Leaderboard

I'm setting up this post because I am fed up of the camera posts going off topic.   This is a thread to discuss the craft rather than the technical side of filmmaking.   Cinematography, lighting techniques, story and character ideas. It can all go here.   If it gets used regularly I'll make it a sticky.   Enjoy!

talking about the genius Jack Cardiff my I recomend this dvd all about him and his techniques its a gold mine of infomation http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/jack-cardiff-cameraman-NEW-SEALED-DVD-Fast-Post-UK-STOCK-Top-seller-/360768211742?pt=UK_CDsDVDs_DVDs_DVDs_GL&hash=item53ff760b1e

I just started shooting with Kodak about a year ago...for commercials and stills...I THINK IT WILL SURVIVE...GREAT GREAT IMAGE AND IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING FOR BROADCAST CHEAPER!   (almost no post required)

The man behind Black Narcissus is Jack Cardiff... Try to see these documental about the cinematographer. Really great! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1626811/ Best.

Let me recommend a book I think every film-maker should read   http://www.amazon.com/Sculpting-Time-Tarkovsky-Filmaker-Discusses/dp/0292776241   In my 20s my girlfriend took me to her favorite film, The Sacrifice.  I have never sat through a longer, more boring, 2 hours in my life!  When I later read that they forgot to load film into the camera before shooting the burning house, and had to shoot another burning house, i was not in the last surprised.  I made a mental note that Tarkovsky is the WORST filmmaker ever.   Then I read the book and watched some of his other films.     What I love about this site is that it talks about film-making technology in a serious way.  People who think it's about one camera vs another are COMPLETELY missing the point.  The questions trying to be answered is "what is the best technological approach, and trade-off, I should take for what I want to shoot."     Let me finish my rant with this.  At the Dartmouth Film Society they showed "Black Narcissus".  There are so few real film-theaters around I was very excited.  I wished my oldest kids were around to take them.  Anyway, I went by myself and watched it.  It didn't look good at all.  I thought, "I guess digital technology has advanced so far Technicolor now looks like crap."  I had remembered seeing the film in NYC and being blown away with it's cinematography.  Afterwards, I asked what they showed it on.  The young woman (student) says, "DVD, we wanted to show it in film, but the projector was broken.  And then our Bluray wasn't working.  Fortunately, we had a DVD too."  I was floored.     It wasn't that a film-society showed one of the greatest Technicolor masterpieces in DVD, it was that they did not tell the audience.  People went away not having experienced the technology/story as it was meant to be shown.     That's the way I feel reading many of those off-posts.  Many readers don't know the beauty of real film because it has been swamped by digital content.  Eventually, everyone learns their mistakes, just like I did about Tarkovsky and the real goal of filmmaking.  Many posters here that go off-topic will one day get it.     Now, to get back on this topic, what are the best films that use the most minimal of technology.  I'd love to see a best 10 lists.  I'll start with Fast Runner.

Everyone from our little community in this forum has a distorted perspective. The profile of the quality-aware, lowest budget "indie-filmmaker" doesn't concern Son, Can, Nik or Pan very much. This profile is taken care of by BlackMagic almost exclusively.   It's primarily that profile that needs an update. The world is changing, and we are mentally blocked and don't see it. Both cinema (our holy grail) and TV are becoming niches in the eyes of the young. They couldn't care less about the niceties of aesthetic distinctions we try to nail down comparing (see thread) GH3 with BMPCC, for an instance. They also don't care about resolution.   The big business, the world of Hollywood and it's 3D- CGI-heavy- 24-channel-videos doesn't even notice our existence, and, let's face it, we'll never be able to reach their technical standards, let alone their implied 'production value'. By no tricks we will convincingly become Goliath.   The situation is daft. There is an ever growing (literally) audience, profoundly missed by the ones best equipped (technically: already, in spirit: no) to get their attention. These kids from the smartphone generation are held hostages by an industry that sells them entertaining bits and pieces, leftovers from once independant popular arts. Doesn't anybody share my impression that there are only 'cover versions' everywhere? In music as well as cinema?   The distrubution chains are changing radically. The 20-year-olds starve for drama, they want to get some sense, but they are denied it. The whole internet, the biggest platform imaginable, is filled with rehashed content. And we long to produce more rehashed content. What is that good for?

  This doesn't even fully capture it. They have in fact been directly antagonistic to Magic Lantern vis-a-vis the 1DX and the potential for a software conversion to a 1DC.   To me, that reveals far deeper rot than mere stupidity. It also represents entitled arrogance.

A really great article!Spot-on all around. Thanks