Over the past year some amazing new developments in motion film and still photography have created quite a conundrum within the two separate disciplines. The still cameras that photographers use are now capable of capturing true HD, 1080p video. That means that with a $2,500 camera and a few lenses, we are now able to achieve comparable (and in some case better) results than equipment that costs close to $100,000. Several movies are currently in the works that are being shot entirely with these inexpensive, agile cameras.
How often have we been on a location shooting stills and wished we could shoot motion? Or vice versa?
Thus the conundrum. We usually pay for still images based on usage and when we shoot commercials it’s more of a flat fee. In commercial work, the DP (director of photography/camera guy) usually gets a day rate. What happens when we hire him to shoot motion and grab some still at the same time? How do we price out our still photographer when we ask him to grab motion?
The good news is that all parties are excited and are willing to work around an old formula that monetized an old process. Overall, the physical production costs have come down and creative freedom has expanded. That’s something that works for everyone.
If you’d like to view the short film which debuted last year and started the buzz/controversy visit http://vincentlaforet.com/index_reverie.html
"Thanks for talking about this. Certainly exciting innovations and opportunities ahead, but we all have to find a way to make a living. You all do nice work, it will be interesting to see how you bring the new technology into that process. keith"
April 27th, 2010 at 12:37 pm