I'm doing a research project on technical developments and cinematography

[RedSpectrumPictures]

Hi everyone. I'm doing a research project at university on the following question -
How are developing technologies affecting the way a digital cinematographer works within the film industry, and are they making the job easier, or just complicating the creative process?

I am in the process of doing secondary research, but thought I would get a head start on primary by asking some questions that I have been thinking about. I will be including replies to this thread in my research project. If you have any ideas on things you think I should be thinking about then please do suggest. If you know of any good sources of information that I could use as secondary research also please do share.

Just an example, I have come across a lot of cinematogrpahers saying this whilst doing my secondary research (books, videos, articles etc,,) - that with digital cameras, anyone on set can see a monitor and give creative input, and that this is almost ''diminishing'' (Oliver Stapleton) the role of the cinematographer. When with traditional film, the DOP was trusted with what he had done, as video assist wasn't available.

So the questions I have begun to think about are below. If you could please answer some of them, or all of them, then that would be highly appreciated. I really look forward to hearing some responses.

Are developing technologies making the roles of the camera department easier, if not why?

What is your personal experience with working with digital cameras?

Which cameras do you have experience with, and what are you thoughts on these? e.g. Red Epic, BMCC, FS700…

What recent, or announced developments with camera technology are you interested in?

How do you think these new digital technologies are going to affect the workflow of the camera department? Will they be beneficial to the workflow?

Have you worked with ‘film’ before? 8mm, Super 8mm, 16mm, 35mm? Do you prefer the traditional process with film over digital and why?

 

[RedSpectrumPictures]

I am also going to look into specific camera models, so if you do have experience with the Red Epic or C300 lets say, I would love to know about specific features in these cameras that are beneficial to a cinematographer. Such as high frame rate in the Epic which allows for creative slow motion sequences for example.

 

[RedSpectrumPictures]

I was wondering if anyone could please give some input for these questions please?
Another question to think about -
Are all of these technological developments necessary?

 

[Stuart Keasley]

Are developing technologies making the roles of the camera department easier, if not why?

I'll start with a glib answer (sorry). Any job is easy, when you know how to do it.

But put that answer into your question, the speed of emerging technologies means there's potentially a lot of learning to do to keep up... so potentially, our jobs are made more difficult, with the constant need to relearn how to use the tools, instead of simply concentrating on how to do the job.

However, at least to date, technology has not found a way to bend the laws of physics that govern the fundamental way in which a camera does it's job, i.e. to capture the visible portion of the spectrum of light (i.e. colours) in aesthetically pleasing patterns.

The amount of light that enters the camera is still controlled by the hole in the lens (iris/aperture) and how long that hole is left open at each frame (shutter speed/angle)

And no amount of technology will ever replace the artistic eye of the human being holding it. They need to understand how to use light to it's best effect, how to frame the image to tell the story, shoot the sequences to fit the story together.

Having an instant feedback on the image does (i.e. digital display), for sure, make this "easier", you can see a direct affect of this from huge influx of stills photographers now, taking advantage of the click, review, adjust, repeat until you get it right possibilities of the digital stills camera... the learning curve on the technical side is massively increased, as they no longer need to wait a week to get the film developed and check their results.

However because the technical aspect becomes easier, i.e getting a correct exposure and colour balance, that's what people focus on.... I'd say that the artistic excellence we used to see is left behind, or at least hidden behind the masses of mediocre that's flooding the internet.

What is your personal experience with working with digital cameras?

Which cameras do you have experience with, and what are you thoughts on these? e.g. Red Epic, BMCC, FS700…

Various, focused around ENG, documentary and entertainment filming, e.g Sony EX1/EX3, PMW800, NEX-FS700, C300, HD minicameras etc

What recent, or announced developments with camera technology are you interested in?

The increased availability of raw, and the computer power that's capable of then working with it. Working with compressed footage, pregraded to a colour profile and look that was defined by a clever chap in a laboratory a few thousand miles away from the scene you're looking at is always going to be frustrating, especially when you're on a multi camera shoot.

Also, the influx of super 35mm cameras.. just because I like the look of the images they capture.

How do you think these new digital technologies are going to affect the workflow of the camera department? Will they be beneficial to the workflow?

In the camera departments I work within, there is no affect on workflow. I'm given stock to record to, I record in the format requested, and then hand the stock back to production at the end of the day who pass it on to post.

So workflow is really a concern to the post production department, not the camera department....I'd say their job is becoming increasingly difficult, huge amounts of data to deal with, shooting ratios are now all but forgotten due to the relative low cost of memory (I was involved in a series a few years back where we were pushing out in excess of 500 hours of filming for a one hour episode!), and there's a massive array of standards on codecs, cameras, wrappers etc that all need to be managed quickly and accurately without loss.

Saying that, there is also the issue of managing data in the field, seeing a DIT on the call sheet is becoming more and more common place now.

Have you worked with ‘film’ before? 8mm, Super 8mm, 16mm, 35mm? Do you prefer the traditional process with film over digital and why?

No (i.e. never worked with film)

I am also going to look into specific camera models, so if you do have experience with the Red Epic or C300 lets say, I would love to know about specific features in these cameras that are beneficial to a cinematographer. Such as high frame rate in the Epic which allows for creative slow motion sequences for example.

I do a lot of filming with Sony NEX-FS700s, the main reason I bought a couple was for the high speed filming functionality... and we've done a lot of high speed filming with them in the last year and a half. However that's just one simple feature, that provides one look, it wont be too long before it will be standard on all cameras.... and as with other fads (e.g timelapse), I think you'll see a peak as it becomes more available, and then a drop off is the fad wears off, it will then just become another tool in the arsenal to draw on.

What really matters? Decent glass (back to the laws of physics), decent ergonomics and useability, reliability in the field.. and hopefully a robustness and design that will allow it to have a shelf life of more than a couple of years.

What's beneficial to a cinematographer? Depends on what they're filming. The camera is just a tool, pick the right one for the job.... there's no point having an F55/FS700/Amira capable of shooting 200 fps if you need a three camera system to throw in a car and film segments of an 8 hour road journey.

I was wondering if anyone could please give some input for these questions please?
Another question to think about -
Are all of these technological developments necessary?

Necessary to who?

The cinematographer? All the advances we see are based around improving quality. Less data loss on image capture, more scope for modification and adjustment, increased resolution, more faithful image reproduction, better reliability, all the things that any self respecting OCD director/DoP etc is going to be benefit from.

The viewing public? Try watching a program made 10 years ago, see what you think of the quality. Try 20, 30, 40. At the time, it looked great, but now we can see the issues because we are used to better. In twenty years time, we'll look back and laugh at the term High Definition

The world in general? Like it or not, we live in a capitalist world. The only way it will thrive is if people spend money... because if somebody is spending money, somebody else is receiving it, earning enough money to pay their way through life. Technological developments allow new products to come to the market




Final point. I think you're questions are quite vague and not entirely well phrased. I've rattled by thoughts out pretty much as they've come, but it's taken a while... that's probably why you've not had people rushing to answer.

If you're doing this for a research project, try and make the questions a little more focused, you're more likely to get responses and you wont have nearly as much hassle collating the responses into something sensible.

Just my two penneth ;-)

 

[RedSpectrumPictures]

Stuart thank you for the reply, I really appreciate it. I will study it properly later on
I guess instead of a using the question - Are all of these technological developments necessary? - I could ask something more specific such as - Do you feel that a technical advancement such as 6k RAW on the Red Dragon is necessary?

 

[Stuart Keasley]

Stuart thank you for the reply, I really appreciate it. I will study it properly later on
I guess instead of a using the question - Are all of these technological developments necessary? - I could ask something more specific such as - Do you feel that a technical advancement such as 6k RAW on the Red Dragon is necessary?

Neccessary is such a vague question, you need to define who to, under what premise, for what objective. But the fact is, if there wasn't a perceived need from someone, then it would never get to market (or if it did, it would flop)

I'd try a different route, e.g rank the following in order of benefits offered to cinematography today

- Red Dragon 6k raw
- Arri Amirra
- Black Magic 4K Cinema Camera
- Another
- Another

Are there any other new products that you think would offer greater benefits, if so, what and why.

 

[paulears]

Student research is very flawed nowadays, and it's a sore point for many here in the UK. Before any responses make sense, you need to know who your respondents are. You mention 'digital' - working with digital cameras is a very odd question, because my wife uses a digital camera, but wouldn't know it.

Somebody will tell of their experience, somebody else gives alternative viewpoints. One might be a seasoned veteran, the other a student with very little budget. Will you give their answers equal credit? It's a bit silly really. Real research needs to be well considered and robust. Internet with anonymous respondents is rated very low on the scale of response.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Somebody will tell of their experience, somebody else gives alternative viewpoints. One might be a seasoned veteran, the other a student with very little budget. Will you give their answers equal credit? It's a bit silly really. Real research needs to be well considered and robust. Internet with anonymous respondents is rated very low on the scale of response.

One need not give equal credit... but the exercise should develop in the 'student' the ability to go beyond either the 1) officially blessed answer, which is becoming more frayed today, 2) or the 'first' answer...

In fact the process should encourage one to test in so far as possible, what people say.

For me, from my view having started 'serious' photography in the 70's, today's 'digital still' and 'digital film' are far easier to deal with than Film film. I would spend big $$ relative to my rent and living expenses at the time on 'testing'... these days I spend time on 'testing' but definitely don't have to pay $$ for getting results to a viewable or analyzable state.

There of course are problems that remain the same... finding scripts, acting talent, and a crew... ok... maybe more difficult than in the olden days... since everyone thinks they are a DoP or some such... but that can be 'easily' found out with a small short film project...

Since I don't work in 'film' for my day job I will use my experience in the 'software' world to form a conjecture. When I started in the late 70's there were no major avenues of information exchange other than perhaps a few publications, a few schools, and some amount of 'support' from some companies for designing, developing or using computers in various application areas.

These days... well with the Internet there is a lifetimes worth of information to be had... easily...

 

[Stuart Keasley]

Student research is very flawed nowadays, and it's a sore point for many here in the UK. Before any responses make sense, you need to know who your respondents are. You mention 'digital' - working with digital cameras is a very odd question, because my wife uses a digital camera, but wouldn't know it.

Unless things have radically changed since I was studying, I was under the impression that people went to university to learn? I know the first research project I did was useless, a complete waste of time, but I didn't realise that until I tried to draw any conclusions from it.... the Internet means we see a lot more, and also have the time to think about what's being asked (as opposed to simply answering the questions, as would happen in days of old when faced with a written questionnaire). I guess what I'm saying, give 'em a break and perhaps a helping hand!

As for the Internet as a medium, you're going to get a far more balanced view then heading down to your local town centre shopping area at lunch time and trying to find people who'll give you a spare few minutes.... :undecided

 

[David W. Jones]

Just an example, I have come across a lot of cinematogrpahers saying this whilst doing my secondary research (books, videos, articles etc,,) - that with digital cameras, anyone on set can see a monitor and give creative input, and that this is almost ''diminishing'' (Oliver Stapleton) the role of the cinematographer. When with traditional film, the DOP was trusted with what he had done, as video assist wasn't available. /QUOTE]

I hate to pop your bubble, but we used a video tap on many film cameras allowing a feed to the video village and recorder for review. It really depends on the type of shoot, how you were working, what you were shooting.

In your example of modern technology... "Anyone can see a monitor and give creative input", the issue is not necessarily the technology, but the way they have been taught, or the lack there of. In the past, you learned your craft by working with masters of the craft. They taught you the how and whys, and the chain of command. Everybody knew their job and what was expected of them. Now with modern technology, filmmaking gear has gotten so inexpensive that anybody can purchase it. No longer requiring one to learn from a master of the craft to have access to what was once very expensive filmmaking gear. You will find many such examples of this right here on this board. A student without any real experience buys a camera and then gives themselves the title of their choosing, and poof, they are a director of photography.

 

[RedSpectrumPictures]

Thanks for the input David.
Something that I am gaining from my research so far, is that a lot of cinematographers say that digital hasn't affected their workflow in any way, and if used correctly, it has just enhanced the tools they have to be creative. I guess the BMPCC is a recent development that will allow lower budget films to be more creative with angles. The primary change has been within the post processing stages, which is obviously a lot different with digital than with 'film'.

 

[David W. Jones]

Thanks for the input David.
Something that I am gaining from my research so far, is that a lot of cinematographers say that digital hasn't affected their workflow in any way, and if used correctly, it has just enhanced the tools they have to be creative..

For me, digital has been a double edge sword.

I remember when we installed film developing and a telecine in-house in an effort to drop the turnaround time, and lower our costs. That lasted all of 3 years before we stopped doing the majority of our work on film and sold all of our film gear, as budgets started to drop. Well in 2014 technology has gotten better, faster, cheaper, but production budgets have continued to decline. The jobs that were once done by a crew of 7 people who were each skilled in their individual job function, are now being done by a crew of 2 multi-talented people who possess a broad range of skills. Larger production houses all across the USA have closed their doors, as their older business model with large overhead find it hard to compete with smaller multi-talented one man shops, who just use freelance workers when needed. Many rental houses across the USA have also closed their doors, as camera technology is changing so rapidly, they are no longer able to generate the needed income to pay off a camera in it's shortened rental lifespan. And while lower cost digital cameras have opened the door to many filmmakers who otherwise would not have been able to afford the needed tools, it has also ushered in a new breed of filmmaker, who has not taken the time or effort the learn the craft of filmmaking. Where the solution to their less than desirable end result, is a camera with more resolution and a higher dynamic range, rather than learning to properly compose an image, and controlling the light. But, I'll also add that even very talented and skilled filmmakers have started to deliver products that at one time in their careers, they wouldn't have dreamed of releasing. Why? The new low budget model that many of the ad agencies have started to adapt. For example…. A production which normally would have a budget of $25K, is now being produced for $10K. Why? Because the ad agency has convinced the client that they will save them money on the production costs, so they can then put that money back into the air buy. But the truth of the matter is, rather than having the clients best interest at hand, they are greedy, and the larger the air buy, the more money the agency will pocket at 15% of the air buy. On the production end, the lower budget means the production house must either do the same level of work as they normally would, but at a reduced rate of pay, or they must cut corners somewhere to deliver the product at the given budget while still earning their day rate. And most choose to cut corners, as after all, it's a business, and if you are giving your work away, you are not earning a living. Just the thoughts of an old guy.