Is it too late for me?

>>2934241
How is getting a Pentax K1000 gonna help you become a director?

If you like photography, you are better off getting a digital SLR and playing with vintage lenses. You got the Pentax lens, thats a start. Now get a digital Canon body.

>>2934241
a film camera is going to get you precisely nowhere if you want to direct movies. find some money and buy a dslr that can shoot video

>>2934244
I thought starting with photography would be a good lead in to film as to teach myself terminology and rules. Obviously they are pretty different in the end.

I'm sure this is a retarted question- infact I know it is- I'm still on basics in my self teaching and I haven't gotten to body's/lenses beside very basic stuff. If I have a 50mm Pentax lenses can I put that on a cannon DSLR body? Are their specifications about size or do different brands do different things?

>>2934247
Okay. I've already started to save for a $600 cannon body DSLR- thank you.

Do you have any recomendations on good cannon bodies for getting into directing? I think I get that the lens is what really matters right?

>>2934247
I wouldnt say nowhere, but It's something people did 15-20 years ago. I learned a lot about framing and lenses from owning an OM2000, but that's when digital photography was in it's infancy.

>>2934251
Well, Canon can use most lenses for 35mm photograpy, except Canon lenses. Although, you need an adapter, which you can get cheap from Asia through ebay.

Actually, you can use Canon lenses too, but the extra optical device on the cheap adapters will be so crappy it's not worth the hassle.


Same deal with Olympus.

Nikons can use Nikons.

In my experience Canons offers the best bang for bucks. And I recently got a shitton of lenses. Beware that the focal length will change according to the size of your image chip.

And yeah, make sure the DSLR is good for doing video.

Looking for lenses you will learn a lot about parfocality, focal lengths etc etc etc

It will help you know how to shape an image. As for directing, you need to get books on actually dealing with people/actors. Good luck, hope you don't waste too much of your life doing this.

>>2934254
Canon EOS 70D is pretty top tier, but you need to probably have some left over for lenses, shop for a runner up to the 70D and save some money for good glass

>>2934263
On a sidenote, when I say Canon can not use Canon lenses, I'm referring to vintage lenses ofcourse.

You can certainly use newer Canon lenses made for DSLR bodies.

>>2934271
For shooting an indie film with high qaulity image, 4K or so, can I achieve this with said camera? I've been looking into getting a Black Magic pocket cinema camera however I've been reading that even though it provide steller image it can be unintuitive and have poor battery life.

>>2934275
Thank you so much for the differentiation, haha I was really confused for a second. Thank you- very good advice.

>>2934241

you're obviously very confused and you're asking the wrong things

It's like you're asking if you have to buy a ferrari or a lamborghini and you don't even have the driving license

Learn some basics first and then buy a camera.
Better if you go to a photographic course too.

It's never too late

>>2934251
Photography will teach you the basics of composition, but there's a whole additional language of film since you're dealing with motion.

Skip the pathway through photography shit, unless you like taking snaps. Or at least get a digital, if even a point & shoot. Then you can take shots of anything that strikes you, a cool scene, a place you might want to shoot, and not have to wait until you finish the roll to see the results.

Get a camera, a camcorder, a DSLR, a Micro 4/3, anything, and start shooting shit. Don't obsess over needing the *right* gear before you start. Everyone's got an opinion about what's the right camera to get. You can always upgrade if you think you hit the limit of your camera's ability. If anything, at least get something with an external mic input.

It's more important knowing *what* you want to shoot. Best camera in the world won't do shit if you've got no subject. If you don't know yet, find local film & video people and work with them. Help with their projects, see what they use. Added bonus, they might even loan you their gear for your shoots.

>>2934280
Okay, that's good advice, I am very new to this- currently pursuing a BA online and self teaching myself photography. All of the lingo an stuff is very new- maybe I will look online for an online course, thank you.

>>2934281
Thanks friend!

>>2934287
Thanks so much man, I just wrote all that advice down- very helpful

>>2934288
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.html

>>2934241
Don't listen to any of these fools. Buy a super 8 cine camera, editor, splicer and projector.

I've got some for sale, pm me your email address.

>>2934277
Unless they updated it, BMPCC only shoots 1080. And it should not be thought of as a unit of its own. If you buy that camera, you'll be looking at it as one part of a whole system you'll be buying into. Picture is supposed to be awesome, but on board sound is lousy. And it shits batteries like crazy.

>>2934241
With the Information Age you can choose to be an apprentice under whomever. Fellini, Polanski, etc. you can learn from photographers, painters, authors. Anyone can be your teacher. Look for 'rules' the greats follow

unless you're just talking exposure triangle, maybe lighting as well?

>>2934254
Get a 600D. It's cheap, does the job and you can put magic lantern on it. The perfect package.

>>2934295
>Doesn't even recommend at the least a 16mm

Who is the real fool in this situation man

>>2934277
>For shooting an indie film with high qaulity image, 4K or so, can I achieve this with said camera?
I think most people who want to shoot 4k will usually rent a camera.

>>2934241
kubrik wannabe detected

>>2934364
>insecure about his own potential man child detected

>>2934277
You shouldn't worry about meme things like 4k. Worry about composition and flow and the actual skill of directing.

Photography helps, yes it's the first step. Then you need to figure out the story telling aspect and how to get people to do what you want.

When you have learned those (although the art of storytelling is never something that you "finish" learning) you may begin to learn the art of light, and it's control which is the final and very critical component of film making. Getting pretty darn gear intensive sometimes.

Learning to modify sound as a tool for telling a story and isolating what you want to convey is the last giga nigga ultra wizard level that few seem to reach. I'm not taking about recording good quality or playing around a little bit, either.


Shoot with your k1000. Start trying to get good results with color, then try to get good results with black and white. It's much harder to produce things that move you with bw (because we inherently ooh and ah at colors).

If I sum it up:
Mimic the clichés, then mimic the masters. Practice practice practice.

>>2934311
Shhh... I'm still waiting on the pm.

19 year old here, also self-taught and aspiring to be a director. 22 sounds like an average age for getting into filmmaking, I don't see how that's "too old". Have you ever done anything related to video in the past? Not just specifically referring to hands-on directing, have you worked with some school mates on video projects or else?

As for training, a film camera can indeed help you to improve composition (a lot of erudite filmmakers like Kubrick and Tarkovsky had their backgrounds as photographers instead of directors), but the only way to truly master video is by obviously having a camera that shoots video. Like others said, save for a starter DSLR like a Canon or a Lumix (or, if you're even able to find a decently priced Blackmagic Pocket, go for it), and essentially just go out and record stuff until you feel confident enough to start filming narratives.

>>2934364
>implying most modern film students aren't all a bunch of Kubrick fanatics anyways
Why is that a bad thing either way? There's literally nothing wrong with liking a certain artist and becoming motivated by his work to start your own, you goddamn pretentious faggot.

>>2934311
16mm is actually a decent recommendation for up-starters, tbqh. I mean, sure, he should probably get adjusted to a DSLR first, but every novice should experiment with the joys of 16mm sometime :3

>>2935468
>the only voice of reason ITT

Great advice in this thread, OP. It's never too late. I hope you have an iron constitution and are stubborn as hell because you will need both of those things to make it as a director. Most people do not but once you accept that fact of life you can move forward and bust your ass trying.

Also consider that if you are going to be producing and directing a serious effort in an indie (or professional) film, you will likely want to hire a director of photography. You can work with this person on the shots, but leave the more technical aspects of photography and lighting up to them so that you are more free to manage your frenetic, understaffed indie shoot. Greater knowledge of photography cannot hurt, but remember that being a director is so much more than that. Developing your own original ideas, stories, and characters, as well as being able to pull the best possible performances out of actors are skills that will make or break you.

>>2935468
>Why is that bad

Because Kubrick isn't an artist.

Just compare 2001 to Solaris and Barry Lyndon to Andrey rublov and you immediately understand why Tarkovsky was a through and through artist while Kubrich was not.

File: 1428704183542.jpg (79KB, 270x504px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 270x504px

>>2935670
>Because Kubrick isn't an artist.
Ayyy, that's a harsh claim. Certainly, you must have some impressive comparisons to back it?

>Just compare 2001 to Solaris
One coherently comments on post-modernism and anthropology, visually representing the superiority of man's creation over man itself and expressing both the wonders and mysteries of space exploration. The other is an anti-positivist mess that focuses way too much on criticizing scientific progress as something inherently dehumanizing and even exasperatedly tries to force one the saddest, most cringe-worthy interpretation of the philosophical problem of personal identity I've seen in cinema. I can totally understand why someone could prefer Tarkovsky's poetry-like filmmaking instead of the perhaps overly synthetic works of Kubrick, but Solaris isn't even a good example of his style in the first place.

>and Barry Lyndon to Andrey rublov
Unlike 2001 and Solaris, those two hardly have anything in common to allow for a fair comparison, but I'll bite. Surely, if you're going on narrative alone and cherrypick one of the most "American-ish" narratives of Kubrick and compare it to one of Tarkovsky's best then you might as well call this a day, but thankfully this is not /lit/ and I'm sure we can all agree that the matter of a film doesn't just boil down to its script. Compare them instead on their visual execution and unsurprisingly, early Tarkovsky is totally outmatched by Kubrick in this aspect. Much like it isn't fair to compare the traditional narrative of Lyndon to the spiritual and metaphysical reflections of Rublev, it's also not even fair to compare the use of careful composition, historical locations and candle-only lighting to the prematurely developed style of Tarkovsky.

So yeah, as someone who spent a fair amount of time violently jerking off to the filmography of both, your comparison is bogus.

>>2935691
Maybe you should spend a little less time jerking off and a little more time creating videos instead.

>>2935732
That's pretty solid advice for OP, actually.

File: 24758465.jpg (138KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 500x378px

How young is too young?

I started around that age too with random snaps, 6 years ago. Just keep doing it for long enough and eventually you become good at it.

The best gear in the world won't help you overcome a crap story, lame talent or a brain dead edit.

Ya gotta look at production like a song. All the bits are important, so as a director you should focus on finding things that go togeather well.

>>2935740

Any sort of degree that's got a 99% chance of not leading to a career is a much safer option if you've already got work experience and the work ethic to make something out of what they teach you.

I think that unless you're going into STEM you should spend 2-3 years in the work force to put things in perspective for you.

If you do that and can really engage with photography or film for the duration, and at the end still want to study these things at an -academic- level, then go back to school with drive and purpose. Profs in general don't give a fuck about you unless you fight for their attention, and art profs probably more than most since they burn out on 1st year courses where the whole class wants an A+ for their cliche snapshits.

As someone finishing a BFA, the people who coast and get nothing out of the program are the people that went in at 17, and the people thriving and having exhibitions at artist run centers or getting internships at galleries are people that came back to school after spending time in the work force- almost universally.

it's too late.
you'll be flipping burgers.

File: 026723.jpg (38KB, 640x256px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x256px

Dont get confused between a Director and a Director of Photography. Some Directors calls the shot yes but they also have to understand acting and the script and most importantly a vision in how the story from the script will play out. What is a director with masturbation shots but zero sense of directing actors and shitty script? Director of Photography most of the time will advice a shot for the directors usually during location scouting. The Director will want a particular shot and the DOP will suggest a shot and present the Director with his vision. Only a few directors will have total control of the shots.. only the lighting will be up to the DOP..

Most directors only care about how the actors move on screen and how the screen move with the actor. The Director need to know how to pull off the words on the script to not only the framing and camera movement but also the emotions, body movement.. internal conflict, relationships between characters and the dialogue. Any director who does not study and pull the script apart piece by piece is a bad one and they can never make it.

Your camera is not enough.. you gotta hang out with people who are actors (or date one) go to plays.. study script.. make sure you know what is the premise of the story and all that comes with it.. like the arch, the inner conflict, the situation etc etc.. The shots is always secondary to many directors because the Story, Script and Acting is very crucial.. if its all visual but shit story and acting.. your movie will suck.

the reason why Malick, Kubrick, Tarkovsky and PTA are known for their visuals because the story comes with it.. Each shot tells a story even without the actor saying anything.. and these people spend their time not with taking photos but reading and understanding philosophy.. the shot will only come when the story is slowly put together..

Your Camera isnt enough anon.. online tutorial and books will only tell you the basics. to be a good director is to be yourself.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2015:08:06 18:18:16
Image Width	500
Image Height	200

>>2936076
>and these people spend their time not with taking photos but reading and understanding philosophy.
Kek, as a philosophy student I spend most of my time doing both. With that said, your post is spot on, practicing composition is always useful but filmmaking is about actually knowing how to integrate it in an interesting narrative.

What makes you want to be a director? You like movies? How do you know you'd be a good director? Do you have ideas? Do you have a style? Do you have good people management skills?

Becoming a director is hard as fuck today. You'll have to climb the ladder, and you'll either have to suck metaphorical dick or get in through a friend or family member.

The movie industry is oversaturated. Everybody who likes movies wants to become a director. They want the glamour of having movies being attributed to them. Nobody gives a shit about cinematography, editing, lighting, sound design, its DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR.

So before you start buying shit, seroiusly consider why you want to become a director. What you like about film, what you dislike. And even go to the /tv/ filmmaking threads.

I'm an AD (who got into the industry through family) and I don't know if i'll even be able to make the leap to becoming a director.


If there's one piece of advice that I can give you, it's that more important than taking photos (not that you should drop photography) is to write. But don't take it from me, take it from the master: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-McmgQbee0

>>2936279
>even go to the /tv/ filmmaking threads
Are those still around? I remember there was /swfmg/ earlier this year, but despite the occasional good content it was virtually empty in terms of posters.

>>2936301
They pop up sporadically. Some get half a dozen replies, some reach bump limit. Like everything on /tv/ it's very hit or miss. Try making your own thread maybe (protip: /tv/ is a lot slower and IMO better late at night)