quote:

---

Originally posted by bjdzyak

I'm fed up with Vimeo, shallow DOF, slider driven montage sequences with credits on them masquerading as films. Im sick of lazy, careless, pre-production, masquerading as cinema verite, or so called "art films". I'm completely over the pretentious arrogance put out by some co-called "filmmakers" in our industry.

---

My favourite part of the quote, and the core, the essence of the article.

I just can't help but agree; Vimeo is littered with T2i, 7D, even 5DmkII rack focus shots with new age music and credits on them (as if the result is such high-value work of art that the person who made it deserves so highly to receive recognition for it). I can absolutely understand for someone to have a need to practice some elementary skills by making such videos, but personally, I would consider them just that -- practice (and not worth, by a long shot, of putting out for everyone to see). Worse yet, quite many such Vimeo offerings end up receiving enthusiastic comments from ignorant (or similarly self-indulgent) audiences.

I couldn't read the whole article (the link didn't seem to work for me; probably a temporary problem), so I may be saying the same stuff he did in the article; the biggest problem of this proliferation of worthless camera testing pretending to be film is that it created large numbers of people who begin to think very highly of themselves, and these people end up polluting the general mindset of a very specific buying segment. Device makers rely on their users for feedback. When such feedback comes from professionals, it provides valuable information for future research and development. When that pool of professionals gets polluted by those who clearly don't belong into that group, the feedback coming from that polluted pool loses its value. Let us not forget, oftentimes, those who hire professionals aren't necessarily knowledgeable in the industry, and rely on the experience, background and expertise. Shiny new toys of today are producing increasingly better results than some much more expensive tools of yesterday, which narrows the gap in achievable technical quality between inexpensive "prosumer" and more expensive pro gear. The difference in result achieved by a pro and by one of these newcomers is often not properly appreciated by those from outside of the industry who often do the hiring ("Why should I pay him $3,000 when this other guy has a camera that is just as good and will do it for $900?").

The end result will always be devaluation of quality. You will ALWAYS only get exactly what you pay for, and that will ALWAYS include skills and experience (and not just equipment).

Excellent article. Thanks for posting it - I wouldn't have seen it.

I guess this is the "wisdom" I attempt to impart whenever I hear that inevitable question, "What camera should I buy?" The unspoken end to that question is "...to become a rich and successful Director who makes movies in Hollywood."

Funny that nobody ever completes their question that way.

Which is why I ALWAYS FIRST ask them, "what do you want a camera FOR?" Is it to f*** around to post videos on YouTube or to make something SERIOUS so that you can potentially get noticed as a viable investment for a studio?

If the answer is closer to the first option, then ANY camera will do because frankly, 4K of quality et al won't mean a thing because the story and production values won't demand that kind of image quality (not to mention that just about every other element, like lighting and sound and production design and acting, will likely be sub-professional as well). So why spend THOUSANDS of dollars to have "the best!" camera when absolutely NOTHING else having to do with the production will live up to the price of the camera? I mean, seriously, what's the point?

So sure, buy a frickin' camera just to have one around when the urge strikes to go "make a movie."

But when an aspiring DIRECTOR (not the ubiquitous "filmmaker"... whatever the hell that means) wants to REALLY make a serious attempt to create a movie that will be a calling card to serious investors, THEN the quality of the camera begins to matter. And more than that, at that point in the budding career, this aspiring Director is a fool for even THINKING of purchasing a camera, plus the lenses, batteries, tripod, heads, and everything else that is NECESSARY to make a serious production.

So again, what possible purpose is there for a NON-serious Director to run out and spend THOUSANDS of dollars on a single piece of equipment when the rest of the production more than likely has no chance of living up to the "high quality!" of this "professional" camera that somehow manages to turn out images "Just as good as film!!!!" for .0001% of the price of what real professionals use? Point being, if it's "inexpensive," there's a reason for it. It simply is not that good. If it was, Michael Bay would be shooting Transformers 4 with it right now. He isn't and he won't be. And that should make the aspiring "Filmmaker!" who is thinking about purchasing equipment think twice before dropping the credit card.

Ask the question, "What do I really need to buy a camera for?"

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

This is a great article, and on top of that I loved the Yoda like title of this thread. I think the essence of this could be broadened to include all aspects of this field. Camera does not make a filmmaker, C Stand does not make a grip, lighting package does not make a gaffer, mixing board does not make a sound mixer, Final Cut Pro does not make an editor, a sewing machine does not make a costume designer, brushes do not make a make-up artist, etc. And there definitely is a premisconception out there that if you have the tools you are automatically a pro. Not to mention, a fair number of training schools make this worse because they tell you exactly that, that once you graduate from there school you will be a pro. Being a filmmaker or any other other element of this field really requires vision, understanding, and constant learning, and some people just don't get that. Some really just do not have what it takes.

making low budget dreams come true

quote:

---

Originally posted by ACE Studio

This is a great article, and on top of that I loved the Yoda like title of this thread. I think the essence of this could be broadened to include all aspects of this field. Camera does not make a filmmaker, C Stand does not make a grip, lighting package does not make a gaffer, mixing board does not make a sound mixer, Final Cut Pro does not make an editor, a sewing machine does not make a costume designer, brushes do not make a make-up artist, etc. And there definitely is a premisconception out there that if you have the tools you are automatically a pro. Not to mention, a fair number of training schools make this worse because they tell you exactly that, that once you graduate from there school you will be a pro. Being a filmmaker or any other other element of this field really requires vision, understanding, and constant learning, and some people just don't get that. Some really just do not have what it takes.

making low budget dreams come true

---

To add to that, "a film degree does make you a filmmaker." A film degree puts you into debt which can LIMIT the opportunities you have as a filmschool graduate is putting time into "having a job" to pay off that debt instead of staying financially "flexible" so that he/she can afford to not work for a living while taking chances.

I'm not suggesting that an expensive formal filmschool can't be beneficial, but there are also potential downsides that too many aspiring professionals don't take into consideration. The degree itself is meaningless and the debt is all to real. As long as someone goes into the machine aware of those two hard facts, then they can make wiser decisions.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com