Obsession with "The Industry"...

[john threat]

There are different kinds of film makers dude! You dont want or need Fellini to direct Chick Magnet or Scorpion King 4.
Sometimes people only have the passion to direct one or two films that they really care about and the rest they phone in on automatic. Journeyman directing its called.
There is TV, Commercials, Music videos, etc sometimes the right director and the right script come together with the right team and magic comes to life!


Personally - everyone knows you are *NOT* a director till you have a chair with your name on it. I didnt make the rules - thats just how it is.

 

[GH2user]

GH2user, did you even conciser that maybe those "quack" directors were telling you that they want it more cinematic or professional because they didn't have the heart to tell you that your work sucks? What if what was going through their head was: man, those shots look like s**t, they are flatly lit with crappy composition and nonexistent camera dynamism, man what a bummer that we hired this guy, next time i really have to insist on proper budget for the DP because i'm fed up with this crappy lever of non-professional DSLR shooter work, good thing this is a short non-budgeter that no one will see... so let me be nice to this guy and say something that maybe, and just maybe will spark his creative juices... "Hey, can we make those shots more professional and cinematic?"

Nope. This was before we even started while going through the script. He said the vision was "really cinematic". No crap...

And I was sough out for this project based on work I've done... why else would anyone get a DP job? They actually thought I was shooting my stuff on 35mm. They didn't know about DSLRs at that point. His friend had the money and was producing, so naturally he got the position of director without actually knowing what he was doing.

I don't really even like DPing... I'm just not doing it anymore for people. I always end up doing to much... like blocking all the scenes on the fly because the "director" doesn't understand the 180 rule and can't visualize the proper angles. The last straw of my DPing jobs was a few weeks ago when I heard the "director" said, "how do we do the next shot so it will cut well?"

You have six pages of pros working their day job in the business tactfully giving your their advice and you insult their professionalism with this juvenile rant.

IIRC, I started this thread. Nobody needed to reply if they felt insulted.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

As John Threat said, people work in different ways. There are many people out there who simply are not talented, and there are many who are. Those who are, work in different ways. Some are fascist control freaks, some are complete collaborators. Many are in-between. They key is to find the director or DP with whom you work best with, has similar expectations and ideas of collaboration.

I find that most of the time, first time jobs is much like a blind date. People are trying to figure out what the other one is like, how they work, and what the dynamic of the relationship is. Most of the time, things work just enough to get through the production, but things do not really 'click'. However, when it does, then that's someone you keep working with.

That's the secret to film-making. You'd be surprised how things become a positive rolling snow-ball of collaboration when you get two talented people who work well together.

So don't get discouraged as a director or as a DP. There are talented people out there... but there are many more who are not. Once you find the right directors or DPs who you work well with, things just get easier, and the creative potential begins to exponentially increase.

That's why it's important to network and meet those talented people. Graduate programs are also great places to meet other talented filmmakers, such as AFI or USC.

 

[Rolf Silber]

If the cinematographer is coming up with better shots than you... just don't think you should be in the director chair because then it's almost admitting that you have a weak/no vision.

Don't read it as an offence: This is a typical statement for a forum that is so camera-oriented as this is. Directing is not about "visions" (Austrian journalist Karl Kraus wrote: "If you have visions, see a doctor") but about knowing how, in the first place, you make a story flow which means that you have to find out what your very personal interpretation of the story is in the first place. It means re-reading the script over and over again, see where it works, see where you need to add things and ask yourself if you can make what you read "sing", alive, credible, stringent. Can you give it a dramatic structure? Do you know where it has to move slower and where you need to step on the accelerator? Do you have a clear concept of your cast? Can you work with actors and tell them where the story needs to go to and how they can get there?

Can you accept that the cast always will be different in some ways than what you expected it to be or may want? And that you do not work with robots so while you are shooting your concept will and must change? And that if you do not welcome this change, influence it so it nears you concept and/or change your concept - you will most certainly crash your movie? So that directing in the end means that you need to have both the ability of a Jazz-musician who reacts quickly to creative impulses and the adamant structure of a Herbert von Karajan-type of conductor - according to the situation?

So - a director should be called "only" a story director? Directing IS about story. And about story first. It is not about arranging a chain of beauty-shots, it is not about incredible crane movements or a FX-orgy. And no one will ever be a true and good and professional DOP if he doesn't understand that. Because a DOP can not live in a separate universe from the directors intention. And good DOP's know that what they do is not about breathtaking photography but about transporting - if possible in the most breathtaking manner where "breathtaking" is asked for - the story.

And about storyboards: Do you find it acceptable that lesser directors like Stanley Kubrick or Eisenstein or Spielberg or Fellini did use storyboards - they were in Kubrick's case terrible scribbles often, btw - to pre-structuralise what they wanted to do ... but then did shoot it differently at times....? (Storyboards in commercials or for extensive FX-works need to be more exact, though...)

Now, having said this - a director who really just would say "make it more cinematic" should go back to film academy or - probably better - open an ice-cream parlour.

Apart from all of this: A good, creative and happy new year.

 

[Ted Spencer]

Very wise words from what appears (from your avatar) to be a rather young man. :thumbsup:

As John Threat said, people work in different ways. There are many people out there who simply are not talented, and there are many who are. Those who are, work in different ways. Some are fascist control freaks, some are complete collaborators. Many are in-between. They key is to find the director or DP with whom you work best with, has similar expectations and ideas of collaboration.

I find that most of the time, first time jobs is much like a blind date. People are trying to figure out what the other one is like, how they work, and what the dynamic of the relationship is. Most of the time, things work just enough to get through the production, but things do not really 'click'. However, when it does, then that's someone you keep working with.

That's the secret to film-making. You'd be surprised how things become a positive rolling snow-ball of collaboration when you get two talented people who work well together.

So don't get discouraged as a director or as a DP. There are talented people out there... but there are many more who are not. Once you find the right directors or DPs who you work well with, things just get easier, and the creative potential begins to exponentially increase.

That's why it's important to network and meet those talented people. Graduate programs are also great places to meet other talented filmmakers, such as AFI or USC.

 

[Batutta]

Interesting thread, although I think the bottom line is that the audience doesn't give a rats ass how a film is made. We look at El Mariachi and marvel at what RR was able to do with such meager resources. My mother (a native Spanish speaker who knows nothing about filmmaking) thought it was a cheap looking piece of crap with horrible acting. Nobody cares how many people worked on the film, who did what, and who is taking credit for it. They just want to be entertained for a few hours.

 

[Kholi]

GH2user, did you even conciser that maybe those "quack" directors were telling you that they want it more cinematic or professional because they didn't have the heart to tell you that your work sucks? What if what was going through their head was: man, those shots look like s**t, they are flatly lit with crappy composition and nonexistent camera dynamism, man what a bummer that we hired this guy, next time i really have to insist on proper budget for the DP because i'm fed up with this crappy lever of non-professional DSLR shooter work, good thing this is a short non-budgeter that no one will see... so let me be nice to this guy and say something that maybe, and just maybe will spark his creative juices... "Hey, can we make those shots more professional and cinematic?"

Likely the case.

There are tons of people who can't look at their work and see that it doesn't look anything like a major motion picture, or real commercial, so on and so forth. Not sure HOW that's possible, but it is...

 

[Barry_Green]

Nobody cares how many people worked on the film, who did what, and who is taking credit for it. They just want to be entertained for a few hours.

Amen. May I also add that nobody cares that it was shot on a DSLR or on a Red, and they don't care what the budget was, and they really don't care how hard you had to work to make it, and they extremely don't care that it was your "first film" or anything like that.

All they want to do is be entertained. If your film fails at that one basic task, it fails in all ways -- at least as far as an audience is concerned. Of course, if your goal wasn't for the audience in the first place, then yeah, celebrate your "triumph" however you want, pat yourself on the back that you "made a film" or whatever -- just don't subject anyone to actually having to watch it, unless it's actually good and entertaining.

As far as the OP and how films get made -- people have been doing this for a hundred years. They've come up with a system that works. Anyone who comes in from the absolute outside and looks at the process and says "you're doing it all wrong" is showing so much disrespect to the intelligence, work ethic, values, experience, and labor of those who have come before, that it should be no surprise that you'd be greeted in such a way.

I keep hearing about how the "DSLR Revolution" is "opening up" filmmaking and "democratizing" it and how we're going to be flooded with all this new creative stuff. Well, the DSLR revolution is going on its fourth year. It's time for those who espouse that view to stop talking about it, and start showing it. Until then, how about letting Hollywood get on with the business that they know best, the business that is so profoundly successful that folks who "work in the industry" regularly make six figures and work part-time, the business that is so profoundly successful that the folks who work in it live in Beverly Hills, the business that is so profoundly successful that the folks who work in it fly in private jets and drive Aston Martins and own private islands... I mean, come on -- the business model works. Indie filmmakers may gripe about what comes out of Hollywood, but those folks know exactly what they're doing and they do what they do very, very well.

 

[Batutta]

I'd also like to point out an irony of that original article which used George Lucas as an example of someone who forged their own path. George did his best, most successful directing work when he was working within the "industry" confines. American Graffiti and the first Star Wars were studio pictures in which George was forced to work with more established artisans who had their own way of doing things, which limited his creative control somewhat. Later, when he had total, dictatorial control, we got The Phantom Menace.

 

[ThisHideousReplica]

I keep hearing about how the "DSLR Revolution" is "opening up" filmmaking and "democratizing" it and how we're going to be flooded with all this new creative stuff. Well, the DSLR revolution is going on its fourth year. It's time for those who espouse that view to stop talking about it, and start showing it.

Four years isnt that long. And really dslr video has only been in the mass consciousness for 2.5 years or so--less than a 1000 days. It takes a long time to get good at something, so of course there's going to be a lag between buying the camera and producing something of interest.

And anyway, it is happening! Witness the exponential growth of vimeo and how much awesome stuff there is on it--much of it more interesting than hollywood films. I think the fact that dslrs make it possible for young media pros pursue their own visions on their own is a biggie too.

Outside of the rhetoric i think we all understand that this "dslr revolution" is not going to be for everybody. It is not going to "overthrow" mass entertainments. And its a shame so much of the emphasis has been placed on aping hollywood. Even $100 000 is not going to look like $100 million. Whether one wants to call it "niche", "boutique", or, even more cheesy, "underground", the dslr has and will continue to allow unique voices to articulate themselves through cinematic language--and its TOTALLY OK if most people regard it, like jazz or poetry, as pretentious wank.

Ok back to the hobbyists table for me!

 

[Ted Spencer]

(re Batutta's comment below

Exactly. My personal version on this point where production is concerned is "the only thing that matters is the finished product". Like you said, no one will give a rodent's posterior that your lenses were hand-ground by elves in the Black Forest *unless* at the end of the day it's a *great* film. If it's widely regarded as such, then (as George Lucas knows so well) people may well start caring about *every last detail* of what went into making it, in droves.

Interesting thread, although I think the bottom line is that the audience doesn't give a rats ass how a film is made. We look at El Mariachi and marvel at what RR was able to do with such meager resources. My mother (a native Spanish speaker who knows nothing about filmmaking) thought it was a cheap looking piece of crap with horrible acting. Nobody cares how many people worked on the film, who did what, and who is taking credit for it. They just want to be entertained for a few hours.

 

[Barry_Green]

Four years isnt that long. And really dslr video has only been in the mass consciousness for 2.5 years or so--less than a 1000 days. It takes a long time to get good at something, so of course there's going to be a lag between buying the camera and producing something of interest.

Ah, but you're being reasonable. I keep hearing that hollywood is dead, that the way that hollywood people make films is "stupid", and that the DSLR "revolution" is going to storm the gates of hollywood and recreate filmmaking in its own image.

And I'm also being a bit facetious, because we heard this exact same diatribe when consumer HD first came out. And when 24p first came out. And before that, when digital video first came out. And before that, when video itself first came out. And before that, when Super 8 came out. And before that, when Super16 came out. And before that, when 16mm film first came out. The "revolution" has been here many times before, and doubtless it will come many times hence. And twenty years from now everyone will still be going to see Hollywood films and the masses will still be ignoring the films made by "the revolution"... sigh.

And anyway, it is happening! Witness the exponential growth of vimeo and how much awesome stuff there is on it--much of it more interesting than hollywood films.

But that doesn't have anything to do with DSLRs. That's the internet revolution, the distribution revolution. That's an entirely different thing, and something that is of value to all filmmakers. We've been embracing that since the DVX in 2003.

I think the fact that dslrs make it possible for young media pros pursue their own visions on their own is a biggie too.

I'm still waiting to see anything from a DSLR that makes it any different than anything from a DVX, for that matter. I just don't see why the DSLR is "the" revolution here. How is this revolution any different? I guess the cameras cost a tad less, but other than that... I dunno, show me the breakthrough DSLR film that couldn't have been done on a DVX, and I guess I'll see where this "revolution" is headed. Right now it just seems like everyone's doing the exact same things they always did, except with more cats and shallower DOF.

Outside of the rhetoric i think we all understand that this "dslr revolution" is not going to be for everybody. It is not going to "overthrow" mass entertainments. And its a shame so much of the emphasis has been placed on aping hollywood. Even $100 000 is not going to look like $100 million.

Ah, there you go, being reasonable again. See, that's exactly my point -- chasing after what Hollywood does, telling them they're doing it wrong, and trying to do it on five grand, is a path towards insanity and failure. Why not instead embrace the new capabilities and new media and do something DIFFERENT. Because you can.

Think of all the breakthrough no-budget films you've seen, or even heard of. Which of them acted or looked like traditional Hollywood films? Not a one of them. Primer? Pi? Blair Witch? El Mariachi? Brothers McMullen? Clerks? Following? Not a single one of them looks, smells, feels, plays out, acts, or resembles a "hollywood" film in any way. They all broke new ground. The DSLR, with its tiny size and fast lenses, seems ideal towards shooting something completely differently, but so far most of what I've seen is people either shooting test videos, or trying to emulate the Hollywood look on pennies. What's the point? As you said, you're not gonna beat a hundred million dollars and the world's best filmmakers by using $3,000 and a DSLR and After Effects, so why try? Why not go where they're not, do what they're not doing, find and create something NEW?

the dslr has and will continue to allow unique voices to articulate themselves through cinematic language--and its TOTALLY OK if most people regard it, like jazz or poetry, as pretentious wank.

Well, okay, but -- where is it? Where is this new and unique voice? Most of what I've seen is montages, people somehow now feeling like a bunch of shots of downtown set to some stolen music is "filmmaking". Is that it? Is that all there is? Where I come from, that's a first-semester beginning videography class assignment, not "filmmaking". So where is the new, gut-wrenching, access to unique voices, true art at?

And why is the DSLR the magical engine of revolution any moreso than, say, the HV20? The HV20 had 24p, real exposure tools, no recording time limit, and cost the same as the cheapest of DSLRs, but as far as I know we never did see this flood of new and unique voices due to the "HV20 revolution"...

I would really love to see the new art form develop. I have been here on this forum for over eight years, and I've seen a very few people rise above the crowd by making Hollywood-looking films, but haven't really seen much in the way of some new outlet for truly new and unique voices and viewpoints develop. And so far the DSLR Revolution, for all its talk and bluster, seems to be doing the exact same thing. So I guess I'm saying -- where is it? Is it actually here? Is there something new and magical about this product that is really making a difference, moreso than the HV20, or the DVX before it, or the VX1000 before it? Make something new. Don't just try to "ape" hollywood, and don't try to tear Hollywood down in some vain thought that if Hollywood falls, you'll be all that's left standing so now someone will automatically grant the title of "credibility" onto your works. Let Hollywood be Hollywood -- they're good at it. Now let's you be you. If you have something unique to say, something new to bring, some new variation on the art form, where is it? Let's see it.

 

[Ted Spencer]

There are tons of people who can't look at their work and see that it doesn't look anything like a major motion picture, or real commercial, so on and so forth. Not sure HOW that's possible, but it is...

If I may be excused for so bluntly saying so, the answer is simple: good old-fashioned inexperience. They aren't (yet) aware of what they don't know. Hopefully they won't remain in that place forever. But some will...

The process of becoming actually knowledgeable is like stepping through a series of "doors of perception", to quote Aldous Huxley (although he coined the phrase in reference to psychedelic drugs!)*. The funny thing is you don't have any idea a second door's even there until you've gone through the first. Same with the third one and so on. Eventually you realize that the number of 'doors' is infinite. An endless series of mini-revelations.

It's the only available path to enlightenment.

*it's also the basis for the name of the legendary rock band "The Doors".

 

[ThisHideousReplica]

Awesome!! Thanks for engaging, Barry--big fan of your passion and no b.s. attitude. Love the "put up or shut up" tough-talk heard recently from many of the dvxuser mandarins recently--i find it really inspiring and encouraging.

You're dead right about a lot of this being about distribution rather than the cameras themselves. Sure its been simmering awhile but it seems that the world really truly is ready to accept web streaming as an "alternate" rather than "inferior" delivery platform. It's going to be the big story of 2012 for sure: dissemination.

The thing about dslrs--outside of the spec-talk about dynamic range and selective focus, the common anecdotal experience is that these are the first consumer cameras that made people go, "holy crap, that looks like a real movie" in a compelling, visceral way. In other words their images didn't read as representations of "reality" but rather the images could be read as representations of "consciousness", as material for expressions of "dream" or "myth" or "narrative". (sorry, this was my major in university) Of course, there were workarounds and liminal practices for 2/3" sensor cameras but dslrs, almost by accident, produced such images as a matter of course.

(I don't mean to dismiss the incredible amounts of skill and experience in cinematography needed to hone this "as a matter of course" image into storytelling block, much respect to the many many amazing dvxuser image makers ... )
As to where all this high-falutin jam is? Good question. I think its safe to say its not on my hard drive thats for sure! :nads: Maybe stuff like what the Niestat Brothers are doing? Essay films? Tim Hetherington's personal piece? Godard's last movie "Film Socialism" was an attempt to answer this question, and used virtually every available prosumer camera to incredible effect. (It was also released with an unbelievably obnoxious subtitle track, but properly translated versions are available) I must admit that i DO find many of those "montages to stolen music" kind of moving so what do i know?

BTW: I do understand why people make hollywood-esque films on their dslrs--its what they love and yeah okay, a well-made "dslr hollywood" piece is probably going to look like weak tea compared to the actual product, but it still makes one hell of a calling card. Plus they also take incredible amounts of talent, ingenuity and commitment so respect if thats your trip.

Anyway, really enjoyed thinking on this... back to polishing those sordid little turds i got festering deep in the bowels of my CS5!

 

[GH2user]

As far as the OP and how films get made -- people have been doing this for a hundred years. They've come up with a system that works. Anyone who comes in from the absolute outside and looks at the process and says "you're doing it all wrong" is showing so much disrespect to the intelligence, work ethic, values, experience, and labor of those who have come before, that it should be no surprise that you'd be greeted in such a way.

Well of course it "works". Like you said, people make six figure salaries working part time with the system. So, yea, it does work. But will it still make sense in 10 years is the bigger question.

It just seems like there is a pretty big tech-to-production ratio that is out of balance. It just seems like people get into production, start making a living, and then just turn themselves off to new ways of working and insist that "the way things are done" must be correct... because that's how they do them. Which is totally understandable. If I was making six-figures a year working 4-5 months why would I want to change anything? But that doesn't mean that the system is never going to need it.

Do you really think people are going to be making films with huge crews and 100 million dollar budgets in 50 years? Fat chance. It'll probably be completely life-like CGI with multiple AI's "interacting" as actors and maybe only 4 filmmakers supervising the entire project. Or it may go down the motion capture road... where all the films assets are generated in the computer and only the performances are captured. Will you still call the digital light engineer the cinematographer? Or will the director be the one who is dialing in the virtual lighting and plotting out the key frames for the camera moves?

This is why I'm trying to discuss the philosophy of the filmmaking roles... it's not just about saying hollywood is dumb. What do cinematographers DO? What do directors DO? If the cinematographer just supports and translates the directors "vision"... then what happens the day the "translation" is no longer needed?

Things WILL change. They always do. What about when light-field cameras are shooting 8k RAW with 20 stops of DR and completely noise-less sensitivity? Goodbye lighting and focus pulling... that will be done in post now non-linearly. And technology will reach this point... it just a question of if "the system" is going to resist it, to save their jobs and roles... or decide to adapt along the way.

The thing about dslrs--outside of the spec-talk about dynamic range and selective focus, the common anecdotal experience is that these are the first consumer cameras that made people go, "holy crap, that looks like a real movie" in a compelling, visceral way. In other words their images didn't read as representations of "reality" but rather the images could be read as representations of "consciousness", as material for expressions of "dream" or "myth" or "narrative". (sorry, this was my major in university) Of course, there were workarounds and liminal practices for 2/3" sensor cameras but dslrs, almost by accident, produced such images as a matter of course.

Yea, exactly. I understand what Barry was saying about 8mm, then 16mm, and DV tape, then HD... bla bla bla. But DSLR are the first consumer grade product that makes people go "holy crap... that's a real movie!".

This hit me very hard the other day when I just shot something for a friend back home real quick. It was a horrible "production", for lack of a better word... but when he looked at the footage his jaw dropped and his exact words were "wow, you can make something look professional just by shooting with that camera!" I was almost insulted at first, because even as quick as it was, I knew that frame-rate, exposure, lens choice, and the angles I chose played into it more that he realized. But in the end, he was the consumer, I though it looked like crap, but he saw "professional".

In other words their images didn't read as representations of "reality" but rather the images could be read as representations of "consciousness", as material for expressions of "dream" or "myth" or "narrative". (sorry, this was my major in university)

No need for apology here. Your post was awesome. Now we're getting philosophical... great stuff! That's what the aim of the thread is supposed to be... not just "that's how they've done it for 50 years, so it's correct." talk.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

The "DSLR revolution" has meant that 5000 more crappy movies and 6 more good ones get made every year that would not have otherwise. That's a positive, but it sure has created a lot of white noise that makes it harder to hear the couple of good notes out there.

I have to say the "digital" revolution made it possible for me at 43 to start making films with no formal training. When you can make your mistakes/learn on films that cost $2K instead of $20K or $200K it opens a lot of doors.

 

[Ted Spencer]

The "DSLR revolution" has meant that 5000 more crappy movies and 6 more good ones get made every year that would not have otherwise.

Yeah I'm afraid that's about right. The revolution in low cost filmmaking gear hasn't produced much of a bump in the number of great films or filmmakers any more than the similar revolution in music creation gear has yielded an increased number of new Mozarts, desktop publishing spawned more Shakespeares, or painting programs begat new Picassos.

At the risk of sounding fatalistic (which I'm not), I think that there are very, very few people who have it in their existential DNA to become 'Spielbergs' as it were, and to a great extent those folks, to quote the latter's dinosaur movie, "will find a way". The other 99.999%, armed with the latest revolutionary digital miracle tool or not, pretty much won't...

Which I hope sounds more realistic than disempowering. It is very unfortunate to see people (and I've known quite a few) who have unbelievably high levels of 'gifted-ness' that never get off the ground. I will say though, that from where I've sat the reason it never happened for them has never had anything to do with their access to tools, or even encouragement. It's (almost) always been something running amuck in the gray matter, or in that thumping red thing behind the ribs. Usually it's both...

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Things WILL change. They always do. What about when light-field cameras are shooting 8k RAW with 20 stops of DR and completely noise-less sensitivity? Goodbye lighting and focus pulling... that will be done in post now non-linearly. And technology will reach this point... it just a question of if "the system" is going to resist it, to save their jobs and roles... or decide to adapt along the way.

You do understand lighting is more than simply exposure, right? It's about lighting ratios, color temperature, lighting direction, and the quality of the light.

If your only concern is simply exposing an image; by all means get your DR and fire the cinematographer.

If you care about how your subject is exposed... what visual subtext, mood, emotion and feelings that are created from lighting... you may realize there is more to lighting than simply keeping the highlights from blowing out and getting low light exposures.

 

[Ted Spencer]

^ Right. And then there's these little areas called "aesthetics" and "shot composition". Good thing they only take a weekend or so to master...

: )

 

[David Jimerson]

If I may be excused for so bluntly saying so, the answer is simple: good old-fashioned inexperience. They aren't (yet) aware of what they don't know. Hopefully they won't remain in that place forever. But some will...

The process of becoming actually knowledgeable is like stepping through a series of "doors of perception", to quote Aldous Huxley (although he coined the phrase in reference to psychedelic drugs!)*. The funny thing is you don't have any idea a second door's even there until you've gone through the first. Same with the third one and so on. Eventually you realize that the number of 'doors' is infinite. An endless series of mini-revelations.

It's the only available path to enlightenment.

*it's also the basis for the name of the legendary rock band "The Doors".

The irony (or is it?) of it all is that just like any professional work, it's the tiniest of details which make such a huge difference. Anyone can hang wallpaper, but a professional knows how to do it so it looks like one piece. It's all detail work, and the details add up to something huge.

If you don't know what the details are, or simply can't see them, it doesn't matter what equipment you use.