Wow. Your knowledge is overwhelming and your style in its presentation is amazing. Like most people, I am totally unaware of what exists behind the camera. You shed a little light today. Thank you.
the best way I have been told to think about directors is "someone who doesn't know the arts of filmmaking" they need not have the technical knowldge, but purely the clear creative vision and then the collab with the techinicals to bring it to life.
I don't agree. Then there's literally no qualifications to be a director at all. Anyone can say they have a "creative vision" if there is a crew of hundreds to do the actual work for them.
You can always tell a Rob Richardson film by the lighting. Whether its an Oliver Stone film, Tarantino film, Scorsese film, whatever. The mans stuff has a look.
I agree but it's always related with the director's vision. I remember watching Bringing Out The Dead (Scorsese) and thinking it could've been an Oliver Stone movie because of that kind of very bright white lighting that you can see in JFK, Natural Born Killers and so on. Rob was the cinematographer for all of them. I couldn't tell it was him in Tarantino's films tho.
Thanks. I might be wrong, but I’ve never heard of a director highest in the hierarchy… the chain of command is Producer - Director and so on and so fourth…. On the set, the director is the boss. But not for the production.
Depends on if you're looking at the facilitator side or the creation side. You can say that producers aren't in the kitchen making the food with the chefs. But they are lining up health permits, getting a good location so a restaurant can be built. This video is about the kitchen side.
Something I still don't understand is, how do you sell a movie to a producer if you don't have a shot list and you want to create the shots on set or how to do it without a shooting plan?
@@paimei2339 this is the only way to gain the trust of a producer when u don't have a plan for how long u can take filming and what materials would u need?
That would be an extremely difficult task since production companies want as much assurance for a film idea as possible. A full length feature film is a lot to get into. One way to do what you're asking, is to just have a really good script and nail your pitch line. Then shot lists and storyboards will follow. I don't know of any movie sets in the mainstream that will do shots on the fly entirely. Everyone wants and needs a plan to create a movie, so just finding out the shots on the fly is scary. Also, finding shots on the fly will take you 10 times longer since you have re-set-up all your lights and will tick off the gaffing/lighting unit. Sorry, that was a lot just to say it'd be very difficult to get that done.
For clarification, I'm a film student in college and from the short film sets I've done or worked on, everyone needs the director and/or cinematographer to have a very strong and solid vision before shooting, especially the assistant director. The whole job of the AD is get everyone to the finish line of the film on time one day at a time. On set during the shoot, there's so many problems that can arise and delay the shoot. Often, you won't even get all the shots you wanted for the one scene you were shooting that day. Having a shot list and storyboard helps get you to the finish line for the scene even if you have to throw out a shot or two. And you might find a shot that you hadn't planned out but that adds time. In those cases the director, cinematographer, and assistant director might argue over the necessity or amount of time left to achieve that and all the other needed shots. There's a ton of paperwork and planning that has to go into doing a film, even just a short one perhaps. Now, a really small film with friends or amateurs can and often be completely different. You can get away with stuff on the small side. But the higher budget you go, the more people and the more paperwork and work will have to be done before shooting is even scheduled. It's an interesting industry and I've only been learning about for a little over a year now in the university film department.
@@petersonfilms-1 yes of course, I know that. I also study film, but in the case of films like Wong-Kar Wai or Phantom Tread (that the shoots are made on the fly), or Jaws or Apocalypse Now, they are films that were made without a script and that means without a shoot list and all the paperwork afterwards.
The Gaffer does what the DP need them to do. DP is head of lighting, the Gaffer is head of setting up the lighting. So if the DP says, I’m looking to have this kind of lighting, with a so & so contrast ratio, and we’re shooting at T2.8, the Gaffer would take that information and direct his team of electrics to get that lighting set up in a way that works with the DP’s needs.
@@Eyeofkamau But who does the lighting and grip plans for instance. I know some DP's do that, Roger Deakins and Phil Meheux for instance but do some DP's let their gaffers do that
@@reptongeek the DP provides the blueprint while the Gaffer and Grip (which are separate) execute it in whatever way allows them to get what the DP needs. I saw “whatever way” because the approach could vary depending on the equipment that a gaffer or grip has or is limited to, but they would get the job done regardless. Gaffer and his team of electrics handle the lighting & electrical while the Key grip and his team handle the setting up of nonelectrical rigging like equipment for dolly, jib, crane shots and car rigs. Grips may crossover into electric department at times depending on the set. Both departments’ decisions & set ups are based on information given to them by DP/Cinematographer, and Director of course.
I would add the cinematographer of Nicolas Winding Refn movies with Gosling. Or just Nicolas itself directing. Fincher's cinematographer also comes to mind
greats directors choices theirs lenses (or just director who know his works) ...Or works with DP who use to work with lenses that director wants to use...
Blocking is formulating the talent’s position and/or movement and how they interacting with their environment throughout scene. Staging is the placement and movement of any objects in the frame, including the camera relative to the blocking of the scene. The two are similar but separate, yet, work in conjunction.
Producer seems to be more powerful person in filmmaking process. Maybe other type of producer? But in this scheme Director pretending to be the top-1 person, such Producer that seems not presented.
Since when is the producer below a director? :/ Have you not heard of the thousands of films having production related problems where directors usually get fired or not allowed to cut their films by the producers? Weird blunder.
The director is the individual responsible for making the film. The producer is a facilitator. On the set when the film is being shot the director is the boss. Now, producers have been known to throw their weight around on the set, but this often hurts the end product.
It differs from industries to industries and projects to projects. I work in an Industry where Directors are above Producers. Even in Hollywood I know that Directors have upper hand in lots of aspects.
Producer is too vague of a term that doesn't really mean always the same thing. Sometimes producers really only finance a movie. Sometimes they work with the directors, but ultimately, the director is the boss. What you see on screen is what the director had in mind and created. If you watch a nice movie and go see who produced it thinking "oh, this producer must be good" you're insane lol. Brad Pitt was one of the producers of The Departed. You think Brad Pitt, actor who never even wrote a screenplay and certainly never directed a movie, had decisional power over MARTIN SCORSESE? Or that he had really anything to do with how the movie came to be, looked, or felt like, or that any of that was his vision? Lol. Only people that matter are the the director and the screenwriter. Plus actors, of course. Edit: not to forget about all the crew behind it, cinematographers, set decorators, editors and so on. I'm just saying the concept of the movie, the story, dialogue, visual style has mainly to do with who actually made the film happen in the first place
@@nomecognome8737 Martin Scorsese having his way with how his films end up being, something that's obviously expected of someone of his caliber, does not mean every director is in the same boat. Look up what Ridley Scott went through during the production of Blade Runner and Legend, or what transpired during Alien 3 with David Fincher, or even recently where Robert Eggers was not allowed to edit The Northman to his liking. Creatively, and ideally, yes, what you're seeing should be the director's vision, and should always be, but it's not like that practically speaking.
You gave wrong information about cinematographer , cinematographer does, composition, lighting ,blocking, camera movement according to the scene, they collaborate with director,production design, costume design, makeup, CG team and cinematographer does action continuity, set continuity, looks continuity, costume continuity,makeup continuity ,and they created visuals for editing based some shots, they control light ,camera,grips, electrical, and finally DI color grading . Cinematographer does lot of work but you mention very less. You Singing praises only director and cinematographer does very less. You points are very narrow. Did you watched shooting first
This isn’t true at all. There are completely different departments for all of that. The cinematographer handles cinematography - filming/composition, lighting, shot listing, etc. The cinematographer may have say in things like blocking but it is not the job of the cinematographer. Nor is production design, make up or any of that. There is a Production Designer and entire art department for that. Unless one is working in some sort of no-budget film where everyone is doing everything… The Cinematographer works in the Camera Department and only that. Otherwise, they aren’t a cinematographer lol, they’re a Cinematographer, Director, Production Designing, Art Directing, Make-up Artist Producer lol. Which simply is not the case on any professional set
Inside Lewyn Davis cinematography is not realistic. I hate those movies that doesn't have realistic cinematography. Some movies it works because of its stories but here it is more anxiety inducing and it makes me vomit. Enemy (Denis Villeneuve) doesn't have realistic cinematography neither it makes me vomit and it's a very good example how it should be handled. These people only consider great cinematography it has a trademark but that is utmost stupid, a great cinematography is when I can breathe and feel the essence of the environment or nature. When a blue ocean doesn't look blue ocean it is like I'm seeing distopian world or humans are to be extinct. I need to live and the environment around character. Also too much lighting in one room these days, the 90s and 2000s were great. In those times when they used to use those simpler bulbs that were less flashy.
Wow. Your knowledge is overwhelming and your style in its presentation is amazing. Like most people, I am totally unaware of what exists behind the camera. You shed a little light today. Thank you.
Wow this is interesting. I never understood what cinematography was before. It’s crazy how much goes into each shot!
Great presentation. Appreciate the fine editing work to make the explanations so visually clear.
I like when directors make sequels with a different crew
It helps giving the movie a new identity
0:42 add a third person in chart : An editor
Thanks for your clarification on this. You are one of my favorite sources of filmmaking education.
Awesome Work. Please never stop.
DOPs are so underrated!!!
One of the best videos I’ve seen.🖤✨👏🎬Most are super simple & don’t cover so much.
the best way I have been told to think about directors is "someone who doesn't know the arts of filmmaking"
they need not have the technical knowldge, but purely the clear creative vision and then the collab with the techinicals to bring it to life.
I don't agree. Then there's literally no qualifications to be a director at all. Anyone can say they have a "creative vision" if there is a crew of hundreds to do the actual work for them.
You can always tell a Rob Richardson film by the lighting. Whether its an Oliver Stone film, Tarantino film, Scorsese film, whatever. The mans stuff has a look.
I agree but it's always related with the director's vision. I remember watching Bringing Out The Dead (Scorsese) and thinking it could've been an Oliver Stone movie because of that kind of very bright white lighting that you can see in JFK, Natural Born Killers and so on. Rob was the cinematographer for all of them.
I couldn't tell it was him in Tarantino's films tho.
Incredible video, as always !
Again thank you so much for every video you make for us!
Another great video. Thank you so much.
This is great! Thank you for putting this out!
What an awesome channel! Thank you 🙏
Thanks a lot!
Excellent video!
very well done high quality video!!!
great video!
Sometimes I like a movie just by its cinematography rather than its direction. Just goes to show how much cinematography can elevate a movie.
Thanks for the great insight
informative comparison.
I love this channel!
Great video!! learned a lot! 🔥
one of my fav channels :)
Great video.
Good thing is I'm usually both the director and cinematographer in my productions, so no chance for fights.
great stuff
Fascinating
great video
Thanks. I might be wrong, but I’ve never heard of a director highest in the hierarchy… the chain of command is Producer - Director and so on and so fourth….
On the set, the director is the boss. But not for the production.
I was going to point that out too
Depends on if you're looking at the facilitator side or the creation side.
You can say that producers aren't in the kitchen making the food with the chefs. But they are lining up health permits, getting a good location so a restaurant can be built.
This video is about the kitchen side.
That caught my attention too
great analogy @@gregorylagrange
@@andeleon6838 🎬🎥
Indie filmmakers: I'll be both at the same time...
Something I still don't understand is, how do you sell a movie to a producer if you don't have a shot list and you want to create the shots on set or how to do it without a shooting plan?
Watch pitch meetings
@@paimei2339 this is the only way to gain the trust of a producer when u don't have a plan for how long u can take filming and what materials would u need?
That would be an extremely difficult task since production companies want as much assurance for a film idea as possible. A full length feature film is a lot to get into. One way to do what you're asking, is to just have a really good script and nail your pitch line. Then shot lists and storyboards will follow. I don't know of any movie sets in the mainstream that will do shots on the fly entirely. Everyone wants and needs a plan to create a movie, so just finding out the shots on the fly is scary. Also, finding shots on the fly will take you 10 times longer since you have re-set-up all your lights and will tick off the gaffing/lighting unit. Sorry, that was a lot just to say it'd be very difficult to get that done.
For clarification, I'm a film student in college and from the short film sets I've done or worked on, everyone needs the director and/or cinematographer to have a very strong and solid vision before shooting, especially the assistant director. The whole job of the AD is get everyone to the finish line of the film on time one day at a time. On set during the shoot, there's so many problems that can arise and delay the shoot. Often, you won't even get all the shots you wanted for the one scene you were shooting that day. Having a shot list and storyboard helps get you to the finish line for the scene even if you have to throw out a shot or two. And you might find a shot that you hadn't planned out but that adds time. In those cases the director, cinematographer, and assistant director might argue over the necessity or amount of time left to achieve that and all the other needed shots. There's a ton of paperwork and planning that has to go into doing a film, even just a short one perhaps. Now, a really small film with friends or amateurs can and often be completely different. You can get away with stuff on the small side. But the higher budget you go, the more people and the more paperwork and work will have to be done before shooting is even scheduled. It's an interesting industry and I've only been learning about for a little over a year now in the university film department.
@@petersonfilms-1 yes of course, I know that. I also study film, but in the case of films like Wong-Kar Wai or Phantom Tread (that the shoots are made on the fly), or Jaws or Apocalypse Now, they are films that were made without a script and that means without a shoot list and all the paperwork afterwards.
When you say the DP has control over the lighting, what about the Gaffer?
How does that collaboration work.
The Gaffer does what the DP need them to do. DP is head of lighting, the Gaffer is head of setting up the lighting.
So if the DP says, I’m looking to have this kind of lighting, with a so & so contrast ratio, and we’re shooting at T2.8, the Gaffer would take that information and direct his team of electrics to get that lighting set up in a way that works with the DP’s needs.
@@Eyeofkamau But who does the lighting and grip plans for instance. I know some DP's do that, Roger Deakins and Phil Meheux for instance but do some DP's let their gaffers do that
@@reptongeek the DP provides the blueprint while the Gaffer and Grip (which are separate) execute it in whatever way allows them to get what the DP needs. I saw “whatever way” because the approach could vary depending on the equipment that a gaffer or grip has or is limited to, but they would get the job done regardless.
Gaffer and his team of electrics handle the lighting & electrical while the Key grip and his team handle the setting up of nonelectrical rigging like equipment for dolly, jib, crane shots and car rigs. Grips may crossover into electric department at times depending on the set.
Both departments’ decisions & set ups are based on information given to them by DP/Cinematographer, and Director of course.
If they make another BLADE RUNNER
They need to hire Hoyte Van Hoytema
I would add the cinematographer of Nicolas Winding Refn movies with Gosling. Or just Nicolas itself directing.
Fincher's cinematographer also comes to mind
@@Julian97MetalFighter except maybe for Jeff Cronenweth
I'm not a fan of underexposed cinematography
I prefer Wally Pfister
Amazing
greats directors choices theirs lenses (or just director who know his works) ...Or works with DP who use to work with lenses that director wants to use...
Nice 😍
Good vid..
Anyone please explain, what's the difference between staging and blocking?
Blocking is formulating the talent’s position and/or movement and how they interacting with their environment throughout scene.
Staging is the placement and movement of any objects in the frame, including the camera relative to the blocking of the scene.
The two are similar but separate, yet, work in conjunction.
Blocking is the placement/movement of actors in the frame while staging is the placement/movement of the camera
Do directors pick the cinematrographer?
Pretty much always.
thank you I am learning a lot
Interesting
What movie is this one 12:30 ?
The Revenant
Tim Burton
💯 Lighting
💯 aspect ratio
😂
Producer seems to be more powerful person in filmmaking process. Maybe other type of producer? But in this scheme Director pretending to be the top-1 person, such Producer that seems not presented.
Since when is the producer below a director? :/ Have you not heard of the thousands of films having production related problems where directors usually get fired or not allowed to cut their films by the producers? Weird blunder.
The director is the individual responsible for making the film. The producer is a facilitator. On the set when the film is being shot the director is the boss. Now, producers have been known to throw their weight around on the set, but this often hurts the end product.
Executive producers
It differs from industries to industries and projects to projects.
I work in an Industry where Directors are above Producers.
Even in Hollywood I know that Directors have upper hand in lots of aspects.
Producer is too vague of a term that doesn't really mean always the same thing. Sometimes producers really only finance a movie. Sometimes they work with the directors, but ultimately, the director is the boss. What you see on screen is what the director had in mind and created. If you watch a nice movie and go see who produced it thinking "oh, this producer must be good" you're insane lol.
Brad Pitt was one of the producers of The Departed. You think Brad Pitt, actor who never even wrote a screenplay and certainly never directed a movie, had decisional power over MARTIN SCORSESE? Or that he had really anything to do with how the movie came to be, looked, or felt like, or that any of that was his vision? Lol.
Only people that matter are the the director and the screenwriter. Plus actors, of course.
Edit: not to forget about all the crew behind it, cinematographers, set decorators, editors and so on. I'm just saying the concept of the movie, the story, dialogue, visual style has mainly to do with who actually made the film happen in the first place
@@nomecognome8737 Martin Scorsese having his way with how his films end up being, something that's obviously expected of someone of his caliber, does not mean every director is in the same boat. Look up what Ridley Scott went through during the production of Blade Runner and Legend, or what transpired during Alien 3 with David Fincher, or even recently where Robert Eggers was not allowed to edit The Northman to his liking. Creatively, and ideally, yes, what you're seeing should be the director's vision, and should always be, but it's not like that practically speaking.
so can a director be successful without knowing too much photography?
You gave wrong information about cinematographer , cinematographer does, composition, lighting ,blocking, camera movement according to the scene, they collaborate with director,production design, costume design, makeup, CG team and cinematographer does action continuity, set continuity, looks continuity, costume continuity,makeup continuity ,and they created visuals for editing based some shots, they control light ,camera,grips, electrical, and finally DI color grading . Cinematographer does lot of work but you mention very less. You Singing praises only director and cinematographer does very less. You points are very narrow. Did you watched shooting first
This isn’t true at all. There are completely different departments for all of that. The cinematographer handles cinematography - filming/composition, lighting, shot listing, etc. The cinematographer may have say in things like blocking but it is not the job of the cinematographer. Nor is production design, make up or any of that. There is a Production Designer and entire art department for that.
Unless one is working in some sort of no-budget film where everyone is doing everything… The Cinematographer works in the Camera Department and only that. Otherwise, they aren’t a cinematographer lol, they’re a Cinematographer, Director, Production Designing, Art Directing, Make-up Artist Producer lol. Which simply is not the case on any professional set
Inside Lewyn Davis cinematography is not realistic. I hate those movies that doesn't have realistic cinematography. Some movies it works because of its stories but here it is more anxiety inducing and it makes me vomit. Enemy (Denis Villeneuve) doesn't have realistic cinematography neither it makes me vomit and it's a very good example how it should be handled. These people only consider great cinematography it has a trademark but that is utmost stupid, a great cinematography is when I can breathe and feel the essence of the environment or nature. When a blue ocean doesn't look blue ocean it is like I'm seeing distopian world or humans are to be extinct. I need to live and the environment around character. Also too much lighting in one room these days, the 90s and 2000s were great. In those times when they used to use those simpler bulbs that were less flashy.
I'm glad I don't watch movies with you.
@@johnfitzpatrick3094no he makes sense, they look of films has definitely changed