Ed_David

Good for you baxter. Filmmaking should be fun. Success does suck. Ask kurt cobain. Failure is even better. Thats why i write. To fail.
Let me lnow if you need crew or gear for your next film.

Distribution has 0% to do with what kind of camera you shoot on. It's all about the story, target audience, cast, etc. Look at Tangerine: picked up for distribution by Magnolia pictures, shot completely on the iPhone 5s. You could shoot on the best camera in the world, with the best lighting, but if your story doesn't connect with an audience, you won't find distribution.
Now, getting hired to film on the other hand, that's a different question. Producers always want to shoot the best quality they can afford that still works with the story, so being a DP with a 4k camera is probably a good idea.

What I would like to see more focus on, on various blogs, are the tools that complement the cameras.... Dollies, gimbals, cranes, lights etc
The cameras are hitting saturation point, but there are some really interesting tools that can help with the cinematic look, every bit as much as DR, resolution etc.

While it may be Andrew's site with his articles on the frontpage/blog, the rest of the threads on the forum its content is decided by the userbase mostly.
So... if you're coming across a lot of tech stuff, that's mainly because that is what the userbase is into. That doesn't mean it's just a place for techies. The content on the forum isn't dictated by Andrew. I see it as an open platform where you decide what's the topic of the day. So if you feel like there's too little stuff going on in the artistic/creative direction, blame yourself, it's up to you to do something about it.
Although I prefer when it's actually about something fresh and useful that benefits and motivates everyone, rather than the old flamewar debate that the best camera is the one you have with you, that you can enter a festival with something shot on an iPhone, that Kendy does great things with the T2i and that content is king. Yeah yeah, we've been over that before, heard it a thousand times, we even agree, we know. But imho there's nothing wrong with discussing the tools that make filmmaking possible. Cameras, lenses, lights, mics/recorders, monitors, stabilizers, et cetera. You can go full nerdgasm on any of these things by the way, not just camera bodies. But the way I see it most just want to explore new territories and open up new creative possibilities that allow them to create what they have envisioned. Nothing wrong with that. And in the end we all choose our own paths. You choose yours, let others choose theirs. Maybe you're oozing creativity and ideas, but are limited by the execution of things. New gear can enable you to move forward, to take it to the next level. Of course if you haven't even unlocked the full potential of your current gear, it's questionable if you really need that new bright shiny toy. But hey, as long as they don't ruin themselves financially, let them buy that RED Weapon Dragon or whatever and let 'em find out the hard way that it takes more then just buying stuff, right?
Anyways. To end on a cool note, I like to share a video I came across the other day...

Good for you baxter. Filmmaking should be fun. Success does suck. Ask kurt cobain. Failure is even better. Thats why i write. To fail.
Let me lnow if you need crew or gear for your next film.

Everything happens for a reason. If the owner gets bashed, there's a reason for that too. In the end he is a person just like the rest of us, regardless of what he does for the community.

That's why all the content-is-king threads never had a long lifespan.  Why should an artist talk about his motivation, when film is his medium? Actions speak louder than words.
I don't see where Fuzzy or I attacked anyone. I also can't see why this should be a de-motivational behavior. The cap doesn't fit? Don't wear it. 
​Isn't that the point? Finding a balance? The serenity to accept the things I cannot change (time, money, experience), the courage to change the things I can change (making full use of what I have, which isn't little)?
I apologize for having abused this forum for personal psychotherapy, for openly wallowing in self-pity and for bashing anyone who might feel bashed. I just don't know what you are talking about.

I think the point of this post is very simple... It is very easy to get sucked into the next best thing, especially during this digital revolution but there are cheap cameras available to the masses that are more than capable, tech-wise, to make a great film. A good filmmaker can make a great movie on a low end camera, and a bad filmmaker can make a bad movie on an Alexa. 

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.

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 .

​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 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).

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 .

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 .

​I love me some up-tempo pacing (I have the attention span of a 6-year-old), so I didn't mind it, really. Also, a lot of these cuts seemed motivated by the music. Now at first I was like: oh no, this is one of these pretentious hipster vids with random all-over-the-place stuff just for the sake of it. But then after a few seconds the track picked up. The fragment visuals led up to the establishing shot of the street. Then showing the girls having fun on their night out in the city, playing pool, singing, dancing, chatting, laughing. Just a good time.
Visually I just found it to have very pleasing colors and light. Very nice depth of field and softness, together with the motion and grain it felt very filmlike and organic. I absolutely adored the look in the screencap below. Very dreamy, nice silky milky blacks. Nice bokeh going on. If you don't get that. Well, I guess everyone's got different taste. Would be boring if we'd all be the same!

About the fuzz and cuts with no clear purpose... you could also interpret it as 'the next day's memory of last night'. When you were out the night before, the next day you probably remember bits and pieces, but not everything is quite as clear. So in a way, you could interpret the way the footage is being presented to us as not an in-the-moment documentation, but more of a dreamy memory flashing by before the viewer's eyes.
It was a fashion piece. I assume the bags were the actual main characters in this and incorporated in such way. Together with the bracelets they really stood out with their vibrant colors.
So, I think this approach has paid off quite nicely. It works for me atleast. It shows the power of the tools used and Ed's creative and artistic side to set a certain mood. Now, you might not want (and you shouldn't want) to go with this look for everything you shoot. But just as a camera is a tool, so are different grades, cuts and grains...

here's a few instagrams from another production - basically the same setup - https://instagram.com/aedigitalstudios/

Motion cadencemo, I go so - 
here's something I whipped together - sony f35 - CCD - I softened the image in post to try to make it feel like super 16mm or god knows what - let me know your thoughts:
 

Motion cadencemo, I go so - 
here's something I whipped together - sony f35 - CCD - I softened the image in post to try to make it feel like super 16mm or god knows what - let me know your thoughts:
 

Motion cadencemo, I go so - 
here's something I whipped together - sony f35 - CCD - I softened the image in post to try to make it feel like super 16mm or god knows what - let me know your thoughts:
 

What I think is the only way it can be.
Me!  Me!  Look at me!  I'm typing on the Internet! Validate my opinion.  Validate me!  Let me know the camera I own is awesome.  Tell me I make great choices in the things I buy!!
Wait, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion?  :-)
I actually like all frame rates depending on what I wanna do. Seems like mixed frame rates in the same film could be exploited as a narrative tool as well.
...and slow frame rates too. I once shot some stuff @15 0degree shutter  for a cool effect.  

Not the movies I've made. I shoot mostly available natural light.
And you might want to ask Terrence Malick how he feels about your assertions.
Still... One of my favorite films is Casablanca --so I do get your meaning. 

1. Because it looks better.
2. Because it suspends your disbelief. 
3. Dreamy is a form of imagination.
4. Imagination can create great art. 
5. Tell A DJ that vinyls are history. Now tell a filmmaker the same thing about 24p. 
6. Just my opinion. 

If it was the codec, compression and display the motion from a global shutter shouldn't look better than a rolling on youtube. Which it imo absolutely does.
Same with CCD vs CMOS. 

so ok bit of research and found this see link  , so no i don,t think we need to worry about our films lens for quite some time on digital sensors 
and the chairmain of cooke optics calls the whole 4k lens thing a red herring ...i think my old glass is fine 
 
http://www.cookeoptics.co.uk/techdoc/AFEEAD0010089A9585257BB40064E20F/Are your lenses good enough for that 4k high definition camera.pdf

​here's the thing about the sony f35 since I have two of them - you can record 12 bit 444 DPX files out of them into the odyssey 7q and it has a lot of professional features like XLR inputs and multiple hd sdi outputs
the digital bolex looks absolutely amazing - that footage was gorgeous - I think the only issue I saw was the video noise in the image - but that's pretty minor - all the footage I'm seeing looks incredible - I just wish the camera was built better - with removable ssd cards or cfast cards and a viewfinder that's more logical.
her skintone - her face was gorgeous - I would be curious about this camera - but also though you have to have a viewfinder and all that too
anyway the d21 is really lovely too - it's a 250 ASA camera though - the f35 is 640 ASA (that's what I rate it) - also I rate the red dragon at 320 ASA - the OLPH sensor - I rate camera's ASA based on my own artistic likes and wants in highlights and shadows. I don't listen to the "camera makers" - but
motion to me is also really important, so is natural sharpness, resolution, skin tones, highlight handling, and the userbility of the camera and the weight
a lot of factors - paired with lenses and filtration and you have tons of variables.  Also I like how it gets people to use vintage glass on their cameras.
also the control over the image you can output - so many amazing things to obsess over.
also motion is magic - digital cameras may have a global or mechanical or rolling shutter - but it's also the compression and resolution of the sensor and how it interpolates this data that creates the motion feeling -  one camera's 180 degree shutter will feel different than another on many complex algorithms.
also the look of film - we are seeing it thru a telecine - we aren't watching 35mm film prints anymore - we know and love about film is how it got processed in its pipeline to digital or vhs or dvd or blu ray. degredation of the image this way.  so film is complex too.
this is all digital, nothing is organic - this isn't as simple as a bunch of photos taken together 24 frames a second - it's how the codec and interpoloation of all that data comes together and streams together to make motion and also how we view this motion on our monitors or iphones or god knows what.  
Before I shoot a movie I do tests then project and now projection doesn't even matter - it's how it looks on a tiny iphone.