Pat Murray

Richard is right as there are no schools that I'm aware of that are strictly Cinematography, but you should be able to specialize in the later years around cinematography. If you're in TO, then you've got two schools to choose from in your own background. Find out as much as you can about both schools from students past and current and pick the one that suits you best. Just like music, some film schools cater to certain styles and genres over others. Lastly, join LIFT (Liason of Independant Filmmakers of Toronto) while you're in school. Similar to my Ottawa suggestions, with great access to cheap (especially for students) workshops, equipment, other experienced filmmakers etc.

Where do you live in Canada? Concordia in Montreal has a reputable film school as does the University in Regina. Or is it a college? I'd check out Ryerson in Toronto. If you're in Ottawa, you can combine Carleton's excellent Film Studies program with membership in IFCO and/or SAW (I suggest both). They are filmmaker (IFCO) and videographer (SAW) co-operatives and offer plenty of hands on workshops, grants, member support and cheap access to equipment.

It'll be down to the repretory/foreign/indpendant/artsy theaters for that to happen. In my city, there are two, plus a second run theatre with an owner who prefers 35mm (although there's not much he can do after the AMC etc. staff have handled the print) and a newborn 70mm film festival. If most major cities can have at least one rep theatre, that'll do, but eventually they'll probably be playing mostly digital too and for that ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST experience you'll have to make a pilgrimage to the Dryden Theatre in Rochester, NY. I recently saw a full length version of ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST as well. Not as good as you describe, but much better than what the studio let on. According to the theatre programmer the studio didn't even want to rent it out as they thought it was unwatchable. As it turns out, 90% of the movie was fine, but it was from an edited print. Somebody put the missing footage back in from another print that was down to its magenta to restore it to its full length. Interesting what was left out based on the magenta footage, including almost the whole scene in the roadside tavern on the way to the farm after the dead man's wife arrives from New Orleans.

I took his post as more a commentary on a trend. I've noticed it too and read/seen it mentioned elsewhere that savings for digital over film are being erased in post with excess footage. As some have mentioned, certain filmmakers with a big budget will do the same, but now you have even low budget directors who can now shoot and shoot and shoot. Perhaps, after a few years with getting tagged with large post bills, things will go to the way it was with film. Meaning, those who can afford and think they need it, will take as many takes as they desire, whilst lower budgeted productions will be restrained by their budget.

If it's the norm in the industry, then by all means go for it. Just make sure it's in the contract if it hasn't been drawn up yet. He's probably ok with a University client not going under, although I understand your POV otherwise. If his contract is worth $60K, at 20% that's 12K up front and should cover the initial lab fees, his own salary etc. until his billings start coming in and covering remaining expenses. If he can get half, that's even better and he doesn't have to worry about delivering on time to the client.

As someone whose 9-5 is procuring goods and services, do not under any circumstances have your client bill the lab directly. They are your sub-contractors and only you should be dealing with the client. Their contract is with you and it's up to you to deliver. How you do it is up to you. Knowledge is power and the above poster is correct, you don't want your client knowing your mark up even if you are more than just a middle man. Perception can cloud common sense. You don't want your clients to get the idea that they could just cut you out next time and the labs will do the work and they offer to do your work as well and at a lower price too! Secondly, you don't even want the labs potentially asking what is the total amount of the contract. Trust me, it's not uncommon. They will be curious and may become an immediate pain in the butt if they think you're making too much money of the back of their work. My filing cabinets in the past have been locked up good and tight and it was with the sole purpose of keeping prying sub-contractor eyes out of them and finding out what their company is charging for their services. Some are even bold and will just walk up and ask to see the contract so that they can, you know, just check something. One colleague made the mistake of letting a contract get into the hands of a sub-contractor and the next day the contractor was calling and freaking out because now the guy was demanding a higher cut etc. The suggestion of asking for a downpayment is not unreasonable. It is very common for most contractors to ask for this to get the job started. It is understandable that people don't keep a house full of supplies waiting for the next client to come along. I suggest something lower in the 10-20% range. 50% makes you look desperate and hand to mouth. That and I wouldn't pay that much up front anyway. Whether through work or for a personal project.

It's the way of the future. I think film will still be used, but soon everything will be finished to digital and no more 35mm prints.

I was lucky enough to have a choice between paying more than double the price of a Blu-Ray rental (AMC) and a freshly struck 35mm print, both showing at the same time. I'm sure 4K looks great, but considering the kid who pours the drinks can still struggle to even get something as simple as projecting a "Blu-Ray" as described above, I'm happy I went to a theatre with projectionists who know what they are doing presenting a pristine print. The print, btw, came from the "lightbox" in Toronto. Apparently, TIFF wanted a print all to themselves. I'm not against digital, but I'm not paying movie theatre prices for an experience I can get at home. Once the opportunity to see 35mm on a big screen is over, so will be my movie going experience and I'll simply watch Blu-Rays at home or (legal - such as Netflix) downloads. That's too bad, but even those who love watching a movie on the big screen in "glorious" HD is so much better will eventually realize it's not worth the $60 (tickets plus chow) for an experience that can replicated at home. Not exactly the same, of course, but close enough for the budget conscious, which is most of us. It would be interesting if the change to digital projection, even 4K, with saving money and increasing profits being the(which is cool to think that way, they are in the business of earning a profit)poison pill that finally kills movie theaters. Not TV. Not VCRS. Few people have the resources or the dedication to set up a 35mm projector in their basement and collect and store 35mm prints. It probably won't be long before affordable 4K projection hanging from the rafters of a home theater is not uncommon. Anecdotal, I know, but I already know alot of people who were just waiting for the video to come out or show up on the movie networks and rarely went to movie theaters. Now that they hear the theaters are going digital, it simply justifies their entertainment choices even more. Should be interesting to see the changes in how we consume movie entertainment over the next 20 years.

Excellent example, Brian, and before Technicolor there's the fate of Kinemacolor in 1914. Although they produced dramas, according to Karl Brown in his autobiographical book, they mostly showed short films showing off color for color's sake. A fire, British soldiers in their colorful regimental uniforms etc. The visit of George the V to India was a huge financial success, but otherwise, the audience preferred Griffith's B&W films and others like them. Granted, needing the special projector didn't help, but if color wasn't seen as a gimmick by the public, more theaters would have been able to convert to the kinemacolor projector.

The Man Who Skied Down Everest Absolutely stunning cinematography.

If you want feedback on your reel, I recommend you post it in the forum titled "Please Critique My Work" down below.

Not a bad idea on the surface and I have a friend of the family who has made a very lucrative career working solely in the Montreal film business. As there's always work to be had if you can speak French. The other side of the coin is Richard will have to make mostly - in the words of my family friend - crummy French movies about Quebec, the Quebecois, Quebecois culture, Quebecois experience in Canada and so on and so forth. Richard will have a hard time getting funding, even in Montreal with a Montreal crew, to produce something like the Dogfather.

Not a bad idea on the surface and I have a friend of the family who has made a very lucrative career working solely in the Montreal film business. As there's always work to be had if you can speak French. The other side of the coin is Richard will have to make mostly - in the words of my family friend - crummy French movies about Quebec, the Quebecois, Quebecois culture, Quebecois experience in Canada and so on and so forth. Richard will have a hard time getting funding, even in Montreal with a Montreal crew, to produce something like the Dogfather.

I did not know that, but I am not surprised. As you stated, it's very typical of how Canada works.

Not so different, just different when it comes to our respective film industries. What's different is the Quebec culture and their film industry exists in its own little vacuum within that province. The province of Quebec actually does a better job of nurturing a filmmaking culture that is supportive of both artsie and commercially oriented films (action, comedy etc.). For those outside of Quebec who have some kind of understanding of the French Canadian culture, there is a wealth of hidden gems produced in that province that are only hits in Quebec and sometimes France. Their music industry is the same. Actually, you can add Quebec to Ireland and Australia as places where the Canadian film industry can learn a thing or two from. I do wonder if the amount of work from the American film and television industry done in Canada has something to do with our current situation as well. The government and applicable provinces have made a decision to sink their scarce budget resources (tax incentives, grants etc.) into American productions in Canada rather than growing a Canadian film industry. Lastly, there's the fact that most Canadians love Hollywood commercial films as much as Americans and have a very negative POV regarding their own cinema.

Canadian filmmakers (James Cameron, Norman Jewison, Paul Haggis, the Reitmans etc.) do make American friendly films, they just have to go to America to do it. Telefilm/NFB or whatever would probably gladly give them money to make a commercial Canadian movie now, but are probably in a catch 22. When these gentlemen started, they would probably be ignored in favour of the Atom Egoyan types, now these grant agencies can't afford them. Ireland and Australia are two excellent examples of countries smaller than Canada who managed to nurture a film industry which produced both commercial and criticaly (sometimes both) acclaimed artsie movies. The Canadian film industry should look to them for ideas.

Thank you for sharing, David. I was going to say the first frame grab looked like a portrait which belonged in a National Gallery, but saw that you mentioned it later in your post.

The picture may be steadier and cleaner, but the quality of the picture regarding digital projection is not good in my town. I still stand by my Avatar comparison. I didn't see them too far apart and whatever digital projector they used in the so called IMAX Multiplex, it was an inferior visual experience for me. Ditto for Inception, which I noticed has been discussed. Quite possible you have access to much higher quality digital projection than what I get in the theatres up here. Around here, I'd rather take my chances on a 35mm print. For sure, I am sometimes treated to some pretty bad film projectionists, but I don't want to pay a premium for digital projection. It isn't worth the extra money.

I respectfully disagree. I saw Avatar on a regular screen and was blown away by the presentation of the 35mm print. When I saw it again with family at Imax, my wife and I wanted our money back. The visual experience of watching 35mm film at a regular theatre is far superior to watching a digital blow up on Imax. Or Liemax.

Even then, be careful. A local "liemax" (LOL) is listed as 15/70, but also uses digital projection and I've been told is planning to go 100% digital in the near future.

I have a local University which runs a Film Studies program. They have copies of American Cinematographer going back to the 1950s in the main library. Anybody can grab an edition and take a comfy seat to read it. This is where I go to read the old editions without buying online or at second hand stores. Although I did purchase the "The Empire Strikes Back" edition because I'm such a huge fan of the film. Being in LA, there must be a nearby College or University with a film program and a library stacked with back issues of AC.

If paying $12-$14 plus another $13 for food to watch garbage digital projection that would look better on your smaller home theatre screen is exciting, or watching a scratched up 35mm print that's only been in the theatre for 3 days because the 16 year old minimum wage monkey they hired doesn't know how to work a 35mm projector is exciting, fill your boots. The future should be film and digital, hand in hand working together. Each complimenting the other. If we go total digital projection outside of art house and repretory theatres, then I'll predict movie theatres will go the way of the drive-in over the next 10 years. I will not pay $14 plus food to watch inferior "prints" of Inception etc. I'll just watch it at home instead.

I predict it will never happen. Each is its own separate medium. Besides... Film = Leather Digital = Pleather The ones in the know will always be able to tell the difference. I have a roll of Super 8 Kodachrome. I should get crackin'. I also have a double 8 and not sure what I'm going to do about that. Thought I was getting Super 8 and I have no Double 8 camera. Think it will work in my Bolex? :D

This thread reminds me Ottawa is hosting a 70mm film festival at the end of this month. Some terrific movies will be screened. Vertigo, Lawernce of Arabia, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang etc. If anybody is nearby, you might want to check it out! http://www.in70mm.com/news/2010/canada/index.htm

Storytelling is an art.