How technology affects production and distribution

[Michael LaVoie]

It actually does drive down quality standards and expectations when you democratize access to film equipment to unskilled producers with no proper background or training. Part of this has to do with the marketing of the gear. People find it easier to put their faith in a magic box rather than in the individuals using it. Few of these self proclaimed "fimmakers" understand what cinematographers actually do and some really believe all we do is move around the camera and turn it on. :D I had my share of experiences like that early in my career.

 

Even today I meet many filmmakers who assume an Alexa and more often and Epic will give them a great film because of the camera and they'll sacrifice the proper art direction, crew size, schedule and G&E package in order to afford a camera that really won't deliver without all the aforementioned elements in place. Those are the producers I politely walk away from.

 

No camera is a magic box that will spit out a great film for someone with no budget or crew, talent or education. But try explaining that to unskilled, uneducated "filmmakers". War of attrition. And to Tylers original point, this is absolutely the result of the "marketing of technology" superseding the "craft of filmmaking" itself.

[Landon D. Parks]

So, filmmaking is now an exclusive club that requires admission? How exactly does one obtain admission? What constitutes 'experienced enough' to be a member? Filmmakers have always started out as amateurs shotting on lower quality equipment, waiting to get their break. That is how everyone gets started in the industry, and what you seem to be saying is that we should restrict access to film equipment to these people. Perhaps Rodriguez should have been prevented from shooting El Mariachi on film - after all, that is a pretty professional format for such an inexperienced person. The 'work your way up' route may work on very limited circumstances, but most people don't have the connections to get into such positions.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not a member of the 'what we do is exclusive, and you can't be a member!' club. Technology has made everything cheaper, not just filmmaking. Single dudes in the basement can now churn out vast computers games via software that is now free that used to cost thousands of dollars. Photographers can now get into the trade (or just practice, or do it for fun) without needing to mortgage their house, and yes, filmmakers can now have access to cinema quality cameras.

 

Honestly, I don't see this as anything new. This has been happening with filmmaking from the 70's on. You could say that Troma's films are low quality and don't deserve to see the light of day, but there is a market for all sorts of films. Filmmakers may now be able to shoot a movie on a professional camera, but if the film is not any good - no one will pick it up for distribution. I'm not arguing that technology has lead to more filmmakers, which has honestly flooded the market and made it hard for those with talent to stand out - I'm arguing that you cannot close the gates to everyone just to preserve your jobs.

 

To each their own I suppose.

[Tyler Purcell]

Landon, think of it a different way.

 

Once everyone can do something, the value of doing that thing diminishes.

 

For instance, when Apple introduced Final Cut Pro in the late 90's, it was revolutionary because prior to that, everyone had to use expensive NLE systems. Now anyone could buy the software and learn how to edit at home. Over the years, companies looking for cheap labor, bought FCP systems and paid peanuts for those editors. Since FCP's introduction, the price for an editor has decreased steadily year after year. Today, it's hard to get ANY editing work, but not because it doesn't exist, but because there is so much free/cheap labor out there, it's set a new precedence and now it's nearly impossible to make a living at editing.

 

Now it's even harder to get on bigger, long-term shows then ever before. You either make your own shows, or you work for someone else as an employee, unable to do your own creative work because you're worked to death. If you don't take the work, someone else will fill in right away for less money. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there and it really sucks.

 

Digital technology has played a huge role because it allows people to experiment risk free.

 

It really has nothing to do with your product getting seen, it has to do with precedence. Now that digital is here to stay, people simply expect to pay less for someone shooting digitally and it's ruined any chance of making good money.

[Landon D. Parks]

I fully agree with you on this, Tyler. When things become easier / cheaper, it naturally lowers the bar for entry, thus making people want to pay less for the same services. But this is the same for any industry, not just film. This is a technology-in-general issue. Prior to the home computers, massive data centers and the governments employs thousands of scientists to manage the computer networks. As computers got smaller, so did the number of jobs to support them. Where before you may have needed a Phd in Engineering or another advanced science degree to work on PC's, most places are perfectly happy hiring someone with a BA/BS in IT - lower salary and all.

 

My concern is with blocking attempts at this happening. Yes, it sucks that it happens that way, but those who can adapt to a changing environment are always the ones who will succeed. I just really don't see this as being a big problem in the professional film industry, since these jobs are almost universally controlled by unions and union rates. Sure, if your hired to DP a tiny indie film, you might now have to charge peanuts to get a job. But if you're talking professional productions under union contracts, these jobs are off limits to those without the correct connections / credentials - no matter how many Black Magic Pocket cams are sold.

[Tyler Purcell]

I don't think the computer analogy works because it's a high technology market and cinema isn't. Filmmaking is an art form, like painting, still photography or theater. Technology doesn't belong mucking around in those fields, but unfortunately in the last 15 years, we've seen the lines blurred. Now everything is controlled by computers and some pretty powerful one's at that. As a consequence, all this modern digital technology is out of date, sometimes before it's available to the public and if not, only a year or two later. Just look at the AJA Cion, who would buy that thing when the Blackmagic Ursa Mini exists? Before AJA could even release their camera, Blackmagic stepped all over them and made something better for essential the same price.

 

It's harder now to break into the industry then it's ever been. Technology has set new precedence for labor rates and there are now more people capable of doing the same job. It's also dumbed down much of the work, anyone can push a start/stop button on a digital camera, anyone can upload a file from a drive into a digital cinema projector. Over 100,000 jobs were lost in the switch from film to digital projection, another 50,000 were lost during the lab/theater closures. So in our precipitous leap towards the future, we put over 150,000 people out of work. People with families, most of who worked their asses off to get those jobs years ago and now are probably working at some low-end position outside of the industry.

 

All of this push for new technology which has no standardization, which doesn't look any better and puts people out of work?!?! Does any of this make any sense to anyone? Yea, I love having a digital cinema camera at my beckon call, but I'd gladly give it up for film to come back. Why? Because it required real talent to shoot with that magic black box and as archaic as that system was, it worked for over 100 years flawlessly. In contrast, everything we make today, everything we invest in, is just a disposable toy.

[Landon D. Parks]

Just on a final note: I still fail to see how this issue is a big deal. Filmmakers have always had to work their way to professionalism. You say that mass technology has resulted in less jobs for filmmakers and that if we only made it harder for people to get hold of film equipment, it would preserve jobs for those who earned it. The question I have is: How do you earn it if all the equipment is too expensive to even try? It's a catch-22, you must have the equipment to practice, yet you can't have the equipment until your a professional. You see the issue? Keep in mind that before digital, we had 35mm, 16mm, and 8mm film - all at various price points, so this was not invented suddenly when a digital camera become less expensive.

 

I also think you're oversimplifying the use of cameras. Sure, a ten year old can push the start/stop button. But can that ten year old light the scene in such a way as to be professional in nature? Doubtful. The equipment is only one part of the equation - a very small one at that.

 

Unemployment is a terrible thing. Often times when we see old technologies die, many jobs die with them. It's not pretty, and it's nothing to applaud. However, should we stop all technological advanced simply to make sure the labs have plenty of jobs available? It's a balancing act. Projectionists are a similar story. It's sad to see people loose their jobs, but in all honesty now that I have seen film prints vs. digital, I'll take digital any day of the week. A local cinema still uses film, and I saw the latest Hunger Games there, as well as at an all-digital Showcase Cinema de Lux. The film print looked nice and pleasing - if you could avoid the fact that the picture was crooked by a few degrees, and there was a large green scratch down most of the films frames.

 

As for the death of film: This was inevitable. We saw digital coming for a long time. It's not as if it just happened one day, resulting in mass layoff's the next. Theater's have gradually been putting in 2k/4k's for more than 15 years.

 

I'm just a progressive. I believe in technological advances for the greater good, even if some sacrifices need to be made.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Landon D. Parks

[Hrishikesh Jha]

With current digital projection technology, nothing stops you from doing what I do…

 

14 feet wide screen… Imax BluRay of Interstellar… and a bitchin' stereo. Sounded better and looked better then standard digital projection in a cineplex.

 

 

That is epic. Could you tell me how much the entire setup cost(approx)? I am thinking of setting a projector and would love some help

[Hrishikesh Jha]

I don't think the computer analogy works because it's a high technology market and cinema isn't. Filmmaking is an art form, like painting, still photography or theater. Technology doesn't belong mucking around in those fields, but unfortunately in the last 15 years, we've seen the lines blurred. Now everything is controlled by computers and some pretty powerful one's at that. As a consequence, all this modern digital technology is out of date, sometimes before it's available to the public and if not, only a year or two later. Just look at the AJA Cion, who would buy that thing when the Blackmagic Ursa Mini exists? Before AJA could even release their camera, Blackmagic stepped all over them and made something better for essential the same price.

 

It's harder now to break into the industry then it's ever been. Technology has set new precedence for labor rates and there are now more people capable of doing the same job. It's also dumbed down much of the work, anyone can push a start/stop button on a digital camera, anyone can upload a file from a drive into a digital cinema projector. Over 100,000 jobs were lost in the switch from film to digital projection, another 50,000 were lost during the lab/theater closures. So in our precipitous leap towards the future, we put over 150,000 people out of work. People with families, most of who worked their asses off to get those jobs years ago and now are probably working at some low-end position outside of the industry.

 

All of this push for new technology which has no standardization, which doesn't look any better and puts people out of work?!?! Does any of this make any sense to anyone? Yea, I love having a digital cinema camera at my beckon call, but I'd gladly give it up for film to come back. Why? Because it required real talent to shoot with that magic black box and as archaic as that system was, it worked for over 100 years flawlessly. In contrast, everything we make today, everything we invest in, is just a disposable toy.

I could upvote this comment forever. Thank You

[Tyler Purcell]

That is epic. Could you tell me how much the entire setup cost(approx)? I am thinking of setting a projector and would love some help

Projectors are cheap now a days. I prefer DLP greatly over LCD or DILA. My projector is an Optoma HD25, which is 2700 lumens in cinema mode, which is outstanding. Most projectors in cinema mode are around 1500 lumens. It doesn't look awesome, but it looks OK, it's satisfactory. The projector needs to be directly in front of the screen, or it will have focus issues. So I'm not in love with the projector, I got it cheap and it does the job satisfactory. If I had more money, I'd absolutely get something better. My normal home theater setup is slightly different, this was only for a one-off event. My normal screen is 6 feet wide and the projector works much better in that smaller environment. Still, 6 feet is a lot!

 

I don't have TV, so my sources are my computer and an optical disk reader of whatever kind I have that day. 99.9% of the time I use my computer because I download or stream everything off the internet. If you wanna watch TV, it may not work well. It's not great for evening news or simple things because it drains your lamp. But for a movie watching experience, it's far superior to anything else I've ever had at home and for a filmmaker, it's a must have in my book. Remember, we don't watch TV's at the theaters, we watch projectors! :)

 

Hope that helps!

Edited May 17, 2015 by Tyler Purcell

[Hrishikesh Jha]

Projectors are cheap now a days. I prefer DLP greatly over LCD or DILA. My projector is an Optoma HD25, which is 2700 lumens in cinema mode, which is outstanding. Most projectors in cinema mode are around 1500 lumens. It doesn't look awesome, but it looks OK, it's satisfactory. The projector needs to be directly in front of the screen, or it will have focus issues. So I'm not in love with the projector, I got it cheap and it does the job satisfactory. If I had more money, I'd absolutely get something better. My normal home theater setup is slightly different, this was only for a one-off event. My normal screen is 6 feet wide and the projector works much better in that smaller environment. Still, 6 feet is a lot!

 

I don't have TV, so my sources are my computer and an optical disk reader of whatever kind I have that day. 99.9% of the time I use my computer because I download or stream everything off the internet. If you wanna watch TV, it may not work well. It's not great for evening news or simple things because it drains your lamp. But for a movie watching experience, it's far superior to anything else I've ever had at home and for a filmmaker, it's a must have in my book. Remember, we don't watch TV's at the theaters, we watch projectors! :)

 

Hope that helps!

 

Oh yes, I don't have a television either. No point what with all the crap that's on nowadays.

While doing research I see that the first criteria should be lamp life and the more one uses the projector the faster it erodes. So for example if I use the projector for 3 hours daily I can extend it for 3 years. The more daily usage the lower life.

 

I mainly want a projector for films(I study them and analyze them and currently at film school we see it on a projector and I am floored;I want one) and for PS3 gaming. 1200 DOLLAR is the average figure here(sony,panasonic) so that's a sound investment.