Having worked in every camera department position from utility or loader to a camera operator and DP using both traditional film and new digital formats I thought I would just share a few things about the differences.
Ill start with film, this one gets me nostalgic because this has been the way the industry has done this for years. A lot of the greats used film and still do. The most classic movies of all time used film and it carries a “true to the art” feel because of that. Being a loader and have having to load each mag and being an assistant camera and loading mags into the camera, checking the gate for film shavings that could mess with the shutter, it just has this old school sense. I love working with film, because it forces you to get creative at times, with film you have only a certain window of viewable light. if you’re film stock only has a 3 stop range its tough to get different parts of your shot light, so you have to get creative!
On the other hand digital offers a lot that film can’t. Cameras like the RED, in which I have worked with quiet a lot, offer a range of services that make is much more cost effective. For one they do not need film stock because it records to a drive, they also do not need developing which is expensive. You can switch the ISO in the camera instead of needing to buy multiple film stocks to accommodate different scenarios. Probably the most immediate difference is the price of the camera. Some things are the same though, I have learned that you still need to have the footage professionally colored to look right, and that one is very expensive, but the pros out way the cons. Probably the best thing about digital is the ability to instantly playback and see a performance, this has also been a nightmare with certain King of Queen actors that need to see each shot before moving on, because if you question if that last take really was the perfect one, you can check.
As a director that is obviously one of my favorite things about digital and the fact that the quality of image you get is easily comparable to film. So my suggestion is that if you have the budget and want to get that old school, doing how Orson Welles did it feel, you should go with film. If you want to save some money and get the same look, maybe have some money for distribution, you should try one of the amazing digital options that are available. Here are some that I recommend:
1. The Red One - I have shot 2 films and 3 commercials with this and they use it on a series I was working on. The image quality is pretty comparable and the cost is low.
2. Cannon 5D (or 7D) - For the price and size you aren’t going to find something better right now.
Try one of these out. Leave a comment and let me know how it worked for you!
Also:
Check out more from Creative James
and
Follow me on Twitter!
Action is a tricky thing because on a page it can seem like a small paragraph but in AD terms(in 1/8s of a page); 1/8 of a page can end up being a full days work. When you write action in your script It helps to be overly descriptive in some ways, and vague in others. When you are dealing with pyro-technics it is good to explain how big of an explosion but thats as far as it can go. Long before getting to set you will have had meetings with pyro-techs and they are already working on getting the explosion you want.
Fight scenes are where you can get descriptive, mostly with the environment the characters are in. Stunt guys are very well trainined and letting them be creative with the fight and offer something to you is in my opioin much better than writing each punch, which trust me I’ve seen. It is a good idea to pick things that are unique to the story, and put those in. Say your movie is about a ninja-spy that is stealing data from Jean Claude Van-Dam; you are going to want to write in when a ninja star is used and when JCVD slams a steal beam into the ninja hurting him; showing his weakness.
A lot of times we can think when writing, as traditionally taught, that a page more or less equals a minute. The Reason I say this is that if you are working on an action script scaling 120+ pages with a lot of these fight scenes and explosion lines, you are looking at an easy 3 hour film. The reason this can hinder you is that people might start to get impatient waiting for the climax, and we’ve all heard the phrase “it was good but an hour too long”. If you have a lot of action through the film you need to have a grandiose climax.
One thing to think of when writing an action script is that people don’t go to an action film to think, so keep the story simple. You can still have great characters with arcs, and have a great plot where life changing events take place, but don’t make your audience hunt for answers. They will get frustrated very fast and eventually not like the film.
At the end of the day, everyone is different and being creative and compelling when writing is the simple key. So, have fun writing your explosions, car chases, fight scenes, bomb defusions, and building-wrecking action sequences, I’ll be watching!
What do you think? Leave me a comment and tell me know!
Also:
Check out more from Creative James
and
Follow me on Twitter!
Lately it seems that if a film uses CG (Computer Generated Images), it has a very weak story. I’ve had countless debates about the effectiveness of CG with other film-makers. Since CG is still so new and we are able to do things that we haven’t thus far, we tend to overdo it. The problem is, because we are creating so many new elements, we have been sacrificing the story.
For example, Transformers on many levels has revolutionized the way CG is used and integrated. I mean you have a 40 foot Automic-Robot standing in the same frame as an actual actor and it looks as real as the actor. The problem most film critics had with the film, was that the storyline was lacking just so that we could see more of the “cool” transformers; and let’s be honest they do look cool.
So how do we bridge the gap? I fully believe that using CG to create characters can evolve to a place where we can get the emotion out in a way that’s believable. I heard James Cameron talking about 3D and he said when color first came out in film, everything was over saturated just because they could, but eventually color was fully integrated to enhance the film. He believes that’s what is happening with 3D now. In previous movies, things would pop out at you just because that feature was available. He believes in the future, 3D will be used to add depth and let the viewer be fully immersed in the film. I believe the same idea applies with CG, as they are starting to make that change. I’m excited that CG has already started to enhance films instead of just being “cool” as we’ve seen in District 9.
Will there ever be the perfect movie that fully integrates CG while being intensely story driven? Probably not, but I’ll be watching!
What do you think? Leave me a comment and tell me know!
Also:
Check out more from Creative James
and
Follow me on Twitter!
