Video sharp? Film.. not sharp?!
- Thread starter Igelkott Film
- Start date
I'm sorry, I just stumbled over this thread which already touched so many topics and common missconcepts, that I had to write something IMHO.
I just wish I could rule out all the little mistakes I've typed into the post during my rant
rogar-BigGrin(DBG) - but I hope it's still well understandable.
Adding even more confusion to these complex topics would definitely not help...
I just wish I could rule out all the little mistakes I've typed into the post during my rant
rogar-BigGrin(DBG) - but I hope it's still well understandable. Adding even more confusion to these complex topics would definitely not help...
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Great write up georgl. Thanks for sharing that knowledge.
Frank
Frank
arriscan does 6k oversampling to get 4k of real detail from film. that detail can be discerned by a viewer with 20/20 vision sitting one screen diagonal away. closer seating requires higher resolution to test limits of 20/20 vision acuity. 4k of unaliased resolution (that's why 6k oversampling) is the sufficient resolution for contemporary s35 film stocks and best lens/camera/Digital Intermediate chain. when 2k scanning/DI is used (most projectors are still 2k), the quality can be matched by eg. Alexa. Roger Deakins claims Alexa matches 2k film to DI easily. Alexa uses 3k/2k oversampling, which supposedly (see Deakins) outperforms Red 4k+ sensors in real detail. Photochemical workflow of 35mm film cannot match 2k. One of the few releases recently done that way was "Inception". But this movie was also shot in 65mm.
all the science behind that is in the Arri " 4k+ project" white paper to be found at their site.
all the science behind that is in the Arri " 4k+ project" white paper to be found at their site.
Last edited:
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
What you say is only trure for low-end, low-budget clients. Good agency art directors VERY much care, as do film studios, etc.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
And film studios continue to release crap very often that looks amazing but is absolutely boring and repetitive. Having great equipment at their disposal has done nothing to enhance the quality of many of their products. And the same can be said about music as well. A $200 guitar in the right hands sounds WAY BETTER than a $20k guitar in someone else's hands. That extra bit of quality means nothing if the user isn't even pushing the artistic and technical value in the first place. Would a $50k lens be wasted on me? Absolutely! I am the first person to admit I have a lot to learn and a long way to go. If my films were in million dollar budgets then I am sure my outlook would be different.
A year ago I helped put together a budget for a feature film that was intended for television broadcast. It was HEAVILY action oriented, campy, Sci-Fi that would have been a fun project. The investors had us write up two quotes, one if we went film and one if we went digital (Red One M at the time). For the level of production and the investment they wanted to make, I wanted to shoot Red and spend the extra money on talent. They wanted us to shoot film and use less talent. I removed myself from the project, which of course, failed to begin anyways (for many reasons). While I do love the results of film, I felt the benefit given our budget was better spent getting something better in front of the camera. Given their experience was with film only, they didn't want to take the risk at the end of the day. They didn't see the benefit or advantage. A year later, their own feature went straight to DVD and 1.5M they spent on it is FAR from being recouped for their project. They used amazing film equipment on their feature, but, they completely missed the mark. And they had some pretty impressive resumes from work they did in the 80s, and they still try and make films like it is the 80s (including their sound tracks).
I think people need to realize there are many different varieties of filmmakers here. From the absolute beginner to the seasoned veteran. Trying to explain why a $50k lens makes sense for probably 90% of the people here is NEVER going to make sense if that's not the world of filmmaking that you are in. There is a gradient of needs here. I feel fully confident that I am FAR from being better than the Canon lenses I use. Not that a cine lens couldn't make certain things easier, but trust me when I tell you, racking focus, color correction and lens breathing are the least of my concerns at the moment. I've got a lot to learn and there are a significant number of other things I could use my money on then renting lenses and carrying insurance that would give me a better return on my investment in my final product. Instead of buying better lenses for my 7D, I bought a new camera instead, AF100. I definitely know I made the right decision.
I also look at the situation this way, would I rather shoot a $50k lens and a $2k camera or a $50k camera and a $2k lens. I'd be going for the Epic with Canon glass first for sure. However, if you are quibbling over $52k this closely, I'd argue you shouldn't be buying either yet. Get an F3, get decent glass, and be within your means without buying unbalanced equipment. Don't let one part of your gear me superior or one part be inferior.
But, that's just my opinion.
A year ago I helped put together a budget for a feature film that was intended for television broadcast. It was HEAVILY action oriented, campy, Sci-Fi that would have been a fun project. The investors had us write up two quotes, one if we went film and one if we went digital (Red One M at the time). For the level of production and the investment they wanted to make, I wanted to shoot Red and spend the extra money on talent. They wanted us to shoot film and use less talent. I removed myself from the project, which of course, failed to begin anyways (for many reasons). While I do love the results of film, I felt the benefit given our budget was better spent getting something better in front of the camera. Given their experience was with film only, they didn't want to take the risk at the end of the day. They didn't see the benefit or advantage. A year later, their own feature went straight to DVD and 1.5M they spent on it is FAR from being recouped for their project. They used amazing film equipment on their feature, but, they completely missed the mark. And they had some pretty impressive resumes from work they did in the 80s, and they still try and make films like it is the 80s (including their sound tracks).
I think people need to realize there are many different varieties of filmmakers here. From the absolute beginner to the seasoned veteran. Trying to explain why a $50k lens makes sense for probably 90% of the people here is NEVER going to make sense if that's not the world of filmmaking that you are in. There is a gradient of needs here. I feel fully confident that I am FAR from being better than the Canon lenses I use. Not that a cine lens couldn't make certain things easier, but trust me when I tell you, racking focus, color correction and lens breathing are the least of my concerns at the moment. I've got a lot to learn and there are a significant number of other things I could use my money on then renting lenses and carrying insurance that would give me a better return on my investment in my final product. Instead of buying better lenses for my 7D, I bought a new camera instead, AF100. I definitely know I made the right decision.
I also look at the situation this way, would I rather shoot a $50k lens and a $2k camera or a $50k camera and a $2k lens. I'd be going for the Epic with Canon glass first for sure. However, if you are quibbling over $52k this closely, I'd argue you shouldn't be buying either yet. Get an F3, get decent glass, and be within your means without buying unbalanced equipment. Don't let one part of your gear me superior or one part be inferior.
But, that's just my opinion.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
+1....Budgets are where the difference of opinion REALLY kicks in. For instance if I could afford to have $1000 dollar mics in my music room, I'd probably be able to say the nuances are worth it...but for now a decent condenser mic that is 90% of what the more expensive ones are is FINE by me. It's the SONG that matters or the STORY in narrative films - AS long as you take care and pride and have some talent - the other @#@t won't matter to the audience. I know there's a bunch of music references, but the costs of the technology vary just as much BELIEVE me.
Nirvana's BLEACH was recorded for $600 - GREAT record. El Mariachi was made for dirt - GREAT movie
I think a lot of people including myself could use a bit more of that RObert Rodriguez attitude...use what you HAVE and MAKE it work!!
Rolf Silber
Veteran
The confusion comes when things get mixed up: The question why - for instance - Zeiss primes are what they are and why they will stay as expensive and still getting used for very pragmatic reasons ..... and the question of where we ourselves are as film makers concerning our extremely different budgets, stories, genres ...
I think no one seriously expects a low-budget filmmaker to compromise his artistic work for technical reasons.
But there are some very common missconceptions:
Film vs. Digital cost
I don't know the details of pulpfiction007 example but when a 1.5M$ project has to cut talent to make the jump from RED to 35mm, something wen't terribly wrong. There are various aspects that influence the cost of the whole imaging chain (from rental cost to archival) and there are various ways to deal with a RED (archival, processing, color correction on the directors Macbook...) or 35mm (short ends, Arri 35 rental, 1080p telecine + processing deal) the "cheap" way. Generally it can be said that Super16 is about the price of HD - 35mm a little bit beyond that - we're not talking about millions, we're talking about costs that are significantly below other expenses even on small features.
But nevertheless, producers/executive make a general assumption and cut costs on any project-size level - they force 2k workflows, 3perf instead of 4perf anamorphic, Genesis instead of film, RED instead of Genesis, HDSLR instead of RED - the "race to the bottom". I've heard of one project with the Alexa (which costs >1000$/day) were they DP was forced to shot Rec709 instead of Log (compromising DR because they want to save a few min conversion time/day). And does it really save any project from making a loss? What about making a loss by creating another TV-series that looks like cheap reality-TV? Was it really the additional cost of 35mm that made the mentioned project a flop? What about spending 1.55M$ instead of 1.5M$?
There is a deal with ARRI (equipment rental and film processing) and Kodak (film stock) that allows to work with 65mm instead of 35mm with the same cost per foot (so the only real difference is the additional film length because 5perf vs. 4/3perf).
No, IMHO, this is not a democratic revolution, it's an attempt to further maximize profit on the back of production standards. New technologies which widen the possibilities of our craft are a good thing - being pushed into it by people who don't even understand the technology, neither the art is a step backwards.
Prosumer vs. Professional Equipment
There is a fundamental difference between the professional equipment (Panavision, ARRI, Zeiss, Cooke...) and the "prosumer" stuff that broke into the world of filmmaking (large-sensor-cams, rehoused/rebranded consumer lenses...). For most of us, there is not really a choice, the prosumer technology allows us to recreate the look/workflow of professional equipment to a certain extend and renting a Panavision is simply no option. But some brands try to break into the prestigious film-market with either prosumer hardware or hardware that wasn't meant for professional filmmaking in the first place. George Lucas forced DPs to work with a broadcast-camera (with b/w-viewfinder) on a >100M$-film, because "film is dead" ? Steven Soderbergh making the ugliest movies of his career because he is "non-Hollywood" - he is part of the revolution! And David Fincher doesn't reach the technical quality he had when filming in the mid 90s (I just saw "Se7en" shortly after "Social Network" again, SN was his first film and "Se7en" his Magnus Opum when he had more money and experience, right - no wait ;-)?
Sometimes this prosumer-technology is "good enough" but the survival of the professional equipment depends on our appreciation. Trust me, I've worked in areas where there is no such thing as professional, specialized equipment anymore - they use consumer stuff and "make it work" - no fun...
Appreciate that the high-end-market is dominated by companies which don't even have shareholder-value, don't decrease production cost with every generation and try to fool customers with cheap marketing tricks and hundreds new features, while 95% of them are useless (and don't get me started on the precious high-technology jobs)! We already see effects by agressive marketing of competition (that's the bad thing, successful lower quality competition lowers standards of high-quality products/brands/manufacturers in the long-run as well), why does Zeiss rehouse consumer ZF-lenses (which were designed to meet the production standards of Cosina, not Zeiss)? In Germany, they still admit that the ALEXA is not an 35mm-replacement, it has it's advantages, but the resolution is not beyond Super16 - impossible in the US-market, because RED markets itself as superior to 35mm! What's next? More "K" with worse IQ, singapurian assembly by ARRI as well?
These tools are not so expensive because they make more profit or the "Hollywood-System" wants to keep indies with less money out.
Do these professional systems automatically make better images? No. Do they help? Yes. Everybody is talking about talentless people with over-engineered equipment they cannot use. I could care less, give them crap equipment and they still make crap images. But what's about the people with talent, which are compromised by the technology they're using? Isn't that the saddest thing? "2001" on 35mm and cheap f/x with visible strings? Don't tell me it wouldn't have affect the success and legacy of this movie!
We should be happy by the additional options that today's equipment gives us but, whenever possible, should not be satisfied with "good enough", "couldn't tell the difference on my TV", "looks nearly like film"... and go with professional equipment. That's not how technical progress was made or classics were done.
Robert Rodriguez is a good example, he switched digital, now actually makes more expensive movies! Do they look better? What about his friend Tarantino? I think he "matured" as an overall filmmaker in a way Rodriguez' didn't, IMHO - thanks to Robert Richardson and sticking to 35mm - got his films less profitable or more "Hollwood" because of that? I don't think so.
Be happy that we're living in a time with this vast amount of technical choices! But fight for making them available! Appreciate it!
But there are some very common missconceptions:
Film vs. Digital cost
I don't know the details of pulpfiction007 example but when a 1.5M$ project has to cut talent to make the jump from RED to 35mm, something wen't terribly wrong. There are various aspects that influence the cost of the whole imaging chain (from rental cost to archival) and there are various ways to deal with a RED (archival, processing, color correction on the directors Macbook...) or 35mm (short ends, Arri 35 rental, 1080p telecine + processing deal) the "cheap" way. Generally it can be said that Super16 is about the price of HD - 35mm a little bit beyond that - we're not talking about millions, we're talking about costs that are significantly below other expenses even on small features.
But nevertheless, producers/executive make a general assumption and cut costs on any project-size level - they force 2k workflows, 3perf instead of 4perf anamorphic, Genesis instead of film, RED instead of Genesis, HDSLR instead of RED - the "race to the bottom". I've heard of one project with the Alexa (which costs >1000$/day) were they DP was forced to shot Rec709 instead of Log (compromising DR because they want to save a few min conversion time/day). And does it really save any project from making a loss? What about making a loss by creating another TV-series that looks like cheap reality-TV? Was it really the additional cost of 35mm that made the mentioned project a flop? What about spending 1.55M$ instead of 1.5M$?
There is a deal with ARRI (equipment rental and film processing) and Kodak (film stock) that allows to work with 65mm instead of 35mm with the same cost per foot (so the only real difference is the additional film length because 5perf vs. 4/3perf).
No, IMHO, this is not a democratic revolution, it's an attempt to further maximize profit on the back of production standards. New technologies which widen the possibilities of our craft are a good thing - being pushed into it by people who don't even understand the technology, neither the art is a step backwards.
Prosumer vs. Professional Equipment
There is a fundamental difference between the professional equipment (Panavision, ARRI, Zeiss, Cooke...) and the "prosumer" stuff that broke into the world of filmmaking (large-sensor-cams, rehoused/rebranded consumer lenses...). For most of us, there is not really a choice, the prosumer technology allows us to recreate the look/workflow of professional equipment to a certain extend and renting a Panavision is simply no option. But some brands try to break into the prestigious film-market with either prosumer hardware or hardware that wasn't meant for professional filmmaking in the first place. George Lucas forced DPs to work with a broadcast-camera (with b/w-viewfinder) on a >100M$-film, because "film is dead" ? Steven Soderbergh making the ugliest movies of his career because he is "non-Hollywood" - he is part of the revolution! And David Fincher doesn't reach the technical quality he had when filming in the mid 90s (I just saw "Se7en" shortly after "Social Network" again, SN was his first film and "Se7en" his Magnus Opum when he had more money and experience, right - no wait ;-)?
Sometimes this prosumer-technology is "good enough" but the survival of the professional equipment depends on our appreciation. Trust me, I've worked in areas where there is no such thing as professional, specialized equipment anymore - they use consumer stuff and "make it work" - no fun...
Appreciate that the high-end-market is dominated by companies which don't even have shareholder-value, don't decrease production cost with every generation and try to fool customers with cheap marketing tricks and hundreds new features, while 95% of them are useless (and don't get me started on the precious high-technology jobs)! We already see effects by agressive marketing of competition (that's the bad thing, successful lower quality competition lowers standards of high-quality products/brands/manufacturers in the long-run as well), why does Zeiss rehouse consumer ZF-lenses (which were designed to meet the production standards of Cosina, not Zeiss)? In Germany, they still admit that the ALEXA is not an 35mm-replacement, it has it's advantages, but the resolution is not beyond Super16 - impossible in the US-market, because RED markets itself as superior to 35mm! What's next? More "K" with worse IQ, singapurian assembly by ARRI as well?
These tools are not so expensive because they make more profit or the "Hollywood-System" wants to keep indies with less money out.
Do these professional systems automatically make better images? No. Do they help? Yes. Everybody is talking about talentless people with over-engineered equipment they cannot use. I could care less, give them crap equipment and they still make crap images. But what's about the people with talent, which are compromised by the technology they're using? Isn't that the saddest thing? "2001" on 35mm and cheap f/x with visible strings? Don't tell me it wouldn't have affect the success and legacy of this movie!
We should be happy by the additional options that today's equipment gives us but, whenever possible, should not be satisfied with "good enough", "couldn't tell the difference on my TV", "looks nearly like film"... and go with professional equipment. That's not how technical progress was made or classics were done.
Robert Rodriguez is a good example, he switched digital, now actually makes more expensive movies! Do they look better? What about his friend Tarantino? I think he "matured" as an overall filmmaker in a way Rodriguez' didn't, IMHO - thanks to Robert Richardson and sticking to 35mm - got his films less profitable or more "Hollwood" because of that? I don't think so.
Be happy that we're living in a time with this vast amount of technical choices! But fight for making them available! Appreciate it!
Last edited:
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
The problem here is making movies is a business for large studios, and regardless of the art of culture of making movies, it's that bottom line that drives the decisions. Rightfully so, I understand this as no one wants to lose millions of dollars on a flop. However, it's really disheartening when you go to a distributor with your film and the first question they ask is "What movie is your movie like, and how much money did that movie make?" Or "You don't have a good lead male actor, and we don't want a lead female" without even seeing the film or the script. I wish this was hypothetical, but it isn't, it is actual.
Why do I bring this up? Because whatever "Hollywood" is, it's a lot of things. It's a lot of old business methods, new business methods, but the last thing it has been lately is innovative. Look at the amount of movies over the last few years that are either a remake, or a reboot of already existing ideas. Sure, there are originals in there, but it amazes me the quantity of remakes going on. I can understand their viewpoints, this movie did well the first time, let's make money off that again. Maybe I am too young to know better, but back in the 80s it felt like a lot more original content was being developed.
You want to take this a step further? There was no internet back in the 80s, people didn't download movies that were ripped from the theatre. You didn't have netflix or red box which is very inexpensive methods of watching films. You had video rental stores, but the videos they rented were expensive for them to buy and the money still existed going back to the studios. I'm not saying I think the amount of money the film studios were making was right or wrong, but the result of it was they were willing to take more chances it seems on ideas.
Look at the music industry, the same thing happened there. With the decrease in revenue from the single song sales and not full album/cd/cassette releases, people I've spoken with in the industry say the studios don't take as many chances anymore on artists. The amazing artists don't build them the profit buffer for the chancy new sound. Now, I am not saying their profits were right or wrong, but that the model changed for them and so their practices did as well.
I see this happening in the movie industry. At least, from the investors we've talked with, they are afraid to take chances on many things that aren't proven a billion times over in the industry. When we priced out using film for our action film, it was significantly more expensive including all the hardware to backup our work safely. However, this was about a $250k budget, so definitely a smaller film. But, in our example, we had to chose between film or talent in my opinion. The race to the bottom is what happens when "good enough" technology starts to exist. Unfortunately, those of us who care more about the image are typically in the minority. I bought my parents an 720pHD television last year, I go home to visit and my dad is watching basketball on the regular 480 channel which looked HORRID. While he likes the 720p image, I guess he just doesn't care as much to remember to watch it that way. To him, the content is important. I guess growing up with rabbit ears on your television, he's just happy he doesn't have to deal with that.
What I can honestly say is that what I don't want is to sacrifice my artistic vision for a technical limitation. I can handle lower resolution, but what I absolutely cannot stand is jello in my film, or moire, or bad aliasing, or chunky codec noise like the horrible black blobs that our local cable transmits in the blacks. I don't want anything that is going to detract the audience from the story. I don't want to make artistic decisions to work around these. While the Red One has been out for a few years, that's still not a long time. I think we are at the cusp of digital actually moving into a point where it could replace film. But, it's not going to happen overnight. And, people will still use film regardless because it is different. While EVERY photographer I know shoots digital, there are those that still develop film. While many professional recording studios use digital, there are those that still use tape. Digital might make things easier, but it will never be exactly the same. Not to say one is better than the other because one we are familiar with since we were young, but cost and convenience tend to win out.
And I agree, I am happy we are living in a time of vast technical choices!
Why do I bring this up? Because whatever "Hollywood" is, it's a lot of things. It's a lot of old business methods, new business methods, but the last thing it has been lately is innovative. Look at the amount of movies over the last few years that are either a remake, or a reboot of already existing ideas. Sure, there are originals in there, but it amazes me the quantity of remakes going on. I can understand their viewpoints, this movie did well the first time, let's make money off that again. Maybe I am too young to know better, but back in the 80s it felt like a lot more original content was being developed.
You want to take this a step further? There was no internet back in the 80s, people didn't download movies that were ripped from the theatre. You didn't have netflix or red box which is very inexpensive methods of watching films. You had video rental stores, but the videos they rented were expensive for them to buy and the money still existed going back to the studios. I'm not saying I think the amount of money the film studios were making was right or wrong, but the result of it was they were willing to take more chances it seems on ideas.
Look at the music industry, the same thing happened there. With the decrease in revenue from the single song sales and not full album/cd/cassette releases, people I've spoken with in the industry say the studios don't take as many chances anymore on artists. The amazing artists don't build them the profit buffer for the chancy new sound. Now, I am not saying their profits were right or wrong, but that the model changed for them and so their practices did as well.
I see this happening in the movie industry. At least, from the investors we've talked with, they are afraid to take chances on many things that aren't proven a billion times over in the industry. When we priced out using film for our action film, it was significantly more expensive including all the hardware to backup our work safely. However, this was about a $250k budget, so definitely a smaller film. But, in our example, we had to chose between film or talent in my opinion. The race to the bottom is what happens when "good enough" technology starts to exist. Unfortunately, those of us who care more about the image are typically in the minority. I bought my parents an 720pHD television last year, I go home to visit and my dad is watching basketball on the regular 480 channel which looked HORRID. While he likes the 720p image, I guess he just doesn't care as much to remember to watch it that way. To him, the content is important. I guess growing up with rabbit ears on your television, he's just happy he doesn't have to deal with that.
What I can honestly say is that what I don't want is to sacrifice my artistic vision for a technical limitation. I can handle lower resolution, but what I absolutely cannot stand is jello in my film, or moire, or bad aliasing, or chunky codec noise like the horrible black blobs that our local cable transmits in the blacks. I don't want anything that is going to detract the audience from the story. I don't want to make artistic decisions to work around these. While the Red One has been out for a few years, that's still not a long time. I think we are at the cusp of digital actually moving into a point where it could replace film. But, it's not going to happen overnight. And, people will still use film regardless because it is different. While EVERY photographer I know shoots digital, there are those that still develop film. While many professional recording studios use digital, there are those that still use tape. Digital might make things easier, but it will never be exactly the same. Not to say one is better than the other because one we are familiar with since we were young, but cost and convenience tend to win out.
And I agree, I am happy we are living in a time of vast technical choices!
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Sometimes film looks scary bad.
O.K. this is from a DVD, telecined from 35mm, but the noise in the lights and midtones looks so bad, if I wouldn't know better, I would say it was shot with an 35mm adapter.
Frank
O.K. this is from a DVD, telecined from 35mm, but the noise in the lights and midtones looks so bad, if I wouldn't know better, I would say it was shot with an 35mm adapter.
Frank
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Complicated. Here I am sitting with a project for German TV. 90 minutes, prime time. Me an my DoP want to shoot digital. Why? Because we want to be multi-cam and we do not want to be restricted as much as we would be with film. Don't get me wrong. I LOVE film. I have been sitting with friends years ago in the editing room in front of our Steenbeck's and after we had a special cigarette, we would lick the negative material to find out if we could find out what material it was by licking it .... days long gone... ORWO tasted terrible, btw....
Still I know (maybe I it's because I want to know it so dearly) that the texture of film is much, much better than anything digital can give us. For the moment at least. Fine. Even my producers would be happy if we decided to shoot film. Sitting in the middle of 2k land, producing for TV, film all of a sudden is cheaper than shooting digital with a big sensor digital cam and the appropriate lenses! So: What shall I do? Decide for better look? Or decide for the better story-telling because we are more free and moveable with digital because we can go multi-cam and I have lot of more freedom in the editing room?
From the stand point of photography: Clearly film. From the standpoint of story telling: Not so clear.
Still I know (maybe I it's because I want to know it so dearly) that the texture of film is much, much better than anything digital can give us. For the moment at least. Fine. Even my producers would be happy if we decided to shoot film. Sitting in the middle of 2k land, producing for TV, film all of a sudden is cheaper than shooting digital with a big sensor digital cam and the appropriate lenses! So: What shall I do? Decide for better look? Or decide for the better story-telling because we are more free and moveable with digital because we can go multi-cam and I have lot of more freedom in the editing room?
From the stand point of photography: Clearly film. From the standpoint of story telling: Not so clear.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
LOL! You should attend at "Wetten daß" with that film licking number Rolf. The "special cigarette" may be a problem in public TV though. :laugh:
Frak
Frak
Igelkott Film
Well-known member
Easy!
Decide for the better story-telling.
A film is better told then beautiful.
Decide for the better story-telling.
A film is better told then beautiful.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Mind you - what kind of accident I would have then...... choked by Fuji negative... ;-)
Rolf Silber
Veteran
A film is better told then beautiful.
This would be an interesting subject to start a discussion.... not here though...
pulpfiction007
Veteran
This is all true I'm sure...you definitely know the business very well (I don't know it at all!) My point is more for the people with little to no money that have a great deal of talent. Showcase that talent NOW! Don't wait for someone to back you or some dream scenario or go beyond reason to get things you can't afford - Get the best camera FOR THE MONEY YOU HAVE, get the best talent AVAILABLE TO YOU NOW (students/local theatre people, etc.) and make your movie! The technology is there to do it....you can even fail a few times when you aren't in debt up to your ears. The key is to just do it with the most knowledge/ talent/gear/passion that is at your disposal. If you can shoot film - do it! If you can get a RED - go for it! If you can get an AF100 - fantastic! If you can get a used HVX - do that! That is all I'm saying. The nuances of one super expensive lens vs a merely expensive one are beyond me just like the nuances of super expensive mic pre amps vs merely expensive ones...that's all for people with a lot more money and a lot more time(and it has it's place in the fine cinema/hollywood world- everyone wants the best they can get- within profitability of course)
My opinion is from an admittedly narrow point of view - that of the guys/gals who just want to make a movie - not make a BILLIon dollars. My opinion to them is go learn shoot and make that dream a reality - whatever the budget happens to be!
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I agree. I'll admit I did wait for the AF100 before starting my own personal project, but, it didn't mean I wasn't doing anything. I used what I could afford and did other projects I was interested in and continued to hone my skills. But yeah, don't be one of those people always waiting for the next best thing, or you'll get nothing done as there will ALWAYS be something better just around the corner.