Calling all film makers & videographers

[KeyserSoze]

the main difference between stills photography, and motion film/videography/whatever-hd-ography ...

in stills, when we press the shutter release button, we are exposing 1 or 2 frames at a time (not refering to sports/wildlife)

in motion capture, a few frames per second gets exposed.

in stills, the meaning/intention of the photographer has to be communicated via that 1,2 frames (or series of 1,2 frames)

in motion capture, the story has to be told via a continuous series of frames.

i guess different emphasis is placed on the importance of the 'frame' here and how it is used.

film - still, single frame.
silent.
A snapshot ( - to capture that single moment where time stands still) and the person viewing it , has a lot more work to do, to intepret that information presented, in any way he/she can/wants.

'motion' film - 24 frames in a second, (usually, not the exception. John Woo slo-mo : more frames in a second and the picture presented is somewhat, closer to being a standstill. evokes time is slowing down)
sound (usually, but again, not the exception)
collective of series of snapshots to micmic real-life movement ; used as a tool to visually tell a story (if at all coherent) to the audience. OFTEN (but not the exception) presented in a way that's easily understood and wholesalely consumed, usually without multiple interpretations (again not the exception) of a singular aim to let audiences feel the way the director intended them to. But wholey still allows the individual their freedom to interprete the meaning of it all.

with regards to the physical framing, it all depends on either formats and the medium used to deploy it.

photographs aren't fixed, easily cropped and in various modes: portrait landscape.

motion picture fixed within its form , i.e. (aspect ratio : video for 4:3 or 16:9 TVs, movies : 1.85 :1 or anamorphically 2.35:1 etc) no cropped, unless artitistic framing with the aspect ratio in the composition only.

Both however enjoys similar different tech forms as well. e.g. 3D photography and film.

and both relatively expensive , say compared to books and music listening

 

[KeyserSoze]

for me, i've always been intrigued by the 'cinematic' possibilities of stills-photography.

not only in terms of technical production (working, interacting and directing 'cast and crew' to realise a common photographic vision) but also in the explorations of 'cinematic' themes and lighting styles.

sometimes u just get bored shooting alone (poor excuse for lack of individual creativity =P )

a good example of 'cinematic' stills is the art of stop-motion filmmaking lor.

anybody here who does simple photography can do. and it works better with constant lighting than strobes and flash guns.

stop-motion animation : best e.g . past year - Wallace and Gromit , the corpse bride.

these are done by 'simply' moving each clay/plasticine (or anything you want to animate, be it a toy, doll, and regardless of material : metal, plastic, rubber) ever so little enough, but significantly enough to take still photos of each move, and combining those movements into a series of photos and ultimately into a format to play a 'slideshow' at the rate of percieved motion, which is 24 frames per second, at least for motion picture movie terms.

Everything is up to experimenting.

the animation part is just like combining series of paintings/drawings and into motion rates and turning those into cartoons, or animation.

sound can be then added later to sync with the motion , to give things/characters a voice.

 

[KeyserSoze]

I hope I didn't bore anyone on this thread.

I felt inspired to write all that after readin this thread again.


all my postings here are based on my thought and opinios, and do not for once, think its the only/correct/wrong way to see things.

creativity is thinking outside the box, but a creative person will not just envision the oppressing enclosure and just simply give it a fixed shape of a box, or a cylinder . It can be ever changing.



Hope everyone has fun exploring the themes in this thread.

Feel free to give comments to me as well.

 

[Nerd]

Just to side track a bit on some points of being a DOP. I feel that the choice of shooting format will affect how the DOP's decision in framing and other mise-en-scene. There are many films out there with different aspect ratios and for example, if the format 3:2 (for e.g.), the DOP won't use it the same way as if it's 4:3 (again, e.g., cos I don't know the formats).

I don't know of anyone who can shoot well using all the different aspect ratios.

Here is a site listing out most of not all of the different formats.

 

[Stereobox]

thanks KeyserSoze, for sharing your insights and thoughts.

i certainly didn't find it boring, that's for sure!

to think outside the proverbial box ... one has to know what's in the box, and how big that box is, isn't it? mine happens to be .. the Stereobox :bsmilie: don't ask me yet ... i have no idea what it means at this point in my life.

stop-motion filmmaking (am i right to call it stop-animation for short?) is something i've always wanted to try again. but instead of doing it at 24/25 fps ... i'll be fine with 12 fps, to create that 'stop-mo' feel (aka..lazy la!!)

now..if only i get struck by a bolt of inspiration which will spark me to go all the way...

 

[lsisaxon]

Not sure what type of films you are refering too that HD is overtaking film, but in the context of the biggest movie market, i.e. Hollywood, not true. Film is preferred and used more still and doesn't seem to dramtically shift towards HD rapidly just yet, unlike still photography. Technicaly reasons are simple to explain. easy to shoot on film, but HD res is still under , say APS size CCD/CMOS sensor res. So if digital still with say 10 MP (nikon D200), single photo raw will be approx 16Mb (from Dpreview review) . Ok, now for motion picture, multiply that by 24 times (in film context 1 sec of motion picture is made up of 24 individual frames of snapshots of stills to recreate motion, basic motion picture law) . approx 384Mb/s and thus with maths, 1 min approx 23,040MB already... thus for digital film (video formats,) there isn't yet a film conquering medium to easily outdo (even super16mm) film in terms of data integrity and ultimately picture quality (digital is still relatively new compared to 100 years of technology in the field of emulsion tech for the silver halide.

don't even get me started on HDV and 'true' HD etc. but for the present, HD is relatively cheaper when all the cost factors are finally added up. Thus most low-er budget companies lean towards HD as its is (almost) WYSIWYG styled, video shots , while film is a highly techinicaly and expensive discipline to master. (yes, those tapes are like CF cards, can reuse. at your own data's integrity risk)

since the tech skillsets are different, often we hear urban legends (and truths) that some DOPs (or DPs for short in USA) would ultimately make mistakes at either ends when crossing over formats. like I stressed b4, pro doesn't mean always good.

so in addition to lsisaxon' statement here, a good anybody should be able to do any format on any tool. imagine if you bump into Russell Wong (sorry, I use him e.g. again, no malice intended, apologies.) and ask him to take a photo of you travelling with your P+S, and he can come up with a great photo (btw his first time using your model) , that is, IMO, the mark of a good photographer... all direct factors being equal and someone can come up with exceptional work.

:thumbsup: Your comments on DPs are by far the best I've seen.

 

[mich_2103]

Sorry, but i honestly think this remark is very one sided. I am a film student. Shot my thesis project recently in digital DVC pro 50m. The significance of photography helps in the initial composition. Not much on lighting and anything else. And the title of DOP (Director of photography) Does not apply to videographers. It only applies to Conventional film shooters. There is a certain amount of experience and ability needed before a camera man can be quantified as a DOP. As what Boddah has said. A good DOP MAY make a good photographer but not vice versa. Dop is not for everyone who wanna just grab a cam and shoot. It is an in born talent. If you have it, then you have it. If you don't have it. you will never have it. I have a few stories to show that this fact is quite true if any of you want to know pm me.
I sincerely apologise for this bad sounding attitude. But i really find it hard to swallow when people keep calling themselves DOP when they cannot hardly even operate a videocam much less a film camera. Cheers.

Hi Folks,
It has been sometime since I last posted, and first thing I find this morning is this interesting thread.

I truly understand Chris's POV because I have also encountered clowns who claim they are cinematographers (DOP), when they can't even operate a simple manual SLR such as FM10.

IMHO if we are speaking purely about the technical process, filmmaking possess a higher challenge compared to still photography because it is motion and therefore unlike stills, you have to be aware of the surroundings that is covered in that particular shot.

A good DOP is NOT a walking encyclopedia but I feel at least when working on a shoot, he/she should know what kind of shots is suitable for the script, within the means of the producer (e.g., don't think of fancy shots with crane/dolly when the shoot doesn't have that kind of money to get those equipment) and recommend to the director (of course it is up to the director to decide whether to accept those shots or not).

Another trait of a good DOP is the flexibility - the ability to change quickly because of unforseen circumstances such as weather or changing of locations (kana chased away by policemen because of no permits). If the DOP doesn't have the experience, the production is going to end up wasting a lot of time setting up lights and such. And for the producer, time is MONEY!!!!

The knowledge of operating equipment from various mediums (16/35mm, HD, DV, Beta etc) is also another advantage because not every production has to money to shoot in film and therefore, have to seek on other alternatives.

By the way, I often hear people describing themselves and their profession as "filmmakers". But the term itself is generic, so ambiguous. I mean with today's technology, even someone who uses a camera phone to take clips can call themselves as "filmmakers".

What I am trying to say is, if you are a film/video producer, then call yourself a producer. Same goes for cinematographer, director, art director, etc etc.

Like what screenwriter William Goldman said, "Nobody knows anything".

Cheers,
{Michelle}

 

[Stereobox]

i find this chatter on 'who is a DoP, what makes a great DoP, what makes a great director etc' interesting but unnecessary in this current context.

i'm not saying i'm not interested in knowing what definition of roles and areas of responsibilities are....but at this point in time (the thread is still so young!) i feel it would be more beneficial for threadreaders (newbies like me) if the direction of discussion is geared more towards 'content'.

i believe first and foremost, what makes a good film/photograph for any matter is simply, content. the rest can come later..who u hire to be your dop,casting ...

of course, i can't and won't dictate the flow of discussion here.
just my 2 cents (im always out of change) :dunno:

 

[KeyserSoze]

Here is a site listing out most of not all of the different formats.

Wow. very detailed ! Thanks for sharing.

All these aspect ratios have to deal with the format itself and the progression of film and photography. Some were advancements, others just gimmicks to draw people back to the cinema or to still photography etc, from new(er) interests , such as the invention of television and broadcasting...

Very true about how it is difficult to excel in all these formats and their respective aspect ratios. just the medium of DVDs have lead to people crying foul over letterbox, pan and scan and anamorphic 16 X 9 already.


What should be important is that the medium should be kept the way it was intended to be presented. Would anyone one to observe the sistine chapel if we were to (gasp) tear it down and jigsaw it onto a wall installation instead ?

I think not.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Hi Folks,
It has been sometime since I last posted, and first thing I find this morning is this interesting thread.

I truly understand Chris's POV because I have also encountered clowns who claim they are cinematographers (DOP), when they can't even operate a simple manual SLR such as FM10.

IMHO if we are speaking purely about the technical process, filmmaking possess a higher challenge compared to still photography because it is motion and therefore unlike stills, you have to be aware of the surroundings that is covered in that particular shot.

A good DOP is NOT a walking encyclopedia but I feel at least when working on a shoot, he/she should know what kind of shots is suitable for the script, within the means of the producer (e.g., don't think of fancy shots with crane/dolly when the shoot doesn't have that kind of money to get those equipment) and recommend to the director (of course it is up to the director to decide whether to accept those shots or not).

Another trait of a good DOP is the flexibility - the ability to change quickly because of unforseen circumstances such as weather or changing of locations (kana chased away by policemen because of no permits). If the DOP doesn't have the experience, the production is going to end up wasting a lot of time setting up lights and such. And for the producer, time is MONEY!!!!

The knowledge of operating equipment from various mediums (16/35mm, HD, DV, Beta etc) is also another advantage because not every production has to money to shoot in film and therefore, have to seek on other alternatives.

By the way, I often hear people describing themselves and their profession as "filmmakers". But the term itself is generic, so ambiguous. I mean with today's technology, even someone who uses a camera phone to take clips can call themselves as "filmmakers".

What I am trying to say is, if you are a film/video producer, then call yourself a producer. Same goes for cinematographer, director, art director, etc etc.

Like what screenwriter William Goldman said, "Nobody knows anything".

Cheers,
{Michelle}

oops michelle. I find some of your points repeatitive to earlier postings by other people . I'll agree and disagree to some of it. thinks I've already posted my opinions of most of it anyways.

Funny statement that Goldman made. If he knows that 'nobody knows anything' in Hollywood, he is also (point with the rest of his fingers and thumb) implying he knows this and its he's a nobody ,and also the state says something and he can proclaim it. It sounds like a cop out from a great authour and screenwriter.

I'd be reserved to make a comment like that, but then again he's famous.

 

[wan]

Hi all, im interested to learn videography (if its called dat way). jus got dis sony trv 950e 3ccd(2nd hand), and im keen to learn how to shoot, direct etc. Is it ok for me to tag any one of u guys(sifu) to learn more.:embrass:

 

[edfck]

Hi all, im interested to learn videography (if its called dat way). jus got dis sony trv 950e 3ccd(2nd hand), and im keen to learn how to shoot, direct etc. Is it ok for me to tag any one of u guys(sifu) to learn more.:embrass:

er... as u hv pro know by now after reading this thread tat photography n videography is rather different. shooting a footage n editing it is different. wish u can tag along with me but i shoot most of my video overseas. although i'm no pro, but i know a thing or 2 and if u like, pm me n i can give u some pointers.

 

[Stereobox]

upz =)

 

[SnapSnap]

Actually I started off with a video cam before I got a still camera...
To me (one who do not have any formal training in videography), I watch the programs on TV and learn and try to use the transition in my own projects.
The difference, for photography, I have to hold the camera steady for 1/30 sec, for videography, I have to hold the video cam steady for as long as I want the clip to be...
Just a noob