Advertising  |  About Us  |  Contact Us  |  RSS

Filmmaker Forums

Our message boards to connect with other filmmakers from around the world.

Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
 
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 General Discussion Groups
 Noob Questions
 WHICH CAMERA???
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page

Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

aburke09
Junior Member

46 Posts

Posted - 30 Dec 2009 :  16:24:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm looking to purchase either the Canon XH-A1 or the Canon XL-H1A. I think the only difference between the two is that the XL has the interchangeable lens system and its also about 2,000 more.

I want to know how important it is to have the interchangeable lens system. If i buy the XH-A1 is it diffucult/expensive to get adapters for different lenses? do i even need an adapter?, how in the hell does this work???

I know i want to be able to film close-ups and also wide angle shots so what do i do?? im a noob. please help me out. thanks!

certified instigator
Moderator

USA
3099 Posts

Posted - 30 Dec 2009 :  17:58:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by aburke09
I want to know how important it is to have the interchangeable lens system.

Since 1998 every camera I have purchased
has an interchangeable lens. It's the first thing
I look for when considering a camera. So it's
important to me.
quote:
If i buy the XH-A1 is it diffucult/expensive to get adapters for different lenses?

No, the adaptors aren't difficult or too expensive.
The lenses can be very expensive. But, of course,
"expensive" is relative so you may find a lens adaptor
both too difficult and too expensive.

quote:
do i even need an adapter?, how in the hell does this work???

I don't know if you need an adaptor or not.

They work by allowing the DP to attach a better
lens to the fixed lens of most video cameras. You
place the adaptor between the fixed lens and the
new lens you want to shoot with.
quote:
I know i want to be able to film close-ups and also wide angle shots so what do i do?? im a noob. please help me out. thanks!


The good news is you can shoot both close-ups and
wide shots with the stock lens.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
Go to Top of Page

bjdzyak
Senior Member

USA
592 Posts

Posted - 31 Dec 2009 :  11:35:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by aburke09

I'm looking to purchase either the Canon XH-A1 or the Canon XL-H1A. I think the only difference between the two is that the XL has the interchangeable lens system and its also about 2,000 more.

I want to know how important it is to have the interchangeable lens system. If i buy the XH-A1 is it diffucult/expensive to get adapters for different lenses? do i even need an adapter?, how in the hell does this work???

I know i want to be able to film close-ups and also wide angle shots so what do i do?? im a noob. please help me out. thanks!





You can shoot close-ups and wider shots with any lens. It's not a matter of the lens you have, but where you place the camera. As in, if you have just one focal length lens (ie, a 50mm), you could shoot a wide shot of the scene by physically moving the camera back, assuming you have the space to do it. If you want to shoot a close-up on the same set, you physically move the camera closer to where you need it.

That's all obvious, but I say it that way because lens choice goes beyond needing wide shots and close-ups. There are a lot of basic photography books which go into detail about the minutia of lenses and how they affect your image and I urge anyone who wishes to be a Cameraman to study the resources that are out there. In addition, experimenting with still cameras (preferably FILM cameras with all MANUAL settings) will give you great insight into how to use the camera to help tell the stories you want to tell more effectively. The camera, film, and lenses are tools to help tell the story to create moods and impart ideas. They aren't meant to just sit there to capture whatever happens in front of them.

To that end, the basics of lenses are that the longer a lens, the more compressed a shot becomes and the depth-of-field drops. The wider lenses offer more depth-of-field. Longer lenses tend to need more light on the set while wider lenses tend to require less light. Your F or T-stop helps determine depth-of-field. The more wide open your stop, the less depth-of-field you get. The more closed your stop, the more depth-of-field you get. Zoom lenses tend to require more light (footcandles) to achieve the same effective stop than a prime-lens will.

You can also affect exposure choices with the shutter angle and the effective ASA of your film or your "video" camera. Ideally, you'll aim to shoot an entire scene at the same F or T-stop so knowing the ASA of your camera is imperative while you light the set. Maintaining consistency in light levels and exposure is very important and being aware of how ALL of the elements above to create the image you're after is imperative.

So, there's more to this "camera thing" than just having interchangeable lenses. Ask yourself WHY you need the lenses and when you'll use them most effectively to tell your story. Do you want to shoot a close-up of the main Actor with a 35mm or a 180mm? What would each image look like in a side-by-side comparison? (hint: very different!) Should you just zoom in for a close-up after doing the wide Master shot or should you change lenses and move the camera? Should you zoom DURING a shot or leave the lens fixed and move the entire camera instead (a dolly shot).

There are just a few Directors who have more or less mastered the art of using the camera to tell their story. Steven Spielberg and Michael Bay are two notables. I'd also urge you to see Citizen Kane and Searching for Bobby Fischer for excellent examples of how lighting and photography goes above and beyond to create moods that enhance the storytelling.



Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com
Go to Top of Page

aburke09
Junior Member

46 Posts

Posted - 31 Dec 2009 :  12:18:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
so if i were to buy the XHA1, and i want the footage to look as close to 35mm as possible. what would i need? a 35mm adapter?

i have some money to spend but i dont know a lot right now. im like Tom Cruise's character in Days of Thunder, not a lot of knowledge about what im doing but i got the raw talent and balls to go for it. i just want to get the best stuff for my money. my plan is to buy a camera with a few accessories to get started and an editing program. if you had 5 grand, what camera would you buy, and what accessories to make it look like 35mm film???
Go to Top of Page

certified instigator
Moderator

USA
3099 Posts

Posted - 31 Dec 2009 :  12:43:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Doing nothing but buying a $5,000 video camera and putting a 35mm
adaptor will get you closer to the look of film than buying a $300 camera.
But as both Brian and I have already said, that is a minor aspect of getting
a good look. To use your "Days of Thunder" analogy, if you were to get
into a top of the line stock car you won't be a better driver or get closer to
winning the race than if you had the skill, experience and talent while
driving a cheaper car. You can make an excellent looking movie with a $300
camera, raw talent and the balls to try it.

No. You don't need a 35mm adaptor. I understand that you feel you do,
so it's fine if you buy one. But learning to use light and the camera well
is something you can do without the adaptor. I also understand that you
don't want to take the time to build the skill and experienced needed -
you want a quick fix. A filmmaker with raw talent and the balls to go for
it can make an excellent movie without that quick fix. So the XHA1 and
a 35mm adaptor would be a fine option for you. Buy them both and start
shooting!

Are you asking how to spend the five large for camera, lighting, sound
and editing program? Or just for the camera?

My personal choice would be the JVC HM100. I own it and use it as my
"B" camera. I like it much better than the XHA1. Then you have enough
to buy an excellent mic and some lighting.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
Go to Top of Page

aburke09
Junior Member

46 Posts

Posted - 31 Dec 2009 :  14:00:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
i do want to take the time to build up skills, but i dont want to wait to buy. I want to buy now and learn as i go. i just dont want to buy something now and a few months down the road be like "shit, i wish i would have bought this or that instead"

my absolute max ammount for just the camera is 5K. I was really interested in the canon xl-h1a and that would run me 4,600. the xha1 is much cheaper obviously, but if i buy that and i decide later on to buy lens adapters, the cost will even out. wouldnt it be easier just to buy something with interchangeable lenses?

im all for everyones thoughts, im not stubborn or set on any equipment. and im trying not to rush my purchase, ive been looking for months. and the xl and the xh are the two i happened to narrow it down to. I have a script, small crew, actors and locations covered. I just want the footage to look as good as possible with minimal effort i guess. im concerned about lighting and editing but if i can get the footage to look good first & then focus on lighting so it just adds to the already good look. as apposed to lighting a scene to improve on the "ok" looking footage.
Go to Top of Page

bjdzyak
Senior Member

USA
592 Posts

Posted - 31 Dec 2009 :  16:34:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by aburke09

i do want to take the time to build up skills, but i dont want to wait to buy. I want to buy now and learn as i go. i just dont want to buy something now and a few months down the road be like "shit, i wish i would have bought this or that instead"

my absolute max ammount for just the camera is 5K. I was really interested in the canon xl-h1a and that would run me 4,600. the xha1 is much cheaper obviously, but if i buy that and i decide later on to buy lens adapters, the cost will even out. wouldnt it be easier just to buy something with interchangeable lenses?

im all for everyones thoughts, im not stubborn or set on any equipment. and im trying not to rush my purchase, ive been looking for months. and the xl and the xh are the two i happened to narrow it down to. I have a script, small crew, actors and locations covered. I just want the footage to look as good as possible with minimal effort i guess. im concerned about lighting and editing but if i can get the footage to look good first & then focus on lighting so it just adds to the already good look. as apposed to lighting a scene to improve on the "ok" looking footage.



First, any video camera you buy now will be old technology a year from now, so unless you buy a FILM camera, get used to the idea that your purchase today will be old news six months from now.

That said, the "film look" has more to do with frame rate than anything else. Film runs at 24fps and high-quality electronic acquisition cameras (HD video cameras) are capable of the same. Standard NTSC that we've been used to seeing on television is 29.97 fps. Today's HD cameras (like Sony's F900 series) are capable of multiple frame rates, such as 29.97i, 59.94i, 60i, 23.98P, 24P, and 25P. Most professional television programs and feature films that shoot with HD cameras shoot at 23.98P, NOT 24P. Most pro-sumer cheaper HD cameras (like the one's you're talking about) should be capable of 23.98P as well. If they say "24P", they are generally technically incorrect and are using shorthand as they truly are shooting 23.98P.

Another aspect of "film look" is depth-of-field. Video tends to have greater depth-of-field than film does so when shooting with an electronic camera, you should shoot at wider apertures (using less light) and longer lenses (50mm and higher) whenever possible.

Also, avoid typical "home video" issues, like zooming during shots, opting instead for dolly moves and other ways to move the camera itself (like Steadicam and crane/jib).


I'm a bit aghast at this part of your post: "if i can get the footage to look good first & then focus on lighting so it just adds to the already good look. as apposed to lighting a scene to improve on the "ok" looking footage."

You seem to be writing off lighting as if it is something that is a bonus that you'll work on if there's time. More time is spent on lighting on professional sets than anything else. There is "illumination" and there is "lighting." Any hack can throw up some random shop lights and get an exposure. But to truly "light" your set and Actors means that you're a "filmmaker." Otherwise, you're making documentaries. I wonder how you propose to make the footage "look good first" without focusing on lighting? If there was a way to accomplish this feat, I promise you that "Hollywood" would have picked up on it decades ago in order to save time on very expensive sets.




Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com
Go to Top of Page

aburke09
Junior Member

46 Posts

Posted - 31 Dec 2009 :  17:56:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
i meant i want it to look as close to 35mm as possible. and then light it. im not writing it off, but the majority of my film takes place outside during the day. I just want the right equipment first!

If the script/story is the most important thing then why doesnt Hollywood save millions and shoot with prosumer camcorders. Becuase the look of 35mm film is where its at. I just want to know what euquipment can get me that look for under 5K
Go to Top of Page

bjdzyak
Senior Member

USA
592 Posts

Posted - 31 Dec 2009 :  23:08:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by aburke09

i meant i want it to look as close to 35mm as possible. and then light it. im not writing it off, but the majority of my film takes place outside during the day. I just want the right equipment first!

If the script/story is the most important thing then why doesnt Hollywood save millions and shoot with prosumer camcorders. Becuase the look of 35mm film is where its at. I just want to know what euquipment can get me that look for under 5K



A 16mm camera and film stock will get you the "film look" for under $5,000. Check sites like http://www.insyncpubs.com/ for current sales of used equipment. You can also purchase short-ends from some companies that buy short-ends from studio feature films. (ie. http://www.filmsourcela.com/)

The script IS important but it is merely a part of the final product. The script isn't released to the public to read... the MOVIE that is shot is shown to the public. Prosumer "junk" is good for some applications, but in most circumstances, the image is compressed. What the means is that the highest quality HD is 4:4:4. A Sony F900 compresses its image at 4:2:2. Most pro-sumer cameras not costing $60,000 + generally record at 4:1:1 or 4:1:0. There is A LOT of very technical information involved with this discussion (some of it is here http://www.ivchd.com/DIFormatChoices.pdf ) and only a true HD class/workshop can teach you most of what you should know if you are truly serious about this (like http://www.gancietv.com/cgibin/eDatCat/GTVstore.cgi ). The gist is that pretty much ONLY a 4:4:4 image can be scanned to film for "blow up" on a standard movie screen. The 4:2:2 image is degraded from that in a way that parallels the difference between 35mm and 16mm. Anything less than that (the Prosumer level) is pretty much unusable for any kind of theatrical showing and most television networks (like Discovery or National Geographic) limit the amount of compressed (not 4:4:4) material that is allowed per hour in the programs they agree to show.

What's missing in this discussion thus far are your intentions for the final product(s) you make. If you only intend to show them to yourself and your friends at home, then it doesn't really matter how good your camera is, so spending upwards of $5K is overkill.

However, if you mean to show these projects at Festivals or even try for a distribution deal at some point (to a film distributor or possibly to a television network), THEIR format parameters should guide the format you choose to shoot on, NOT your budget for a camera. You're more or less looking for "feature film quality" but are unwilling to pay for it in addition to not having the skill-set and experience to accomplish it.

My advice to you is to to save your $5K for now. If you want to be a serious "filmmaker" (which generally means "Director"), then concentrate on THAT skill and leave the photography to someone else who DOES want to specialize in that skill and career. You can find qualified Cameramen, who MAY be interested in helping to shoot your project, at local production companies or even the local University film department. The point is, if you want to be a Director, then concentrate on THAT and don't waste time and money trying to be a sub-standard Cameraman. You don't mention wanting to purchase quality sound gear (mixer, recorder, mics, cables, etc.) or wardrobe racks or makeup kits or set construction material or anything else the other departments use... so why bother dropping big money on camera equipment that A) you don't know how to use and B) is equipment for a department you probably don't want to specialize in anyway?

Where's your lighting budget? You're shooting exteriors, you say, but you need to control the exterior light in some way with silks, shiny boards, reflectors, flags, stands for it all, sandbags, etc... Yes, you can run around with the camera and shoot off the cuff, but why drop $5 grand on a camera at this point when you have no intention of investing any time or effort into making your images look decent? You say you want the "right equipment first." Well, that means far more than just the camera. The camera is just one element that it takes to make a movie.

So I'd advise that you, at this point, either enlist the help of an established Cameraman to do that job OR you buy or borrow a much cheaper camera while you're still learning the basics. If you're not going to be creating "serious" movies (intended for Festivals or actual distribution), then there is absolutely no point in spending thousands of dollars for a camera that you admit to not knowing how to use that will be "obsolete" by the time you DO figure out how to use it all.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Edited by - bjdzyak on 31 Dec 2009 23:11:22
Go to Top of Page

Cleary
Average Member

United Kingdom
367 Posts

Posted - 01 Jan 2010 :  01:47:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think that its important to realize that regardless of what ever camera you opt for, its vitally important that you understand how to fully utilize it. In which case I would hire some one who does if you don't already.

Cleary.

www.myspace.com/michael_mccleary_films www.youtube.com/cleary82
Go to Top of Page

aburke09
Junior Member

46 Posts

Posted - 01 Jan 2010 :  14:56:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Im in film school but i just started. so if I were to use a camera man. which camera would he rather work with?
Go to Top of Page

certified instigator
Moderator

USA
3099 Posts

Posted - 01 Jan 2010 :  19:45:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
What both of us have been telling you is there isn't a video
camera on the market that can approximate the look of 35mm film
with, as you put it, "minimal effort". That look you want doesn't
come from a video camera in the hands of a beginner. That look
comes from experience, skill and talent.

quote:
Originally posted by aburke09
my absolute max ammount for just the camera is 5K. I was really interested in the canon xl-h1a and that would run me 4,600. the xha1 is much cheaper obviously, but if i buy that and i decide later on to buy lens adapters, the cost will even out. wouldnt it be easier just to buy something with interchangeable lenses?


It sounds like you have made your decision. You want to buy the
Canon, which is a fine camera. As I said in my first post, the
first thing I look for in a camera is a removable lens. To me
thats very important. It seems in your case it WOULD just be
easier to by the one with the interchangeable lens. So buy the
XL-H1a and when you need a better lens you have that option.


quote:
Originally posted by aburke09
If the script/story is the most important thing then why doesnt Hollywood save millions and shoot with prosumer camcorders.


They are
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-paramount11-2009dec11,0,155266.story

But seriously, we arent talking about a major film for theatrical
release. You wont be making that type of film yet. We are talking
about a beginner who has a script, a small crew, actors and
locations who wants to spend minimal effort on the quality of the
picture. In that case, if your story, actors and audio are
excellent you will have much better success with the final movie
than if you shot on 35mm film and had a not so good story and
actors.
quote:
Originally posted by aburke09

Im in film school but i just started. so if I were to use a camera man. which camera would he rather work with?


Each cameraman will own their own equipment. That's the camera
that would rather use. If you were to hire me, I would rather use
my JVC HM700. The DP I hire to shoot the movies I direct would
rather use his Panasonic HPX500. I work often with a guy who
prefers the Canon XL2.

aburke, you're going to be quite happy with the HXH1. It's going
to take more than minimal effort to get it to look like 35mm film,
but its a fine camera.
Go to Top of Page

aburke09
Junior Member

46 Posts

Posted - 01 Jan 2010 :  23:55:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks for your help. Yes I am a beginner,but i'm not in any way putting "minimal effort" into my stuff. and aside from the technical camera stuff, I enjoy everything else. Doing the filming myself (actually holding the camera), editing etc. I like to have a hand in everything or else i wouldnt feel that it's "my movie." Robert Rodriguez works the same way, he basically does everything. Film, edit, score. But i'm sure you know that.

also, the only cheap movie in that article was Paranormal Activity. Movies like that are the exception for using hand-held cameras. It was basically a documentary or fake documentary, same as The Blair With Project. Hollywood might be leaning towards cheaper movies, but a "cheap" budget in Hollywood just means under 20 Million.



Go to Top of Page

bjdzyak
Senior Member

USA
592 Posts

Posted - 02 Jan 2010 :  15:54:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by aburke09

but i'm not in any way putting "minimal effort" into my stuff. and aside from the technical camera stuff, I enjoy everything else. Doing the filming myself (actually holding the camera), editing etc. I like to have a hand in everything or else i wouldnt feel that it's "my movie."


I apologize, but those contradictory statements above cause me to chuckle. In the first sentence, you claim to not put "minimal effort" into this. But in the next statement, you write off camera work as "technical...stuff."

Rodriguez does do quite a bit of his own work, however he is aware of the "technical stuff" as being very important, lest he would never be able to get away with it. A far better role-model for you might be James Cameron. There is a Director who knows far more about every job on a movie set (and off the set) than anyone who is there. Seriously. And because of his studied knowledge, he knows who to hire and trust to do the jobs that need to be done in order to create the films he envisions. Robert's movies are "adequate" and he does have a career, but it was not without awareness of what NEEDED to be known TECHNICALLY in order to achieve what he wanted to create.


Your enthusiasm is certainly admirable, but at some point, you'll have to put aside the desire to "do everything" and choose to concentrate on SOMEthing, be it directing, camera, editing, or something else if you want to make a viable long-lasting profitably career from this. You could spend your life as the "auteur" who does "everything," but it is likely that your final results will be just so-so as you've diluted your attention across too many aspects of filmmaking.

Back to the primary question, no, there isn't a cheap prosumer camera that will look as good as the one's that professionals use, no matter what the manufacturer's say. There are "tricks" to get you closer to that look (the film look), but apart from hiring an experienced Cameraman and renting the appropriate equipment (camera, tripod, heads, batteries, monitors, cables, lighting, grip, electric, etc.), you'll always just be playing in the shallow end of the pool. If you're insanely lucky (like Rodriguez), one of your projects MIGHT be noticed by someone influential (if YOU put the work into getting it noticed), but otherwise, like millions of other "I want to do it all so it's mine!" aspiring filmmakers out there, you'll wind up NOT having a career as a filmmaker.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com
Go to Top of Page

aburke09
Junior Member

46 Posts

Posted - 02 Jan 2010 :  17:02:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
you misunderstood. I meant I enjoy everything BUT the technical camera stuff. That doesn't mean i'm against learning it.

As for all these "jobs" on movie sets. I think people get carried away when they have money to throw at their problems. I have worked on a hand full of Independent films with crews of up to 30. Yes these were not gigantic Hollywood blockbusters with million dollar budgets, but still decent size crews with decent budgets. I know for a fact that they could have saved money by having one guy do five jobs, instead of hiring 5 different people for those 5 jobs just because they can. I believe Rodriguez understood this as well. & id call him a bit above "adequate" seing that he has a very profitable career as a Filmmaker. any joe off the street can make an "adequate" film now-a-days.

Also I don't understand how a director would not take part in editing his own film, especially if its digital. after all, it's not really a film until it's edited together. Sure you can have someone to explain the "technical stuff" if needed, but when it comes to putting scenes together, why would you have someone else do that? wouldn't that make it their film?? Kevin Smith is also another guy I respect for cutting the bullshit & doing a lot himself.

Aburke
Student/Loafer
Minneapolis


***I removed the two porn sites you linked to
let's take it easy with that, okay*****

Edited by - certified instigator on 02 Jan 2010 23:50:07
Go to Top of Page

certified instigator
Moderator

USA
3099 Posts

Posted - 02 Jan 2010 :  23:48:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by aburke09
I know for a fact that they could have saved money by having one guy do five jobs, instead of hiring 5 different people for those 5 jobs just because they can.

I just want to clear this up. This is not a fact. This
is your opinion. And it's fine that you hold this
opinion but please don't state it as fact.

One person doing five jobs on a weekend shoot is
standard. I've done it, Brian has done it, just about
every filmmaker has done it. One person doing five
jobs on an 18 day shoot (or longer) is an inefficient
way to make a movie. When the production is slowed
down because the camera operator/gaffer/costumer/
makeup artist/props master cannot get to the camera
because he's prepping a prop for scene 12 and doing
the burn makeup for scene 22 as soon as he finished
lighting the current scene, that is not an efficient use
of talent, personal, time or money.

I'm sure you can imagine the problems if the props
person is also the caterer and needs to leave the set
for one hour to pick up food for the meal and a prop
needed to shoot can't be found. Of if the camera operator
is getting a flair on the lens and asks the grip to move
the key light over half an inch and the grip is also the
production manager who is off set making an important
phone call for the next days location.

This fact you believe to be true isn't as true as you think
it is.

quote:
Also I don't understand how a director would not take part in editing his own film, especially if its digital. after all, it's not really a film until it's edited together.

I'm an excellent, professional editor and I'm a skilled,
experienced camera operator and sometimes DP. When
I'm directing I never shoot the movie and I never edit the
movie. I love the collaboration with other talented, passionate,
skilled people. I love letting an editor do their magic on a
film I wrote and directed. sometimes I change things, most
of the time I do not.

I know you keep using Rodriguez as the example - and he's
a fine example. But I don't think you would ever suggest that
"Jaws" isn't Spielberg's film. Yet Verna Fields edited that. I
don't think you would say that "Goodfellas" isn't Scorsese's
film even though the amazing Thelma Schoonmakerwas the
editor. Just because a few directors edit their own films doesn't
mean that's the standard. Want a list of great directors who
didn't do their own editing?

But I think it's great they you will be doing everything on
your movie. What camera have you decided on?

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000