Directing as resource allocation
Mike from HD-for-indies has written a massive rant on 'experience in the field and lessons learned' about HD production. I was on CML during the flamewar and added some comments to Mike on the discussion. I'll address certain things here when i've got some time.
But for the moment, I'll be brief and offer one comment:
Mike is bang on about cost. CML is a very biased view of HD production because its a list populated by DoPS. Of course they're going to want to throw the most dollars at the format and lighting! Throwing money at camera isn't always the right choice. Contrary to popular belief, there are other things which also make a film like -er- actors, design, lighting, locations, sound, script, editing, and vfx. A director must balance the needs of each of these areas with the needs of the story s/he is telling. If you're making an exceedingly design heavy show like, say, the new Doctor Who, then you MUST spend your money on design even if that mean shooting on Digibeta (which is what they're doing) - otherwise its just going to be even worse. If you're shooting a low budget music video that's 90% exteriors, like Thirsty Merc's Wasting Time, then you can afford to blow your wad of cash on 16mm (which we did). If you're doing a short film which requires shit-hot acting, then spend your money on the acting. $5K music videos on 2 perf 35mm are viable IF you don't need any lighting or expensive locations. Its about being smart with your money. Thats why I think HD offers something for the 'Australian New Wave' because we will have such small budgets, that we need to push everything we do to make the movies we want. We don't have the luxury that US productions do. (Though I did shoot a TVC for Channel 31 - a no budget, community TV station - on 16mm. But we shot less than 200' and got the camera for free!)
Of course, the equations aren't that simple, but if taking a hit on 'image quality' by shooting HD suddenly frees up money so I can spend it on other areas which need it (whatever areas they may be) then I'd do it.... and I'd do it every time.
With the new music video I'm prepping at the moment, we want to shoot Super16mm. But its so design heavy, that if we get our budget slashed then I'm fully prepared to bump down to digibeta to get the dosh to make the clip work. Why? Cause its going to be the design (locations, props, wardrobe, buttloads of extras) which will make the clip work. I can make digibeta look 'good enough' to satisfy the story requirements... but without the money to make the world believable, then it will matter fuck all if I shoot on s16mm.
To summarise:
DoPs are passionate about cinematography... and that is why I love em and love hanging around them (at least those without the personality problems)... But remember films are not constructed from cinematography alone. They're biased and tend to see the whole HD thing in isolation.
Director's MUST be involved in budgeting and MUST be aware of the issues, so they can balance the competiting interests of their teams... its about intelligent resource allocation to tell the best story you can in the best way it can be told.
-- Me at the Cricketer's Arms when talking to Adam Teale about our next clip.
But for the moment, I'll be brief and offer one comment:
Mike is bang on about cost. CML is a very biased view of HD production because its a list populated by DoPS. Of course they're going to want to throw the most dollars at the format and lighting! Throwing money at camera isn't always the right choice. Contrary to popular belief, there are other things which also make a film like -er- actors, design, lighting, locations, sound, script, editing, and vfx. A director must balance the needs of each of these areas with the needs of the story s/he is telling. If you're making an exceedingly design heavy show like, say, the new Doctor Who, then you MUST spend your money on design even if that mean shooting on Digibeta (which is what they're doing) - otherwise its just going to be even worse. If you're shooting a low budget music video that's 90% exteriors, like Thirsty Merc's Wasting Time, then you can afford to blow your wad of cash on 16mm (which we did). If you're doing a short film which requires shit-hot acting, then spend your money on the acting. $5K music videos on 2 perf 35mm are viable IF you don't need any lighting or expensive locations. Its about being smart with your money. Thats why I think HD offers something for the 'Australian New Wave' because we will have such small budgets, that we need to push everything we do to make the movies we want. We don't have the luxury that US productions do. (Though I did shoot a TVC for Channel 31 - a no budget, community TV station - on 16mm. But we shot less than 200' and got the camera for free!)
Of course, the equations aren't that simple, but if taking a hit on 'image quality' by shooting HD suddenly frees up money so I can spend it on other areas which need it (whatever areas they may be) then I'd do it.... and I'd do it every time.
With the new music video I'm prepping at the moment, we want to shoot Super16mm. But its so design heavy, that if we get our budget slashed then I'm fully prepared to bump down to digibeta to get the dosh to make the clip work. Why? Cause its going to be the design (locations, props, wardrobe, buttloads of extras) which will make the clip work. I can make digibeta look 'good enough' to satisfy the story requirements... but without the money to make the world believable, then it will matter fuck all if I shoot on s16mm.
To summarise:
DoPs are passionate about cinematography... and that is why I love em and love hanging around them (at least those without the personality problems)... But remember films are not constructed from cinematography alone. They're biased and tend to see the whole HD thing in isolation.
Director's MUST be involved in budgeting and MUST be aware of the issues, so they can balance the competiting interests of their teams... its about intelligent resource allocation to tell the best story you can in the best way it can be told.
"Its not the camera that makes something look good, its what you put in front of the camera that makes it look good"
-- Me at the Cricketer's Arms when talking to Adam Teale about our next clip.
posted by stu willis at
6:04 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home