Tom how saturated is the new BMDFilm color space. Old BM colorspaces were very desaturated like Sony. Even with heavy contrast it required additional saturation. Is the 4.5k in that ballpark or is it in the Arri, RED, Canon ballpark where only a 1d contrast curve is needed to render a nice looking image?
I wouldn't listen to the praise, if you're in NYC then your reel isn't that good. You are in the deep middle of the fold, theres literally hundreds of DPs in NY with the same level of work. If you're in low demand people will always exploit you. When I look at the work, I don't see samples of trending commercial or narrative styles, take out all the park shots, you shouldn't have anything that looks like test footage, only your best stylized work. Mediums from dialogue don't really matter that much for a DP reel, anyone can light a medium, show action, transitions, wides, that are jaw dropping, show that YOU enhanced the performance. Show compositions that tell the story. Also you need more variety, I see a high con saturated look for a lot of your stuff, that won't work with commercial clients not with the smaller sources you use in most of your work.
You have to swing for the fences, create a real style for each project, that is only way you'll get solid paying gigs.
Koo, I question whether this is demagoguery or not. Why have you severed the internet from hollywood, why can't someone go to film school and also travel the world and read books? Why would I think I'm better than someone else if I go to film school? Why are these lines subtly drawn through your writing? Why have this "debate" and not get to the heart of the issue? You said film school is six figure debt, There are schools with the same amenities of USC or AFI, sound stages and the like, that cost well under six figures. What does that mean when we can actually go to a quality graduate program without crippling debt for the ideology of Nofilmschool? If your readers knew about these places do you think they would stay here?
Nonetheless you make claims and draw conclusions, but its the internet and you don't need to substantiate. The internet has no rules, standards or ethics, so the people who are positioned first to teach us filmmaking will most likely exploit us. Thats how capitalism works. My value is my viewership, you have no vested interest in my growth only my continued reliance on the site. Thats why Nofilmschool will write articlues about how we need to curb gear addition, but the next day they will continue to supply my fix. This article itself has a similar objective preamble that descends into a subjective perspective.
Nofilmschool is the ideology that the internet has so much knowledge that you don’t need a school to teach you filmmaking, you can learn it yourself. This is true, but what you don’t tell us is that all the gems of information are under 100 feet of exploitive misdirection that will send us on circular paths that it will take literal years to escape. You could never warn us, it would indict those whom you rely on to exist. There's a great irony in Nofilmschool with respect to value and debt.
The truth about filmmaking is that story does not matter most and you should not just "go out there and shoot," but the daunting nature of those truths is fear inducing. Viewership will flee in droves presented with the realities and tribulations of being an artist, so it is much simpler to feed the readers the comfortable dream of "someday" filmmaking.
Nonetheless, there is great merit to learning filmmaking and artistry in general the right way, many here may cringe about potentially reading Aristotle's Poetics, "Thrreeeeeooooory" they might say, but if you have to look up what the word allegory means, I don't care what script or crew you have, your film will be pretentious at best and you will be a detriment to art and culture. The internet does not teach you about your responsibilities as an artist, it says "go out and shoot" you have the right, license over freedom. This is the most cancerous parasitic sin an artist can commit, adding chaos to chaos. If you have not articulated and expressed yourself properly, destroy the film, show no one. But the community here willfully and selfishly neglects the sanctity of culture, because they fear they might be excluded.
To believe that I am entitled to show the world what ever they want, I must ignore the consequence of my actions. The democratization and decentralization of filmmaking has given each of us more power, but that power didn't manifest itself, it was taken from artists who are better than we are, but don't worry, Nofilmschool is here for you to quell that guilt, to calm that fear in your belly questioning whether you truly deserve to exist. I do not believe this article is really about film school.
Thats why cine lenses are so expensive, they handle distortion very very well over photo glass especially on the wider end. With a decent cine lens you can shoot a close up with a 32mm and it will look fine.
uuuuuugh, I give up on this site, does no one read AC, DPs talk about their lens selection for each major film that comes out, you see the same thing over and over 21mm-40mm for most of the film. Ask guillermo del toro or martin scorsese. Del toro doesn't like anything over a 50 because he feels it doesn't look real. Scorsese says he wants to see space in each of his shots. roger deakin scouts with just a 40 because its his favorite mm. Read any cinematography book, it says use the widest angle that can achieve the desired framing in most cases. Obviously there are instances like The Conversation where telephoto helps define the story, but for the most part most shots are 50mm or under for films. My point was it is not like photography and its a mistake that many people do coming from photography lenses. Filmmaking is more about subject in space than just subject in photography.
Might be crazy to people coming from the photo world, but most films are shot between 21mm-40mm. Many directors never go above a 50mm.