reflex wrote:I doubt I'd rush out and buy an Arri 235, but an A-Minima would be incredibly tempting.
Have you ever used an A-Minima? I haven't, but was speaking to a camera operator a few weeks ago who absolutely hates this model, saying they are unpleasant to handle and that the film magazine is very prone to popping open while shooting.
You are right. I have been somewhat selling my camera for a long time. For the reason you stated...I end up renting or if I do use my camera it gets rented to the company I am working for.
It is really hard for me to stay on top of what I need in a camera without renting. Unless I go out and throw down another 15,000--20,000 into glass upgrades and misc tweaks to my set-up.
What owning my camera has done for me is allow me to capture some amazing images that I would have otherwise never gotten. It is hard to justify going out and getting insurance and renting a camera when all I want to do is walk out my front door and shoot a sunrise or some trees...
For me owning is a balancing act between selling myself as a DP and selling my equipment as a rental to the people I work for. It becomes a real pain. It is also why I am telling people here not tp buy cameras even though I will gladly sell them mine.
I didn't know you were behind Jet Benny. It's mentioned in a few of the filmmaking books I own, so I've always been curious as to how it was produced. If you'd let me, I'd love to pick your mind sometime.
As for the Minima...It is an amazing camera and when I used it I didn't have any issues at all. The one thing that takes it out of the "Own" category is the fact that everything is an option--And it is all those options that make it great.
Of course, owning a $10K+ camera is ridiculous if you are a $0 film student.
On the other hand, it's great to have that $100 camera available at a moment's notice. Some weeks I drive with a loaded camera in the car, on the offchance that the perfect snowfall occurs today.
Santo wrote:I disagree with Roger. When I think of all the great low budget films of the past that were only possible with the filmmakers owning their own small gauge equipment and shooting over a greatly extended and unpredictable schedule, it's pretty staggering.
while i agree i just don't recommend that approach. many great no or zero budget films were made with rented or borrowerd equipment too, and how much expensive equipment is bought for this purpose and never used? don't let my advice stop you though. do whatever you want and if you make a hit all respect to you for sure, but don't say i didn't warn you.
The dividing line rests at super16 for live action dramatic narrative filmmaking. We could put a dollar figure on there perhaps, but I think the dividing line is more properly set at formats. One could name dozens of famous contemporary and period filmmakers who launched careers on 16mm they owned (I don't know, Jackson, Lynch, Godard...biggest names springing to mind at the moment...bunch of Canadian guys I've met/gotten advice from that I've seen mentioned on this board a lot...). Many more not so famous, but they had careers. Some used super 8 efforts to open doors. I can't think of anybody who began a career owning super16 equipment that they used to make their films that opened doors for them. Maybe there are a couple? I never heard of any. Probably because all that money got tied up in equipment rather than filmmaking. Super16 is a format better suited to renting than owning in my opinion, if for no other reason than to own good equipment that's worth owning costs 10's of thousands of dollars. Money that you could make some pretty good shorts with instead.
Santo wrote:The dividing line rests at super16 for live action dramatic narrative filmmaking.
while i'm not sure i agree completely you certainly have a point. remember though that it was much easier to make a technically viable product back in the days. very few film shot on black and white 16mm and edited with tape splices and distributed with mono sound get distribution these days, and they're even hard to find at festvials.
To me it's like a house - would you rather rent or buy? About 6 years ago when I got into film making I did some research and decided that after a few films of renting I would have paid enough money in hire charges to have bought a camera in the first place (or shotgun mic or whatever). So whenever I can I've tried to buy gear instead of hire it - which has meant some extra costs to begin with and I haven't always had the most up to date equipment - but it will have paid for itself economically soon and it's certainly given me more freedom to organise and do things. I agree there are valid points to the hiring arguement but there are also valid ones to the buying and I'm glad that's the path I've principally pursued.
Scot
Read my science fiction novel The Forest of Life at https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01D38AV4K
And I think you played it smart with your new short, as you stated your objectives on here being about trying to score "commercial" directing assignments. Unless I misread what you've said on here. If that's your goal, one has to remember that the people who are going to hire you for that stuff have a preconceived notion of that they're looking for. A filmmaker needs to rent real expensive equipment to achieve such slickness and a concentrated effort with a proper crew and a whole bunch of other stuff. If your project fits into that slick-looking model, they're maybe going to hire you for that tv episode or whatever. As long as you feel comfortable doing that and find things to like in that, it's a smart approach. Always a market for slick contemporary interchangeable directors. I don't mean that to be offensive, I'm sure you'll take none, as you've been candid as to why you did that short in super16 and why it looks as it does. After all, I'm sure you'll use new leverage as a working filmmaker to make stuff that's more interesting.
I am one of those guys you are speaking of. When I finished film school most of my friends were getting 2nd/loader gigs--The occasional 1st. I went right into 1st/B-Cam. I was in NYC in the Summer of 2001 working on a big budget feature as a B-Cam op.
Owning my Aaton has opened doors for me that I would otherwise still be knocking on. Not only that but it allowed me to build a reel that otherwise I would have paid through the nose to get.
So I am torn between owning and renting. For me at this point it only makes sense to rent--Yet, at the time I bought my camera it was a great choice. 99% of people that ask me for my honest opinion about buying a camera I tell them flat out--NO.
Interesting discussion. Is there a balance to be found? I rent lenses for my still photography projects from time to time because I can't afford to get money tied into glass - but when I look over my work in stills I find my most interesting images were shot with a Yashica T4 that fits in my back pocket so naturally I assume that I will miss the great opportunities if I don't have my own S16 set up. But then I find myself thinking that film making and snapshot photography are like comparing apples to oranges, obviously.
Good films are products of good direction and good direction requires scrupulous planning. Nigel and I had this conversation over beers last week and it helped me realize that I need to approach filmmaking entirely differently than I have practiced photography. Low and no budget filmmaking is a collaborative art of timing. Time is a serious constraint and should be treated as such. I'm beginning to accept the fact that I won't be able to walk outside my apartment and capture images when ever I feel like it- instead I have to keep notebooks filled with sketches and maps of locations etc. So that I can become organized for a weekend shoot on rental gear.
Another thing I've learned is that trying to be a writer, director and cinematographer. Is a lot like trying to be a logger a carpentar and an architect.
Hi guys if your worried about resolution......
You don't need 100grand to shoot true high definition! Just go to your local camera shop......Slap down $1000 on a Nikon d70 and you can shoot 3000x2000 line 800mb per sec movies for one $ a minute worth of hard drive space. Way better than [u]any[/u] hd format.
Oh this only applies if you do animation or timelapse!!
Santo wrote:And I think you played it smart with your new short, as you stated your objectives on here being about trying to score "commercial" directing assignments.
well, you misunderstood me slightly. commercial is not the key word and neither is assignments. i've made a very personal and quite hard to take in film that's certainly not for everybody (and like i said before the "standard hollywood look" is part of the story and it's sad that you take it as a sign that the film isn't interesting without having seen it), but i certainly wanted to make a career move towards being more recognized. you're right in that and it has worked. i talk to other people now and i'm judged on another level, for better and worse.
that's not my point when i'm talking about cameras though. i still make no budget films and music videos on video, super 8 or my keystone -- or my friend's recently acquired hand cranked 35mm. i'm just pointing out to those who say "fuck hd. i'm going to make a feature on super 8 since it has better quality" that maybe they should think again. what you're talking about is something that's not originating in equipment but in artistic necessity or whatever. "i really need to make this film since the story is fantastic and the only way i can do that is to buy a bolex ans start shooting on weekends". that's a different thing altogether.
