Jump to content

The Impact Of 4K On Camera Operating


Recommended Posts

ah ok still confused.. I thought you were saying that the film formats were very high res.. but from the above it seems you are saying digital is high res and so you cant fudge things,cos you see the detail.. where as you cant with film..? so which is the high res format.. sorry if Im being thick here .. I cant get it straight .. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all interesting stuff!

 

Interesting to see how the real change to departments is within production design, I think I'll have to follow this up and include it in my research.

 

Following on from the topic of colourists and cinematography; with the advancement of software, and the improvement of cameras to give more flexibility in post, would any of you say that this could be a threat to a DoP's work? Could DoP's, at some point (if not already), have the ability to completely undermine a cinematographers choices? And could the role of the colourist ever become more crucial for cinematography than the actual cinematographer? Or would it be that cinematographers would have to also become colourists?

 

I realise that DoP's work closely with the colourist already, and for the DoP, but could this ever shift?

 

Thanks guys, really pleased with the responses!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not really part of my world.. but I believe there are many top end Dp,s who will only take on a film ,if they are also present and paid to be at the grade..and presumably have some say in the grade.. to avoid exactly the above possibility ..

 

Although I would have thought the "look" of the film would have been discussed at length before hand,with all heads of dept,s.. but maybe a change of director mid shoot or studio/star interference could occur.. but I doubt the colorist would ever take over from the Dp as far as framing and lighting goes.. because thats already happened.. but they could change the mood/look I suppose .. Im sure this has happened before.. but if its not in a contract.. I guess there is very little they can do.. except have your name taken off the film credits..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Following on from the topic of colourists and cinematography; with the advancement of software, and the improvement of cameras to give more flexibility in post, would any of you say that this could be a threat to a DoP's work?

Digital technology is the biggest threat to ANY creative. Just look at how it's destroyed the film industry from the outside in. Started with directors looking to experiment with digital technology and within a few years, hollywood switched over. In the process, they killed over 150,000 jobs, shut down 500 screens, made it nearly impossible to make a decent living making movies AND worst of all, opened the doors for anyone to make content. This floods the industry with so much static, it makes it nearly impossible for good content to rise to the top.

 

The biggest threat to cinematography is the fact ANYONE can shoot professional looking content today without much education. Decent looking, high resolution cameras are dropping in price year by year. Computers and software are finally catching up to what the hardware manufacturers are going. Plus, the cost to produce content, is only getting cheaper and cheaper. So now a director needs to be a cinematographer, editor and colorist, because they can't afford to pay for those positions. Now a cinematographer needs to learn new trades like visual effects and coloring. The thought of just being a cinematographer, those days are over in my eyes. There are only a hand-full of cinematographers making a decent rate, what maybe 30 in the US? The rest of them are sitting at home most of the time, learning new things and waiting.

 

Today, to even be considered for the smaller jobs, you need to have the absolute best equipment at your disposal. Either borrow from a friend or own yourself. However, even if you have the best, sometimes it's not good enough! Sometimes you need last years model of XYZ camera to even get a job. It's for sure the case with other "digital" industries, what works doesn't matter anymore, what's new is all that matters. We live in a disposable world and our digital lifestyle has only made things worse.

 

Digital technology is like a virus sweeping across every single industry until they're all gobbled up and the only thing left are those people who adapted, most of whom are just struggling to stay alive.

 

I need to find a time machine and go back to 1947, that's where I really belong. LOL :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a little harsh I think. You cannot really argue that digital killed Hollywood's jobs, other than the few jobs that relied around the old film workflow (and really, this is not as vast a number as some might think). Can we really blame digital for this, though? I mean technology has been progressing things for hundreds of years, often resulting in layoffs of those working in the old methods. We use to make cars by hand and actual employed factory workers - today it's all robots. Do we blame digital cinema for that? No. If anything, you can blame technology in general, but not digital cinema directly.

 

Of course, arguing against technology will not likely get anyone very far. So it's really a lost cause.

 

I really take issue though with the hatred for independents. Hollywood is not anyone's friend, and has been giving us crappy super hero movies and remakes since the 1900's. Hollywood only cares about its bank account, not quality or art. Making digital technology available to filmmakers has freed those filmmakers to make art; some of it will be quality, some of it not. I certainly would not argue that it's a good idea to make paint $5,000 a bucket so that only the most 'supported' artists could afford it, any more than I think it's a good idea to make a camera cost $200,000 just so only those with the biggest budget can afford it.

 

And really, Tyler - you are a self-proclaimed owner of a Blackmagic camera, one of the key players in the cheap camera movement that opened digital cinema to more people. So have you not contributed in some way to technologies making things more attainable for filmmakers? It's a free country, and you're welcome to complain about a system that is open and accessible to more than just a few people, but to partake in the very technology being complained about seems a little, eh, I dunno...

 

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, since I have nothing constructive to add to the topic; but with a comment like that, I feel the need to defend the thousands of 'crappy' filmmakers out there taking advantage of the free market. We're sorry we stepped on your toes. We'll go back to our cave now and let Time-Warner run things. They have done such a bang-up job so far.

 

As for digital killing art in general, I think this is false. It has not killed art as a whole, and has (if anything) only added additional types of art.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now a director needs to be a cinematographer, editor and colorist, because they can't afford to pay for those positions. Now a cinematographer needs to learn new trades like visual effects and coloring. The thought of just being a cinematographer, those days are over in my eyes. There are only a hand-full of cinematographers making a decent rate, what maybe 30 in the US? The rest of them are sitting at home most of the time, learning new things and waiting.

 

On this you might have a small point. HOWEVER, I will also point out that even prior to digital, there were probably 30 cinematographers working regularly in the industry as well. That is nothing new. Making a living in the film industry has NEVER been easy, and always been an exclusive club made up of only the top 1/2% of filmmakers. Digital did not create this. You can say that making filmmaking more affordable led to this, but that is failing to understand one thing: Many filmmakers doing their own things would not have hired a cinematographer under the old system either - because they would not be making movies. So, did anyone really lose any jobs? Those who have been hiring DoP's are still doing it at the same rate. Now, however, it appears different because of the open market.

 

made it nearly impossible to make a decent living making movies AND worst of all, opened the doors for anyone to make content. This floods the industry with so much static, it makes it nearly impossible for good content to rise to the top.

 

What an elitist attitude. Do you seriously think you would have broke through this barrier had filmmaking been the same closed system? Why so?

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If anything, you can blame technology in general, but not digital cinema directly.

Since this forum is one based on filmmaking, I focused on discussing how digital technology has effected this particular myopic industry.

 

Right now there are over 20 million people without work in this country. All of them fully capable of earning a wage, but they can't because technology has replaced their jobs.

 

If you don't see this as a problem, I don't know what to say.

 

I really take issue though with the hatred for independents.

That won't ever change, if you wish to make money in this industry you either pander to the lowest common denominator (youtube clients) or you try to go big leagues and sell your film to a distributor who actually pays.

 

And really, Tyler - you are a self-proclaimed owner of a Blackmagic camera, one of the key players in the cheap camera movement that opened digital cinema to more people.

Right, but I bought the pocket camera because my HDV camcorder was getting a wee bit old. I didn't buy it to make movies, I didn't buy it to make money with either. I bought it because as a cinematographer, its nice to have a camera to play with.

 

Making a living in the film industry has NEVER been easy, and always been an exclusive club made up of only the top 1/2% of filmmakers.

Filmmaking use to be a job. You'd get up in the morning, take the train over to the studio, get into your position on set and do your job. You'd work up the ladder until you got to the top of your profession and if you wanted to switch, you could make that change. If you were a white male living in Hollywood, the potential was almost endless, if you were already working in the industry.

 

Today, filmmaking is a passion... people do it because they want to tell stories. The "jobs" have almost entirely disappeared. So it's harder then ever to learn the trades and move up the ladder.

 

This digital democratization has eroded the very skills necessary to be an expert at a particular trade. Our future generation of creatives, they will struggle to learn those trades because there is so much static, so many other things going on, just getting the chance to be on the right team to learn, is almost impossible. Once the real tradesmen have retired or passed on, those skills will be forgotten, the "art" of cinema will have been lost thanks to technology. Sure, people will always figure out a way to make art, but as you pointed out yourself, today's hollywood movies have nothing to do with art, just money. Funny how 20 years ago, that was almost the reverse... So many great artistic and well made entertaining movies, something we RARELY get a chance to see today.

 

I feel the need to defend the thousands of 'crappy' filmmakers out there taking advantage of the free market. We're sorry we stepped on your toes. We'll go back to our cave now and let Time-Warner run things. They have done such a bang-up job so far.

What free market? There is no free market, it's more rigged today then it's ever been. You aren't going to make any money creating shitty products that sell at the $4.99 dvd bin at Walmart and Target. The 10 people on youtube who make actual money, those guys create garbage product for people who want waste time at work. So you, like everyone else, is going to have to get a regular job in order to pay the bills and guess what, then you're too busy to make movies because you're just trying to make ends meet with your 40+hr a week job.

 

Do you seriously think you would have broke through this barrier had filmmaking been the same closed system? Why so?

Yes, not a problem at all. Had I stuck to my guns all those years ago and be willing to work 16hr days as a P.A, live in a car and eat table scraps, today I'd be pretty far in there. I personally hate being on the fringe, it really bothers me. I love telling stories and unfortunately, I'm evidently good at doing that in the editing room, so that's what I get paid to do today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you're telling me that you have some proof that the film industry, as a whole, is declining in jobs? I'm not talking about jobs related to film distribution either, I'm talking production jobs. How can that be? There are still as many if not more movies coming from Hollywood than at any time in the past.Those films still employ the same set positions as they for a hundred years. We are not suddenly seeing 'real movies' to go one-man shows, and from looking at the credits it's the same exact number of crew who have been on films for years.

So how exactly is the job market eroding? I said it above, and I'll say it again. Hollywood has always been a closed industry. There are only so many 'real' movies made a year that can employ people. That number has not changed one bit, and certainly not for the worse. Hollywood puts out more films now than at any point in the past. There was NEVER a large number of above the line crew on budget movies, because there have always only been so many.

 

You seem to be of the opinion that now that Joe in Detroit or Landon in Cincinnati can make a movie, that it is somehow going to affect the number of jobs available for working filmmakers in LA. This could not be further from the truth. Why? Because I wouldn't have employed anyone anyway if I didn't have my camera. Me getting a camera and making a movie has no bearing on available jobs in the market whatsoever.

 

The only real argument that can be made here is that the influx of new product is, as you say, washing out the good stuff. That may very well be a valid argument if you want to make it. However, we need to ask ourselves this: who is the true judge of what is good? You? Me? Ebert, rest his soul? What I like, you might hate, does that make me wrong and you right, or me right and you wrong? Personally, I like a lot of the stuff coming from the Indie scene. It's interesting and new. I'm talking as a viewer here, not a filmmaker. I also like a lot of indie music.

 

The real issue may in fact not be with the quality of product, but the sheer amount of it. On that, I will stand behind you. In a market that keeps getting more and more crowded, where does this leave those that want to make money? However, the issue with this concept is that can we really regulate the amount of art being made, just so some people can make a living off of it? Who is going to be the judge of who gets in and who doesn't? Is it going to be an executive at Warner Bros. that decides rather I'm a good filmmaker or not, or rather my project is good (i.e. profitable)? What gives him that authority to tell me I can't create art unless he tells me?

 

I don't have any answer for any of this, and I don't claim to. However, I will say I'm (personally) glad that the cost of filmmaking has come down to a point where people can make a product that they want to make. I have a few really good ideas, at least in my opinion, and I'm glad I finally get to make those. I'm thankful I don't have to 'earn my way' from loader to studio exec. to ever see my projects become a reality - that could take a long while, doing jobs I have no desire to do, just to get to what I'm capable of doing right now.

 

It's really a useless argument, because there is no right or wrong answer. It's all about opinion. You're of the opinion the film industry should be closed, I'm of the opinion it should not. You're of the opinion that much of the stuff being produced is trash, I'm not of that opinion. You're of the opinion that there is too much product in market, and I'm actually sort-of of that opinion as well.

 

 

What free market? There is no free market, it's more rigged today then it's ever been. You aren't going to make any money creating shitty products that sell at the $4.99 dvd bin at Walmart and Target. The 10 people on youtube who make actual money, those guys create garbage product for people who want waste time at work. So you, like everyone else, is going to have to get a regular job in order to pay the bills and guess what, then you're too busy to make movies because you're just trying to make ends meet with your 40+hr a week job.

 

You're now assuming everyone makes movies to get rich or make an livable income. While this well be some peoples intention, there are still some who want to tell movies because it's their passion. Some artists paint to make a living, some paint because they find it a fun, creative outlet. Some actors want to make it big in LA or NY, some just want to act in community theatre because it's fun and they enjoy it. Some people want to become a sound board operator for a Broadway show, others are happy doing it at a community theater level. Some bands would love to sell millions of albums and strike a platinum selling record, other's just want to play music...

 

Why do you just magically assume that anyone who makes a movie want to make it so they can earn a living? Much like painters, actors, theatre people, and musicians; filmmakers have different ambitions. They also have different methods of approaching that ambition. Ryan Connolly started Triune films as an indie filmmaker, and still remains one. He now has a studio with paid staff in LA. Was he successful? I guess it depends on who you ask. He might say yes, you might say no.

 

 

Yes, not a problem at all. Had I stuck to my guns all those years ago and be willing to work 16hr days as a P.A, live in a car and eat table scraps, today I'd be pretty far in there. I personally hate being on the fringe, it really bothers me. I love telling stories and unfortunately, I'm evidently good at doing that in the editing room, so that's what I get paid to do today.

 

Let me rephrase that, you think you would have been pretty far in there. How can you possibly know this? I could use this argument for everything in life. Hell, if I'd have stayed working at Walmart as a CSM, I would have been the general manager by now! Of course, I can't really know this for sure, since any number of things could have happened that might have prevented it.

 

If you're good at telling stories in the editing room, then why are you not an editor for 'real' movies? If your talent is really there, then why? You said on multiple threads you make a living doing what you do, so is that not successful to you? If, as you say, you're talented at telling stories in the editing room - then why not push to edit a film for a studio? You have the same chance now as you did in the past. Nothing has really changed on that front, and because some dude in Ohio makes a movie does not mean that affects your chance (or anyone's chance) of a job.

 

 

Sure, people will always figure out a way to make art, but as you pointed out yourself, today's hollywood movies have nothing to do with art, just money. Funny how 20 years ago, that was almost the reverse...

 

I don't really think that. Hollywood has been putting out fluff since it's inception. It's always been about an investment and return. If, as you say, the change started happening 20 years ago - why did it happen? Digital technology was not really even invented 20 years ago. Digital didn't really take off until the last, oh, maybe 5 years. If movies now are so much worse than they were 20 years ago, and the craftsman are still in the industry, then why have they let this happen?

 

 

Today, filmmaking is a passion... people do it because they want to tell stories. The "jobs" have almost entirely disappeared. So it's harder then ever to learn the trades and move up the ladder.

 

So, Hollywood is going out of business? That is news to me. Last I checked, they had stellar quarterly reports and were putting out more product than ever. These projects are not using less production crew than any in the past. So, if as you say the jobs have entirely disappeared, or is working on the next Iron Man or Superman vs. Batman, or Batman vs. Batwoman, or whatever Hollywood is coming out with next? I don't know about you, but when I read the credits of modern films - they are MUCH, MUCH longer than they were in the past. So how can it be that the jobs are disappearing? It makes no logical sense.

 

Also, I cannot find any reference to the decline of production jobs in the film industry. I spent over an hour searching for any real news on this, and only turned up news about Hollywood leaving LA, not downsizing.

 

 

Right, but I bought the pocket camera because my HDV camcorder was getting a wee bit old. I didn't buy it to make movies, I didn't buy it to make money with either. I bought it because as a cinematographer, its nice to have a camera to play with.

 

But you still financially supported a company that had a major hand in the downfall of the great Hollywood gates, regardless of the use of the product. Why not stick to shooting 16? You complain that digital is the bane of existence, yet you use it on a daily basis. Do you edit on a Mac? Why, you could always edit on a flatbed.

 

 

Filmmaking use to be a job. You'd get up in the morning, take the train over to the studio, get into your position on set and do your job. You'd work up the ladder until you got to the top of your profession and if you wanted to switch, you could make that change. If you were a white male living in Hollywood, the potential was almost endless, if you were already working in the industry.

 

It still is a job, if you want to make it one. As I have said multiple times above, studio films are not downsizing at all. If anything, it now takes 10x more people to make them than it did 20 years ago. And Joe Blow making a movie in Ohio is of no concern to this, since he would not have hired you or anyone else in the first place if he wasn't making a movie. If anything, at least with filmmaking becoming more accessible, there are now more chances that someone might be able to hire some help on a movie that exists now, that did not in the past.

 

I personally hate being on the fringe, it really bothers me.

 

 

Then why are you on the fringe? The same jobs exist today that did in the past. Follow the same path others have followed to get off the fringe. I will not buy an argument that your job prospects are now diminished because some guy in Timbuktu makes a movie without hiring you.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can already see where this thread is going, and I'm not going there with it. I said my peace on the matter, and that is that. Agree or disagree with me, I don't agree with many of your statements, and I'm not sure most filmmakers do either. Before this thread turns into a quote-match like others before, I am respectfully bowing out.

 

I respect you, Tyler, I really do. You have accomplished more than I have, and that is great. I don't really want to discount your opinion, since that is basically what it is - and everyone has an opinion. We just don't agree on this, and that is fine - professional disagreements happen all the time. They are healthy even.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

So, you're telling me that you have some proof that the film industry, as a whole, is declining in jobs? I'm not talking about jobs related to film distribution either, I'm talking production jobs.

Umm yea. Ask anyone in the union, doesn't matter what position. Everyone scrambles like ants to ANY gig they can find today because, it's hard to stay busy, it's harder then ever to make a living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

So, Hollywood is going out of business?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10620201/What-has-happened-to-all-the-Hollywood-films.html

 

"Back in 2006, it seems, the six major Hollywood studios released 204 films between them. The total last year? 120. That’s a drop of more than 40 per cent."

 

Hollywood is under pressure due to the high ticket cost which ONLY EXISTS due to them upgrading theaters to digital. Had they not mucked around, had they continued making film prints, the ticket prices would have actually evened out substantially because even if theaters were forced to buy prints, they only average $1800 per print! That's nothing compared to what they're charged for a USB stick and a hard drive. Plus, film projectors are bullet proof, theaters never needed to upgrade them. Plus, theaters could loop prints between different auditoriums in order to screen the same movie multiple times at once without paying for more licenses. Sure, there needed to be a union projectionist on board, but it was a trade! People worked their entire life up through the ranks to get that job and now, it doesn't exist.

 

The only reason the profits are up is because studio's are RAPING the theaters for every penny they can get out of them. They make MORE profit today then they've ever made and people are tired of paying for it. So the net result is a drop off at the cinema... movies today stay in the theater for 4 weeks. When I was a kid, movies ran for several months. Heck some movies would run for an entire summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

professional disagreements happen all the time. They are healthy even.

You aren't an effin' professional!!!!!! There ain't no disagreement here.

 

I'm on the GROUND FLOOR and you're 50 miles in the sky looking down on something you can only read about on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyler, Landon,

 

Your personal disagreements seem to have been spreading across a number of threads in recent weeks, and while they are occasionally amusing, they do tend to derail threads that might otherwise have yielded a valuable discussion.

 

Maybe you could find a way to resolve your differences without involving the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You aren't an effin' professional!!!!!!

 

This I WILL reply to, only because it is a personal jab at me and not my opinion. I tried to be fair in my argument. You made an argument, and I have a counter argument - which I'm perfectly within my right to make, rather you like the argument or not. If you don't want someone to offer an opposing opinion to yours (which seems to be a common throughout all these threads), the don't make comments. You do not need to respond with such spite as this.

 

As for what you deem as professional: I just delivered a :30 commercial that I was paid to produce. I have shot hundreds of hours of stuff, a great deal of it paid work - weddings, etc. I recently got a 6 month contract for wedding venue where I'll be doing all video and photo for weddings taking place there. So yes, that makes me a professional by my book. Does that make me a professional in your book? I can't say - you seem to think a professional is someone who has studied under a master for 10 years. If that is your definition, then no, I'm not a professional. Oh, and being is LA is not a prerequisite to professionalism...

 

Cannot believe I'm even having arguments like this... I will not partake in this any longer, but I also won't put up with personal jabs on my professional character. You come on here and blame people like me (producing trash with our camera's that are flooding the market and resulting in less jobs) for why jobs are so hard to find, and then get mad when you find someone opposes that view...

 

Stuart: I try, I really do. But I cannot comment on a thread without it descending into some jab on my personal or professional character. It's insulting and more than little infuriating. From now on, I'm not resorting to retorts like this.

 

Why is the forum void of any moderators? Many of these issues would not get this far if such posts were moderated.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You aren't an effin' professional!!!!!! There ain't no disagreement here. It's you, not knowing jack poop about the film industry and ME... working non stop in the industry.

 

And this is the crux of the problem. Tyler, you are going to have to accept that other people have opinions, and that those opinions are just as valid as yours. The vast majority of what you spend countless hours arguing with people about ARE JUST YOUR DAMN OPINIONS, NOT FACTS.

 

And just so you know, a lot of your 'facts' are totally wrong.

 

You seem to think that you have all the answers; that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is not only wrong, but incompetent as well. You've clearly got a massive chip on your shoulder. Maybe it's time to deal with that and leave the rest of us out of your crosshairs. Your attitude has gotten completely out of hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You seem to think that you have all the answers; that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is not only wrong, but incompetent as well.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't for a minute feel like I have all the answers and I apologize if in an effort to help on subjects I'm pretty familiar with, based on decades of experience, that my answers could mislead because I misdiagnosed an issue OR technology has changed in the last few months. An opinion only matters if it's founded based on a vast amount of experience, not just a few years.

 

I assume if you were teaching a class on cinematography, if your pupils constantly told you how to do things and that everything you did was wrong, you would be pretty upset, wouldn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you fail to understand, Tyler, is I'm not your student and you're not my teacher. I didn't come here to get an education in filmmaking (though I'm still learning everyday, gleaning valuable advice from these posts) nor to become someones apprentice. I'm another person already working in the industry (rather you think that is the case or not is irrelevant). While it might well be a pretty stupid thing for a student to try to teach the teacher, I am not a film student in your program - and the advice I offer to people, or my opinions, are based on what I know, just as much as your advice and opinions are. And no, an opinion is not valid only when it's based on years of experience. An opinion is valid when it is based on experience. In reality, an opinion is valid anyway regardless of experience, because it's simply a persons opinion on something. When I give an opinion though, it tends to be educated opinion.

 

I also want to apologize for getting worked up, and perhaps this was not thread for argument - but you came here posting things that basically directly attacked a great deal of filmmakers who might frequent this forum looking for advice - essentially telling them it's their fault you can't work in the industry like you'd like to. Given your contradiction in your above posts, it almost appears as if the whole post was designed as a rant (above you say you don't want to be on the fringe without quality work, then you say in the next post you don't want union jobs because they are too difficult). I was under the impression the primary purpose of this forum was not only for professional networking, but also to provide those with less experience with the experience they need or to answer their questions they might have. Many of those are doing their own projects - and you're actively berating them. I had to step in and defend those of us who work in that manner.

 

That is all I have to say on the matter. Let's go back to offering helpful advice where it's warranted, and being good citizens toward the community.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't for a minute feel like I have all the answers and I apologize if in an effort to help on subjects I'm pretty familiar with, based on decades of experience, that my answers could mislead because I misdiagnosed an issue OR technology has changed in the last few months. An opinion only matters if it's founded based on a vast amount of experience, not just a few years.

 

I assume if you were teaching a class on cinematography, if your pupils constantly told you how to do things and that everything you did was wrong, you would be pretty upset, wouldn't you?

We all have more experience in some fields and less in others. It's important to recognize your own weaknesses as well as your strengths. If you think that you have no weaknesses or gaps in your knowledge then you're not being honest with yourself.

 

I've only used the GH4 and Pocket cameras a few times. I'm not going to write long posts about their virtues and faults because I don't know enough about them. If Landon has shot with nothing but the GH4 for a year, then he certainly knows more than me and probably you too.

 

Similarly, I would defer to you on shooting with the Pocket as I've only AC'd with it a few times and shot on it twice myself. I'd expect that since you've only touched a C300 a few times, that you would defer to me since I do a lot of work with C100/300/300 Mk2.

 

Robin and Mark K have shot a ton with the F5, certainly more than me. They know what the deal is with that camera. I don't know anything about servicing film cameras, that's why I ask Dom for help since he had decades of experience doing just that. I'm not going to tell JD, Andrew, or Guy how to build a grip rig or run distro. I'm not going to tell Richard how to produce a movie. Or Greg how to pull focus. Or David Mullen how to do anything!

 

Having an opinion is fine. You're allowed, we all are. Say your piece back it up, and leave it be. If someone else finds it helpful, then great. And someone else has something to say, maybe try listening instead. Might be you'll learn something new.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...