Sasha Riu

Human vision is ANALOG :) No sampling! The reason we don't mind flickering is the lazyness and exhaustion of our "mashinery" thanks to "retinal persistance"... We get used to certain rhythm and don't pay attention for occasion distrackts (similar to David's note about Murch's blinking). Accurate perception is more the matter of training than anything else: I can notice certain details in the last/first frame of the cut between the two shoots, which most of the regular viewers don't (ex:first frame when camera starts to move, person starts to blink or starts moving the hands, head, legs), because of my editing background (I am the one that performs the same trick so of cource I will notice when somebody else does it too :) just like members of "primitive" tribes can spot the animal in the plains of Africa (that they feed on) where most of us see only grass :) Just like eskimos (apparanty, I don't know if it's true) can distinguish easily, 9 types of snow and 20 differents white colors! Training! :)

Hmmmm... How come nobody already asked what I will now : -What's the movie about? -Where are you going to shoot it/process it/rent equipment? -When are you going to do it? My 0.02$: If you're shooting a lot of action, landscapes, nice costumes, a lot of night/dark scenes etc. than 35mm is probably better choice than 16mm. My friend did a movie last year on s16 (indie shoot more than a million$ budget, 3 month shoot, bicoastal, many locations, many group scenes...). His conclusion? Never ever to shoot s16 anymore. Why? In his words, gate, hair and other possible dirt that slips in, despite care and caution of CA's = to many takes that needed to be repeated = lots of frustration on the long shooting days (DP's rate was I think 300/day, <imagine the rest of the crew :ph34r: >; the only way they could pull it if they wanted this movie to happen) is just not worth the money he though s16 will save him! (nobody from that crew is willing to work with him again for low rate or to do him a favor!!!!!!) Maybe big and sturdy productions (studios with enough money to repeat takes) can see benefit in s16mm. Indies have to go with a safe bet! Plus, if you shoot s16 and not going DI, seems to me like a mistake! The big economic crisis is on it's way (not right now but probably in about few months). Unfortunate for all of us, but maybe opens the doors for all kinds of entrepreneurial deals that wasn't been possible before (to negotiate with rental house to give you 35mm package for the price of the 16mm; deal with the lab where they will be willing to give you transfer to digital for free if you process film with them etc). Markets with more equipment on disposal that sits around will obvliously be more willing to give you a good deal. Without more info about your movie, out of blue sky, my suggestion is: Shoot 35mm, post it digitaly, HD master for sale screenings, get the deal with distributor to cover the rest of the processing expences. Yuo have a big adventage: small budget! :) That means when selling it, you will make almost a triple profit if somebody decides to buy it for a million $. :) I am smiling but I am serious: My friend spent almost 2 million $ for a production, festivals, prints, etc... But nobody want's to buy it for a 2 million which is the price he can not go bellow since he wants his investors to at least get their money back if no profits is possible. Though he had several offers in a range of around 1million, but he can not sell it bellow the price. :( Buyer's point of view: Million dollar investment is possible to be recouped with small P&A money, limited theater releases, DVD sales etc... 2-3 million buy out of the movie, means that distributors have to invest another 5-30 million of P&A money, big thetrical and DVD releases, and the thing starts to get been very serious (and possibly ugly), only to retrieve 3 millions of initial investment. I know it makes no sense but that's filmmaking.... :) Good luck!

Yes we did got lost in these northeast storms :) In short: Cinematographers should support SAG and WGA efforts for getting the better deals, because: -they are our first allies out of all fellow filmmakers in the motion pictures battles -in the long term, their good deals helps us getting our good deals in future, if not by establishing the standards than by creating the precedents that we can call upon when fighting for our rights Yes, they are divas and pain in the butt when it comes to dealing with them, yes we might get less work in the next couple of months, yes majority of them our waiters and bartenders but: -They are STAR infected individuals. At least what you can expect from them is to be spoiled brats. That's why world wants to pay admission tickets to watch them which keeps us employed -More work under worst conditions is not such a great alternative to less work with decent conditions -A list actors, all of them were baristas and hosteses at some point of their acting career before they hit big. Just because they reached their dreams now, does it approves that they coworkers should lost their wings on the premises "they will never make it because they're just a simple bartenders and go-go dancers"?

Is it me who doesn't know how to express my thoughts accuretely or you who are only willing to interpret it the way you want to read it? :) My whole point of Brad Pitt example is regarded to filmmaking solely through the prism of biz and work practices: In a food chain of filmmaking biz, we need actors and writers more than they need us, sort of speak! Without them we'll be unemployed... Them, without us? Well, they will find their way much easier. So, to be irritated cause they ask more rights and better deals that we ask, is a bit unfair and silly, to my perspective. And, that's one of the points that other show biz unions dont understand: For a camera person, your main allies are talents not producers nor studios! Therefore you better nurture and maintain nice relationship with them, which unions for the most part failed to accomplish. Don't betray your fellow coworkes. Their success can only lead to your success when you start asking for better deals and conditions in the future... Music and Movies are different media and different way to express one self creatively, but again, when it comes to biz practice, filmmakers and musicians are in the pretty much same spot: Income of both groups in in the hands of others-producers. Now, we realised that music industry in the last couple of years is completly mishandled by the leaders of the industry - managers, producers, executives. Music industry is now destroyed because of it. Like I said, executives in music industry have a golden parachutes so they dont care! They will go to be in a board of directors in the hospital, factory or some other corporate stuff. Even musicians are much better off than filmmakers, because they will always have live performances as a escape exit. But filmmakers? What will filmakers do when their leaders, hollywood studio executives, inform us that they also mishandled the biz and therefore filmamaking as we knew it existed so far in a light of glamour, fun, art, succes, profit and creativity is gone...? Therefore every "rocking the boat", which SAG is doing right asking for better deal and what WGA did last year, is good for all of us! Maybe not in a short term, but in a long run - YES!

Imho, the problem is not that people are looking for better working conditions and rights, but it's is in the inefficiency and bad foundation of how film/media biz works these days or rather, how stubbornly refuses to adjust and change for the benefit of involved parties including workers who demand better deals (I acctualy started a topic on this very sub forum insipred by this observation on mine; please visit if you didn't already, I think you might contribute a great deal to it). Animosity of audience and fellow coworkers toward SAG and WGA is completly wrong! While we all contribute to production within our own fields respectively, please keep in mind that without writers and actors we would't have what and who to light, shoot, build, edit, make-up or cater!!! Cinematographer who's shooting a movie with Brad Pitt in an interesting story, is getting paid a lot of money just because the audience wants to pay to see Brad Pitt in an interesting story-first! it's only their second wish that a movie needs to be nicely shoot. Not vice versa. Unions are digging their own grave for quite some time now. Also because they're acting quite stuborn and ignorant toward realities of production. Union are having a same problem that college degrees have! BFA degrees 20 years ago, had some real value when parents were saying to their kids: You just get your BFA degree and you will not have to worry aboug finding a work. Overtime, inflation of college degrees happened, more people has them, yet, they were never been less appreciated. Now, even the MFA degree holder can't fine a job! Now when Producers have found a way to work around unions, they were left as a some sort of unadjusted reliques from the past and as a consequence you have situation that Walter described: Union workers work on non-union jobs more than ever! In a recent past, music producers (MBA graduates mostly;not music producers per se, nor musicians) were warned that it will not hold for much longer, their ultimatum to keep charging 15$ for a CD that really costs around 1$ to be produced and made, and that only less than 5% of profit goes to musicians themselves. They ignored it and what do we have now? Music industry as we knew it doesn't even exist, that is record companies are soon to been exint from the food chain! Brian Eno said that not even he, as a professinal musician, desn't buy CD's any more in the store, so why should the regular audience?! Madona, RadioHead, Prince, recently made a foundation and showed us a new direction for a future biz model of music industry: Cooperate with event promoters-not record companies, give away complimentary CD's with a purchase of a performance tickets or spred them on line as a free gift and partv of a promotional package rather than the acctual product. How will unions react to the fact that almost 50% of the financing of acctual product that they are working on, is spent not on production but on marketing?!

Also, just to try to keep some sort of inspiration for this topic: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=34942

Things start to change slowly. I am just not sure if this is the right way: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/movies/a...1plat.html?_r=1

Easy guys.... Slow down a little... I didn't liked at all, the way your are addressing each other. You're just making sure that this board is losing its quality and purpose. Your opinion without a valid explanation and strong argument is pretty much wortless and on the forum like this could be considered as a pure scam. So please, retrieve your senses, and let's discuss like a grown ups. OK?

OOOOh how unfair are you all, who critisized Kaminski's work on Indiana's last sequel in a negative manner and without credible arguments! Poor guy, when I have to defend him.... :) Indiana Jones last movie is probably not the best work he ever did, but it wasn't anything shorter that his boss's acomplishment! If Kaminski's work on this movie is so bad, what should we say about Spielberg's?! Starting with the fact that they decided to shoot another movie in Indiana Jones series... :) (What is that thing with Spielberg and Lucas anyway...they seem like they can't wait to shoot down their own heroes?!) IMveryHO, I believe that with this movie, Spielberg is further away, more than ever to be considered as a director for some future James Bond movie, his long time wish according to rumors...unless he produces and finance sit that is... :) After so many wonderfuly shot moveis, Kaminski should have more than enough credits for one so called failure! How fast some of you forget how wonderful jobs he did on so many others movies... But I guess, that just shows in what game the DP's are... How stiff competition is and how unfair their colleagues can be... Lesson for all of you/us: When the money is the name of the game, and only motive to work, the results of such work will reflect it quite easily! P.S. I didn't heard anybody saying that Spielberg is through with his carreer after some of his bad movies?! Maybe because people become tolerant since less than half of all the movies Spielberg did should be rather forgotten than remembered?! :) Is it really that people envy DP more than a Dorector? :)

Yi Yi !!!! Ah... Absolute MASTERPIECE !!!! I just love that sense for humor!!! :P

Did you ever wonder why?! :) Dear Andrew, nobody is afraid of RED especialy not film shooters (they tend to be panchromatic individuals :) ) But what everybody should be afraid and cautius about is: Ignorance, bias, hype, propaganda, illusions, purposely distorded facts or even worse clames that are not based on any facts... And act accordingly like some people here do! :)

He is one of the rare people in modern filmmaking that acctualy gives credits to the title of DoP as being truly creative one! He downplays the tech aspect of filmmaking with a good reason (do you admire a blacksmith who constantly talks about his hammers and demonstrates how strong he is by hitting the hot steel with his sledge hammer? NO!!! You want to see the sword, horseshoe, hangle, doors, fence etc. that he made in order to admire him as blacksmith!). Reading the posts of some of you trying to portray him as a drunkard and junky seems rather unproductive and slighly hipocritical. The broad audiance might think that all other DPs are boring, proper, uptight, always sobber and clean, good old sports, and Doyle is some sort of "L'enfant terrible" of cinematography...when in fact, for a lot of DPs, usage of "inspirational chemisties" is not so rare of the experiance (working in productions, I was a witness quite a few times, of doping on the sets). We could just hope that they produce the final result that in terms of quality matches to mr. Doyle's. Saying that, I have to clarify that I definitely do not encourage people and filmmakers to "inspire" themselves in this manner (me myself never took any drugs and when socializing white wine is a choice of mine most of the time). Here's the trick for me: I would love, for example, that my movies look like thay've been shoot by Doyle... BUT I would never allow Doyle as he is right now, to shoot them! :) I mean I would punch anybody who would try to show up on the set with a open can of beer no matter how big star or a nutty hero he or she is suppose to be!!! I would imagine that collaboration between me and Mr. Doyle would last one whole morning...by the afternoon one of us would have to leave the set (and the whole shoot for that matter). :) But as far as his work, and his phylosophy of filmamking and picture look, I can say nothing but the best of it!!! My all admiration to it and hope that filmmakers will adopt some of his thoughts (not his habits of behaving:)! P.S. Jimmy Page is drinking diet coke these days...(i guess when you spend your youth the way he did, when you get to certain age,nothing else comes as a safe option to drink but diet coke:)

But it's not us who said that RED is better or worse.... THEIR commercial implies that RED is replacing film! Thay didn't said: RED is a just a new diferent thing, that you can ad to your pallete of tools..... They acctualy directly implied who should be considered as a winer and who as a loser in the SAME arena ! Pretty dissapointing if RED menagment is behind such an idea...

Agree 100%!!! (Thanks for saying this. I belive it brings also more light to some of the words I said in this topic: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...howtopic=35468)

Picture wise, rather depressing.... Landscape with no greens, browns, reds, yellors, colorless buds and flowers, sky without blue... :( Also, I noticed a quite a lack of faith of the creators of this commercial: If they truly belive that films days are over, why didnt' they put a 535 or panavisions in the grave? Why they decided to destroy only worthless 8mm and 16mm consumer cameras? :)

It's hard to tell when that train was around, and how did exactly looked, but Iet me try... I have a feeling that after the times when they have to prove their status, which starts roughphly anywhere btw 40-ies and 60-ties ,and than through mid 80-ies, filmmakers (most notably camera and editing departments) was perceived as artistic craft (first) and techs (second). Starting mid-80-ies, with the biggest change in the late 90-ies, perception of these departments shifts more towards perception where thise craft people are seen predominantly as: technicians (first) with occasional burst or artistry in their skill(second). And part of the reason why that happend, to my mind comes the explanation that it happened that way because these guilds (as crafts people not as official unions) allowed, or weren't able to fight back, manufacturers to play the music on which soon, they had to dance instead of vice versa. As a consequence, today you have major manufacturers producing equipment thet benefits solely to them, to make and sell, convincing filmmakers that that's the best thing they need and therefore should use it (and pay for it), especially since currently, "there is no better thing on the market". As a big absurd comes the fact that all of these equipment is completly non standardized and uncomplatible with each other. So when new digital media steped in the arena more ambiciously, to take over from film and analog technologies, offering new product, slightly improved (or rather handicaped) in each new version (that happend to be around every 3 quartals of the year) filmmakers acceped that. I guess they didn't realised (previsualised) where that's gonna lead in the future. Before (40's through 80-s) cinematographers needed to know basics about their equipment (of cource it's their tool) but their main focus of attention, knowledge and expertise for which they were paid for, was the "look", photo picture (light and dramatic elements of it), not their knowledge of "which button of the mashine is doing what". And look what we have today? If order to be competitive on the market, your focus needs to be the "secondary" knowledge of the craft, the engineering one, not the artistic creative one, which I belive is the priority of filmmakers. The knowlegde that needs to be adopted (and discarded) almost on the monthly basis, which means, as new products shows up on the market, you need to learn how to make product function rather than how to use it in your job. Look at this forum here: Half of the subject and question posted are, how to make the mashine work itself, not how to use mashine creativly. And whole thing is even more complicated when you realize that all manufacturers use different hardware, different software, different mounts, different accessories, different files, different codecs, different plug ins.... Nothing is standardized!!!???!!! Thing about rental houses... In the last, let's say 10 years, if they wanted to stay competitive on the market, they had to invest in all this equipment, that costs quite a lot, equipment which effective usage period was merely few years (if they're lucky). Who rents Betacam SP today? Yet, that thing, 6 or 7 years ago, had a price od more than 50K $.... 50.000$ of wasted many... Every year...every few quartals.... No wonder these places are barely surviving, when every year you have to invest 30% of your profit just to keep stones rolling... And you have to because the game is set that way! Of cource, filmmakers are not the only one. The whole society has to play tham game!!! But being somewhat elitist guilds, they had much better position of negotiating the deals of the game than average consumers. Don't you think that it would be better if let's say, in the last decade or so filmamking community sent clear massage to the manufacturers that looks something like this: All your attemts and experiments looks fine, but what we need, as a prodominantly creative people in the industry, is a simple and reliable system that works. Something that will not distract us from our prior duty (artistic creativity), something that will be compatible with each other, and fairly affordable (which will be if all manufacturers produce for the same goal). Untill then, keep your dv's, dvcpro's, hdv's and any other mutant in between and beyond formats - in your lab. Don't put in the market because we will not use it!!! We want all of you, Arri's Sonys JVCs, Panasonics to get together, figure out something that is truly revolutionaly and superior than what we have now, something that can share same hardware and software platworm, and than come to us and say - this is it, this is the best think we can make for you. Use it!!!" Because filmmkers (nor majority od society forthat matter) didn't performed it that why, they ended up in the blackmail deal, made by manufacturers, where they have to use whatever's on the market (wha'ts there is the product that benefits manufacturers not users) even though they know that what's on the market is not the best possible that can be made. And also, the perception of the craft is definitly changed: Camera, editing, sound people, are now perceived more as people who can make mashine get in the operative functional mode (which one should be out of the box), than as people who cam perform miracles with that same mashine. Labor rather than idea. Which affects income too. Laborer is always paid less than a visionary.

That's exactly one of my points that needs to be taken seriously by the filmmakers! If theather owners rather sell popcorn than movies, what's gonna happend when they discover a new attraction to bring people to pay for a admission, something more profitable and cheaper for them to get, than the movie? Where do movies are going to end up? What if overnight all movie theathers become "starbucks theaters"? It's fairly utopian thinking that digital projections will put movie biz in a better shape when we all know that digital projection means hundreds of thousands of dollars investments, that needs to be performed by the people whose main biz interest is to make a deal with starbucks and dunkin dougnuts?!

Dear Warwick and Karl, It's seems that you and I have completely different attitudes when it comes to having a faith and trust to Hollywood studios. :) Let me try to tell you why I find your trust in them - questionable: You are talking about Studio's accounting and bookkeeping as a reliable references (wonder what Art Buchwald or Tommy Lee Jones have to say on that?) that we should trust when making our jugdement and decisions. I belive that a lot of people heard the expression "creative bookkeeping" (refered to Hollywood studio's practice of tweaking the numbers and paperwork in order to draw the picture that they like) more times that we want to belive in it. I can only imagine what kind of "creativity" they apply when they have to convince the audience that everything is OK and that the "show is gonna keep rolling", or when they have to prove to Wall Street gamblers, and foreign bankers (it's been said that major financiers of Hollywood studios are German, Japanese and UK banks; small portion goes to ex Soviet taycoons too :) in what a great and solid state their business is, and how safe it is to invenst in them. In other words, I belive that to trust the proofs that Hollywood majors submit as a reliable reference is nothing less adventurous than to trust Mr. Madoff that he is conducting a honest business. I don't know how we can say that marketing tools and business practice that is in use right now, works fairly well, when in fact people who are working in the industry are fairly jobless (with some exeptions of cource) : http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=35230 You may say that this kind of biz practice works well for execs (which is true) but certainly not for a whole filmmaking community. And in that case, where one group of people is doing fine, and the other group of people (from the same community) is doing bad, you don't have to be a prophet to realize that a lot of changes is waiting us in a near future (Let's pray that these changes are non destructive and to the benefit of all parties involved). Even, if you are right (which I doubt:) that system woks fine, I can tell you that the system as is now, will colapse as soon as it faces the things that are ahead of us. The question is how naive and passive the filmamaking community (cinematographers) will be when the things happen? Will they miss the train like they did when the major technologies changed? And that's why I am wondering if anybody here, have any idea what the biz models for filmmaking will look like in the future and how one should approach it? (p.s. Warwick, I didn't understood your hardware talk at all; would you mind try to explaint it again please?) Dear Brian, I Absolutely agree that nobody knows anything, especially when it comes to filmmaking. But tha's exactly why sticking to the same rigid formula will not carry us very far. Yes it's true that nobody knows the taste of the audience. But every social worker and psycologist will tell you this: The mass audience will like and go to movie theathers to watch anything that it's on the repertoare. And they will know how to choose what's good what's bad as long as thay have a freedom of choice. The truth is that movie theater's programs doesn't allows them tat. Movie theather's program sucks! And it sucks because desicion makers are trying to convice us that the audience likes or dislikes this particular thing or that particular thing. The audience will like anything that is good. But you have to let them have opportunity to have a chance to see something that is good. Movies made by the formula, whose only drive is fear, will never be good. If audience is not challanged, if audience is not enthousiastic, if it doesn't have a special wish to go see the movie, guess what? They will not go to movie theater. No good movies=no audience. With current biz practice, good movies don't get to the market. I'ts very prosperous time for negative selection. In my next post I will try to bring more facts and explanations where I will try to present you more crealry with state of biz as is now. In a menawhile, it would be nice to hear some more opinions. (sorry for the lenth of my reply; it wasn't ment to be so long but I guess aI got carried away by my passion:)

That is, if you trust the statments and balance sheets made by Hollywood major studiors :) Let me try to explain myself a bit more here: I am not trying to raise panic in filmmaking community, or be a young rebellious prick, nor I am trying to put down efforts of many to make good movies in a reasonable way and manner. But I do belive that a new biz practices will have to be brought up to the table very soon, and that people to be effected the most, filmmakers (or as I put it at the begining of my post, their quintessential representative-cinematographers) will have to be aware and conscious about them before the others, to think about them, and to try to find a model that will work to the best benefits to everybody. Filmmakers missed that train when it happened with the change of filmmaking technologies. I do think that many will disagree with me here, but I do belive that the "tool manufacturers" were not taking into account what their target audience, crafts people thinks, needs ,feels about new tools ( and on the other side, craft people were to bussy with "something else" to get involved in the subject) and as a consecuence, they ended up in a blackmail new technologies deals that now are very hard to change: Deals that basicly say that camera people have to work with the cameras that manufacturer wants to make rather than situation where camera manufacturers make cameras that camera people want to work with! If crafts people don't get involved themselves in the question of business models of future in filmmaking, they're taking a risk to end up like today's real estate brokers. (You might find the comparison a bit vulgar but I think it's very accurate: for most of the real estate brokers, the only important thing for them was to get their licences and start selling houses with horrenduous price tags to the people that can not afford it. Nobody bodered to take a look behind the curtain and find out that the whole biz is based on very fragile legs and might collapse anyday leaving them unemployed, like they are today unfortunatly)

The bad business practices that I am reffering to, that are observed by the contnet creators themselfes, and for which I belive will not survive for a next year or so are: -profit mathematics that is based on the rule of modern movie making where 5 out of 6 movies released by Hollywood majors is not gaining any money in theaters -practice where (as Brian put it) marketing is the one who decides wheather movie is gonna make it or not in the market, rather that the quality of the product -and generaly, greed, when it comes to profits expected in moviemaking among many other non money related practices...

Hello all you wonderfull people! My first topic here. :) Alas, it's first and it's rather financial/economical in its nature than artisticly creative (more of it in my future writings), which is contradictory even to myself given my own motives to join this site but since it's pure coincidance I will have to preceed with it... :) I was wondering what is the take of you, quintessential working professionals of show biz, on the biz models of filmmaking in the future?! On that account, I would like if we could concentrate on predictions in the field of narrative and documentary features, predominantly, since I belive that these are the fields influencing every other kind of moving the pictures, wheather in the world of corporate videos, wedding shooters or broadcast reality shows! Just before I start elaborating my own thoughts and feeling about this subject, let me say just briefly, that I think that it's just the matter of short period of time, few months, maybe even full year, when the Hollywood's Major movie producers will finaly announce its "bankroupcy", since it's quite obvious when one applies the basic common sense, that the biz models we have right now, just don't cut it anymore and will not susstain for much longer, which ineventably will change the media world and all of our lives in total. Before I step in with my vision of future of filmmaking, I would like to hear some of you whose writing so far I find to be very inspiring, true and honest and of a very high quality, and for whom I am hoping will have to say something meaningful on this subject that is so important to all of you/us! (yet it seems to me that so far, nobody in the echalons of "dudes with power to make changes" really took into account or asked the camera/photography people what do they think or feel about the future of their biz practice that direclty affects their craft too)? TIA for your much appreciated opinion! P.S. I felt like this is the best place for my topic but if moderator thinks that it fits better under the "business practices/unions" subforum, than lets move it there! Thanks!