Previs demo to a group of respected pro cinematographers

refocusedmedia said:
Thanks. That whole channel has a number of interesting videos, but this one stood out.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting.

I typically have an issue with storyboards and some directors I've worked with. They give a shot list to a storyboard artist, and suddenly the image is composed by some random dude. I never understand it. It's almost lazy in a strange way. The director didn't compose the shot, I didn't compose the shot... so who is making what? I don't like that, because sometimes the director can get a little insecure (i know, right? lol) and rely on them too heavily. Suddenly I'm pretty much stuck composing the shot like some previs guy designed. And that is not what I signed up for. I follow the director because he has a vision. I don't like that. I want the image to be created by the director and myself. Not some dude off set, two months ago. Previs and storyboard people don't know the location, production design, lighting, nor any changes that will happen. There's really no way to accurately do previs, just a rough draft. I also think this is making the movie before making the movie... where are the editors? Why aren't they just as poo pooing pissed as the DP's?

I think previsualization is too much work before the work. It's telling how an image should be composed and edited before either the DP or editor gets to do his job. It's bulls*%t in my opinion. Making lens choices before being on set? Common.

I'm totally with these (ASC) guys.


Plus I don't want to shoot two films... one a s*%tty animated film and one a real film. Ya know? Sitting in a room, with a director, creating a previs anamated film, shot for shot (editors job!!!!) and then go to the real set, where the location is different, we are inspired on the day, the actor improvs and the scene turns out completely different.

What a waste of time. I like preparation for a shoot, but doing a shot for shot previs is a waste of time. Showing up to set with a playlist/shotlist is great, being inspired on set and feeling it out during blocking is so crucial. Actors will also not like previs.

This works for action sequences only, and even then, is it necessary. George Lucas is a poo pooing hack. Love the guy for his dedication to charity, but he literally has not directed a good film since 1978. If previs is going to be advertised as being used on the newest star wars films, that is enough to prove they kill human spirit.
 
Last edited:
One of the points made is that the main people who care about such things are producers and investors who want to "make sure" they are getting their money's worth. That seems so ridiculous when you consider how many "well shot" films are a flop, and how many less-than-great films end up doing well at the box office. This isn't a a measurable science, much less an exact one.

On the other hand, I see the benefit of this technology as "animated storyboards". I think the issue comes when they try to make an actual animated version of the movie. Figuring out blocking\angles beforehand is very helpful, and that is where this can come into play. However, they are trying to also bring in lensing, lighting, and other elements and essentially making a pre-movie. I agree when Ryan says this is the editor's job, and that it is too much work beforehand.

But then again, as the guy said, other people in charge of the production are going to hire these people whether the DP involves himself or not..
 
Last edited:
Then what? The producers are going to hold the director and DP to sticking with the previs decisions? If they change it up and it comes out differently, can that be held against us? You know? Last thing I want is some suit to be like "why didn't you just do it the way it was previs'ed?"

I dunno. Story boards are an optional thing for people who like them. PreVis is something completely different.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Last thing I want is some suit to be like "why didn't you just do it the way it was previs'ed?"
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's an instance where less is more. Make a basic previz, an upgraded storyboard in other words, but don't turn it into an animated pre-movie movie.
 
A couple of thoughts from my perspective...

1. Doing pre-vis without DP involvement and then ordering the DP to just stick to that is really stupid and insulting.

2. Doing intelligent pre-vis (or storyboarding... or running around a set or a model with a tiny camera) is often a good idea. Not just as a sales tool, but to coordinate creative intent.

3. DP shouldn't see pre-vis as a challenge to their authority. Even if pre-vis has been done before the DP got on the project, it should be more like the director saying "OK, here's my initial thoughts I came up with before you were involved. Hopefully it challenges you to come up with something better."

4. Boy would it be great if DPs put a little effort into learning this stuff instead of just opting for the Luddite option. What's hilarious is that they complain about being left out of pre-vis, being left out of grading... tell you what: if you as a DP bothers to learn Maya, Nuke and DaVinci Resolve... or a DP gets a pre- and post- team together that they work closely with... and comes to the production offering an integrated service, they will find folks would be glad to throw more money at them to keep being involved. Directors don't do their own VFX on films for fun. They do it because they care about the film they are making. When was the last time a DP cared so much about a project they didn't direct that they did their own VFX for it? It's pretty rare. Pre-vis, VFX, digital grading, etc... have expanded our tools. Directors have embraced these tools and DPs often have not. So those folks will of course have a diminished creative role.

Personally, here's how I think things could work nicely... this is of course for a complex shoot. If I'm just doing some quick improv or there is nothing challenging from a logistics perspective... then by there is not so much need, of course:

1. Director prepares heavily. Work with concept artists to create images that clearly convey the film's intent.

2. Director (and DP if they're on the job) works closely to pre-vis certain sequences with animators who understand real camerawork and camera moves and filmmaking.

3. If possible, involve key stakeholders in above process. Editor. Art Director. Producer. VFX sup. Heck, give the DP a virtual camera in mo-cap if possible. Get the Art Director involved in the virtual sets. Heck, get the actors involved and let's talk about their character as it relates to the space.

4. Think more from an architecture perspective. Flow of space. You are creating a space where cinematic opportunities can happen. Not something that only works with specific camera moves. Of course, budget may introduce certain limitations.

5. Arrive on set with pre-vis that key folks like, that is already cut together by the editor, and a set or location that works with the pre-vis.

6. If pre-vis was done with the correct result in mind - eg creating a performance space that allows for on-set improvisation and camera and blocking changes - then the director can just work with actors as much as possible. The director doesn't need to be glued to the monitor. The DP doesn't need to check in with the director every 2 seconds... because through collaborting on pre-vis, a basic aesthetic language has been devised. Of course the language can and should evolve... but it's still much better to arrive with a plan than without.

End 2c.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Last edited:
I just find it weird that wanting to come prepared to something is met with such hostility to these DP's. Maybe its the fact that they're being left out of the pre-vis process, which is of course upsetting, but like Bruce is saying, it seems like there has to be a way to make it work. If a director constantly comes to you with boards and expects you to stick to em, leaving you out of the process with no apologies, that's just how he works. Take it or leave it.

I personally love the work of Jean Pierre Jeunet and the guy takes pictures of every setup before he shoots it, but if you listen to his commentary, he'll still talk about how he mixes it up with the actors to get realistic performances. Amazing coverage and compositions, along with a lot of great performances, he really gets the best of both worlds.

From more of a logistics standpoint, I'm just curious, if they don't decide coverage until they get there and see the performances, how do you decide where to stage things? Where do the trucks go? Which way do we look? I'm working on a short now and we have a little bit of money, but it really helps the budget go a lot farther when I can tell the art department that we'll never see a certain portion of the room, or tell G/E that we'll never look out a certain window. You can save a whole lotta money with just a little pre-vis.

In the end, whatever helps you see the movie more clearly and helps shows your team what you're doing. You can always mix it up on the day and you probably should, but coming with a plan that will work will never hurt the project.
 
As long as you look at it a a start point, not the end point, it's okay, otherwise you - as a DP - are left with a "paint by numbers" job.
If you have a highly complex compositing job with life footy, green screen, CGI elements, VFX andwhatnot involved, made by 10 different companies all over the globe, previs is a great tool to coordinate the whole shebang and make sure everybody has the same idea though.
 
RyanT said:
From more of a logistics standpoint, I'm just curious, if they don't decide coverage until they get there and see the performances, how do you decide where to stage things? Where do the trucks go? Which way do we look? I'm working on a short now and we have a little bit of money, but it really helps the budget go a lot farther when I can tell the art department that we'll never see a certain portion of the room, or tell G/E that we'll never look out a certain window. You can save a whole lotta money with just a little pre-vis.
Click to expand...

Typically on a tech scout the director and I (along with the Production Designer, AD and other department heads) will discuss the scene in a rudimentary fashion, deciding on what (if any) will be the "fourth wall". If it is a situation where truck parking is a factor, we'll make that commitment then. Obviously in an enclosed set this isn't as important a factor. When the production designer indicates that it would be helpful to limit the scope based on his budget, that becomes another factor and we can address as required and make specific decisions based on that. My gaffer and key grip pipe up with their thoughts and concerns. Given that everyone is doing their job, we can answer all of the critical questions at that time. Others may be addressed at the production meeting, and still others in the interim between then and the actual shoot. Hopefully by that time, we are all on the same page and the shoot goes smoothly.

The key is "everyone doing their job". On a low budget shoot, there may well be key personnel who are not experienced enough to cover all their bases or even remember what was said at the scout (take notes!). And even experienced crew can screw up from time to time. There's rarely enough prep time to really ensure no ball will be dropped at any point. You can only do the best you can.

The question is whether pre-vis would help this, and I'm not entirely sure that this is the case. Obviously a large-budget situation involving effects and multiple units can benefit from having as much information as possible, but when it comes to shooting a dialogue scene in a room, I remain unconvinced that the time it takes to work on this endeavor is not better spent elsewhere. I've worked with directors who arrive proudly brandishing lavish storyboards that were developed without my input; usually there's little in them for me to glean that couldn't have been described in a simple shot list with far less time commitment (and more often than not, we end up shooting a substantially different version of the scene anyway).

Some will argue that storyboards and now pre-vis are important for some directors to be able to visualize how they want to shoot a scene. I would argue that a director that can't visualize it in his head, that needs to see actual heads and bodies on the page, is one that should be working with a DP who CAN do this and they should be collaborating on the shot design process together. I think that there is a certain danger for less inexperienced directors to be pre-vis'ing their movie in what approaches a photo-realistic way because it makes it that much harder to let go of when things change on the day.
 
Last edited:
CharlesPapert said:
Some will argue that storyboards and now pre-vis are important for some directors to be able to visualize how they want to shoot a scene. I would argue that a director that can't visualize it in his head, that needs to see actual heads and bodies on the page, is one that should be working with a DP who CAN do this and they should be collaborating on the shot design process together. I think that there is a certain danger for less inexperienced directors to be pre-vis'ing their movie in what approaches a photo-realistic way because it makes it that much harder to let go of when things change on the day.
Click to expand...

Some will argue that if a director can't visualize the film in his head, that they need a director that can. Storyboards can be helpful, although they can often lead you down the wrong path, because they won't be drawn to real world criteria and can influence you in the wrong way... I think pre-vis should ONLY be used in very complicated scenarios where that extra work can be useful. Perhaps complicated action or highly CG intensive scenes.

I just listened to an interview with Jeff Cronenweth, also linked here in the cinematography section, and he talks about how Fincher for Girl with Dragon Tattoo and Social Network had it all in his head. I am willing to be most directors (99%) of the best ones, could do their job without story boards or previs, and just use those tools to help with difficult situations. Not relying on it, whatsoever for their films.

I don't see Fincher, Tarantino, Malick, or any of those dudes doing this. Seems like a George Lucas thing, and he's not directed a good film for over three decades, so I honestly respect his past work, but don't rely on his modern opinion to form mine.
 
It's a reasonable argument and one that I agree with personally, but I have worked with a number of directors who I respect and think do a fine job but who are stronger on story and performance vs visuals, and often need to be shown something before they can wrap their head around it. It doesn't mean they are less deserving of the job or that the film will be weaker, it does mean that they rely on the DP to command the visuals to a larger degree.
 
While this isn't anywhere near the same agruement as film Vs digital , it has similarities. if previs is something producers & investors like then it's here to stay - there's no point in dismissing or ignoring it. It's another tool that can be used.

Personally I like previs - but only because I can't draw for nuts and I like to be able to 'sketch' out my ideas.
 
A film director is not just an acting coach. In my opinion, if he/she can't have a strong idea of visuals, he/she should likely not be doing a visual medium.

Harsh, but true.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for pre-vis, but I am saying that the worlds best directors don't seem to need it, and as a requirement for being a film director, I would venture to say having a commanding talent at knowing how to visually tell a story is a prerequisite.
 
Opinions are all well and good, Ryan, but would you state that on your blog, on your site, or at an interview? There may well be a director out there who you have already worked with or who maybe is considering you for a project now or in the future who could be turned off by what you wrote. Sometimes it can take something that seemly insignificant to swing the pointer the other direction.

Along those lines, someone on this site made a similar statement a while back i.e. "any DP who needs (XYZ)...shouldn't be working". He too was welcome to his opinion, but he won't find a place on my crew any time soon.

Politics, baby.
 
I suspect we'll be seeing more and more of this.

As a director, I abhor the idea of pre-vis. Use it if you want to, but it's not for me. Too many variables on set to try and stick to pre-vis.

As a cinematographer... whatever, man. It's your money, if you want me to follow an animated storyboard, that's cool and potentially beneficial (if you're the type of director that needs it), so long as you're willing to listen to my reasoning for why some shots may not work technically or creatively. If you want me to follow it exactly, like a script, then the movie's gonna have problems... but again, it's your money, so whatever, man.

Anyway, the video was pretty cool, thanks for sharing. It did feel a bit like the DP's were getting defensive as they saw their jobs and responsibilities being taken from them. I don't know if that's the case or not, but it's the vibe I got from the vid.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
A film director is not just an acting coach. In my opinion, if he/she can't have a strong idea of visuals, he/she should likely not be doing a visual medium.
Click to expand...

A fair point, but in my experience, a director is someone who chooses the direction of the picture-- and THEY get to decide what that means. Sometimes it means telling me exactly what shots they want and letting me figure out how to get it (which lenses, where to put the lights, which lights to use, etc.)... sometimes it means them telling me what happens in a scene and having me "make it look good" (both valid, in my opinion).
 
CharlesPapert said:
Opinions are all well and good, Ryan, but would you state that on your blog, on your site, or at an interview? There may well be a director out there who you have already worked with or who maybe is considering you for a project now or in the future who could be turned off by what you wrote. Sometimes it can take something that seemly insignificant to swing the pointer the other direction.

Along those lines, someone on this site made a similar statement a while back i.e. "any DP who needs (XYZ)...shouldn't be working". He too was welcome to his opinion, but he won't find a place on my crew any time soon.

Politics, baby.
Click to expand...

You make good points, but I don't think what I said is that bad. Politics is a pain... all the time. haha. And I am 1,000 times more careful with stating my opinion almost anywhere else when it comes to statements like this. So yeah, there you have a great point. I didn't mean doing Pre-Vis was bad, as story boards, references and everything else is the norm... but I was talking about "... directors...who are stronger on story and performance vs visuals." I guess a director who doesn't have a very strong visual grasp would be worrisome to me. I'd of course be there to do my job and offer any amount of input required, however, in a theoretical situation, directors should be pretty good with visuals... they are directing a film, after all. But that is my opinion and you are right about the politics. :-/

PS: Also, not being strong at visuals, the pre-viz only helps so much. Unless you have someone else there giving the good ideas, the pre-vis won't do itself. Weak visuals will translate in the previz, ya know? Unless someone is there to help... Something to think about. I guess this stresses the need of the DP in the session.

I've worked on stuff that had pre-vis, but it was really just After Effects driven storyboards on a timeline with dialogue and etc over it. I thought it was cool, but didn't do anything more than storyboards do on your own, but make a sort-of cartoon type of thing.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't all that bad, Ryan, but sometimes people will take a ball and run with it. It's easy for all of us to forget that message boards are public and viewable. I'm relatively outspoken myself but I have been bitten a few times, so I'm probably reminding myself as much as you here!

I like it when directors have a strong visual sense, because we speak the same language. But I think you might be surprised by how many directors working in features and TV are of a different bent. Apropos of my "warning"--let's leave it at that ! (but if we were out having a beer sometime, the stories I could tell you...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top