Photography Student interested in videography

[JDiPierro]

Hey All,

I'm a photography student in Waltham, MA, just outside of Boston, and I'm interested in learning videography. I've known of RED for a while and have always drooled over them so I figured this would be a great place to start. Now when I say I'm interested in learning videography I want to be a camera operator, not a producer or direction. I have no problem with being the camera grunt and I'd love to do some editing as well.

So my first question is, has anyone gone from a photography background to videography? How similar are the controls for video to photo?

And does anyone know of any sites to check out to find a project/job I could take to start getting into the industry and behind the camera? Or just behind the scenes. I have a friend whose working on a documentary and I may be helping out as a boom operator just to get started... hopefully...

Thanks all!

Justin DiPierro

 

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Just to be clear: RED is NOT videography but Digital Cinema. What is the difference? Somebody will tell you when you're looking for a job ;-)

 

[JDiPierro]

Just to be clear: RED is NOT videography but Digital Cinema. What is the difference? Somebody will tell you when you're looking for a job ;-)

... Either way it records video... the person operating it is a video-grapher...

 

[Eki Halkka]

Just to be clear: RED is NOT videography but Digital Cinema. What is the difference? Somebody will tell you when you're looking for a job ;-)

I'd say it's Digital Cinema only if the result is to be shown in theaters. If it's i.e. shot for TV, videography would be just as good a term, IMO.

Or have i missed something (not looking for a job BTW, already working too much ;-) ?

 

[KStephens]

... Either way it records video... the person operating it is a video-grapher...

Not necessarily. Video and cinema have often been separated by the medium (film versus videotape) and the scale of the project. However, an important distinction in this case is what "video" is. Video is traditionally connected to videotape and, with that, broadcast and television. Video adheres to a certain standard (PAL, NTSC and more recently, HD) that is, in turn, supported by television manufacturers and broadcasters. For all intents and purposes, "on video" (and thus "video") can be tied to these television standards, whether or not it's digital. Furthermore, even recent standards from DV to HDV and HDCAM still use tapes.

Since the Red One does not record or deliver natively in any television or broadcast ready (HD or otherwise) format, it is fair to argue that it is not "video". It also does not operate on tapes, which further supports this view.

 

[Sidney L. Plaut]

to get past the video/RED/digital cinema discussion...

The same principles of lighting and exposure are basically the same. Of course you cant use the shutter as an exposure tool, in the same degree as you can in still photography - unless you want some visible effect in the motion.

biggest difference is in my opinion in that in still photography, 1 frame carries a story - where as in cinema - 1 frame in itself says nothing. Only a sequence of frames tells a story. So you have to think different when composing your shots.

How about contacting a film school and offer yourself as whatever they need, when they do their student films? - alot of people do that here.

best,

Sidney

 

[Eki Halkka]

Since the Red One does not record or deliver natively in any television or broadcast ready (HD or otherwise) format, it is fair to argue that it is not "video". It also does not operate on tapes, which further supports this view.

Okay, so you say the difference is shooting on solid state and having to resize footage before it can be shown on TV. In that case, shooting your kid's birthday party at 640x480 size on a pocket still camera fits your definition of Digital Cinema better than shooting shooting a feature film with F-23.

Right.

As said, to me the definition of the term really boils down to the final delivery, not the shooting format. Not sure if it makes much of a difference what i think though ;-)

PS: Wikipedia seems to say "Digital cinema refers to the use of digital technology to distribute and project motion pictures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

 

[Eki Halkka]

The same principles of lighting and exposure are basically...

I think you pretty much summed it up - well said.

 

[KStephens]

Okay, so you say the difference is shooting on solid state and having to resize footage before it can be shown on TV. In that case, shooting your kid's birthday party at 640x480 size on a pocket still camera fits your definition of Digital Cinema better than shooting shooting a feature film with F-23.

Right.

As said, to me the definition of the term really boils down to the final delivery, not the shooting format. Not sure if it makes much of a difference what i think though ;-)

PS: Wikipedia seems to say "Digital cinema refers to the use of digital technology to distribute and project motion pictures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

That's all well and good, but what Wikipedia is referring to is Digital Cinema distribution. Try looking up "digital cinematography".

Most pocket cameras provide CIF resolution or something similar that matches a television standard. Often, they capture at 30 FPS, which again matches television standard and not film. The F-23, on the other hand, can record at 24 FPS. So, actually, no, not even by my definition, does it work that way.

Besides which, my so-called "definition" was also just an attempt to help explain why a "videographer" might be separated from digital cinema.

So, if we appreciate the meaning of winks ;-) and an attempt to be helpful, maybe we can come to some useful understanding of the difference between videographer and digital cinematography/cinematographer. All joking aside, the lines have been blurred in recent years. However, people still have expectations when someone says "videographer" and it might be wise to try and be aware of what they interpret that term as.

Cheers.

 

[Adam Glick]

this gets into a game of semantics...

It might be helpful to break this down into separate stages of the process.

(from Wikipedia)

"Cinematagraphy - (from Greek: kinesis κινησις (movement) and grapho γραφω (to record)), is the discipline of making lighting and camera choices when recording photographic images for the cinema. It is closely related to the art of still photography, though many additional issues arise when both the camera and elements of the scene may be in motion."[/COLOR]


I'm no cinematographer, but one could argue that the above methods and approaches might be used with any camera that can record motion images.)

Now the term "video" has come to represent a broad range of meanings.

Again, Wikipedia -

"Video - Video is the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion."

This could, arguably, include the RED ONE camera and any other digital image capturing device.

 

[Eki Halkka]

That's all well and good, but what Wikipedia is referring to is Digital Cinema distribution. Try looking up "digital cinematography".

Oh, i did, actually, while you obviously did not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography

"While there is no clear technical distinction that separates the images captured in digital cinematography from video, the term "digital cinematography" is usually applied only in cases where digital acquisition is substituted for film acquisition, such as when shooting a feature film."

Anyway, i don't consider "videographer" a degratory term, or somehow inherently lower than "cinematographer". I know many do, but that's their problem ;-)

 

[Ian Laurie]

In my opinion the difference lies in what happens after the image is shot. Red has a film based workflow. once shot you still have to "process" the images. granted this now done digitally rather than chemically. Video is not Processed. What you filmed is what you walk out with for the most part. I got my red less than a week ago and i already find i am going back to trying to get "base black" when "processing" my "film". I think if you are coming from a film background and are used to doing your own processing you will find it to be an alright transition. If you have never set foot in a dark room you might find it a bit more difficult. Been using video for years. red is too different to be called video. I think the term "Digital Film" really does apply.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Ok..... so back to the question. If you eventually want to work as a camera operator, you should try to get a job at a rental house. Boston Camera is near you and, they have a pile of Reds. If you want to really do this, you need to understand that it is a long term commitment. It will take you five years to truly understand how little you know now ;-)
I would recomend joining local 600 once you get enough days as an assistant. You will be exposed to the best crews, and even if you are a loader, you will be on set on big movies and work with talented people. While you are gigging on movies, you should be shooting whatever indie low budget stuff you can round up on the side.

Making this your life is a big decision. This business is extremely demanding, hard on relationships, and a shitload of fun.

You should also consider where you want to live for the next 10 years. Right now boston is smoking hot, but that may soon end, and if there isn't enough work where you live, you may have to relocate.

Thats my 2 cents, take what you will from it, good luck,

Nick

 

[Eki Halkka]

I think the term "Digital Film" really does apply.

Even if it's an oxymoron, at least that's closer than "Digital Cinema", which i still think has more to do with theatrical release ;-)

As you say, the main workflow difference to traditional video cameras is that de-bayering and color space conversion are done in post, rather than in camera. While the footage from traditional video cameras is usually corrected too, save for ENG -style fast turnaround stuff, the RED method gives much more leeway in color correction.

Combined with big imager and extreme resolution, this makes RED ONE a "video camera on steroids" - but it really is a digital video camera never the less as far as technology goes. Not saying it's a bad thing, mind you.

On the contrary, i think trying to make an artificial separation, saying it's "not video" just suggests that there's something inherently wrong with the underlying technology, that it's something to be ashamed of. Which i think is wrong - there's no need to make believe it's "film", when video can be, in many aspects, better than film.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

To try to clarify this situation I actually looked up videographer hahahaa

Here's what Wikipedia said:

Typically, videographers are distinguished from cinematographers in that they manage smaller, event scale productions (weddings, short documentaries, short fiction pieces, simple commercials, simple training videos), differing from individualized large production team members. Due to reduced budget compared to full length feature productions, videographers typically use electro-mechanical cameras while cinematographers record images on film. The advent of digital cinematography, however, has blurred this distinction.

Now with RED cameras you'll get both camps. I'd argue though that there's a few cinematographers out there using RED now and then, me being one of them.

I think the best term to not to hurt anyone is cameraman or lighting cameraman, since you kind of end up in between.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Ohh I'd like to say that RED being the camera it is, IMHO applies more to digital cinema camera. Why? Because the way it works and how demanding it is. It's quite hard to run a one man band on the RED cam. It's possible but hard.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Or D.O.P/ DP = Director of Photography

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

So my first question is, has anyone gone from a photography background to videography? How similar are the controls for video to photo?

If you can shoot RAW on a DSLR you can shoot RED. So then you know the basics of the actual image.

Now you have to see the medium to be shooting between 24 - 30fps depending on end format (of course there's other speed rates, but we're talking project frame rate).

So we're talking around a 1/50 in shutter or 180 degrees on a film camera (25fps).

Now so far everything is the same what's not is how you approach the photography.

You can not handle everything yourself so you have assistants, only thing is that their positions and what they do is different. You don't only have the camera to think of. You have light, grip department and then there's the production. You have prep planned shots or you have to make it on the fly. No matter what - the camera is always on the move. You have to see it in a full context of what it's to do for the whole picture (meaning the entire film) not just one frame.

I believe that film is about team work, leadership and compromise. You need to learn when to pick your battles, when to work fast and when to make sure you get the right shot.

Now you can always argue that you have the same in stills photography, you do have similar steps, but their not the same.

They say it's easier to go from motion photography to stills then the other way around. Reason being is that you have to lead a large team within the compromises that your put upon and the hardest part is that you're at the same time trying to please... the director.

Edit: I also want to add that we're only talking about the step into working in the others field, when we say it's easier to go from motion to stills. I'm not saying a Cinematographer will be any good because he has that background.

 

[J. Bernard Vallon]

From the outside of the film industry, aspiring to be a 'camera man' seems like the right term. However, on a full staffed camera department, there are 5 or 6 people who are "camera men"

DP
Operator
1st AC
2nd AC
Loader/DIT
Sometimes even a 3rd AC

If you want to grow up to be an Operator, you will end up doing very different things than you might expect. Regardless you'll probably do all those jobs from time to time. Anyway, the first step is researching the terminology and techniques, so when you find yourself on set no one confuses you or think you may be (god forbid) an idiot. Have fun!

 

[KStephens]

Oh, i did, actually, while you obviously did not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography

"While there is no clear technical distinction that separates the images captured in digital cinematography from video, the term "digital cinematography" is usually applied only in cases where digital acquisition is substituted for film acquisition, such as when shooting a feature film."

Anyway, i don't consider "videographer" a degratory term, or somehow inherently lower than "cinematographer". I know many do, but that's their problem ;-)

Mmm.. in fact, I did. Perhaps you didn't read my post, thoroughly. I did not state or imply that videographer was "degratory". I suggested that there could be different expectations when people say "videographer" compared with "(digital) cinematographer" and that "it might be wise to try and be aware of what they interpret that term as".