Luke Lenoir

Yes I had assumed this was primarily a marketing ploy because my 7D shoots 5184 x 3456 resolution stills and I have very sharp prime lenses to compliment the camera. I also have many F-series lenses that resolve every bit of image information available in slower film stocks. I don't see why I would need to purchase a 4k lens if I ever buy a 4k camera in the future.

I STRONGLY recommend the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for the 7D. Extremely fast and sturdy. It'll be a 50mm because of the crop but still an excellent lens. I would generally recommend primes for filmmaking and maybe buying some zooms later.

Just read that canon is releasing a new line of 4k lenses to "compliment" the 4k cameras that are going to be coming out. Why do specific lenses have to be made for a 4k digital image. Can a standard 35mm film lens not resolve the amount of detail in a 4k image? I don't get it. Can anyone explain?

I learned that 80% of directing is casting. This is 100% true. The correct actor, cast accordingly, will not need expository information. You should not have to explain motivations to your actors unless you are dealing with something subliminal. The actor should know why he/she picks up the phone, why they walk across the room, and when to shout. If they cannot decipher the information contained in the script and use it effectively within their performance then they should be fired or not hired to begin with. The actor should surprise you with their performance...every time. It's all about suspension of disbelief. You have to believe the actor is who he/she says they are. It's gets tricky when you're (the director) dealing with the aesthetics of a picture i.e. moving the camera around the actor and framing shots. This may disrupt the actors train of actions, but depending on their skill and professionalism they will work around it. It's all about communication. You can effectively direct your actors if you know how to talk to them correctly, or you can let them run free. John Cassavetes let his actors run free and the camera followed. Hitchcock made the actors follow the camera and would manually position them in the frame. It just depends on how you visualize the story and how you want to interact with the talent. I think for an amateur production it is best to let the actors move naturally and frame the camera accordingly around them. Amateurs have a tendency to be more conscious of the crew. You have to find their comfort zone to get their best performance and never be afraid to improvise...in fact you should encourage it. I also think the less dialog there is in a scene the better it will be, because the viewer is forced to fill in the gaps.

Here's a nice vid with Terry Gilliam that sums it up: http://biblioklept.org/2011/03/25/terry-gilliam-explains-why-steven-spielberg-sucks-and-stanley-kubrick-rules/ The rewriting of history for a dramatic effect is a little boring to me, but you have to appease the viewer, because it's all about marketing and reception. Spielberg knows this and this is why he makes millions every year.

Working with amateurs (I'm assuming you are) is hard because they don't know what they can do. The best thing to do, as mentioned, is to keep them comfortable. It's also fun to have them watch other films for inspiration. There is the odd chance that you'll get someone with an enormous ego who will try to manipulate you into giving him/her everything they want. Do not succumb to this. Just fire them. As important as they think they are, actors are expendable...

Personally I think the Director should know MORE than the DP going into the project. The director should oversee the finished script, the storyboards, the casting, the set construction, the lighting, and everything else. Considering that the telling of the story is heavily dependent on the director's prowess behind the camera; what he/she knows and what he/she wants the audience to know. The DP lights and shoots. The director controls the amount of information being presented at a given time. Some stories are more visual than others. Some stories are better told through dynamic camera technique, and some aren't. If the director doesn't understand shot theory he/she should not be directing. Most in this day and age probably don't. And generally, the director and DP will walk the grounds/set and talk and plan what shots are needed so that the majority of that work is done when the actors and crew arrive. PT Anderson's films. Read the scripts and observe how much screen-direction is on the paper. This is often a big no-no unless you plan to direct. PT Anderson's screen direction is really excellent in most of his films. Good screen direction helps the story flow and gets the actors/audience involved. It also makes you look like a pro at your craft.

I went to film school. I thought it was a total waste of time and money. This was the early early 2000's and the digital boom was just happening. I shot 8mm, S16, S35, and DVCPRO50. I hated the way the video looked and always went with film. I had to teach myself how to load the camera and process the film because my teachers stressed shooting video because of the ease of use. I didn't learn anything about how to make a movie. Most of my teachers were burn-outs with little credit to their name - some even came from the 90's porn industry. There was often yelling, crying, bickering, fighting, etc. I usually got D's and C's because I never followed the directions. I didn't think there should have been any rules. After all it was art school. I was so influenced by David Lynch and Scorsese and Russ Meyer and Sam Peckinpah and how they broke boundaries with the medium. What sucks the most about film school are the film kids. Most are pretentious twits with no taste. They talk big and make outrageous claims and give the same old drivel about how the Bicycle Thief changed their life, when in reality they have no idea how to write creatively or come up with a genuine idea. They're rich brats with no talent. That's 90% of Hollywood now. I'm sure a lot of them went on to work as PA's getting coffee and donuts from craft services for the tit-jobs on set. I'm not jaded because of my experience, I just think it's a crock. Every bit of what they teach in film school can be learned on your own from books, videos, and good old self application. It's always been the same. The self motivated individual steps up and takes what he wants. If you want to be a filmmaker then be a filmmaker. Work a poop job so you can buy equipment and start making movies. Hone your skills. Get things done. Don't expect things to be handed to you. I am personally really excited about the dawn of the digital age because it could mean the death of Hollywood. The entrepreneur wins. You may not make $1,000,000 but why do you need that much money? If you're doing it for the money then go ahead and kill yourself because there's already too many of those types. Another good way to get into the industry is to call up you local studio mechanics and see if they can put you on a call.

Spielberg is a fabulous director - clean, formal, tasteful, and creative. BUT He makes fairy tales for a target audience. His films are often so overly melodramatic, bloated, and too cute. He never takes chances, and if he decides to take a chance, he'll manipulate history for a dramatic effect just so he can still pull the heart strings and come out with a few more dollars in his pocket. As an adult living in the real world, witnessing real-world things, I grew out of Spielberg's films pretty quick as they are REALLY silly and way too sentimental. With him it's always about hope, faith, trust, and loyalty. Unfortunately the real world doesn't work that way. You get stabbed in the back, your loved ones die and you're left alone, you develop addiction problems, you get VD, you lose your job, your parents disown you, and the heartwarming tale of a friendly alien visitor makes you laugh at how stupid everything really is. When Spielberg was doing Close Encounters, Scorsese was doing Taxi Driver, my favorite film ever!

I recommend you watch films that emphasize character through the Camera. Where the camera plays an integral part in revealing character. In my opinion SCORSESE does it best. Not because he's a genius, but because the man has an encyclopedic knowledge of film. Watch Mean Streets, Cape Fear, Goodfellas, Bringing Out the Dead, and Casino and admire all of the shot references. I don't like all of his films, but if there's one thing you can guarantee, it's amazing camera work. Watching older films is the best way to understand. When film-making was still experimental. When it was still considered an art form and not an industry. Watching Michael Bay films will get you a superficial knowledge of shot composition, character, mood, and pacing. Watch old noir films, french new wave, german expression, UK avante-garde, italian neo-realism, the american western, hitchcock, and of course the yakuza/samurai genres and you will not only pick up a wealth of knowledge on the subject, but also a sensitivity to it. You can then use what you have seen/learned in your own films to success. I personally get very bored with modern cinema because it's all flash and bang, and no substance. There is very little artistic merit to films these days. Think of the camera as a paintbrush. It's trial and error.

Hey I'm actually a stage hand and work habitually as a rigger for theater and arena shows. I'm telling you flat out there is NO connection between stage/film. It's two different worlds. If you want to work as a pro DP you need to: 1. Have SEMI-PRO equipment i.e. a high-end Sony, RED, or 5d-Mark II 2. Whore yourself out for food/credit and build a show reel. 3. KNOW how to cut, edit, and shoot BY YOURSELF. 4. Eventually take paid gigs on commercials and shorts. 5. Then make friends with a really talented crew with a good writer/director and some financial backing. Work with them to get projects completed until you can sell a completed film. At this point you are taking the festival route and will meet many other film people. Hopefully you can get work through them. It's possibly the hardest field to break into. Good luck.