YAyyyy:

"This post originally stated that the RED camera was made by Sony. We regret the error."

hahahahaha clearly not written by a filmmaker or cinematographer
 
Anything that gives broke would-be filmmakers the ability to make "real" movies is good. But the HD aesthetic isn't right for every story or for every storyteller.
Click to expand...

This is something which needs to be repeated again and again and again.
 
This is something which needs to be repeated again and again and again.
Click to expand...

Agreed and double agreed - but when you have so many indie directors (hypothesising themselves as indie producers chasing gimmicks) then the aesthetic and the storytelling often comes second.
 
David Jimerson said:
This is something which needs to be repeated again and again and again.
Click to expand...
Anything that gives broke would-be filmmakers the ability to make "real" movies is good. But the HD aesthetic isn't right for every story or for every storyteller.
Anything that gives broke would-be filmmakers the ability to make "real" movies is good. But the HD aesthetic isn't right for every story or for every storyteller.
Anything that gives broke would-be filmmakers the ability to make "real" movies is good. But the HD aesthetic isn't right for every story or for every storyteller.


...and the same repeatment should be used on this:
lawriejaffa said:
...but when you have so many indie directors (hypothesising themselves as indie producers chasing gimmicks) then the aesthetic and the storytelling often comes second.
Click to expand...
but when you have so many indie directors (hypothesising themselves as indie producers chasing gimmicks) then the aesthetic and the storytelling often comes second.
but when you have so many indie directors (hypothesising themselves as indie producers chasing gimmicks) then the aesthetic and the storytelling often comes second.
but when you have so many indie directors (hypothesising themselves as indie producers chasing gimmicks) then the aesthetic and the storytelling often comes second.
 
Erich Ocean said:
Which is why it matters. If the general public is finding the films to look the same (and not in a good way), that's a pretty good time to sit up and listen.
Click to expand...

He's far from the general public. He's a film reviewer, which means he sits and watches films one-after-another for days on end. No wonder he was relieved when something slightly different came along.

I think he's right to say that striving for super-clean HD is not best for every film, but I don't see why he's an authority on how the public receives films - which is what really matters.

Part of me wants to take every Canon HDSLR and bash them to pieces because indie director's are OBSESSED with those cameras for no particular reason. It should be DP's making camera decisions, not directors.
 
Meh. This guy can complain all he wants to, but most of us can only afford to shoot on HD cameras, be it REDs, DSLRs or what have you. Super 16 is too expensive for most of us. HD enables us to produce movies we could only dream about doing a decade ago.
If the films are starting to look alike, then that falls on the DP to make each film uniquely theirs. Just because a film is produced in HD doesn't mean it'll look beautiful. There's a lot of bad looking HD films out there - HD resolution won't save a bad film or a bad DP.

I look at modern HD as the great enabler. You can, with a limited budget, make films that can be successfully projected onto a big screen. A lot of junk films will be produced, but an occasional gem will shine through as well.
I'll keep shooting my short films in HD, because it's all I can afford to do.
 
Yeah you can ***** about why this critic is wrong - or you can listen and take note :) Way I see it - the issue he highlights is emblematic of the democratisation of video technology combined with limited vision (on the parts of directors and oh... first year camera ops calling themselves dop's) Its also emblematic of how superficial many filmmakers can be of their pursuit of this invisible glove of 'gloss crediblity' that makes them feel their films are more commercial and real - I mean in that they are emulative of commerical looks.

Of course the great thing about digital is that we can manipulate our footage cheaply - produce unique looks and so forth be it shot on a dslr or a Red. Perhaps filmmakers should be putting more attention on their visual conceptualisation in order to make their independent films a little more distinct? There worthy points - and im sure he's a tip of the iceberg of many critics. Which may be useful for some filmmakers to consider if they imagine 'festival programmers' similarly getting swamped with glossy looking digital fare.

I know I've become bored with the 'basic' dslr look/red type looks BUT i won't be if post artists/or dop's/cinematographers... and directors most of all... are a bit more imaginative instead of being so emulative.

lol mark my words (ironic though it sounds, there will be some (okay admittedly arthouse hipster) filmmakers returning to earlier digital formats (just like many do atm with film stocks) just for their aesthetic effect. I'm sure we'll be reading about their films (pretentious though most end up being) in any festival programme or (Online Guardian culture article) before and indie made zero imagination red shot flick chasing commercial credibility.
 
"Film" is a visual medium. The problem is not HD video per se, but poor choices in how one uses visual technology to tell a particular story. If the look of the film doesn't serve the story well it is not the right look no matter how pretty. Regardless of what camera you use, the art of cinematography should serve the film in an aesthetically appropriate manner. There is so much room for creative manipulation with the tools we have available now there is no reason other than ignoring the art for everything to devolve to lowest common denominator video correctness. If it should be pretty make it pretty, if it should be gritty make it gritty.
One of the reasons I'm looking forward to shooting Bayer raw is the mind boggling array of post processing tools available to digital still photographers that can now be applied to motion footage. I'm itching to do some "lab" work in Lightroom and photoshop that compressed AVC video formats can't support.
 
Last edited:
I think the article is ill informed and generally misguided. 'HD' is merely resolution and has nothing to do with how a film looks. The writer is confused and should be writing about how DPs should be exploring more visually, not why HD video is too clean. I can't make sense of it that.

At the end of the day indie film makers are using whatever they can afford and that happens to be DSLRs and REDs etc. 16mm may have been the cheapest option some time ago, but thats why we are rejoicing. We now have genuinely affordable, creatively free video. Lets face it, film is always going to be expensive and it always has been. IT's just that cheaper options have come along.
 
It doesnt matter if HD is merely this or that - and i think the information he presents that is useful to us isnt based on the technicality of his correctness. It is a broad criticism that has been levelled that i reckon is indicative of other critical tastes too most probably. One has to entirely miss the point if the response to such an article is 'oh well hd is what we all use now cos its cheaper than film so tough...' its as Razz put it in the prior post and i hope more filmmakers take note personally.
 
I'm waiting for his innovative new feature that breaks all boundaries of traditional visual imagery. That is hailed as a breakthrough in indie photography. That is shot for no more than the filmmakers he's criticizing. I'm waiting.

I think he's got the right idea but clearly knows very little about the reasons for such a problem - and knows even less about ways to solve it. Personally I have little use for critics in any field who simply criticize others with no deeper thoughts in mind.
 
Yep but heres a point worth noting Jester - its not for the critics to qualify their opinion is it? Its no different really to some regular joe watching your or my movie and thinking 'meh' i didn't like it because of xyz etc. The fact he's making a critique is simply providing us information to consider. He is not suggesting either that we SHOULD have a new innovative feature... he's harking back to a sentimentality over a 'UNIQUE' past look.

What he is basically suggesting (if i got this right) is that too much cinematography evolving from HD, predominately larger sense HD, is a kind of plastic glossness low DoF look.

Now I have watched enough recent shorts from even our own awesome dvxfests to know that such a critique has at least some weight. Now... am i supposed to expect the critic in this case to give ME the solution? Im the god-damn filmmaker lol its my job to make sure my films are visaully distinct... not the apathetic looking bored audience member?

Maybe we could ask the critic to come shoot it for us too? warm our slippers and write the script hehe.

I think anyone would be lying if they didn't share an appeal for the harsher filmic looks of a lot of indie movies - i mean its why many try to replicate film looks in post too of course (magic bullet and so forth.) I think personally, that because the technology is getting so much better - its like our films are almost getting ever closer to what some consider to be the 'real deal' ie. glossy studio fare.

Studio films would just rarely ever dream of having the kind of visual charactersitics for which indie films stood out (and were affectionately referred to by the critic) because of their different markets (and often subject matter.) It is our own loss if we end up taking the indie brand of film and make it a poor 'VISUAL' imitator of 'low budget' studio dross... it's also a game we can't win.

// edited for numerous typos and grammatical errors lol for which im sure there are still plenty!
 
lawriejaffa said:
It doesnt matter if HD is merely this or that - and i think the information he presents that is useful to us isnt based on the technicality of his correctness. It is a broad criticism that has been levelled that i reckon is indicative of other critical tastes too most probably. One has to entirely miss the point if the response to such an article is 'oh well hd is what we all use now cos its cheaper than film so tough...' its as Razz put it in the prior post and i hope more filmmakers take note personally.
Click to expand...

I have much more experience with dramatic stage productions than with dramatic films. Seems to me production design gets too little attention in bringing many short dramatic films to life. I'm not talking about things that are budget crushers, but just asking simple questions about the role each scene plays in an overall production. How do you decide an appropriate visual context for building a look that goes beyond the mostly irrelevant question " does this look cinematic"? What is the purpose of the scene? What is its emotional context? A seemingly nonsensical but valuable visual question: What color is your film if you had to pick one?
Timur Civan posted a great sample scene in a restaurant where the color tone was determined mostly by how he gelled the lights. Something cinematographers have done for decades that is cheap and easy if you have done your homework up front.
Just because the new cameras make it easy to capture high quality imagery doesn't mean it is easier to create art. It is art the sets one film apart from another, that makes it a memorable standout in a sea of sameness. The critic's commentary addressed that sea of sameness as much as the technology behind it.
So now that we have the capability to make ridiculously pretty high quality pictures with cameras that start in the sub $1k range what's next?
 
Last edited:
Razz16mm said:
Seems to me production design gets too little attention in bringing many short dramatic films to life.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true.

Film has 7 major departments where "art" can occur:

1. Story/Dialogue
2. Acting
3. Cinematography (lighting, composition, movement)
4. Production Design (sets)
5. Production Design (costumes)
6. Editing
7. Visual Effects

At least in my studio, it's an absolute requirement that in every shot in the film, at least one of these departments is doing great work. Ideally, more than one, but if we have a shot where nothing artistic is occurring, that's a red flag.

Too often, low budget story tellers focus exclusively on what they can do with the first three, and occasionally try and do number 7. There's a ton of stuff to be mined in depts. 4-6, and especially 4 and 5, to get your film's production value high.

Best, Erich
 
Last edited:
1. Story/Dialogue
2. Acting
3. Cinematography (lighting, composition, movement)
4. Production Design (sets)
5. Production Design (costumes)
6. Editing
7. Visual Effects
Click to expand...

Man i think a lot of indie movies would be a lot better if they really did focus on the top 3 (especially story/script!!! I think that comes lower in most list of priorities) likewise with acting (hey what about my mate bob, maybe he can play the character - he's off work tuesday etc.)

Cos most filmmakers come from the geek-tech background id say they focus on cinematography first (ie. in a crusade to emulate superficial studio look credibility than say originality of course) then VFX/Editing. Cos that same geek comfy working with a cam is also comfy usually working on a computer.

Im a geek btw haha though i got into filmmaking as more of a luvie (from my horrendous attempt at acting school hehe)

Also Razz -with what your saying - well yep definately agree. I've been guilty of what you suggest too.
 
Erich Ocean said:
Film has 7 major departments where "art" can occur:

1. Story/Dialogue
2. Acting
3. Cinematography (lighting, composition, movement)
4. Production Design (sets)
5. Production Design (costumes)
6. Editing
7. Visual Effects
Click to expand...

8. Music
9. Sound design/mixing/editing

- Greg
 
10. Craft services!

I agree with some of the thoughts here - "HD" is a look, but not much of one. To take his words and reuse them, here's a question:

Why didn't the Detroit documentarians decide to shoot a dirtier grungier darker film? Forget about HD - you can do plenty of grunge with resolution. Why didn't they decide to go that route? Maybe they couldn't afford film, and didn't have the ability (read: skill) to emulate that look in post. I'd say that's a fairly valid explanation. Maybe they made a creative decision to shoot a beautiful picture of a grimy subject - a visual juxtaposition. Also valid, in my opinion. And maybe they wanted to play it safe - after all, as this reviewer said, there were many other films that also looked very clean visually. But how many others watching the 16mm film thought "Finally! Something a 'little ugly'" and reveled in the fact that the film looked relatively poor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top