The Prosumer Myth is bad

[clive]

OK, I know I'm not going to make any friends with this thread, but I really need to share my thoughts and feelings about the mythology of Prosumer camcorder film making.

The basic problem with cheap prosumer camcorders is they give both too much and too little to make a movie.

They give too much in terms of formats: DV/Dvcam/HDV/HD720p/DVCPro50/DVCProHD etc etc... and yet neither the chips or the optics are good enough to serve the formats... and because the price you pay for a cheap camcorder is HAVING to use the sub-standard lens they provide, there is always going to be a huge difference between what those camcorders promise and what they deliver.

Not only that, because they are always light weight and either won't shoulder mount... or when they can, don't have the right kind of balance for hand held camera work... they present a set of limitations, which isn't out weighted (IMO) by their cheapness.

One of the common arguments made by DV film makers is that the cheap camcorder gives them the opportunity to learn how to make films without having to invest huge amounts of money.

However, this arguments doesn't hold up for a number of reasons:

Firstly, when people talk about the maths of DV production they are talking about $3K for a prosumer camcorder, $2K on a computer and editing software, and about $2K on other bits and pieces collected over time. Seriously, by the time you've added on some fancy pluggins to make the DV look like film, a 35mm adaptor, a Matte box, a cheap steadycam, some lights, a decent mic, a boom pole and three hundred books on how to make Hollywood movies on DV cams, then you're easily looking at another $2K.

So, all in all you've invested $7K on equipment that almost, by isn't quite good enough to do the job.

Secondly, working on prosumer camcorders with no crew is completely different from working with a professional crew and equipment. Only about 30% of the skills acquired shooting on camcorders translates over to working with professional kit... even less when it comes to camera operating or producing.

So, actually the skills a DV camcorder film maker acquires don't relate to the industry at all... they are not good learning tools.

If we go back a few years... then indies worked in a different way (this is more true in the UK and Europe where there has never been a market for home grown direct to DVD movies)... basically, a film maker made some short films... either on digital or on film... saved up their money and honed a really good short, which they shot on 35mm with a name actor... and they they used this demonstration of technical competence to chase down a budget large enough to shoot their first feature film... on film.

Every step of that process they worked with the best professional crews they could... they shot less often... but they invested more time in development of their ideas and their scripts.

Now, professional HD equipment and film cameras are still available for us to use... not always at a huge price... there are skilled professionals out there who want to work on interesting projects.

Primer was shot, on film, for $7000.

The very practice of working on film... or on professional HD means you have to prepare your story and your shoot. You can't just pick up you camera and waste both tape and time noodling about.

What I've seen in the indie world isn't the explosion of new talent into the industry... but instead a ghetto mentality... "we make films on camcorders... we only do it this way... we think every new format development or gadget is going to allow us to live the dream of making movies, without actually having to make movies."

Instead of seeing hundreds of breakout movies hitting the cinema, made with the advantages of new technology, instead I see more and more indies going from film making as a career to film making as a hobby.

Somewhere in the last seven years the possibilities of new digital technology destroyed the indie film scene... a scene that has stopped talking about distribution deals... a scene that has stopped talking about budgets... a scene that has replaced movie making with talk about the new cameras.

And we've let this happen... what the hell went wrong... and when did the ambition to make real movies stop being a part of indie film making.

Somewhere the difference between being a film maker and being an indie became a yawning chasm... and it all happened in the last five years.

I do have a solution though... stop making films, stop buying equipment... work out what movie you really want to make and spent the next year writing it... then make it with a professional crew on either film or at the very least the Panasonic Varicam.

Either that...or somebody make a film on a prosumer camcorder that gets an international cinema release and some decent press.

 

[spinner]

OK, I know I'm not going to make any friends with this thread, but I really need to share my thoughts and feelings about the mythology of Prosumer camcorder film making.

...oh, Clive, you are always among friends here

The basic problem with cheap prosumer camcorders is they give both too much and too little to make a movie.

They give too much in terms of formats: DV/Dvcam/HDV/HD720p/DVCPro50/DVCProHD etc etc... and yet neither the chips or the optics are good enough to serve the formats... and because the price you pay for a cheap camcorder is HAVING to use the sub-standard lens they provide, there is always going to be a huge difference between what those camcorders promise and what they deliver.

Not only that, because they are always light weight and either won't shoulder mount... or when they can, don't have the right kind of balance for hand held camera work... they present a set of limitations, which isn't out weighted (IMO) by their cheapness.

Okay, but one of the things we would say at the station I worked at: don't blame the equipment. I think you have to figure out how to make what you have work for you...

One of the common arguments made by DV film makers is that the cheap camcorder gives them the opportunity to learn how to make films without having to invest huge amounts of money.

However, this arguments doesn't hold up for a number of reasons:

Firstly, when people talk about the maths of DV production they are talking about $3K for a prosumer camcorder, $2K on a computer and editing software, and about $2K on other bits and pieces collected over time. Seriously, by the time you've added on some fancy pluggins to make the DV look like film, a 35mm adaptor, a Matte box, a cheap steadycam, some lights, a decent mic, a boom pole and three hundred books on how to make Hollywood movies on DV cams, then you're easily looking at another $2K.

So, all in all you've invested $7K on equipment that almost, by isn't quite good enough to do the job.

...you almost make the argument for purchasing the $600 camera. I think that you learn on the cheap stuff. And one of the things that you learn is whether or not you are any good at the film thing in the first place. It puts you in a positon of knowing just where you stand, how far you have to go, if you should go pick up some skills and even tells you if maybe this isn't your thing. Its better to figure out on a $600 camera that you hate the process than it is to find that out after you spend $3000+.

Secondly, working on prosumer camcorders with no crew is completely different from working with a professional crew and equipment. Only about 30% of the skills acquired shooting on camcorders translates over to working with professional kit... even less when it comes to camera operating or producing.

So, actually the skills a DV camcorder film maker acquires don't relate to the industry at all... they are not good learning tools.

Maybe so, but sometimes what is forgotten when you have all the things at your disposal, is that those who don't, still want to make movies. Of course what you want is to have a full experienced crew, but when you don't have that, what then? Should you sit on your butt and say: "oh, well. I don't have the equipment, the crew, the money, what have you." If you don't at least try, you can't become a filmmaker.

What I've seen in the indie world isn't the explosion of new talent into the industry... but instead a ghetto mentality... "we make films on camcorders... we only do it this way... we think every new format development or gadget is going to allow us to live the dream of making movies, without actually having to make movies."

When I talk about equipment, I am looking at making that which is closest, in appearance, to theater-ready as I can make it. I have on occasion said that I have some ideas for films that I would like to do. But when I do, I'll do it when I think that my resources can come as close to theater ready as possible. I am fully aware that I am not quite there yet.

When you make your own film, however you end up doing it, the one thing that is universal is: does my film stand up to other films I seen? Of course your limited resources will not give you LOTR, but it might give you Juno. So, what that forces you to do is look at what others have done and honestly look at what you have done. Your film doesn't have to be Juno, but the quality does have to stand up to simple filmmaking. If it doesn't, then you have some work to do, more things to figure out. In that way, maybe it is a good learning tool. (and when I use Juno as an example, I mean it isn't as difficult to shoot as LOTR would be.)

But for those of us who are still on the outside with our little faces pressed against the glass of the candy store window, we have to remember that what we do must be up to the standards of what your average moviegoer would be used to seeing. No one is going to pay for substandard filmmaking or story telling.

I have always thought that what you have to do is continue to improve. Eventually you may be able to acquire the more expensive equipment and the full crew etc. For right now, I am working on my camera skills, musing over my writing skills and trying to figure out how to pay for all of this stuff

-- spinner

 

[clive]

Part Two

Spinner is right... we want to make a film, so we look to the resources that we have in order to make it.

And that's where the central core of my problem with prosumer camcorders lies. When somebody asks the question... how can I make this movie, when I only have $3000, the ONLY answer these days is, I'll shoot it on a prosumer camcorder.

Imagine a world where prosumer camcorders didn't exist... how would films get made?

Well, people would have to put the same energy they put into trying to get prosumer cameras to perform like professional cameras into working in other ways. Or, in other words, they'd still make films... but they make them by finding ways of scoring cheap film... or by finding a professional HD rig that isn't doing anything on the weekend... or by finding a retired cameraman who still has his Digibeta kit (and twenty year's experience) locked in his garage.

The problem with prosumer cameras is they offer too easy an answer... and as a result they stop people from exploring other avenues for making films. They encourage people to shoot too much and think too little. They've gone from being a possible way to make a film, to being the ONLY way to make a film. And, in my opinion, that's not right.

Owning a camcorder shouldn't be the baseline entry point for being a film maker... there are other ways...or at least there used to be.

 

[directorik]

All excellent alternatives, clive.

But consumer cameras do exist. I know when I was 16 I used the
equipment I had available to me. I wanted to learn about the
process of making a movie. Isn’t that also important? I guess I
could have not made films until I found a professional kit that
wasn’t being used - but I grew up in an area where there weren’t
many professional rigs available - at any cost.

I suppose I could have not made films until I found a cameraperson
with twenty years experience, but I really wanted to learn about
the process of making films.

I’m envious that were you grew up, there were other options. And I
think it’s great that you suggest these other options to new
movie makers.

So to expand on your analogy, clive - imagine a world where these
retired experienced people or professional HD rigs just weren’t
available. How would films get made?

I write to a lot of new filmmakers of all ages in parts of the
world where these people and this equipment just don’t exist.

Shooting on a prosumer camera or a $600 consumer camera is, in my
opinion, a very viable method of learning the craft and art of
making a movie. I’m still not understanding why that is the
central core of your problem with consumer cameras.

 

[Joe999]

Clive, In defense of your position, there is a feature article in the current (Feb) issue of HDVideoPro magazine, "FILM ISN'T DEAD" -- "HD Production is growing exponentially, but film is far from being overtaken" by Pauline B. Rogers. I just picked up the magazine this morning so I have yet to read it, but it looks good. Looks like the article discusses film emulsion and the benefits still of film over digital.

 

[spinner]

Spinner is right... we want to make a film, so we look to the resources that we have in order to make it.

And that's where the central core of my problem with prosumer camcorders lies. When somebody asks the question... how can I make this movie, when I only have $3000, the ONLY answer these days is, I'll shoot it on a prosumer camcorder.

Imagine a world where prosumer camcorders didn't exist... how would films get made?

Well, people would have to put the same energy they put into trying to get prosumer cameras to perform like professional cameras into working in other ways. Or, in other words, they'd still make films... but they make them by finding ways of scoring cheap film... or by finding a professional HD rig that isn't doing anything on the weekend... or by finding a retired cameraman who still has his Digibeta kit (and twenty year's experience) locked in his garage.

I have just found an audio guy like that. You would not believe all the music people he has worked with, and not as some lightweight, completely involved in the process. Sometimes its amazing who you just stumble upon...

The problem with prosumer cameras is they offer too easy an answer... and as a result they stop people from exploring other avenues for making films. They encourage people to shoot too much and think too little. They've gone from being a possible way to make a film, to being the ONLY way to make a film. And, in my opinion, that's not right.

Owning a camcorder shouldn't be the baseline entry point for being a film maker... there are other ways...or at least there used to be.

I think maybe, Clive, your irritation is with the fact that: because of the technology and how easy it is to learn to use the prosumer cameras and nowadays all computers come with some form of simple edit system, since everything is at your fingertips, you can put something together relatively quickly without actually knowing filmmaking. People getting into filmmaking now, don't always feel that they need to learn what it takes to make a "well-made" film. Am I right?

Its like the 'film history' thread. Does a person have to know film history?

But here's the thing: just because you know how to turn the camera on and get it to function, doesn't make you good at it. Anyone can 'point-and-shoot'. The difference between the 'point-and-shoot' guys and the filmmakers is what they are capable of doing. That is why for me film history is important.

I couldn't afford film school, but I can watch "Citizen Kane" and know what one poster is talking about when they speak of "deep focus" and I can see why the scene works. I can watch Hitchcock's "Rope" and get an idea of what perspective is. Watch old B&W fighter plane films and compare and contrast why they worked then and then look at changes made in "Star Wars" and understand why the editing is so important and why it works in the X-wing fighter scenes. I may not know the 'technical term' for what something is, but I will at least know what you mean.

Having the equipment doesn't make you good at it. You get good at it by knowing you have to somehow learn the craft. For me, that's editing. So many people can't frame a shot or figure out what makes the shot interesting to look at. (for that you watch Hitchcock) To my mind, that is something you have to know how to do. The ones who know how to do that, are the ones that will be the 'breakout' stars that you mention.

When I hear people say that they don't think they need to watch old films to make movies, I just shake my head because -- and I know this is over stating it a little -- when people were making those films, they didn't have all the new technology, they had to figure out how to invent the new technology. That means they didn't have anything, much like us guerilla filmmakers. You have to figure it out. What makes the movie look like something well made. Any thing you call a movie/film will have to stand up to what moviegoers expect from a film whether the film is "LOTR" or "Juno". It still has to look like a movie. Eventually, people will have to figure that out.

Eventually, people will have to begin to understand that you have to do more than 'point-and-shoot'. Hopefully, you will find more of them where you are.

-- spinner

 

[mrhedges]

i just joined this forum to take part in this conversation. I am 24 and producing and directing my first feature with my bestfriend in new orleans. we are shooting on a 3ccd prosumer camera. The story is based on a script that i have been working on for over a year. I agree that the digital revolution isn't all its cracked up to be there is something nice wonderful even about sitting in a darkened room with total strangers and seeing moving imagines on a screen telling you a story.

Its the story though, its the feeling of being taking away from your normal life to this other place and that feeling that tinge of sadness you get when its over when the lights come back on. A good movie is like a good dream and when you wake up you are suprised. Its magic and if you don't belive filmmaking is magic that we are magicains casting reality creating new dreams out of ether then i don't want to talk to you. I don't care what you shoot on it doesn't matter each mediem is diffrent like diffrent kinds of paint or brushes. We don't all want to paint with oil based paint some of us want to us charcoal (and some of us want to use menstral blood and dog feces; just kidding). What matters is what does it make you feel? Alot of internet content doesn't make me feel like anything or its just a joke a giggle or a trite gore fest (not a beatiful gore fest like dawn of the dead). I don't think film will ever die and I don't want it to. film can be processed in home darkrooms and it creates a feeling video can never have.

That said people made horid low budget movies before digital they was just less of them and they look kitchy now because they were all shot on 16mm film.

I don't have any answers really except being a filmmaking should be a challenge making a movie should take over your life it should be all you do and think about or you aren't doing it right. For me right now everything is secondary to getting this film done all the things I was obbsessed with before i started (bicycles, motorbikes, sex, music, movies, good books, sleeping in) have all gone out the door I don't have time for them until this thing is shot. I live like a monk right now and i couldn't be happier because my dreams are coming true.

So what am i going to do with this mess when i'm done? film festivals possibly but no internet excpet trailers I want people who watch this movie to sit in a darkened room and eat popcorn and get taken away to this place i created. I would rather screen this movie on a video projecter in a friends garage (or art gallery) then on the internet. I want to watch people's reactions I want to be there.

Thanks for the rant I think we are on the same page clive just have diffrent ways of looking at the same monster.

 

[Justin Hayward]

Imagine a world where prosumer camcorders didn't exist... how would films get made?

Well, people would have to put the same energy they put into trying to get prosumer cameras to perform like professional cameras into working in other ways. Or, in other words, they'd still make films...

No they wouldn't. They would just find something else to do. Your problem isn't with the tool, it's with the craftsman. Completing a film all the way through a final sound mix is hard, hard, work that takes tremendous dedication and patience that these people who "noodle" around (as you put it) do not have.

If prosumer camcorders didn't exist, there wouldn't be more good movies, there would just be less bad ones. And, I really don't care if someone wants to make a bad movie and flaunt it about. It only makes the serious film makers look better.

Justin

 

[MBeck]

No they wouldn't. They would just find something else to do. Your problem isn't with the tool, it's with the craftsman. Completing a film all the way through a final sound mix is hard, hard, work that takes tremendous dedication and patience that these people who "noodle" around (as you put it) do not have.

If prosumer camcorders didn't exist, there wouldn't be more good movies, there would just be less bad ones. And, I really don't care if someone wants to make a bad movie and flaunt it about. It only makes the serious film makers look better.

Justin

I agree with you whole heartedly! The only thing I would add is that there would be less good movies as well. I am an aspiring film maker, and I hope to one day have the full crew and a real camera, but I cannot get there by sitting around begging. I can learn film making, and eventually make something that will get me noticed. Then I can talk about deals and budgets.

 

[clive]

Part Three

The next part of this rant is about the effect prosumer camcorders have on how film makers perceive themselves.

Everyone here has made some great points... and Rik has been a particularly good advocate for prosumer camcorders. And he's right, they allow access to production to anyone (which is a good thing) and they let people learn by shooting (which is also a good thing).

However, the biggest change I've seen in the indie film making scene over the last few years, is that people's aspirations have dropped.

Ten years ago nearly every conversation I had with indie film makers was about the following topics: how do I get actor X interested in my project? how do I get production budget Z? and... how do I get sales for film Y?

The problem with prosumer camcorders is they encourage film makers to think small.

Sure, they have the means to make a film that technically could rock the film work... but, because they're shooting on a prosumer rig, film makers go into the project with small aspirations. It no longer occurs to an indie to approach name actors with their scripts, it longer occurs to them that they could raise a budget, it's no longer important whether the film sells or not.

And... this is why I believe the prosumer myth is dangerous, once a film maker buys a half decent prosumer camcorder they'll always shoot on that camcorder... and therefore they'll always plan projects that have small aspirations.

The barrier of cost, which shooting on film represented, forced film makers to do the opposite... you were spending a lot of money on production, so you had to think about where your film would sell... you had to consider approaching name actors... you had to write and rewrite your script... you had to plan/storyboard and really consider your shoot... because, this one film might be your only shot.

Where Rik is right, the prosumer rigs allow people to learn how to make films... and the problem with the scene ten years ago is too many people invested large amounts of money in making films they just didn't have the experience to make.

The whole prosumer camera scene should have provided a bridge between those two worlds... but it hasn't.

And, it hasn't because instead the cameras themselves have become a trap... rather than setting the indie scene free, it's enslaved them.

This forum represents a cross section of indie film makers... from newbies, all the way up to some veterans.

But... what I don't hear anymore is anyone talking about planning a shoot on film... or on professional HD ... or even on Digibeta... I can't remember the last time anyone discussed the how to raise $60K to make their film... or the last time someone pitched their script to a name. (Sorry, lying on the floor here laughing my ass off... just reread my own post and realised that at some point in the last five years $60K became a big budget)

If the prosumer camcorder really were a learning tool, with which to propel people into the larger professional film scene, there would be at least a few of the members here who were making that transition... but, there aren't.

Hands up anyone here who is planning to shoot a feature film on film anytime in the next year...

The truth is, deep down I know the format and the camera you use isn't relevant... there is no reason why a film maker couldn't make a fantastic film on even a $400 camcorder... but, in order to do it you have to think like someone who is shooting on film... you have to take both yourself and your films seriously.

Prosumer camcorders could create a genuine revolution in the film industry... but for that to happen we have to drop the ghetto mentality.

 

[georgiahoosier]

I appreciate your frustration with the state of events and I believe that at the core I agree with you, but I think the focus should be more on content rather than technology.
Rather than see if a technique or a particular director's style can be copied, which is a good exercise but not a continual practice, more emphasis should go to creativity.

There's an entirely new group now willing to discuss and learn about making movies, so naturally the discussion is different than a decade ago, but I can't think of anything where 10 years doesn't make a big difference. The technology has made it possible for a lot more people to become involved in the creation of this art.

And too, it is an art more than a science, which takes me back to creativity. It can be more important to express the art than to worry about the minutia of the gear, which sounds blasphemous to those that came up the hard way, and I don't wish to dismiss the importance of what has gone before us. But fortunately there's equipment that does a lot of the work and it can be had for very accessible prices. There's no reason not to use it. It's all in how it's used.

The young turks want to learn from the old war horses, and it would be a terrible tragedy for what was learned, albeit at great expense in time and experience, to be lost. The task for the war horses, if willing, is to direct the turks the right way onto the field of battle.

I think that's what happens here on this forum.

Now to shift gears and reinforce your argument with anectodal evidence, there's a human nature element to thinking the latest and greatest will make things better; I used to run a golf shop and about every six months some new driver, putter, or fancy set of irons would come out and the rush would be on by all the duffers and hackers to purchase. They just knew that the "flaming screaming ball squisher" would be the end all and cut a dozen strokes off their game. Of course it never did.
I was in the business to provide the stuff, but more than once I suggested that a few lessons would do far more to help than a carbon graphite tri planar sand wedge.
But as soon as the next breakthrough would come out, they'd all line up again.
Very frustrating when you knew what would really work for them.

I know Fritz Lang doesn't live inside my camera, so there's no magic genie that whooshes out and makes my video look like amazing film or anything else.
I have to make it look like something entertaining and watchable, and I believe that happens at the keyboard (typewriter, notepad, whatever you use for script writing) and not necessarily in the lens.

Now I'm rambling, not enough coffee, too early, etc.

Neil

 

[directorik]

As long as your “rant” is limited to professionals or those want
to be professionals, I have no disagreement with clive at all.

Any movie maker who is considering making money with their movie
must consider more than the camera and the lens. Funding, talent,
crew and sales are essential.

But not all movies makers are making movies for the larger public
- for sales. And prosumer cameras allow that very large group of
people - inspired amateurs - to explore the process of making
movies.

I believe that most people who ask questions on messageboards fall
into that category. Still learning, with big hopes. Sometimes
unrealistic hopes, but we all have had unrealistic hops.

If the prosumer camcorder really were a learning tool, with which to propel people into the larger professional film scene, there would be at least a few of the members here who were making that transition... but, there aren't.

How do you come to this conclusion, clive?

That learning curve, from the first purchase of a prosumer camera
through the making of several shorts to the first feature can
(and should) take a year or more. Have you remained in contact
with enough members here for that long? How do you know that
someone who came here in 2005 asking about cameras hasn’t made a
feature. But never came back to tell the members about it?

Hands up anyone here who is planning to shoot a feature film on film anytime in the next year...

In my business - direct to video - there is no need to spend that
money. I can put the money used for stock, processing and
telecine into crew salaries. My personal choice is to pay the
crew a little better and shoot on DV.

In most cases the $30,000 saving means the difference between
getting the movie made or not getting it made. I choose to make
the DTV feature rather than not make it.

The truth is, deep down I know the format and the camera you use isn't relevant... there is no reason why a film maker couldn't make a fantastic film on even a $400 camcorder... but, in order to do it you have to think like someone who is shooting on film... you have to take both yourself and your films seriously.

Many have made fantactic movies on prosumer cameras. Just because
most don’t doesn’t mean there is a ghetto mentality.

At least not to me.

I love the fact that so many people are giving it a shot. EmmaMc
said the “wrong people are gaining access” to cheaper technology.
I don’t think there is such a thing. It doesn’t matter to me why
people are making movies. I don’t think about their motivation or
their unrealistic hopes. I think all people with access are the
right people.

I love that the cheaper technology is allowing more and more
people access. If some of them, if the majority of them, fall
into a trap or make terrible movies or lose money, I still admire
them for giving it a shot!

But... what I don't hear anymore is anyone talking about planning a shoot on film... or on professional HD ... or even on Digibeta... I can't remember the last time anyone discussed the how to raise $60K to make their film... or the last time someone pitched their script to a name.

I don’t discuss that here. I’m doing it - I made two above $60k
movies last year with name talent - but I don’t discuss it here.
Maybe I should. I’m not much into writing down each step in my
personal process.

But just because people on these boards - with under 50 active
members - aren’t posting about it, doesn’t mean there aren’t a
LOT of movie makers doing it. I’ve gotten job offers of 6 already
this year.

I’m doing it right now. We are in the process of raising a minimum
of $80k - trying for $125K - and putting together our wish list
of talent to run past our sales agent and the three distributors.

Excellent topic of discussion, clive.

 

[Joe999]

Wouldn't that require a prospective study in order to form such a conclusion? I.e, it might take some time, maybe years, before we will know. I think even Spielberg started out on a crap-arse 8mm or something like that, who knows what might happen with some of us wannabes starting out on prosumer [=affordable and accessible] cameras.

...If the prosumer camcorder really were a learning tool, with which to propel people into the larger professional film scene, there would be at least a few of the members here who were making that transition... but, there aren't.....

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

I love the fact that so many people are giving it a shot. EmmaMc
said the “wrong people are gaining access” to cheaper technology.
I don’t think there is such a thing. It doesn’t matter to me why
people are making movies.

I agree completely. Any form of creative expression should be encouraged; especially in this age of consumerism where many people have no appreciation of the creative process. Also, the ability to express ourselves ... to tell our stories in living color, is emboldening. I believe it gives young people confidence in their ability to participate in the process. Whether they take on the local corporate polluter, a dishonest politician, social ills, or they just want to entertain, they can be involved and make their unique perspective known, without resorting to violence.

The technology is enabling, and therefore, I support it 100%. Let the market decide which films are going to make money. That has nothing to do with the technology or lack of technology that was used to tell the story.

Doug

 

[knightly]

I disagree entirely Clive...and am no longer your friend (see first post )...here's why:

I shoot prosumer. Where my first couple of shoots were exactly what you have described in terms of cluelessness, 8 shorts and a bad unfinished feature later, I've grown a crew of like minded learners who have no interest in running the camera, just creating a story in this media (the singular/plural confusion is quite purposeful).

I have a script supervisor (working on a set with a prosumer camera), an AD (same set), runners, director, DP, Producers and APs. None of us would have been able to explore these angles had it not been for the relatively low price tag of my camera. This media is what you make of it. I want to make a career of it eventually, but the cost for entry is stunning using the traditional model.

This conversation is important! It emphasizes what I've been saying all along...the camera is irrelevant to the filmmaking process...all it does is capture the footage of the film...the story is told in front of the camera and in the editing...this is where to expand your knowlege...and where you can jump into the industry if you decide this is your goal and start shooting DV like it's film.

I've actually stopped white balancing and only use preset WB's, out or indoor...same as choosing outdoor or indoor filmstock (except for the speed of the film...but I have a photographic background and can even develop my own film if necessary - so take that!)

GeorgiaH, I've never said I want my film to look like video...but then I've also stopped trying to get the "film look" and am working hard to dispel that myth. The only way to get the "Film Look" is to shoot film...I say screw film for the time being and focus on getting great looking video...good enough that the audience (not necessarily just other forum members - we should all think grander) doesn't care what format it was captured on as it doesn't bring attention to itself.

The distinction here is that the reason people feel they need the "film look" is that they've captured lackluster (lacklustre for you Clive) video and are trying to cover it up to make it look and feel more cinematic. Truth be told, the "Film Look" is applied to almost all movies in the color grading process nowadays and even film is shot less like film and shot more for the post production process...watch some BTS on color grading processes sometime and see how washed out and milky the images are before going through the grading process.

Film is no longer shot like film used to be during the glory days that the "DV sux" camp is pining for! With the RED on the horizon (hopefully my horizon--distant horizon), the "Look and Feel" of film is becoming possible with what amounts to a much more approachable price tag for the low-budget indies like myself...either to buy, rent or hire on with a camera op/owner.

I say if you concern yourself with lighting, blocking (actors and camera), mise-en-scene and editing...and shoot your camera as if it were film (expose correctly, work with a crew of like minded - non-professional individuals, mind your shooting ratios)...we can rise above the DV Proletariet and shine making Hollywood take notice and perhaps hire us to take the threat away

 

[clive]

And that's the reason you're one of my favorite people here... because you're one of the people (like Rik) who gets it.

Of course prosumer cameras per se aren't a bad thing... of course they offer new and exciting alternatives to film making... and most of all they give access to film making to people who never would have otherwise have had the opportunity.

My only reason for ranting about current trends, is to get people to think about what they're doing with their cameras; and, at the same time to get film makers to widen their horizons.

My other point was to share some of my experiences of non-prosumer film making... and a little indie history. Films were made by indies before there were prosumer cameras... and although the entry level was high, I hope I've shown there was an upside to that as well.

One of the exciting things about the digital revolution is it's given us multiple possibilities for production (for instance I've just made my first 3D animated film).

What I don't want to see, and do to some respect, is an indie film scene that defines itself by the use of prosumer cameras and self distribution.

Like you, I want to see us storm the gates of Hollywood... only to discover that like Carnivale freaks they've already packed up their tents and moved on.

 

[knightly]

I think there were still folks in the indie history during the film days who were just point a camera and run film through it pointlessly filmmaker hobbyists. But just like the numbers of serious "I want to make it" types, they were fewer based on the cost of entry (film stock and processing for every shoot you did rather than just the initial camera cost).

I would venture a guess that the percentages are the same as they used to be. Although I'm probably wrong.

 

[clive]

Prosumer cameras come with a cheap price tag... anyone who takes that route for cameras will probably apply the same logic to all aspects of film making. Once you get into the mind set of "how can I DIY this for $25" then you automatically dismiss the professional tools to do the job. And, I think that's a mistake.

What happens next is the scripts get written to match the resources; rather, than the resources being found to match the script. In other words the camera starts to dictate the kind of film that gets made.

There is nothing wrong with a prosumer camcroder, per se, because it's a tool... just like a cheap Wallmart hammer... but if you want to change the engine block in a classic Mustang, then the Wallmart hammer probably isn't the tool to use... a grenade is!

I own and use a prosumer camcorder (a sony VX9000 - hey it actually shoulder mounts like a real camera!)... but I only use it for projects it's best suited for.

The danger of prosumer camcorders is they become the only tool in the box... and because you can do stuff with it without having to talk to new people, or find new contacts, then people never develop those links.

There is probably some old bloke, living within twenty miles of you, who is sitting on a pristine super 16mm film rig, with a box of primes (and an address book of every hardcore film guy in the region) and who has forty years cinematography experience... you'd probably learn more from him in one shoot than you have in the last three years... but if you only ever work on your own kit, you'll never make those contacts or learn from that experience.

 

[VPTurner]

I chose the Prosumer route right now because I simply do not have the time for any set schedule. It's touch and go. When I have free time, that's when I break out the camera and get to work (either with lighting experiments or practice interviews or just getting outside in the nice weather). Would I rather have a crew with Arri or Panavision cameras and a complete set of pro grips and gaffers at my disposal? Sure! But I can't rally them on a Saturday afternoon that suddenly frees up in order to get something accomplished. Now when I get to where I believe I know what I'm doing around a set and have a solid story to tell that's worthy of some festivals, then I will schedule some vacation time and shoot it on professional equipment with an experienced crew. A few successful rounds of that, and then I may tackle a feature. Who knows. I am still learning to walk.

You don't see folks at the start of their film school agenda running out and hiring professional crews and renting professional equipment, do you? They get the education and the requisite experience first. When you learn fly an aircraft, you spend much of that initial time in a classroom and a simulator. You don't jump right into a 747 and grab the yoke. Same with race car driving. It all starts with theory, then some practice in power-governed cars, and then moves up to race ready vehicles. Sure, I can go hire a pilot or a driver and sit off to the side, but where's the fun in that? I'm a hands-on guy. I like to get my hands dirty. Granted, shooting video of the dog, still life and friends or family won't get me any closer to a film career or to a festival, but it's all a means to an end. When that day finally comes, I won't be tripping over C-stands or scratching my head about how a particular camera or lighting setup looks in the editing room before it's shot. And when some young PA asks me what the heck a C47 is, I'll know the answer.

I am already a visual thinker. Now I am training that visual mind to see the world through a camera lens.

Besides, this exercise will also make be a better writer. It's one thing to read about why you avoid writing "thousands of soldiers rush the hilltop fort", and something else entirely when you understand the production logistics involved. I won't wonder how or why I lost a sale to a low-budget independent producer; I'll just know I ran well over his budget with that one line. And then I can fix it with something like, "a few soldiers huddle in a fox hole near the hilltop fort, listening to the thunderous footsteps and shouts of thousands of enemy troops as they close in on them".

 

[clive]

I guess we each take a view from our own experience

You don't see folks at the start of their film school agenda running out and hiring professional crews and renting professional equipment, do you? They get the education and the requisite experience first. When you learn fly an aircraft, you spend much of that initial time in a classroom and a simulator. You don't jump right into a 747 and grab the yoke

All I can say is this is exactly how I leaned to make films... I directed my first short, shot on a Pansonic DVCPro25 camera worth at that time about $50K and a professional crew ... then we won a Royal Television Society award with it, then had it distributed on 400,000 copies of Total Film magazine in the UK.

My first DOP had fifteen years of experience, my first sound guy twenty-two. My 1st AD was an award wining director in his own right... as was the guy holding the boom.

Everything I learned about film making I learned from guys making a living in TV and film. I didn't have to figure a lot of this stuff out... because people just showed me how it's done.

We spent $6K on that first short... but to be fair, these days I could get the same thing made for under $1K. Most of the 6K went into an online edit and laybacks. And... I knew we needed $6K, I went out and found a corporate sponsor... none of the money came out of my pocket.

What bothers me is exactly the point you're making... prosumer seems like the only choice... it isn't, there are other ways. The only problem is, with prosumer being so cheap and simple... very few people do it any other way.

 

[VPTurner]

I guess we each take a view from our own experience



All I can say is this is exactly how I leaned to make films... I directed my first short, shot on a Pansonic DVCPro25 camera worth at that time about $50K and a professional crew ... then we won a Royal Television Society award with it, then had it distributed on 400,000 copies of Total Film magazine in the UK.

My first DOP had fifteen years of experience, my first sound guy twenty-two. My 1st AD was an award wining director in his own right... as was the guy holding the boom.

Everything I learned about film making I learned from guys making a living in TV and film. I didn't have to figure a lot of this stuff out... because people just showed me how it's done.

We spent $6K on that first short... but to be fair, these days I could get the same thing made for under $1K. Most of the 6K went into an online edit and laybacks. And... I knew we needed $6K, I went out and found a corporate sponsor... none of the money came out of my pocket.

What bothers me is exactly the point you're making... prosumer seems like the only choice... it isn't, there are other ways. The only problem is, with prosumer being so cheap and simple... very few people do it any other way.

Well, isn't that why we're all here, to learn from people like you?

Prosumer certainly isn't the only choice. It's the only choice for me right now, though. Others may choose a different path, especially after reviewing this thread and your compelling arguments against it. It was within reach and within my budget and allows me to develop on my own (limited) time as I branch away from the written word and learn how to effectively translate those visions to the screen. No, it won't teach me how to work with a crew, but it will suffice for now. Working with a crew is the next chapter in my development.

Honestly, I couldn't have made anywhere near the progress I've made in both experience and knowledge without this forum and other avenues on the web. That much is certain. When I started this over 20 years ago, the web as it is today didn't exist. I wish I had access to all of this information and to professionals back then. My life and career could've taken a very different path. I did at least have access to working writers back then, and that helped me develop those skills (which are still evolving and always will). That was with Prodigy and a 2400 baud modem.