When is enough, enough? A vent.

Zak Forsman said:
let's not go down the road of calling people stupid because they prefer one acquisition format over another. seriously.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they're stupid for having a preference, I don't think somebody is stupid because they prefer pepperoni over sausage on their pizza... but I do think they'd be dumb for not trying both before making a judgement about one or the other. :)
 
Nah. This isn't a film vs digital debate.

I'm just wondering how such momentous advancements in cinematography technology is being met with equally momentous ignorance. It's as if there is a vastly great number of people who did not learn from the past, or care not to value that knowledge anymore.

I guess for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, huh? Launch 1,000 great cameras and get 980 people who aren't happy with it or who even know how to use it properly, with lighting, framing and movement, to tell a story.

:)
 
There will ALWAYS be ignorance, and even more so as the bar to get the great equipment lowers and anybody can purchase it, those numbers will increase exponentially. The problem for many people, myself included, is I don't have a foundation in working with a lot of older tech, including film. I was doing audio for films a few years ago and decided to buy a D90 to play with and got hooked on shooting. Then I bought a 7D, then I bought an AF100. What I realized early on after reading A TON of books on cinematography and lighting is that there are two aspects of filmmaking; technical and creative. We see a lot of people get hung up on the technical side and let it overshadow the creative side. THIS to me is where the biggest problem comes. And I say this being a HIGHLY technical person as a lot of you know.

With a higher sensitive camera it doesn't mean no light, it means lights with lower power. I can use a flashlight behind a prop to do something really cool that I couldn't do with say an HVX before. But this is from experience and my own education on lighting. Higher dynamic range doesn't mean having the actors faces in the dark looks good, lighting still needs to be balanced properly for what you are doing. When these people get their ISO1600 14 stop cameras one day, they're gonna see a noise free image with descent exposure that just doesn't look right and THEN the lightbulb will turn on. You can try and tell people all you want to be happy with what they have, but it's a technical comment. The problem is, from a technical level, they see how the new tech is better, but from a creative level, they're not there yet. They see these wonderful videos people make and think that it's the camera doing that. When in fact, it is the cinematographer who is doing that. Experience will teach them, let them learn.

I watched people do this in the audio world after people went from 4 track recorders on tape to recording on the computer. Sure, the computer had less noise, but it did nothing when they were overdriving the computer and clipping digitally :) They just didn't understand. Or heck, even mixing! A bazillion dollar ProTools system from Digidesign can sound worse than a mix through garageband, and I've heard it!

Now, the only point I have to complain about is size Postmaster :P Since I started with a small camera, I like shooting with a smaller footprint. I cannot afford a full steadicam system with vest and arm so I use the Blackbird Stabilizer. I also do things with a monopod putting my cameras in some great places, like this shot of me:

http://www.beatdownboogie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Screen-shot-2010-12-08-at-8.50.48-AM.png

So I can understand when people don't want to use a 30 pound system! :) But that's because everyone has their own needs. If someone wants to use a very heavy setup, I don't think down on them, they need what they need.
 
They only complain because they are blame shifting. "it's not me that can't get a good shot, it's_________________". It's ego preservation, that's all.

However, there are some who simply don't know enough to know anything, if that makes sense. It's like looking at a frame from a film, it looks realistic to those who don't know that the set was much brighter than normal, that certain lights were placed in certain ways to accentuate things, that windows were gelled or that the sun coming in the window wasn't real at all. They just don't know what they are seeing and although there are sites like this that have a lot of info from helpful people, just don't explain these things in the detail that is needed for someone who has never seen it before to understand.

I guess it's like if you don't know anything about cars and your car breaks down. Where to you start to look if you want to fix it? If you didn't know that a spark plug was *called* a spark plug, how would you know to search for it?
 
Erik Olson said:
Many of us, fresh from film school shared our open hostility toward video, which, in the 20th century, did not shoot at variable frame rates or with progressive sensors.
Click to expand...

You didn't need to be a film school grad to hate video... I tried using reel to reel 1/2 video tape to see if that would be an 'acceptable' substitute for 16mm film... not even close... and when it came to editing... rainbowbright cuts because I could get access to really 'good' video equipment... Then later on, in image processing... the insanity of 'rectangular' pixels... will unless you tweaked the horizontal scan digitization timing... retangular pixels may have made sense to someone somewhere, but it really made no sense in image analysis.... (for a comparison... the 6/9/12/18 bit 'processor words' disappeared over a 5-8 year period after the computer industry 'standardized' on 8 bit quantizing of bits...)...

It just took 25 or so years for the digital imaging systems to get on a better 'path', that included 'cheap'...
 
In the end Ryan, you just have to take a deep breathe and realize what separates the men from the boys. The art of cinematography has always been molding the image, and telling a story with the image. With light, composition, movement, etc. etc. If people are too busy complaining why they can't shoot at 125,000 iso clean, that's where it will stay out. them complaining, while you're out creating stories. The merits of high iso shooting to a certain extent are there. much more detail brought up in camera in the shadows, needing less light to mold your image, thus making it easier to make it more natural looking. and you don't have too cook your talent.

high speed work intense sensitivities are a huge necessity. that 125,000 iso shooting a few thousands frames a second will def be handy...

but I think people need to start learning about iso ratings and where the camera works best at too. and learn that just because you can, doesn't mean you should, but if you really need it on that miserable shooting day, you have it and it can save a shot, scene or whatever. The major issue I think is the inexperience, and finding out a little bit of information and thinking you've got all the answers for it already. The industry is constantly changing with a lot of information that isn't accurate. It's a constant education for one self, and you never stop learning, and things are always changing. And while there is so much more to look forward to, the principles and foundations of our profession still have baring on everything we do till this day. I'm thankful everyday for all the tools that are available today that would have taken me an eternity of apprenticeship to ever have any access to.

People will learn the easy way or the hard way. In the end, the proof is in the pudding. ie your work, no matter the camera, iso you shot it at, or whether you lit it with a candle or a 18k hmi.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I'm just wondering how such momentous advancements in cinematography technology is being met with equally momentous ignorance.
Click to expand...

The same thing happened in the 'small print' industry in the late 80's early 90's... everyone could turn their Mac or Dos/Windows box into a full featured publishing house... well, except for the color calibration... except for the 'layout/design' capability... etc...

What happened is certain types of businesses disappeared, but the 'internet' has had more impact on paper publishing than the self-publishing desktop user...
 
I came across someone Ryan, talking about shallow DOF and how much they hate how overused it is. Frankly I havent seen a feature film in a theatre yet where I thought it was overused, but anyway (I think they needed to add some context). Someone then made a point about something, and then it was clear that the person hating on the overused shallow DOF was repeating something someone had said to him and had no idea about what the alternate vehicles were that could be used. I think part of the issue is when people hear something on forums from a lot of people - they stop caring about the source and more about the popularity of opinion. Hence, at present theres seems this whole, "we got our extreme shallow DOF now, we just need the sensitivity". Now this is great if your a manufacturer out there and you can position yourself to create products within this realm - Nokton anyone?

But seriously Ryan, dont sweat it. The cream always rises as they say.
 
That only happens with cream. Here in the video/film business, you tend to fail upwards.

And I can name two shows and one movie off the top of my head that used too much shallow DOF, either throughout the whole series or in specific shots. Sherlock (BBC), Fringe (FOX), and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. But I'm also willing to concede that my opinion of what's too much use of shallow DOF is my own opinion and others may have liked its usage.
 
Although I will say, JJ Abrams really did overuse the lens flare in Star Trek :) Maybe that's why lens flares aren't a big topic!
 
Lord. Don't get me started.

I heard a guy complain 3 days ago on set that his camera, the 57D90mkIV was too heavy... yes. Too heavy.
 
Uh, wow. I really can't believe that. I don't understand. Not that I have experience with the F3. But, how dark of a room was it? And how would there be the budget for an F3 but not even a mere china ball?
I was reading that and just didn't know what to think.
 
A 2.0!!!!!!!!! @ ISO6400 !!!!!!!! I lit room w/ my cell phone as a flash light on a 2:8!!!!
 
Marc Villafan said:
Uh, wow. I really can't believe that. I don't understand. Not that I have experience with the F3. But, how dark of a room was it? And how would there be the budget for an F3 but not even a mere china ball?
I was reading that and just didn't know what to think.
Click to expand...

Yeah if I can get a decent shot in my dim basement at +7 gain on a Canon HFS200's sensor.....I'd hate to see what shot the F3 couldn't pull off at 2.0 +18!!!! ....
the abyss itself?
 
Ryan congrats on mod status! As for current ISO's, we could only be so lucky. Camera's have come a long way since I bought a Canon GL1 in 2002.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top