24P
As a newbie cinematographer myself, I'd just like to say:
Hear, hear!
New filmmakers need to know that while digital video has made shooting cheaper and less cumbersome, digital video is often harder to produce quality images from than film.
Film was developed so that a cinematographer could use it...bleach bypass, black and white negative, film stocks with different lattitudes, pre-flash, post-flash, ect...but digital video isn't yet capable of being as easily manipulated. Often because of menus and settings, a D.P. feels that the camera is using them as opposed to the other way around. The only way to combat this role reversal is to know your lighting and old school techniques inside and out. The things that worked all along still work the best.
I myself shoot on the DVX100A and although I love the freedom and affordability it offers me as a 23 year old, I've learned that I need to light everything as if I have been in the busness since the beginning of film.
Technique is King!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Be ye strong therefore, and let not your hands be weak: for your work shall be rewarded. - 2 Chronicles 15:7
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon and some days you are the statue" - David Brent
Be ye strong therefore, and let not your hands be weak: for your work shall be rewarded. - 2 Chronicles 15:7
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon and some days you are the statue" - David Brent
Yeah DD, the verstility of the newer cameras like the DVX100 are indeed incredible. If its lit well then it looks as close to, say, 16mm as I've ever seen. Though film is still King and I, personally, prefer it, it is way too expensive. But you can do things with film that cannot be done digitally like push it a stop & doesn't have all the bells & whistles like a variable speed shutter (Far different than a high speed shutter that digital cameras have) that a Panavision or Arriflex would have.
It is SO important for filmmakers to do more than just bounce a 1K off the cieling or reflector and shoot. You can shoot and light creatively (as in the HB pics above) and make a good story w/ good acting stand out and above the other 100 films completed across America (& worldwide) every week.
I like writing & directing, but could DP the rest of my life and be happy because painting a scene with light and then capturing that w/ cool angles & dolly shots just make it that much more enjoyable.
"but digital video isn't yet capable of being as easily manipulated"
You can do far, far, far more manipulation with digital video loaded into a PC than you can with film and a bunch of chemicals...
Really, now that cheap HD cameras are starting to appear, I can't see myself shooting film again unless I have a producer with a few million pounds and a determination to shoot film with it.
"But, I have heard SOOOO many filmmakers say that they don't need to know the technical or the lighting is not important and that the story and acting is all that matters."
It depends a lot on what you want to do. If you want to make a movie that people will enjoy, then story and acting is far more important than cinematography. If you want to get into festivals then it appears that cinematography is far more important than story and acting, but you won't get far with a great-looking movie with no story. If you want to go up against the latest Hollywood blockbuster, then you need a good story and acting and good cinematography.
Mark G...are you a director or an editor?
Just curious...
Be ye strong therefore, and let not your hands be weak: for your work shall be rewarded. - 2 Chronicles 15:7
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon and some days you are the statue" - David Brent
Be ye strong therefore, and let not your hands be weak: for your work shall be rewarded. - 2 Chronicles 15:7
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon and some days you are the statue" - David Brent
Both, on and off, though I've been editing far more than directing for the last four years.
While this is pretty much a dead thread at this point I felt I should just throw in my two cents anyway. Digital video, despite not having the tonal range of film is so much more practical on set imo. If you're shooting in DV, you can actually watch the daily's on the day that the footage was shot. It saves so much time and money.
In the end though, what really matters is the story no matter whether or not you're shooting in 16mm, DV, HDV, or Hi-8 for that matter.
quote:
Digital video, despite not having the tonal range of film is so much more practical on set imo. If you're shooting in DV, you can actually watch the daily's on the day that the footage was shot. It saves so much time and money.
Yeah, instant replay is one of the points Robert Rodriguez made as to why he gave up film for HD... plus other benefits like being able to shoot as many takes as you want for minimal cost, and being able to see exactly what you're recording while you shoot it. Film is just so 19th century, though it still has its uses, such as really high-res shooting and high-speed shooting: I can't see us ever getting million-plus fps digital video cameras.
Is HDTV much better then regular MiniDV? Like the new Sony HDV camera, how does it compete with the DVX-100 for example?
"Revenge is a dish best served cold."
"Revenge is a dish best served cold."
DV: 720x480 (or 576), 5:1 compression.
HDV: 1440x1080, 20:1 compression.
So basically you're looking at twice the resolution in both directions: picture quality is much better on HDV, but it's much more highly compressed.
