Like young children waiting for Christmas, everyone seems to be overly excited about the new cameras, recorders, and other gear soon to be announced and released.

But, do we really need this stuff?

Why do the photo's taken with the latest DSLR and Photo Shopped to death, don't have the mystery and appeal of a black and white photograph by Ansil Adams?

Look at what was filmed in the 1920's with old technology. Last night I watch film clips of Buster Crabbe. How did those guys film and produce material like that? No computers, no FCP, and no “this years latest gadget”.

We have lost something. I'm so tired of looking at fake Photo Shop photos, and film productions that are nothing but hollow, empty, computerized special effects. Where are the theater actors? The script writers? The writers of great movie musical scores?

Like all technology and industries, I hope there will arise some photographers, cinematographers, and film producers who will begin producing high quality films and photo's using vintage equipment. People who will use their artistic ability, imaginations, and will lead us back into the light.

Here I am. Another night wearing out the TV controller. 250 satellite TV Channels, and nothing worth watching. I had better put AAA batteries on the shopping list.

Couldn't agree with you more David. I am a student of cinema, I have produced hundreds of DVDs of classic film titles, shot documentaries on numerous classic films for TCM and PBS and I too lament the passing of quality storytelling and cinematic craftsmanship. The best storytelling in cinema in the past decade has come from Pixar and used computers to tell the stories, so there is hope that good storytelling isn't completely dead.

Everyone seems obsessed with buying gear that has better and better specs and few spend the time to learn how to light, compose and move the camera intelligently. There is still some good storytelling going on but much of it is ruined with synthetic, digital aesthetics.

I too agree with you that most films of the past decade look like moving Photoshop, everything looks fake, synthetic and empty, especially in action and adventure films. For me, it all ended with Bladerunner, that was the last big sci-fi film that sold me that I was seeing a real world. Everything past that is moving Photoshop. Sadly, to most people under about 35 today, they accept "moving Photoshop" as real because with the digital world, video games, avatars, social media, a "fake" virtual world is where most of them exist. So for them, there is no distinction between fake, overly Photoshopped stills and motion footage and their reality.

We can lament all we want, but I don't see us being "led back into the light" anytime soon. Motion picture film cameras died a few weeks ago ;-), Kodak is bankrupt, real sets, real actors, real locations will be fading away soon (have you read my article earlier this year in HD VIdeo Pro about the Stargate Orbis System?). I only say these half kiddingly. I don't see many John Fords, King Vidors, Preston Sturges' on the horizon. Few people I know today will even watch a b&w film or anything made earlier than 1990 so how can we expect young filmmakers to update and carry on the traditions when they have never been exposed to great cinema?

Dan

Over 40% of the population is over the age of 55. Sure they don't buy movie theater tickets. But, they are people who have the money, and control the purse strings. They watch more television and are exposed to more television commercials than any other group, and buy most of the products too. You would think that the industry would pay more attention to them.

Someday, some people in the industry is going to figure that out, and become very rich.

Coincidently ... happened just last night ... While awaiting the start of a live production, my remote control camera operator started the conversation below:

24-yr old College student: Videos should be all shallow depth of field.

Me: No they shouldn't. It's a special effect.

24-yr old College student: You're wrong. The best is when the nose and eyes are in focus but the ear is not.

Me: You are an idiot

24-yr old College student: Another thing that makes great video is lens flares. You can't have to many lens flares

Me: sigh

We can lament all we want, but I don't see us being "led back into the light" anytime soon. Motion picture film cameras died a few weeks ago ;-),

Don't know about them dying, they have an extremely long life expectancy, many have had a 50 year working life. Many objects, like combat aircraft, have long lives after the manufacturing has finished, a prime example being the B52

We don't new better technology and more stuff, we need a change in direction.

With all the endless variety of interesting subjects in the world. History, culture, sciences, literature, and music, all we get now are “Remakes”. A new remake of Conan the Barbarian, they must be joking.

Great films and productions had great actors. But we don't get theater actors anymore. Just some pretty face. We make people stars, who are not stars. These stars become selfish, self conceited, people who can't even stand themselves, and eventually self destruct. There is the exception of some British Public TV Series, that do use real actors, that look and act like real people. But the exceptions are very rare.

Remember the great movie scores and catchy television show tunes? You know, the ones that were at the top of the music charts, that had a tune and melody, and you whistled all day? Remember the unforgettable background music for the great documentaries? What happened to the John Barrys of the world? I understand that a young person shouldn't pick a career in writing music. No one uses writers anymore.

Sorry about venting, but I can't find anything to watch on TV again this morning.

Editing programs for $600.00. Cinema feel cameras (if you want to adapt and rig as needed) starting at $600.00. Decent sound gear kit starting around $ 1500 including a decent mic. Low light capabilities of cameras based on large sensors. A plethora of monitors, rails, inexpensive lighting gear, etc., etc. etc. Yes we need this stuff. Its going to allow the next great film maker to come into the light, despite the strangle hold on the business.

I for one am glad we have all these opportunities.

Yet, Chris, there have been equivalents of this price point of gear around for a good ten years now, when a few feature films were released theatrically on DV. What has arisen is progressive levels of snobbery and a near-childish sense of entitlement regarding gear; people seem to want the keys to the kingdom for less and less cost. One could find an "outdated" HD camcorder on Craigslist for a few hundred and start making a film, but the obsession with fads such as uber-shallow focus and dismissing perfectly serviceable codecs and feature sets instead of focusing on the craft of filmmaking is discouraging.

My job has always required me to be something of a technologist, and never more so than these days as cameras and formats come hurtling out of the gate far more frequently than ever before, however at the same time I am less and less interested in those nuances and would rather focus on the craft of filmmaking and storytelling.

Going back to the original post, I don't think vintage vs modern equipment is the issue here at all, it's in the approach and mindset. I'm currently working with a 25 year old director who is (to my delight) a classicist and we see absolutely eye-to-eye on how to approach our work visually. We are shooting comedy but are eschewing the forced-handheld look that somehow got attached to that genre a few years back. At all times, our shared concern is that the visuals completely complement and never detract from the material and the performances. Any eye candy I can provide is folded into the basic look, nothing is done for flash appeal or trendiness or to "show off". It's an enjoyable process.

As far as "the good old days" of filmmaking are concerned, the past does not always translate to present day. A few years ago I worked with a legendary director who was returning to the feature world after a ten year hiatus. He stated that he was going to make the film the same way he always had, since that had worked well for him in the 70's and 80's. The resulting film was not a success, and felt (arguably) dated. There are many classic films that I cherish and I do bemoan the corporate structure that is killing a lot of creativity today, but at the same time there are still wonderful films being made, and television writing is probably uniformly better than it has ever been. The accessibility of equipment and exposure to works via the internet (cutting out the corporate "tastemakers") will probably allow more talent to be exposed in the future. Honestly, I think we may be heading towards a new golden age in that regard. The outlook is a bit bleak for those who currently make their living in this industry (myself included), and for those who hope to break in and make a living down the road, but if one is simply hoping to create for art's sake and tell stories, the time has never been better.

Old gear is not a garantee for great movies.
Only great movies really stand the test of time*, so you probably haven't seen the shallow crap that has probably been made back then :-p
(*Okay, Ed Wood got immortal by making crap ;-) )

Do we need this stuff?
Some do.
And some think they do.
I only update when it's needed, not when it's possible.
You don't have to buy all the new things.
And yes, lots of overprocessed things are published in print and even more on the web (where anyone can post anything). And yes, a great amount of movies seem to be about the visual wow-factor instead of the story, but great movies are still being made.

I'm glad I don't have to splice celluloid or dub VHS when I edit.
I love the fact I can swap memorycards instead of blindly changing film in a black bag.
But I must admit: I have an analogue 8-tracker I still use to record music now and then; just for fun, not because it makes my music better...

I have mixed feelings on this subject since on one hand, I cut my teeth in the old analog recording industry. I was an "audio engineer" which meant I aligned the tape machine, wired all the gear together and had to tell the artist..."I only have one more track of tape for you to get your vocal right before we start burning old takes."
I miss those days because we all had specialized jobs and it took a real musicians to get stuff to sound good. Pro Tools, ADATs and Auto-Tune have irreversibly changed the music world. In the right hands...great things can be made. The masses of average and sub-average musicians who can now purchase the equipment and make themselves sound "good" for a fraction of what a complete album at a pro studio would have cost have destroyed much of the joy I used to have working in the industry.

I am also a musician...so the flip side is, now, sitting in my bed at 4am with a guitar, a mini keyboard and my laptop, I can compose complete music tracks that are ready to go...with drums, bass, keys and any other instrument I can download. Convenient... yes! BUT it's hurt my ability to play. I have lost a lot of the chops I used to have 'cause now I can "fix it in post"

Film and video have gone much the same route...cheap, great looking technology has opened up the industry and the masses have responded. Most of it crap IMHO because the stories aren't there. I think putting the tech in reach of the writer has hurt the business by giving them too much to deal with. Some people can handle wearing all the hats but most can't. And call me guilty again 'cause I do, on more than an occasional basis wear all the hats. Those projects never turn out as nicely as when I divide the effort among specialized talented people. But I can't always afford to work the way I want to. Budgets and deadlines are the name of the game.

With the film industry, why spend days on practical SFX when you can farm it to a group of CG artists in China!

The "Verrucca Salt mentality" (I want it NOW!) is possible because the tech exists to support it. Real creativity takes time and effort. It's made a good chunk of the world's population lazy!

I'm glad I don't have to splice celluloid or dub VHS when I edit.

Splicing celluloid is no big deal, it's non linear editing, dubbing VHS is the painful part. Downside to film editing can be the physical scale of the stuff and the winding backwards and forwards. Although, I suspect pointing bricks is worse.

It's nothing to do with the gear, you can be totally cinematic with a video camera or completely un-cinematic with a 35mm motion picture camera. It's how you use the material and like any language it evolves a new vocabulary, or the meanings begin to change with time.

At one time it would be extremely trendy to use a zoom or have loads of flares down your zoom lens. The films which used these devices thoughtfully and in a manner appropriate to the story tend to survive better than those when they're being used because they're the current fashion. Of course, the fashion can come full circle and they become hip retro.

(*Okay, Ed Wood got immortal by making crap ;-) )

That's true, but it came from the heart... I hope that still counts for something.

No matter what one thinks about Wood's work, it can't be denied that he pursued it with enthusiasm.

That's true, but it came from the heart... I hope that still counts for something.

No matter what one thinks about Wood's work, it can't be denied that he pursued it with enthusiasm.

True!
(I love Tim Burton's 'biopic' on Ed Wood because of that enthusiasm.)

But... I think most (if not all) filmmakers pursue their (own) projects with enthusiasm; the good ones, the bad ones and even the ugly ones... So enthusiasm is no 'parameter' for quality of 'unforgettability' ;-)

No we don't really need all the new stuff just to make good movies. The real question is "How do you create a good movie?" And that's an impossibly difficult question to answer even with a US$100 million budget and the best experts, consultants and advice at your disposal. Then there's the secondary shadow question, "How do you make a good movie, that sells?" Which can get you into some dark & murky waters.

My favorite quote about how really difficult creativity can be:Call it overstatement, but I’ll say it anyway: it was easier for Hitler to start World War II than it was for him to face a blank square of canvas.
-Steven Pressfield, The War of ArtOn the other hand we're in good company, I'm sure the old Italian Renaissance masters had this exact same conversation back in the day, sitting in some piazza in Rome, Venice, Florence etc.

do we really need this stuff?

oh yes! I need it! even though it doesn't make me a better story teller, it makes my story look better;
and I am sure that we still can enjoy work of old Italian Renaissance masters just because they used the most advanced at the times paint, and techniques of painting;

My job has always required me to be something of a technologist, and never more so than these days as cameras and formats come hurtling out of the gate far more frequently than ever before, however at the same time I am less and less interested in those nuances and would rather focus on the craft of filmmaking and storytelling........

......Honestly, I think we may be heading towards a new golden age in that regard. The outlook is a bit bleak for those who currently make their living in this industry (myself included), and for those who hope to break in and make a living down the road, but if one is simply hoping to create for art's sake and tell stories, the time has never been better.

I don't disagree with any of this, and while maybe not well said, that was what I was attempting to say. The current technology and the reduced expense for it, give a better chance that the master story teller will be able to get through the guantlet a bit easier.

You are working in the professional field, and I am a local enthusiasts without a real plan of ever making a living doing this. The ability to tell a story with improved imagery has been a major boon to people on my level. I bought the 5D within months of coming out.

On this board, before the 5D, I had pled with Sony and Canon, and Panny, to come out with a camera with a large sensor, that would provide a more filmic look. Shallower depth of field is part of the benefit. But I also think it is used to the extreme. The idea of using shallow depth of field in my mind is to isolate your subject on the screen to enhance the story telling. Most of the time, with a human subject, and a portrait lens, that means somewhere around F 5.6 to F 8. Not these crazily extreme f 1.2 setting some seem to love to crank out.

I think the bigger benefit of the large sensor cameras like the 5 D, is the ability to shoot with available light. While you as a professional on a set will have a crew that works hard to balance lighting with all kinds of lighting gear, I, working with volunteer and untrained enthusiasts, will be limited in the lighting I can employ. And my skill set with lighting is so much less. But the 5 D, if properly exposed, and perhaps with use of the Cinestyle preset, does allow me a lot of latitude to fix my sinful mistakes in post. Not the best way to do things, admittedly.

And in the end, I think it is because of enthusiasts like me, who are out there willing to spend money on these mass marketed cameras and who are demanding more professional features, that the professional users are reaping a great benefit of reduced cost on good equipment.

I can remember when I first came on this board as an enthusiast, I was just thrilled to be able to hear from folks like you who were in the professional trenches. It helps me do all the things I could with my limited budget to improve my product. At the same time, I know there were some who resented my attempts, because I was not truly professional, ie., earning a living from this.

...do we really need this stuff?

Of course not. All we *need* is clean air, clean water, food, and shelter. Maybe clothing depending on your climate; you could lump that under shelter if you wanted.

But what does *need* have to do with it? For tens (hundreds?) of millenia, humans have used art to document what's going on in their world, to communicate with others, and to express themselves. They have generally always striven to do better, to have better materials and tools, to develop better techniques.

Now I'll admit that the advent of yet another DSLR isn't on the same plane with the invention of brushes. But I submit that it's part of a long chain of tool development, the vast majority of which is incremental improvements.

Tool development is one of the distinguishing characteristics of humanity. I for one hope it never ends.

What happened to all good filmaking? It went to tv. Narrative shows these days, at least some, are freakin amazing. This is further evidenced by the fact that actors that many people would only consider "movie actors" are now STARRING, not just making cameos but starring in their own tv series.

Crap is made on all levels...on the pro level and on the non-pro level. On the pro level, it's about the dollars --quick, assembly-line films with big names, grand stages, special effects, and shallow scripts. On the non-pro level, it's a lot of individuals who lack the know-how to make a good film.

The great technological and digital advancements of the last several years have opened the door to all kinds of filmmakers, good and bad. Granted, many of these individuals have lost sight of the ENTIRE package required to make a good film, or have not been educated enough to know better. But there are still many who've properly and/or wisely harnessed the tools at hand and have accepted them as merely a piece of the entire pie.

Ironic. These great, old, classic films that are being referred to here...now filmmakers today (or rather, people who want to make films) are being chastised for wanting tools that would allow them to emulate these films of yore in terms of their look. Individuals are just excited that they are THAT much closer to a professional-looking film.

This is the new age; this is what we've currently evolved to. Yes, the industry is heavily saturated with crap. Films by individuals who thought a camera or software was gonna make their movie. But there've been plenty who've handled the craft with wisdom and respect while still taking full advantage of the new tools at hand.

The beauty of these types of forums is we can utilize them to educate film makers of all sorts on the in's and out's of good filmmaking...the craft as a whole, not just the camera used to shoot it.


P.S. Crap films have been getting made for decades, even during those days of yore. It's quite naive to think otherwise. There's only more today because of the all the new outlets available today for everyone to use and see.

But, do we really need this stuff?




Yes, the genesis of film/video is technology.
If you want to revert to stage production, then no.
You may be at a point where you don't want to buy/use newer technology. But that just your perspective.
What survived from the past is the good stuff. Plenty of good stuff being made each year now too.

Why do the photo's taken with the latest DSLR and Photo Shopped to death, don't have the mystery and appeal of a black and white photograph by Ansil Adams?

Look at what was filmed in the 1920's with old technology. Last night I watch film clips of Buster Crabbe. How did those guys film and produce material like that? No computers, no FCP, and no “this years latest gadget”.
Good artists will always outshine good technicians. No surprises there. And someone who is both a good artist and master technician, like Ansel Adams? Game over.

On the topic of Adams, he was shooting 8x10 most of the time, so the tremendous level of detail in his images is not surprising. I shot 4x5 for many years, and my DSLR doesn't even come close to the same level of detail. Moreover, Adams was a master in the darkroom and had perfected the process of bringing out just the right contrast in just the right spots to make his shots so compelling. I have to believe Adams would be all over Photoshop these days, but still producing work that stands out because of his fine artistry.

In short, we don't need this stuff, we just like to play with it. The technology is so accessible now that it makes for a much larger pool of mediocre work, I agree, but good artistry will always stand out from the rest.

A marketer told me this about stuff acquisition. People will want anything that they perceive gives them an advantage and they'll pay through the nose to get it.

I have total faith in audiences to recognize a good story, and reward good storytellers. Technology may have changed over the centuries to the point where it dazzles us . . . but it's still the story that captivates.

I have a new NEX 5n on the way and due here in a few days. Do I need it; no, not really but I want it as it will enable me to explore hitherto unexplored shooting methodologies. Keeps me off the streets and it helps keep Sony in business...

You have to read to write.

That is, reading good writing helps you write better. Watching good media helps you create good content. i.e. great effects on lousy story telling can still influence your effects. Ditto other various aspects of the art.

To Dave's point, the low barrier to entry and democratization of distribution channels (enabling anyone to publish) has created a vast ocean of content that makes finding the good stuff more challenging. A great example is the fine work produced by Dave himself on Alaska. Had it not been for DVInfo, I'd never have found it and been able to enjoy some of his pieces.

Irrespective of the skill, equipment or techniques used, until TVs have full and efficient access to internet media, Cable, Air and Satellite distribution channels and their program schedules will control what we have access to from the Barcalounger.

I guess I'm just becoming a cranky old man stuck in his ways, and destined to become a Soylent Green Wafer.

Thank God for Turner Classic Movies........

I too agree with you that most films of the past decade look like moving Photoshop, everything looks fake, synthetic and empty, especially in action and adventure films. For me, it all ended with Bladerunner, that was the last big sci-fi film that sold me that I was seeing a real world. Everything past that is moving Photoshop. Sadly, to most people under about 35 today, they accept "moving Photoshop" as real because with the digital world, video games, avatars, social media, a "fake" virtual world is where most of them exist. So for them, there is no distinction between fake, overly Photoshopped stills and motion footage and their reality.

Dan...Hi Dan:
I too very much agree with your assessment of the situation. I find it interesting you chose the end of film art looking cinema to finalize with the movie BLADERUNNER. This was the last big budget Hollywood Film to photograph all of its visual effects plate shots in the 5 perf 65 mm motion picture format. Douglas Trumbull and Richard Yuricich ASC shot all of the city scapes with hand modified rack over Mitchell FC 65 mm (Fox Camera) 5 perf 65 mm motion picture cameras fitted with Zies and Nikon lenses and MOCO stepper motor 12 axis drives. Today all feature films are transferred to 5/65mm film negative before they are put into the vault at the studios - even if they were originated digitally.

In my opinion, 65 mm motion picture negative produces movie resolution with a gamma curve as of yet unobtainable digitally. Everyone wants to purchase the latest gear, but I must also agree with others on this thread that the latest and greatest isn't always the way to go. For example, we do extensive acquisition at my production company with the Canon XL H1 HDV camcorder. Now this is a circa 2005 technology, and by no means anywhere close to the bleeding edge Sony F3 of Panasonic HD cameras now on the market. But we can change out the glass and tweak the image in the camera in ways no other camcorder can be adjusted. The XL series HDV camcorders are wonderful for being able to dial in a specific look and save that look to an SD card ! Even recording to thick raster HDV cassettes in camera yields a final result which can be very easily cooked during primary and secondary color correction to look like it was shot with a much higher end broadcast camera. We have ceased to have been amazed at what good lighting and careful composition can do this now older camera. We also use the uncompressed HD-SDI out to a Flash XDR solid state digital recorder to bump up the raster to 1920 x 1080 and the audio from 48 KHz 16 bit to 48KHz 24 bit.

Also, let us not forget there is an amazing remote software via Fire Wire total camera control, which we have installed on an HP laptop PC giving us unprecedented waveform and vector scope, focus, hyper-focus, live on set. On big conference shoots we do, we often simul - record to laptop, in-camera tape, and the Flash XDR. This is all old stuff now, but flexible in so many ways and totally cheap to run. Always upgrading your gear isn't always the way to go. I know that the Sony F3 is an amazing camera, and far superior, but the look we can obtain from the old XL H1 looks better to us - even though we know technologically speaking it is not. Here's an example of a Fall Colors Promo we shot for a local client last week. Sorry, this is only 720p on YouTube, but we will be posting a full resolution 1080p shortly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RayHuCSdp1M

Don't by gear just for the sake of it. Learn to use the gear you already have and you might be surprised at what you can obtain.

Same reason SNL used to be good.

If Canon comes out with a under $5,000 camera that uses EF lens and a XF 4:2:2 codec next month, I take everything back!

If Canon comes out with a under $5,000 camera that uses EF lens and a XF 4:2:2 codec next month, I take everything back!

It is likely 50mbs 4:2:2, but it doesn't have to be under $5K. Neither the AF100 or FS100 are making people swoon from their IQ, so there doesn't seem to be a reason to undercut Sony and Panasonic.

It would be fun for Canon to make a shocking announcement. But I think the 1DX indicates that Canon isn't morphing into Red.

I think there are two different (linked) arguments going on here - on the one hand the democratisation that new, cheaper, better quality equipment brings which has been going on, well, for ever (think of printing and the availability of books, or the invention of the tape machine and the huge effect it had on small time music producers leading to rock and roll as we know it, or readily portable cameras and sound equipment that lead to the whole direct cinema movement) and on the other the terrible fear that seems to exist in Hollywood of producing anything that requires intelligence to enjoy.

The latter is the real problem for me - they've lost their nerve and also seem to think people are stupid. The mantra seems to be that mainstream films are now simply vehicles for generating income and anything that might risk that is out, which basically seems to mean anything where the audience has to make any kind of effort, thus assuming people either can't or won't.

The sad thing is, is that it is a total fallacy as every now and again a film comes out that is hugely successful and also demanding and intelligent. But they are the rare exceptions.

What we should be railing against is the total cynicism of the mainstream that has essentially decided that films that make money need to be formulaic, stupid, full of continual visual and aural stimulation so people don't lose attention and featuring some useless 'star'. I hate them mostly because I find them insulting to my and most people's intelligence. Sadly most people go along with it as it has become accepted that that is what Hollywood (and similar) films now are.

And I do think that in its current extreme form, this is a new thing.

In the future may be the film industry will become more regional. What do rural people have in common with urban people? Or the people in California have with the people in Texas? It's a cultural thing. In Alaska we believe everyone in the lower 48 is nuts. Hollywood plays it safe and tries to please everyone, and then looses something in the process. Same goes for television. Cheap sitcoms and distorted, nonsensical Alaska reality shows. I hope the producers of tomorrow will create material for regional markets, based upon regional tastes. Smaller, lighter, and less expensive productions. Let's see what the little guys can do with all this new gear.

My first trip in the woods was in the mid 60's with a Trapper Nelson and a Argus 35 m camera.

David, I've never had the chance to speak to an Alaskan before - do you know the 1980s film 'The Runaway Train', set in Alaska about two escaped convicts? It's one of my all time favourites and very much an example of an intelligent, thought provoking and yet gripping thriller. The action is excellently done, very convincing, the script and acting is the centre of it (John Voigt and screenplay by Kurosawa), the minimal but eerie score by Trevor Jones and the end scenario and final shots are just something else.

Yes, I know the movie. The Alaska Railroad is still there. Hasn't changed at all. Too bad Hollywood never gave Jon more chances. Great actor.

Best TV shows filmed in Alaska are Larry Csonka's Alaska. Over eleven years running. Larry has been a Alaska resident for years. Excellent filmed and produced television show. Last I heard, he was still personally feeding the show.

The other is Flying Wild Alaska which we will watch. It portrays Alaska life very well. I'll give Deadliest Catch a pass. The others? Too much Hollywood influence and they all portray a very distorted, and unreal picture of Alaska. I don't know anyone in Alaska that watches those shows. They just make us angry when we see them.

I guess we need the "stuff" in most cases to give the client what "they" want. ;) - It is definitely a changing world, and to stay relevant, you sometimes need to go with the flow.

But all that aside - "my" favorite tool in the arsenal is for stills, and it's a Mamiya C220 Professional Twin Lens. I love it! I shoot Ilford... 12 exposures at a time.

Contact sheets... grease pencils... loupes, and light tables - it brings a certain romance back to the business...

And guess what? I generally surpass the client's expectations in they "want".

Hopefully one day I'll be saying that about the new T3i/600D I recently acquired.

Geoffrey,

Actor Jon Voight is making a new movie in Anchorage Alaska next summer.

Dave

Splicing celluloid is no big deal, it's non linear editing, dubbing VHS is the painful part. Downside to film editing can be the physical scale of the stuff and the winding backwards and forwards. Although, I suspect pointing bricks is worse.

It's nothing to do with the gear, you can be totally cinematic with a video camera or completely un-cinematic with a 35mm motion picture camera. It's how you use the material and like any language it evolves a new vocabulary, or the meanings begin to change with time.

At one time it would be extremely trendy to use a zoom or have loads of flares down your zoom lens. The films which used these devices thoughtfully and in a manner appropriate to the story tend to survive better than those when they're being used because they're the current fashion. Of course, the fashion can come full circle and they become hip retro.

Best comment I've read here for a long time.

Thank you Brian.

:)

Real creativity takes time and effort.

Robert, this quote is just plain inspirational. I'm gonna hold on to it :)

Regarding Hollywood movies, IMO, some are better now than they ever were in the past. A lot of folks making them now have character actors in subplots that add a lot more to the movie than just minutes. The great supporting actor Walter Brennan never got as much film time as he deserved, once again, IMO. Blues Brothers, with all the cameos by famous entertainers who are given really great scenes is, I think, one of the top movies ever because there is so much to discuss afterward. The Fugitive gives the same story from both sides and, yes, I know the Japanese did that first on film (though not necessarily in the history of the performing arts).
It is the nature of the game to try to push the limits and find the next big thing but I wish I still had my 4x5 Calumet with 135 Carl Zeiss Jena lens. I bet the boys who discovered tilt and shift thought they were real hotshots.
Jock Ellis