I definitely see your point, but I disagree a bit here. You're right, the industry is nothing without us, but unfortunately, the industry is also driven by demand which comes from the audience. If the audience stops caring for "film" and just wants more melodramatic content, there's less and less chances for filmmakers to make the films we are talking about here.
Film is a weird art medium because it is one of the most expensive. If no one is willing to invest in us (and most filmmakers who aren't established can't fund a movie themself), there's just less opportunities to make the projects that matter. I think "cinema" will live on for those who crave it (both filmmakers and cinephiles who love to watch), but the future of it is bleak and much much smaller than it is today.
Would you mind commenting on how this compares to other BM cameras? I have a Cinema Camera 2.5K and thinking of switching to this. I have to assume this is better in every way (color science being my main point for buying BM stuff), but until more user footage comes out I can't be sure. I want to be extra sure considering the switch of form factor and lens mount. Have you used the 2.5K?
Footage looks phenomenal! Thanks for sharing!
My best advice if you're just starting out is to get yourself a used Canon 5D Mark II and a 50mm prime lens (great lens, runs about $90). This is not only cheap (probably under $650 total) but it is how I started and I actually still use despite now working with Blackmagic Cinema Cameras, RAW files, Sony F5, VFX workflows, etc. The reason? When starting it is such a great package for small time filmmakers. For me the selling point was that it was used on Mad Max Fury Road! But aside from that adding on Magic Lantern lets you record RAW beautiful footage and adds so many great professional features. Also if you're a freelancer, the photos are great! It is my only photography camera after 4 years of use. It pulls double duty for me constantly. Speaking of freelance, the small body and versatility make it easy to travel with and is far less conspicuous when doing events than higher end cameras.
Another big selling point is the lens mount and sensor. Full Frame + Canon EF mount. Not only will this give you a full frame sensor (which trust me, just skip the crop sensor DSLRs they aren't worth it and don't help you 'learn your camera' any faster), but the EF mount is one of the most universal mounts you will come across. I went from freelance to full time job and and back again and then to another job. Everywhere I went my EF mount was instrumental in our workflow. Yes, sometimes you work with Sony E mount, or micro 4/3, but nearly everyone will have Canon lenses. In my experience they are still the most universally used and the L series is sort of a gold standard (not ALWAYS the best, but they carry a reputation).
The downside to this camera is that the compression is ugly and the low light isn't great. Unless you are EXTREMELY knowledgeable on cinematography, and have the money to light and art direct things to the max don't expect any super 'cinematic' shots. Good composition is up to you, but the sensor will fail you when it comes to low light and dynamic range. For the most part its a good 'videography' camera and at best a decent B camera if you have the money (like Mad Max). Overally, a very solid starter camera.
Hey Ryan. I am not sure the best way to find directors and DP's without going to an agency who basically will issue them out for a project (I know that's how some commercials are done). That is obviously very expensive. The best way might just be through personal connections. Going through any sort of business will cost most if not all of your budget. Film forums are a good bet (such as here) but I've never found them to be helpful. Lastly, I know a lot of people simply go to Craigslist. I don't personally trust it as I wouldn't want to someone to helm my film who I didn't really know or trust and there are a lot of suspect people on that site (although I've heard it is great for finding smaller crew roles).
Additionally, I would like to mention that I am a small time director based in NYC and also an aspiring DP. I will be shooting and directing my own short film soon in fact! Let me know if you'd like to link up!
I completely disagree with this video essay. I do not think the old one holds up at all. In fact, the 'daylight' aspects of the 90s version is a huge turn off to me all by itself. To me it just looks weird and off as though they set up a bunch of rain machines but did not care to match any sort of lighting structure. It looks cheap to me because its a heavy downpour in broad daylight (that doesn't come off as odd or spooky or anything either, just cheap television).
Additionally, the 2017 Pennywise does a much better job of giving me the sense that something is off here. The 90s version plays the 'strangers are dangerous' card because that was a big deal back then. But in the 2017 version, Skarsgard does an exceptional job of doing that WHILE taking it one step further. He gives the sense that something isn't right or even of this world (because Pennywise actually isn't of this world). Georgie should just walk away from Tim Curry. It seems as easy as, "you are a stranger, I can't talk to you", because Curry's performance is much more human and the repercussions of just walking away don't seem any different than dismissing an actual stranger. The lighting and shooting in the 2017 version makes it seem as though there is some universal disruption going on here. Georgie is actually rooted in that spot and can't turn away like the sense of dread you get that immobilizes you or keeps your mind racing as you ask yourself "what am I even experiencing here". I perceive it as this otherworldly terror (without even knowing what he is at this point in the movie) that you DO NOT want to turn your back to out of immense fear. It is much more engaging in this way (and yes the weather and mood plays a big part of this too).
Just a few reasons the 2017 one is more compelling to me.
I love that! And I hope you're right. I hope we get to a place where more and more people can take the punk rock ethos of doing something because they need to express themself and they have a passion to tell a particular story. It's what I strive to do in any piece of art I make. But man is it demoralizing to lose out to people looking to capitalize off in the moment content over the people who have something real and meaningful to say...