Previs demo to a group of respected pro cinematographers

[Patryk_Rebisz]

What's not talked about is the real reason why all those respectable old-timers trash talk this tool. Namely only a fool would assume that films are made by the numbers. Often it's an instinctual reaction to reality (how the actors behave or move, what lighting exists on the location, how a crew member turns off the lights by mistake and that becomes meaningful metaphor and direction for the scene... There is countless "human elements" involved so all those guys knowing it very well are asking themselves - why the f*** would i waste time with this? Because i haven't setup OTS shot a thousand times before and i need a previs help?? That said though, and that is what probably scares those guys, is that poetry of the mind, search for humanity etc for the most part are things of the past and all those old-time DPs (often at the end of their road) have to face the fact that it's not only their lives that are fading but the mythical and life-changing power of cinema.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Yikes, that's a rather depressing viewpoint. There are still good films being made, although it's getting harder due to the economics (i.e. harder to make a living in the industry while making good films, as opposed to blockbuster sequels).

I think that more than anything, the concern with that group was that the DP's job, respect and stature is eroding thanks to technology. It's not at all the job that I admired when I first got into the industry, or even the same as it was five years ago. The primary artistry I get to exhibit these days is figuring out how to cram give pieces of coverage without cutting the camera, or how to light a set for multiple directions and camera positions without extensive rigging or a dimmer board (hint: the whole electric dept. huddled on the floor manning squeezers). In other words, speed and efficiency is now the new artistry of cinematography. That's a shame.

A trend that I see a lot of on message boards that I find troubling is that the accessibility of technology has inspired a new wave of directors who want to micro-manage the DP's job. There are a lot of "I'm going to make a feaure soon and can you all tell me, what is the best camera, what settings, what kind of slider" etc. If one suggests, "ask your DP", the response is often "I don't have one yet" or "the last guy I used insisted on X and Y and I wasn't happy with it".

Pre-vis, in a sense, is along the same lines. It may suggest the possibility that the DP's input is not necessary or even a hindrance to the process of shot design. Traditionally the danger that storyboards used to present and that pre-vis will only excerbate is that the more specific an image becomes and the longer one lives with it, the more defined it becomes in the mind and it is that much harder to give it up on the day, even though a more interesting or suitable possibility may present itself. It's that much harder to "undo" the visual imprint to allow the mind to see it another way. A lot of this has to do with the visual ability of the director in question, as Ryan and I discussed above. But there is human nature to contend with, and after you experience the same thing over and over, you see patterns emerge.

A paradigm to this is the danger of shooting log or raw without proper LUT's applied before the edit. I've shot a few projects in the last couple of years that didn't have time in the post process to lay in and render even a basic 709 look, and then the director/producers etc. get used to the mushy image (amazingly) and when you finally get a chance to color it, you start hearing things like "I liked it better before!". Ugh.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Pre-vis, in a sense, is along the same lines. It may suggest the possibility that the DP's input is not necessary or even a hindrance to the process of shot design.

This directly relates to the poverty of our culture. Where the director assumes that by getting rid of the DP he has one less ego to deal with without realizing that that ego was there because of years spent thinking about meaning of the image. Everything, including filmmaking craft, is taken at the most banal face value of it and thus you have an avalanche of mediocre indies that are not meant to make money where the director doesn't even try to play with the medium. (What's the easiest way to tell this story? OTS? So lets shoot it with TV like coverage!)