Storyboarding is one great technique, but I encourage any upcoming filmmakers to be aware of the AI issue. You don't want to get stuck drawing storyboards for an AI to just pump out visual mimicry over. That's not to say there isn't room for little companies to do pipeline children's content, etc, but in the long run it takes equal or more effort to make AI look novel/unique/appealing as it does to just film new material. AI will be great for a lot of things, and I love storyboarding for breaking down a story, but it needs to be said that it isn't the secret formula to a good movie. In fact, a great movie will be seamlessly connected in all aspects, meaning there's no way to replace a creator in any aspect, since they ought to be making creative decisions as they create. The AI won't know what shot to use until the creator decides, at which point the creator may place the camera, and so on. To really accomplish a great picture, one would need to put as much work or more explaining as it would take to do the things. Again, AI will offer more affordable production solutions to creatives in their careers, but it is foolish and just plain ridiculous to build plans based on the (false, in case that isn't clear) notion that these tools will replace the creator.
In old days there were no digital cameras, there was use of celluloid film, which is a long film hence we usually measure in feet because its very long.... Fun Fact : Chris Nolan and many other filmmakers still use film over digital due to its awesome look and its feel ...
I read that Hitchcock, in those pre-video assist days, NEVER looked through the viewfinder. Imagine that these days when monitors proliferate on set and attached to the camera.
Bill Krohn is a meticulous and reliable researcher and historian whose book Hitchcock at Work I can scarcely recommend too highly. In speaking from memory here he does make one tiny error worth noting, however. When Melanie is struck by the gull in The Birds she does not see it coming, but we do. Hitchcock cuts from her mock expression of innocence while looking at Mitch to our - the audience’s - privileged flash of the approaching animal (then to it striking her, and from that to another flash of it flying away). As Krohn says, Hitchcock does point out that these cuts are necessary so that the audience is absolutely clear about what’s happening, rather than mistaking the bird for a bit of paper (for instance). This example of slowing time down (not in the sense of slow motion photography, but of breaking a very brief moment into separate parts so that each registers clearly in the mind of the viewer) is very important to Hitchcock, important enough to make him interrupt the subjective treatment of his two lead characters. In Hitchcock’s cinema nothing outweighs the vital importance of accommodating our understanding.
I think he called it the god’s point of view, as in the scene with the attack at the gas station, when the point of view suddenly pulls back to an aerial shot looking down at the burning wreckage as more birds amass and descend to continue the attack.
