Matt Sezer

When operating handheld, is the operator usually expected to hold the camera the entire time while the scene is being lit or just during the final rehearsal and takes? I usually just set the camera down unless the director wants to see the frame or check lighting. However, it does take a few seconds for me to get the camera back up on my shoulder, which I would imagine would be unacceptable on more professional sets. How have people here seen it done? Does the operator hold the camera the whole time? Do they have a PA hold it? Do they put it on a tripod or stand with the approximate frame?

Richard Boddington: I've always wondered what happened to your average alum from a "prestigious" film school too and think that the information is extremely useful for people contemplating spending a fortune. I've only been out of school for 6 months. I've mostly been shooting corporate videos and weddings. Occasionally, I get some doc shooting work, but nothing too major. I think I'd be in a similar situation if I hadn't gone to school. The one thing I do know is that if the opportunity every comes around for me to shoot the film of my dreams, it would be a lot better than it would be if I hadn't gone to school. For instance, before school, I knew about basic 3-point lighting and could name films that I though looked good aesthetically, but I had no idea about what specifically was being done and why it worked. Of course, most of that knowledge doesn't matter now if I'm just shooting wedding videos. I actually transferred into NYU for my second two years. I didn't go to a community college, but I know plenty of people at NYU who did. From what I've heard, you really don't make any serious films your first two years anyways. My situation is a bit weird as I'm interested in shooting both documentary and narrative films, but only directing documentaries, so I took a hodgepoge of classes in both documentary and cinematography. I also spent a semester (for credit) shooting a documentary in Cuba, so the amount of time I had at NYU for networking was limited.

When I was at NYU, Ang Lee, an alum of the program, came into talk to current students. When asked what advice he had for current students aspiring to be big directors like him, he replied, "If you're the type of person who listens to advice, I'll tell you right now to get out of filmmaking." He said you have to be "possessed," a bit insane, to become a filmmaker, something that someone who passively takes advice is not. I feel my time in school helped me a lot because it forced me to make films. There's no other time in your life where you'll be forced to make a film and be in an environment that is conducive to that. The real world is not conducive to making films. You need to be able to transfer what you learned in the "film safe" environment of school to the "film hostile" real world. Many people fail at this. You need to be self-driven or "possessed" to do this. Given that a lot of stuff in high school is BS (I didn't do particularly well myself), you still do need to question your ability to succeed by yourself in areas where you struggle. Being in school exposed me to films and directors that I never would have been exposed to otherwise. The liberal arts classes that I took exposed me to new ideas and critical thinking skills. I wouldn't say that financially it was a great investment, but the way I look at it, if you wanted to make a lot of money, you wouldn't be in film. I'm a better filmmaker now. The films that I tend to like don't generally make a lot of money.

I've only been out school for a little bit, but here's my take on the situation: With shorts you're able to get people to work for free or far less than they would on a feature. At the end of the day, a short film is just a weekend, maybe two. Assuming it works with my schedule, I can do actual work during the week and it doesn't really interfere with my life. However, features are totally different. They take up a substantial amount of time during which the cast and crew would normally need to be working to sustain themselves. Additionally, peoples' willingness to help out starts to run dry. I once worked on a 40 minute thesis film where, by the end, the location owner, who let us use the location for free, was getting a bit restless. There's no way he would have been able to stand a feature. I guess what I'm saying is that you can rely on favors for shorts, but not features. This makes features, which cost more because you're shooting more days anyways, exponentially more expensive than shorts. In terms of finding talented actors and crew that won't bail, I always try to develop a relationship and understand why they want to work on my short for little to no money. I'm much more likely to cast a student who has actually read and is excited about my script than a SAG actor that's sick of being in background parts and student films, but can't find anything better. The one thing I wouldn't compromise on is sound. You need to pay.

Thanks, this exactly answered my question.

This discussion has been really helpful to me. However, I'm a bit confused about when people refer to specific field of views for different focal lengths for still photography and motion picture photography. For instance, if I'm shooting on a 50mm lens on a cropped body sensor, it would give me the field of view of an 80mm lens. Is this the same case for using cinema lenses on super 35mm film? If so, would this mean when a still photographer talks about the field of view that a specific focal length produces on a 35mm still camera he/she is referring to something different than a cinematographer shooting on a super 35mm motion picture camera? Maybe another way of asking my question is: is there any difference in the field of view between a 50mm cinema lens and a 50mm still lens? Do cinematographers need to have wider lenses than still photographers to produce shots with a wide field of view? Additionally, when Bresson says that he used 50mm lenses, does he mean they actually had the field of view of an 80mm lens on a full frame sensor or does he mean that they had the field of view of 50mm on a full frame sensor? Sorry if I asked the same question four times. I was just trying to make it as clear as possible. Thanks.