Nobody is getting the point
Nobody is getting the point
I'm a little hurt and confused by that myself considering I paid (not Canon as stated) to bring Francis up to Skywalker to watch it. Certainly, one could render their opinion nicer I'd think, but that's just me. I thought we were pals.
What bothers me more is that people on this forum and others are not really getting the idea of "Revenge" of the great camera shootout. Bruce states in the beginning-- that most all of these cameras could be used to make a movie. Now for Francis or Rodney of course they will use the RED or Alexa because it is easier to use and has more creature comforts. I get that. The point of all of the interviews is so that you hear what the real qualities of a great cinematographer are (the counterpoint) to not having an Alexa. Knowing that lighting, framing, movement, drive, determination, story and yes talent far out way the differences in a camera choice. We can sit and debate the picture qualities all day long but is that really going to make your film more sellable or marketable? So many people thought that the interviews in my film looked better then all of the cameras in the test. They were shot with a Varicam (10 year old technology) in glorious 720p. Jens and I love the look of the Varicam, Jens knows how to light for camera, we didn't want shallow DOF for fear of losing a moment and wanted a real servo zoom lens for beautiful slow creeping zooms. It was an incredibly hard and expensive getting these interviews, believe me, and these legends like Haskell, Goldblatt, Kaminski, Kemper and others are bleeding their heart out to you and all we are doing here is talking cameras. We should be talking about what it really takes to be great, the various projects we are working on and how can we collectively get them better.
The Revenge part is that the test proves what our tag line says "It's not the gear that determines greatness anymore" It's you! Do you think that Janusz could do amazing cinematography and storytelling using a GH2--of course he could because he knows how to light, frame, move, etc and has talent. Of course he wouldn't use one but that's not the point, in the right hands with the right talent some young kid could make something brilliant with an iPhone or a GH2 and if it was great and marketable it could be bought by Hollywood. When I was young we only had super 8 to play with and it was expensive to buy and process the film and we only got to shoot a 2-1 if we were lucky. s*%t, if I would have had an iPhone, I can't even imagine how much farther I would be today 37 years later. Now you can create a way better image on an iPhone then on super 8 and it's free to use. I've recently seen brilliant work done on an iPhone. I tip my hat to those folks like Michael Koerbel. I'm not telling people to use an iPhone. What I telling you is to use what you have and master it. You don't need to buy the fanciest new camera because it won't make you on iota a better DP. That includes all of the Zacuto stuff. If you can afford more power to you, if you can't, make your own, figure out a creative work around. Tools are there to help you, but if you don't have "it" game over. So work on "it".
When we were at Skytwalker they were testing the projector and when I walked in and said damn that looks amazing what is that and the projectionist told me it was the iPhone. When you go into the theater and you have nothing to compare the image to, you have immediate buy in. But hear me when I tell you this: If you shoot the most gorgeous film shot on a RED or Alexa and the story is s*%t. It's going in the garbage. No matter what hairs we want to split about these cameras, it's still boils down to story, acting, directing, sound, lighting and camera: IN THAT ORDER. That's where I would put my money. Camera is way down on my list and wait to what you hear from our legends in future episodes. Let's stop splitting hairs. Projected in 2K Stephen Goldblatt said many of them looked similar and that's pissing off a lot of the higher end camera companies.
The bottom line is if you watch this as a film and not just a shootout--hence revenge--it should motivate you to go out and shoot, work on your lighting, watch and see life (as Janusz says) so you can reproduce it on film. I met Janusz 30 years ago when he was in film school. Jens and Janusz went to Columbia college together. All I can tell you is that you could feel Janusz was going to be someone. Why? Everyone who was doing a school film project whether it was s*%t or not, Janusz wanted to be their DP. He would say, I might be able to rent a piece of gear or do one shot that I want to do and I could put that on my reel. He had the drive that everyone is talking about in this film and he had the passion. You will see in part three that yes on paper the more expensive cameras did amazingly well in the empirical tests but what you are seeing here in part one is what a cinematographer with game can create using his creativity and lighting skill to make his camera look a best he can. To me that's interesting. Remember, each DP was not trying to match his scene to a master shot, so each was putting a bit of their own twist on the shot. Some wanted the window to blow out a bit or let the blacks be slightly crushed. The empirical test in part three is more of a level playing field-- the counterpoint between the two of these--the difference is the empirical is what you have and the creative shot is what you can do with it. Please. Get creative, have an open mind, go out and shoot and listen to Victor Kemper in the final statement of the film. "If you think Hollywood gives a damn what camera you used on a job, they don't even know and you couldn't find three people who could tell you. If you have the drive and the talent, you can make a pretty damn good film".
your friend, Steve
Nobody is getting the point
I'm a little hurt and confused by that myself considering I paid (not Canon as stated) to bring Francis up to Skywalker to watch it. Certainly, one could render their opinion nicer I'd think, but that's just me. I thought we were pals.
What bothers me more is that people on this forum and others are not really getting the idea of "Revenge" of the great camera shootout. Bruce states in the beginning-- that most all of these cameras could be used to make a movie. Now for Francis or Rodney of course they will use the RED or Alexa because it is easier to use and has more creature comforts. I get that. The point of all of the interviews is so that you hear what the real qualities of a great cinematographer are (the counterpoint) to not having an Alexa. Knowing that lighting, framing, movement, drive, determination, story and yes talent far out way the differences in a camera choice. We can sit and debate the picture qualities all day long but is that really going to make your film more sellable or marketable? So many people thought that the interviews in my film looked better then all of the cameras in the test. They were shot with a Varicam (10 year old technology) in glorious 720p. Jens and I love the look of the Varicam, Jens knows how to light for camera, we didn't want shallow DOF for fear of losing a moment and wanted a real servo zoom lens for beautiful slow creeping zooms. It was an incredibly hard and expensive getting these interviews, believe me, and these legends like Haskell, Goldblatt, Kaminski, Kemper and others are bleeding their heart out to you and all we are doing here is talking cameras. We should be talking about what it really takes to be great, the various projects we are working on and how can we collectively get them better.
The Revenge part is that the test proves what our tag line says "It's not the gear that determines greatness anymore" It's you! Do you think that Janusz could do amazing cinematography and storytelling using a GH2--of course he could because he knows how to light, frame, move, etc and has talent. Of course he wouldn't use one but that's not the point, in the right hands with the right talent some young kid could make something brilliant with an iPhone or a GH2 and if it was great and marketable it could be bought by Hollywood. When I was young we only had super 8 to play with and it was expensive to buy and process the film and we only got to shoot a 2-1 if we were lucky. s*%t, if I would have had an iPhone, I can't even imagine how much farther I would be today 37 years later. Now you can create a way better image on an iPhone then on super 8 and it's free to use. I've recently seen brilliant work done on an iPhone. I tip my hat to those folks like Michael Koerbel. I'm not telling people to use an iPhone. What I telling you is to use what you have and master it. You don't need to buy the fanciest new camera because it won't make you on iota a better DP. That includes all of the Zacuto stuff. If you can afford more power to you, if you can't, make your own, figure out a creative work around. Tools are there to help you, but if you don't have "it" game over. So work on "it".
When we were at Skytwalker they were testing the projector and when I walked in and said damn that looks amazing what is that and the projectionist told me it was the iPhone. When you go into the theater and you have nothing to compare the image to, you have immediate buy in. But hear me when I tell you this: If you shoot the most gorgeous film shot on a RED or Alexa and the story is s*%t. It's going in the garbage. No matter what hairs we want to split about these cameras, it's still boils down to story, acting, directing, sound, lighting and camera: IN THAT ORDER. That's where I would put my money. Camera is way down on my list and wait to what you hear from our legends in future episodes. Let's stop splitting hairs. Projected in 2K Stephen Goldblatt said many of them looked similar and that's pissing off a lot of the higher end camera companies.
The bottom line is if you watch this as a film and not just a shootout--hence revenge--it should motivate you to go out and shoot, work on your lighting, watch and see life (as Janusz says) so you can reproduce it on film. I met Janusz 30 years ago when he was in film school. Jens and Janusz went to Columbia college together. All I can tell you is that you could feel Janusz was going to be someone. Why? Everyone who was doing a school film project whether it was s*%t or not, Janusz wanted to be their DP. He would say, I might be able to rent a piece of gear or do one shot that I want to do and I could put that on my reel. He had the drive that everyone is talking about in this film and he had the passion. You will see in part three that yes on paper the more expensive cameras did amazingly well in the empirical tests but what you are seeing here in part one is what a cinematographer with game can create using his creativity and lighting skill to make his camera look a best he can. To me that's interesting. Remember, each DP was not trying to match his scene to a master shot, so each was putting a bit of their own twist on the shot. Some wanted the window to blow out a bit or let the blacks be slightly crushed. The empirical test in part three is more of a level playing field-- the counterpoint between the two of these--the difference is the empirical is what you have and the creative shot is what you can do with it. Please. Get creative, have an open mind, go out and shoot and listen to Victor Kemper in the final statement of the film. "If you think Hollywood gives a damn what camera you used on a job, they don't even know and you couldn't find three people who could tell you. If you have the drive and the talent, you can make a pretty damn good film".
your friend, Steve
