e. anything, and put it all together in your movie to create a multitude of textures and looks for a particular film. If you think that video is a "hideous technology", do you think anyone is worthy of the title 'DV cinematographer'?

At the moment you have the DP and then the "colourist" who is slowly becoming a co-maker of the image. Not only can they save you, but they can also give you an idea of what an image might look like and whether it warrants being shot on film, this makes them great for experimenting without having to worry about cost and how many frames you have left. To an outsider observing a film set, they would even know what "image gathering" process is being used. Once told they'd save the universe during a time-traveling adventure, two would-be rockers from San Dimas, California find themselves as middle-aged dads still trying to crank out a hit song and fulfill their destiny.

The traditional role of the DP is going to change into more of an "image management" role: some people think this is great - I guess I'll get used to it! And then there is the Visual FX supervisor who is slowly becoming a Designer as more and more images are composite.

The makers didn't seem to be trying to make it look like film, instead using the strengths of the technology for an innovative shooting style. Having recently done my first DI movie (Casanova), I have sympathy with John's comments, but would add that it is a great tool in the right hands, and those hands are the cinematographers hands, with tech help from the colorist whose role exactly parallels that of the lab timer. I would recommend getting a cinematographer to take care of that stuff while you worry about the essentials like: Story, Actors, Script, Costume, Locations etc etc. Content and functionality may vary in geographical areas - read our terms for more information: https://digimovieplex. Get ready to immerse yourself in a captivating collection of Hindi, Bhojpuri, Telugu, Tamil, and Bengali content that will leave you on the edge of your seat 💃.Films must be driven from the top: get the script, get it cast, get some money and then the likes of people like me start to get interested and come along to sort out the technical stuff. Most notable (see: vocal) among the proponents of film-over-digital is Quentin Tarantino, who quipped "Mission Accomplished" when asked how he felt digitally filming a scene for Sin City. Beyond the obvious expenses inherent in converting movie theaters, do you agree with Lucas's assessment? If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file. Of the two films you mention, one was largely studio based - which is easier for Digital with all its cables and monitors etc, but the other had considerable location work which some would argue was made more difficult by the decision to shoot on Digital.

this is a subjective thing, but I love the fact that the image is not available "on set" - just an approximation.Like many techie things, what is just an option somehow becomes ESSENTIAL in people's minds, whereas the age-old element of storytelling is what is essential: good script, good actors, good director. I may bring in a cinematographer/camera operator, but I would like to be able to bear some of that load myself so things move as quickly as possible. I sympathize with this as I have heard that a number of members of my profession are power-hungry noisy bastards who get their rocks off by mistreating those not as powerful as themselves.