Jump to content




Photo

Where do you think the industry is heading?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Taylor

Mike Taylor

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • new zealand

Posted 03 February 2015 - 08:13 AM

I've been working as crew for about half a decade and am deciding whether I want to finally try make the big leap into DPing/videography or make an entirely new career shift.  Where do you see the industry heading? Whats it like to make a living as a DP as the technology becomes cheaper and more power is handed over to young people.. is it no longer a real career and more like a semi-hobby (much like the music/audio recording and photography industries have become).

 

Obviously not talking about those who are far enough up the chain to be shooting real features/TV.. I mean around the entry-mid level market where the majority of us exist.

 

Or do you think its the opposite, with the increasing demand for video content on the internet and the increase in resolution requirements, maybe there's more work than ever?

 

Would love to hear some opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • 1




#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11234 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 February 2015 - 09:06 AM

I've a horrible feeling you're right, and I say that as a still occasional worker on the not-real productions that cause the problem.

 

P


  • 0

#3 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 03 February 2015 - 12:42 PM

From various statistics, "Hollywood" only produces about 500-600 feature films a year. Of that, there are maybe 100 or so which are 'on everyone's mind' because of the marketing campaigns, and perhaps 25 that go through the roof in ticket sales.

 

In any case, any industry that only has 500-600 slots a year for the Director of Photography, ok, perhaps 1000 slots to include second units... is not an industry that is going to have a lot of opportunities for someone new and entering the business.

 

So, I claim that for narrative feature length film work, the rise of Youtube/Vimeo offerings will not have a serious impact on change of the availability of job slots in this category.

 

There is perhaps a large group of people who do corporate or event photography, who are most likely affected by the 'oh, now I can shoot it myself' that digital seems to suggest...

 

Youtube/Vimeo can be potentially more benefit to that class of worker than before.

 

However, what may happen, and has happened in 'still photography' (and the momandpops print shops before...), is that there has been a rise of 'photo service' chains, which hire part time type photographers, who have 'just enough' skill, and they shoot portraits or events, at cheaper prices than the individual owner typicalliy can.

 

I think this is were the individual who has aspirations to owning their own company targeting that class of work has to worry.

 

What I don't see is local TV broadcasters taking up 'narrative' offerings from their local 'youtubers'... and by extension, some of the cable content providers like HBO, etc. They will hire probably from the same pool as the narrative feature film production companies.

 

As it is, actual production in Los Angeles has lost to a variety of other states in the US, as well as international... aka Canada and ANZAC... or would that be ANZ Production Companies... In the US, Louisiana leads in outside of Hollywood productions at the moment... and of course there's always the UK productions... but Berlin seems to be growing in popularity for 'english language' Hollywood productions as well...

 

Whether this leads to a liveable income in any one region for most people... remains to be seen. What it does suggest is that one can not just target one type of film production... one needs to be adaptable to many types of films ranging from commercials to features (even if straight to DVD... I mean Streaming...).


  • 0

#4 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2369 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 February 2015 - 02:01 PM

I've been working as crew for about half a decade and am deciding whether I want to finally try make the big leap into DPing/videography or make an entirely new career shift.  Where do you see the industry heading? Whats it like to make a living as a DP as the technology becomes cheaper and more power is handed over to young people.. is it no longer a real career and more like a semi-hobby (much like the music/audio recording and photography industries have become).

 

I've been doing shooting for two decades and haven't yet been successful enough as a DP to make a career out of it. Today, you need to be a jack of all trades to really make a living, so when you aren't a DP, you can do other work. I know a lot of Cinematographers who have learned DaVinci and spend most day's coloring. A bunch of my DP buddies also shoot still's on the side, anything that keep's money flowing. It's very difficult to go backwards once you've worked your way up the food chain. I completely agree that it's more like a hobby, rather then a career as very few DP's actually have enough work to pay the bills year round. Those who do, are the same few who keep getting work. In my mind, it's far easier to become a successful director then DP in today's world. It appears anyone can direct, but the same small group of DP's shoot all those films! 

 

So… I kinda gave up being JUST a DP years ago. Now I wanna be a Steven Soderbergh… write, shoot, edit and direct my own stuff. I personally believe that is the future for filmmaking because if you can do all four things proficiently, nothing stops you from being paid to do each of those things independently. Best part is, with modern digital cinema, you can own decent equipment and produce excellent products without a huge influx of cash. 


  • 0

#5 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 03 February 2015 - 03:06 PM

I've a horrible feeling you're right, and I say that as a still occasional worker on the not-real productions that cause the problem.

 

P

 

That's a really, really. really odd thing to say. Especially from you Phil as you usually seem quite grounded and logical.

I mean in what way are "not-real" productions causing a problem. They aren't really causing much of anything by their very nature!

It's a bit like saying that amateur dramatics orgaisations are destroying opera or something or perhaps that anthills are the reason there aren't enough skyscapers or something.

 

I can't imagine where you are coming from with that!

 

Freya


  • 0

#6 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 03 February 2015 - 03:27 PM

I think the industry is going to get more and more digital.

Cinematography stuff will be scaled right back and as much possible will be done in post.

I also see smaller screens having a bigger future than larger screens with all that entails in term of cinematography.

I suspect there will be smaller crews.

 

Bascially all the digital trends will continue unless something surprising happens.

 

Freya


Edited by Freya Black, 03 February 2015 - 03:27 PM.

  • 0

#7 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 03 February 2015 - 03:50 PM

 

That's a really, really. really odd thing to say. Especially from you Phil as you usually seem quite grounded and logical.

I mean in what way are "not-real" productions causing a problem. They aren't really causing much of anything by their very nature!

It's a bit like saying that amateur dramatics orgaisations are destroying opera or something or perhaps that anthills are the reason there aren't enough skyscapers or something.

 

I can't imagine where you are coming from with that!

 

Freya

 

In certain areas, one may have been able to make a living shooting narrative fiction scripts... say, New York, LA, <don't know about Europe>... but outside of those mega media regions, one had to take up some other kind of shooting, such as corporate work, event coverage (typically wedding coverage) to actually make a living.

 

There was also just getting a job in a completely different discipline... and not having the time or resources to do any 'filmmaking' at all... I'm pretty knowledgeable about that sort of category...

 

What the digital revolution has done, is allowed those people in the corporate/event world, as well as some who are not in the main regions where filmmaking takes place, to enter the activity.

 

On the one hand this may seem as a 'threat' to those making their daily bread via some sort of narrative productions... but in reality, 99.99% of those projects done by 'amateurs/dabblers/hobbists' would never have seen the light of the display anyway, so there is no 'lost' revenue due to such direct competition.

 

There is a problem, in that now that things are more digital, more cgi, etc. there is a common thought amongst people who are not knowledgeable about filmmaking that such things are 'cheap'...

 

I met with some local people via craigslist on 'collaborating' on a script writing project... they had no clue about filmmaking... had the idea for a sci-fi film with some 'period' real world segments as well... yeah... if you've got $200-300M USD just setting around... they were also thinking that a kickstarter funding round could get them going...

 

I don't think people in the past remotely entertained such thoughts at all...

 

I also have high hope for the return of the 'small' theater, for projects that are either very regional, specific to a small market, or similar that the big studio/distributors do not find economically worthwhile, but for which there is some market.

 

For example, some people find the morals of the current films to be objectionable... despite the PG-13 limitations... so, heck, make a production, send it around the 'church social' circuit... be my guest...

 

To be sure that youtube is filled with 'crap'... but you know what... that's been my complaint about broadcast TV since the 60's... just more expensive crap... and fortunately I actually can easily avoid the youtube crap... where as if Broadcast TV was my only access... I'd have either the choice to watch, or turn it off... the latter is what I chose to do...


  • 0

#8 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 03 February 2015 - 04:36 PM


There is a problem, in that now that things are more digital, more cgi, etc. there is a common thought amongst people who are not knowledgeable about filmmaking that such things are 'cheap'...

 

Yeah there is a lot of this going on over at RedShark at the moment sadly. One filmmaker actually stepped up to say "hey this actually cost a fair bit to make!" or words to that effect and I was really, really impressed that he did so! Good for him. However today I see there is a really great short promoted on RedShark "made with next to no money" that within minutes you can see was shot at the Laurel Canyon stages. (They did a good job of not making it completely obvious but...) Of course I guess it depends on what you mean by "next to no money" but I think some people might be in for a surprise at how much making a little short like that actually costs! I think people assume it's just a short and must have been made on a tiny budget because of the lack of commercial value but this isn't always the case.

 

The sad thing is that the short is really outstanding so it can stand on its feet without having to say it was made cheaply, let alone "next to no money".

 

What can you do?!

 

Freya


  • 0

#9 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 03 February 2015 - 05:03 PM


What the digital revolution has done, is allowed those people in the corporate/event world, as well as some who are not in the main regions where filmmaking takes place, to enter the activity.

 

On the one hand this may seem as a 'threat' to those making their daily bread via some sort of narrative productions... but in reality, 99.99% of those projects done by 'amateurs/dabblers/hobbists' would never have seen the light of the display anyway, so there is no 'lost' revenue due to such direct competition.

 

I'd actually imagine there was more chance of competition in the corporate and event world from people with DSLR's than anything being affected much in the narrative world.

 

Freya


  • 0

#10 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 6771 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 03 February 2015 - 07:16 PM

Oh Laurel Canyon; was it the sci-fi set? I rather liked it there; but the short I did there was also by no means cheap.

 

I don't know. I'm odd, I make a living off of film work, and basically just DoP work. I will "Gaff," and I use that word loosely because it's all 20A power at most on these things, for select people; generally people I know who are working to DP and want my help and respect my opinion/input. But, aside from that 99.99% of my income is from DoP work (1st and 2nd unit.)

 

Now that said, the rise of digital and the rise of crowdfunding, has, in a way, increased my income. Mostly because now a days anyone can raise up some funds from total strangers, somehow, and at least pay out minimum wage. And sure, I'll go out and shoot that little thing if I haven't got anything else going on because, hell, might as well do some network building some experimentation, and just keep in practice while making a few bucks.

 

As the technology cheapens you tend to get a lot of people who think film-making is cheap, but i think those people were always there; but you also get the benefit that rental prices for, say a camera, go way down-- and some lenses too (Rokinons for example, which you can buy for the rental price of a set of cookes... No real comparison mind you; but still, beneficial on these smaller self funded shorts).

 

There is an old adage that there is a sucker born every minute; but there has also been a dreamer born every second as well. And while, yes, a great many of these people will always live in the realm of dream, and many are far out of touch with reality, I think the diversification of ways to get work out there can really increase the number of projects made. Now, are they all Feature films destined for theatrical release, no of course not. But they're projects. Most of them not that great, but that's no different than the vast majority of media made always.

 

So where are we headed? Well, we are heading towards a world which needs more and more media to fill up the diversifying modes of distribution. This i think increases the number of opportunities for people, while sadly driving down the average wage. But, I think if you're gritty enough, savvy enough, and not all too awful at your job, and can make it to an "area of production," then yes, you can make a career out of DoP work. But it's no easy task, and it's not really, I think, even a job. It's a whole lifestyle; like military service, or the clergy, or what have you. It becomes a modality of interfacing with the world where, no matter what, you're not on vacation; you're never having a real day off. Those who can make the sacrifices attendant, who are honest with themselves about their abilities, and who aren't a horrible human being and possessing a good nature and sense of humor, have, can, and I think will continue to make it.

 

One of the major issues you have are a lot of people who are just a camera with a "body," a person, who own it, who will undercut you on gigs. And sure, you'll loose out on those gigs, but that's fine; you really don't want to be working on those types of shoots anyway, really, where in essence you get a camera and a warm body. There are now, as I think there always have been, many of these people existing. They are just more vocal now; they have an easier way of showing off, and tracking down work. But this is no matter, they're cutting their teeth; as we all did at one point of another. The only nice thing was that before, such things didn't follow you as much.
 

Anyway this is turning into a long winded rant, but there's some of my ruminations on the state of things and perhaps my overly optimistic idea of what's to come.


  • 3

#11 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 03 February 2015 - 07:31 PM

Oh Laurel Canyon; was it the sci-fi set? I rather liked it there; but the short I did there was also by no means cheap.

 

We all may have different associations with 'Laurel Canyon'... back when every self respecting hippie teen had a guitar... didn't end paid gigs for actual musicians...

 

Blues_from_Laurel_Canyon.jpg


Edited by John E Clark, 03 February 2015 - 07:32 PM.

  • 0

#12 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 05 February 2015 - 07:54 AM

I think the industry is going to continue with its current trend of decentralisation. But demand for content keeps rising and the number of people wanting to create (I'll reserve the word 'produce' for actual Producers who appreciate what that word actually entails!) content keeps rising - so I actually think it's a pretty healthy time for production. A great many of the barriers to entry have now fallen by the wayside, which means people have opportunities to work on things that they'd never have got in the past.

 

At any rate, complaining about it won't change the trend - so best to embrace it and make the best of it I think. 


  • 0

#13 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1897 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 10 February 2015 - 12:24 PM

Jack of all trades - master of none. This is the time to specialize. If I had a dime for every DP I knew who started directing/shooting and literally overnight lost all their directors (because why would they want to employ someone who they're in direct competition with and who's also by logic lost his interest in cinematography?) and then didn't make a success of it, I'd be rich. Some of them came crawling back to DPing, but most faded into the great vista never to be heard from again. This is in commercials, but you can make the same argument in features. I can't think of many DP's who turned director with great success. Maybe Barry Sonnenfeld. Maybe Guy Green. And if you're talking DP/directors in features, I can think of only two: Peter Hyams and Steven Soderbergh.

 

If you have a plumbing problem, you want someone who's done plumbing, and plumbing alone, for the last 30 years. Not a watchmaker or a butcher that dabbles in plumbing on the side. Same here. There will always be work and a market for a professional cinematographer and lighter. They're all going to have to light or frame their shots, no matter what the format of the future is. And for that they'll employ someone who's done it before, has a track record, who can calm their fears, someone they can trust. There will always be work for professional specialists. You just need to specialize. Pick one thing, and do that as well as you can.


  • 1

#14 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11234 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 February 2015 - 01:18 PM

There will always be work and a market for a professional cinematographer and lighter.

 

Ha, maybe where you are. There hasn't been here for decades and it seems unlikely now that such a market could ever be established, at least without an enormous change in circumstances.

 

P


  • 0

#15 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 23 February 2015 - 01:50 PM

After seeing the latest "Hunger Games" movie the other day that was shot and projected on digital, has me predicting a massive die off of cinemas over the next decade or so. It was extremely milky and transparent and I blame most of it on the projection. The theater experience is just not the same anymore. The last few movies I've seen digitally projected felt more like some free makeshift outdoor movie night in the park, not a true cinema experience. But like all digital technology, it will get better. Which means theaters will have to upgrade the super expensive crap they have now in just a few years. Where as a film projector cost 1/4th as much and pretty much run forever. Meanwhile TV's keep upping the home theater experience. Since so many smaller cinemas struggled to barely make the transformation to digital, I don't see them keeping up in the long run with how digital evolves and the cost that goes with it. 


  • 0

#16 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 25 February 2015 - 05:21 AM

After seeing the latest "Hunger Games" movie the other day that was shot and projected on digital, has me predicting a massive die off of cinemas over the next decade or so. It was extremely milky and transparent and I blame most of it on the projection. The theater experience is just not the same anymore. The last few movies I've seen digitally projected felt more like some free makeshift outdoor movie night in the park, not a true cinema experience. But like all digital technology, it will get better. Which means theaters will have to upgrade the super expensive crap they have now in just a few years. Where as a film projector cost 1/4th as much and pretty much run forever. Meanwhile TV's keep upping the home theater experience. Since so many smaller cinemas struggled to barely make the transformation to digital, I don't see them keeping up in the long run with how digital evolves and the cost that goes with it. 

 

Yeah - soon domestic digital projectors will be 4K. Domestic screens already are. For the inspired home theatre advocate they'll be able to recreate all aspects of a small cinema in their home.

 

The only thing missing thing would be the communal experience of watching a 'film' in a cinema. If one ever wanted such a thing. Often though, by the time I get around seeing a work, the cinema is next to empty.

 

Once upon a time, in the days of actual film, I'd ensure I made the premiere, before the print got too many scratches! Full communal experience there. But I don't know if I ever actually wanted the communal experience. I just got it anyway.

 

These days I'm involved in a great film workshop where we screen 16mm films once a month. Mainly experimental films (for want of a better description). Great films - and on film!

 

There's nothing like seeing a film - on film, to remind oneself how different film really is from it's digital counterparts. I love it. I was a film projectionist at 15 years of age, for a "film appreciation" class held each week where I lived. Seeing films today takes me back to those early days when my eyes and brain were completely fresh, inspired and full of hope.And  I can easily recover that same sense through watching films. Clears out all the cobwebs in my brain cells.

 

Last night we were watching a number of works by Peter Tcherkassky. Really great work. Don't watch these on YouTube unless you really have to. They really work way better when running as a film print through a real film projector.

 

As for the future of the film industry - I have no idea where that's going. I make my contribution to the history of film in any way that's remotely possible.

 

C


  • 0

#17 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 25 February 2015 - 11:52 AM

After seeing the latest "Hunger Games" movie the other day that was shot and projected on digital, has me predicting a massive die off of cinemas over the next decade or so. It was extremely milky and transparent and I blame most of it on the projection. The theater experience is just not the same anymore. The last few movies I've seen digitally projected felt more like some free makeshift outdoor movie night in the park, not a true cinema experience. But like all digital technology, it will get better. Which means theaters will have to upgrade the super expensive crap they have now in just a few years. Where as a film projector cost 1/4th as much and pretty much run forever. Meanwhile TV's keep upping the home theater experience. Since so many smaller cinemas struggled to barely make the transformation to digital, I don't see them keeping up in the long run with how digital evolves and the cost that goes with it. 

 

There is a local organization which is now showing various 'art' films in a very small theater. All digital, and would not have existed had there only been film prints + projector.

 

The organization also has various 2-6 week classes in film making, and are using various digital means to allow students to capture images, process, and make final output, again all digital. This would not have existed in the Film film days.

 

Even in the area of major motion pictures, and movie houses, the digital presentation I think can allow for a better and more consistent projected experience, than Film film had.

 

As for specifically "Hunger Games"... the first installment was shot on Film film, and had a number of 'effects', such as 'shaky cam' which put me 'off', but I got in to the story anyway... Also I think the 'washed out' look is a series aesthetic choice... and I've seen that choice elsewhere...


Edited by John E Clark, 25 February 2015 - 11:53 AM.

  • 0

#18 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2369 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 February 2015 - 01:53 PM

The organization also has various 2-6 week classes in film making, and are using various digital means to allow students to capture images, process, and make final output, again all digital. This would not have existed in the Film film days.

 

 

When you shoot digitally, most of the time students never learn about exposure, shutter angle, ISO/ASA and the critical things which make cameras work. Most schools use HD camcorders which you can set to "auto" and capture an image, or they learn about gain and shutter speed, two things which don't translate well to the world of cinema. Plus the ease of post production with those cameras, isn't realistic. 

 

I learned on film as a child because back then, super 8 is all we had. When the infrastructure existed, it didn't take long for film to come back from the lab. It wasn't expensive… a 1.5 min @ 24fps color Kodachrome 50 ASA Day stock was $10 dollars, plus an additional $5 for processing. Sure, my camera was automatic at the time, but as I got older, I purchased fully manual camera's to learn the trade properly. I moved to 16mm in college and when I graduated, started shooting 35mm. 

 

The "expense" was never a consideration, it honestly wasn't that expensive. The school's had beat up news camera's from the 80's, which were donated. Kodak gives students discounts on stock, so all of us would buy a box of 4 X 400ft can's. The local lab's were cheap enough and they'd make one light dailies for peanuts. The key with learning on film is that you don't want to make any mistakes since you can't see the final output. In this way, you pay more attention to the technical things in order to get it right. You aren't just running the camera to 'capture' something, you are only running the camera to get that 'take' and outside of that, the camera never runs. It's about learning how to make movies the proper way, without the freedom of shooting every take, where every foot costs you money. Not only do you become a better cinematographer, but you also become a better director if it's your project.

 

The best thing about working with film is being able to physical touch the image. The organic nature of film editing is something everyone should be taught because it forces you to think before making a cut, before making a splice. Non-linear editing is a joke, you don't really need any talent because when you make a mistake, just hit the undo button. On film, you can't afford to make mistakes since you're making physical cuts, so you do it right the first time and it requires a thinking editor, not someone who knows how to drag and drop. 

 

I don't mind shooting digital cinema because I've already shot and edited on film for years. I've worked at lab's, I've worked with telecine machines, I've done film restoration as well. However, most of my clients have no interest in film, they want something that people can see on the internet. It's a disposable world we live in. You work hard to produce a product, it's put online, people watch it and then it disappears from consciousness. Heck, even the digital features I've worked on… people make them quick and move onto the next one. Very few people spend the time or the money necessary to make a real piece of art and we no longer have a physical connection to what we make. That separation in my view is part of what's destroying cinema. 


  • 1

#19 Rakesh Malik

Rakesh Malik
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle, WA

Posted 25 February 2015 - 02:14 PM

I don't agree that you don't need talent to edit with an NLE, because you do still need to know how to tell a story. An editor who doesn't understand what pacing and suspense are won't give you a good cut whether on an NLE or by splicing film. 

 

Too many people these days have it in their heads that directing a movie means pointing a camera at a bunch of actors and calling "action" without consideration to blocking, lighting, art direction, and composition. There's a book out called "Directing the Camera" that could be summed up as, "You're probably not naturally talented, so don't bother trying to be artistic, just pan the camera a lot."

 

Most of the so-called DPs around here are really just rental bodies with cameras. They don't get involved in designing shots or lighting, they light the gaffers take care of the lighting, and for the most part, no one seems to worry much about blocking outside of action sequences and continuity.

 

That's one of the biggest detriments to cinema these days. Indie films end up looking bad because the people making them usually assume that raising production value means putting the camera on a jib and keeping it moving, rather than about lighting, blocking, stage direction, portraying emotion, and art direction.

 

It's disappointing, but hopefully it will allow people with the dedication to the art to shine amidst all of the... chaff.


  • 1

#20 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2267 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 25 February 2015 - 02:55 PM

Too many people these days have it in their heads that directing a movie means pointing a camera at a bunch of actors and calling "action" without consideration to blocking, lighting, art direction, and composition.

 

And those are just the very basics.  There is a plethora of visual elements that you can find in virtually every frame of a Bergman film, but in today's films, they are virtually non-existent.  Either they are not being taught or not being utilized or both.


  • 0


CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Zylight

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Pro 8mm

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Glidecam

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

The Slider

CineLab

Technodolly

CineTape

Zylight

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Pro 8mm

Paralinx LLC