Where's the most filmmaking going on?

On India, the population is: 1.324 billion, my home Canada is 36.29 million, my neighbour to the south the U.S.A. 323.1 million. Do the math... sure there is an abundance of "???" out there but it is probably relative to the above numbers.
One of the biggest Bollywood stars has been taking the USA by storm in the past couple years, Pryanka Chopra.
I must say that when I lived in Vancouver, several of my friends worked on Bollywood films when they shot second unit over there. Making the movie was a movie, and provided many many stories over beers. Kinda like badges, "Permits?? We don't need permits!" and that was just to start with......
 
Run&Gun said:
That's because no one that shoots REALLY wants to shoot on a cellphone. If I was in school and paying money to be in production classes, I'd want to use real equipment.

I get it. You can learn the basic fundamentals on almost anything, but you have to admit that there is something inspiring about using good equipment.
Click to expand...

Not even that, think of the small money it takes to get a still camera that shoots decent video, half of them have something but few of them do anything with it. As far as our equipment, it is all ENG stuff, no cinema stuff because it goes well beyond what we can attempt in two years.
 
Greg_E said:
That's the part I don't understand about the students in my department. Every one of them has a smartphone. Less than 3 per class are doing any sort of video work with any tool until they start using our equipment. A good 30% have something available in their grade schools and don't take advantage of it. Yet they come to us to teach them to have a passion in this line of work. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

I know a lot of people don't like him but Michael Rosenbaum's iPhone Millionaire book gives (very) basic technique and the fact that a modern smart phone can capture some "reasonable" video. Story telling, editing, story boarding, framing etc can all be learnt [to a point] using an iPhone. So why wouldn't they have at least experimented?

I would expect that 95% of any class to have tried doing something before taking the course. Normally you take a course because you are interested in a subject? Therefore have at least tried it.
 
Noel Evans said:
The first feature film was made in Australia, technically doesn't that then apply that the film industry started here first? We've been making films ever since...
Click to expand...

As this whilst they were all out on parole? :-)
Seriously, what was the film?
When/where was it made?
 
DPStewart said:
Yet back when an 8mm or 16mm film camera and film processing were what was required - almost everything I saw had some genuinely appealing element to it.
Click to expand...

Sre you sure you aren't remembering this with rose tinted glasses? I think the percentage of unwatchable stuff is always going to be really high, no matter the medium.
 
DBP said:
Sre you sure you aren't remembering this with rose tinted glasses? I think the percentage of unwatchable stuff is always going to be really high, no matter the medium.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree but.... 8/16mm film cost real money as did the developing so it was more the enthusiast who did it. They had more of an intrest in film and due to the costs were less likely to shoot crap. OTOH now "everyone" effectively has a free HD movie camera and with Facebook/youtube some where to very easily (and for free) "develop and distribute" in seconds.

So you are going to get a higher proportion of bad films now simply because the average person shooting now is not likely to have been doing it if it was still 8/16mm wet film.
 
jagraphics said:
I know a lot of people don't like him but Michael Rosenbaum's iPhone Millionaire book gives (very) basic technique and the fact that a modern smart phone can capture some "reasonable" video.
Click to expand...

Rosenblum(not Rosenbaum, he is an actor) is the devil and was the angel of death that ushered in the demise of quality and standards in TV news and other 'unscripted' programming that has since spread almost everywhere. Those of us that have broadcast backgrounds have been having to deal with the fallout of his $h!t for well over a decade.
 
Run&Gun said:
Rosenblum(not Rosenbaum, he is an actor) is the devil and was the angel of death that ushered in the demise of quality and standards in TV news and other 'unscripted' programming that has since spread almost everywhere. Those of us that have broadcast backgrounds have been having to deal with the fallout of his $h!t for well over a decade.
Click to expand...

you know that, I know that but you might expect that more than 3% of students might have picked up his inexpensive book on how to use an "iPhone" [smart phone] and at least experimented. That 97% start a course for which the have some basic equipment that they have not used is a bit of a worry.

You would have expected them to have at least produced a few videos they have edited and put on youtube if not , just got on their laptops.


BTW if Roseblum that bad why do so many [allegedly] professional companies appear to send people on his courses?
 
Last edited:
jagraphics said:
you know that, I know that but you might expect that more than 3% of students might have picked up his inexpensive book on how to use an "iPhone" [smart phone] and at least experimented. That 97% start a course for which the have some basic equipment that they have not used is a bit of a worry.

You would have expected them to have at least produced a few videos they have edited and put on youtube if not , just got on their laptops.


BTW if Roseblum that bad why do so many [allegedly] professional companies appear to send people on his courses?
Click to expand...

Money... To save money. Cut actual photographers and "real" cameras and have reporters and producers shoot with consumer/prosumer equipment(and now cell phones).

We used to think we were insulated from his BS in the network world when the local stations were flocking to his ideas. Now, a lot of the local stations finally realized how bad the idea was and went back, so to speak, but now it's worse at the network level than it ever was at the local level. One only needs to look to a major network that covers sports to see how bad it is. There should never be a reason in a "normal"(non-emergency) situation for a network reporter to be doing a LS on a cell phone.
 
Last edited:
Run&Gun said:
Money... To save money. Cut actual photographers and "real" cameras and have reporters and producers shoot with consumer/prosumer equipment(and now cell phones).

We used to think we were insulated from his BS in the network world when the local stations were flocking to his ideas. Now, a lot of the local stations finally realized how bad the idea was and went back, so to speak, but now it's worse at the network level than it ever was at the local level. One only needs to look to a major network that covers sports to see how bad it is. There should never be a reason in a "normal"(non-emergency) situation for a network reporter to be doing a LS on a cell phone.
Click to expand...


That makes sense.

I think the BBC tried the smart phone route a few years ago but discovered that, except in emergencies, it was not a good idea. The difference in quality was noticeable. They (the main TV channels in the UK ) seem to be doing more interviews by Skype/web cam etc rather than moving people to a studio or sending a crew. As you say COST is a major factor. The problem is that with "everyone" doing Skype and web chats most people are getting used to that lower quality.

For news programs it may be justified as you need it "now" and tomorrow is far too late and getting a crew there for an interview in the next 90 minutes is not going to happen* but for most other applications it is not a good idea.

*road traffic in the UK is a nightmare and journey times are rocketing and unpredictable time wise.

That said I would still have expected more than 3% of students to have done something before starting the course.
 
Networks in the USA use Skype Pro a lot, but most often they still send a crew with equipment so that it looks good. But lots of "See it, Send it" apps popping up at local levels which results in a bunch of vertical video clips on the news. I have also seen a reporter doing a story and interviews on a phone, but haven't seen that guy around so I bet it was a failure (was also about 5 years ago).

Now lets go forward to the point of 4k phone cameras, bluetooth mic interfaces, and decent add on lenses. I've been thinking of toying with a Beastgrip Pro cage with 37mm screw on lens adapter. Did you know Zeiss makes lenses for this and iphone direct? Beastgrip also have an EF mount "Depth Of Field" adapter for this system. Typical project the lens onto ground glass, use macro to focus camera on ground glass. There is a version 2 coming in October that has a finer grind on the glass and a few other refinements. Not sure how well the DOF thing works at f8, probably really requires fast lenses shot wide open. I missed the kickstarter on the new version, not sure I'll buy it at retail pricing.
 
I'm still amazed at the low numbers we have from students trying to do more than typical cats videos. We do have a couple, but they are certainly few and far between. Also get a few that are convinced they know everything, these are often the students that turn in the worst work with the most mistakes in simple things like white balance and focus and exposure. Our cameras have the few auto features disabled. They do have auto iris, but everything else is manual. Try to teach them about zebra and it goes way over their heads.

That said, we aren't in the lap of film maker city. But I'd still expect students to have something with a story to show. Sad when one of the faculty's teen daughters produces better content (with story) on her phone from the same assignments given to our students (with no help from her dad).
 
Greg_E said:
... Now lets go forward to the point of 4k phone cameras, bluetooth mic interfaces, and decent add on lenses. I've been thinking of toying with a Beastgrip Pro cage with 37mm screw on lens adapter. Did you know Zeiss makes lenses for this and iphone direct? Beastgrip also have an EF mount "Depth Of Field" adapter for this system. .
Click to expand...

You made me look. Guess what I have found? An iPhone film, released yesterday. And by an Academy Award winner, no less.

 
jagraphics said:
That makes sense.

I think the BBC tried the smart phone route a few years ago but discovered that, except in emergencies, it was not a good idea. The difference in quality was noticeable. They (the main TV channels in the UK ) seem to be doing more interviews by Skype/web cam etc rather than moving people to a studio or sending a crew. As you say COST is a major factor. The problem is that with "everyone" doing Skype and web chats most people are getting used to that lower quality.

For news programs it may be justified as you need it "now" and tomorrow is far too late and getting a crew there for an interview in the next 90 minutes is not going to happen* but for most other applications it is not a good idea.

*road traffic in the UK is a nightmare and journey times are rocketing and unpredictable time wise.

That said I would still have expected more than 3% of students to have done something before starting the course.
Click to expand...

I know we're getting off topic a bit, but I've lost work in the last few years to "Skype". I've actually been booked to do the live shot, then get a call back, "never mind, we're gonna do it over Skype". And I'm not talking about just "regular" people, some were national figures.

I just shake my head, because we have such high quality acquisition and display technology so readily available everywhere, and yet our quality standards are lower than they have ever been. The stuff I see on tv now would have gotten people fired not even a generation ago.
 
I was watching an Alan Dershowitz interview on a well known news channel where Dersh was not present in a studio - any studio - and talking into the built-in webcam on his laptop with absolutely hideous lighting and the 1994 quality digital phone sound (the famed gargling underwater facsimile). And this was in prime time and "on tape" (i.e., not live). You'd think he could afford a $50 external webcam, a cheap clip-on mic and a decent WiFI but, to quote John Belushi, nooooooooooooo ....
 
$50 will get a refurbished Microsoft Lifecam Studio which actually makes a really good image and the mics are decent.
 
I am still peeved that there's no (as far as I know), external webcam with a direct mic input. Prices overall are very reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top