Jason Outenreath

In 2013, I founded a nonprofit organization that works with at-risk youth in Austin, TX. This year we're proud to be holding out first film festival, the CineAid Film Festival. We are sponsored by Zacuto, and Film Convert, and will be offering some incredible cash prizes, as well as in kind prizes from our sponsors. The theme of the festival this year is "films with a message". So far we have gotten submissions from all over the world, and are really excited to see your work. The deadline in July 31st! Notifications go out August 17th. We are offering a special 50% student discount if you submit via filmfreeway, or our website: www.cineaidfilmfestival.org https://filmfreeway.com/festival/CineAidFilmFestival

Does anyone know how Emmanuel Lubezki achieved the look for Y Tu Mama También in terms of the slight but not overbearing camera movement? Was it hand held? Some kind of cinesaddle? It looks somewhere between handheld and steadicam, but neither. Or does anyone have any idea how to achieve a similar look? Thanks!

Does anyone know how Emmanuel Lubezki achieved the look for Y Tu Mama También in terms of the slight but not overbearing camera movement? Was it hand held? Some kind of cinesaddle? It looks somewhere between handheld and steadicam, but neither. Thanks!

I have also heard that the URSA's 4k sensor is really noisy even at it's native ISO and that unless you're in pretty much full on sunlight, it only gets worse... Not to mention it weighs 16.5 lbs!!

It's really heavy...

I have a GH2 and a GH3, and they are both wonderful cameras. Incredible quality that's too often overlooked. They're also remarkably similar cameras. The only real difference is the GH3 is a touch screen, a more solid build in the camera body, and it can shoot 60p at 1920x1080. Other than the slow motion capability, they're very similar-- and great cameras. A GH2 can be had for between 450-600 dollars, depending. Another option to consider is the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, which can get some pretty amazing footage (shoots both ProRes and RAW). I think it's good to have some kind of camera as a filmmaker. Especially for documentary work, any of the above cameras will serve you very well. And if nothing else, a camera frees you to explore your own ideas visually. I agree with other comments about not splurging on the most expensive camera out there (who can afford it anyways?), but there is great value in owning a camera of some kind as a filmmaker.

Hey, I just wanted to have a friendly discussion about the topic. No need to get defensive Freya. I was a cinema studies major in college, so I am a bit of a cinephile and watch hundreds of films each year. However, I readily admit that I don't know the precise histories of every film I've seen. Thank you for sharing your knowledge on some of those histories, even if it is in a condescending tone, I appreciate the opportunity to learn new things about the films I love.

I guess it depends how you define independent cinema. I should have been more specific. I've seen every film you mention. Ed Wood had a budget of 18 million dollars. Robert Rodriguez had a budget of $8,000. It's interesting that you point, Freya, to Orson Welles as an independent filmmaker... Perhaps given the time period, and his refusal throughout his career to work with producers for fear of losing his vision in the process, he might be considered an independent filmmaker. But Citizen Kane had a budget of $700,000, which, accounting for inflation is a 13.2 million dollar budget. Shall I go on? Almost all of the films you hail as independent cinema had budgets at least twice as big as El Mariachi if not many times more. It's not say that they don't represent independent cinema, but only that I was referring I suppose, to a small niche of independent cinema-- the minimal budget independent cinema. So you might say we're both right. You are looking at the broader picture of the industry over a 60 year period. I was focused on a 5 year period in the early 90's-- given the conversation had shifted to Robert Rodriguez's specific impact on the industry-- which is undeniable, regardless of whether or not one thinks El Mariachi is in fact, a great film. It's most interesting however to observe how notions of independent cinema have changed over the years. :)

Sometimes you're the filmmaker of the moment. You make the right film at the right time. El Mariachi was the beginning of the emergence of independent cinema, and was produced at a time where people didn't just go out and make feature films without hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I think whether or not DVD is dead is a moot point. The film industry has always been an exceedingly difficult industry to break into. The barriers to entry have merely morphed over the years. 40 years ago I imagine it was nearly impossible to even hold a camera without knowing a guy who knows a guy at the Paramount lot. Many more films are being produced worldwide than ever before. This is a blessing and a curse. But I think more of a blessing. I still maintain that the cream always rises to the top. Many more films are being made, but statistically, I don't think you'll find many more great films being made now than any other period in cinema history. Try to put this all in perspective: 50 years ago, the only mode of distribution was your movie being printed on 35mm and sending it to theaters around the world. How is that for a barrier to entry? So, I wouldn't say that times are particularly difficult now. We are just face to face with new problems to manage and overcome. And I think that is probably just apart of the reality of being in the film industry in any capacity. Adam mentioned that he hasn't seen a movie that didn't get a theatrical release on VOD or iTunes, but both of those services make available many many solid films that 20 years ago, you would never know existed. And, by extension, gives a voice to the filmmakers on those films. Now how that translates financially is a different issue, but 3k for a year of online licensing seems more favorable to me than say, no release and no one realizing you existed 20 years ago. So yeah, it always has been, and always will be difficult to turn filmmaking into a profitable endeavor, particularly from the perspective of DP's. But these changes have overall been very positive ones for filmmaking as an art form. From the cinematographer's perspective, the problem isn't that there are too many movies. The problem is that with the low priced, high level technology available today, there are too many cinematographers. And digital cameras have made it easier for posers to pretend they know what they're doing. The barriers to entry to call yourself a "cinematographer" today are incredibly low. And the market is saturated. Tens of thousands of people competing for only a few jobs. Basic math suggests that making it as a DP today would be nearly impossible unless you're at the top of your craft. But then again, 50 years ago, you weren't competing with anyone else as a DP, because it was so difficult to gain entry initially-- to the extent that if you were somehow a known DP in the 1960's, it might be akin to winning the lottery. My conclusion is that it is just a difficult to be a cinematographer today as it ever was. The only difference is that the unique financial challenges have dramatically changed, but have at no point been truly in the favor of the cinematographer. Or even, arguably, the director.

Ah, I see you've also seen the movie Tokyo Ga Carl. Haha. Not many have. Little known documentary by Wim Wenders.

Ozu shot all of his films using the exact same lens: 50mm, and told the DP exactly where to put the camera. His films turned out pretty good. It all depends on the relationship, level of trust, and how each sees the role of the cinematographer. Most cinematographers are not given a free reign to craft the look like Vittorio Storaro in Apocalypse Now. Some are. Not absolutes in this industry.

How many people were using DaVinci when it first came out in 1984? A tiny fraction of the people who now use it either through personal puchases, or the blackmagic cinema camera (which includes the full version).

None of it is brand new out of the box. But for the first time, these high end post services are affordable for the common man. That, coupled with the continuously higher bar with digital technology has made for new tools in the cinematographer's tool box.

Two words: DaVinci Resolve. You can do amazing things in post with digital now. I'm all for doing as much as possible in camera. But the game has changed in a lot of ways. Now there are instances where doing things to the eye/monitor can create a lot of limitations in post. The cinematographer's job has become much more involved in post now. It goes way beyond color timing. There's this huge resistance on the part of a lot of cinematographer's to embrace some of these post-tools available. It shouldn't be emasculating though, it's just one more tool in the tool-belt.

NYU is actually $30,000 a semester give or take a few hundred (not counting living expenses): http://www.nyu.edu/bursar/tuition.fees/rate13/gradtisch.html Columbia doesn't fare much better.

Gabriel Figueroa is one of the most underrated, and greatest cinematographers of all time. This looks amazing! Americans while naming their favorite cinematographers rarely venture outside of a name that ends in ASC (all of whom are amazing artists by the way!), but there is an immense wealth of talent all over the world. I think Figueroa is on the same level as Gregg Toland, Hal Mohr, Leon Shamroy, any of the great American cinematographers.

This is hardly unusual to filmmaking, as someone has already pointed out. Young people growing up have big dreams that can be naive and overly ambitious. I don't think this is a bad thing. Over time your dreams become more tempered as you hone in on what makes you happy. Usually though you don't even know what you really want to do as you grow up. Most people gravitate naturally towards the most obvious professions: Rich and successful athlete, rich and successful filmmaker... Ect. Most will not achieve the worldwide fame and immense wealth of James Cameron, or other internationally recognized directors and filmmakers. As Chris Doyle says though: You shouldn't try to be a rich and famous filmmaker, you should try to be a great artist. And if you fall short, you may find that there is another way to be involved in the industry or in films.

Both interesting and funny! http://filmmaker.com/DUMPS.html True? Untrue? Thoughts?

Sounds like a real dream come true. :blink:

There are so many great documentaries (and narratives for that matter!) That were shot with very little money/resources at their disposal. I would not be concerned about what you are shooting on. I just finished a feature length documentary with what I had--not much--and it's liberating. It reminds you in this technologically obsessed age that stories are stories. Whether it's with an Alexa or a canon Vixia HSF10, you're telling a story. Sure if you can get the Alexa then great... But I think especially with documentaries, there's a greater allowance for visual imperfection because it reminds the audience that what they're watching is real. I don't believe in the wait-until-somebody-gives-me-millions-of-dollars-to-be-an-artist method of being a filmmaker. You be a filmmaker by making movies however you can. Many many great filmmakers--the vast majority I'd say--proved they were great before anyone gave them money. Why else would someone give them money later?

There are literally tens of thousands of examples of scenes that work extremely well by flattening out the image, or thinking of film as a two dimensional plane, or breaking the rule of thirds. The reason these rules are completely pointless is because the story and script determine the style, and not the other way around. I've seen some wonderful movies that make extensive use of a static camera. Hong Sang Soo directed a beautiful film called The Power of Kangwon Province, where the camera never moves a single time! And yet he gives the illusion of the camera moving, and creates enormous movement within the frame. These rules don't hold up because the counterexamples are too numerous to count. There's this overwhelming desire to simplify every part of the filmmaking process into rules and regulations. To create the rules for success. From Save the Cat, to photographic rules of composition. It's not that it's bad to know the rule of thirds. But it's bad to think of it as a "rule" that can't be broken. Or even to think unquestioningly that it will make your movie better. What will make your movie better depends on what your movie is about, and what kind of feeling you want to create. Sometimes a backlight is perfect. Other times it isn't.

I saw Ashes of Time Redux on the big screen a few years ago. You're in for a great viewing! There's also some great stories about the production of the film. Apparently Doyle was going through a bottle and a half of whisky a day on set, on the last day of filming overslept after partying too hard the night before and had to be woken up by Wong Kar Wai. Feeling guilty, he apparently started stripping naked in a critical scene, and ran head head on into a large fire (you'll know it when you see it) to try and get the best footage possible to make up for his mistake.

Make it 401 then ;) . Maybe there's some truth to this sentiment if it keeps coming up as you suggest. Normally I might agree with you Richard. In this case though, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that an industry professional is discouraging a young filmmaker from respectfully seeking innovative ways to fund his film. No one forced this post upon you. There was no reason to hijack the original post and turn it into a "back in my day" reminiscence about how insulting you find it that the young filmmaker would dare to ask you to look at his kickstarter page. Kickstarter is as much about raising awareness about a project as it is about raising money. If you want to get into a philosophical debate about the appropriateness of crowd funding websites, start a new topic instead of watering down this one.

Thanks for the support Freya. Obviously there are many incredible contributors to this forum (you among them!), and I didn't mean to diminish that. I apologize if that's how it came off. I was referring to those who have an inexplicable problem with a young filmmaker trying to make a movie, and it seems to be a small handful, far far from the majority. Thanks for helping me clarify that. This is a place where filmmakers of all levels and walks of life should be able to come together in support of one another.