Steven Soderbergh and/or Chris Teague (2 replies and 13 comments)
I'd love to see an episode (or perhaps more than one episode) on Cinematographers that have used the iPhone or entry level prosumer cinema cameras to shoot low budget films; the challenges of smaller sensors and lighter rigs, as well as tricks and tips and the differences in workflow and lighting approaches.
Steven Soderbergh did some great work on High Flying Bird with an iPhone 8 and Chris Teague shot Bob and The Trees on the first BMPCC.
Already film industry falling down. why these people's doing mobile phone photography.
Wouldn't that be a great discussion topic? I imagine when Roger was training in England, the idea of the democratization of filmmaking would have been something of a dream, but now that it's possible is that good or bad? What are the paths where being able to shoot on a cellphone or a $1000 camera a good thing? Do smaller stories get told? Is there some imaginable situation where we see a French New Wave style cinema movement that actively bucks the industry? Or is it bad because when you have such powerful tools, are basic skills being lost? I think there's a lot to unpack in tackling making movies with pocket cameras and tiny budget.s
its a camera , what basic skills can be lost by a new camera exisiting.
personally i think the toughest parts of actual filmmaking has very little to do with what camera you have or do not have.
Baudelaire exactly! Story first. If you can tell a great story know one but other camera nerds will care what your film was shot with 🙂
I think when indie filmmakers learning the craft have hugely powerful 13 stops capable machines, there's the possibility of a lot of basic skills being lost. For instance, you're going to see a lot more entry level filmmakers relying on those 13 stops to do major lighting in post rather than during production. I'm specifically interested in the sort of questions and opinions an established Cinematographer like Roger would have regarding prosumer and iphone shot features as a technician. I understand entirely from an artistic stand point it doesn't matter what you shoot on. I want to hear them geek out on new tech. Wouldn't that be a fun episode to listen to?
Aaron. Anything that makes the process easier is good thing, its up to the artists how they use them. i lived through this kind of thing already becoming a professional photographer just as digital came in. A huge amount of technical skill was not only lost but i would say redundant, I would argue once you can see the picture as its happening you are given a huge amount of freedom to go further. I think there is a lot of nostalgia and a confusion about what crafting an image actually is but at the end of the day the results are what counts and what stands after the discussions are finished.
So what I'm gathering here...and I'm a little slow on the uptake...is that you AREN'T interested in my episode idea.
I am sure Roger has taken interest in your suggestions but due to a lack of time, he doesn’t always acknowledge directly to members. Your post has been logged.
Oh, I was actually just responding to the folks who left responses above that didn't seem to understand my interest in having Roger speak to this topic. I was trying crack open the potential in a conversation about pocket filmmaking but I feel like I maybe I inadvertently drummed up an affront in the forums. It's all in good fun and for the love of movies.
Not a problem Aaron, your contribution is much appreciated.
aaron, sorry if i misundertstood the post, all good.
I imagine when Roger was training in England, the idea of the democratization of filmmaking would have been something of a dream, but now that it's possible is that good or bad? What are the paths where being able to shoot on a cellphone or a $1000 camera a good thing?
Beware democratisation! We had that with music. Suddenly, instead of record labels having to pay hundreds or even a thousand or two per day for a recording studio, bands, combos and single artists now nearly all record themselves at home in their home studios. The results are nearly always dreadful!
It's not just the poor quality of the recordings and acoustics, but the lack of adult musical supervision. Without the backing of EMI and the arrangements by George Martin, there would have been no Beatles. Without the abilities of Mickie Most, no Led Zeplin, Kim Wilde, or Hot Chocolate.
The danger of democratising of film is that those making some 'small' projects will take less care. The lighting or score or sound design or acting will be "our artistic vision!" i.e. slap-dash, lacking in production values and just crap.
You can make perfectly crafted films without expensive technology - but it's not the technology that is the limiting factor. It's talent.
Im sorry but your argument doesn't really stack up and you kind of contradict yourself at the end . Anything that makes the creative process easier and more accessible is a good thing. Not only a good thing but worldchanging. Because of democratisation of filmmaking we get to hear and see voices that would never have previously been heard. There always was truly great and truly awful artistic projects.
...and there always will be