Jump to content

Revolutionizing the Industry!!!....!


Chris Keth

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

hahahaha! it's not about people getting pissed off when others use a new technology. it's about things being touted as revolutionary.

 

if you are a working professional (which i am, although admittedly, i've been known to do the dreaded corporate work) this camera doesn't appeal much to you because ergonomically it is a wreck and picture wise, there are already cameras that are better.

 

if you are an aspiring amateur, this could possibly be a camera to give you a chance to make your movie, but so is a dvx100, so is a gl1, so is an hv20. i have seen evocative pictures made with a vhs camcorder.

 

so my point: if you come to a professional forum advertising the latest and greatest in amateur technology, expect to get similar responses to what you've gotten. no one here is going to lament you making a movie with one, but some will take issue when it is heralded as the "game changer" because many cameras have been called that and for the most part, the game stays the same.

 

what changes the game is people. the camera is a means but YOU must be the revolution.

 

love,

chad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With all due respect to the fact that this is a professional forum (I <3 you guys)...

 

If poop like that is a revolution, they can kiss my skinny white girl a$$.

 

That is really all I have to say. Yes- the technology is interesting. Trying new things can be good. Preparing for the future is good. But the hype and the bullsh*t surrounding the advertising with this crap, makes me ill.

 

With Guitar Hero, suddenly everyone can be a "guitarist". With Pro Tools being affordable, suddenly everyone can buy the latest MBox and be a "musician". And now I guess everyone can be a "filmmaker". There is something prestigious and- to an extent- sacred about this industry, that I feel is being watered down and compromised by new technology. And I ***ing hate that. The end. :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Annie it's like say that every one how has sport show is athlete

 

it's just a toll! new and exited toll

but that doesn't say that every one how hold it become filmmaker

art is all in one's head and if he has something to say

it's like not every one how hold digicam or pocket cam is pro still photographer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
it's like not every one how hold digicam or pocket cam is pro still photographer

 

No it's not like that. But that is what ads want people to believe and people believe it. It's the same with computers. Ever since anyone can use Word to layout their texts everybody thinks they are typographers and don't need the services of the real pros anymore! And tell you what, typography is an art and science in itself! See the parallel?

 

Cheers, Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something prestigious and- to an extent- sacred about this industry, that I feel is being watered down and compromised by new technology. And I ***ing hate that. The end. :-D

 

Yeah it's been downhill since Guttenberg, jeez we can't have the peasants reading - next thing you know they'll be WRITING. :angry:

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say we go back to the good old days... who needs technological advancement... cause we all know that no films are near as good as the old ones... whose with me!! REVOLUTIONIZE THE INDUSTRY!! BRING BACK TECHNICOLOR THREE STRIP!!! Cause we all know its ALL about the equipment not the maker...

 

Deakins would make better movies with that DSLR setup than most people with a Panavision... so who cares... really...

 

technicolor_giants_in_england.jpg

Edited by Jesse Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say we go back to the good old days... who needs technological advancement... cause we all know that no films are near as good as the old ones... whose with me!! REVOLUTIONIZE THE INDUSTRY!! BRING BACK TECHNICOLOR THREE STRIP!!! Cause we all know its ALL about the equipment not the maker...

 

Deakins would make better movies with that DSLR setup than most people with a Panavision... so who cares... really...

 

technicolor_giants_in_england.jpg

 

I'm a little confused by your post Jesse. You just said that its ALL about the equipment and not the guy who makes the movie, yet now you're using Roger Deakins as an example of somebody who could do things with DSLR better than most people can with a 35mm Panavision, which is contradictory to what you said before? If it was all about the equipment, Deakins would be shooting everything with the largest camera he can get his hands on.

 

I don't know if I'm taking your post out of context, but something in it has me confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .cause we all know that no films are near as good as the old ones...

 

Deakins would make better movies with that DSLR setup than most people with a Panavision... so who cares... really...

 

 

The first statement, however sarcastic, is really true. Most modern feature films suck, particularly those of Hollywood ilk, if not why they are re-making most of the classics? Most modern scripts stink. Hollywood producers much rather produce a safe, proven or pandering-to-a-segment-of-the-audience script than take a chance with something REALLY good.

 

Therein lies the possible redeemer for indie movies shot with digital technology. Since Hollywood producers are not involved, perhaps great movies could be produced. EXCEPT most indie filmmakers in the US -and many parts of the world- try to attain the Hollywood standard, so there goes that.

 

And the second statement exemplifies that it really is the person behind the technology which makes good cinematography than the technology itself . Therefore the fact that most people have now access to great digital technology, it does not great cinematographers automatically make out of them. And since people like Deakins started their careers using film, the future lies in the past.

 

So the Revolution is dead.

Edited by Saul Rodgar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first statement, however sarcastic, is really true. Most modern feature films suck, particularly those of Hollywood ilk, if not why they are re-making most of the classics? Most modern scripts stink. Hollywood producers much rather produce a safe, proven or pandering-to-a-segment-of-the-audience script than take a chance with something REALLY good.

 

Therein lies the possible redeemer for indie movies shot with digital technology. Since Hollywood producers are not involved, perhaps great movies could be produced. EXCEPT most indie filmmakers in the US -and many parts of the world- try to attain the Hollywood standard, so there goes that.

 

And the second statement exemplifies that it really is the person behind the technology which makes good cinematography than the technology itself . Therefore the fact that most people have now access to great digital technology, it does not great cinematographers automatically make out of them. And since people like Deakins started their careers using film, the future lies in the past.

 

So the Revolution is dead.

 

I don't think the Revolution is dead. Yes, most indie-filmmakers are trying to imitate Hollywood (Which is very disappointing and makes me feel terrible inside as a newbie.), but there are still some very strong supporters of digital video, like Robert Rodriguez and George Lucas (Although I think he's terrible with them) who do have influence on people and could get more to go digital with their movies.

 

Another thing to consider is that a lot of the most successful independent films these days are being done digitally. Those films include "28 Days Later," "Once Upon A Time In Mexico," "Spy Kids 2," "Youth Without Youth," "Fahrenheit 9/11," and (partially) "The Blair Witch Project." So while most independent filmmakers may choose film, the success of independent digital features is something to think about.

 

As for Deakins, there wasn't any digital technology when he was getting his start, so the guy had to go film. Now I don't know the "people like him" part, so I'm not going to answer that for the time being until I know more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
The first statement, however sarcastic, is really true. Most modern feature films suck, particularly those of Hollywood ilk, if not why they are re-making most of the classics?

 

I tend to agree with you Saul. One thing though. When we are looking back to the old master pieces we look at all those great movies from all those years ago. Shouldn't we, for comparison's sake, pick one year, say 1941, and look at all the movies produced back then and compare it to one of the recent years? I think that would even the odds because I am sure that there were many really bad movies too in 1941!

 

Regards, Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with you Saul. One thing though. When we are looking back to the old master pieces we look at all those great movies from all those years ago. Shouldn't we, for comparison's sake, pick one year, say 1941, and look at all the movies produced back then and compare it to one of the recent years? I think that would even the odds because I am sure that there were many really bad movies too in 1941!

 

Regards, Dave

 

I hate to disagree with you David. You make a good point that there may have been some really bad movies back in the 30s and 40s, but there's a big difference between today's movies and yesterday's movies. The old days have some very great movies that can now be called classics. Movies like Citizen Kane, The Wizard Of Oz, Casablanca, and many more. Today's movies, however, are not so. In fact, I think the last movies we've seen that have the potential to become classics are the Lord Of The Rings movies. That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with you Saul. One thing though. When we are looking back to the old master pieces we look at all those great movies from all those years ago. Shouldn't we, for comparison's sake, pick one year, say 1941, and look at all the movies produced back then and compare it to one of the recent years? I think that would even the odds because I am sure that there were many really bad movies too in 1941!

 

Regards, Dave

 

Yeah, of course there have ALWAYS been bad movies, now and then. However the stuff we see today is SOOO bad, with few exceptions. Whereas movies in the past seemed at least better written, including the many of the bad ones. Like they weren't so pandering to the lowest common denominator, like we see today in hundreds of movies each year. At least most of them didn't have car chases, explosions and overkill special effects by the minute! Also, there weren't so many bad movies because there weren't as many as there are being made today, total industry output. But the bad to good ratio I believe is still worse today. Just my personal opinion. But we digress . . .

Edited by Saul Rodgar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Times are different today. Imagine a coloured man would have been elected US president in 1945. No, classics happen to come to earth during certain times. There was no television until the end of the Fourties. Cinemas were frequented like never again. And Hollywood was still open to cheap tricks. Today it's a bank place. What can we expect from bankers and secret organizations behind them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Times are different today. Imagine a coloured man would have been elected US president in 1945. No, classics happen to come to earth during certain times. There was no television until the end of the Fourties. Cinemas were frequented like never again. And Hollywood was still open to cheap tricks. Today it's a bank place. What can we expect from bankers and secret organizations behind them ?

 

Yup. They probably bought into Oliver Stone's "Greed is good" philosophy. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A stupid advertisement (aren't they all?) leads to over-reaching generalizations about nearly everything?

 

No it isn't all this, and it isn't all that. In 50 years, there will be "classics" from this period.

 

As for marketing and advertising, I'll give the floor to Bill Hicks...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Therein lies the possible redeemer for indie movies shot with digital technology. Since Hollywood producers are not involved, perhaps great movies could be produced. EXCEPT most indie filmmakers in the US -and many parts of the world- try to attain the Hollywood standard, so there goes that.

 

So the Revolution is dead.

 

This has always seemed strange to me as well. It does appear that most of the effort that I have seen in festivals is an attempt to replicate Hollywood product. It's almost as if the creators were using their productions as a resume to get some notice and credibility from Hollywood. I can see the good sense in this. But, at the same time, isn't being independent from corporate controls a darn good reason to be independent? Doesn't this afford an artist an opportunity to do something much more unique?

 

On the flip side of the "unique artist" argument is the festivals themselves. The few I've interacted with have suffered from the same credibility, monkey-see-monkey-do-for-Hollywood mind set. They want the best, Hollywood-like product they can get for the prestige they want for their festival.

 

It's kind of a chicken or egg thing. Who makes the new and risky stuff? Who's gonna' show the new and risky stuff? Who's gonna watch the new and risky stuff? As it stands, now, there are so many Hollywood suck-up productions being ground out these days, what are the odds of getting noticed by anyone who matters in Hollywood anyway. Why not just make something that's genuinely unique or blows people's hair back?

 

Just a thought and restatement of Saul's questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over decades, there has been the idea that affordable easy to use tools (camera, sound, editing) will result in better films and make it possible for young filmmakers to get their work shown and seen.

 

If you look up some issues of FILMMAKER'S NEWSLETTER from the 1960s and 1960s, you will see how people believed in the holy grail of filmmaking: Give them faster stocks, faster lenses, lighter cameras, big zoom ratios, automatic iris control, better sound technology and PRESTO! everybody will have a chance to make better films.

 

Different technologies were called milestones in freeing the filmmaker and giving him/her the ultimate caméra stylo for creative expression: 16mm, Super-8, single system mag sound, analog video and finally DV: Push the button and technology will take care of all the difficult stuff.

 

Please note that I am talking about the attitude, not about film, video or digital technology. I believe an artist can produce good work with almost any kind of moving image system. But I just hate the constant whining about not getting a chance to do the movie, lacking this and lacking that.

 

My experience taught me that the people complaining the loudest

 

- never read a book about any kind of photography, analog or digital image technology,

- never went to a museum to look at pictures,

- never tried to get an apprentice job so they could learn about making films,

- are often too lazy to experiment or afraid of making mistakes from which they can learn

- usually have some Guru like Tarantino or Lucas and fantasize about making movies for the world but without the blood, sweat and learning pain that goes with any kind of artistic work.

 

(BTW, I'm not referring to anybody who posted in this thread, just talking about people I met and who told me they were filmmakers IF JUST...)

 

Do we need more push-the-button "democratic" tools, do we need to remove any professional compentence because lazy people regard it as an obstacle? I doubt it. Look at the short films made by Polish film students in the 1950s and 1960s, done on film with the barest resource, short supply of film stock and equipment; films like Roman Polanski's. Then show me the recent filmic masterpieces which were made possible by recent technology.

 

A friend of mine is shooting his first feature on 35mm anamorphic financed by and shot between commercial jobs. You can make films with very limited resources if you know what you are doing and your project is good enough to attract people. - My friend's former boss has been talking forever about hitting it big, putting together a huge European science fiction film. He claims that no one should make a movie using his own money, and I am quite certain he will never makle anything but the mid-range TV commercial stuff he is involved in.

 

Not a matter of technology, it's about the attitude. Easy to claim that you're a filmmaker, hard to get your ass out of the chair and create something, especially if you have to do work you don't like to pay for the work you desire to do. Another thing the armchair guys don't feel like doing - they expect the world to provide them with technology and money although they never have done any artistic work that would persuade anyone to do this.

 

/end of rant/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we need more push-the-button "democratic" tools, do we need to remove any professional compentence because lazy people regard it as an obstacle? I doubt it. Look at the short films made by Polish film students in the 1950s and 1960s, done on film with the barest resource, short supply of film stock and equipment; films like Roman Polanski's. Then show me the recent filmic masterpieces which were made possible by recent technology.

 

Amen, brother, AMEN!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those Zacuto pics are ludicrous and deserve the mocking they are getting. BTW, the prices there are a joke.

 

But I would be very careful about mocking the idea of shooting on these types of cameras. They offer massive, full-frame sensors roughly the same as the legendary Vista Vision format. They offer super badass lenses for the price (Nikon 14-24 anyone? Canon EF 35 1.4?). They can also shooting at very, very high ISO/ASA ratings, that no film camera on this planet will ever match.

 

Laugh now, like many here did at the Red camera. Because you won't be laughing for long. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those Zacuto pics are ludicrous and deserve the mocking they are getting. BTW, the prices there are a joke.

 

But I would be very careful about mocking the idea of shooting on these types of cameras. They offer massive, full-frame sensors roughly the same as the legendary Vista Vision format. They offer super badass lenses for the price (Nikon 14-24 anyone? Canon EF 35 1.4?). They can also shooting at very, very high ISO/ASA ratings, that no film camera on this planet will ever match.

 

Laugh now, like many here did at the Red camera. Because you won't be laughing for long. :lol:

 

Again, why do you have to take the cheap shot at film? Isn't ISO 2,000 fast enough for you? Because you can certainly get that sort of speed out of film today.

 

Hell, the guys using '99 are talking about rating it at 1,000 or 1,250 without even pushing it! Sure you can shoot at 3200, but what is the point with an F/1.4? at 1/48 sec shutter speed?

 

And what does this *really* allow you to do? The rig takes up about as much space as just using a small 35mm MP camera, and probably weighs about the same as the, what, 8 lb. lightest 35mm MP camera made.

 

How much heavier and bigger is a WWII Eyemo, made 65 years ago, by comparison?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to take cheap shots at film. I was defending digital, and pointing out that in SOME ways, it is already superior to film.

 

ISO 3200 is just the beginning. People will be shooting a ISO 6400, and up.

 

BTW, this night 5Dm2 video was just posted at vimeo....

 

http://www.vimeo.com/2327058

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...