Mukesh Chander Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 hello everyone!! do cinematographers really have a good future and well paid salary?? does the cinematography demand has over taken by CG? today i hear like most of the things are done in CG and post production.. And i feel like nowadays cinematography dont have tat much value or pay or glamour.. because of the vfx stuff and cg done in post which shows the majority of work.. And my friends who are CG artists speaks in pride tat CG is the future.. am in cinematography now.. everything seems like tat CG is taking over the cinematography market!!! but i still see tat DOPs are given first preference in the titles.. am totally confused!! i dont know where to make my career since i am not sound economically... plz make a discussion and advice out of this topic by being loyal.. thanks friends!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 11, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted January 11, 2008 Heavy-CGI or all-CGI movies are very expensive to make. There is no reason why all movies will go that direction -- there's no reason for a movie like "Charlie Wilson's War" or "There Will Be Blood" or "Juno" to have a lot of CGI-only scenes that replace live-action dialogue scenes with actors. Even efx-heavy movies like "I Am Legend" or "Lord of the Rings" have plenty of live-action cinematography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruairi Robinson Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 hello everyone!! do cinematographers really have a good future and well paid salary?? does the cinematography demand has over taken by CG? today i hear like most of the things are done in CG and post production.. And i feel like nowadays cinematography dont have tat much value or pay or glamour.. because of the vfx stuff and cg done in post which shows the majority of work.. And my friends who are CG artists speaks in pride tat CG is the future.. am in cinematography now.. everything seems like tat CG is taking over the cinematography market!!! but i still see tat DOPs are given first preference in the titles.. am totally confused!! i dont know where to make my career since i am not sound economically... plz make a discussion and advice out of this topic by being loyal.. thanks friends!! It's not really a competition between cinematography and CG - cg is used to augment and enhance what has been shot, or to create stuff from scratch that couldn't have been shot anyway. Otherwise why spend all that time and money doing something in CG that you could just shoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Most Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 hello everyone!! do cinematographers really have a good future and well paid salary?? does the cinematography demand has over taken by CG? today i hear like most of the things are done in CG and post production.. And i feel like nowadays cinematography dont have tat much value or pay or glamour.. because of the vfx stuff and cg done in post which shows the majority of work.. And my friends who are CG artists speaks in pride tat CG is the future.. am in cinematography now.. everything seems like tat CG is taking over the cinematography market!!! but i still see tat DOPs are given first preference in the titles.. am totally confused!! i dont know where to make my career since i am not sound economically... plz make a discussion and advice out of this topic by being loyal.. I'd be far more concerned about the tie between the cost of technology and the perceived value of those that use it. If you do't believe this, take a look at the average editor's pay today vs. 10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mukesh Chander Posted January 12, 2008 Author Share Posted January 12, 2008 I'd be far more concerned about the tie between the cost of technology and the perceived value of those that use it. If you do't believe this, take a look at the average editor's pay today vs. 10 years ago. sorry i could not get u properly Michael.. can u explain it clearly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mukesh Chander Posted January 12, 2008 Author Share Posted January 12, 2008 ok cg is used to enhance and to do things which can not be short live... but nowadays y more stuff are done in cg than cinematography? and if it is not cg then it will be composite work which is vfx.. so feel like everything has changed.. so do we need to learn anything else along with cinematography to survive and compete wit todays film making style and technology? nowadays there are no mobile phones without camera.. camera is now there in everyones hands.. anyone can shoot today... some consumer level dv cameras are giving a decent output and today it seems like any one can learn photography or cinematography since all are holding the camera in their hands most of the time in some ways .. and one more added advantage is 'digital'.. u can see it simultaneously and u can experiment like anything.. no need to worry about money... and one day we can become a expert in handling camera.. so cameraman's job may dont have that much value in the future.. these are just my thoughts.. u can comment on this.. and make this discussion more interesting and useful.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerio Sacchetto Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 ok cg is used to enhance and to do things which can not be short live... but nowadays y more stuff are done in cg than cinematography? and if it is not cg then it will be composite work which is vfx.. so feel like everything has changed.. so do we need to learn anything else along with cinematography to survive and compete wit todays film making style and technology? nowadays there are no mobile phones without camera.. camera is now there in everyones hands.. anyone can shoot today... some consumer level dv cameras are giving a decent output and today it seems like any one can learn photography or cinematography since all are holding the camera in their hands most of the time in some ways .. and one more added advantage is 'digital'.. u can see it simultaneously and u can experiment like anything.. no need to worry about money... and one day we can become a expert in handling camera.. so cameraman's job may dont have that much value in the future.. these are just my thoughts.. u can comment on this.. and make this discussion more interesting and useful.. Everyone can drive a car. Not everyone is a professional race driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted January 12, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted January 12, 2008 We look at it from an artistic or craftsmanship standpoint. The decision makers look at it first and foremost from a money standpoint. We've seen more CG heavy productions each year because the costs have gone down as the success of the illusions has gone up. Still, the larger portion of movies just plain don't need CG. Live action on location is still the dominant production situation for film. Though CG will continue to go down in cost and increase in productivity, as software and hardware improve, there's something that is so darn easy about going to a place and getting a shot. Hollywood does that in the grandest and most expensive way possible and it's still cheaper than making up the exact same scene in a computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I had a debate about this a while ago around here... I'm not so keen on CGI myself. I think it looks too perfect and plastic. However, I'll make an exception for the work done in Lord of the Rings and King Kong.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I had a debate about this a while ago around here... I'm not so keen on CGI myself. I think it looks too perfect and plastic. However, I'll make an exception for the work done in Lord of the Rings and King Kong.. A CG guy,or pootertooner, is really more of an animator and matte painter than a cinematographer. Wold you consider Ward Kimball or Grimnatwick cinematographers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 A CG guy,or pootertooner, is really more of an animator and matte painter than a cinematographer. Wold you consider Ward Kimball or Grimnatwick cinematographers? It wasn't a CGI vs. cinematography debate it was CGI vs. real. I'd rather something not look as impressive, but atleast make it real. And that in itself has a greater effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Most Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 sorry i could not get u properly Michael.. can u explain it clearly! As the cost of the camera equipment goes down (for example: Red), the pay scale of those who use it also tends to go down. Eventually, the person running the equipment is seen just as much as a commodity as the equipment itself. This has been the case with still photographers, ENG shooters, wedding photographers, CG animators, and especially editors. Ultimately it gets to the point where the ability to make a living with this stuff might become questionable, except at the very highest levels where quality is still in demand. THAT's what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Brawley Posted January 13, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted January 13, 2008 today i hear like most of the things are done in CG and post production.. And i feel like nowadays cinematography dont have tat much value or pay or glamour.. because of the vfx stuff and cg done in post which shows the majority of work.. And my friends who are CG artists speaks in pride tat CG is the future.. Well why can't you be a CG DOP ? That's what I'm doing right now. I am lighting and framing a 100% CG film. Now I am not very good at using Maya, but I'm a lot faster than even experienced CG animators at lighting. Not at using the software, but at actually getting to desired result. In knowing which lights to use, how to position them and what ratio's to use within the virtual environment. My skills are mostly transferable. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mukesh Chander Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 Well why can't you be a CG DOP ? That's what I'm doing right now. I am lighting and framing a 100% CG film. Now I am not very good at using Maya, but I'm a lot faster than even experienced CG animators at lighting. Not at using the software, but at actually getting to desired result. In knowing which lights to use, how to position them and what ratio's to use within the virtual environment. My skills are mostly transferable. jb hello john i guess u know things right from the shoot to post production.. is there a job like as u said cg dop? or else a vfx guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mukesh Chander Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 so u people say tat the future cinematographers need to learn not only abt the camera but also something in the post? am i right or wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted January 17, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted January 17, 2008 In my opinion a good DP should have an understanding of post and what must be done in production to help post, but this in no way replaces the expertise of the people who work in post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Bonomo Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 is there a job like as u said cg dop? or else a vfx guy? In animated features, as Pixar's for instance, or in live action movies with digital characters, there are many people in charge of vfx lighting, not just one. Usually the supervisor is a "lighting technical director", who oversees more artists in charge of the many different tasks, so I wouldn't say there's anything like one CG Cinematographer. so u people say tat the future cinematographers need to learn not only abt the camera but also something in the post? That's not something that will be requested in the future, it's always been like that. Think about the traditional picture grading at the lab, or the DI process. Cinematography has never been just about cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Auner aac Posted January 17, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted January 17, 2008 In one word: both! I do not see a contradiction here. Basically, CG is just another brush to paint with, as is an Arri 535 or 6k HMI PAR (not that I have seen either of these on my kind of job right now :D ). Cheers, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruairi Robinson Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I had a debate about this a while ago around here... I'm not so keen on CGI myself. I think it looks too perfect and plastic. However, I'll make an exception for the work done in Lord of the Rings and King Kong.. Hey, so what did you think of the vfx work on CASINO...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now