Benson Marks

Sorry Richard, but that isn't accurate either. While the director may know about how to block, compose, what lens to use, and so on, these things are a whole lot more important to the cinematographer than the director. The director is in charge of the style, actors, schedule, and budget. Cinematographers on the other hand, are in charge of film stock, the camera, lenses, lighting, shadows, focus, camera movement, angles, and on and on and on. Without a good cinematographer, the film will look absolutely horrible even if Steven Spielberg's directing. The cinematographer is a whole lot more important to the film's look than the director ever could.

I don't know. Maybe it is too late and maybe it isn't. It depends on whether it's too big a move. Let me tell you how great cinematographers get in to the business. Forgive me, this will be rather long. The cinematographer is the first person great filmmakers hire. The cinematographer knows how to make a film. They don't. Hiring a cinematographer is almost as important to them as acquiring a great script. They will most certainly choose wisely. The cinematographer will get the filmmaker a crew. Plus, the cinematographer understands the mechanics of shooting film, including grades of film stock, the camera, lenses, camera movement, focal points, creative angles, and light and shadows, and will become the person the filmmaker depends on to take him step-by-step through the post-production process. Of course, you, the cinematographer should be a visual artist, but you are also the captain of your crew. You should be a leader with an amazing work ethic. The filmmaker needs a cinematographer with a substantial body of work, great connections, and understands budget and time restrictions. If you don't, you can easily waste film, or take too long with setups and cost you time. The filmmaker can't afford either. It is imperative to the great filmmaker that the cinematographer be excellent. And a foolish student filmmaker will make the common first-timer's mistake of hiring a cinematographer who is really only an AC (assistant cameraman). Here's what I mean. The camera crew consists of four people: 1. Cinematographer 2. Camera Operator 3. First Assistant Cameraman (First AC or Focus Puller) 4. Second Assistant Cameraman (Second AC or Clapper/Loader) First, you graduate from film school with a degree in cinematography and go to Hollywood with a 16mm short. You'll quickly discover that no one will hire you to shoot a 35mm feature. So, to pay rent, the first job you get will be at a camera rental facility as a gofer/driber for a maintenance assistant. At the camera rental facility, as working DPs pick up camera packages for their shoots, you introduce yourself and ask for a job - as a second AC (second assistant cameraman or clapper/loader). This person's responsibility is to load magazines, work the slate (the clapper), and keep the camera reports. You eventually hook up with a DP, leave the rental facility, become a second AC, and work on 20-30 shoots over two years, and - if you don't screw up - you eventually become a first AC (first assistant cameraman or focus puller). This person is in charge of focus and keeps the camera, magazines, and film gate clean and clear. You do this for two years, work on another 20-30 projects, and "pull focus" on 1,000 to 10,000 shots. If all these shots are sharp and clear, you move up the ladder to become a camera operator. This is the person who frames the shot, with or without the actor, for maximum dramatic effect. After five or six years operating the camera, you are qualified to be a feature film cinematographer. During this time you have worked on almost 100 projects and actively participated in 10,000 to 50,000 shots. This is the kind of cinematographer good filmmakers will probably hire. Who will good filmakers hire? Optimal: a seasoned feature film cinematographer who understands budget restraints. Next Best: a cinematographer who has been working for five to seven years on rock videos, commercials, and industrials. Not Bad: a camera operator who has been working for the feature film cinematographer who refused a filmmaker's project because of budget restraints. Who they won't hire: A recent college graduate who has only 16mm shorts. A seasoned cinematographer who is used to big-budget shoots and who thinks the budget is too low. Anyone who has shot only video, never film. How they will find a cinematographer: They'll call the film lab and ask for referrals. They'll call the local camera rental facility and ask for referrals. They'll call the local film commissioner and ask for referrals. Once they've hired you as a cinematographer, you will hire a crew of assistants (operator, first AC, and second AC) within 24 hours. You are now an excellent cinematographer. Sound like a hard road? It is. Around 0-3% of filmmakers, directors, writers, and other people in the business make it into Hollywood. You may have to be really lucky to get in. I don't want to use all this to discourage you from pursuing your dream. If this is what you want, then go as far as you can, no matter how bad the odds are.

What are you thinking of being instead? A director? A cinematographer? A screenwriter? A producer? I'd just like to know before I say something.

If you want your movie to look like film, shoot on film. Film looks like film. Digital videotape, no matter how much you try, looks like digital videotape. Need I say more?

Does that still mean the DI process is bad? Here's the problem: The Dark Knight was still a great movie even if the DI effected it somewhat! As for your continuity thoughts, sure, they would have retained continuity with their predecessors had they not used the DI process, but here's what you need to think about: THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE! Also, all of those franchises you mentioned had all their movies using the DI process. Just as all three Lord of the Rings movies still used DI and they still were very well made, so all three Spider-Man movies used the 2K DI process (Not just Spider-Man 2) and the third one was terrible anyway. The DI process should only be used for newer franchises that are experimenting with the process. No matter what you say, Shane, DI is still in its baby years. It still needs to mature and over time, and it should improve as time goes by. Sound film had problems of its own before it later became commonplace, including problems involving synchronization, playback volume, and recording fidelity. DI has its own problems right now. Like you said, the stuff looks overstylized. Over time, the issues you are bringing up eventually won't be issues anymore.

Good point, Simon, but what do you mean that the art form I'm trying to convey is given by my view of the world anyhow? I don't necessarily understand that.

I think you're right. It probably does depend on what my tastes are and what I think would enhance the art I'm trying to convey, but you do make a good argument that neither are realistic, which is also true (Our eyes are circles, not rectangles). I think I'll take the time to give this some thought, too.

I'm sorry, but I'm having an extremely hard time interpreting what you just said. Could you explain to me what you're talking about? 'Cause I lost you somewhere in your sentence.

As I said from the beginning, I assumed 1.85 was more natural, and here's why I felt that way. 1.85 and ratios around it seem to have a more balanced appearance, by that I mean that the image is good for both horizontal as well as vertical objects, while wider ratios like 2.39 tend to be better just for horizontal objects. Our eyes, I believe, do both horizontal and vertical composition like 1.85 and 1.78(16:9). I'm not saying that this is the end all, be all, on the subject. There could still be an argument out there about wider frame formats having a more realistic look than 1.85 does. I'm just saying that that's what I think right now, but would like to stand corrected if need be.

I feel your pain when it comes to DI, but I don't think that movies are being ruined by this... The movies you just described were just simply terrible. Indiana Jones 4 wasn't bad because it used DI, it's because the sci-fi stuff is too far-fetched for the franchise it's supposed to be. Atonement isn't terrible because it used DI, it's just that it's a movie nobody wants to see even if it was nominated for best picture during oscar season. In fact, not every movie that uses the DI process is terrible. All three Lord of the Rings movies used DI, and we all know those movies were smashing, and just this year, The Dark Knight used the DI process. Was that movie a disaster? Personally, I think that a great movie comes from a great story no matter what process is used on it. Most of the movies that come out today have stories that are more mediocre than great, which is why cinema isn't as sparkling as it used to be. Sad.

Thanks for the info. I do have Katz's book, but I have to admit that it got boring and I stopped reading it. Looks like I have to get back to it.

I'm planning on a career as a writer and director of movies and would like to know about shot sizes and focal lengths, as I hear they're important in directing. So what are the basics and where can I learn more about them?

Thanks for the advice, Andrew. I think I'll start with asking about the shot sizes and focus lengths in another forum on this website. I think it would be a good start. As for Will, I think you just hit the nail on the head. Basically, you're saying that Realism is an artform, just like any other type of artform, and what really matters is that the artistry is what makes the movie realistic, not the technical stuff (Although that does matter, too.). Good point.

Now to Andrew's post. That showscan read was very interesting. Too bad showscan went under chapter 7 bankruptcy :( You may be right. I am taking this a little too objectively (Hey, I mean, I just want to make the best decisions. Isn't that partly what a director does?). Here's the problem though, as much as I would like to study these two different mediums, I can't afford to buy, let alone, rent one of these cameras. So if I can't get my hands on one of these cameras, how do I research these two different mediums anyway?

No, I haven't made anything yet(In fact, I'm more interested in being a writer/director, not a producer, so the closest I'm gonna get with making anything is writing scripts). No, I haven't shot on film or video before (Except with home movies). And finally, no, I won't make shorts. Why? Nobody buys shorts! Go ahead, call me mad as Howard Beale, but I will not take this shorts route anymore! If you're going to make movies, make movies. Period.

OK, that is a good point. Digital video does give out more compression than film (In fact, film doesn't have any, as far as I know), but I could argue that 35mm is still not as compact. Compression is a different issue and it doesn't excuse the fact that video cameras are smaller than film cameras. On the color issue, again, compression is a different issue. Here's the problem, colors are less accurate on film because it doesn't use an RGB process like video does. Film uses yellow, cyan, and magenta in order to give out color, so even if film gives out more color, the color is still not necessarily accurate. As for anamorphic, I meant that it's the largest 35mm film format, not THE largest film format (And yes, I do know IMAX and those large formats). Alright, I did make a gaffe on that post, but I'm sure people would've understood what I meant. Again, you made a good point on the compression issue, so I admit, I should've had that on the post (and yes, film would obviously win).

After thinking about all this, and getting so many contradictory answers, I decided to answer this question by myself. Let's look at the basics of both and see which one is more realistic. Lighting: Film captures about 50 percent of what the human eye sees, and Digital video captures even less than that. The winner: Film Appearance and Look: Film has a grainy and soft appearance. This appearance is common since it gives the movie a more theatrical look. However, digital video has a sharper and clearer look that appears more natural than film, Although the contrast looks a tad high. The winner: Digital video Color: Digital video uses millions of different pixels that are red, green, and blue, just like our eyes. Film, on the other hand, uses four different layers of yellow, cyan, and magenta. The fourth layer is for balancing blacks and whites. The winner: Digital video Widescreen: I believe a true widescreen image is probably closest to what our eyes see, not those formats where you matte the image like Super 35. Some digital video cameras have a true 16:9 widescreen format which would probably be good. On the 35mm side, anamorphic comes as the best format on 35mm. The winner: None (Though anamorphic is much more expensive.) Portability: The more portable a format is, the better and more natural camera movement will be. Digital video can be quite small. Even some prosumer-level camcorders can be a lot smaller than a big 35mm camera. The winner: Obviously, digital video Clarity: Clarity is a big issue because the clearer the image is, the more natural it will be. The best quality image you can get out of a digital video camera is 1,080 lines of resolution, the same as the clearest HDTVs today. The anamorphic format has the largest negative of all formats. In fact, it's still far ahead of HDTV. The winner: Film (That is, if you're shooting anamorphic) Looking at all this, I think digital video is probably more realistic than film, though lighting would be the hardest part to work on. Any complaints?

Yes, I certainly would like someone to say "X is better for this than Y," but you do make some good points. I think I'll chew on this a bit.

I respect your opinion, Hal, but I really don't think my vision for movies is quite the same as yours. I think my definition of Realism fits Wikipedia's article, titled "Realism (arts)." The main section, I think, pretty much says what realism was intended to be. "Realism is the depiction of things as they appear in everyday life, without embellishment or interpretation. Realism can also be described as a work of art that, in revealing a truth, may emphasize the ugly or sordid. Realism often refers to the artistic movement, which began in France in the 1850s. The popularity of Realism grew with the introduction of photography, a new visual source that created a desire for people to produce things that look "objectively real." Realists positioned themselves against romanticism, a genre dominating french literature and artwork back in the late 18th and early 19th century. Undistorted by personal bias, Realism believed in the ideology of objective reality and revolted against exaggerated emotionalism. Truth and accuracy became the goal of many Realists." Again, I respect your opinion. If you think B&W makes a movie more realistic, then that's fine. For me, however, this states that Realism is about truth and accuracy rather than aesthetics, so, as I see it, it's probably a better idea to use color in my style rather than B&W. But everybody could look at this same article and get a different opinion about it, too. I just prefer my movies to be precisely accurate rather than precisely aesthetic.

I'm not necessarily sure what you're trying to say (probably because I'm planning to be a writer/director and not a cinematographer), but I think you could get your answer by knowing the pros and cons of shooting anamorphic. So here they are: First, the pros. One of the biggest advantages of anamorphic is that it has one of the largest film negatives of any 35mm film format. This means that James is right and you will have one of the best quality images out there for 35mm. In fact, anamorphic is believed to have a quality that's better than even HDTV! Another big reason anamorphic is popular is because you are using a true widescreen frame, the compositions will probably be more interesting than any other 35mm format still around. But what about the cons? The biggest issue with anamorphic is that the lenses are bigger and more expensive(At least, from what I've heard.) than it's spherical lens counterparts. This means that shooting anamorphic will require more light and the cameras will run at a slower speed of frames. This is probably why some people choose to shoot Super 35 instead of anamorphic, because you use standard lenses which are more compact, can go at a faster speed of frames, and require less lighting than anamorphic. Also, one final point I'd like to add on this same disadvantage, if you're making a low-budget or an independent film, I wouldn't pick anamorphic if I were you. The second disadvantage is that anamorphic has fewer lenses than Super 35 does, which could affect the style of the film in a certain way. Hope this stuff gives you some help with your question.

I'm grateful for the advice you guys are giving me, but I think it's time we go back to the main subject, which was, which format is better for movies with that kind of style? Digital video (MiniDV, HDV, etc.) or 35mm film? I like the advice, but I think this kind of stuff should be saved for another forum. For now, the question is which camera format to go for.

You know what, Adrian? I've been thinking about this whole realism front and after reading your quote, I think whatever realism there is doesn't really matter. After all, if Spielberg's films don't look the same, should all my movies look the same too? I think it would be good to sum it up this way. I think any and all realism styles are what I'm after, so any of them will work. I don't know about whether that should be taken as a valid conclusion, but I'm thinking, hey, just pick realism and put it in whatever style you want. I think that's what art was meant to be.

Paul, if you're telling me to study Steven Soderburgh, why didn't you just say so?

Oh man, I can't believe I'm doing this! I hate to bring people back to being stumped again, but after thinking about naturalism again, I just don't think that's what I was asking for (I knew being a slow-thinker was a weakness of mine.). So now that it's back to the drawing board again (and unexpectedly, too.), I think we should look at what I was after again so that we can figure out what I'm after. Everything should be realistic. The cinematography should appear real. The acting should look real. All the directing skills should make the movie appear real. For goodness sakes, even the story should seem real. I think I went the wrong way when I said in previous posts that everything should be done in the most natural way possible, when I should've said that everything should be done in the most realistic way possible. That must be what screwed me up (and, unfortunately, everybody else, too.) on this whole realism style I was looking for. Now, I have to go to something else right now because this is depressing me.

Really??? They were older ones? I've been in theaters with this type of screen too, but as I've been saying, all the ones that I had been to were newer theaters! OK, I take back the theater screen issue. Very Interesting, though.