“And the Oscar goes to…. Canon?”

Who’s making the film – you or your equipment? ☛

The last 15 years have seen an explosion in the technology available for filmmaking: first HD, then 4k, then the new generation of 3D. Once upon a time editing was done by an editor physically cutting up bits of film and taping them together; then this gave way to an editor cutting digital images on high-end, purpose-built computer equipment. Now this editor is cutting a feature film (called Sparks & Embers) at home using the same iMac on which he’s writing this article. As filmmakers we (usually) welcome these innovations: they make an incredibly expensive process quicker and easier, but it rarely occurs to us that it means that major trends in the stories we tell and the way we tell them are actually being shaped by the likes of Sony, Apple and Canon.

You need some examples.

"Julien Donkey-Boy" goes with the grain

The introduction of mini-DV camcorders in the mid-90s, a major leap forward in home moviemaking, inspired a generation of filmmakers to embrace the low-fi look offered by these cheap, light-weight cameras. Traditionally,  35mm movie cameras had most commonly sat on camera stands or dollies: this practice dated from the days when they were too heavy to hand-hold. As a result most movies featured the smooth pans and elegant moves that could be achieved on a length of track with a team of grips. This was no longer hip. Admittedly if you wanted to shoot an adaptation of a Jane Austen novel, mini-DV was the wrong tool for the job. But if you wanted to shoot down and dirty in the style of a documentary or a home movie – forget Panavision, Tottenham Court Road was the place to find your camera. Hand-held was in; lighting and careful compositions were out. Technology was leading genre. The results included Festen, Julien Donkey-Boy and 28 Days Later.

About ten years later the Canon 5D mk.2 came along and the style of shooting changed again. Anyone still shooting on DV tape threw their camera out of the window. The new Canon shot with a narrow depth of field, allowing you to use focus to help you tell your story, much as you would with a 35mm movie camera. Despite being small and light, the 5D mk.2 wasn’t good for hand-holding, any sudden movement causing the image to skew and wobble. So the Canon returned to its place on the camera stand. Meanwhile frenetic hand-held camerawork didn’t go out of fashion, but ironically it was now shot with new lightweight 35mm cameras.

The DV revolution also affected the precision of the material people were shooting. 35mm, or even 16mm film, was dear both to buy and to process. DV tape was dirt cheap and could run for up to 90 mins. without you having to change the tape. (You wouldn’t get much more than 10 mins out of a roll of film.) When you were paying nearly a dollar for each second of celluloid that ran through the camera, you made sure you got it right. Because DV tapes felt like they were free, people often left the camera rolling. Cameramen, actors, directors – we all got sloppy. I remember as an editor that I’d receive DV rushes that ran ten times longer than film rushes, with less than one tenth of the quality of material. (Luckily the new generation of cameras use data cards, many of which can only store about 10 minutes of material before they have to be emptied, meaning that you can’t shoot quite so freely.)

A typical day's rushes on a DV shoot

The style of editing has also been affected by technology. Back in the days of cutting on film, an editor would struggle to make more than two or three joins in a minute. Digital editing on Avid or Final Cut Pro can be done pretty much at the speed of thought, if you know the machine well. We can instantly see what special effects would look like and do temporary sound edits a lot more freely than our forebears working on film. However cutting more quickly has also led us to cut more often. The hyper-active style of editing, so often blamed on the influence of MTV, owes more to the arrival of the digital technology that allowed filmmakers to edit that way. More recently the return of 3D has causing editing to slow back down because the eye needs a bit longer to appreciate the three-dimensionality of the shot. Again we go full-circle.

That filmmakers respond to new technology is not exactly news – artists have always reacted to technological advancements, whether it be the invention or movable type or the introduction of mineral-based oil-paints. Earlier generations of filmmakers, after all, responded to the introduction of sound and colour. But with the digital revolution filmmakers have got into bed with corporations who mainly produce technology for the mass-market, and that’s not always been a good thing.

So, what’s the problem? Let me give you an example. Earlier this year Apple introduced its new editing system Final Cut Pro X. I wrote about this at the time, but in essence what happened was that growth of demand in the amateur and semi-professional market caused Apple to decide to de-professionalize an editing program on which many professionals had learned to depend. To add insult to injury they decided to discontinue the old professional version at the same time. There was an almighty furore from the feature film editing community, which went pretty much unheeded. The problem was that Apple had been merely dabbling in the world of feature films. For each of their professional users there were at least ten amateurs, and guess which market they were keener to attract? Professional filmmakers were left high and dry.

Jim Jannard, inventor of the goatee and the Red One

Another example would be the development of the, by now legendary, Red One camera by a man who had previously only made sunglasses. To his credit, his company did offer director Peter Jackson early beta versions of the camera to work with, so that he could report back and help with the development. However, although the resulting camera’s picture quality was very fine indeed, the camera was heavier than cameramen would have liked and it had a tendency to overheat. What’s more, too little attention was paid to the effects on post-production of shooting such large amounts of data. It took a film technology company exclusively devoted to the professional market – Arri – to solve this last problem with their own competitor: the Alexa. This was designed with the interests of both cameraman and editor in mind and has taken over as the coolest camera on the block. Of course there is a higher price-tag attached.

It may be possible for a mass-market company to serve filmmakers well. Canon, after their almost accidental foray into the world of filmmaking with the 5D mk.2, have had the good sense to consult with filmmakers, getting Vincent Laforet and the like to take an early example of their new camera, the C300, for a test drive. This may be the lesson for mass-market technology companies: if they want to cross over into the professional industry, they need to talk to the professional industry and create the products that filmmakers want. The results the C300 has shown so far are pretty impressive (see below), and it will be interesting to see how the wider industry takes to it – time will tell.

Of all the arts, cinema is the only one that can’t exist without technology. It’s inevitable that the development of the art is inextricably tied to the companies who make it possible. The film industry is always fighting the high costs of its own existence (in the current economic conditions now more than ever), and it is the independent, more artistically motivated end of the industry where this pressure is most keenly felt. Of course we’ll jump at bargains from cross-over companies when they come along: but this does leave us vulnerable to the whim of those companies who lure us in. All too often we are like street entertainers who choose to juggle with whatever objects are thrown our way. Filmmakers need to drive the technology, rather than being driven by it. The more we can fight our way into the process of developing the new technology, the more we’ll find ourselves using cameras, editing machines and other equipment that works for us.

Copyright © Guy Ducker 2011

Meanwhile, I’d like to wish a very Happy New Year to all my readers; I hope that 2012 proves a breakthrough year for you and your projects.

To be sent my articles as they come out, hit ‘follow’ under the photo of my happy smiling face at the top of this page.

12 Responses to ““And the Oscar goes to…. Canon?””
  1. Excellent post.

    What are your thoughts on the desire, no, the NEED to own equipment?

    As a young DP I find myself priced out of many jobs because I do not own a Red or an Alexa, or a MKII with ALL the professional add-ons to make it usable. I don’t buy these cameras because one I can’t, two they are always replaced within 2-3 years by better cameras, and three their rental costs are very affordable. I can’t imagine today’s top DP’s being asked by a producer what camera their rate includes.

    • guyducker says:

      I feel for you! It takes a brave man to invest a five-figure sum in a camera and kit, the main part of which is likely to be , if not obsolete, certainly less desirable within 3 years. A DP friend of mine has a deal worked out with a camera company whereby he sells himself as a cameraman with kit and just rents the latest off that company at a favourable rate whenever he’s asked to do a job on that basis. Seems to work for him.

  2. Chaz says:

    Great article guy, good info, point of view, nicely presentred.

  3. Ivan Noel says:

    Me driven by technology?… Surely not.
    I only wrote the script of my last film based exactly on the capabilities and incapabilities of the 5D!
    I even chose the times of day best suited to the camera for each scene.

    But… maybe technology does bring us to a world, a style that we would normally not have delved in or tried. Myabe it is what makes us more creative, forces us to be so.
    For instance: Thomas Tallis the well-known 17th C. British court composer was all the time challenged by new limitations (‘one word per syllable’ decree, or writing a 40-part motet for Elizabeth’s 40th birthday, etc.) which, rather than limiting him made hi delve deeper, find new tricks, and actually produce better music than he had previously.

    And now…the gopro hero 2 cam capabilities…fab! my mind has just expanded again.

    But yes, the story must be the bigger driving force in any case.

  4. J.C. Hall says:

    You hit the nail on the head. This was a great article and it should make everyone think about how they can tell great stories, and dictate how they should and can be told.

  5. sanyukta says:

    hey guy… great subject to talk about! but when i began reading the article, i was expecting a few insights into how content is being dominated by technology, e.g how most film makers are caught up with how to shoot rather than what to shoot… also, was looking at questions like where has the classical mise en scene disappeared and why is linear edit boring ? nevertheless, it was an interesting read 🙂

  6. Mahmut Akay says:

    Had a meeting with a film agency the other day and the Exec Director was talking about the diminishing market for narrative short films. With such easy access to new equipment and the popularity of Youtube etc – we’re apparently heading into a more Interactive/gaming-oriented phase.

    The easy access to all these camera and editing equipments has brought more cons and than pros I reckon.

    • guyducker says:

      Interesting , if very depressing, news. The truth is that there’s never been much of a market for short films, if we take the term market to imply that they’re a business proposition – that’s not what shorts are about. From a film agency’s point of view, shorts should be about promoting their area and the filmmaking talent that lies therein, perhaps even about the issues effecting their region. While there are short film festivals and awards, there’s a place for short films.

  7. 徵信社 says:

    Actually genuinely great weblog article which has received me considering. I by no means looked at this from the stage of look at.

  8. shooter says:

    Hello, I love to read more on this topic. I appreciate you for publishing this.

  9. Awsome site! I am loving it!! Will be back later to read some more. I am taking your feeds also.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 776 other followers

%d bloggers like this: