Last days of 2025 editionAll video related questions and discussion is intended for this thread. Here we discuss techniques, gear and anything else related to capturing video footage. Please don't pretend to be an expert if you don't know what you're talking about. Kindly leave your ego at the door.Posting short films/scripts or other work you've done is encouraged.We tend to use and recommend DSLRs/mirrorless cameras because they provide phenomenal picture quality for their price, have large sensors (ie the same size used in high-end cinema cameras and higher) and have interchangeable lenses.In contrast, consumer camcorders often have much smaller sensors and a fixed lens.>STICKY - https://text.is/QZ1J>Helpful guide, additional books and more in-depth FAQs - https://web.archive.org/web/20200926115310/https://pastebin.com/kG0gRmTZ>NO ONE CARES WHAT AN EXPERT YOU THINK YOU ARE. IF YOU’RE ASKING BASIC-AS-SHIT QUESTIONS, YOU CAN’T BE ALL THAT GREAT. SEE ABOVEPrevious thread >>4467259Quick FAQS>what’s the best camera available on a “budget”?The blackmagic pocket cinema camera 4k, or the Panasonic gh5 (can pick one up for like 500 bucks atm)>what’s a good beginner video camera?Anything that works, shoots at least 1080p and preferably has interchangeable lenses. Any recommendation beyond that will cause arguments so read the fucking sticky if that isn't satisfactory.>What's a good sound solution that won't break the bank?Zoom h1>Can I use a zoom lens for video?Yes>Do I need cine lenses?No>Do I need 4k?No. 1080 looks great on a cinema screen. 4k looks better.>Can someone tell me if my video is any good?Yes, but be prepared to receive harsh criticism. If you're going to waste 5 minutes of our time with a shitty out-of-focus montage of nothing then we'll tell you that it's crap>Is it okay to dox myself?...Personally I wouldn't but what do I know?
>>4482061I think ping pong was a genius sport to use because it makes it so much easier to project whatever artistic endeavour you want in place of it.
Truth Nuke Alert:If you want to be a director then you only need 5 directors then you have to memorize the fuck out of their films to the point where you can play whole films in your head. After that when they will merge with your experience a new thing will emerge. Simple as. Only 5 directors, remember. No need to exceed and complicate retarded shit.
>>4482310Which 5 directors for you anon?
>>4482351John Ford Sergei EisensteinAkira KurosawaRobert Bresson Ingmar BergmanWhat about you?
>>4482352I don't know if I'd choose 5. I probably focus on just 3.>Sergio Leone>Stanley Kubrick>Nicolas Winding RefnI keep the 3 of them as my "base". If I'm envisioning a scene, it will probably be largely inspired by the way of them would do it.And then additionally for everything I do I look more at individual films than directors as a whole. Sometimes I look at massively acclaimed films that I love, like Good Time. Sometimes I look at random films that weren't necessarily great or films I particularly love but ones that did something a little bit interesting, like Brick (from earlier this year, not the Rian Johnson film).So if I was making a heist film I'd rewatch Inside Man. Maybe Ambulance. Definitely the beginning of Triple 9. I'd write it like it was a Leone/Kubrick/Refn film. And then I'd mix the aesthetics.
>>4482354>I probably focus on just 3.I like that, maybe I should reduce it to 3 but it would be hard But I don't know about revisiting other films, in my case it puzzles me. I think one must absorb the influence of masters to the degree that they become you without you consciously thinking about them. I think one another thing that helps you very much is studying very remote things to your medium for example a car repair manual, directions for black magic, children book, medical books and shit like that.
>>4482355That's probably the difference in our outlook.I respect the old masters a great deal. Especially when starting out. They're brilliant in their simplicity as a lot of their great works come from utilising the basics in such brilliant ways. The camera work in Citizen Kane is a great example. There's nothing there that requires an expensive set up really - no weird helicopter shots or insane 1-takes where the camera's weaving in and out of a crowd.But I also prioritise recent films a lot and moreso nowadays. I want to see what newer films are doing and I want to do it better. I watched Del Toro's Frankenstein the other day. Better than I expected but hardly a masterpiece. Still, visually gorgeous. Really bold colours and an almost-daunting sense of scale that many current filmmakers struggle with.If I'm doing a close up, I'm always going to naturally revert to recreating Leone's eyes, or the Kubrick stare. But maybe I'll shoot it handheld, reminiscent of Uncut Gems. Maybe I'll add that slow head-tilt like Ryan Gosling in BR when he's staring at JOI. Maybe I'll add the bruising as well.I think what I'm trying to say is that I want to take from as many sources as I can, and so I think it helps to have a relatively clean base to allow for that. I love Paul Thomas Anderson's films and he'd probably be my 4th but at the same time, if I took strong influences from him in everything I made then that would be such a strong base when combined with the other 3 that there wouldn't be much room to take other inspiration.I need to find a way to express my thoughts in less words.>I think one another thing that helps you very much is studying very remote things to your medium for example a car repair manual, directions for black magic, children book, medical books and shit like that.I should probably do this more. The only thing I really study outside of films is editing in general.
>>4482358>I want to see what newer films are doing and I want to do it better.I would warn you against this. You are already a man of your times, you are already a contemporary so there is no need to willingly push yourself towards it. Try to make a film like John Ford today I am sure you will fail because you're a man of your times. If you take from what is contemporary than you will end up creating what everyone else is creating, you won't be unique. But yes if you are enjoying that then who am I to say anything against it. Art is pleasure first and foremost.
>>4482359Personally I think the trap is not trying to push the medium forward. If you only look at those from 60 odd years ago, you're stuck with their limitations. What may seem a revolution to you might be something straightforward that's been improved on several times.I see films kind of like academia. While older papers are cited the most, the newer papers are the ones that are actually pushing new ground. And maybe they don't push as far as those old papers did, but they're still pushing in the contemporary day while the old papers have been cited and adopted thousands of times. Likewise, older films are often quite cliche because of the amount of inspiration that has been taken from them. If you want to push the medium forward you have to acknowledge what people are doing today and try and build off it. You want to be an artist, not a historian. Or that's how I see it. To each their own of course.
>>4482351TarkBergAntoMizoGOD
>>4482364Dude, Robert Bresson and Kurosawa are singular no one has surpassed them. Art is not academia or science or philosophy. It is about aesthics and there things that are timeless like the works of Shakespeare, the music of Bach, photography of Eugene Atget etc. There are poets who still say that Homer was the greatest poet even though it's been 2000 years. I feel more thrill in looking that 20th century than any of contemporary shite. If I am watching the films of Eisenstein today then he is contemporary. Yes, Shakespeare is a contemporary poet. >You want to be an artist, not a historian.You can NEVER escape history. You can only build by standing on the shoulders of giants otherwise you'll on the shoulders of dwarfs making sand castles on the beach.
>>4482354Can you tell me your name so I will definitely never watch one of your movies?>>4482355>I think one must absorb the influence of masters to the degree that they become you“If one likes the Mona Lisa, one must burn it” - Godard >>4482364>you have to acknowledge what people are doing today and try and build off it“There has been nothing original in cinema since the 60s. I don’t want to be original.” - Sokurov
>>4482369>“If one likes the Mona Lisa, one must burn it” - GodardWhat a retarded statement. Never liked his trash anyway
>>4482358>There's nothing there that requires an expensive set up reallyYou have no fucking clue what you’re talking about >recreating Leone's eyes, or the Kubrick stare. But maybe I'll shoot it handheld, reminiscent of Uncut Gems. Maybe I'll add that slow head-tilt like Ryan Gosling in BR when he's staring at JOI. Maybe I'll add the bruising as well>I love Paul Thomas Anderson's filmsThanks for making my point
>>4482369>hey guys look how contrarian I am, do I fit in yet?
>>4482371The lighting used for those early films was as costly as fuck and so was the rolls of film used to make the image too. Digital made it much cheaper to film shit.
>>4482367>You can only build by standing on the shoulders of giants otherwise you'll on the shoulders of dwarfs making sand castles on the beach.I agree. This is my point. I'm saying that the achievements of the old masters are often reflected in the works of today. So by building off contemporary films, you're taking the inspiration from the old as well as new. But if you only build off of older films, you miss recent advances. To use a simple example, something like Hardcore Henry is probably the best base to build off of in my opinion if you want to do a first-person action scene. I don't think it's a particularly great film, it's alright. But it's solved a lot of problems that have plagued productions in the past.I think there's a tendency to ignore more recent stuff because people love older stuff. And I think that's one of the reasons that a lot of filmmaking is stagnating (which is one of the reasons that a lot of more recent films feel worn out - and why I like seeing what interesting things are done despite that).>>4482371>You have no fucking clue what you’re talking aboutI very clearly said I'm talking about the camera work, not the sets, lighting or production as a whole. If you think the camera work in the majority of that film is difficult then you might be an idiot. It's majority tripod shots, often static, sometimes with a gentle pan. There's a few dolly shots and the like. A film school idiot can easily replicate the vast majority of those shots. But sure, continue being a seething retard.
>>4482378>originally said “expensive”>changed it to “difficult”The projecting seething retard is you.
>>4482385Are you just trolling? Do you think film school retards are walking around with tens of thousands worth of gear?I guess it depends what you count as expensive but most shots can easily be done with just a camera, tripod and gimbal. Maybe a tripod dolly for safety. Maybe a shoulder rig for the handheld shots but probably not needed. So yeah. Doesn't require an expensive set up. Seethe harder.>inb4 "no u" (again)
>submit to film festival>notification date supposed to be in October>gradually gets shifted back until it's November 9th>stays there consistently for a few months>get notification on the 5th that they want to download my film>(they haven't changed my submission status btw)>decide to ignore it, assuming that they've jumped the gun and want to select me, but also, don't want to give it to a random programmer if they don't select me>notification day comes and goes>check their page today>it's been shifted back again to today>still no notificationThis should be illegal
>>4482395LMAO Imagine being a filmmaker
