Best of luck.
You might well find that when you're having to shoot someone else's brief things gets less fun. Things get much tougher when you have to work within a fixed budget, deliver to a deadline, conform to technical standards, plus comply with all the legislation that applies to commercial work.
Of course what you say in this thread is full of valid points and I don't think anyone questioned your experience and knowledge.
But basicaly you're saying (or that's what I understand) that there is only one way to become part of this industry and it's going to school-university.
My post on 3000 bucks budget and after-effect was of course an image with a tint of provocation, but I beleive there is some truth in it.
I learned and still learning the editing on Avid (wich is my main editor) and Grass Valley (wich is my prefered editor)
Those 2 aren't FCP10, you know that, nor easy and intuitive to learn at first but broadcast standart editors that I know. I've started to train with Nuke and Nuke is also that I know
the standart number one in compositing within the cine industry. But then...also what is true is that the Nukodas suite are closing, the Quantel Pablo suites are closing,
and the guys who are mastering after-effect are getting more and more assignements.
Yes, at first it was very-low end, almost jokes, now it's different and the ones who joke less are the Pablos operators etc...
I'm not far to think that Adobe will replace MC and FCP and will become the standart. And those kids who learned with their pirated Adobe suites and Canons and who are uploading their
prods in Vimeos will more likely to become the new Michel Gondry or Aveillan s than the university students. (but I can be wrong)
This is a complex debate and I don't think that the reality is as black or that white. If things were really stricktly as you say, why we see more and more of those really big and heavy
prod houses closing and why kids that learned with their dslrs and grade with the free versions of Resolve, composite with after effects are getting more and more work?
Because they are cheap only? But some are really good. Or maybe, could it be also because the tech is evolving at such speed that it allows to do the same, faster and with less budgets and crew
than 10 years ago.
I'm not for the chaos and the averageness. But schools? It's an option, but if this is the only option recognized by this industry then I want to cry. I thought that it still existed training on set, the old school, training filming in personal prods like many of the one who are now the big boys did.
Have you ever seem those photo graduated students on set? They know nothing when they come out of school. Everything have to be re-teached to them almost from scratch except for the lightning
and the cablery. Not everyone wants to be a gaffer. Specialy in fahion (not talking about high fashion), those students don't know anything about women, about fabrics, about casting etc...
They know about equipment and know how to make it work yes, and it's only 20% of the buzz.
Most know often more technicaly than their idols, but very little have vision, guts and artistical talent.
I'm on the ones who (naively maybe) beleive that the image school is the street, not the universities.
Oh wait...now there are also supermodel schools !...Schools that teach girls to become a model. None of them are working in the high-end that I know.
In fact, the pros like you are generally going 3D as the high-end has evolved also and the gravity center of the technicity and elite is now in 3D and big broadcast events.
Recognize that it isn't very encouraging for us is the only way to enter the industry is to go to Louis Lumiere School. (the level in math requiered is very high by the way)
Now, I'd like to ask a simple question: I'd like to know how many of the current advertising gurus, the really big ones, are coming from university-motion schools?
I'd like to know how many of the greatest filmakers have followed a full master in a prestigious school dedicated to video?
How many big artists have even stepped fine-arts?
There is IMO absolutly no problem in what you say, and I understand your points. But honestly, there are not very encouraging. Yes, you may give us in fact a gift trying to make us come back to hearth,
and maybe I'll be thankfull to you later and say: Paul, you were right.
At the same time, it's quite frustrating to see a pro like you in this forum and giving such laconic infos to us, instead of that, we'd all benefit of your contributions. Example. You posted this sentence in the thread
about the BM (I copy-paste)
"That sentence alone demonstrates that whoever is trying to sell this box hasn't a clue about the requirements of the market."
Ok, fine. But...what do we do with this? A novice would immediatly ask "what are those requirements then ?"
don't you think that developping a little bit more your argumentation would also help us and help this forum to be more solid ? edit: I'm not asking you to be a teacher as you're not paid for it,
and probably have no interest nor time, I'm just asking you develop a little more your argumentation so we see clearly why you say this or that.
But rules have to be broken, and new path have to be explored.
The video of Morgan about the athlet girl would have been BBC and TVE approved IMO.