cinematographer or videographer

[Brian Dzyak]

"I could just as easily pick up an Arri 2C and shoot event coverage. The tool shouldn't be the thing that defines who we are and how we are judged. "

 

Really?

 

Are you going to pay for the film stock, processing, and transfer?

 

If not, good luck finding a client that will.

Perhaps I should have added, "practicality and economic factors aside." :) The point was that a camera is just an object. I could point and shoot a Platinum the same way one could point and shoot with a consumer camcorder. Does it make practical and economic sense? Not in the slightest, but if someone did have some kind of jones to shoot their home movies on 35mm with a 535, who's going to stop them? The camera itself isn't what makes a DP a DP or a Cinematographer a Cinematographer or an Operator an Operator. It's what the user does with it that matters.

 

Things like event coverage and EPK are the realm of the videographer. Not even the biggest studios will pay to have the EPK for their film actually shot on film. I've seen a bazzilion EPKs and they where all Beta SP.

Funny, I haven't used an SP camera on an EPK in years. The majority are shot with the F900 and some still with Digibeta. But your point about EPK on video vs film is correct. Mostly economics, I'll wager, but the end use is most likely a more important factor. The ELECTRONIC Press Kit is designed specifically for broadcast purposes, not for theatrical screening. The cross use DVD material also is designed for the small screen, so there is no practical rationale for shooting behind the scenes footage on filmstock, though it has been done in the past, but likely only because they didn't have a less expensive and more practical alternative. That's why news shot on film for years...it's not because they wanted to be "artists" or "cinematographers"....they just didn't have anything else.

 

The tool does define us. When I use my underwater video system I can't call myself a cinematographer any more. When I use my BL2, then I'm a cinematographer again.

That's what I was getting at earlier sort of. Titles change, but not usually because of the camera I'm using, but because of the situation I'm in. I'm a lowly Videographer if it's just me and a soundguy shooting some interviews or doing "uncontrolled" event coverage. If I had a film camera to my eye doing the same work, would it suddenly become "art" just because it's now on film? I'm now suddenly a prestigious Cinematographer because I'm rolling film through the gate instead of seeing a red light in the viewfinder? I rather doubt anyone would back that argument.

 

I'm surprised no one has made this argument yet: If a 14 year old uses a Super 8 camera is he a cinematographer? vs a 40 year old using a HD camera on a 100 million dollar movie.

 

I still vote for the 14 year old with his Super 8 camera :D

:) I'm not even sure what to do with that. Maybe you're right. You'll probably have some interesting discussions with the ASC membership about that one. I'd love to sit in on it. :)

[Guest]

"That's what I was getting at earlier sort of. Titles change, but not usually because of the camera I'm using, but because of the situation I'm in. I'm a lowly Videographer if it's just me and a soundguy shooting some interviews or doing "uncontrolled" event coverage. If I had a film camera to my eye doing the same work, would it suddenly become "art" just because it's now on film? I'm now suddenly a prestigious Cinematographer because I'm rolling film through the gate instead of seeing a red light in the viewfinder? I rather doubt anyone would back that argument."

 

Yes well, I see you add some interesting terms before "Videographer" and "cinematographer". You refer to a Videographer as "lowly", and a cinematographer as "prestigous". I know you're implying that both lowly and prestigous should be read in quotes, but you raise an interesting point. Video people have a chip on their shoulders when film people say they can't use the term, "cinematographer", to describe themselves. I don't see what the big deal is, when I shoot video I'm not a cinematographer, so why can't other video shooters accept the same thing? You imply that people shooting film regard their work as "art" just because it's shot on film, while video folks can't make the same argument. I feel the "I have a chip on my shoulder" again.

 

The bottoom line is really simple:

 

Cinematographer: Film is in the camera.

 

Videographer: Tape is in the camera.

 

Director Of Photography: The guy who is responsible for lighting, camera angles, lens choice, etc on a set regardless of whether it's being shot on film or video.

 

Oh and don't forget:

 

Diskographer: A hard disk is in the camera :D

 

R,

[Stephen Williams]

The bottoom line is really simple:

 

Cinematographer: Film is in the camera.

 

Videographer: Tape is in the camera.

 

R,

 

Richard,

 

Couldn't a cinematographer choose to shoot on video, but still be paid as a cinematographer?

If I admitted to shooting on video then clients would expect to pay less. If they ask me as a favor then they are happy if I will!

 

Stephen :D

[Dan Salzmann]

I believe that someone who has never shot film should not call themselves a cinematographer but a videographer.

I do not think that some one who shoots super8 on auto exposure can call themselves a cinematographer either.

There is no snobbism here.

There are "bad" cinematographers and "good" videographers. And vice versa.

Most of my work is shot on film but that does not mean that I snub video people.

On the contrary, I often count on the them for technical advice.

I wonder what the feeling was between veterinarians and car mechanics when the automobile was replacing horses.

[Brian Dzyak]

Yes well, I see you add some interesting terms before "Videographer" and "cinematographer". You refer to a Videographer as "lowly", and a cinematographer as "prestigous". I know you're implying that both lowly and prestigous should be read in quotes, but you raise an interesting point. Video people have a chip on their shoulders when film people say they can't use the term, "cinematographer", to describe themselves. I don't see what the big deal is, when I shoot video I'm not a cinematographer, so why can't other video shooters accept the same thing? You imply that people shooting film regard their work as "art" just because it's shot on film, while video folks can't make the same argument. I feel the "I have a chip on my shoulder" again.

Interesting take on it because as someone who has worked extensively in both disciplines (film production and video production) I tend to see the "chip" sitting on the shoulders of those in the film arena. I used the adjectives "lowly" and "prestigious" as examples of how "film" people view those who shoot video. Just look through some of the posts in this thread alone to see how "film" people actively look down on video technology in general and those who use it. To many "film people," video is nothing but a cheap way to merely "capture" images by people who don't bother to learn the "craft" of lighting and operating. That's the general feeling anyhow. HD may be cheaper, but it still will cost someone $100,000 to pick up an F900 package. The tapes are $50 bucks a piece. I still have to light the talent just the same way that I would were I running film through a gate. That doesn't change. I still have to operate as well as anyone else. That doesn't change either. I learn like everyone else, by working with other cameramen and DPs and by making my own mistakes and finding my own successes. I suppose if you're sensing a "chip" on the shoulders of Videographers, it is more likely just frustration from being demeaned just because of the box they are using. Sure, some people just pick it up and go, but that certainly isn't the case with everyone.

 

The bottoom line is really simple:

 

Cinematographer: Film is in the camera.

 

Videographer: Tape is in the camera.

 

Director Of Photography: The guy who is responsible for lighting, camera angles, lens choice, etc on a set regardless of whether it's being shot on film or video.

 

Oh and don't forget:

 

Diskographer: A hard disk is in the camera :D

 

R,

 

:) So my grandparents WERE Cinematographers when they shot those home movies that we get to see every once in a while. And here I thought my Grandpa was a plumber. :unsure:

 

;) I have to admit that I haven't yet been able to add "Diskographer" to my business card, but I'm sure the time is coming....

 

 

I wonder what the feeling was between veterinarians and car mechanics when the automobile was replacing horses.

Veterographers vs. Autographers...that's a great analogy. :) Both get you from point A to point B, just in two different ways. :)

[Matthew W. Phillips]

:) So my grandparents WERE Cinematographers when they shot those home movies that we get to see every once in a while. And here I thought my Grandpa was a plumber. :unsure:

 

I don't see why not. I mean, if you write a script, albeit an amateurish one, aren't you still a script writer on the credits? Same thing for an actor or anything else on the credits. Doing it well isn't a pre-requisite to being labeled as such if you are conventionally accurate.

 

Richard is right when he says that:

 

Cinematographers= film is in the camera

Videographers= tape is in the camera

 

Your point about what the ASC says is irrelevant. If that were the case, no one outside of the ASC members should even be considered Cinematographers.

[Josh Bass]

I disagree.

 

 

To me, videographer carries certain connotations with it. Chip on the shoulder stuff aside, I hear videographer, I think:

 

Guy who shoots weddings

Guy who shoots news

Guy who shoots B-roll at an event

Maybe, MAYBE, a guy who shoots some nice looking documentary footage

 

Regardless of format, I think if it's a commercial, movie, short film, something like that DP/Cinematographer is more appropriate.

 

for EPK/corporate video/some type of interview situation with lighting that you (the shooter) manipulate, DP.

 

I say "I was the videographer on Collateral," that makes me sound like the dude who shot the behind the scenes footage.

 

You'd never hear someone say "What'd you think of the videography in Collateral/Sin City/Miami Vice?" (unless it's a film elitist being a douche).

 

For reality shows, I guess videographer'd be okay. Although, those are generally kinda scripted/planned out, so maybe DP (if you're the guy positioning cameras/deciding shots), or camera operator (if you're the guy/one of the guys doing the shooting, but are not the DP)

 

My thoughts.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I disagree.

To me, videographer carries certain connotations with it. Chip on the shoulder stuff aside, I hear videographer, I think:

 

Guy who shoots weddings

Guy who shoots news

Guy who shoots B-roll at an event

Maybe, MAYBE, a guy who shoots some nice looking documentary footage

 

Regardless of format, I think if it's a commercial, movie, short film, something like that DP/Cinematographer is more appropriate.

 

for EPK/corporate video/some type of interview situation with lighting that you (the shooter) manipulate, DP.

 

I say "I was the videographer on Collateral," that makes me sound like the dude who shot the behind the scenes footage.

 

You'd never hear someone say "What'd you think of the videography in Collateral/Sin City/Miami Vice?" (unless it's a film elitist being a douche).

 

For reality shows, I guess videographer'd be okay. Although, those are generally kinda scripted/planned out, so maybe DP (if you're the guy positioning cameras/deciding shots), or camera operator (if you're the guy/one of the guys doing the shooting, but are not the DP)

 

My thoughts.

 

Funny thing is, if anyone had made a movie back in the early 80s with one of those crappy RCA video cameras, do you think anyone would have called them a Cinematographer? Not hardly. I think the reason people think the rules should be changed is because video looks way better than it used to. But how good something looks has nothing to do with what term you use. If a guy shooting a movie on video back in the early 80s isnt considered a Cinematographer, I don't see why it would change now. I think you would be hard pressed to say that back then people would have considered him a Cinematographer.

 

And why is it being a "douche" to call someone a videographer? Are you ashamed that you use video? If not, what's wrong with it? I think it is a respectable title.

Edited August 23, 2006 by M.W.Phillips

[Guest]

HD may be cheaper, but it still will cost someone $100,000 to pick up an F900 package. The tapes are $50 bucks a piece.

 

Ah well if there is any looking down upon video people by film people, your above post would be one of the reasons why.

 

$100, 000.00 for the HD camera? Big deal, many 35mm systems go way beyond that, and will hold their value much longer.

 

$50.00 bucks a tape? Oh my gosh how can you afford it? That's a one hour tape I assume? So an hour of shooting for 50 bucks, really, big deal that's nothing price wise. So one of the reasons a film person may look down upon a video shooter is that video people do take after take after take. I mean at 50 bucks a tape who really cares?

 

Film people generally put a lot more time and care into each shot before rolling camera because they have to. Film is way too expensive to just keep rolling the way people do on video shoots. The problem then becomes that the tape attitude passes all the way on down the line to the actors and crew. The actors screw up more because they can, and the crew screws up more, because they can. I mean it's just tape stock so who cares?

 

Work on a small shoot with 35mm, and tell the cast and crew, "OK we have just two chances to get this." They know what you mean, the film is precious, you can't just rewind it and tape over it again.

 

When I had the misfortune to work in the TV news biz some thing interesting would always happen. When an anchor was needed to do a taped update they would screw it up 5-6 times. When they where live they read perfectly. Why? Well, in the back of their minds they know they can just do it over for a taped update, when they are live there are no re-takes. A similar thing occurs when shooting film vs video in the low to mid ranges.

 

Of course I realize that on a 100 million dollar movie the tape or film stock are both irrelevant to the budget. But let's face facts, all of us on this board work in the low to medium budget range. Even our great David Mullen has not yet shot a 100 million dollar movie (I'm sure you will soon David :-).

 

And Stephen Williams....you are a god, I'm not worthy to be in your presence. Yes you're any thing you want to call your self :D

[Keneu Luca]

Here's something interesting.

 

There's cinematography.com...and then there's this:

 

http://www.videographer.com/

[Keneu Luca]

I shoot film. And I guess if I wanted to be an elitist, Id say a cinematographer only shoots film.

 

But it seems to me that the distinction is this: video is cinematography only when it involves a fictional narrrative or when it is a documentary incorporating a designed visual style.

 

That's how I look at it.

 

But Im still curious about something I posted before.

If you shoot a music video on film, why not call it a "music film"?

Edited August 23, 2006 by Keneu

[Keneu Luca]

Actually, Id like to ammend my opinion. And I believe others may have stated a similar view.

 

A videographer knows how to operate the video camera. They know it's functions; they are proficient with it. They are a video camera operater.

 

But cinematography involves more than just the camera, be it film or video. It requires lighting, filtration, camera movemnt and lenses as well. And how all of those elements contribute to and affect the content of whatever is being shot.

 

There. That's got to be the definitive answer.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Keneu

[Brian Dzyak]

I disagree.

To me, videographer carries certain connotations with it. Chip on the shoulder stuff aside, I hear videographer, I think:

 

Guy who shoots weddings

Guy who shoots news

Guy who shoots B-roll at an event

Maybe, MAYBE, a guy who shoots some nice looking documentary footage

 

EXACTLY! And the truth is far different, but we have guys like a few here who think that all video is used for are weddings, news, and porn. Toss in that cheeseball Videographer.com site and is it any wonder why there is little respect for those of us who actually do work hard to CONTROL an image, just as any prestigious ;) Cinematographer does? "Film elitist" is probably a very accurate term for those who actively demean anything that isn't shot with filmstock.

 

Again, I'd never call myself a Cinematographer when I'm using an electronic camera, unless maybe I was shooting a narrative with an F900 or above when it was meant for a filmout. But I'm with you in believing that it's more about what is being shot than about the technology being used to do it. Be that as it may, we're still left with the inaccuracies of the negative connotation surrounding "video" despite the carefully planned and lit shots that are setup.

[Andy Lehmann]

I don´t understand this discussion: the words cinematography and photography have their origins in old greek. cine comes from the word kinetics and means movement- graphy stands for writing. photo means light. so, photography means writing with light. cinematography is a made-up word of photography (also a made-up word, but was invented earlier) and kinetics and means something like writing the movement or you better say moving image or writing the moving image.

video is latin and means "i see". videography is a made-up word, too and doesn´t make any sense. Probably, it should mean: i write what i see.. but then i see with latin eyes and write in greek ;)

[Brian Dzyak]

Ah well if there is any looking down upon video people by film people, your above post would be one of the reasons why.

 

$100, 000.00 for the HD camera? Big deal, many 35mm systems go way beyond that, and will hold their value much longer.

Big deal? I wish I could be so cavalier about dropping a hundred grand. Might as well buy two, eh? ;)

 

So cost defines who is a Cinematographer and who isn't? Interesting, it just took me about 10 seconds to find an Arri 2C on sale for $17,000. Found a Moviecam for $82,000. What is it, like a buck a foot for processing and prints? I don't understand the relevance of putting a price tag on the issue of why someone using a $100,000 camera package isn't a "real" cameraman.

 

$50.00 bucks a tape? Oh my gosh how can you afford it? That's a one hour tape I assume? So an hour of shooting for 50 bucks, really, big deal that's nothing price wise. So one of the reasons a film person may look down upon a video shooter is that video people do take after take after take. I mean at 50 bucks a tape who really cares?

 

Film people generally put a lot more time and care into each shot before rolling camera because they have to. Film is way too expensive to just keep rolling the way people do on video shoots. The problem then becomes that the tape attitude passes all the way on down the line to the actors and crew. The actors screw up more because they can, and the crew screws up more, because they can. I mean it's just tape stock so who cares?

Hmm. When I was working on NYPD Blue a few years ago, it wasn't uncommon to shoot upwards of 25,000 feet BEFORE lunch. I've worked on a few comedies in the past couple of years where getting to take 10 wasn't out of the ordinary. In contrast, I'm not sure where you ever got the idea that we just "keep rolling" on video projects. There simply isn't time to do things over and over. Rare is the video project Producer who has the budget to put the crew into overtime. The reality is that we have to plan MORE, not less. I have less time to prepare, but the same expectation of quality that "elite" cinematographers have is there. We aren't always allowed to achieve it, but it isn't for the lack of desire or trying. I'm not sure what you've been working on, but it doesn't appear to be anything like the video world I've been working in.

 

Oh, and it's not an hour of tape. HD at 23.98P fps gives you about 50 minutes. HD at 59.94I gives you about 40 minutes. About a buck a minute.

 

Work on a small shoot with 35mm, and tell the cast and crew, "OK we have just two chances to get this." They know what you mean, the film is precious, you can't just rewind it and tape over it again.

I did more than a few of those in the past and I don't ever remember there being any undo pressure to "get it" in as few takes as possible. It's been awhile, but somehow the Producers managed to have enough film there. Granted, it was usually short-end city in the most dire of cases, but even Kodak was willing to donate film to aspiring artists. As I recall, filmstock was never an issue. If anything, time is the greater commodity, but larger features have the luxury of going as long as they have to to get the work done where smaller productions have to cut it off at some point. Regardless of the media used to capture the images, everyone pretty much rolls until they get it, film and video alike.

 

When I had the misfortune to work in the TV news biz some thing interesting would always happen. When an anchor was needed to do a taped update they would screw it up 5-6 times. When they where live they read perfectly. Why? Well, in the back of their minds they know they can just do it over for a taped update, when they are live there are no re-takes. A similar thing occurs when shooting film vs video in the low to mid ranges.

Sure, I suppose. But news isn't what most Videographers do, at least not what I've been talking about. I've purposefully avoided news like the plague for many of the reasons that I'm reading into your posts. I have a longtime friend from college who now shoots news in San Diego. He loves the quickness of it all (something I abhore), but he does admit that while he actively tries to inject some level of quality into his work, the reality is that nobody cares. He might take a little extra time to set up a shot (if he has the time), but more often than not, those better shots don't get used. It's the nature of the PROJECT to limit what individual cameramen accomplish, not the machines themselves.

[Guest]

I can see we'll be at this until the cows come home.

 

Video shooters can call themselves any thing they want, but if you want the title of cinematographer, you'll have to shoot film. Period end of story.

 

I wish some one like Steven Spielberg could chime in here. Since he has publically stated he will never shoot HD, I have a suspicion he would agree with me.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

Video shooters can call themselves any thing they want, but if you want the title of cinematographer, you'll have to shoot film.

 

What if you shoot both in the same movie? You get two job titles? What if you shoot digitally but don't encode it into a video format but keep it as data? Then is it "Digitalographer"? "Digital-Data-Capturer"? Is a photographer who picks up a digital still camera no longer a photographer? I mean, these 4K cameras like the Dalsa are not "video" cameras in the strictest sense.

 

This whole issue is just another way of beating up on people who shoot with a video camera -- it smacks of eliticism.

 

Cinema and cinematography have evolved to incorporate more than film technology. Besides, the root "cine" doesn't even refer to film emulsion technology, but to motion.

 

Language is a living thing and we've already moved to the point where someone shooting a movie on a video camera is called a cinematographer, whether you like it or not, and it will only continue to become more and more common. You might as well be arguing for us to go back to using Old English.

[Nathan Chaszeyka]

I can see we'll be at this until the cows come home.

 

Video shooters can call themselves any thing they want, but if you want the title of cinematographer, you'll have to shoot film. Period end of story.

 

I wish some one like Steven Spielberg could chime in here. Since he has publically stated he will never shoot HD, I have a suspicion he would agree with me.

 

R,

 

Spielberg won't, but other excellent directors have chosen to shoot HD, as well as other cinematographers therefore he is not the definitive answer. The point/counter-point will never end.

 

For what it's worth, I'll chime in on the side of the discussion that the title has more to do with the creative role of the person behind the camera and not the format.

 

You may call me whatever you want, I've been called worse before. :D

[Keneu Luca]

VIDEOGRAPHER

responsible for the technical operation of a video camera

 

CINEMATOGRAPHER

responsible for the artistic visual design of any motion picture that incorporates elements such as lighting, camera placement & movement, lenses, filtration, etc.

[Guest]

"This whole issue is just another way of beating up on people who shoot with a video camera -- it smacks of eliticism."

 

Sorry David but it doesn't. I have already said that when I shoot video I'm not a cinematographer. So now I'm elitist against my self?

[Chad Stockfleth]

This whole issue is just another way of beating up on people who shoot with a video camera -- it smacks of eliticism.

 

Cinema and cinematography have evolved to incorporate more than film technology. Besides, the root "cine" doesn't even refer to film emulsion technology, but to motion.

 

Thank you David, always the voice of reason.

[David Mullen ASC]

"This whole issue is just another way of beating up on people who shoot with a video camera -- it smacks of eliticism."

 

Sorry David but it doesn't. I have already said that when I shoot video I'm not a cinematographer. So now I'm elitist against my self?

 

Yes, most obviously.

 

You can choose not to call yourself a cinematographer when you shoot stuff that would traditionally be shot on film, like narrative, but use a video camera instead -- but what does that prove?

 

It doesn't change the fact that someone shooting on video can rightly call themselves a cinematographer if they are shooting the sort of material a cinematographer traditionally shoots. The format doesn't make you a cinematographer.

 

This train has left the station. I've been hearing this "videographer" argument for a decade now and it gets fainter and fainter all the time, and more and more ridiculous as digital cinematography becomes more and more common. Digital cameras are just another type of camera. You might as well be trying to say that people who shoot Fuji film are not cinematographers -- it makes almost as much sense.

 

So if you want to call Dion Beebe a "videographer" because he shot part of "Collateral" on video, that's your choice. Not many people will go along with you, but if you want to make a futile effort at pushing language in a direction it doesn't want to go, go ahead, but personally, I'd save your energy for things that actually matter, like making your movie.

 

I suspect that "videographer" will become an archaic term eventually, except maybe in non-narrative applications like news work. Even travel shows mix film and video formats all the time, but are shot by the same person. Again, does that mean he gets two credits? Robert Richardson used some betacam cameras for part of "Natural Born Killers", part of a huge arsenal of cameras that included Super-8 and 35mm -- does that mean he gets two credits? Or the DP who shot "Silent Hill" with its HD scene? Or the DP who shot "Mission Impossible III" with its HD footage? Cinematography's defining feature is not that it is shot on film, but that it involves shooting moving images. It's not the "opposite" word to "videography" -- it's a more general term that can encompass videography, which is a very specific term.

 

And you never answered my question as to how to address digital cinematography that does not involve encoding the signal into a video format but keeping it as digital data. That's not videography but by your definition, it's not cinematography either.

[Guest]

The odd thing is David that I don't consider cinematographer to be a "high and mighty" term, or videographer to be a "lowly" term. I just see them as different terms for shooting different mediums, that's all.

 

But obviously many people that shoot video get offended when they are told they can't use the term cinematographer to describe themselves. Not sure why, so all I can say is, what ever.

 

As to this question:

 

"And you never answered my question as to how to address digital cinematography that does not involve encoding the signal into a video format but keeping it as digital data. That's not videography but by your definition, it's not cinematography either."

 

I made a joke about this in an earlier thread as I knew it would come up. Like I said he's a Diskographer.

[Brian Dzyak]

Let me throw another log on the fire. :)

 

I haven't always made a living as a Videographer. For about 11 years or so, I was an AC working on the lowest of low budgets to spending some time on the Titanic. Because of that, plus my running experience as a Videographer for the past 18 years, I segued into shooting behind the scenes for EPK and DVD work quite smoothly. Anyhow, as I've continued along this path, the issue of union membership has increasingly become an issue. The issue is that most, if not all, studio productions somehow manage to "require" that the Videographer be a member of IATSE Local 600, the fact is that there currently is no actual rule or contract stating that the EPK/DVD cameraman be a member of Local 600. The result is that the studio avoids getting "heat" from IATSE, the EPK vendor avoids dealing with any confrontations on set, and those of us who are Local 600 members get nothing except our dayrate out of it. No hours. No insurance. Nothing. We pay our dues and take the classes. We get a card, a pen, and a magazine subscription.

 

Why is this relevant to the discussion at hand? Because, it's going to be hard enough to have EPK Videographers recognized in a new contract in the same way that Unit Still Photographers are without unsubstantiated prejudice leveled against what they do. We shoot "event coverage" as part of our mission, but we also take time to carefully light and shoot A list talent, Directors, Producers, and other relevant crew. For DVD material, I've gone on set with a Steadicam as well as having to do my other work. I've DP'd four camera shoots for DVD material in which I've been flown for location scouting and extensive pre-production prep. I've had to light and shoot the likes of Michael Douglas, Frank Darabont, Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, and countless others that I'm just to tired right now to think of. That's what we do. We're NOT point and shoot guys like Entertainment Tonight and the news photographers are. They can get away with it, but we can't.

 

The EPK Vendors recognize that they are "buying" security from IATSE by hiring 600 members, but they also know that we aren't one of those "friends of the Director" who run around with a miniDV. Studios have been "burned" by those guys and are recognizing the need for quality material, not just any material.

 

The issue of covering EPK Videographers is a very complicated one, as my recent meeting with some of the representatives illustrated. The odds are against it happening for a variety of reasons. But one thing that I do know is that the more "anti-video" propaganda is puked out into the world, the less likely EPK will become a recognized classification in the Local which is supposed to be representing camera personnel of all makes and models.

 

The first step is in understanding what we do. Understanding that "video" has gone beyond the technology of the early days and in many respects, does rival film. Argue that amongst yourselves all you want (as the Genesis is used more often), but the more important issue to recognize and accept is that "we" are more than amateurs who just shoot whatever appears in front of us. It's easy to light something when you have full Grip and Electric crews, two forty footers, and everything set up specifically for you. Try reaching for that same quality when you're alone in a small space that you are expected to turn into gold in about an hour or less. That's real work.

 

The second step is for a little bit of respect. Narrative is only one aspect of "entertainment." Very little of that would exist today if not for the marketing which is extraordinarily frustrating for many reasons and highly rewarding when the tumblers click into place. For instance, in the We Are Marshall piece that I shot, I consider the David Straithern interview a victory. If I were one to cut a reel, I'd include that as an example of what I can do to create "something" out of virtually nothing. You should have seen that room before I got to it. In contrast, if I had any power, I would have not shot McG's interview at that time and definitely wouldn't have included it in the piece. The plan I had for the look of that specific interview was vastly different, but due to conditions beyond my control, I had to hit the button. We win some, we lose some. But then, not every shot in a movie is precisely as a DP dreamed it either. We are more alike more often than some would like to believe.

 

Anyhow, I'm not married to this as a career. God willing, I'll be achieving great things in other areas of life sooner than later, but for now, this is what I do. More than anything, I find the animosity toward video technology amusing. What I'm truly concerned about is that everyone gets the proper respect and the benefits that go along with it. Literally speaking, if I had earned hours for every day I've had on set since last October, I'd have full Motion Picture right now for me and my family. That goes for everyone else who steps foot on a set to shoot with a video camera so that those movies can get sold to the public so that everyone on set will have another job to go to.

 

Videographers are cameramen, just like anyone else who holds a box which captures motion-pictures. The purposes may vary, but it all comes down to knowing about composition, lighting, and exposure. Those are things that we all have to do no matter what the Producers toss in front of the frame.

[Thomas James]

I don't think that videographer accurately describes the work I do. When I think of videographer I think of someone with a blurry 480i interlaced video camera that just shoots away wildly panning the camera. When i shoot I have to compose my shots sometimes just like a still photographer if I just want to capture subtle motion. I shoot full progressive high definition 720p video at the film like 30 frames per second. I capture far more resolution and color fidelity than your typical 480i video camera. And I wouldn't call my work super video either. Super video is what you get when you buy a 1080i interlaced video camera. My camera is fully progressive high definition with lower temporal 30p resolution for that film look. So cinematographer more accurately describes my work even though I do not have to pay for film developing costs.