The end of the traditional low end cinema camera company is nigh!

[Satsuki Murashige]

Yes, I agree if we're just talking about one shot, but when discussing hundreds of shots... all those small pieces of extra time do add up into entire whole more days of shooting. If that can be saved and shifted over to post, then producers will choose to do that.

I suppose there are some folks who prefer movies which look like 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow', 'Sin City', 'Life of Pi', and the Star Wars prequels, mostly shot on chromakey stages with environments and re-lighting added in post under the control of a relatively small group of people, but personally I think this kind of filmmaking is problematic, particularly when you are trying to create the illusion of believability.

While you as the director gain greater control over the final image, you lose a sense of weight, scale, and dimensionality that comes from shooting on actual sets and locations, using practical effects, real props, costumes, and wardrobe, lighting on the set, and working with live actors, crew, extras, and animals. Personally, I would add shooting on an analog format like celluloid film to this equation. These objects all have their own mass and physical properties (not to mention their own ideas!) which you cannot fully control, and that adds a certain amount of complexity and nuance which is necessary for the audience to believe that what they are seeing is real. That is why there is such a stark visual difference between films like 'Ben Hur' (1959) and (2016), or 'Star Wars: Attack of the Clones' and 'The Empire Strikes Back.' Each of these things does make a small, but tangible difference - and when added together can make a sizable difference indeed.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Gladiator.

Depends on the director and people I suppose.

The world of cinematography is deluded, as was the world of little cinema Television, decades ago.

But the real reality, is that now show runners are mainly the original writers with complete flexible vision of what a film should look like. Give them a green screen, an object/texture database and an AI, or good team, and they may well produce something good. The difference is authenticity versus exploitative model. The publishing and studio system went down this path, even if people are blind to it. But it produces rubbish, even good rubbish versions of the original. Over here we are still stuck in this exploitative model in TV. We just had a writer return home and invest a million dollers of funding of his own money starting a funding organisation looking for new talent.

The situation is so bad, I was thinking of teaming up with a local graphic artist to do my movies as graphic novels to act as a what u call it (just recoverimgnfrom a bad turn this morning) story board. So I can walk away with an authentic guide to the creative vision if somebody makes it, then it is up to them under the present model. We are all creatives, but all tools. The writer is maybe the only true creative (but also artists in graphic novels for instance, just another writer). If the director is just a good tool he might be able to convey that or enhance it. This notion of purifying a script of its creativity to let an egotist fill it in, is just wrong. It's no wonder so many so called great films to the delusional and neurotic, were just rubbish. No wonder why the matrix was so good and authentic, just different levels of input. So many shifts upwards.

Now, my description of some future green screen system, where the actors.can.even be computer generated, you can see it is just a step away from the holodeck.

 

[Marc Wielage]

While you as the director gain greater control over the final image, you lose a sense of weight, scale, and dimensionality that comes from shooting on actual sets and locations, using practical effects, real props, costumes, and wardrobe, lighting on the set, and working with live actors, crew, extras, and animals. Personally, I would add shooting on an analog format like celluloid film to this equation.

I think that's very true. There's also something to be said for actors having the ability to adlib and extemporaneously deal with the set. I think it's a lot easier on the actors to actually see where they are and what they're doing, rather than standing in a massive green stage pretending to be somewhere else. There are always movies where motion capture and green screen are necessary -- I'm thinking of an Avatar-​type situation -- but I think for a normal film, you're better off building as much of the set as possible and doing it for real.

We just had a writer return home and invest a million dollers of funding of his own money starting a funding organisation looking for new talent.

What may be the most important rule of showbiz is: never invest your own money. Even Spielberg and Scorsese and the rest won't do that. (There are exceptions, like Coppola, who lost his shirt in 1982 but eventually made it all back, and Lucas, who had so many billions he could afford to spend $100 million here and there.)

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Well, he's doing this as a community investment, not everything has to be purely exploitative.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

There's also something to be said for actors having the ability to adlib and extemporaneously deal with the set. I think it's a lot easier on the actors to actually see where they are and what they're doing, rather than standing in a massive green stage pretending to be somewhere else.

Agreed. So often, it's the interplay of elements beyond one's own control that can make things suddenly come alive on screen. An actor stepping off their mark and out of their light on a particular take, a sudden gust of wind catching a piece of wardrobe, a rogue lens flare from the sun reflecting off a passing car, a stray dog unexpectedly running through the frame. This is especially true when you have two or more talented actors together in the scene, playing and reacting off of each other. None of those things can happen if you insist on controlling everything that happens within the frame.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Interesting that this came out of controllable lighting and computational photography. You should tsme them as supplements and additions to the art, you can still do everything you say. But a good writer can add everything you say one day with computer generated sets and actors, throwing in random elements eventually. So, it is how you use it and think about it. However, the options can drastically improve udeo budget smd quality eventually. At the moment it a ght he primitive, but have you seen the first photographs (not the one that got the patent) look at them now. Things advance.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

Interesting that this came out of controllable lighting and computational photography. You should tsme them as supplements and additions to the art, you can still do everything you say. But a good writer can add everything you say one day with computer generated sets and actors, throwing in random elements eventually. So, it is how you use it and think about it.

Yes, of course you can add these things later, but only if they occur to you to do so. My point was that if you eliminate all possibilities of random chance intervening into your filmmaking process, then you will be left with only premeditated choices which can only be as good as your finite imagination. Naturally, this can work to some extent, mostly in animation where everything is premeditated. But I think this begins to morph into something fundamentally different from traditionally photographed cinema. I wouldn't call it progress, exactly - the photographs of Gregory Crewdson are not any more 'progressive' than those of Henri Cartier-Bresson. They are just different.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

Come to think of it, modern visual effects are essentially computer animation. So what we have now are largely animated films attempting to pass themselves off as traditionally photographed films. And I think that accounts for much of the audience's dissatisfaction with modern cinema when we hear complaints about 'too much CGI.'

The best animators always added some flaws or irregular movements to add back in a sense of reality to their work. In other words, they understood the importance of playing to the audience's expectation of 'authentic reality' as they perceived it. Because photographed 'reality' is not reality either, we just got the imperfections for free.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Come to think of it, modern visual effects are essentially computer animation. So what we have now are largely animated films attempting to pass themselves off as traditionally photographed films.

Precisely. I've been thinking about this thread a little bit. I'll soon post a separate thread about a thought experiment.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Yes, of course you can add these things later, but only if they occur to you to do so. My point was that if you eliminate all possibilities of random chance intervening into your filmmaking process, then you will be left with only premeditated choices which can only be as good as your finite imagination. Naturally, this can work to some extent, mostly in animation where everything is premeditated. But I think this begins to morph into something fundamentally different from traditionally photographed cinema. I wouldn't call it progress, exactly - the photographs of Gregory Crewdson are not any more 'progressive' than those of Henri Cartier-Bresson. They are just different.

But that is the thing, imagination is pretty random isn't it. On the basic level, you set things on set, refine afterwards. On a more advanced level one day in tje futire the computer does it using an imaginative AI profile that includes the randomness. Don't think of it as anything we have seen outside sci-fi yet. Now, on another level, you record, maybe with your on set preference, as a model that can.be post filled. In post you decide the look. All these things involve imagination, and randomness, two of them purely human. Is it such a leap?

Come to think of it, modern visual effects are essentially computer animation. So what we have now are largely animated films attempting to pass themselves off as traditionally photographed films. And I think that accounts for much of the audience's dissatisfaction with modern cinema when we hear complaints about 'too much CGI.'

The best animators always added some flaws or irregular movements to add back in a sense of reality to their work. In other words, they understood the importance of playing to the audience's expectation of 'authentic reality' as they perceived it. Because photographed 'reality' is not reality either, we just got the imperfections for free.

Some films that have.a lot of CGI. I have never heard anybody in person complain about the amount of cgi, only a literally few on line. I also don't hear dissatisfaction, and see high audience numbers in the good versions of CGI loaded films. Like any film, if it is a good film people tend to like it more.

I see what you mean. Regular movements, you mean executed to form movements. But animators poor their imaginations into models, and we use motion capture to get around those issues. But these movement things can be done with a computer and a good physics model eventually. They are not so much imperfections as realities of movement that aren't so well modeled. Now, on non mption captured animatirs can add random varience of movement, even a computer and then the animator eyeball it. The issues has been lack of, or lack of refinement, in routines to produce mobement that is more natural. Under a physics engine the constraints of movement in the physical model, adding a brain model, then suddenly movement should become managable by hand (just motion capture can be quicker). As to physics, it is like Angrybirds, not perfect imperfection, but the physics added a whole bunch of organic reality compared to most predecessors in the gaming industry. That imperfection quivers the mind against its expectations of limited movement. A sort of beauty. I have played it a lot. However, with CGI, the art form is developing. But I think most of your objections can be answered eventually Satsuki.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

But that is the thing, imagination is pretty random isn't it.

All these things involve imagination, and randomness, two of them purely human. Is it such a leap?

I think the difference I am seeing is in the possible complexity between an internal single-input closed system (your personal imagination) and an external open multi-input system (many creative minds x environmental realities x opto-mechanical realities x logistical realities).

I suppose with enough time and energy you could map all possible realities in a computer and write a program to randomize the variables to achieve the same result as doing it 'the old fashioned way' - I guess my question is then at that point, are you even a filmmaker at that point? Isn't the actual act of 'film making' what our craft is about? What would you call inputting variables into a computer and waiting to see what comes out the other end? 'Not much fun' would be my answer...

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

I have never heard anybody in person complain about the amount of cgi, only a literally few on line. I also don't hear dissatisfaction, and see high audience numbers in the good versions of CGI loaded films.

I think we must hang out in very different circles then.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I think the difference I am seeing is in the possible complexity between an internal single-input closed system (your personal imagination) and an external open multi-input system (many creative minds x environmental realities x opto-mechanical realities x logistical realities).

I suppose with enough time and energy you could map all possible realities in a computer and write a program to randomize the variables to achieve the same result as doing it 'the old fashioned way' - I guess my question is then at that point, are you even a filmmaker at that point? Isn't the actual act of 'film making' what our craft is about? What would you call inputting variables into a computer and waiting to see what comes out the other end? 'Not much fun' would be my answer...

I'm saying that eventually there is the possibility that movies can be.made for us without input and be incredible "fun". People just don't know anything much about real possibilities. So, that is a development road that might tale 50-100 years, even centuries to perfect. By our hands, because of the sheer volume of information and compkexcity. But I overstate, maybe 20-50 years. Now it all works on keys I've discovered. Once you find the keys things work pit a lot faster / smoother in things. The keys are off direction of development to go in. If we get the machine to do.the learning to input into the machine to crest the virtual cinema reality, then it would go a lot faster in development, but still like 20-50 years. My other 20-50 years was with lots of people inputting to build the database collaborstelly, maybe millions. The machine learning only really replaces that chore.

Along this path, we have incredible input as film nakers, but as story tellers. Even if we reach the lofty heights justbdesvribed, there is nothing to stop us being hands on in the process Satsuki. Just treat as acomplimentary tool set. I certainly could use it to produce quality ultra low budget productions. And there is the rub, it allows good talent to stand out on low budget and get promoted in the industry, based on their work and eye_mind for it. Movies ate not about filming, filming is about only the tool, they are about stories, and these are more tools to get there.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I think we must hang out in very different circles then.

Well, yes, some critics get pedantict, my circles are people that actually watch and enjoy movies. It is a matter of figuring out what will they enjoy, without going to far

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

On the basic level, you set things on set, refine afterwards. On a more advanced level one day in tje futire the computer does it using an imaginative AI profile that includes the randomness. Don't think of it as anything we have seen outside sci-fi yet. Now, on another level, you record, maybe with your on set preference, as a model that can.be post filled. In post you decide the look. All these things involve imagination, and randomness, two of them purely human. Is it such a leap?

Regardless of the leap and how realistic the notion is, if you take creative human(s) out of the equation and put algorithms to do most work you loose the essentials and the whole thing looses its purpose, sense and Soul.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Humans work on biological systems that work like algorithms, the biological resultant algorithm. The algorithm in the computer just models that, and can closely. So, there can reach hardly an discernible difference, with great mind and soulfulness.

We as humans con ourselves and live in great denial, rather than rise above.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

In my present science fiction story I had to make two artificial races, both dumbed down as not to be superiorly human like. One has analytic like intelligence and looks human, but has no real ability of creativity and advances little in technology, the servant class. The other has a random notion that emulates creativity. However, I came to realise that this was in part creativity itself: An infinite random number generator. Not something that can't be emulated to a significant degree on a computer. There is more to intelliegence then that though, but, perhaps, it is one of the keys to the rest.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Correction. Just went back and had a look. I did mske a clearer distinction between the races. The randomness, and other biological inputs being suppressed, but one race has a cross linking branching function, that I use in my own thinking that is very big on creativity. For instance, you can't just have a random cat walk through a scene and act randomly all over the place (though true randomness to a short time scale will just result in the cat being there quivering invisibly to the naked eye, as it moves back and forth around the axis of it's own existence, (like matter, which points to matter having an actual substantial presence despite quantum fluctuations. Morellini's Cat ) Because it can move substantially/ purposely at all, shows choice rather than true randomness. But how does this choice exist if things are infinitely random (you'll have to read the other book. This sort of idea led me up.the wrong path for a while). So anyway, back from theorising. You have to think how the cat would think about this and act. A real cat is probably going to act undesurably. Maybe even try to lick your camera lens when it's at the right height (now that's creativity, cat 0 human 1)..

 

[Jeffery Anderson]

Along this path, we have incredible input as film nakers, but as story tellers. Even if we reach the lofty heights justbdesvribed, there is nothing to stop us being hands on in the process Satsuki. Just treat as a complimentary tool set. I certainly could use it to produce quality ultra low budget productions. And there is the rub, it allows good talent to stand out on low budget and get promoted in the industry, based on their work and eye_mind for it. Movies ate not about filming, filming is about only the tool, they are about stories, and these are more tools to get there.

Cinematography is an Art and Tells a Story.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Story + tools.