What expensive camera obsessions are doing for filmmaking

[Guest moebius22]

[html]

A good DP with the right lenses and lighting schemes goes a long ways towards giving a picture a unique look than just the camera.

This is film school 101, yet many of you are forgetting this.

[/html]

[Guest RuthlessThug]

[html]

I find it strange and somewhat ironic that you’d slam someone for their interest and passion in the visual aspect of their film on a website that’s almost entirely devoted to cameras. It may shock some, but cinema is a visual medium. Yes, story is king (or queen), but that story told using captured visuals. Frankly, if Koo shot Manchild on a DSLR, I’d be thoroughly disappointed. He has the chance to make something great, and to skimp out on the primary facet of film (that it’s image-based) would not just do a disservice to the project, but as Koo as the director. Film direction is not just about telling the story, but telling that story using a camera. He’s striving to make the best film he can and I applaud him for it.

I should add that he’s also posting valuable information on a daily basis for free on his website. Personally, that website’s content has been both inspirational and extremely useful. Getting frequent accounts on decisions made in the making of an independent feature are an invaluable resource for a young filmmaker such as myself.

While I agree that there is too much emphasis placed on the business aspect in filmmaking, saying that money isn’t a part of it would be foolish. Whilst making movies on the weekend and shuffling papers during the week might be great for some, I personally have aspirations. I don’t need a flash house, or even a house at all, but to survive off what I make would be a dream come true. Reading the frequent chronicling of someone doing this and having the time to share their experiences is inspiring.

Turning a discussion about two very exciting cameras into a character assassination of a generous and exciting young filmmaker with a passion for his project is frankly repugnant. I shan’t ever be returning to this website and it’s blatant hypocrisy and vile tribalism. Some of us have movies to make.

[/html]

[Guest kevinerhard]

[html]

{-[ The participants in Koo’s crowdfunding campaign are NOT shareholders ] .. then what are they !?} – Well, since it is a donation they would be donators. They didn’t buy a share, so they are not share holders. Selling shares is much more complicated and involves SEC rules and regulations.

{-[ As long as he delivers the goods he promised them then he hasn’t cheated them ] … Deliver what ? Who will do the quality control ? Who will balance the BOOKS ?} The “goods” to be “delivered” are the donation perks listed on the project.

[/html]

[Guest grantellis]

[html]

This right here.

[/html]

[Guest rossawilson]

[html]

I think 720p is fine for a feature, web standard def and even blue ray.. It’s what most renting and streaming I do consists on and looks more than good enough.

[/html]

[Guest RyanDeFranco]

[html]

It has absolutely nothing to do with shallow depth of field and everything to do with reliable footage, post production options, and professional workflow instead of workarounds.

Both cameras have the same depth of field characteristics–the 600 dslr and the 20,000 or 85000 epic, alexa etc.

[/html]

[Guest OverCranked]

[html]

@ chrispahlow

My original reply to Koo is trying to remind him of the ” incorrect ” assumption about the possibility of keeping HIS OWN SCARLET MONEY out of HIS OWN KIKSTARTER project. Technically he should put those amounts in the pot as a true believer in HIS OWN PROJECT and then he could pull any amounts he wants and and blow it on anything he wants. Just because as you mentioned there are no legal bindings in crowdsourcing yet !
-[ The participants in Koo’s crowdfunding campaign are NOT shareholders ] .. then what are they !?
-[ As long as he delivers the goods he promised them then he hasn’t cheated them ] … Deliver what ? Who will do the quality control ? Who will balance the BOOKS ?
-[ Even if the project “suffers” (whatever that means) it should make no legal difference to the crowdfunding participants.] .. That’s the point ! This knowledge opens the gates to our ” Bohemian City ” for all kinds of crooks n liars. How long before we regret not having some kind of reservations for fraud.
-[I feel like your post kind of ignores the whole spirit of crowdfunding.] … spirit of crowdfunding will diminish with preventable disappointments.

Crowd-sourcing is a wonderful example of our newfound civilization. Let’s guard it vigilantly.

[/html]

[Guest chrispahlow]

[html]

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[/html]

[Guest Simco123]

[html]

RED Vs C300. There is now talk of biassness and one is more exciting than the other.
What would I buy? I would buy the Red Scarlet X because of its spec and price.
Reality is I’m not buying either cameras because I have no intention of commiting that kind of money. I’m happy to fork out upto £3k for a big sensor dSLR that deliver great video and because of my lens investment I will be looking at the new 4k video dSLR Canon will bring out. That is why the C300 announcement appeals to me, not that I’m getting one but the tech from that will get implemented to dSLR video. 5DMkII helped influence the development of the C300 this tells you something about Canon’s intention to share technology with their cinema and dSLR cameras. I would expect electronic ND filters from the C300 debuting in future Canon dSLRs.

[/html]

[Guest Simco123]

[html]

So he is not the next Steve Job then? [img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[/html]

[Guest kevinerhard]

[html]

Right. It’s just a gift for donating money that there is no expectation of return on. NPR does it all the time and gives people who pledge money things like, tote bags, or what-have-you.

If there was an expectation for (monetary) return (on investment), then, well, it’d be a security. And I don’t think you can sell securities like that.

[/html]

[Guest isaacelliott]

[html]

This a sad day

As a GH2 owner and user, i get a lot of information from this website and have found it extremely helpful for getting the best out of the little beast of camera.

However this post has revealed the true value of yourself as a human being and i will no longer be accessing this website. I can find information in other ways and on other sites/forums and as such will avoid this like the plague. With this i turn to Koo for the indie film insight, who is a filmmaker with big goals and plans and not another hack with a chip on their shoulder. I supported Koo’s kickstarter program and i will continue to support his website.

you are the weakest link

goodbye

[/html]

[Guest EC2]

[html]

Great, well exposed article. Thanks for posting! I would add that, as a photographer, the same is in my “world”. Just the other day, an editor interested in my images come in my studio to see my work and asked “what camera do u use?”. I replied “Do u like my shots?” He “Yes!” Me “Do u think they’ll sell?” He “Of course!” Me “Fine!”. End of the story. As far as one can satisfy industry standards (FullHD, 230ppi for a full spread magazine and so on), my opinion is that, IF your work delivers, u should not be questioned about your gear. Are u up to the task? It’s not a matter of gear only, it’s YOU 90%. But in this era, where technology seem to prevail on human vision and creativity, it’s very difficult to explain such concepts. I also have the amazing GH2 (hacked and patched) but to make my work I was “forced” to buy some stuff to build a rig around it: I candidly admit the camera is so small itself that most people think it’s a toy! Completely different reactions when it’s mounted in the cage with mattebox: “woooahhh” and so on, you can imagine. So, IMO, “don’t judge the book from it’s cover” is true and wise but it’s like a “double-edged weapon”: for this reason, when possible, I spend five minutes more with my Clients trying to educate them on the real “value” behind an image.

[/html]

[Guest chrispahlow]

[html]

@OverCranked

[ then they are share holders.]

The word “shareholder” has a very specific meaning. You are incorrect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder)

[ No ( low ) production > no ( low ) perks…. Some one COULD held the ” production ” and/or ” Producers ” accountable.]

I’m sorry, but I really can’t understand a lot of where you are coming from. Have you visited No Film School? Do you really doubt that someone like Koo isn’t going to give his all to make this film to the best of his ability? I have no doubt at all. He is passionate about the project and I am 100% confident he will 1) deliver a finished film 2) deliver a high quality film, and 3) deliver all the goods he promised in return for the donations.

[HIS OWN SCARLET MONEY out of HIS OWN KIKSTARTER project. Technically he should put those amounts in the pot as a true believer in HIS OWN PROJECT and then he could pull any amounts he wants and and blow it on anything he wants. Just because as you mentioned there are no legal bindings in crowdsourcing yet !]

Indie filmmakers (at least the good ones) make absolutely enormous sacrifices to get a film made. I’m working on my first feature and I can attest to this personally. The amount of money and time an indie director has to put into a feature project is huge. But does this mean that people like Koo and myself have to put every minute of our lives and every dollar we have into one single project? What kind of standard are you trying to hold us to? If people have donated money to my film project does that mean I’m not allowed to spend any of my own money on other things (whether film related or not)? I don’t think this viewpoint is realistic or fair at all.

[/html]

[Guest treyvollmer]

[html]

All this back and forth is very interesting , but I much prefer making movies.

[/html]

[Guest Simco123]

[html]

You need to understand there is a lot of loaded people around who shoot as a hobby. To most average Joes they see 5DMkII owners as loaded just as 5DMkII owners see RED owners as loaded. I don’t see these equipments as specialist only for pros If it can be operated sucessfully by one person.

[/html]

[Guest OverCranked]

[html]

[..The “goods” to be “delivered” are the donation perks listed on the project.] … then they are share holders. No ( low ) production > no ( low ) perks…. Some one COULD held the ” production ” and/or ” Producers ” accountable.

Crowd-sourcing is a wonderful example of our newfound civilization. Let’s guard it vigilantly.

[/html]

[Guest OverCranked]

[html]

@chrispahlow
[ ...If people have donated money to my film project does that mean I’m not allowed to spend any of my own money on other things (whether film related or not)? I don’t think this viewpoint is realistic or fair at all. ]

As long as you had openly and clearly ( realistically ) had told your potential donors ( share holders ) about your intentions and those” Other ” related activities at the time you were fetching for their money – then it’s all fair and honest.
i’m not sure if you can put aside your relationship with Koo in this case. Would you donate in a project as willingly if you knew the person begging for your money has many other parallel stuff going on? Would you donate to a project if you knew the producer is keeping HIS OWN investments out of it ?

i have nothing against Koo personaly. My concern is the future of Crowdsourcing. It’s a wonderful thing going for ALL of us. We are the guardians. Let’s prevent than cure. Already some ugly patterns taking shape in Kikstarter. Soon it will be very difficult to earn the trust of crowds if we continue taking matters too lightly with crowds trust.
Yes, Koo and others need to through in their own assets in the project. That’s over and above their best efforts to accomplish what was promised. If we don’t take care of Crowsourcing soon enough a few crooks and liars will pack in a bunch goods from trusty crowd, vomit some half digested product and walk away. Then the true artist, entrepreneur, … whom is ready to give his life for a project will have a tough time to prove his/her honesty.

[/html]

[Guest Kingswell]

[html]

@newone. And what has it got to do with you or eoshd? The man has simply put a deposit on a camera from his own pocket-that’s no one business but his. If you think some sort of fraud has occurred you can contact Kickstarter via the contact link at the bottom of their website or even contact the man himself: http://nofilmschool.com/contact/ , if not i suggest you stop defaming the man before you get yourself in some sort of legal trouble

I don’t see why people are getting their knickers in a twist over this. Its generally quite wise to buy rather than rent filmmaking equipment, and then sell it afterwards when making a film. You can normally save quite a substantial amount. I assume he’ll keep the camera, but if he changes his mind he’ll probably recoup the majority of the money.

Lastly, the tone of this article is incredibly patronizing Andrew and smacks of jealousy. I don’t think you’re in a position to judge Koo as a ‘hobbyist’.

[/html]

[Guest newone]

[html]

There’s a difference between fantasy and reality – you don’t beg for money saying you’re going to RENT tools and then BUY them with money you claim isn’t from the donations – meaning you got the donations, but aren’t using the money as you had stated. Accountants and anyone would get fired in the real world for doing such a thing – but learning that entails having a job and understanding the real world. And this issue also has a lot to do with filmmaking as people are being prosecuted for illegal antics in the film world with finances – some films appear to be fronts for other purposes. If you want to beg people for money, you had better explain everything to them. He didn’t post any update to kickstarter about not using the funds as intended or what he is going to do with the $15000 for renting the camera. It is everybody’s business when he makes it everyone’s business. And yes, I did take it straight to him, but he wouldn’t comment on it despite his sassiness about this article. Defaming isn’t grounds for legal trouble and it would imply that you have fame to begin with.

[/html]