Jump to content
K Borowski

Is There Any Truth to The Rumor I Just Heard That USC Is No Longer Teaching Filmmaking in It's "Film" Program?

Recommended Posts

Will any of these cameras allow me to flip a switch on set and get to 150 fps? How about ramping can they do that? How about going into time lapse or single frame mode?

 

I would say that even in the film world, those kinds of things require a specialty camera. You can't run a Panaflex Millennium at 150fps, either. And you can't run an Arricam in single frame mode. The fact is that there are digital cameras that will do all of these things, just like there are (specialty) film cameras that will as well. And in some cases, there are other advantages - for instance, you can immediately see what you just shot on a Phantom at 150fps, for instance, but you can't see film until it's been processed. And you can leave the Phantom running while you wait for the moment that works, eliminating the anticipatory needs of high speed film shooting.

 

In fact, if you actually wanted to shoot in single frame mode, you're probably a lot better off doing it with a digital still camera than a motion picture film camera. It's a lot smaller, a hell of a lot cheaper, and delivers great images at a very high resolution and color depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to question your new policy, but you'd rather consider hiring someone who's shot an awful short film on Super8 (or even 35mm) instead of someone who's shot something truly brilliant on a digital camera?

 

Nah, I'd rather hire some one who has shot Super 8. In fact I may make in mandatory going forward.

 

R,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither can a lot of film cameras do those things -- In the film days, we'd bring on a special high speed camera if we needed to. In digital, we'd get a Weisscam or Phantom, and have 2000 fps available, with rock steady registration. And if we ever need something that film can do and digital can't, we'll use film.

-- J.S.

 

Yeah, this is kinda why video is such a bummer for the filmmaker. When I have the Arri 435 on set I can do any thing with it. I can't see the point of criss crossing formats in the same show, I know it's done, but it just adds to post costs.

 

If you shoot every thing on 35mm then you are assured that every thing will cut together just as you like it. And you have access to all of the effects you want, when you want them.

 

Like I said, video is great for some stuff, but for a feature film I can't see how film can be beat. Please don't say Avatar....90% of the movie was created in a computer.

 

R,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is kinda why video is such a bummer for the filmmaker. When I have the Arri 435 on set I can do any thing with it.

 

Except shoot with sync sound. Or shoot faster than 150fps. Every device ever made has limitations.

 

Like I said, video is great for some stuff, but for a feature film I can't see how film can be beat.

 

As an image recording medium, I agree with you. However, there's more to shooting a motion picture than simple image recording. Fact is, that with today's directing and shooting styles, a film camera is often a bit too bulky for some work, and if it isn't, the running time per mag is too short. It also has limitations when used for visual effects elements (i.e., movement, dirt, grain, etc.). And this is not even to mention budgetary restrictions on some projects. I think rather than fit the medium to the project, these days there are enough high quality choices that one should look at that from the opposite perspective, allowing the conditions of the production - both physically and in terms of the story being told - to dictate the medium(s) used to capture it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard, while I agree 100% with you on the lack of discipline shown by some people who've never used film (and I'm really grateful to have been trained on film sets by people who've shot film for most of their careers), at the same time I can't honestly say I've seen strong discipline shown by all people who've been trained on film.

 

In my very humble opinion discipline doesn't come from film as a medium per se, it's rather a by-product of the procedures needed to use that medium at its best (and of course saving money). I've met some amazingly disciplined and professional people who've never shot on film, and some amazingly lazy unprofessional jerks who've shot 35mm film all their lives.

 

Frankly, if I were a cinematographer or producer and realized that some people on my shoot were lacking that "discipline" and were not respectful of the tools they were using, hence causing huge delays and doing a sloppy job, I would go find someone else. Personally, I try to bring my "discipline" on whatever job they call me on and whatever technology the cinematographer chooses, and I think that's part of being "professional" and doing a good job, regardless of the medium you were trained on.

 

just my 2€c... :-)

 

I have to agree with this. I can't recall a FILM project I've worked on where I've seen any more, or frankly, any less "discipline" than on any "video" shoot. In fact, I think I've heard the phrase, "It's only film" far more than I've ever heard that applied toward video. Or the famous one, "Film is cheap" or "Film is the cheapest thing on set."

 

The fact is that someone who is undisciplined in general regarding the elements of production isn't necessarily going to magically become a film-scrooge when shooting on film as opposed to video. For the most part, NOBODY rolls film or tape until all of the elements are properly in place in front of the lens. Then, when rolling film or video, most Directors will do as many takes as it requires to get the performances and camera moves correct.

 

I suspect that Richard may be referring to the bad habit that SOME people have to just allow tape to roll instead of doing a traditional "cut" and resetting. While that happens on rare occasion, I have seen that in film environments as well when a Director is hoping to keep "momentum" going to keep Actors in the moment, or what have you.

 

While I can appreciate the idea behind Richard's theory, I haven't seen enough proof of it in the real world to support the conclusion that those taught in the video/electronic realm are any less disciplined than those who grew up in the film environment. It sounds like one of those things that could be true, but I just haven't seen evidence to support it. If Richard or others ARE seeing such undisciplined behavior from those they work with, I suspect that perhaps they're hiring the wrong sort of people in the first place and the result has very little to do with the shooting medium at all.

 

But who knows for sure. Perhaps there is an opportunity for someone to get a grant to conduct a research study about it someday. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen enough proof of it in the real world to support the conclusion that those taught in the video/electronic realm are any less disciplined than those who grew up in the film environment.

 

Well here's some proof, I'm the only forum member producing feature films and getting them into mainstream distribution. And I went from Super 8, to 16mm, to 35mm. :)

 

R,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here's some proof, I'm the only forum member producing feature films and getting them into mainstream distribution. And I went from Super 8, to 16mm, to 35mm. :)

 

R,

 

 

How is that "proof"? This isn't a forum dedicated to aspiring Directors and Producers. It's one dedicated (the name itself says so!) to aspiring and current "Cinematographers." By definition, NOBODY here is necessarily seeking out a career that "produces feature films to get them into mainstream distribution." Maybe you are the only one here doing that, but boasting such a thing is like me entering the Miley Cyrus teenage fanclub forum to boast that I'm the only one there who has shot her backstage for her television show. That's not what that forum is all about as this one isn't populated by aspiring Producers and Directors. At least I assume not. :)

 

So anyway, I still haven't seen proof that "video" people are any less "disciplined" than "film people." I suspect that this assertion derives from a more "bigoted" point of view from those who fear change and progress more than actual reality. This isn't new. There has always been a prejudice against those who shoot electronically. I'm sure that comes from the PAST when the vast majority of those who used video were indeed shooting news or other topics that didn't require care and "discipline." If you haven't noticed, news is NOT the only thing that "video" is used for anymore AND the technology HAS changed for the better. Not only is "electronic acquisition" used for news, it is used for all kinds of marketing, industrials, HIGH END Corporate projects, music videos, television shows, episodics, sit-coms... and yes, even (gasp!) FEATURES! :o

 

For a parallel example, how many professional Sound Mixers are out there complaining about the changing technology. (ie, "New hack Sound Mixers who are less disciplined will just turn on their harddrives and let them run while people like me will continue to use the NAGRA because we are more disciplined.") To be fair, we should monitor the Sound forums for a while to see if those differing points-of-view actually exist, but I suspect not. Sound folks embrace changing technology and recognize the pluses and minuses without intentionally insulting or denigrating those who choose the newer methods/technologies.

 

So why do those on the picture-end of movie-making choose to do so? A camera is just a box with a hole in it. Knowing the VARIETY of tools available to use for DIFFERENT PURPOSES is the job of the professional Cameraman. Whether that person is "disciplined" or not is an entirely different discussion apart from the acquisition medium. More than that, it is hardly EVER the choice of the Cameraman to "keep the camera rolling" or to do extra takes. That is the choice of the DIRECTOR, so if anyone has any issues with a lack of "discipline" on a set, they should be taking it up with the DIRECTOR, NOT the Cameraman who may or may not have ever rolled filmstock through a gate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So anyway, I still haven't seen proof that "video" people are any less "disciplined" than "film people." I suspect that this assertion derives from a more "bigoted" point of view from those who fear change and progress more than actual reality.

 

 

I think you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with fear of anything. It has to do with simple facts, such as the fact that when television dramas were shot almost exclusively on film, the average show shot about 8000 feet per day and printed about 5000. Today, shooting electronically, nearly every show I see now exposes the equivalent of about 25000-35000 feet every day (two cameras on almost every show, each exposing about 2-3 hours of material) and prints the vast majority of it. You can call this changing directing styles, you can call it having less experienced directors, or you can call it what it really is - they shoot it because they can. Because when you're not running film through a camera that needs to be purchased, developed, and transferred, you can shoot and shoot and shoot. So they do. I would most definitely call that a lack of discipline, although you might call it something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because when you're not running film through a camera that needs to be purchased, developed, and transferred, you can shoot and shoot and shoot. So they do. I would most definitely call that a lack of discipline, although you might call it something else.

 

BINGO!! Dead on brother!

 

R,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with fear of anything. It has to do with simple facts, such as the fact that when television dramas were shot almost exclusively on film, the average show shot about 8000 feet per day and printed about 5000. Today, shooting electronically, nearly every show I see now exposes the equivalent of about 25000-35000 feet every day (two cameras on almost every show, each exposing about 2-3 hours of material) and prints the vast majority of it. You can call this changing directing styles, you can call it having less experienced directors, or you can call it what it really is - they shoot it because they can. Because when you're not running film through a camera that needs to be purchased, developed, and transferred, you can shoot and shoot and shoot. So they do. I would most definitely call that a lack of discipline, although you might call it something else.

 

 

When I was working on NYPD Blue a number of years ago, it was not uncommon for me to load and unload 25,000 feet of 35mm BEFORE LUNCH! Was that the fault of the DP (Lex) or was it the fault of the "undisciplined" for-hire Directors?

 

Like I said, I've seen "film" Directors also who don't hesitate to "keep the camera rolling!... Go again!" to keep the momentum going. So, the question becomes, is it the medium that causes "undisciplined behavior" or perhaps is it just people in general? What I see here is the standard superiority complex of so-called "film snobs" (the traditional label that has been applied for decades, not my words) who are trying desperately to maintain some kind of arbitrary "wall" over what "they" do (as artists?) and what "everyone else" does (as makers of hack products).

 

 

 

I have another question. The movie State of Play was shot with TWO formats. All of the Russell Crowe scenes were shot with 35mm. All of the Ben Affleck scenes shot electronically. The question is, is Rodrigo Prieto an artist because he shot film or is he an undiscplined hack because he also shot with "video." And more importantly, is Rodrigo to be credited or discredited at all in that this decision of two formats likely wasn't his at all?

 

And, if the DIRECTOR is the one who chooses to "let the camera roll" whether it's tape, film, or on a harddrive, then is that the fault of the Cameraman? Should he or she be blamed for being "undisciplined" or is that the fault of the Director? A person like Richard is blaming "filmschools" for turning out CAMERAMEN who are undisciplined because all they learn to shoot with are video cameras. My question is, is that fair given the facts that A) it is the DIRECTOR'S decision to let a camera cut or roll and B ) there are plenty of FILMED projects where cameras are left rolling too.

 

Point being, whether someone learns with video or film, it is the PROCESS that teaches discipline or not and it has NOTHING to do with the medium involved. Sure, videotape is cheaper than filmstock (arguably in the long run, it is a wash), but someone is either ready to shoot or they aren't and no matter what format is running past the lens, that person will either be efficient or they won't be. Blaming "video" for someone being "undisciplined" (whatever that means) is just downright silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was working on NYPD Blue a number of years ago, it was not uncommon for me to load and unload 25,000 feet of 35mm BEFORE LUNCH! Was that the fault of the DP (Lex) or was it the fault of the "undisciplined" for-hire Directors?

 

Well, by the time that show ended (and for most of the time that Lex and Stevie were shooting it), you had just about everyone from associate producers to assistant editors directing. So, yes, I think in that case the term "undisciplined director" certainly applies. I would also mention, however, that the footage counts for dailies on that show at that time were made a lot more palatable in part because Steven was one of the owners of the post facility. Not a cause and effect thing, but probably something of a stealth contributor.

 

The question is, is Rodrigo Prieto an artist because he shot film or is he an undiscplined hack because he also shot with "video." And more importantly, is Rodrigo to be credited or discredited at all in that this decision of two formats likely wasn't his at all?

 

And, if the DIRECTOR is the one who chooses to "let the camera roll" whether it's tape, film, or on a harddrive, then is that the fault of the Cameraman? Should he or she be blamed for being "undisciplined" or is that the fault of the Director? A person like Richard is blaming "filmschools" for turning out CAMERAMEN who are undisciplined because all they learn to shoot with are video cameras. My question is, is that fair given the facts that A) it is the DIRECTOR'S decision to let a camera cut or roll and B ) there are plenty of FILMED projects where cameras are left rolling too.

 

I don't really understand your apparent need to either attach labels or assess "blame." I was just making a casual, but none the less accurate, observation that today, a script that likely would have produced about 8000 feet of film a day now seems to produce about 4 times that amount in digital material. And yes, I do attribute some of that to the apparent lesser sense of responsibility that happens when you don't have a meter running every time you hit the start button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't really understand your apparent need to either attach labels or assess "blame." I was just making a casual, but none the less accurate, observation that today, a script that likely would have produced about 8000 feet of film a day now seems to produce about 4 times that amount in digital material. And yes, I do attribute some of that to the apparent lesser sense of responsibility that happens when you don't have a meter running every time you hit the start button.

 

 

My intention isn't to attach blame but to point out that Richard is attempting to draw a correlation between perceived "discipline" (which I take to mean the action of cutting camera after EVERY take) and someone who has learned "cinematography" primarily with electronic acquisition tools. He is suggesting that A + B ALWAYS = C where A is a Cinematography student and B is a video camera and C equals someone who is undisciplined therefore un-hire-able by himself or others "film traditionalists." There are multiple errors in drawing such a correlation, but one of the more important ones is that it isn't usually the Cameraman's responsibility to say "roll" and "cut." So by suggesting that someone who is spit out the other end of "filmschool" having rolled no actual film and assuming that he/she is ALWAYS undisciplined is absolutely unfounded and ridiculous.

 

And again, the ultimate point is that ideally, in today's world, it's not fair to dismiss Cameramen who primarily use electronic cameras as being unqualified to shoot a narrative project. The ability to do so means knowing the tools (which may or may not mean knowing filmstocks and cameras) as well as how to light environments and people and how to do all of that within parameters of limited time and budget. Richard suggests that he'd automatically hire a kid out of school who has only shot on Super8 while passing up the twenty year veteran who has only shot with video cameras. A reasonable Producer wouldn't accept nor dismiss either of them outright based purely on their individual experiences with rolling film through a gate, but Richard's hypothesis suggests that candidate B is merely an undisciplined hack while candidate A is worthy of shooting a multi-million dollar epic.

 

 

A "film school" that purports to teach students how to shoot a movie should be teaching them BOTH film and video as well as how to light a variety of situations with a variety of tools all within a variety of budget and time ranges. It's not all about whether someone has touched the Holy Filmstock or not. At least it shouldn't be. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian, question, I have got several inquiries from DOPs that have thus far in their careers only shot with HD cameras in episodic TV or DTV and MOW features. They are nice guys and their work has been broadcast and sold commercially etc.

 

However, I have to tell them I would not feel comfortable having them shoot my next project on 35mm because they have little to no experience with film. Basically these guys are desperate to shoot a feature on 35mm, they long for the opportunity.

 

I don't feel I can gamble my project on a DOP that has not shot film before.

 

Am I wrong?

 

R,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard: I'd say there is more of a danger when you have CREW (anyone in the camera department besides, perhaps, the 2nd) that doesn't have film experience, than a DP.

 

Unless you run into a really green DP who doesn't know how to use a light meter, or understand magazine capacities, I can't think of a situation where it would be problematic.

 

 

Maybe an "electronic DP's" filter vocabulary would be more limited, or knowledge of shooting ratios, keeping track of film inventory (if the DP is the one in charge of ordering film), issues such as these. Except in extreme situations, these events seem like they would only cause minor confusion. I can't picture a situatioin where a DP unused to working with film botches a movie, unless you hire an EPK guy who has never used supplemental lighting. . .

 

I suppose the DP would need help hiring an experienced film 1st AC or Operator, but that those positions, ifpproperly chosen, should be able to complement a green film DP nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, I have to tell them I would not feel comfortable having them shoot my next project on 35mm because they have little to no experience with film.[...]I don't feel I can gamble my project on a DOP that has not shot film before.

Am I wrong?

 

I don't think you're wrong, Richard, and I totally understand why someone would feel more comfortable in hiring someone with experience on one medium or technology rather than someone who doesn't. If you want a pilot for a 747 you do't go hire someone who's flown only a Cessna, even if he's the best Cessna pilot in the world. I'm sure there are directors, producers and even DPs out there who would not hire people that only have experience in film for a digital job (it has happened to me once, but I was able to convince the DP that I could learn the digital procedures and technology required for the job quickly and he was so kind to hire me anyway, though he had to fight the producer about it).

 

However, since we're talking about DOPs here, I may be wrong, but experience with the medium is one of the many things that would make you choose one person instead of another, and technology can be learned fairly quickly, but the "eye" or the "taste" you're looking for in a DOP can not (or maybe it can, but not as quickly as technology).

 

Having said that, going back to the original topic, I think a film school should try to teach ALL the technology available today, because you'd want your students to be ready to shoot on whatever medium is required for any given job, regardless of what you think about the quality of that technology.

 

I'd say there is more of a danger when you have CREW (anyone in the camera department besides, perhaps, the 2nd) that doesn't have film experience, than a DP.

 

Karl, my question is similar to what I've said before, so please forgive me for posting it again to make my point clearer: is it better to have a BAD camera department with experience on 35mm film or a GOOD camera department that comes from video/hd/digital? Or maybe no "digital crew/department" can be any good at all unless they have shot film? Is that what makes a department or a crew member good or bad?

I think a camera department member who ignores any technology (film or digital) and dismisses it is just very un-professional, because you should be able to work with any camera, no matter what your personal opinion of it actually is. If I've only worked with Arri cameras it would be my priority to try and get more experience with Panavision cameras, because I wouldn't want to turn down a job offer only because I don't know how to thread film in a Platinum. Same thing for digital cameras.

 

when television dramas were shot almost exclusively on film, the average show shot about 8000 feet per day and printed about 5000. Today, shooting electronically, nearly every show I see now exposes the equivalent of about 25000-35000 feet every day (two cameras on almost every show, each exposing about 2-3 hours of material) and prints the vast majority of it.

 

Michael, I understand how that would be a post-production nightmare. I've never worked on a big tv series shot digitally, but here in Italy (where most tv series are still shot on 16mm, by the way) you have to deliver an average of 6-7 minutes of "good" footage (what you would call "print") per day, no matter what the medium you're shooting on is. That means, from a director point of view, you have to move fast and you must know what you need and want. I think that is what requires and dictates discipline, no matter what the medium is, because if you deliver only 3 or 4 minutes or you go overtime, you get fired. I don't know about the US, but around here if you dare shooting 4 hours of footage per day, resulting in more time needed for post (and more money), the producer will have a word with you, just like he would if you shot more than 10000 feet of film.

 

(off topic: I really like your blog, Mike :) )

Edited by Francesco Bonomo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian, question, I have got several inquiries from DOPs that have thus far in their careers only shot with HD cameras in episodic TV or DTV and MOW features. They are nice guys and their work has been broadcast and sold commercially etc.

 

However, I have to tell them I would not feel comfortable having them shoot my next project on 35mm because they have little to no experience with film. Basically these guys are desperate to shoot a feature on 35mm, they long for the opportunity.

 

I don't feel I can gamble my project on a DOP that has not shot film before.

 

Am I wrong?

 

R,

 

I think that Karl and Francesco both make excellent points and I have to agree. I also agree with your CAUTION when evaluating who will shoot your projects or not. But, as mentioned, there is SO much more to being a DP than whether that person has rolled film through a gate before or not that it would just as irresponsible to ONLY consider a "film guy" at the expense of considering the rest of that person's experience and skill just because he has "film" experience and someone else doesn't.

 

And like I've suggested before, BECAUSE film tends to have more latitude, it tends to be more forgiving IF there are exposure errors, within reason, of course. But video tends to have less latitude so it is MORE important typically, for a "video guy" to pay attention to lighting. There is this perception out there (a holdover from the days when the only people to use video cameras shot news) that all anyone has to do to shoot video is to turn the camera on and a picture pops out the other end. Sure, that's possible, but as a friend once said, there is s difference between just illuminating a shot and actually LIGHTING one. It's THAT skill that I'd be prone to look for in a potential DP much more than worrying about whether they've rolled film through a gate before or not. In both realms, you still need to understand all of the basics of photography (iris, shutter, frame rate, lens choice, effective ASA, etc). The only thing that a "video guy" might not know about is A) which film stock to choose and B ) how to use a light meter effectively. BOTH of those are very learn-able things which can be dealt with VERY quickly with just a couple of film tests... which established DPs do anyway to figure out which stock will be best.

 

So yes, while I can appreciate your hesitation to hire a DP who hasn't shot film before, I don't agree that hinging employment on that one aspect is the best course of action. I mean, it's kind of like saying to the DP who has only shot romantic comedies that he is ineligible to shoot your action movie because he doesn't have the experience with that genre. Maybe that is true, that someone who has never shot an action movie can't shoot a romantic comedy (or visa versa), and experience with particular skillsets does and should be a factor, but making it a deciding factor at the exclusion of all else doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Any technical skill can be learned. But as Franceso mentioned, a DP's greater responsibility is to "direct" the crew and the lighting and the camera work within the parameters of time and budget. I would have to think that a "video guy" who has shot multiple MOWs and the like would probably know how to manage those things more than adequately. If he's good at that stuff, then I'd just "insist" on him taking a camera (and an experienced FILM crew) to shoot a test, both for him to "learn" and for you to see.

 

But that's just me. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I graduated from the MFA program at USC in 2004 and shot tons of film there, both in classes and in the 14 or so thesis films I shot. I know that recently they have been selling a lot of their older 16mm cameras (Arri-s, a couple of Aaton LTRs) and that video has largely replaced film in actual classes - but USC only has about 3-4 cinematography classes TOTAL (frustrating to me when I went there as an aspiring DP) and I believe in the Advanced Cinematography class they still shoot 35mm.

 

I know that for student thesis projects, however, students still shoot a LOT of film currently so while in the few cinematography (and directing) classes it's largely gone, lots and lots of students at USC still get to shoot film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, sorry. Looks like my source was full of it.

 

 

That's a real shame that Lucas has control over a building there now though. Those Christies they turned down will be cranking away a lot longer than any of those 2K machines they have in there now, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard: I'd say there is more of a danger when you have CREW (anyone in the camera department besides, perhaps, the 2nd) that doesn't have film experience, than a DP.

 

Unless you run into a really green DP who doesn't know how to use a light meter, or understand magazine capacities, I can't think of a situation where it would be problematic.

 

I don't know why I let the Gaffer out of it. The ability to set the lights to the proper ratios for HD are more important than the camera even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Visual Products



    CineLab



    FJS International



    Metropolis Post



    Tai Audio



    Glidecam



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Paralinx LLC



    G-Force Grips



    Just Cinema Gear



    Serious Gear



    Wooden Camera



    Abel Cine



    Ritter Battery



    Rig Wheels Passport



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Broadcast Solutions Inc


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...