Jump to content

KNOWING director Alex Proyas on RED camera


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member
Hi,

 

Sure you will loose many days of poorly paid work, wheather you will earn any less money is another question.

 

Stephen

 

Who starts out in the industry being paid well and only shooting the formats that they like to shoot? I made less than $20,000 a year for the first 10 years of my professional life, but this was because all I shot were feature films -- and some video infomercials and EPK's to pay the bills. But at least I mostly shot film on features... but this was 1991 to 2001. When I talk to young people getting out of film school and shooting their first features, it's mostly digital stuff I hear about. And I expect this trend to rise, not fall.

 

Any young cinematographer hoping to enter the industry within the decade either should be comfortable shooting digitally, or pick another industry, or become independently wealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who starts out in the industry being paid well and only shooting the formats that they like to shoot? I made less than $20,000 a year for the first 10 years of my professional life, but this was because all I shot were feature films -- and some video infomercials and EPK's to pay the bills. But at least I mostly shot film on features... but this was 1991 to 2001. When I talk to young people getting out of film school and shooting their first features, it's mostly digital stuff I hear about. And I expect this trend to rise, not fall.

 

Any young cinematographer hoping to enter the industry within the decade either should be comfortable shooting digitally, or pick another industry, or become independently wealthy.

 

As I have stated before. I do work with digital format but not when it is on cinema. I have seen Crank 2 on cinema. That stank of digital. Most of the scenes were awful to look at.

Edited by Joseph Arch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I enjoyed “Knowing” as entertainment I was pretty disappointed with the look of the Red. The wider shots were soft for some reason. The color looked like a faded 1950’s 16mm color junior high science film. The flesh tones had a corpse like appearance. The autumn color trees looked so bad they fit into the “What were they thinking” category.

 

On a positive note I thought the dark cool interiors look terrific and this is an area I thought the Red would fail. There was very little noise and the blacks looked great. With regard to the look of the film I’m sure the response would be “We were going for that look”. Right. That’s like someone serving you burned brownies and saying “I meant to burn them”.

 

On a side note I love the fact that there are so many science fiction films being made now but I am frustrated that science fiction has become a genre geared toward stupid people. They have taken the lead from b-drive in movies rather then the smarter films of that period.

 

Cage, a college professor, is supposed to be a top scientist but when things start to get out of had he responds like a panicky citizen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
As I have stated before. I do work with digital format but not when it is on cinema. I have seen Crank 2 on cinema. That stank of digital. Most of the scenes were awful to look at.

 

That is remarkably pretentious and closed-minded of you. The integrity of an image is not in the format. It's in your skill, care, and treatment. I've seen an awful lot of sh!tty looking film and a lot of great looking digital work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few cinematographer friends that would laugh at you for that statement. Apparently, you seem to find work only related to digital.

 

Actually, I work with both Film and Digital. I prefer film, but the reality is that more and more of the jobs that I do are now shooting digitally. I regard my job as a cinematographer to be about creating the best possible imagery on any given format. If shooting digitally requires extra effort to make it look good, then that is a challenge I am happy to take up, rather than cling to some deluded, elitist notion that only Film has any validity as a medium.

 

Your 'cinematographer friends' may well laugh, but I hope they are brushing up on their digital skills while they do it, because in another 5 years Film will be all but vanished as an origination medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your 'cinematographer friends' may well laugh, but I hope they are brushing up on their digital skills while they do it, because in another 5 years Film will be all but vanished as an origination medium.

 

I shall quote you on that and return your memory to this thread in five years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any young cinematographer hoping to enter the industry within the decade either should be comfortable shooting digitally, or pick another industry, or become independently wealthy.

 

I think Stephen is coming at it more from the viewpoint of an established professional.

 

On the bottom end of the totem pole, I agree that I have to work on digital shoots to make a living.

 

As far as the "become independently wealthy" option, I never thought of that one before! :P I need to brush up on my bank-robbing skills, and then, problem solved!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I can tell the difference based on my experience. When I am able to earn more experience, there will be no need for me to lower my self to digital.

 

Oh for goodness sake, how about making decisions about shooting format that come from story ? It's so narrow minded to carry on with this pretentious snobbery, rating one format above another. Story and budget inform decisions about origination format, not your blind devotion to one particular format.

 

jb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh for goodness sake, how about making decisions about shooting format that come from story ? It's so narrow minded to carry on with this pretentious snobbery, rating one format above another. Story and budget inform decisions about origination format, not your blind devotion to one particular format.

 

jb

 

My blind devotion, as you proclaim it, is still a devotion. If there were no actors taking 20 million dollars or more from a film's budget then digital would not work it's way in and try to take over film way before it's time. There is no logic in saving a few million dollars on film but giving more to an actor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually there is plenty of business logic in paying big-name actors that much.

 

[Normal] People don't go to see movies based on which camera it is shot on, or what film stock, etc.

 

They go because of the actors in it, and sometimes because of the director.

 

There's a reason why Michael Douglas' name comes up before the times of most films. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually there is plenty of business logic in paying big-name actors that much.

 

[Normal] People don't go to see movies based on which camera it is shot on, or what film stock, etc.

 

They go because of the actors in it, and sometimes because of the director.

 

There's a reason why Michael Douglas' name comes up before the times of most films. . .

 

Miami vice had colin farrell and Jamie Fox but the worst cinematography. It was not received well with 'normal' people. Lord Of The Rings had no major actors in it at the time and it is one of the best achievements in film history. All three films had a budget of $93 million each. That, would seem impossible for a three hour film, each, to have actors take millions of dollars away. The Mummy and The Mummy Returns also no big name actors but a budget of $80 to $98 million.

 

A great action flick that people really enjoyed. Studio executives may think to them selves that people want to see big time actors in movies because it will make it better. Maybe in California that is true. However, the rest of the world objects to big name actors, Europeans mostly, and prefers solid stories so they may experience film.

 

I believe, if you have a solid story with good actors, not just a big name, and a creative director then the rest will fall into place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miami vice had colin farrell and Jamie Fox but the worst cinematography.

 

They didn't think it sucked because of the cinematography. They thought it sucked because of the story.

 

99% of people couldn't care less about cinematography as long as you're within +/- 2 stops of proper exposure they'll accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

My suggestion is to ignore Joseph if he continues to harp on this one note, because you're all just wasting your time. He's clearly one of these people who will have to suffer and learn directly from experience rather than be prepared for the future from the advice of more experienced people.

 

Either you believe in the value of keeping an open mind or you don't, you think that life is just a series of standoffs where you declare your belief system at an early age and then stick to it no matter what inconvenient facts are thrown at you.

 

I mean, I can tolerate that (barely) when you're talking about religious beliefs, but not over something like digital versus film for feature work. I admire passion in an artist, but not misplaced passion, and especially not when it involves judging others work rather than one's own work. Telling everyone out there who is shooting digital features that digital has no place in cinema is arrogant and elitist. It's a very different attitude than saying that one would rather use film for one's own personal vision because then you're only talking about your own needs as an artist, not trying to tell everyone else how to make movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
A great action flick that people really enjoyed. Studio executives may think to them selves that people want to see big time actors in movies because it will make it better. Maybe in California that is true. However, the rest of the world objects to big name actors, Europeans mostly, and prefers solid stories so they may experience film.

 

 

Joseph, you're clearly shouting opinion presented as fact. Are you a studio executive ?

 

Not everyone thinks Lord Of The Rings is the pinnacle of filmmaking achievement. Did you just do a ring around of your European mates for statistical survey of european views on Hollywood films ?

 

You have no actual knowledge of what youre talking about. You are a beginner with little practical experience.

 

If I recall, film-fan boy, your very first post asked advice about which camera you should buy because the RED you were going to buy wasn't shipping. In the same thread you also told everyone you already knew how to make films.

 

Despite your naive and simplistic views you throw your opinions based on limited knowledge around as absolute fact, managing to offend the film making practitioners you desperately want to become.

 

jb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My suggestion is to ignore Joseph if he continues to harp on this one note, because you're all just wasting your time. He's clearly one of these people who will have to suffer and learn directly from experience rather than be prepared for the future from the advice of more experienced people.

 

Either you believe in the value of keeping an open mind or you don't, you think that life is just a series of standoffs where you declare your belief system at an early age and then stick to it no matter what inconvenient facts are thrown at you.

 

I mean, I can tolerate that (barely) when you're talking about religious beliefs, but not over something like digital versus film for feature work. I admire passion in an artist, but not misplaced passion, and especially not when it involves judging others work rather than one's own work. Telling everyone out there who is shooting digital features that digital has no place in cinema is arrogant and elitist. It's a very different attitude than saying that one would rather use film for one's own personal vision because then you're only talking about your own needs as an artist, not trying to tell everyone else how to make movies.

 

I am not going to repeat my self why I prefer film to digital in cinema. I am not dictating to people how to make films and how it should be made. Quite the opposite. Digital fans are telling film cinematographers to use digital over film. You are a respected artist. Even when you insult me I still admire and respect your work.

 

 

 

 

Joseph, you're clearly shouting opinion presented as fact. Are you a studio executive ?

 

Not everyone thinks Lord Of The Rings is the pinnacle of filmmaking achievement. Did you just do a ring around of your European mates for statistical survey of european views on Hollywood films ?

 

You have no actual knowledge of what youre talking about. You are a beginner with little practical experience.

 

If I recall, film-fan boy, your very first post asked advice about which camera you should buy because the RED you were going to buy wasn't shipping. In the same thread you also told everyone you already knew how to make films.

 

Despite your naive and simplistic views you throw your opinions based on limited knowledge around as absolute fact, managing to offend the film making practitioners you desperately want to become.

 

jb

 

Then it would not have won so many Oscars if people did not think it was an outstanding achievement in film making.

 

My very first post was my stepping stone and I have passed that phase. You do not know me. You do not know anything about me. So, because of certain questions I might ask, does that entitle you to offend me. I have not offended anyone directly nor indirectly. Maybe you are offended. Clearly, it was not my intention to offend you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Then it would not have won so many Oscars if people did not think it was an outstanding achievement in film making.

 

If you believe the Oscars are the only way of measuring a films achievement then good luck on you getting one. LOTR is right up there with Shakespeare in Love for sure.

 

My very first post was my stepping stone and I have passed that phase. You do not know me. You do not know anything about me. So, because of certain questions I might ask, does that entitle you to offend me.

 

You've invited comment because you make gross generalisations that don't stand up to scrutiny. Very different to asking certain questions.

 

I do know you.

 

The combined weight of your 96 posts to date entitle me to form an opinion about your views and what you know.

 

jb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell the difference based on my experience. When I am able to earn more experience, there will be no need for me to lower my self to digital.

 

What exactly is your experience? I'd be curious since I have never met you, seen your work or worked with you. I have worked with David Fincher, I have worked with Claudio Miranda when he was a gaffer on countless music videos, I have worked with or sat through dailies with Bill Fraker, Tom Del Ruth, Owen Roizmen, Vilmos Zsigmond, Laszlo Kovacs, Jim Glennon. the list goes on. I have shot a few things myself, I have shot stills and I have printed both color and black & white. I went to film school and I went to photography school. I'm not name dropping (maybe a little) but I say this because I believe I have a good eye, maybe an exceptional eye. I learned a lot working with some masters. I love film and was a film purist like you. When video came around I was bitter. I had spent 20 years learning how to expose a negative. How dare they. So, last year I ran into someone I knew from Panavision and he invited me to a big event at Panavision where they were screening a Film vs Video demonstration. The moderator gave out sheets and we were to decide which was film and which was video. I was sitting with Levie Isaacks who I have worked with and known for years. Ok, sounds easy enough, watch some footage, dis the video, rave over film and be done. I don't think I got one right.I could not tell the difference. I got few right but not as many as I would have liked. Levie did better than me but even he didn't get them all. I was shocked. I was humbled. Here I thought it was going to be easy. Now your eye might be better than mine, I don't know, but I do know that the technology of digital is nothing to be dismissed. If digital has made the steps it has in the last 5 years alone, imagine how much it will improve in the next five. Film is extremely old technology. Film was invented by George Eastman and the camera was invented by Edison. Film had a great run. But to think that nothing can replace it is naive. I have since come to the conclusion that there really is a place in cinema for digital. That is not easy for me to say. David made an excellent point that these films that have been shot on digital just can't simply be dismissed because you don't accept their legitimacy. There may come a time when film doesn't exist at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, I can tolerate that (barely) when you're talking about religious beliefs, but not over something like digital versus film for feature work. I admire passion in an artist, but not misplaced passion, and especially not when it involves judging others work rather than one's own work.

 

Be careful David: There is a new study that has been done, using CAT scans, that shows that the same area of the brain that is used for religious thoughts is also used when it comes to brand loyalty (like Coke vs. Pepsi, Kodak vs. Fuji, Film vs. Digital, etc.).

 

So you're fighting the same impossible argument against an entrenched film purist as you would be with, say, a Nazi or a branch Davidian or a Jonestown follower in the '70s. . .

 

I find it funny that I have been defending digital, and REED so much these past few weeks. I think there are plenty of intelligent reasons to still prefer film over digital. Guess that makes me all the more sensitive against stupidity like "Digital will NEVER be acceptable in the cinema." Never is a long freaking time, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I find it funny that I have been defending digital, and REED so much these past few weeks. I think there are plenty of intelligent reasons to still prefer film over digital. Guess that makes me all the more sensitive against stupidity like "Digital will NEVER be acceptable in the cinema." Never is a long freaking time, after all.

 

Yes, I find it ironic too, that Joseph has managed to alienate the pro-film people on this forum. But the same thing happens with the die-hard "film is dead" fanatics -- they often alienate pro-digital people.

 

I agree with you, the arguments for using film are quite strong and deep. But that doesn't mean there is no room for variation in technical approach or aesthetics to filmmaking. We're talking about an artform here; there's bound to be a wide range of attitudes and styles -- and that's not a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're talking about an artform here; there's bound to be a wide range of attitudes and styles -- and that's not a bad thing.

 

Honestly, the reason why I tend to be such a reactionary isn't I don't like the new technology(/-ies), it is the ramifications that abandoning filmmaking altogether on a commercial level has for the fine-art people.

 

A lot of people have been saying that when theatres go digital, Kodak and Fuji are done for.

 

Looking at the economics of film production, there is a lot of truth in this.

 

 

So the reason I have such a chip on my shoulder against the fan boys is their casual ignorance for the people who are going to loose their jobs, and the infrastructure that is going to literally be ripped out and obsoleted.

 

I really wish I could find the name of this western (early to mid- '60s in color, IIRC), only caught a piece of it on TV once (No, it's not "High Noon" damnit! ;-) ), but I really related with its sheriff character. Film is set in the end of the old west. Cars and telephones are both around, in primitive forms. So, for a brief time, the horse and telegraph cable are still *better*. So the sheriff wants to ride out and catch these bad guys on horseback, and everyone else is sitting around trying to get the phone to work and they want to ride out in an automobile (which horses could still easily outrun at the time, especially over rough western terrain without paved roads).

 

I feel similarly frustrated with the immense energies people seem to devote to doing things digitally in instances where there is a very simple film option available (slow motion anyone?) Time exposures?

 

Same thing with "fix it in post". Give me a break! Sometimes filters, diffusion, and old-fashioned techniques, while not technologically liberating, are a hell of a lot simpler to implement.

 

I am very thankful that this industry is interested in results and reliability first, regardless of how they are achieved.

Edited by Karl Borowski
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

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...