Shane Hurlbut ASC conducting “The Ultimate Camera Test”

Status
Not open for further replies.
Victor Nhat Nguyen said:
What the heck? Shane should have enough money to pay his interns. What with this business and not paying intern? I'm also an unpaid intern and very pissed off about it.
Click to expand...

Call it tough times, call it illegal, but Panavision recently (last three years) has actually eliminated payed employee positions and have replaced them with 'interns' doing actual work that past employees did.

It's pretty sad, and says more than I'd like about the state of the company. But Panavision and tough times isn't really a new thing, is it?

They are simply lucky to have the historically respected name. Because I'm sure that goes a long way in getting what is essentially free labour.
 
Wow. Browsed through this thread again. Lot's of real Shane Hurlbut bashing taking place here. I'm sorry, is there ANYBODY here that has been DOP on a #1 box office hit? And more than once? Anybody????..........

It's pretty clear that he is testing for his upcoming Need for Speed. And while doing so, he's gonna share the test with all of you on his website. He doesn't have too, but he is and "it is what it is". Whatever he picks is his choice tool for the film. Along the way we all get to see his findings, for better or worse. I bet Shane will most definitely have the Canon 1Dc somewhere in Need for Speed. Why wouldn't he? But guess what? Shane has the luxury of getting to make the decision of what to shoot on. He's an animated guy. Lot's of passion and belief in some of the things he says. More power too him.

I get it. Shootouts are getting over the top. I really hope Zacuto bails on the idea. A three part series that spans over months is what it is. Driving traffic to your website. Can't blame them. Guys like Philip Bloom, Laforet, hell even Andrew Reid! If you're bashing these guys, I say you're jealous. But to bash DOP's that have had film box office hits at #1 and one of those shot mostly with a 5Dmk2? I say you're envious.

It's just a camera test....

christian_bale_psycho_rant_promo_pic_300x400.jpg
 
Gary Huff said:
Guess what the difference between a feature and short is? Time.
Click to expand...


Here is where you're wrong! Time is not the only difference. It's much harder to write a feature. It's much harder to shoot a feature and keep the attention of the audience for that long than it is in a short. A feature is a harder thing to do all around. Keeping the consistence of your story through a feature is much more complex than for 10 minutes. I say most people can make a short film. But very few could pull a feature. It's not only time. For you to say that I can only think you have never made or worked on a feature film before.
 
indiawilds said:
To all the youtube bashers here, just do a good short that is good to go viral, post it in youtube, let it get a billion hits like that Gangnam style video and get some 8 million plus USD.
Click to expand...

Of course! That's all we have to do! So simple!

And you should play the stock market as well. It's incredibly easy to make a million dollars.
 
Adamsenoj said:
Time is not the only difference. It's much harder to write a feature.
Click to expand...

Because...it takes longer to write a script for a feature than a short, thus is requires more focus in order to get it done in a timely manner.

Time.

It's much harder to shoot a feature and keep the attention of the audience for that long than it is in a short.
Click to expand...

Because it's longer. On top of that, it isn't harder to keep the attention of the audience...at least not a typical concern. How many snoozefests are out there?

Keeping the consistence of your story through a feature is much more complex than for 10 minutes. I say most people can make a short film. But very few could pull a feature.
Click to expand...

Another consideration that a lot of features don't bother with. Most people can make a short because it's short...takes like a weekend or so. Features require a lot more time to pull off, thus more effort, and it's harder because people don't want to do the legwork to attempt to raise money to actually pay a crew, and it's hard to maintain interest among anyone worth keeping when you put demands on their time without giving them recourse to pay their monthly expenditures.

For you to say that I can only think you have never made or worked on a feature film before.
Click to expand...

Well, you'd be wrong.
 
indiawilds said:
Are you paying to become an intern?
Click to expand...

Actually anyone who works for free is "paying" for something, unless they are doing it against their will which most people call slavery.

Ironically though I recall an "agency" in Canada back in the 90s that was paying production companies to take on "interns" as PAs, in that case people really were literally paying to be an intern.
 
LyleGorch said:
Ironically though I recall an "agency" in Canada back in the 90s that was paying production companies to take on "interns" as PAs, in that case people really were literally paying to be an intern.
Click to expand...

A local production that tried the Kickstarter route offered to graciously allow you to come and PA on set (transportation not provided) if you donated $250.

They didn't get much in the end.

Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
They are simply lucky to have the historically respected name. Because I'm sure that goes a long way in getting what is essentially free labour.
Click to expand...

I would say both are equally to blame. I can't exactly feel sorry for someone who is willingly working for free, usually under some false pretense that it will launch their career. It might, but that's an awfully big chance to take, and having the money to support yourself while working for free isn't something that a lot of otherwise talented individuals can handle. Shame on Panavision, obviously, but also shame on those people giving Panavision fresh meant to work.
 
Last edited:
"Not that the story need be long, but it will take a long while to make it short."
 
I laugh every time controversy spins up over a camera comparison. I mean, who cares really? Most tests, even the Zacuto go out of their way to impress upon its viewers that in no way is it an objective comparison. It's simply giving you a small taste of what each camera is likely to produce in varying situations... to take it at face value and decide what the camera is capable of from a comparison is silly.

Why not let the test broadly inform an initial opinion and then let actual experience determine hard facts regarding the camera? Tests like these are all about "I think" and "I like or don't like" this, that and the other. Not, the image or the camera "is" this or that, as a final unearned conclusion.
 
Gary Huff said:
Because...it takes longer to write a script for a feature than a short, thus is requires more focus in order to get it done in a timely manner.

Time.



Because it's longer. On top of that, it isn't harder to keep the attention of the audience...at least not a typical concern. How many snoozefests are out there?



Another consideration that a lot of features don't bother with. Most people can make a short because it's short...takes like a weekend or so. Features require a lot more time to pull off, thus more effort, and it's harder because people don't want to do the legwork to attempt to raise money to actually pay a crew, and it's hard to maintain interest among anyone worth keeping when you put demands on their time without giving them recourse to pay their monthly expenditures.



Well, you'd be wrong.
Click to expand...

I believe that if you do 9 short films each 10 minutes, it would be easier than doing one 90 minute feature.

The running time would be the same, but the feature film would be harder to make. Writing the 90 minute feature would also be harder than writing 9 shorts each 10 minutes in length.
 
Agreed, I think this is pretty much the way it is. Features are tough, no two ways about it. If you don't have the crew, and take on the roll of ten jobs, things get messy quick. There's the rare exception, " Mungo" which looks to be a great film, but even he had to take on a lot of extra duties to get it made. I can tell you from my own personal experience, I aged five years in the course of one summer working on a low budget feature I wrote and directed IT'S STRESSFUL!!
 
maranfilms said:
Agreed, I think this is pretty much the way it is. Features are tough, no two ways about it. If you don't have the crew, and take on the roll of ten jobs, things get messy quick. There's the rare exception, " Mungo" which looks to be a great film, but even he had to take on a lot of extra duties to get it made. I can tell you from my own personal experience, I aged five years in the course of one summer working on a low budget feature I wrote and directed IT'S STRESSFUL!!
Click to expand...

They are rough, no doubt. But rougher because there's not a budget to ensure that you get paid while doing it, thus able to pay your rent in the length of time it takes to make one.
 
Gary Huff said:
Because...it takes longer to write a script for a feature than a short, thus is requires more focus in order to get it done in a timely manner.
Click to expand...


OR......


“I'm sorry this letter is so long, I didn't have time to make it shorter.”

by George Bernard Shaw


Take your pick.
 
Wow this thread has wandered far from the OP. Lets consider this done for now. Thanks Ted for bringing this resource to everyone's attention
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top