specific sub-techniques of nuki.
- articleWhat is kamishibai (paper theatre), how are the cards written and handled, and what are the first things a new performer needs to do?
Kamishibai is a Japanese picture-card storytelling form. A narrator shows a stack of illustrated cards (one picture per scene) in a small stage frame (butai) while reading text printed on the back of the cards. The scripts for each picture are on the back of the previous card, so the card the performer reads is not the one facing the audience; as each card is read it is slid out and moved to the back. Street kamishibai (gaito) flourished from the 1930s with about 2,500 performers in Tokyo in 1933; educational kamishibai grew alongside it. Practical guides here are Western educators' adaptations, not Japanese master accounts.
- articleWhat should a production do, and what should an agent flag in a breakdown or schedule, for stunt sequences, according to the Safety Committee's Bulletin #4 (rev. Mar 27, 2025) with Addendum A and HSE's ETIS17?
Bulletin #4 says production management should allow time for rehearsals, training and inspections, engage a qualified person on set for every stunt sequence, hold an AD-led safety meeting with a walk-through before stunts, have medical personnel available at rehearsals and performances, and let a cast member decline a stunt and ask for a double. Addendum A adds call-sheet announcements the day before and day of, a list of driving conditions needing a qualified stunt driver, double options for pratfalls and consultation rights when performers are rigged with squibs. HSE's ETIS17 (rev2, 09/17) adds a hierarchy of control that asks first whether the stunt can be redesigned or replaced (including by CGI) and says the coordinator should liaise with the director.
- articleWhat does California's Labor Code Part 13 (Sections 9150-9161, added by SB 132 in 2023) require for firearms and set safety, and which scene or schedule features should a breakdown flag because of it?
SB 132's Section 3 adds Labor Code Part 13 (operative January 1, 2025). For any motion picture production in California (defined to include television, streaming, commercials and music videos), firearms and blanks may be used only under the custody and control of a qualified property master or armorer who has no other duties while preparing for and during firearm use, a safety meeting per committee bulletins, an identified compliance contact, and training by CSATF's firearms course or equivalent. Ammunition is barred except for narrow listed exceptions. A pilot program (July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2030) for tax-credit productions adds a dedicated safety advisor and written risk assessments, with specific risk assessments for firearms, major pyrotechnics and explosives, major stunts, process shot moves, aircraft or trains, vehicles off road, open-water watercraft and workweeks above 60 hours. These categories can be tagged from a script and schedule.
- articleWhat do the Industry-Wide Labor-Management Safety Committee's firearms bulletin (#1, rev. April 29, 2024) and live-ammunition bulletin (#2, rev. Dec 19, 2023) say a production should do before, during and after firearms are used on set?
Bulletin #1 (rev. April 29, 2024) puts firearms under the Property Master or armorer's custody, allows only the Property Master and authorised cast to handle them, requires a safety meeting with a walk-through or dry run before any firearm is used, a rehearsal to set minimum safe distance, loading of blanks immediately before use, and daily clean, check and inventory with schedule time for it. It asks production to allot time for training, safety meetings and rehearsal and to consider rubber guns or non-firing replicas. Bulletin #2 (rev. Dec 19, 2023) says live ammunition is prohibited in nearly every aspect of the industry with narrow supervised exceptions. The bulletins describe themselves as recommended guidelines only.
- articleWhat could an agent reuse from these text-to-3D-layout papers for previs set dressing or game level blocking, and which parts are documented results versus a proposed use?
Documented: Holodeck generates AI2-THOR scenes for embodied-agent training (validated by ObjectNav), SceneCraft outputs Blender scripts and tests on Sintel scenes with a video-model conditioning experiment, Graph-to-3D edits scenes through a scene graph. Not documented in any inspected paper: use for previs set dressing or game level blocking with production assets and review. Those uses are proposals; this candidate lists a small test that could separate them.