Leaderboard

​Absolutely. But in the conditions this was a student screening, and expectations are not on a professional level at all. It wasn't a sob story - this guy who can barely do or say anything at all made a film. I loved how random it was. Although it was terrible - I enjoyed it. Anyway, this topic is going off on a weird tangent... I have no idea how to get it back on topic. I think I'm all motion cadenced out!

I fully agree but at the same time, we are mostly cinematographers, not directors on this board. And DOP obsess over lenses, filtrations, film stocks, etc etc etc - I can't stop obsessing myself while I should be doing my comedy writing. ARGGG it's hard - this internet and these boards have so much information floating around that no one in my normal life ever wants to talk about .

Hi everyone, I've decided to make all of the music on my site free for commercial use as well as noncommercial. Just please credit me properly as detailed on my homepage. If you decide to use one or more of my pieces, a donation would be greatly appreciated...any amount you can swing would be helpful. As always, thanks for your feedback and I hope you find something you can use. Eric

This is related to the film making tangent going on in the motion cadence thread. I like new cameras. I own way too many of them. But, I also like to remind myself that the camera doesn't really matter all that much. We can accomplish more by worrying about the storytelling craft rather than the technical craft. And I really enjoy the technical craft, but it's not expression. It's engineering. Sure there's certain creativity there, but I'm now trying to be more of the architect. (not succeeding yet, but trying) As indy film makers I believe too many of us strive for technical achievement at the expense of the other ingredients. This website is aimed squarely at jack-of-all-trade sorts of people, but ironically focuses it's editorial content mostly at gear. Not a bad thing, mind you, it is what it is for practical reasons. Still, many new film makers don’t need motion picture cameras at all. This is a cool evolution of the craft that is happening more and more as we move deeper into the digital era. Some directors are so creative and inventive all it takes is their imagination —and a lot of time locked away in their bedroom in front of a computer. Well, okay, the camera is a requirement for some of the work, but it’s not the priority. Has anyone been following the film making career of Don Hertzfeldt? His films are gems of emotional existential storytelling. Hardly any of his techniques rely on fancy camera gear. Rather, using lush soundscapes and crudely drawn stick figures the guy is able to make narratives that are completely engaging. It’s decidedly low-fi film production, but by no means does it lack in sophistication. Quite the opposite. On the other end of the spectrum are technical achievements such as Erik Wernquist’s “Wanderers” It’s a CGI masterpiece. By Hollywood standards it’s not CGI that’s an overwhelming violent spectacle, but it’s spectacular for so many other reasons. His images, familiar narration (a famous scientist), and storytelling prowess, combine to create awe and inspiration. Images used to create his short were mostly from NASA. With a large dose of patience at the seat of his 3D software he’s created an extremely memorable film. These are just two examples that I’ve been impressed with over the past few years, but many many more are out there. When it comes to films wherein the motion picture camera is not the primary tool what are some of your favorites? It's such an exciting era of film making!

This is another existential filmmaker post spawned by a few recent threads. You've been warned. Also spoilers for a film. Recently I saw a film that articulated a question I didn't know I was asking. That film was "Frank" the story of a talentless, wannabe songwriter/keyboard player who is recruited to join a band led by a man who wears a fake head at all times. You might have seen it floating around Netflix, and maybe you even disregarded it because it sounds gimmicky, or the poster looked like quirky nonsense, but I decided on a lark to watch it, and it was absolutely devastating. The "protagonist" of the film seems like a nice, sweet guy in the beginning, until he starts exploiting Frank's talent by secretly filming and posting videos of their rehearsals to youtube, eventually earning them a slot at SXSW. He tells Frank "People love us." to which Frank replies "People love us?" The pressure of the show, and pleasing an audience cause Frank to have a nervous breakdown. This film resonated with me in a major way. I watched it once, over a week ago, and I'm still thinking about it. I thought about how fame and success never occurred to Frank. He just created music for the art and expression of it, and when faced with the pressure of a major debut performance at a festival, he creates a terrible song that he thinks is his "most likeable song ever". The entire experience breaks him. The whole film forced me to think of my goals as a filmmaker. I've wanted to be a filmmaker since I saw the Making Of Jurassic Park on TV when I was six years old. In high school, I got serious about having a career in film after seeing Pulp Fiction and El Mariachi. I then discovered the French New Wave and John Cassavetes, and I wanted to make honest, devastating, achingly truthful and beautiful masterpieces of cinema. I made my first feature at 21...and now I'm almost 28, with not many shorts, and not a single follow-up feature since my first. My first feature was extremely disappointing to me. I was obsessed with it for years, and even tried to make a quasi-remake of it, which was a disaster. I've been struggling to come up with an idea for another film that I like. I haven't been able to finish even a first draft in two and a half years. I used to be able to crank out script after script, draft after draft with all the blind confidence in the world. And since my feature, I've come to the realization that I only really have a few basic themes that I keep going back to, and I keep trying to force myself to think of something different, to be a different filmmaker, but I'm not. And now I'm questioning my goals. I've wanted a career making indie films so I wouldn't have to work a crappy day job. I've been working the same crappy day job for almost four years straight, except for the nine months where I moved to LA to pursue my career. I could't even find a day job to pay the rent. Toys R Us interviewed me twice and wouldn't hire me to work in the stock room during the holidays. I sold a bunch of my lenses, and the DVX100 I didn't use anymore, for rent money. I moved back to my hometown a year ago, broken and miserable. A year later I'm in a great relationship with a woman I'm moving in with in a month. She also has a three year old daughter, and though I thought I never wanted kids, now I can see myself raising this child with my girlfriend, and marrying her. We both see it. She's extremely supportive of my filmmaking, and doesn't want me to give up. But I just feel discouraged. Discouraged that my films will never look good enough, have good enough acting or be important enough. And I still want to make films, but I'm wondering why I want, or need, to be successful at it. Before I got "serious" about it, I used to have fun making movies. The same group of friends and I would get together and film shorts on the weekends. Most people here I'm sure had the same experience. I think all I want now is to form a troupe of actors/crew members and make cheap movies in our spare time for fun, and perhaps never even show them to anyone else. I'm accepting that I'm nowhere near the level of talent as Francois Truffaut, Paul Thomas Anderson, or David Lynch, and it's okay. I'm giving up on success. I just want to make shit.

Kendy Ty is an excellent example of shooting on a 200-300 dollar camera with a 200-300 dollar lens and getting the job done well. He is clearly focused on the end result and does what he needs to do to get there using the few tools he has, akin to a sketch artist using nothing but a pencil or ballpoint pen. It's been covered many times on this site that chasing equipment will often hinder your ability to focus on the art of it all, and Andrew has quite a handful of blog posts that touch on the humility of this all. With that said, it's still exciting and important to embrace and use new tech when available, I see nothing wrong with it so as long as everyone stresses the importance of actually shooting and making things.

​Two things. First of all, you are right. Then, just like in my 'being careful'-thread, your tone seems to me somewhat patronizing, if not self-righteous. In the Adobe thread in your conversation with Mercer, I suspected my untrained english ear (excuse the awkward idioms). If I got fuzzynormals point, I am in a similar situation. It became clear to me recently that my time is too limited to live a family life, meet friends, go to work (not film-related), follow my creative plans and discuss gear in minute detail. The latter clearly is procrastination to a high degree (again, obviously not for everyone who reads this, so don't feel addressed). That's coming out, confessing, debating a personal concern with others who might (or not) share the problem. It was no request for a sanctimonious and simplified answer. So please don't offer more of those platitudes. Nobody expects a tutorial how to be creative, and certainly nobody wants to hear The Secret of how to experience life more deeply. Other than that, you are right. It's only my problem if I act like a consumer, if I spend my precious time with calculating future gear purchases and what I then could do with them.

Cinegain, you seem to have used both, how do they intercut together LX100 and FZ1000??

​ Fuzzy, you need to understand that unlike technical skills, creativity cannot be taught. ( Though I believe it can be nurtured by parents/teachers by not getting in its way ). This website helps those who already have the artistic part figured out and need to find the best tool to express it cinematically. Creativity itself comes from inspiration and life and imagination...you are disappointed because you expect a tutorial on how be creative. Sorry, kid, this part is fully your responsibility...maybe instead of pointing fingers and finding faults in others you should take a good close look at the mirror and ask yourself if perhaps that person is to blame for the emptiness and disappointment that you feel. Go out an experience life more deeply, you will eventually realize that YOU will have all the answers.

This is all well and good but making films actually requires me to exert effort when I could just be sitting here window shopping for gear

OP asked why we tend to have threads on tech rather than art. Tech discussions are based on fact; art discussions are based on opinion. Consequently (as this thread is already showing), art threads invariably degenerate into attacking the straw man, where even reasoned opinions are countered by making an extreme and absurd interpretation of them. If one can shoot a Star Wars movie on T2i today that competes with "Gravity," great.

​Yeah. Seems like I'm always willingly getting into the tech talk. I wonder if it's procrastination, fear of artistic failure, or just a general place where I feel comfortable? Probably all of the above.

Fuzzynormal, you should have known better than to try to tell the alcoholics that they don't need alcohol anymore. Just look at the addict-levels of denial and rationalization above. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

​I agree with your first paragraph. Once a while my tv happens to end up with a talent show on there... and you hear the saddest sob stories. They don't have any outstanding talents. But hey, you're supposed to feel for them, so go on and like it anyways. And tons of people fall for it. They eat it like pancakes with strawberry and whipped cream. I can't stand that sorta thing. I mean, I'm sorry for so and so, but come on, you've got a mediocre amount of talent, if any, and I'm afraid a sad backstory isn't going to push that to the next level. I do have to say, on the other hand. Something can be completely random and technically imperfect as can be, and still work. It's just a matter of random puzzle pieces from different puzzles just so happen to come together and create an new image that actually kinda makes sense and/or is beautiful. But you're right, then it has to be work on it's own. It doesn't matter who puts the pieces together. If they don't manage to create something stunning, it's game over for me, no matter who you are. The same way I wouldn't just like Ed's stuff, for the sake of him being a fellow forum member and a pretty well established cinematographer. I'm not on the same page as Ed on a lot of things he says or does, but that's okay, we're all different. I wouldn't just go and roast someone's work if they didn't ask for an honest opinion, but if they are asking, I will tell them in all honestly that it just doesn't work for me, explain them why and what could've been done to make me feel otherwise about it. If I do like what you did, I will applaud you for it! So if it's about 'say you found Ed's video at random without knowing who shot it', well... I would still have liked it as much as I did. I'm not sure how it would've worked with 'average looking guys', because it would require a completely different video altogether. You can't just change an element, a piece of the puzzle, and claim it's the same as before, therefor works as it did before. Btw, it's not only about forgiving/overlooking flaws that's inherent to the old days of film, it's actually embracing it or even going further and looking for it specifically! That is why I like vintage lenses so much. If you want the most clinical clean image, that's fine, but that might not work for all your projects since 'politically correct lenses' kind of lack a bit of 'soul'. Old lenses are often lacking multi coatings and hence flare quite a bit. Some really are able to render a background out of focus in a trully elegant way, as if it were painted. Contrast and sharpness are something else. So much character... so much 'soul'. Now, you might think: 'ah, you're going for vintage glass because it's cheap and just accept to live with the flaws'. Au contraire! People actually pay top dollah to get glass with these 'flaws'! It's a matter of stylic choice. The final work is a certain vision (which you might not get, but it nontheless is someone's!). Someone's vision might require vintage glass. Maybe someone else's vision (or your own vision on another project) requires a modern lens. Take the tools you have availlable to you and put it together as to make it work for your project. Put the right pieces of the puzzle together. Sometimes that includes not shooting stuff locked down on a tripod, but going handheld. That might include a certain audio track you envisioned for the piece; that might included adding grain, visual effects and jumpy cuts to your project. The one project is not the next. Sure you can have a certain recognizeable signature style throughout your work. But you will evolve, try different things and change things up... because everyday is a new one and every projects include other people and other situations. Go on the streets and shoot something today. Now go on the street next month and shoot the same thing. It will not be identical (two moments are never identical to begin with, so one piece is even timing if a thing works or not). And in the end, even if the puzzle pieces do make something great. Not everyone will see it. I guess it's kinda like the next video: You might see trash. I see art that I quite like. I don't know the guy who made that. I wouldn't have come up with that or done it myself. But I like what he did there. It works on it's own without knowing who made it and a lot of people agree. That doesn't mean that you have to agree though. There's no right or wrong when doing something creative/subjective. Although in some cases, some things are more wrong than right (but then the room probably isn't really devided on that and all draw that same conclusion).

So here are the lens test I did with my cheap C-Mount, m42 and C/Y today. The lenses are:Zeiss Tevidon 10mm f2.0 C-MountComputar 12.5mm f1.8 C-MountZeiss Tevidon 16mm f1.8 C-MountTokina 24mm f2.8 m42-MountZeiss Jena 35/2.8 m42-MountZeiss Jena 50/2.8 C/Y-MountYashinon 50/1.9 m42-MountThey are all shot with identical aperture, ISO, ND, and WB. They have all the exact same correction and grade. So the differences is purely down to the lens. BTW, The BTS was shot on one of them with another camera and is ungraded. Guess which lens?

My solution was a Sony A6000 with an RJ Focal Reducer which is fine since I only use manual glass. So I have a near full frame camera, 1.08 crop, 24 Mega Pixel photos with good video and video features for just under $550. Thanks too all for the input.

Another hardware up from the LX100: the FZ1000 has a vari-angle display. Oh, and it has the Cinelike profiles. I also find the MF with the LX100 lens ring a little fiddly (should've swapped aperture and focus ring imho). But then again, the FZ1000 is quite a bit bulkier. Has the slower lens. The smaller sensor (so you run into highly clipping rather quickly). The bit worse low light performance. Depends on what you're going for. I've got both since the LX100 makes for a great daily on-the-go shooter. The FZ1000 is nice as an allround travelcam with a little more flexibility. One simply does not offer me what the other can. They also make for great B roll/2nd cameras to a GH4.

Who cares what kids think? The illusion isn't broken for them because they barely grasp the concept of illusion. If the sets don't look real it doesn't matter to a child because it doesn't even cross their minds that it isn't real. Once the curtain is pulled away and you lose your child like sense of wonderment, HFR narrative ceases to be convincing. HFR action sports works because its actually real life and no illusion needs to be created. I don't think 24P is going anywhere until the film industry itself evolves into something other than watching moving pictures on a large screen.

Yeah, if you dont need them now you can always wait, while for those who do either one of them can do the job, and by the time 32bit comes out you already master the gimbal compare to those who still wait, and you gonna beat them since your brain and body knows how to "fly" those well, and you will know which pid works and what not. This one is done on Nebula 4000 with GH4 + Olympus 12 2.0, 25 1.8, 45 1.8, Sigma 60 2.8, 7-14 4.0, Nokton 25 0.95 and GH2 Samyang 7.5 3.5 on monopod

Things in glass cases intimidate me