Micah Fernandez

Congrats man. It's one of my goals this year to get listed in IMDB, but really more as a novelty than an actual accomplishment. :)

Ah, the dolly/zoom. I'm with you.

Geez, relax. All I was saying was that MVs are a different breed from features and generally (yes, more often than not) aesthetic is the minimum requirement; a story is not. I guess I should have put it more simply as Rik managed to, but c'mon, lighten up.

Only one film comes to mind right now: Kikujiro (Takeshi Kitano) Unmotivated zooms (just like any unmotivated camera movement) does scream "Student film!!" but they do have their place. Use them sparingly because a production filled with them can be very tiring to watch.

Any girl-friend of mine with half a sense of aesthetic would know how to compose a photo intuitively and come out with a nice-looking shot. Music videos are a jumble of those individual nice-looking shots. They don't need to look the same, you don't have to worry about continuity of not only lighting but geography, you don't have to worry about a narrative story that you're trying to push. A feature film requires all of this. The look has to be relatively consistent throughout 60-120 sequences of anywhere between 1-15 shots per sequence, under extremely different lighting conditions. The camera movement has to be well-thought out, rather than just dollying, craning and zooming for no apparent reason other than "It looks cooler!", as you seem to unconditionally approve of. There's a STORY that the camera is REQUIRED to cover, there's a bare minimum of frivolous (if any at all) shots, no matter how "cool" they look. Some movies manage to photograph the story and look like a postcard rack at the same time (Girl with a Pearl Earring, Behind the Sun, etc) and personally that is a creative level that I aspire to achieve. You should know that shooting a music video and a feature film are completely different disciplines.

Though photography is indeed an art, there is also a science to it. Admittedly, it is not always exact, but any photographer worth his salt knows how to make educated guesses which are, more often than not, correct.. Someone who can make a statement such as the one you did is simply inexperienced. Go ahead and experiement all you want, and ignore all the history of film and photography, there's really no problem with wanting to do that. But I assure you, you're making the road longer and harder for yourself. The best you will end up doing is reinventing the wheel and believe yourself to be groundbreaking. And since you didn't acknowledge it previously, Muse's (great band, I agree) video Time is Running Out was a tribute to the FEATURE film Dr. Strangelove. Listen and learn.

Hey all, I've been shooting for quite some time now (around 2 years) and I know about the science behind light, at least most of the basic principles. I've proven myself to be a competent DOP apparently, because I'm being given a humble sum of money to buy my very own set of lights with. But since I've been shooting guerilla/squatter/zero budget style (basically, my set of lights consists of 500 and 1000W yellow garden lights and a 100W incandenscent bulb with a dimmer switch) I don't know the trade names of pieces of lighting equipment-- inky-dinky, fresnel, HMIs, kino-whatever (that's a brand though isn't it?). I'd really appreciate the assistance in helping me sort out which piece of equipment does what, and also if any of you could recommend a good basic set of lights to start out with. Thanks in advance. :)