The closer we come to NAB...

i just don't see many "professionals" dropping money on a gh1 or d90 as an investment for their business giving the quality on both camera's.

As a still camera the D90 produces very professional results. As a video camera you wouldn't earn a penny with it. The GH1 should take very good pictures but of course the video is an open question. On the lower end of the camera spectrum IMO the HPX 500 is the only camera able to compete in true quality with the higher priced ones.
 
why not buy it if you are gonna make money with it
so what do you buy? how much money do you get off of your hvx if you're working on a production that's being shot on an ex? you already said that you can't buy a genesis, so how do you shoot a genesis project if you don't rent one? what you call a professional is what the rest of us call a producer (who happens to shoot his own projects), not a filmmaker, cinematographer or even videographer. professionals in those fields *don't* need to own equipment.

/matt
 
oh, and regardless of what the world of narrative filmmaking is or isn't, people in it rarely own much gear unless they are gaffers, which is the point i was trying to make.
/matt

Oh, I get your point.
But your talking about times long gone by, where you just couldn´t afford the equipment you needed to make a movie.
If Rodriguez had had a HVX at hand, he probably wouldn´t have needed to sell his body for clinical testing to afford film rolls...
So I guess you don´t own a Mac or PC to edit your showreel or a short you produced yourself?
I suppose you rather flip burgers for a week to afford a day at a local Avid bay...:beer:

And I guess Michael Ballhaus isn´t artist enough in your point of view because he shot corporate stuff in his days...
Or feature film directors selling out to ad agencys paaahh...
Or Lars van Trier shooting porn...
And go talk to some older DPs, they will tell you stories about films only being made because they brought their russian S16 with them...

But maybe you are really one of the lucky few only doing big jobs, but then maybe this isn´t the place for you here afterall...
 
his movies are awesome, well select few, but artist? come on. spike jonze or michel gondry is an artist

If you base his artistic integrity on his directing ability, then yeah I think he is an artist. If you dislike the writing and production, then blame Jerry Bruckheimer and the team of writers. I don't think many people give Bay enough credit for the way he makes action scenes so spectacular and Will Smith being allowed to be Will Smith. They really are visionary pieces.

And yeah Jonze and Gondry are artists too, I love their emotion they bring forth and such, but I wouldn't think they'd be able to pull off what Bay does, and vice versa. Apples and oranges.


Oh, I get your point.
But your talking about times long gone by, where you just couldn´t afford the equipment you needed to make a movie.
If Rodriguez had had a HVX at hand, he probably wouldn´t have needed to sell his body for clinical testing to afford film rolls...
So I guess you don´t own a Mac or PC to edit your showreel or a short you produced yourself?
I suppose you rather flip burgers for a week to afford a day at a local Avid bay...:beer:

And I guess Michael Ballhaus isn´t artist enough in your point of view because he shot corporate stuff in his days...
Or feature film directors selling out to ad agencys paaahh...
Or Lars van Trier shooting porn...
And go talk to some older DPs, they will tell you stories about films only being made because they brought their russian S16 with them...

But maybe you are really one of the lucky few only doing big jobs, but then maybe this isn´t the place for you here afterall...

Ah now we're all just getting personal.

All it is is one person saying professionals often need their own equipment.
Another person saying no that's often not the case.
Then saying it is
Then saying renting for most narrative projects
Then saying yeah
Then abit more personal saying 'you're not in this league! you're obviously crap! blah you never used this!
you're not a filmmaker'
Then sayin whut
then blah blah blah.


I think everyone here actually understands what everyone else is on about, y'all
are just tussling egos...
 
Last edited:
But your talking about times long gone by, where you just couldn´t afford the equipment you needed to make a movie
ok, then the question is who should own the gear. why should i as a dp own cameras to save money for producers? why should i as director own a camera when i don't need it at all in my profession? do you have to be a producer to call yourself a professional? long gone by? is the freelance film worker a thing of the past? in the 21st century everyone is rodriguez with a stubborn determination to do everything themselves, is that what you're saying?

/matt
 
I don't now if I am in the twilight zone at this very moment, but isn't NAB all about the wonderful new equipment at our dispossal now or in the near future? Oh, well, I don't know, because somebody else should own it so I could rent it from him. Yeah.
Robert Rodriguez is a wonderful example of the real world we live in as professionals in this business. The man produces, writes, directs, DPs, do the cinematography, the editing, the music, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. He also owns his own equipment, has a studio facility, he is the man. Somebody I can look up to and say, you are the real deal.
 
Robert Rodriguez is a wonderful example of the real world we live in as professionals in this business. The man produces, writes, directs, DPs, do the cinematography, the editing, the music, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. He also owns his own equipment, has a studio facility, he is the man. Somebody I can look up to and say, you are the real deal.
Now, if he could only consistently make good movies. :grin::grin:
 
ok, then the question is who should own the gear. why should i as a dp own cameras to save money for producers? why should i as director own a camera when i don't need it at all in my profession? do you have to be a producer to call yourself a professional? long gone by? is the freelance film worker a thing of the past? in the 21st century everyone is rodriguez with a stubborn determination to do everything themselves, is that what you're saying?

/matt

You already said some freelancers are used to bringing their own gear (gaffers, sound people, steadycam opps...)
Why are you so desperately excluding the DP from this equation?

And you are not saving the producer money, you´re earning yourself some more by renting out your gear...

Many movies can now be made because the designated DP will bring his HD cam.
Not saying this will make the movie "professional" or good, but it will at least get the film DONE.
 
So I guess you don´t own a Mac or PC to edit your showreel or a short you produced yourself?
i don't really make shorts, i make features, and others pay for my editing time so i don't have to flip burgers. :-)
Or feature film directors selling out to ad agencys paaahh...
commercials are way closer to drama than to corporate video. and they pay much better, which i don't deny is a factor.
Or Lars van Trier shooting porn
he never did.
And go talk to some older DPs, they will tell you stories about films only being made because they brought their russian S16 with them...
they'll tell you everything and anything. i was a focus puller for years you know. :-)
But maybe you are really one of the lucky few only doing big jobs
not at all, i've done a lot of shi*ty work in the film industry over the years. without owning much gear and with the goal of breaking in, not to make money. i only do fun and interesting things now though, occasionally also well paid.
but then maybe this isn´t the place for you here afterall...
yeah, the d90 is such a big topic over at cinematography.com. content is king.

/matt
 
Why are you so desperately excluding the DP from this equation?
who says i am? i'm just trying to prevent others from including him. there's nothing wrong with owning a camera but it's not even close to being a prerequisite for calling yourself a professional.

And you are not saving the producer money, you´re earning yourself some more by renting out your gear
so where was the money saved then? the idea was that new technology in new times would make it cheaper to make movies. besides i find that this is rarely the case. dp's with gear often even get less per day including gear since they're usually contaced by producers with small budgets.

Many movies can now be made because the designated DP will bring his HD cam
sure, but that's beside the point. the point is that most are done by dp's who don't own a camera.

/matt
 
Back
Top