Cinematography laws by Macgregor

yeah,script is everything... and i mean everything.No script - no motion picture.
But i dont think i would enjoy my favourite films that much if they would be recorded on video cameras.
Its also that people who are watching motion picture dont quite care who was DP or writer,director,they just want to see Jessica Alba again, and its sad.Theyre going to see the movies with their actor,even if story is made and written by someone else.
I must confess that i dont do research through motion pictures and look for the stuff wrote by the same writer,i tend to see some motion pictures with actors that i like.Its weird.I guess it will have to stay like that...people behind the scenes are not visible for audience and most of them dont care what kind of other great work did this and this DP or writer.
 
Last edited:
bwwd said:
Most important is how your footage looks like.Then how it sounds like.
You can find plenty of good loking movies with bad acting but bad actors dont make the movie like minidv cam or something.Greatest actor in front of minidv cam wont help much if DP will fail.
Click to expand...

I don't think I agree with you.

Everything comes back to story. Filmmaking, perhaps unlike any other creative endeavour is truly the sum of it's creative collaborations. I don't know that you can really value one contribution more than another. A film is only as good as it's weakest contribution. But if you aren't telling a great story then you'll never be able to *save* a film. A good story with bad cinematography will still play OK.

As an old gaffer said to me once, you can't polish a turd.

The discussion has moved beyond the original issues about why Sundance seem to favour certain films, with one poster surmising that you need a name actor in the film to have a chance at being accepted into Sundance. The counter to that being that Maybe a name actor brings a little something extra to a story that's already good. I'm sure there are plenty of indie films with name actors that DON"T get into Sundance as well.

jb
 
you can see beautiful shots without any story,so i dont agree with you.
Besides its cinematography forum, i know that story is important.
Bad cinematography makes me want to turn off the film,when i know that its not film but some thing that i could shoot in my basement with friends.
 
Last edited:
Personally, if it wasn't for the brilliant work of many DoP's, many "big" films would do even worse at the box office. How many times in recent years have you seen a film where the script (after 20 rewrites) and the acting was up to snuff with the cinematography?

Speaking of writing. I have seen original scripts that were brilliant, but the final script left you wondering how much crack had the rewriter(s) and producer been smoking.. Of course the rewriters were getting paid 10 times what the poor slob that wrote the original got paid.
(Not always the case, but often).


I came to the conclusion years ago that it's not that we are smarter than the main stream. It's that the main stream is a lot dumber we are. In other words, you don't have to be a genius when everyone else is an idiot. :)
 
Well everything is important, but the fact is you can make a good film without a script using visuals that create an emotional arc, just like a painting but with 24 of them per second... but you simply can't make film without an image...It just wouldn't be a film. Sure you can have a blank screen with nothing but words, but that would be film-deconstruction, and last I heard post-modern is dead. You won't be fooling anyone.
 
I'm into post post post modern. I really am ahead of my time. There is no image nor sound just thought. I often stare into the distance not seeing nor listening while surrounded by highway traffic.
 
Pretty good list. However, I take exception with #7. I have been in this game for more years than I care to (or can remember) and "in the beginning" God created the 35 mm film camera. This is substantially larger than 1/3 inch chip and with apertures, on super speed lenses than reached down to the sub t1 you of ten shot with extreme shallow depth of field.
 
phudsontx said:
Pretty good list. However, I take exception with #7. I have been in this game for more years than I care to (or can remember) and "in the beginning" God created the 35 mm film camera. This is substantially larger than 1/3 inch chip and with apertures, on super speed lenses than reached down to the sub t1 you of ten shot with extreme shallow depth of field.
Click to expand...


On the other hand Greg Toland had to get special lenses to get the deep focus that is now 'for free' with the current set of digital video cameras...

For me, I'd like a sensor with a wider dynamic range out of the box... And sure, higher resolution... but at the moment... dynamic range is lacking...

Shallow depth of field is for weenies who can't light the background, or don't want to bother...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
On the other hand Greg Toland had to get special lenses to get the deep focus that is now 'for free' with the current set of digital video cameras...

For me, I'd like a sensor with a wider dynamic range out of the box... And sure, higher resolution... but at the moment... dynamic range is lacking...

Shallow depth of field is for weenies who can't light the background, or don't want to bother...
Click to expand...

I am not talking about the DSLR pretender video out there today. I am talking about "real" film cameras, Arri, Panavision with Cooke and Ziess primes. The ones the old timers and big boys learned to work with. If you know how to work with these you really understand things like dynamic range and resolution and exposure and depth of field. The word sensor never entered into the equation, although we did often discuss format and aspect ratio and pulldown.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Public enemies is so ridiculed for its cinematography, I just may think it will end up being one of those ahead of it's time films and people in the future will think it's brilliant. Haha, I mean it's happened before.

Ps dp's are extremely underated, but we are not the most. The writers take that award.
Click to expand...

So I'm studying for the most underated jobs in the business.

I see some bright years ahead...

lol
 
Getting in here late so I hope I didn't miss something while skimming the thread.

The OP seemed to be making rules to make video look like film. Is that what we need to do? I shoot video. I try to make it look good; visually appealing and all that and more. But I am not imitating film stock.

Grant
 
I think he was making a list for people who were trying to make video look like film, but were going about it in a classically amateur or counter intuitive way. I don't think he was championing for all videographers to make their work look like film. Just trying to help those who did.
 
"There is no image nor sound just thought. I often stare into the distance not seeing nor listening while surrounded by highway traffic."

I've seen you, man!

To me, the worst video has:

-blown highlights
-bad light sources (2700K yellow)
-jerky ape movement
-people who can't act
-too much time devoted to a lame one-liner
-cliche plot that they evidently don't know is a cliche
-grandiose animated introduction about their "production company" and then the above list which follows

Oh there's more. But it's starting to get depressing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top