Zacuto Great Camera Shootout - and free parking!

[Mike Halper]

Many networks and studios have done research about this - if this were not the case they would not be willing to pay for grip trucks. Audiences say they care about story and acting, but in fact will chose scenes that look attractively lit and framed every time. BTW - Cloverfield was less successful than most JJ projects - and "found footage films" are still using a visual style to re-enforce the particular story. If you shot a romantic comedy with shoulder-mounted cameras and no lights (what many indies try to do) you end up with something pretty hard to watch. I don't think the Die Hard series would have been much fun shot that way either. Also, audiences burn out on that vomit-cam stuff pretty quickly.

What does "your experience" mean? Your or my personal experience with our personal friends are 100% irrelevant to what the general audience wants. I'll bet in your "personal experience" people prefer European films to summer blockbusters too.

Besides, if you think all that matters is the story, as I've said before, why are you on this forum? Just get yourself a used Betacam on ebay for $150, or a rebel T2ii with a kit lens, and be done with it.

Where's the research the networks and studios have done then? Surely if you've read the research you know where the rest of us can read it. By my experience I mean talking to people about it, not just saying so because that's what I want. Some cinematographers may think the cinematography is the absolutely most important thing about a movie, but sorry it's not. Cinematography doesn't sell movies. Story and actors do. If the cinematography is good then of course it helps. How often do you walk out of a theater and hear general audience (not people that work in the industry) talk about what camera a movie was shot with or how great the shot composition was more than you heard people talk about the story, plot, acting, characters, etc.? When people talk about how good a movie is the discussion involves more about story, characters, and acting than anything else. The people that talk about cinematography, shots, cameras are film people, and they make up a very small % of the movie-going population.

My point is that audiences care more about story and acting than they do about lighting and shot composition. I never said anything about not lighting at all, that's just absurd. Given perfect cinematography and bad story and bad acting -or- great story, great acting and decent/good cinematography, the audience will choose the latter. I also didn't say that all that matters is the story. You're just putting words in my mouth or reading things completely wrong.

Gosh, people really go pretty far here. I'm not going to shoot with a Betacam (dumb suggestion) or T2i (another dumb suggestion) because I have an Epic. Maybe Steve Weiss has it right about this forum, because people sure are acting like morons. I'm on the forum because this is the support forum for the camera I own. Why are you here?

 

[Mike Halper]

Their visual style, again, fit the very PARTICULAR stories they told. A James Bond movie shot that way, or for that matter Shindler's List, would be ludicrous and would make about $15 at the box office (director's mom would buy one ticket). In the same way The Artist made sense as black and white, but most films would not. There are only avery narrow range of stories that fit the "found footage" style well. Those who try to jam that low-fi style into other subject matter fail miserably and get no distribution at all. There are THOUSANDS of low-fi features around like this, seen only by the director's friends.

Regardless, they are not found only on Youtube as you stated. And there's probably even hundreds of thousands of low-fi features around that are of the conventional style that have only been seen by director's friends too, so....

 

[Sid Idris]

There are only avery narrow range of stories that fit the "found footage" style well. Those who try to jam that low-fi style into other subject matter fail miserably and get no distribution at all..

And yet it seems the found footage style has in fact become a sub-genre because it has been co-opted by other genres. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a studio releases a found footage war movie or a romantic comedy.

There are THOUSANDS of low-fi features around like this, seen only by the director's friends.

And yet there are many "hi-fi" features that go straight to video or are shelved with no release in sight.

 

[Will Keir]

Well I wrote down my first impressions, did they release the results from episode one?

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Where's the research the networks and studios have done then? Surely if you've read the research you know where the rest of us can read it. By my experience I mean talking to people about it, not just saying so because that's what I want. Some cinematographers may think the cinematography is the absolutely most important thing about a movie, but sorry it's not. Cinematography doesn't sell movies. Story and actors do. If the cinematography is good then of course it helps. How often do you walk out of a theater and hear general audience (not people that work in the industry) talk about what camera a movie was shot with or how great the shot composition was more than you heard people talk about the story, plot, acting, characters, etc.? When people talk about how good a movie is the discussion involves more about story, characters, and acting than anything else. The people that talk about cinematography, shots, cameras are film people, and they make up a very small % of the movie-going population.

My point is that audiences care more about story and acting than they do about lighting and shot composition. I never said anything about not lighting at all, that's just absurd. Given perfect cinematography and bad story and bad acting -or- great story, great acting and decent/good cinematography, the audience will choose the latter. I also didn't say that all that matters is the story. You're just putting words in my mouth or reading things completely wrong.

Gosh, people really go pretty far here. I'm not going to shoot with a Betacam (dumb suggestion) or T2i (another dumb suggestion) because I have an Epic. Maybe Steve Weiss has it right about this forum, because people sure are acting like morons. I'm on the forum because this is the support forum for the camera I own. Why are you here?

I'm here to learn and exchange ideas about cinematography, I'm not a fanboy of any system.

Research is created at the expense of studios, and is not available for free. I had access through internal channels. However, do a Google, you'll find some mentions of this. It's true of TV too. Any good feature buyer (which I once was) knows this. Story, acting, AND cinematography all have to be great.

I also fail to see the point of belittling the importance fo cinematography. If you feel what we do is so unimportant, that makes you **what?** for devoting your life to it. Why are you not a screenwriter? Why watch the Zacuto test at all?

Come on now, man up, do something worthwhile with your life according to your own values, leave us to deal with what you feel no one cares about.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

And yet it seems the found footage style has in fact become a sub-genre because it has been co-opted by other genres. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a studio releases a found footage war movie or a romantic comedy.



And yet there are many "hi-fi" features that go straight to video or are shelved with no release in sight.

If you think that a romantic comedy filmed as found footage would work you really don't understand romantic comedy - or filmmaking - at all.

But many fewer than low-fi - Almost no lo-fi feature ever has or ever will reach a wide audience, maybe 3 per decade - and there are more of them made every year than any other kind by thousands of DVX users.

Oh, and let me guess, you own work looks doco and lo-fi.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

If you think that a romantic comedy filmed as found footage would work you really don't understand romantic comedy - or filmmaking - at all.

But many fewer than low-fi - Almost no lo-fi feature ever has or ever will reach a wide audience, maybe 3 per decade - and there are more of them made every year than any other kind by thousands of DVX users.

Oh, and let me guess, you own work looks doco and lo-fi.

Why wouldn't a found footage romantic comedy work, I think it could make a fantastic romantic comedy, maybe you just aren't giving it enough creative thought. Sometimes you have to think outside the box to create great stuff.

 

[Mike Halper]

I'm here to learn and exchange ideas about cinematography, I'm not a fanboy of any system.

Research is created at the expense of studios, and is not available for free. I had access through internal channels. However, do a Google, you'll find some mentions of this. It's true of TV too. Any good feature buyer (which I once was) knows this. Story, acting, AND cinematography all have to be great.

I also fail to see the point of belittling the importance fo cinematography. If you feel what we do is so unimportant, that makes you **what?** for devoting your life to it. Why are you not a screenwriter? Why watch the Zacuto test at all?

Come on now, man up, do something worthwhile with your life according to your own values, leave us to deal with what you feel no one cares about.

Man, you really like to belittle people in general, don't you? And I have don't things worthwhile with my life. I'm very happy with my life and what I've accomplished so far and happy with where things are headed. You know nothing about me so you're better off not making false assumptions.

Nothing I've said is any indication that cinematography isn't important at all. In fact, I own an Epic so obviously I know cinematography is important. However, I also know that it begins and ends with story. Story is most important. I was giving examples to support that audiences care more about story, characters, and acting than they do cinematography and what camera a movie was shot with. Without a good story you just have a bunch nice looking images. Audiences won't pay for just nice looking images.

Show us the market research you found with the Google search then. A quick search of my own resulted in nothing of any kind of market research you say is there for general audience opinion about cinematography vs. story and characters. Probably because there is none. The studios and networks already practice good cinematography for the most part (excluding a lot of reality TV, which is very successful these days btw), and they also understand story and acting is more important, so there's probably no reason for them to conduct market research on it.

As a former movie buyer I'm surprised you don't get this. If I try to pitch a movie to a distributor the first thing they ask is which actors are attached or in it. They don't ask who shot it or who lit it. Sorry, but that's the truth. Don't get me wrong. The cinematographer is absolutely important, but when it comes to distribution and audiences, they just don't care about that as much as the actual filmmakers and cinematographers do.

 

[Mike Halper]

If you think that a romantic comedy filmed as found footage would work you really don't understand romantic comedy - or filmmaking - at all.

But many fewer than low-fi - Almost no lo-fi feature ever has or ever will reach a wide audience, maybe 3 per decade - and there are more of them made every year than any other kind by thousands of DVX users.

Depends on what you consider wide audience. I'd say there's plenty of lo-fi movies reaching wide audiences via VOD, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and foreign distribution. And more than 3 per decade now. If by wide audience you attach a requirement for wide theatrical release, then yes, they won't reach that because they don't have the marketing dollars to put behind the movie unless a studio picks it up and does that. But the definition of "wide audience" as you put it needs to start changing because now we have easy access to VOD, Netflix, Hulu, and other online forms of distribution that definitely reach wide audiences. And you know what? People/audiences are eating it up.

 

[Mike Halper]

Why wouldn't a found footage romantic comedy work, I think it could make a fantastic romantic comedy, maybe you just aren't giving it enough creative thought. Sometimes you have to think outside the box to create great stuff.

It would be difficult, but interesting to see. I could see how it could work.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Of course audiences don't care as much about the technical aspects as the filmmakers do -- because they don't have to. If I go in for a medical operation, I hope that my surgeon has cared more about the science of surgery than I have; if I buy a house, I hope the people who built it have a greater passion for carpentry than I do. We're the experts, not the audience; we're the ones paid to know how to make movies so the audience can enjoy the results of our art and craftsmanship.

Sure, story matters, but if that were all that mattered, then anyone could have written "Hamlet" with the same story and it would have been just as entertaining as Shakespeare's -- but obviously storytelling matters a lot too. And if all that mattered was the quality of Shakespeare's writing of "Hamlet" then anyone could direct it and anyone could act in it, but obviously how it is directed and how it is acted matters too. Which is why the cinematic arts that work behind and support a movie matter too, they are all factors in the entertainment value, and artistic merit, of the final product. If it were just the writing and the acting, then you might as well see it as live theater, or maybe it could all be shot against a black curtain in a medium shot in real time with no edits.

Yes, of course as a commercial product some elements are more marketable than others.

 

[Mike Halper]

For the record, and about the third or fourth time, I didn't say that story and acting are all that mattered. I said it was more important to audiences than the cinematography. That is not the same as saying cinematography doesn't matter at all.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Mike, cinematography is PART of storytelling. But, very similar to editing, if the cinematography works well with the story, it often times becomes almost transparent. So when someone leaves a movie and doesn't mention the cinematography, that doesn't mean it wasn't important/crucial to telling the story.

 

[Mike Halper]

I didn't say it isn't important or crucial. I just said the story is more important.

 

[António Fagundes]

I think that more important than it being 'beautifully' lit, or stylish or what have you, the thing that could shake up audiences in the negative towards cinematography (or all tech aspects far that matter), is consistency. You can have the most bizarre camera style in a movie, and if it fits the story, people will go with it, but if half way through the bizarre style is changed to a 'lyrical' classic style for instance, and for no logical reason, then audiences will not buy it. It will be a show stopper!

I'm not a cinematographer, but working with them for years now as a director, the one thing I see them most worry about, its precisely continuity and consistency. Even if scenes differ in style, color, mood etc... the overall visual pattern for that particular story is of great importance to cinematographers. It has to somehow be consistent.

And this is where I think art becomes bigger than tech. You can be the most technical knowledgable cinematographer in the world, but if you don't have the visual and artistic baggage in you, then, most probably your job will suffer, not only the eyes of the industry, but most importantly in the eyes of the audience.

Roger Deakins is a complete technical illiterate. I don't think he can even turn the power on the Alexa, but none of it matters, because he's got an immensely powerful visual knowledge inside him. He can have a department of DIT's on set (as he does) to make up for the fact that he's not technically competent enough. But no one cares, because his job is to make the film look gracious, (or whatever other style is required of him) and he can do that like no other in the business.

Still, I believe that technical knowledge should be taken with caution, it should only be there to support what you are as an artist, no more, no less, as long as its enough to let you do your thing without being a slave to your own ignorance. You should be able to walk without having to worry how you put on leg in front of the other, I say...

Technical aspects of cinematography are in general the most 'easy' to grasp. they are objective, you can learn it anywhere, in books, in forums like this, etc... where as art is a much more subjective force, you can't really 'learn' it, it's in you and its up to each one to 'find it' and develop it. Artistic merit its what makes or brakes a film. Its because of art that you have people like Ridley Scott, Terrence Malick, or Chivo, David Mullen or Roger Deakins, they are who they are for their artistic personalities, not because of their technical knowledge or lack of thereof.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Why wouldn't a found footage romantic comedy work, I think it could make a fantastic romantic comedy, maybe you just aren't giving it enough creative thought. Sometimes you have to think outside the box to create great stuff.

It might work once as a gimmick, with a very small number of possible stories designed for it. But at that point, you are molding your story to fit your tech, and 'me thinks it should work the other way around.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Man, you really like to belittle people in general, don't you? And I have don't things worthwhile with my life. I'm very happy with my life and what I've accomplished so far and happy with where things are headed. You know nothing about me so you're better off not making false assumptions.

Nothing I've said is any indication that cinematography isn't important at all. In fact, I own an Epic so obviously I know cinematography is important. However, I also know that it begins and ends with story. Story is most important. I was giving examples to support that audiences care more about story, characters, and acting than they do cinematography and what camera a movie was shot with. Without a good story you just have a bunch nice looking images. Audiences won't pay for just nice looking images.

Show us the market research you found with the Google search then. A quick search of my own resulted in nothing of any kind of market research you say is there for general audience opinion about cinematography vs. story and characters. Probably because there is none. The studios and networks already practice good cinematography for the most part (excluding a lot of reality TV, which is very successful these days btw), and they also understand story and acting is more important, so there's probably no reason for them to conduct market research on it.

As a former movie buyer I'm surprised you don't get this. If I try to pitch a movie to a distributor the first thing they ask is which actors are attached or in it. They don't ask who shot it or who lit it. Sorry, but that's the truth. Don't get me wrong. The cinematographer is absolutely important, but when it comes to distribution and audiences, they just don't care about that as much as the actual filmmakers and cinematographers do.

...And if you then show them the movie, and the first few minutes look "cheap", you just lost half your sale. I have read articles in many publications that alluded to that research - you will find something if you look hard enough. Studios do market surveys for every film released - the lo-fi stuff always gets lower audience scores. Proof that they know this is that they are willing to spend money on production value. They do not spend money for no reason.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Depends on what you consider wide audience. I'd say there's plenty of lo-fi movies reaching wide audiences via VOD, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and foreign distribution. And more than 3 per decade now. If by wide audience you attach a requirement for wide theatrical release, then yes, they won't reach that because they don't have the marketing dollars to put behind the movie unless a studio picks it up and does that. But the definition of "wide audience" as you put it needs to start changing because now we have easy access to VOD, Netflix, Hulu, and other online forms of distribution that definitely reach wide audiences. And you know what? People/audiences are eating it up.

A lot of what is on Netflix could best be described as filler, especially now that the studios have renegotiated the price of marquee content. Audiences are not eating it up at all - many of the mumble core-ish films get almost no downloads at all, and there is talk at Netflix of removing a lot of the "chaff" or putting in it's own menu category. I do not like belittling people, but you were belittling my and your own craft, now weren't you. And by the way, just because you have little money doesn't mean your film has to look like crap. You can do a lot with extremely little these days, and many do, so there is no excuse (and no elitism on my part). Being a stoner too lazy to learn how to frame or properly block shots (I've met some mumble core directors, and I just described some of them) is not a valid excuse.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Of course audiences don't care as much about the technical aspects as the filmmakers do -- because they don't have to. If I go in for a medical operation, I hope that my surgeon has cared more about the science of surgery than I have; if I buy a house, I hope the people who built it have a greater passion for carpentry than I do. We're the experts, not the audience; we're the ones paid to know how to make movies so the audience can enjoy the results of our art and craftsmanship.

Sure, story matters, but if that were all that mattered, then anyone could have written "Hamlet" with the same story and it would have been just as entertaining as Shakespeare's -- but obviously storytelling matters a lot too. And if all that mattered was the quality of Shakespeare's writing of "Hamlet" then anyone could direct it and anyone could act in it, but obviously how it is directed and how it is acted matters too. Which is why the cinematic arts that work behind and support a movie matter too, they are all factors in the entertainment value, and artistic merit, of the final product. If it were just the writing and the acting, then you might as well see it as live theater, or maybe it could all be shot against a black curtain in a medium shot in real time with no edits.

Yes, of course as a commercial product some elements are more marketable than others.

Excellent points, super eloquently said as always. Your posts are always a treat.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

It might work once as a gimmick, with a very small number of possible stories designed for it. But at that point, you are molding your story to fit your tech, and 'me thinks it should work the other way around.

Found footage isn't just a tech gimmick it's a style much like the one take or one shot it's a technique used to tell a story it's more then wedging you're story into the tech you have, Cloverfield was shot with more then just the HVX it was also shot with the F23, the story wasn't wedged into the tech the tech was wedged into the story.