Obsession with "The Industry"...

Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, my point was more that one day we may be able to light in post. Light-field technology and others are the begging of capturing images in a non-linear way. Of course mood, visual subtext, and composition are important... but eventually you'll be doing them in post. Which brings up the question of weather or not you'll still need a cinematographer?

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

: )
Click to expand...

If that. I say if you're born with an eye... your born with an eye. Technical details like exposure and lighting geometry take time... but composition is something "you feel" or not. Like I've said... I've seen people start shooting pro-level work after one weekend of learning the technical details.


 
Last edited:
GH2user said:
If that. I say if you're born with an eye... your born with an eye. Technical details like exposure and lighting geometry take time... but composition is something "you feel" or not. Like I've said... I've seen people start shooting pro-level work after one weekend of learning the technical details.
Click to expand...

I think Kholi's interpretation was spot on.

Kholi said:
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...
Click to expand...
 
GH2user said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is nothing more than a glorified cartoon. It will never replace real humans in real settings. There will always be an audience for that. And if you think it will, you are sadly out of touch.
 
David Jimerson said:
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.
Click to expand...

But, remember, just because you can hang wallpaper makes you serious competition to someone who wants wall paper hung... until that crap falls off the walls and breaks something. Then they tell their friends not to use the idiot who can't hang wallpaper properly and just pay for the real deal to begin with.

Ted Spencer said:
Nonsense
Click to expand...

David Jimerson said:
+100.

Leaving lighting to post is one of the laziest things I've ever heard. And it'll be miserable.
Click to expand...

I thought that was obvious, as well. ... ... I guess not...

Gary Huff said:
This is nothing more than a glorified cartoon. It will never replace real humans in real settings. There will always be an audience for that. And if you think it will, you are sadly out of touch.
Click to expand...

And it'll still cost 100M to complete or more.

Sometimes I just dunno about freedom of speech...
 
GH2user said:
No, my point was more that one day we may be able to light in post. Light-field technology and others are the begging of capturing images in a non-linear way. Of course mood, visual subtext, and composition are important... but eventually you'll be doing them in post. Which brings up the question of weather or not you'll still need a cinematographer?
Click to expand...



picard-facepalm.jpg
 
Yes, you will be able to light in post. You can now if you layer a bunch of green screen plates.
don't listen to these nay Sayers!

Dream the future now!

These are the same guys who would have nixed photoshop, as impossible years ago.
 
I proudly wear the label Luddite.

It took about a 10 email thread for my editor to to talk me into letting him him do a sky replacement on a 5 second shot in my last film. I hold green screens in the same regard I do herpes.
 
sorry gh2user, but you're mixing the indie mentality into the hollywood mentality, and they simply don't play well together

i did some mockups where i altered the lighting in post, but it only worked because they camera was static, and it was only a mockup, not a real production. there will always be two ways of doing things: the right way, and the other way. it doesn't matter how many computers or effects get made, the traditional way of capturing a film will always be the standard, or at least for the next 100 years.

case in point: avatar. (disclaimer: not using it as an example of anything other than technical) they use the most advanced tech in motion capture for the blue monkeys, err, i mean characters. and yes it looked very good, but then WHY did they not just use the same tech to motion capture and animate the non monkeys, let's call them "humans". i would suggest it would be because we the viewers are humans, and for some odd reason, we like to be watching other real humans, and not repli-humans. theres an element that computers just don't get, and while they may get it eventually, i don't see it happening till after our lifetimes if that. Now, you did specify more of the lighting part, the none human part, well, it's in the same boat, because it's still real vs not real. case in point: dark knight, and why i love the **** outta chris nolan, because when he had the option to flip a digital truck, he said eff that, we're going to flip a REAL full size cargo truck. and it looked awesome.

again, i say 100 years, cgi will only be replacing the more impractical parts of films, and real life will remain the 1st acquisition.

go ahead and disagree with me, we'll settle up in the year 2100
 
Digital effects have a time and place.
That time and place is when there is no possible way within budget (and the laws of physics) to create a safe practical effect.
Practical is ALWAYS preferable to digital.
 
You guys are like dinosaurs locked into one way of conservative thinking, scared of the new.

Hurray for change agents who embrace the new. Let these guys have their bolexes and mole Richardson stands and director eye pieces hanging around their necks.
 
john threat said:
You guys are like dinosaurs locked into one way of conservative thinking, scared of the new.
Click to expand...

Let's not start with the personal attacks.

It has nothing to do with "scared of the new." It has to do with knowing what goes into making an effective motion picture, and that "new" doesn't always mean "better." Sometimes it does. Not always.
 
john threat said:
You guys are like dinosaurs locked into one way of conservative thinking, scared of the new.
Click to expand...
No, we're working pros who have jobs to get done now. Who's "scared of the new"? What does that even mean? Do you think there's a single one of us here who hasn't shot greenscreen or added digital effects to our productions or ? Do you think there's any of us still shooting on tape or still using landline telephones? Who's "scared" of the new, or of anything technological? If you've got a point to make, stick to facts please, and leave the red herrings for a different discussion.

Point is, who cares what will be possible 40 years from now... I'll worry about that 40 years from now. I've got stuff to get done now. And the way things get done now, works. I use the best equipment and the best technologies TODAY. And sometimes (well, frequently, in fact, usually) the old tried and true techniques work better. I actually had someone ask me on The AF100 DVD how I got such an incredibly effective key on the background. I told 'em "easy -- it wasn't a key. I went and had a 10' x 5' graphic printed up, and I stood in front of it."

Let these guys have their bolexes and mole Richardson stands and director eye pieces hanging around their necks.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, you mean the guys who have been making the great films you've been watching every day since you were born? Yeah, okay, we'll let those masters get on with doing what they do.

In the meantime, I reiterate my question -- where is this "new"? What are YOU doing with it, TODAY? How is it relevant? Where's this new influx of cinema, this new way of doing things, this better way?

Bottom line: if you're a hobbyist and an experimenter, then go experiment and engage in your hobby. Nothing wrong with that. And if you're a film maker, then go make films. But what I reject is when experimenters tell filmmakers (who are doing this every day of their lives, and many of whom are doing it quite successfully) "you're doing it all wrong, you have no idea what you're doing, and soon absolutely everything will be different." Doesn't that strike you as -- well, I mean, the list of descriptive words is a mile long, but would include things such as "naive", "arrogant", "rude", "disrespectful", "ignorant", "hostile", "misplaced aggression", etc?
 
Barry_Green said:
I actually had someone ask me on The AF100 DVD how I got such an incredibly effective key on the background. I told 'em "easy -- it wasn't a key. I went and had a 10' x 5' graphic printed up, and I stood in front of it."
Click to expand...

Yep, and it was actually less work in production (though a bit more pre-production), a heck of a lot less work in post, and an overall better result.

Photographing real things tends to work out that way.
 
john threat said:
You guys are like dinosaurs locked into one way of conservative thinking, scared of the new.

Hurray for change agents who embrace the new. Let these guys have their bolexes and mole Richardson stands and director eye pieces hanging around their necks.
Click to expand...

One of the effects I see occasionally is the B&W, especially for something titled '... noir', or at least classed as '... noir'... You know what... a Wratten 90 filter would do these efforts a major step up...

Unless one has a birth defect, one does not see 'B&W'... the filter allows a scene to be viewed, and important features evaluated such as color mapping to monochrome evaluated... Hey the guy has a blue
coat on against a green background... must be ok... except they both have the same reflectivity, and when turned in to B&W... look ma... no contrast... the other bugaboo is lighting for depth...

That is an example were stuff that was used in the 'olden days' still works if one wants to do a particular style.

I agree that using arc lamps has gone out of style... but that does not mean lighting for depth, mood, etc. has...
 
In all cases at all times professional production is about "what's the best way to get the best result considering all factors". So Nolan flipped a real truck but Cameron didn't breed actual 7' blue mutants. Quality of result vs hour/dollar consumed is the metric. The smart filmmaker uses whatever best solves that equation regardless of whether it's cutting edge or blunt instrument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top