Jon Schweigart

Why can't those who don't live up to that be bad filmmakers? If I don't like a filmmaker I'll just call him a hack.

I've come to the conclusion that people who prefer to shoot film have a problem with people who use video calling their projects "films" because they feel the amount of work they put into acquiring an image was far greater than someone using a video camera. So someone getting the same sort of credit is insulting to them. Most people believe in giving credit where credit is do and "don't let me hear you call him a filmmaker when he's never even touched emulsion." Those who use film don't want video users to be compared to them because they feel it's a totally different art and it's not fair to compare the two. I personally prefer to use film because I understand the aesthetic differences between the two. Most film purists are artists and they want total control and credit from where an image comes from. They hate the fact that one will use digital tools and modify things and take credit for it's alterations when someone who made something on film actually altered the image physically himself and gets the same acknowledgment. I personally feel that anyone can be a filmmaker no matter what tools they use to acquire moving pictures and like many others have said it's all semantics. Others have said animations aren't films and I think this is wrong. If the animation was recorded by a film camera would you still be opposed to call it a film? Just because it doesn't use lighting and real people doesn't mean it's not a film. I bet many experimental filmmakers would also be insulted by this statement. They shoot on film but don't necessarily use actors and lights and still think of themselves as filmmakers. I think people need to embrace both if they plan on making a living in this business in the near future.

If you want a saturated picture you can shoot reversal stock such as Ektachrome by Kodak. If you prefer to shoot negative I prefer something with a lower speed. Go to kodak.com and look up the different stocks. I'm not plugging Kodak here but I'm from western NY and have a loyalty to it. :P

That's quite a coincidence. I open this thread and see you picked my first film as the bad example haha. No offense taken. That was my first project in basic filmmaking. I edited by hand first on a steenbeck for practice which didn't help the quality then had my school telecine it. They did a horrible job on the transfer and now it shakes back and forth the whole time. It was a good learning experience though. All bolex's are capable of creating great images as along as you keep the gate and lens clean. The only real difference in models are stop frame and 400ft spool capability.

To add - Using an anamorphic lens make those blue line flares that are everywhere in the film.