Lars Zemskih

Thank you, I will check out the book as well. I do believe you in what you are saying, but we really shouldn't be talking about filmmaking wannabes here. I think what I was referring to is people who are so committed to doing it, that they can't see themselves doing anything else and everyday they get to know something new. I mean, everyone thing he can be a filmmaker because the cameras are so easy to buy, but everyone can buy a guitar, but a few go from being able to strum it to really be good at it, which requires a lot of commitment. So in filmmaking experience is everything and what you can do and already have done. So for each thing you know there is less competition, you know properly about lights, color temperature and lenses, 3000 people less to compete with, you have experience and shot on film, another 5000 people that only shot on HD and so on. I don't know as much about the filmmaking industry as you of course, I am just thinking out loud. Am I still on the wrong tracks?

So, the first film (movie to be more correct now) shot on Red, if I am correct. Trailer is here: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809878244/video/4771511 Download the HD trailer of course to get the idea. To me there is a lot of digital noise that just doesn't look too good, a noise that many people won't like, as it so different to the film grain. It could be compression adding to it as well, but the 1080 trailer shouldn't be that much compressed.

I don't really know if we can call getting into filmmaking a "dream", because unemployment is growing in pretty much in all sectors. How many kids graduate from law schools and how many lawers are there already, true, you can find a job doing legal work and not being a proper court laywer, but so can you find a similar case of jobs in film. In the similar reasoning no one can tell you that you will have a great business when you study business. It is hard to find jobs pretty much in most fields these days to be fair. And why is it even smaller now though? Well, the budgets are getting smaller, but there are much more productions both in film and music videos since the costs have dropped. That means there is bigger job demand, even though it is less money and bigger supply than needed. So the job market is growing, slowly, but growing.

Ok, maybe side by side it easy to spot the difference when digital and film are cut together. But going back to Superman Returns, do you think that after the screening of the film when asked whether it was shot digital or film, most people will give you the correct answer? I mean, most people don't care about this, just as long as it looks good and the story is well, of Superman, then not many people stop and question what it was shot on. I wish so too, it would be so much easier and I would loose less sleep thinking about where the film industry is going at the moment.

This is one of the most depressing things that I've read in a long time and it is not easy to admit that. what going to happen to us? especially us, that are at the beginning and trying to break into an already crumbling industry. are we going to have to get office jobs? =/

Tenolian, I must admit that I am not entirely sure what you mean by an acquisition format, English is not my first language. The difference between DV and Red is that miniDV is not 4k for example, so it just simply looks worse and you can't really screen it in proper cinemas because of the resolution. Plus, usually to produce great cinematography, you need the help of lights, dollies, cranes, not to forget make-up, costumes and all the other stuff that you must invest in to make a good looking film, so we are not talking about low low budgets here shot on pd150. And do you think a person not working in the industry can tell a difference between HD and film? Most of them can't, so being able to shoot at 4k on digital might change some stuff.

I don't think it is entirely true, because in MA programs you get even more footage for your reels and portfolio and it is easier to make an award winning short, which can further put you on the map and increase you chances of getting a job or a budget for the script. Another plus is with masters you can certainly teach in film schools (well certain film schools, not NYU of course), which gives you something to fall back to and you can develop your projects while teaching, as I know many directors do it here for example.

Great stuff man, very very nice. I got to say though, that it is the third reel that I see where this song is used in the last month. It is probably something you don't worry about, and you cut to it nicely, just a note.

Well, hopefully you know the people that graduated with you and you guys all want and get a project to work together on soon. And hopefully you made contacts in the industry as well. Also, hopefully, you learned a lot and shot on film and know how everything works. However, no school can guarantee any of this. It is your commitment and how much you are willing to learn and determined to succeed in one of the smallest job markets in the world. I think it is slowly growing though due to lower costs of filmmaking and quantity of films being made. There are numerous success stories of famous directors or DP's who went to film school, but there are just as much for the ones that didn't.

Where exactly did you look the difference up? It's weird that the brighter viewing system would be the only difference as GII came couple of years later, there must have been something else, no?

What are the major differences between the original Gold and GII? I am in need of a detailed photo of Panaflex Gold, not the GII, but the first Gold model. Everywhere I look it seems to be only GII. If anyone could point me somewhere online or have a picture they could share I would really appreciate that.

oh, ok, no worries :) I'm sorry for misunderstanding you too.

I don't understand your response, you asked for comments and criticism.

yeah, you're right, I didn't even realize I posted it in HD. Can I ask moderators to move this, so I don't double post.

I am in need of a detailed photo of Panaflex Gold, not the GII, but the first Gold model. Everywhere I look it seems to be only GII. If anyone could point me somewhere online or have a picture they could share I would really appreciate that. What are the major differences between the original Gold and GII?

Looks good! It might be a bit too long, I think you can tighten it a little, as somebody said here before, your reel is just as good as your worst shot.

And now it is clear :) Great discussion video as well, thank you.

Evan, I've started editing and did it for a long time on Adobe Premiere and it is a great tool in my opinion. However, Final Cut still works faster on many aspects including rendering to me, but since Mac's work faster usually it might also do with system specifications, I mean if you have a powerful PC it is probably the same, I'm not certain of this. Final Cut is also ahead of Premiere each time with features, for example there was no color correcting tool until version 7 in Premiere. I just really wonder why such a huge budget movie would do it on Premiere, that's all. Maybe it's something to do with shooting on HD and the workflow that they worked out where Premiere worked the best with it, I just really want to know why. But you are right in saying that an edit is an edit and I think a good editor can take the film and cut it with scissors and stick it together with tape, and it will still be good. All of this editing softs are great tools, plus even when I cut in Final Cut, I always use After Effects for one thing or another. So no, I wouldn't think anything less of someone especially editing low budget stuff whether it is Premiere or Final Cut, plus I've seen people cut with Premiere on their Apples, and cross-platform development is renewed due to Intel Macs, so there will be a new Premiere for macs as well. But when it is such a huge budget like Superman, you just wonder.

This is a really good point. The other pro and con here I see is that in any given long established market or a business model (such as film industry in countries like US and UK) usually when you find a way to get something cheaper or use less money on it, these original resources don't go anywhere, they are simply relocated. So a bad situation would be that the money saved on a production using camera such as Red and the money simply goes to overpaid actors. A good situation in this would be that the money goes to other things that make the film better, such as sets, insane cgi and maybe maybe to the very underpaid PA's. Superman returns was shot on HD, it's budget is 270,000,000 $. I mean, where did the money go on saving all the film? Did Singer put it in his pocket? It was also edited on Adobe Premiere from what I heard (still can't get my head around why). So the question comes to mind is, how much really will it change the industry? Relocate the money spending? I am of course talking about big budgets here. What it can do for indies is to just make them easier to make and more of them to make, which means more job opportunities for us, so some of you, stop freaking out. I was freaking out too, but this is my opinion today and I believe in it. As long as the film can make more than quadruple earnings though, there will always be tons of money invested.

Nobody is trying to insult anyone, this is a forum after all, and arguments sometime can feel personal. David Mullen might have a different opinion than me or Brad and actually agree with you, that is why is I mentioned all of us here. I'm sorry if I insulted you. If I thought you didn't know what you are talking about, I wouldn't argue with you in the first place. We all voice our opinions.

That is so so not true, a good director, can write, shoot, edit and sometimes even act in his own film. I doubt someone like Kubrick would make a bad film just because he doesn't work with good people, in fact I'm sure you know a famous incident when a DP made different settings to the shoot than Kubrick's original thought and he spotted that and threatened to fire him if he ever did it again. You think in the beginning he succeeded and was noticed because he just found best people who did everything for him? Directors don't need DP's to do all the work for them and they can just sit in their chair, they need them to have a dialog on set and decide together how to best photograph something. It would really suck to work for a director, who first of all doesn't know what he wants, and second doesn't know how to do that or if it is even physically possible. Everyone will just think of you as an under skilled director and you will have a very unmotivated crew and a bad film. How can you expect to know less than people that work for you? You don't need to be heavily skilled in cinematography, but do you need to be a good director? How much is film about photography and image? Probably the most important part together with story. It is a visual medium. I just don't understand this. I want to direct and I have a lot of books about cinematography and I want to learn about it as much as I can or anything to do with filmmaking, like screenwriting, editing workflows, acting, etc., will you actually tell yourself where your knowledge of the film should stop as a director? Maybe we need David Mullen to tell his opinion on this, I am sure after that it will be much clearer to all of us.

Hey, Well in my opinion it would be best to shoot it in standard mode and then use After Effects with Magic Bullet plug-in that will give it a filmier quality. It also removes digital artifacts and does a pretty good job I think. The only limitation is Steady cam? Isn't there anyway to modify it? I would try to find a way if I could use a better camera.

I second that, use a digital SLR, it will speed things up and give you better quality in the end. There is also more room to play with depth of field and aperture than in HVX's lens.

Well, yes, he doesn't actually own the company if we talk about the actual CEO's and it is a top managerial position (I was wrong to say the own the companies), however I think it is more that it is a type of managerial spectrum, sure. However, there is a huge difference between somebody called a manager in the company and the CEO. And the film directors are who would be called Project Managers if we are doing the business analogy.

> I feel I can run a construction company, and I've never done it professionally...why? Because I have management education and management experience. Management is universal, regardless of what you're managing. Is the CEO of Microsoft not able to be the CEO for Baskin-Robbins? I think I'm not the only one using incorrect analogies around here. I think you are also confusing a managerial position with that of the CEO, the CEO would be the owner of a production company, thus CEO of Microsoft would be somewhat able to run Warner Brothers for example. But being a manager (such as director or a construction work supervisor) is different because it doesn't just require overall manager skills, it requires a lot more understanding of how everything is done. So no, just by having general managing skills you mind find yourself telling your construction workers something very ridiculous (such as building something that doesn't work architecturally) .