The death of film

[Dimitrios Koukas]

No not at all. It's just a debate. (Seriously though, use a spell checker)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh I am sorry m8, believe me I D.o.P. much better than I write.

Dimitrios

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

In general the Mini DV people just don't put the care and craftsmanship in to their work the way the film shooters do.  That's what I'm talking about when I say film disciplines people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's definitely a good point... But it's really to do with the DP himself. (i.e. maybe the D.P would spend lots of time getting it right anyway, or maybe not)

 

Oh I am sorry m8, believe me I D.o.P. much better than I write.

Dimitrios

It doesn't really matter, it's just hard to understand sometimes. Out of interest, what country are you from anyway?

[Stephen Williams]

It's definitely a good point... But it's really to do with the DP himself. (i.e. maybe the D.P would spend lots of time getting it right anyway, or maybe not)

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

More likely he should not use the title DP. Mabe video camera operator is more accurate.

 

Stephen

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Hi,

 

More likely he should not use the title DP. Mabe video camera operator is more accurate.

 

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really since as he is still setting up the lighting. A camera operator just uses the camera.

[Stephen Williams]

Not really since as he is still setting up the lighting. A camera operator just uses the camera.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

Well 'trainee lighting cameraman' then!

 

Stephen

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Anthony Dod Mantle! Trainee! (I'm forming the impression you want to hit me right now, hard...)

[Stephen Williams]

Anthony Dod Mantle! Trainee! (I'm forming the impression you want to hit me right now, hard...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

He did not call himself a DP when he was you age!

A Director of Photography, will direct the gaffer and grips who put up the lighting.

 

Stephen

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Hi,

 

He did not call himself a DP when he was you age!

A Director of Photography, will direct  the gaffer and grips who put up the lighting.

 

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He may of, but age doesn't really come into it. I mean, that series I shot a while back, I may have been operating the digital camera, but I was also in charge of the lighting e.t.c. So technically I'm still a DP.

 

There are so many definitions flying around... I personally just call who ever is in charge of the camera department the DP. If he is on set, directing the lighting, directing the camera, then that's the DP.

 

Doesn't really matter what you're shooting on, video or film, you're still a DP.

Edited September 26, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Dimitrios Koukas]

Out of interest, what country are you from anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Greece.

Dimitrios

[Stephen Williams]

I personally just call who ever is in charge of the camera department the DP. If he is on set, directing the lighting, directing the camera, then that's the DP.

 

Doesn't really matter what you're shooting on, video or film, you're still a DP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

So you had a camera department?

 

Stephen

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Greece.

Dimitrios

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cooool.. so hows Greece for film work?

 

So you had a camera department?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I was a one man camera department. I was in charge of everything to do with the camera and lighting. It was all placed under my responsibility.

Edited September 26, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Stephen Williams]

Cooool.. so hows Greece for film work?

No I was a one man camera department. I was in charge of everything to do with the camera and lighting. It was all placed under my responsibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

Then cameraman would be a good credit.

 

Stephen

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Hi,

 

Then cameraman would be a good credit.

 

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funnily enough that's what they gave me, but they gave the lighting credit to someone that doesn't even exist to make the production look bigger. :angry:

[Dimitrios Koukas]

Cooool.. so hows Greece for film work?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What do you mean how it is?

It's a small market for everything, even for toothbrushes.

All the business suffer a lot here, and it upsets me to know that this is getting universal.

In terms of filming, u can find anything u like,We have all the ''toys'' to play with as a cinematographer or lighting designer.

Things like musco lights is that u have to rent from abroad, or a Mitchell 35 mm on a wescam airborne.

Only one wescam for video.

But even though, it isn't wotkin full season.

As for locations and conditions things are really great for producting anything.I work in the tv adverts most of the time when I am not in feature films.

Dimitrios Koukas

[Stephen Williams]

Funnily enough that's what they gave me, but they gave the lighting credit to someone that doesn't even exist to make the production look bigger.  :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

In Television there is often a Lighting Director, he does not go near the camera.

 

Stephen

[Max Jacoby]

And as for digital taking over film.. well.. in a way I hope it does. I mean, it will be so much cheaper, flexible, easier and faster.

...and every amateur can finally make the masterpieces that they always dreamed of.

 

If only it were that simple...

[David Mullen ASC]

Think of it like a curve on a graph.

 

Digital tools make it easier for people at the bottom of the curve -- beginners, students, people with no money -- to make complete movies (i.e. with editing & sound, etc.) with smaller start-up costs.

 

However, you quickly reach a point as the movies get bigger, more professional in nature, where the shooting format has a much smaller effect on whether the movie gets made, or how quickly it takes to shoot it, or how easy anything is to do. You still wait in the morning for actors to get out of make-up, to block & rehearse the action, to light the set, to cover the scene, etc. regardless of whether you are shooting digital or film. Sure, some cameras are heavier or bigger than others; some formats handle low light better than others.

 

But as soon as you get into the real process of making movies, where the images are designed and executed to create a specific look to suit the story, you spend your production time manipulating reality (dressing sets, lighting them, directing actors, etc.) that has little to do with digital vs. film.

 

If you swapped the 35mm Panavision anamorphic set-up I'm currently using with a consumer DV camera on my current shoot, while it would definitely be a budget-saver (at the cost of image quality) I doubt there would be much of a significant time-savings on the set unless I decided to light and cover the scenes differently.

 

So digital tools sort of lift up the bottom of the curve (low-end production) but have little effect on the top of the curve where the technology is not necessarily the biggest element of the budget or shooting time.

[John Pytlak RIP]

For the budget constrained, 16mm, Super-16 and Super-8 are often entry points for aspiring filmmakers, and Super-16 often has found its way to HD and feature origination:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why/?id=0.1.4.3&lc=en

[Guest]

To John_P_Pytlak:

 

In light of my fierce and near religious defence of Kodak film, isn't it about time Kodak threw some free stock my way?

 

I could really use 50K feet for a feature. You can make it happen, I know you can.

 

A small price to pay for my unwavering devotion wouldn't you say?

 

R,

 

PS: I know I won't qualify for any of the first time filmmaker grants and all that jazz Kodak has. I just need 50K feet of film to get this film made. I promise I won't sell it on ebay :D

[John Pytlak RIP]

To John_P_Pytlak:

 

In light of my fierce and near religious defence of Kodak film, isn't it about time Kodak threw some free stock my way?

 

I could really use 50K feet for a feature.  You can make it happen, I know you can.

 

A small price to pay for my unwavering devotion wouldn't you say?

 

R,

 

PS: I know I won't qualify for any of the first time filmmaker grants and all that jazz Kodak has.  I just need 50K feet of film to get this film made.  I promise I won't sell it on ebay  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even I buy my own film. But, have you really talked to your Kodak sales representative?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

To be fair, I think a lot of the stuff that "wouldn't change" if you change formats is down to choice and tradition. There's a whole range of technique from the most casual fly on the wall, PD150 drama to incredibly careful moco moves around the advertised product - which I believe are separate from the technology. I think you can choose a technique, and with it a level of crewing, and you can pick a camera to go with it, and they an be separate to a very large degree.

 

You can't say that you can swap 35mm for DV without anything else changing without also accepting that the reverse is true!

 

Phil

[Guest]

"Even I buy my own film. But, have you really talked to your Kodak sales representative?"

 

He won't take my calls any more, he must have caller ID :D

 

Ok well to be fair the TO office has given me 1200' so far free for PSA shoots. That was nice of them.

 

Ok let me talk to your supervisor then :rolleyes:

 

R,

[Andy Sparaco SOC]

I remember the day clearly I was shooting a commercial on a large video production companies stage. As the AC set up the Pana-Arri 2c the Operations Manager called me over to show me his newest "HD" Production camera. "Yep, with this baby we'll revolutionize the production business -smarten up-film is dead".

Of course that was like in 1982 and the camera was the Ikegami EC-35

 

I saw one on ebay recently best offer starting at 100USD no reserve-no takers

On the same page a Arri 2C hard front starting price $3000-sold for just under 5KUSD

 

The OPM is now a successful insurance salesman and I'm still shooting film.. he was smart and changed to a real profession!

 

 

The current "Video/Digital/HD/Film is dead" phase is almost over again, this is the 3rd pass- I figure another pass in four years-maybe the last one.

 

With film cameras the "magic" comes in the can of film, need new magic? just wait!

With Digital MP Cameras the "magic" is in the "box". As soon as there is a new box, your box has no magic at all.

[Michael Most]

With film cameras the "magic" comes in the can of film, need new magic? just wait!

With Digital MP Cameras the "magic" is in the "box". As soon as there is a new box, your box has no magic at all.

 

I guess that's why the F900 - now over 5 years old - is still the most popular 24p HD camera currently in use, in spite of the appearance of the arguably "newer" Viper, F950, Genesis, and others.

 

There is no "magic" in the tools. The "magic" is in the eyes, hands, and heads of those that use them. Those who devote themselves to slavish allegiance to any specific tool are limiting their creative options and by doing so, are closing themselves off to those that don't.

[Andy Sparaco SOC]

I guess that's why the F900 - now over 5 years old - is still the most popular 24p HD camera currently in use, in spite of the appearance of the arguably "newer" Viper, F950, Genesis, and others.

 

There is no "magic" in the tools. The "magic" is in the eyes, hands, and heads of those that use them. Those who devote themselves to slavish allegiance to any specific tool are limiting their creative options and by doing so, are closing themselves off to those that don't.

 

 

And every tool has it's place and every creative option is different but useful. So excluding any that are viable makes no sense.

 

By the way "Videotape is dead"