Benson Marks

Does George Stevens count? I didn't find him in that article and I do know he wasn't just a DOP and director, but also a writer and producer. Anybody else think that George should've been mentioned too?

OK, the trailer was funny (I didn't see it anyway and judging by what's been said, I'm glad I didn't.), but this trailer is the funniest one I've ever seen. Enjoy.

Thanks, John. I'll make sure I keep my tone down. Anyway, I decided to read more from my most trusted source of knowledge: Dov S.S. Simens "From Reel To Deel," and came across this. "Six months costing $2,000 to $3000 is all that's needed to become a professional. Why spend $70,000-$100,000 at a four-year film school when, at a fraction of the cost, you can get more practical know-how by creating your own hands-on film school. To accomplish this, acquire some books and software at $200-$500, then secure some filmmaking basics with a workshop or two at $300-$1,000, next, spend $2,000 on a weekend short, and with the $67,500-$96,500 and three and a half years saved (by not attending a how-to-make-the-perfect-feature-film-when-everything-in-the-universe-is-available-to-you-whenever-you-want-it film school) you can make your first feature film like Clerks, Easy Rider, sex, lies & videotape, The Blair Witch Project, or Barbershop." Wow, even my most trusted source is telling me to make a short! I think I should work on that. As for Andrew, I think you have a good point that I should be asking questions. I'll put that into practice as well.

I stand corrected. Good analogy with Shakespeare. I'm sorry, I just keep forgetting I'm arguing with experts, not average joes. As for the experience factor, I'm working on that. You do understand that I'm planning on being a writer and director, not a cinematographer. Right now, I'm working on my first script. It may be a first, but everybody's gotta take their first step, right? I'll take my working on my first script as just that, a first step.

Interesting points. I'll keep them in mind the next time I post something. Oh, and to disagree with you, I thought the online movie distribution was valid. The reason being to defend myself from all the stuff on shorts. John also brought it up, and I decided to tell them why I felt that starting with movies would be better than starting with shorts. So yeah, we both disagree on something. Both with you and John. Certainly, it is hard to get people to see your movie online, especially if you can't google it. But if you have a good marketing campaign, you never know how many people could see it. After all, if you only need to get thousands of people to see your film online and millions of people watch movies that have made it to the big screen, you never know what can happen.

Okay, Adrian, that is true as well. It looks like I need to hang in there, think about it a bit, and then try to say it respectfully (A bit of a challenge for me, obviously.). I'll try to be as respectful as I can by responding to John's post. First, be careful what you're saying. If you're still learning the process, why try to disrespect people who are learning the process just like you are? Take it this way. We now have something in common. We're both still learning the process. Also, that know-it-all attitude is my scorpion side of things. It's in my nature. I just feel like I have a lot of good advice. Can't help it. I certainly don't like to feel as if I'm a know-nothing. Nobody does (In fact, I'm fairly intelligent.). Now I know what you're thinking, I don't have any good advice, right? Look, I don't know you as well as everybody else on this forum does. As Adrian said, I'm the new guy. Just give me a chance to test myself. Okay, sure, I may be insulting other people who may be more experienced than I am, but I just want to question these people and what they're saying. Look, experts can be wrong too and need to have their answers corrected. Are the experts always right? Besides that, You're right. I wasn't trying to insult them in any way possible. Next, which directors are you talking about? If I did mention directors who did shorts, I just simply didn't know. Finally, only wannabes do shorts. I don't think they're trying to make shorts for commercial gain, but they don't realize they'll have a better chance of getting into the business if they make a really, really, great 90-minute movie. If the movie is just good, it will fail, but now with the internet, you can make a good movie and make a lot of money by self-distributing the film online. Just charge 42 cents for each viewing, 76 cents for archiving, and $7.95 to get the DVD. If 200,000 people view it, and half of those viewers want to see it in better quality and download it into their hard drive (archiving), and if half of those who want to archive the movie also want to order the DVD, you can make more than $500,000. Enough to make another (maybe even better) movie that could get you recognized... Even if you didn't make it into the film festival, and didn't get a distributor for your film either. Brilliant? I think so.

Sure, Adrian, I'll agree with you on that. This industry is devoted to relationships and John may be making important points too. But that does not excuse the fact that he said some unkind things at me. Who in the world wants to be called a wannabe dreamer anyhow? Do I have to be judged because I have no experience? Seriously, these are insults to people like me who have a passion to do something they've been dreaming about being since they were 6 years old. All I want is at least some respect. I don't believe anybody should be judged simply by the fact that they don't have 20 years of experience. After all, these people have opinions too. Shouldn't they be given at least some respect? Like you said, this industry should be about relationships. Mocking someone because they don't have experience feels like being accused because of race. I can't control my skin color and neither can you. It's just something you're stuck with. I'm stuck with being a wannabe for now because I'm just getting started. There's nothing I can do about that until I've been in the business for 20 years or so. Again, Adrian, I acknowledge that it should be about relationships. But being unkind to others doesn't do anything but create strife. John needs to understand that and I want him to understand that. I wish John well and hope he chooses to behave.

Is this how you treat people who are still learning the process? Seriously, mocking me and calling me a wannabe dreamer is quite an insult to all those people too. I would never want to hire a cinematographer who looks down on people like me. Got that? If you don't have anything nice to say, keep your mouth shut. If you want to be treated disrespectfully, keep being disrespectful. If you want some respect, act like a gentleman. Why should I answer your questions anyway? I'm not going to answer them if this is what you are going to throw at me. I have said enough.

Let me quote from my favorite source: Dov S.S. Simens book "From Reel to Deal," and see what you have to say about it: "Ninety-five percent of all feature film budgets have been massively inflated; 300 to 700 percent when marketed to potential ticket buyers; the other 5 percent are grossly deflated 400 to 500 percent. This is due to the fact that publicity for these films boasts not about how expensive they were but rather how cheaply they were made. The phrase distributors always use when referring to these films is, "It was shot for..." She's Gotta Have It was shot for $60,000. In the Company of Menwas shot for $25,000. Clerks was shot for $22,000. The Blair Witch Project was shot for $20,000. El Mariachi was shot for $7,500 pi was shot for $60,000. For instance, with El Mariachi Robert Rodriguez rented a camera for a week, purchased some film and tape, paid for gas, got his friend to act, went across the border, bought some tacos, and shot the movie - he shot it for $7,500. He didn't pay the lab. It wasn't edited. He had no music. It wasn't even 35mm. He didn't finish it. Likewise, Sanchez and Myrick shot The Blair Witch Project for $20,000, but the final, color-corrected, blown-up-to-35mm-print, with sound and proper music clearances, that you saw in a movie theater, cost at least $200,000-$300,000. Decades ago, thanks to John Cassavetes (the godfather to independent filmmakers), it was discovered that it is possible to produce feature films for as little as $60,000. Now, if the distributor plays the inflate-the-budget game and increases the $60,000 feature by 700 percent, they'll market it as a film that cost $420,000. This is a marketing black hole. There's no uniqueness to a $420,000 feature. So the distributor, instead of inflating the budget, deflates it by 400-500 percent and claims the film was shot for $12,000-$15,000. Now the film sounds like a little darling. Audiences will come to see what it looks like, and the micro-budget film (aka no-budget, ultra-low-budget, guerrilla film, mini-DV, or digital feature) is sometimes as marketable as the mega-budget film. Compare The Blair Witch Project revenues to those of Lucas's Star Wars prequel, The Phantom Menace, and Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, which were released almost at the same time."

No No No No! I did not say filmmaking means being greedy and getting all the money. I said it was a business. In other words, making a movie involves money! And lots of it! If that still doesn't impress you, go to the "Mutiny on the bounty HD-DVD" forum to find out why it's a business.

News flash for John: Filmmaking is a BUSINESS!!!!! I don't have the time to explain why, but quite honestly, if nobody buys a short film, you're gonna have a hard time making it into the business because Hollywood only wants something that will sell. Shorts are too short and no studio is going to buy those. Besides, I'd be wasting money on 10-30 minute shorts nobodys going to see, which would mean I'd never make it into the business (and thus, ruining my dream too.). And besides, I'm better at 90-120 minute ideas than 20 minute ones. Another reason out of many I'm not doing shorts.

Richard, read this from filmmaking.net, the question is the same as the kid is asking. "The short answer to this rather repetitive question is simple. If you want your movie to look like film, then shoot it on film. Whilst there are many products out there that can approximate a film look, not one of them currently stack up against the real thing. Film is film, video is video. The very way in which the image is captured is so different between the two mediums, you will possibly never be able to get an exact match. Benedict Thienpont provides this brief overview of the key differences: 'Technically speaking, video is capturing in RGB, meaning the picture is effectively captured using three cameras in one: one sensitive to red light, another to green light, and a third to blue light. This is very close to the way our eyes see. We also have sensitive cells for red, blue, and green light plus cells that are sensitive to light in general (These are most effective to see in darker environments, when we see less the colour aspect of the light). So what we see on video covers greatly our own experience of vision. In video reproduction there are 25 or 30 still pictures passing through per second to create the illusion of motion. During recording each still picture was created as the view is being scanned from top to bottom from left to right in a weaving manner. What happens to film is the light being captured in CMYK, sort of the same principle used in quadri print production. There are four photosensitive layers on the film. One for the magenta coloured elements in the viewed picture, one for the yellow, one for the cyan, and a fourth for light strength in general. The fourth one is especially for dark areas and good light contrast. Actually the charm of film reproduction is in the fact there's an error in colour. Not all colours are reproduced and shifted. The overall result is warmer. In film reproduction there are 24 still pictures passing through to create the illusion of motion. During recording each still picture was being scanned in one shot just like an ordinary Kodak camera does.' Of course, there are now quite a few commercial products on the market for use in post-production to help approximate a "film look." These normally take the form of plug-ins for post-production applications such as Adobe Premiere, Final Cut Pro, and After Effects, and have got much better over the years. The leading products for approximating the look of film in a video are Digieffects CineLook, BigFX FilmFX and Red Giant Magic Bullet Suite. All of these products and plug-ins for popular NLEs and FX packages such as Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid Xpress, Final Cut Pro, and Adobe After Effects. But remember, these will not give you the same results as shooting on the real thing. And don't forget that lighting will ultimately have a far greater impact on the finished look of your film than shooting format."

As someone who is thinking of being a writer/director, I'm planning to make my first movie a 90-minute, one room, dialogue-oriented stage play. I also realize that the budget for the movie will probably be really low and thus, I'll probably have to shoot digital. Given the two choices between Panasonic's AG-DVX-100 and Canon's XL-2, what are the differences between the two and which one is better for this type of movie if there is a clear choice?

I think that makes more sense. So, basically, it's all about your idea of what life is. That's what I'm getting at.

I second it. I'm just getting the hang of this forum and I still put my first and last name up. It shouldn't be any different whether you're an experienced cinematographer like Vittorio Storaro or just getting your start in the moviemaking world.

Just to let you in the know, IMAX said that they were going DI for all their IMAX prints, so yes, you're right, Kevin.

Alright. If none of you expert cinematographers will let me take my advice, I guess I'll give mi mo another option. Go to Dov S.S. Simens 2-day film school. Alumni of that class include Quentin Tarantino, Matthew Vaughn, Kirk Jones, Mark Archer, Philippa Braithwaite, Guy Ritchie, Christopher Nolan; Numerous Sundance, Cannes, and Toronto festival winners' writers; and cinematographers of films like Blade, Mortal Kombat, and X-Men. Other alumni include musicians like Michael Jackson, Queen Latifah, and Roland Best who wanted to cross over into film, and actors like Sinbad, Valerie Bertinelli, Malcolm-Jamal Warner, and Will Smith who wanted to take control of their careers. The film school costs only $400 compared to the thousands of dollars spent on 4 year film schools. If you want to enroll in this film school, go to www.webfilmschool.com. There are other ways to enroll as well. You can buy Dov's book "From Reel to Deal" for only $20-30 or you could buy the DVD film school or go on the web film school for the exact same price. I hope you find this to be a better opinion than the one I gave out. If you do enroll, good luck.

Alright. If none of you expert cinematographers will let me take my advice, I guess I'll give mi mo another option. Go to Dov S.S. Simens 2-day film school. Alumni of that class include Quentin Tarantino, Matthew Vaughn, Kirk Jones, Mark Archer, Philippa Braithwaite, Guy Ritchie, Chris Nolan; Numerous Sundance, Cannes, and Toronto festival winners' writers; and cinematographers of films like Blade, Mortal Kombat, and X-Men. Other alumni include musicians like Michael Jackson, Queen Latifah, and Roland Best who wanted to cross over into film, and actors like Sinbad, Valerie Bertinelli, Malcolm-Jamal Warner, and Will Smith who wanted to take control of their careers. The film school costs only $400 compared to the thousands of dollars spent on 4 year film schools. If you want to enroll in this film school, go to www.webfilmschool.com. There are other ways to enroll as well. You can buy Dov's book "From Reel to Deal" for only $20-30 or you could buy the DVD film school or go on the web film school for the exact same price. I hope you find this to be a better opinion than the one I gave out. If you do enroll, good luck.

You reap what you sow, Rich. You mocked me and I mocked you. Now, can we just get back to helping poor mi mo out on his problem, please?

Thanks for mocking my personality Rich! By the way, I saw your imdb page and what are all those movies you've been on? Not very good ones, I see. All you cinematographers just don't get it. You took my post entirely out of context. I'm basically trying to tell him the best way to get in the business, while at the same time giving him a lot of experience at the same time! Didn't you people find out that cinematographer who took that route will have been in almost 100 movies in only 10-12 years? Somehow, no matter how many years of experience you've all had, you just don't get it.

Alright, so what about the student and first-time filmmakers section of this forum? Why is it there? Yes, I may not have experience in this business, but that doesn't mean I'm a clueless loser whose opinion should be avoided all the time. Look, I still know the basics of what a cinematographer does (See that big post I made.), and I still know how the filmmaking process is done. OK, so I'm more interested in being a writer/director, which backs up my point that some directors are clueless when it comes to cinematography. Now what do you think of that?

You didn't read my other posts did you? You should be reading my second post. That's how all of this got started.

Does it really matter how much experience I have? I don't think you know what you're talking about. I did not say the cinematographer was better than the director, I said the cinematographer was the most important person on the set, and therefore, has to be real good. Also, the cinematographer knows more about camera movements, angles, film stock, framing, etc., etc., than a director ever could. The director could be completely clueless about shots and angles and could just get his advice from the cinematographer. Why else is there director/DOP collaboration? Does the director know everything the cinematographer doesn't already know? Last but not least, where in the planet did you get this crazy idea that I said the director was giving the script to the cinematographer anyhow? I said that cinematographers are almost as important as getting a great script. Care to comment on that?

Let me rephrase what I said, Saul. The director has to keep the movie running on schedule and he needs to stay within the films budget. It doesn't matter whether the movie is a blockbuster or an independent film, the director still has to do this kind of stuff. OK, sure, the director may determine those camera movements and angles, but the cinematographer still works a lot harder than the director when it comes to these things because he's in charge of getting those movements and angles from the camera. This is much harder for the cinematographer than the director who just simply tells the cinematographer what to do. The cinematographer does the work. Finally, there's a typo in your post. "Of course cinematographers are in charge of film stock, the camera, lenses, lighting, shadows, focus and other things, but only when the director and director agree to them?" You need to fix that.

Thank you, David. Now Shane, stop being a crybaby when you shouldn't be. If you can get close enough to the dailies, I don't think you should be complaining about how bad DI is in the first place.