Rodney Charters Straight Talk about Cameras and CInematography

http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/interviews/index.cfm?olo=rss&ArticleID=3224564

This video is absolutely worth watching.  It's a recent interview with Rodney Charters, ASC (NAB?).  He gives a pretty much dead on state-of-the-art discussion about cameras and cinematography 2010.  The discussion is frank, much to the chagrin of Sony I'm sure.  It's great to see someone in his position not pulling punches.  I think it's part of the new reality for all of us, people are better informed than ever and they have their BS meters on sensitive and don't want to hear corporate propaganda or shilling.  He even talks about something called "film." The only thing I would have liked more of is a discussion of where he sees the new RED's fitting into the picture.  It was only a year and a half ago that I was at HD Expo watching him show travel footage he shot with his RED and Canon film lenses!

His most important point passes so quickly that if you aren't paying attention you'll miss it:  everyone has access to technologically advanced pro level gear.  If you want to stay on top as a cinematographer, you'd better know how to light.  These are really wise words.  Even if you lean heavily on your gaffer, which is a beautiful thing, you have to know when things are right and when they're not.  On indie and corporate projects, there will be times when you're in a hurry and you need to fix things yourself.  Your gaffer may be setting up the next scene or, in the case of corporate, you're wearing multiple hats.  I am really glad that instead of buying a Varicam, I spent my time on sets learning how to light and slinging cable.

Blurring the line- Part I

I am going to repost a couple of posts that I made awhile back about something in which I am very interested: filmmakers walking the line between narrative and documentary filmmaking (and I'm not talking "reality" TV).   This is an issue that keeps coming up and since I have a lot more readers than I did when I originally made these posts, I thought it would be good to put the discussion out there again.  There are interesting ideas being tried out there by people like Soderbergh, Herzog and others.

This post is originally from December 2008 and was titled, "WWD?"



I attended the International Documentary Association's annual awards recently. Werner Herzog received a lifetime achievement award. His acceptance was brief, but to the point. Documentary filmmakers need to break out of "outdated" modes developed during the 1950's-60's (that would be direct cinema) in order to reach current audiences. The reception to that advice, to me anyway, seemed, um, subdued. It's been a hard year.

I've been somewhat disappointed to discover that there are still a significant number of documentary filmmakers who consider other modes of storytelling as not being "real" documentary. Or, that many are still wedded to the idea of the documentary filmmaker as the noble underdog reporter of facts that represent the "Truth." Personally, I find it offensive that we live in a society where basic reporting of current events and issues (essential to maintaining a functioning democracy) has been abdicated to essentially poorly funded volunteers. Worse, those poorly funded volunteers have been made to feel like they have to limit their creativity to "objective" journalistic standards that many of the established for-profit media sources even no longer feel compelled to follow.

What is true is that while the number of documentary films being made are multiplying, the audience does not seem to be there for this explosion of films. The host Morgan Spurlock, who has a better handle on popular storytelling than most, mocked himself by pointing out that "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?" grossed $384K domestically, while "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" grossed $92M. I should point out that I know several intelligent people who would, without question, rather watch a talking animal movie rather than any documentary.

Happily, both of the feature award winners offered less than "traditional" storytelling. "Man on a Wire" uses extensive re-enactments, which seems to be controversial with a surprising number of people 20 years after the "Thin Blue Line" and 80 years after "Nanook."

More interestingly, the co-winner "Waltz with Bashir," is an animated documentary. I highly recommend seeking it out. The opening put me off a little but by the end of the film I was completely engaged. The animation creates a distance from the actual people involved in the events while at the same time, it also draws the viewer in. I still cannot explain exactly why. Maybe our defenses are lower with animation than with actual video of conflict and atrocities. Maybe we don't judge animated "characters" as hard as actual participants and are more receptive to their story. Perhaps the participants themselves were able to be more uncertain and real, less defensive, knowing that their actual image wouldn't be used. As a result, the filmmaker is able to subtly communicate many traumatic truths and the nature of memory when trying to recall these types of events.


My point is that filmmakers must become more creative in their stories and their storytelling. Audiences have become more sophisticated and jaded, whether we like it or not. If we want to reach them, and quite possibly even make a living doing it (remember that the people who created direct cinema all made a living doing their work--if we want to survive, we need to make money to film another day), we need to talk to them and not at them. I don't think that it's an accident that some of the most consistently successful documentary filmmakers of the last 25 years, Moore, Morris, Herzog are among the most non-traditional and innovative. If an intelligent effort is made, people will watch (although Iraq burnout seemed to sink "Standard Operating Procedure"--it grossed $229K domestically). There will always be a place for the direct cinema type of documentary; see my post about "La Vida Loca." It would just be a lot more interesting for it not to be nearly the only storytelling model used by filmmakers.

Other notable films that innovate with their storytelling?? "Bus 174" (in my opinion, one of the most important films of the past 20 years) and "Stevie" are two outstanding examples. I would even propose looking at some of Chris Marker's work, even his fiction work ("Sans Soleil"), for potentially innovative documentary storytelling models.

Buy this film.

These are hard times for filmmakers, just like the rest of the world. Funding and distribution seem to be more distant than ever. I know many people who have barely worked since August, and before that there was the writer's strike. The economy is in complete turmoil, class divisions are greater than at any point in recent history and we seem to have burned our bridges to many possible solutions in the past 8 years. As creative people, it seems like we have nothing to lose. We are funding ourselves, donating equipment and time....why aren't we telling our stories in our own way? It seems like this is the perfect time to innovate and be free to actually have a vision.

Here is one definition of documentary film: A non-fiction film that uses a minimal amount of re-enactments or fictionalization in order to present some kind of truth about its subject.
Non-fiction is defined as: the events portrayed in the film are/were in some sense "real." Truth: not necessarily based on facts; reveals some detail or experience that can be understood as "true" to someone. I like a lot about this definition. The one area that I still think about, and question, is how much fictionalization (and of what type) and recreation is acceptable for a film to still be considered a documentary. I come down more on the side of more as opposed to less, as long as it effectively communicates truths, personal, perceived, impressionistic or otherwise. I think that I'd rather have less facts and more truth, as opposed to the shovels of facts, with little truth, that we are fed every day by the mainstream media.

So, What Would Werner Do? This is an extract from an August 19, 2005 interview with the Austin Chronicle:
AC: In your nonfiction work, we see a blending of fictionalized moments and what we think of as conventional documentary technique. You spoke at Sundance about staging a scene with a droplet of water, glycerin, actually –
WH: The water drop scene and the dialogue that I purely invented is in The White Diamond.
But your question is somehow poking into what is documentary for me. I'm after some deeper truth [rather] than just facts. To find some sort of ecstasy of truth, I stylize, I fabricate, I stage, I invent dialogue all over the place. So when you speak about documentaries, do it with a necessary caution....

Love Your Colorist

I just finished color grading a documentary.   I thought that I'd share a few before/after screen shots the editor sent to me.  This footage was particularly challenging: the film is about children with cancer. The children and their families were all given Flip Camcorders to shoot footage.  If you think an image from a $2500 DSLR is thin, imagine some of the images from a $150 camera shot by non-professionals solely in ambient light.  I should also say that there were also some very nice images, really remarkable given the cost of the camera.

There was a serious red skew with blotchy magenta spots on the flesh tones in this image.  The real challenge was not only in giving the flesh an overall naturalistic color but also disguising the darker magenta artifacts without making the thin image look overly worked.  When I say naturalistic, I mean making his flesh look as good as possible while still retaining the overall feeling that it was shot under fluorescent lighting as opposed to trying to make it look like it was lit on a Hollywood set.  Flattering but authentic. If you click on the images, a larger version will open in a new window.

This image also had a serious color skew.

This image had contrast and color issues.  The greens were a little too yellow in the background and the water color isn't right either for the time of day.  This is actually when it gets fun.  I closed my eyes and put myself in that place and that time (late dusk in summer) and visualized what it looked like.  That is the intangible part of being a colorist, can you see what the intention was in your mind and actualize it? It's late in the day, so there is a little yellow lingering but the shadows are turning blue, particularly a challenge to make look subtle in the greens.  It becomes a balancing act.

 I feel like my job is done well if, when people watch a film, they don't notice what I've done and stay absorbed in the world created by all those who pass before me in the process.

Dogs on a skateboard

God I just love that dog on a skateboard. Hang on baby, Friday's coming.

My current favorite blog, The Business Insider, has been providing an ongoing analysis of the current state of (the lack of) monetizing online content. It looks at Google/YouTube, Hulu, et al. using real numbers to give the state of the art. The bad news? No one, including the big boys, are making money off of content. And the heralded democratization of content creation brought about by online distribution? It says, "content creation is expensive, it takes talent, and lowering barriers for the creation of crap only provides you with more crap." So, professional content isn't making money and we are sinking in a sea of crap made by amateur (or amateurish) content creators, what hope is there? According to the article, "whatever golden tomorrow video may acheive, it won't be driven by the major media companies, at least not in the foreseeable future." Hmmmm, wait a minute. Where's the money going to come from to create the new paradigm, if not from deep pockets or inspired individuals?

The article is deja vu, all over again. It could have been written a few years ago, verbatim. So, why does it seem like we're going nowhere, fast? No one, including a lot of really smart (and well-paid) people, seem to be able to answer that question. The article, while flawed, does raise some good points and is definitely worth a read. For me, another question is, are we starting to approach the end of "free?" Today, Rupert Murdoch announced that all of his publications worldwide will begin charging for certain content. I expect other major online content providers will follow in kind.

Will they succeed? A couple of things seem apparent. First, people don't seem willing to pay for online content alone. They expect some kind of added value. Content creators who can come to terms with that in a big way (and figure out what is the "added value" that people are willing to pay for) will at least survive until this is all sorted out. The other thing, which I repeat over and over again, is that somebody has to pay something somewhere for the content we create. I know it sounds obvious but there are armies of people out there working for free, or close to it, to create content that is not innovative or particularly interesting. Emulating what exists already may be gratifying, "Look, I can do that too," but ultimately is slow death. Unless, you are willing to have another job to subsidize your creativity. But, if you're footing your own bill, why make watered down garbage that emulates TV?

Color Grading Magic--After and Before

Color Grading Magic--After and Before from Craig Mieritz on Vimeo.

I've been working on upgrading my color grading skills in Apple Color. For practice, I graded a short horror sequence this week. The corrected footage is first, followed by the original uncorrected footage. Yes, I know the original footage is shot and lit horribly. This test is unusual in that it's more about creatively salvaging footage rather than doing the more typical, subtle work that a colorist usually does.

What is happening at this point in the story is that the bad guy is following the apparition of a woman he murdered down a dark corridor....

A few notes: the compression on this is pretty good. However, it is a medium res online video from a SD source. This compressed version is less saturated and there are a few artifacts (and blocking) not present in the original. I wish I could post a higher quality version of this, the original footage looks rich and textured, particularly for DV. The full-sized version can be viewed here.

The original video footage was shot on an old-school DV camera (PD100), a few years ago. I am kind of shocked at how much I like the corrected footage, it's DV--the camera has been sitting unused in a closet but I think I may start using it again.

I enjoy working in the horror genre, there seems to be a little more room for "drawing outside the lines" as compared to expectations for other mainstream genres. Color is a powerful tool, however, it is no replacement for well-shot footage. The most important thing is to get as much information in your image as possible, but (a really big but), try to capture the contrast differences between different areas of the frame as close as possible to what you want in the end. If you don't, it adds a tremendous amount of work on the back-end and ultimately you may not be able to get what you want, particularly if there is a lot of movement in the frame.

I'll be uploading a series of graded short sequences, including variations on this one, please let me know what you think.

Laurel Canyon: Effective Low-Budget Camera

I watched Laurel Canyon (2003) last night. I recommend it as a film to look at for really clean, effective camera work (DP: Wally Pfister of Dark Knight, Memento, The Italian Job...). The camera work really helped to move the film along, and with a minimum of coverage. It was a pretty low budget film, around $2M I think, so it's a great opportunity to see how the mind of an enormously talented DP works within very tight budget constraints.

As an added bonus, here is a really good interview with Pfister in Moviemaker Magazine.

Indie Swiss Army Knife?

As virtually everyone in the world knows at this point, Panasonic has announced the HPX 300. I'm not going to go over all the features of this camera, there are plenty of other sites that do a much better job of that than I can, but rather talk about how I am thinking about this camera. Panasonic helped make low budget/high image quality digital indie film a reality with the DVX-100 and the HVX-200. Think about the massive explosion of grass-roots creativity that has occured over the last five years and how many of those projects were shot on these two cameras. This legacy makes the camera worth some serious scrutiny. Street price is estimated at about $8500 including the lens.

I was fortunate enough to get a few minutes of Jan Crittenden-Livingston's (a ubiquitous, informative and patient presence on boards, at trade shows, etc.) time, watch her presentation and fiddle with camera a little bit at HD Expo. The main point that I took away from her was that Panasonic created this camera by listening to the requests of users. Fair enough, I think the update to the HVX and the release of HPX-170 did a decent job of incorporating many of the suggestions and complaints of users.

The main positive features that immediately hit me:

AVC-Intra codec- 10 bit image quantizing in an up-to-date intra-frame codec. For me, this really sets this camera above Sony's prosumer shoulder mount camera the HVR-S270U, which still records HDV to tape. Here's Shane Ross's recent rant about working with HDV.

20 bit Image processing- maybe some of that power will be used for minimizing CMOS artifacts?

Shoulder mount form factor- no more "up the nose shots," or messed up wrists. Not only is it a true shoulder mount, it seems like a really intelligent take on it.

Ability to use professional power sources- can you say Anton Bauer?

Low power consumption-real life use will tell the story. This is at least partially a benefit of the CMOS sensors.

Ability to mount professional wireless receivers integrally with the camera (as an upgrade)

Chromatic aberration correction!-yes, CAC correction built into a sub $10K camera (when used with compatible lenses).

1920 x 1080 sensors- ok, this could be a positive or a negative given the sensor size, however, people seem to really think that sensor resolution is the most important spec in a camera, so Pansonic gave them what they've been asking for and they claim excellent low-light performance.

Interchangeable lenses- ok, I'm not going to run out and buy a horde of 1/3" lenses, but, it does mean that you will be able to use a relay lens with the camera with a DOF lens adapter and use higher quality glass with the camera and not have to go through a built-in zoom lens. It adds to the camera's flexibility.

Panasonic 5 year professional warranty

SD/HD-SDI out- you can output either SD for live transmission or capture a 10 bit HD-SDI signal.


The less positive features:

1/3" CMOS sensors- no camera is going to be perfect for every use. Rolling shutter will still be an issue, as with all CMOS chip camcorders. I am betting, though, that a substantial bit of that 20 bit image processing will be used for minimizing artifacts. 1/3" sensors have made many people groan, depth of field, low-light performance, resolution, etc. Panasonic seems to have made a choice here that the benefit of the AVC-I codec, Pansonic image processing and professional features would outweigh the 1/2" sensors on the EX-1 and EX-3.

Viewfinder size

How good is it's resolution? The part of Jan's presentation comparing the resolution of this camera to the EX-1/3 went by kind of quickly. I'd like to see some independent tests. But, then again, the HVX has been softer than a lot of other cameras......

The Gorilla in the Room-RED and it's proposed line of cameras. When will they actually be released and what will their final specifications be? You will need to add modifications (and cost) to shoulder mount them.


The other:

Camera weight is 11 pounds with lens- it doesn't seem like too crazy of a weight for a shoulder mount camera with all these professional features. It seems to be about 1/2 pound lighter than the HPX-500. It isn't going to be a camera for everyone.


In summary

In my opinion, Panasonic's strong selling point in the prosumer class of camcorders is its image processing. I shot this with a 4 year old HVX, lens adapter and low-end Nikon lenses. I haven't seen it projected on the big screen but a trusted source tells me that it looked fantastic. The final look is pretty much the look that I created in-camera and on-set. The ability to create the look you want in-camera, and not spend a lot of time and money in post (also due to the sturdy and easy to work with Panasonic intra-frame codecs) is what sets Panasonic apart. The camera is not for every use, however, it certainly could be a versatile tool for someone who wants to shoot documentaries, (flash photography free) events, shorts, webisodes and low-budget features. I can't wait to get my hands on one to see whether it lives up to Pansonic's tradition of beautiful image-processing.

2K, 4K, Pixels and Resolution

This article in the Creative Cow magazine is essential reading. John Galt, of Panavision, speaks in plain language about pixels, resolution, 2K, 4K, Imax, frame rates v. pixel resolution and dynamic range. My eyes usually glaze over during these kinds of discussions but this is quite engaging (and comprehensible). Isn't it time to actually understand what a Bayer pattern is and what it means for image acquisition? Or, that you should be spending as much, or more, time thinking about your lenses as you do about the sensors?

Combine it with this blog post by Stu Maschwitz on lin, log and clipping and you'll be the smartest HD kid on your block. And it will make you more impervious to the marketing of camera companies. Seriously, it's important to demystify all of this stuff so you can use the tools to achieve what you want creatively, as opposed to being treated like a tool.

As an aside, last week I saw my first camera rental request posting on Craigslist that specifically asked for RED owners to not contact the poster anymore (my recollection is that they didn't want to deal with the workflow). It does makes me wonder what kind of ROI the average RED owner is getting. Maybe there are just a lot of them here in Los Angeles? I'd love to here some owner-operator stories (or secondhand anecdotes) about how they're doing financially with their cameras.

The Orphanage, no more?

Stu Maschwitz just announced on his blog that The Orphanage is "suspending operations." Never heard of them? Take a look at The Orphanage's and Stu's IMDB. These are the people you don't read about that increasingly help make films look awesome.

On top of that, he also created Magic Bullet software, which is a really nifty piece of post production "look building" software. I use it quite a bit when I am trying to brainstorm looks.

He also blogs prolifically about technical issues, low-budget filmmaking and whatever else crosses his mind.

The film world needs more innovators and restless minds like these, not less.

Molepar Love

I bought a couple of Molepars on Satan eBay. They arrived rusted and damaged. I should know better, the one camera angle that something isn't photographed from is the one angle that you really need to see. So, my OCD kicked in and I sanded them down and refurbished them. Fortunately, they were pretty cheap.

Molepars are one of those lights that I think everyone who owns any lights at all should have, especially low-budget filmmakers. They kick out one heck of a lot of light for a 1K (Par 64 globes) and are light, compact and incredibly flexible. Need to light up a building or trees at night? How about a fixture to give a decent-sized room your base exposure (by bouncing off the ceiling or a bounce)? They are great for any application where you just need a lot of light and want to plug into a household circuit (2 units per 20 amp circuit). The key to using them, as with any other fixture, is how you control the light. You can also use a variety of globes in them, from extra narrow to wide beam as well as daylight balanced dichroic.

They are also not expensive units. I have seen them new online for about $350/unit (without globes). And a rental will run about $14/day. They will also last a lifetime because they are made by Mole Richardson. The one unit I bought dates from the mid-1960's (number 493) and now looks/functions like new (and when I got it, it looked like it had been used as a rental for 40 years). The paint color is Mole Maroon and is available directly from Mole Richardson as an air dried spray paint. They also sell individual parts for all of their lamps at a reasonable cost.

Wannabe

In the last three issues of HD Video Pro magazine, they've tracked the progress of Adam Cultraro, as he directed his first low-budget feature (Corrado). It's an interesting enough article that follows him from pre-pro through post. However, at the end of the last article he gives some pointed opinions about wannabe filmmakers that struck a chord with me (mostly because film people are almost universally unwilling to give frank opinions in writing): "On a broad scale, don't give too much credence to people's opinions, because in this business, very few people want to see you succeed. If you read filmmaking blogs and threads, you will see that most people trying to make indie films are self-defeaters....The kinds of people who succeed in filmmaking are people who don't stand in their own way."


Online, I definitely see a lot of that self-defeating behavior happening, especially with equipment obsession. The "perfect" camera does not exist and, even if it did, it won't make your film more engaging, intelligent or beautiful any more than the most expensive hammer is going to make a more beautiful or functional building. Or, buying another piece of software. Or.... I also run into people who have really good projects, and have completely thought them through, but when it comes to putting the rubber to the road find a million little reasons to keep slowing it down or be diverted from actually starting to film. As far as other people not wanting you to succeed, I guess in one way it's not really that different from any other competitive field. However, narrative filmmaking does seem to be a special combination of collaboration and vicious competitiveness.

I guess this post is really reflecting my own state of mind right now. It's been a little while since I've completed any personal projects. I have a couple of substantial projects right now in which I have a lot of time invested that, for various reasons (some good and some not), may or may not happen. I am itching to just make something. Ultimately, managing and maintaining your focus seems to be the greatest skill that a filmmaker can have.

Extreme DVCPRO HD Color Correction

I recommend clicking on this link to view it at full size and in HD. It really looks much better. The linked page also describes in detail what I was trying to do with the test.


Extreme DVCPRO HD color correction test from Craig Mieritz on Vimeo.

$60 CF alternative to $850 SxS storage card for EX1/EX3

Wow. Check this out. Some Australians have figured out that you can use compact flash memory with the EX-1 or EX-3 in conjunction with a Kensington 7-in-one media reader (about $40). The transfer rates are slower and your overcranking is limited to 40 fps but, wow, the media cost is brought down from $850 to $60. Read the fine print about compatibility and test, test, test, it yourself.

The HVX-200/HPX-170 also records at about 35 Mbps in 720/24PN mode. Maybe someone will figure out a workaround for P2 cards??

Hopefully this will be, as far as the pricing on solid state memory, a game changer.

Thanks to Bruce Johnson, at ProVideoCoalition for digging this up.

Interesting Times

Regardless of how you feel about the Red One as a tool, it certainly seems to have changed the camera marketplace. Camera companies tend to pace the introduction of new technology, both hardware and formats, allowing them to draw out the introduction of innovation in order to milk the maximum profit from it. (Yes, there are other reasons: for example, other companies need time to create products that support both the end formats and the hardware.)

HDV is an example. Originally created for the Japanese wedding market, the camera makers found that it was a marketable format as a step up (quality-wise and cost-wise) from DV. Several years later and many of the companies were still selling this "accidental" format, with Panasonic being an innovator with their P2/DVCPRO HD format. I won't go into HDV at depth, other than to say that it is what it is and it does what it does. I chose not to participate, for the most part sticking with DV and film.

What does Red have to do with HDV? Well, once the Red One was introduced, people started expecting (rightly or wrongly) an accelerated pace of innovation (both in hardware and formats) from the major camera companies. The real bombshell was when Red announced the Scarlet camera, a "3K" camera for "under $3K". What needs to be made clear is that the big camera manufacturers make nearly all of their profits from camcorders, from small-fry like us, and not from their high-end cinema cameras. The high-end cameras serve a role: R&D, prestige and also as an always changing "professional" standard that the prosumer market looks to with desire and dollars.


What has been the result of the Red marketing revolution? To a certain extent it has tied up the prosumer to low-professional level of the marketplace. Why? Because it seems many people are saving to buy their Red One, their Scarlet or an equivalent from one of the major manufacturers. The result is that you are seeing cameras coming out from Sony and Pansonic at a substantially lower price point than initially announced. For example, the HPX-500 has had a $2000 rebate for the past 6 months (the retail list being about $11.5K, with it actually selling at $10K and ending up at $8K with the rebate) and the Sony EX-3 was announced at about a $13K pricepoint at the 2008 NAB, yet is selling at $8300 at your local dealer 4 months later.

Now Red may be doing a little scrambling of their own with DSLR camera makers like Canon (5D MkII) and Nikon (D90) releasing cameras capable of 720p or 1080p. Earlier this month, Red announced that they were going to make a "replacement" for the DSLR market and that it would not be a replacement for the planned Scarlet or Epic. Yesterday, Red announced that, "We have changed everything about Scarlet because the market has changed and we have discovered a lot of things in the process. We have a new vision...." It appears as though they are starting over again with both the Epic and the Scarlet. What will that do to the projected release date of both products and to the seeming army of people waiting to buy them?

If you have any interest in DSLR filmmaking, here is a film that was shot within the past month on the Canon 5D MkII by Vincent Laforet. Remember, this is primarily a still photo camera.


I am not going to go into the technical/aesthetic issues between Red and other digital cameras. That is going on endlessly on boards. I did participate in a shootout last fall involving the Red One, 35mm and an HVX 200 (shooting Lomo anamorphic glass through a RedRock adapter). It is discussed here on Cinematography.com and the HD file of the test is available for download here. The best comment on the thread, for me, asked whether the accompanying photo was a still from "Revenge of the Nerds." YES!!


Where is it all headed? Is it the best of times or the worst of times? Will the format you buy into today be acceptable a couple years from now? Here's the best advice that I've received from a couple of pretty smart people: "Get only what you need to reach the quality level necessary for your next show." And, "Why buy when you can rent?" My head is spinning after researching all the cameras and formats out there right now for the documentary I am shooting. All I can say at this point is that I'd like to buy as little as possible and spend more time worrying about telling stories than obsessing about the technology. Or, as my former advanced cinematography teacher put it, "There was a time when DP's didn't worry about data rates." And to stop asking, like kids on the family vacation, "are we there yet?"

If reading this hasn't exhausted or bored you, here's an interesting article written by Rian Johnson on Red hype, resolution, color depth, the Sony F 23, and the Genesis.

Burden of Dreams

I finally got to watch The Burden of Dreams by Les Blank. It documents Werner Herzog making Fitcarraldo in the middle of the Amazon, risking everything, including the lives of those around him. One, of many, dangerous ordeals undertaken by Herzog in the making of the film involved actually moving a steamship over a large hill in the middle of the jungle without using any special effects and very little equipment. I highly recommend it (another film with a similar theme is Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmakers Apocalypse).

Some Wernerisms from it:

"If I abandon this project I would be a man without dreams and I don't want to live like that. My life begins and ends with this project."

"I'm running out of fantasy. I don't know what else can happen now."



There is a priceless interview, made after Herzog had spent years in the jungle trying to complete the film, during which a somewhat dazed Herzog rambles on about how the jungle is nothing but "fornication and death."

The Criterion edition also has the extra short (also by Blank) Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe. This documents Werner cooking and actually eating his shoe in payment for a lost bet. Herzog had challenged Errol Morris, then living in the San Francisco Bay Area, by saying that he was not "brave enough" to actually complete a film and that he would eat his shoe if he ever did. Morris completed Gates of Heaven and Herzog flew to Berkeley for the premiere and ate his entire right shoe (except for the sole) in front of the audience (after cooking it at Chez Panisse). The short is also available online here.


If anyone is feeling particularly generous, there is also a nifty 6 dvd box set of documentaries and shorts by Herzog.

I'll talk more about Les Blank, George Kuchar, Kurt McDowell and other Bay Area filmmakers, in a future post. My brain nearly explodes trying to imagine a San Francisco Art Institute filmmaking class in the early 1970's taught by George Kuchar with Errol Morris as a student.

Human Light Stand

There is truth in what Eric Escobar says in this post. Shoot with cheap equipment, often and then some more. What to add? Here are some opinions:

Filmmaking is hard work. Really hard. And you need to become proficient in at least one skill. Yes, it's really important to understand the soup to nuts of filmmaking but, it is inherently a collaborative process. No one person (with the exception of animation) can sustainably create films on their own. The goal is to develop relationships with people to work with whose skills dovetail with yours. Or switch roles when you work on each other's films. But at some point you are a director, writer, producer, electrician, grip, script supervisor, assistant director, sound mixer or a combination of them. You can't be great at all of them.

What is a "filmmaker?" It's a generic term that describes someone involved in the filmmaking process, from industrials to webisodes. If you talk to people who really are making a living doing this, trying to find work, they're going to want to know what are your specific skills, right now.

No matter what type of work you intend to create I think it's good to get work on sets with professionals. You will learn 100X more than you ever learned in film school. There is nothing like the sight of the grips coming in like a SWAT team to re-rig a room in a couple minutes because the shooting schedule has changed at the last minute. You learn discipline and develop the physical and emotional endurance and learn the skills to help you make your film end up looking the way you want it. You will also learn how to work in a team and how to treat a crew (especially important if you're trying to get people who know what they're doing to work for free). You will also be 20X ahead of the competition when you learn what a script supervisor does and why you must have one. Once I started to work with people who were really good at what they did I understood how important it is to surround yourself with people as hard working and dedicated as yourself.

Everyone I know who is in film works incredibly hard. I admire every last one of them. They're out there working 12-14 hour days outside in the desert or on a soundstage with 50K of lights up. They eat, sleep, work, dream filmmaking. In their free time they hang out with their film friends to network and talk. Nearly every person who makes a first feature never makes a second. I think it is important to have a long-term plan and commitment. But you also need to have a way to support yourself. And if it's not in film or complementary to film, it can ultimately drag you away from it. My observation, by no means definitive, is that making your way is a process. The harder you work, the more you put yourself out there (and don't internalize the rejection) the more likely you are to last. Yes, you may be a genius but sometimes you just might need to just be a human light stand.