Hacker News Reader

Comment by onion2k | Hacker News Reader

Even if you could afford the camera you still couldn't make anything like a Hollywood movie. The amount of control a film crew exerts over what they're shooting is pretty staggering to anyone who hasn't spent time in a studio or a film set. Literally everything is controlled. Everything is logged. A set has to be reset between takes, which means knowing where everything is, what settings all the cameras, lights, etc had, everyone standing on marks taped on the floor, etc. A great camera is important to any scene, but there is so much more to filming anything.

(Background: I studied Broadcast Engineering at uni and spent time around television studios 25 years ago. It's a lot of fun, but intensely laborious, and ultimately making things on the internet proved more exciting..)

View on HN

I was also astounded how much CG goes into movies. For context, I was an extra in Lord of the Rings ~20 years ago and almost every arrow in Helm's Deep was added in post.

That deserves a post in itself :-) Were Orcs allowed toilet breaks in full costume?

Good question :D

Now that you mention it, I can't actually remember. The Uruk-Hai costumes were much harder to get into and out of compared to the elf costumes (this is for Helm's Deep) so I'm going to go with yes, we were allowed toilet breaks but it was a logistical nightmare.

The plus side to the Uruk costume was that it was basically a wetsuit (this is how they modelled the muscles etc on it) so when you're playing a dead body in the middle of the night in a quarry, anything that helped you stay warm was a bonus!

On the other hand, I remember how The Flash costume (the 1990 TV series) needed water cooled undergarments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flash_(1990_TV_series)#Cos...

Probably something special in the thigh pad.....

Even if you're just on camera for some documentary thing, the amount of fussing with lights, sound, multiple camera angles etc. is significant. The reality is that you can probably get most of the way there these days with significantly cheaper gear and most people wouldn't know the difference if the people using the gear were competent. But it's still impressive what goes into just a basic corporate talking head.

(Of course, a lot of people who go into shooting video for jobs like this are often into gear and financing their hobby. And even if showing up for the shoot with just an iPhone produces good results, you probably shouldn't expect a followup job.)

A lot of scenes can be naturally lit. I know someone who does documentaries solo, and they just make sure they interview people in a place that works.

I don't disagree. For interviews of any length, you probably want a decent microphone, a tripod, and somewhere quiet (unless you want something that's obviously in a bustling setting). But if they're hiring a video crew most companies probably expect a typical production video crew.

For most of us from outside the movies books like "The Devil's Candy" (about Brian DePalma's making of "Bonfire of the Vanities") also have a great insight into this.

It really is insane how much work and care goes into these movies (even the bad ones).

A friend who worked on crews on everything from Oscar winning movies to direct to video schlock likes to say "It's just as much work to make a bad movie as a good one."

> Even if you could afford the camera you still couldn't make anything like a Hollywood movie.

But what is a 'hollywood' movie? Do you mean one where predictably (like a Spielberg film) there is a certain level of technical expertise that comes off as very polished and perfect? Where I will add that that is not even the most important factor in many movies. After all movies are really entertainment and it's easy to be entertained by something that (if done well) was done on high end prosumer equipment. Now me personally I don't like the polished up 'hollywood' look either. It's almost to perfect and really not appropriate for every type of entertainment.

One thing I will say is that looking back and watching again many movies that I loved in the 90's that are 'hollywood' I don't like them as much as ones that I see now on Netflix. (Many of those are done super well technically but many are not and both often equally entertaining).

What is a 'Hollywood' movie? If you mean something released by one of the major Los Angeles-based studios, then sure. Otherwise there are a ton of feature length movies made with a shoestring budget and none of the effort you mention which get a wide release and get immensely popular and profitable.

Although I don't disagree with you, I think that number is much smaller that it might look like.

Same thing applies to home recorded albums or NPR style concerts.

What looks like just made on shoestring, its just the most exquisite work of very experienced professionals, making use of all their knowledge and years and years of experience. What looks like the use of minimalist resources, are smart choices whose modus operandi is only accessible to the best professionals.

NPR (Tiny Desk) concerts are the best example.

> the most exquisite work of very experienced professionals, making use of all their knowledge and years and years of experience

Weird Al's first album was mainly recorded in the Cal Poly bathroom and look where he is now.

Pretty much the same as buying high end DSLR.

The camera does not "make" pictures. The photographer does.

If you have no idea how to compose your shot or control lighting, it is going to look bad regardless of how much investment in the camera and lenses.

On the flip side, there are photos you just can’t take without a good lens and, less so, body. Having good equipment, skill or no, does open up possibilities.

Of course, the same is true with the camera on a phone.

It’s always right tool for the job.

That is until the director went rogue. See how SW franchise deteriot over the years since Ryan's control....or maybe Kathleen?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com