cinematographer or videographer

[Guest]

"Film stock and processing may be very technologically advanced but it will never be affordable for the masses because it costs thousands of dollars just to process an hours worth of footage."

 

That's fine, the masses can shoot on single chip DV camcorders.

 

Film stock and film processing is very affordable for any serious filmmaker. Hopefully there is a difference between the masses and serious filmmakers. I find film quite affordable, I discipline myself when shooting, and make deals for the stock and transfer. Any one can do it.

 

All the film school students who insist that film is too expensive to shoot on don't know what they're talking about, how do they think people made films at the college level before DV?

 

Those students who prove their resourcefulness by shooting their projects on film are destined to go a lot farther in the tough film biz than those who just settle for a DV camcorder.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I am trying to figure out why people think that getting a $1,000 16mm camera off eBay and spending about $2,500 in film and processing is any more expensive than people who go buy HVX200's and Sony Z1's, and JVC H100's, and etc. I mean, digital sounds good because of the cheap stock but you forget that most worthwhile digital cams are a large initial investment. If you really wanna get with the big boys of digital, you are looking at a minimum of $15,000 - $20,000 for just the camera. And real HD stock is more expensive than DV stock so that adds to the tally. Add to that your matte box, french flags, killer tripod, and such and you are racking up the money. Not to mention, in theory, you can shoot forever on that, but in practicality, people start eyeballing every new camera that comes out so I doubt you will shoot on the SD900 for 10 years when you see so many awesome new cameras come and go.

 

Now, for film, especially 16mm, get a $1,000 camera off ebay, and how much stock could you shoot and process for the, say $14,000- $19,000 you would have compared to doing a higher end digital cam? 14k-19k of 16mm stock and processing would go a LONG way. There is no reason a person could not shoot a feature on that much raw stock and processing. And I personally believe the 16mm footage would turn out looking better than the SD900 footage or whatever.

 

In short, the whole digital= value argument is a fallacy if you are talking about quality equipment.

[Hal Smith]

A tagger with a spray paint can is very broad. Similar to a person with a camera in his hands who is capturing motion.

There are many many "taggers" out there who paint large, detailed and ornate murals. While what they are doing is illegal most of the time, it does not stop these specific works from being art, and the artist behind them from being painters, in my opinon.

The kid with a spray can spraying "Central High Rules" on buildings is not a painter, he's a visual litterer.

 

If a person produces a movie with a cheap miniDV that has knowing use of lenses, good composition, skillful lighting control and design, interesting use of camera motion, etc. in my book they're a Cinematographer. They may not be ready to shoot a feature with 35mm gear but still they meet my test as to what constitutes Cinematography.

 

It's the Art stupid! Not the technology that counts.

[Guest Giles Sherwood]

I am trying to figure out why people think that getting a $1,000 16mm camera off eBay and spending about $2,500 in film and processing is any more expensive than people who go buy HVX200's and Sony Z1's, and JVC H100's, and etc. I mean, digital sounds good because of the cheap stock but you forget that most worthwhile digital cams are a large initial investment. If you really wanna get with the big boys of digital, you are looking at a minimum of $15,000 - $20,000 for just the camera. And real HD stock is more expensive than DV stock so that adds to the tally. Add to that your matte box, french flags, killer tripod, and such and you are racking up the money.

 

What, and that $1,000 16mm camera off of eBay comes with a warranty, matte box, french flags, killer tripod, and all that other stuff that would still be eating into my stock & processing & HD telecine funds?

 

I like to do long takes and I like to do a lot of takes. For the amount of money I would probably have to spend on film alone for my next two projects at school, I bought a HVX with two P2 cards, a P2 store, and crossgraded from FCP HD Educational to a true Final Cut Studio license.

 

From now on I can shoot whatever, whenever, without spending additional money. I can shoot 2 hours and 50 minutes of footage at a time, and that's assuming I don't have a friend with a laptop with me. Hell, I could shoot a single shot that was 2 hours and 50 minutes long. I can do all of this and end up with a sharper, higher resolution end product than I could by shooting 16mm and ending with a DVCam telecine as is the norm at my school. If I look for a job this summer, I now come packaged with a camera that shoots a variety of formats. Also, I can totally shoot any number of other shorts without spending more money on stock, or even a feature with this camera if the look fits the story. Why not? Anthony Dodd Mantle has shot great films with lesser cameras.

 

In other words, I think buying into HD can make perfect sense for a low budget filmmaker, especially for a student. Especially if your school is buying the camera. Spend that $2+ grand on production design, I've found that most student films would benefit from the texture of good art direction way more than the texture of 16mm grain. If a student film is technically and/or artistically shitty the problem is far deeper rooted than a preference for video because it's "cheap" or "easy."

 

And now off to something I should have been doing instead of writing this: writing a script :P

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I can do all of this and end up with a sharper, higher resolution end product than I could by shooting 16mm and ending with a DVCam telecine as is the norm at my school.

 

That is not a true statement. 16mm film is not inferior in resolution to the HVX200. I have no idea where you got your information from.

[Guest Giles Sherwood]

That is not a true statement. 16mm film is not inferior in resolution to the HVX200. I have no idea where you got your information from.

 

Of course it's not! If you go back to reread my statement,

 

"I can do all of this and end up with a sharper, higher resolution end product than I could by shooting 16mm and ending with a DVCam telecine as is the norm at my school."

 

You will notice that I talk about finishing to DVCam, which is the result when talking about 99.9% of all film-originated projects by sophmore through graduate students at my school. I haven't met a single student at my school with the money to go back and conform his negative and make a release print--everyone puts that money into their next film. Occasionally someone will make a workprint and edit it on a flatbed and then screen the splicey-dicey, dirty workprint in lieu of a tape. Everything else ends up on DVCam or DigiBeta if you're lucky and can afford it. And you would have to be delusional to think that 16mm transfered to any sort of SD video is higher resolution than 720p-- it's just impossible by the natures of the formats.

 

I'm not a "film is dead" guy. I would be shooting film now if I thought it was worth it, but the fact of the matter is I can't see any benefit besides simply getting the experience under my belt. While I agree that's important, I'd much rather concentrate on getting shorts under my belt (pun not intended, but perhaps inevitable at 4AM). Certainly if you can afford to put money into the proper color correction, conforming, and printing of a release print, you stand to benefit from all of the lovely features that 16mm posesses. But I can't.

[Guest Giles Sherwood]

...

 

No, please, go right ahead.

[Stephen Williams]

"I can do all of this and end up with a sharper, higher resolution end product than I could by shooting 16mm and ending with a DVCam telecine as is the norm at my school."

 

You will notice that I talk about finishing to DVCam,

 

Hi,

 

DVcam in itself is not the problem. It is how the film is recorded to DVcam. If the DVcam was recorded using an SDI input, you will have difficulty in seeing any difference on a split screen with Digibeta.

 

If the DVcam is recorded using a composite or svideo input it may well look like s##t.

 

Stephen

[Chad Stockfleth]

As far as the person who implied I was a hack because I said digital intermediate, I was trying to point out that I do not reject digital technology because I only edit digitally on NLE platforms. I was trying to make a distinction between that and cutting on film. I don't know why that was so hard to understand?

 

Because you mispoke when you call editing on a NLE a Digital Intermediate.

 

And I thought we were talking about working proffesionals in this discussion, not students.

Edited August 26, 2006 by Chad Stockfleth

[Guest]

"I'm not a "film is dead" guy. I would be shooting film now if I thought it was worth it, but the fact of the matter is I can't see any benefit besides simply getting the experience under my belt. "

 

You have a brilliant future ahead of you in corporate video. If that's what you want to do, you're all set.

[Guest Giles Sherwood]

"I'm not a "film is dead" guy. I would be shooting film now if I thought it was worth it, but the fact of the matter is I can't see any benefit besides simply getting the experience under my belt. "

 

You have a brilliant future ahead of you in corporate video. If that's what you want to do, you're all set.

 

Ouch, burn. I would agree if I wanted to be a cinematographer and not a director, but somewhere along the line that ended up not being the case. I just like to operate.

 

Whatever. Sorry I derailed things into student territory. You guys can go back to your snippy professionalism now.

[Guest]

You guys can go back to your snippy professionalism now.

 

Thanks, it's about time!

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Because you mispoke when you call editing on a NLE a Digital Intermediate.

 

And I thought we were talking about working proffesionals in this discussion, not students.

 

Excuse me for saying DI when what I meant was transfer...now who is being an elitist?

Since when do only students use RANK?

Edited August 26, 2006 by M.W.Phillips

[Gary Lemson]

I think the subject has shifted from the original intent. However...

 

Allen Daviau was once quoted as saying, "I?ve been shooting Hi-Def for over thirty years. It?s called film.?

 

I have an HVX200. What an awesome camera...gotta' love its variable frame-rates! I don't think anyone would argue that point. Can I acheive an end result that looks like film? Certainly. Will I still use film? Of course.

 

I believe one can take advantage of what either format has to offer. What is it we are trying to achieve in our creative endeavor, anyway?

[Thomas James]

I know but how are you going to learn film making if the cost of film processing is out of reach? And if you use a high definition video camera to learn film making that format counts for nothing as far as cinematography experience is concerned? Also film cinematography holds you back because you are limited to just 24 frames per second for economical distribution of film. With Red Digital Cinema you can distribute in 4k at the full 60 frames per second which is great for action movies. Also the film format has no future. In the future the move will be to digital holography which I believe is impossible with film.

[Guest]

Also the film format has no future.

 

Tim Tyler,

 

Can't we inflict some sort of severe physical pain of people who keep saying this?

 

I'm thinking along the lines of people getting an electric shock from their keyboard, generated by the forum, when people say such stupid things as "the film format has no future."

 

Not a very big shock, just one big enough to stop their hearts for 4-5 minutes, that's all.

[Dan Goulder]

With Red Digital Cinema you can distribute in 4k at the full 60 frames per second which is great for action movies. Also the film format has no future.

Don't get too far ahead of yourself, as you're salivating over a product that still exists primarily as a concept, rather than an actual, working device. However, I will wager you that, if this camera does at some point actually get produced, it will both COME and GO as a viable production device (as well as most current HD technology) prior to the demise of film.

[David Mullen ASC]

Film is only "dying" in the same sense that we all are dying, and it will be around for most of the professional lives of everyone on this forum except for perhaps some pre-teens here. And anyway, it has no relevence to the world of TODAY -- nor the world of the tomorrow of the next several years.

 

We don't make decisions based on the way movies will be made in the future; imagine all those 1930's directors making b&w 1.37 Academy movies instead deciding to wait until color widescreen cinematography was commonplace by the mid 1950's!

 

So talking about whether film will be around in the future is an academic exercise with little practical value. The world in which we live and work in NOW uses a hybrid of film and digital technology.

[gordon liron]

I know but how are you going to learn film making if the cost of film processing is out of reach?

 

 

I have a problem with this statement. There are many students who enter this field thinking they are going to change the industry and have high asparations in producing something huge....rather than learning the craft. When you play a guitar for the very first time, you don't play hendrix...you learn the fundamentals. Several students skip this part because they are impatient.

 

I have personally budgeted a 4 minute 16mm non-synch for $600. I know that in my experience from starting with video and then moving to film...I learned so much more from the challenges of film. I remember attending a tour at UCSC and some film student who was attempting to persuade parents and students that digital was better. I remember him saying that digital was more forgiving...(maybe if your retarded)..He had said he had experience and had shot 200' of film. I couldn't keep it in and laughed at him. Anybody can learn film...there is a price no matter what format you choose. Sure it isn't cheap for a feature but neither is a feature with a genesis. I don't think its fair to say you can't learn film just because you can't afford to make a feature on film.

 

 

 

 

Tim Tyler,

 

Can't we inflict some sort of severe physical pain of people who keep saying this?

 

I'm thinking along the lines of people getting an electric shock from their keyboard, generated by the forum, when people say such stupid things as "the film format has no future."

 

Not a very big shock, just one big enough to stop their hearts for 4-5 minutes, that's all.

 

 

Richard,

 

I think this is the wrong attitude to take. These people have a sickness. Maybe an intervention where some of us chip in $20 and buy these guys a can of film and processing. We show them their dailies and then it will hit them. OH, I GET IT NOW....IT NATURALLY LOOKS LIKE CINEMA...ONLY NOW DO I SEE THE ERROR OF MY WAYS! :)

[Brian Dzyak]

If I can pipe in again with an unsubstantiated opinion. :D I have to believe that the vast majority of "film is dying" people out there aren't really destined or aiming to be Director's of Photography. The loudest voices here denouncing "video" seem to be demeaning "non-professionals" ... those would tend to be of the younger set in a different generation...people still in or just leaving film school. The thing about those kind of people is that most of them aren't really interesting in being cameramen. The primary interest is in being "storytellers," ...ergo, Directors or "filmmakers" in a more general sense. So they truly don't give a flying F*** if filmstock can carry 4 more stops of latitude than the more economical digital format they CAN afford. What they want to do is to have an affordable gateway technology that enables them to tell their stories and hopefully attract the attention of an industry which could back their entry into the professional realm. They "announce" the "death of film" as a response to the legions of film "elitists" who would rather circle the wagons and denounce anyone who dares enter the realm of narrative without the proper film format. Film "traditionalists" have their personal preferences and reasons for wanting to shoot film, but it is expensive, especially for young aspiring storytellers. Having an affordable alternative enables them to tell their stories.

 

Leave them alone. Do what you want and let them tell their stories and let "life" decide what is worthy or not. :)

[Joe Taylor]

With Red Digital Cinema you can distribute in 4k at the full 60 frames per second which is great for action movies. Also the film format has no future. In the future the move will be to digital holography which I believe is impossible with film.

 

 

Man, I hope you're just trolling and not serious. You sound about as informed as the media when they "write" the same drivel about film being dead.

 

And tell us about your experiences with the mighty Red. Did you enjoy using this camera? Last I saw, it was a glorified concept camera.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I agree with whoever said we should take up a collection and get these kids a can of film and processing. When I first made the move from digital to film, I wondered if it was a mistake at first. I shot one roll, got it processed, and when it came back and I held that print up to the light, it was over baby. Film had won my heart for good because the image was unlike anything I ever expected. It was light years ahead of what I COULD DO (not saying it was ahead of what someone else could do) on digital. Even with a couple years practice with digital, my first roll of film blew it out of the water. I think if some of these kids would give film a chance, they would probably never want to go back...even if it meant being patient for money.

[Guest]

Having an affordable alternative enables them to tell their stories.

 

Leave them alone. Do what you want and let them tell their stories and let "life" decide what is worthy or not. :)

 

Certainly any serious filmmaker who wants to get his work into a film festival these days has a much harder task ahead of them. Every festival, big and small, is flooded with cheap DV crap from these so called "story tellers." This means the festivals have to wade through this waist high bog of hideous digital garbage. Each DV "film" having the same traits, way too long with shots way too long. I wonder why that is? A mini DV tape costing only $7.00 for one hour of shooting could have some thing to do with it.

 

Fact is DV has not in any way raised the quality of work out there, it has made it spiral down to the bottom, now that my grandmother can shoot her "artistic vision." Yeah yeah yeah I'm an elitist, big flying deal.

 

Then of course there's the stock footage industry, the web is now over run with the worst amateur hacks on the planet, each one claiming to be a "cinematographer." As they run around "filming" stuff with their DV camcorders. Again, now the the customer has to wade through a waist high pile of poop to find the quality work that is being stiffled by the weeds of DV shooters.

 

Just once I'd like to get a hold of one of these kids and say, "If you're going to shoot DV at least use a bloody tri-pod!!!!!"

[Chad Stockfleth]

Excuse me for saying DI when what I meant was transfer...now who is being an elitist?

Since when do only students use RANK?

 

You asked what he was talking about, and after your tirade on using proper names for things it was a little funny. The student remark was in regard to your misadventures in film class being the basis of your argument against people who are using high-quality digital formats and calling themselves cinematographers.

 

This thread has gotten way off track from talking about the title of videographer or cinematographer to being about amateurs and professionals and film vs. video. As far as what to title yourself, another thought might be if you get PAID to do a certain job, you can call yourself that title.

 

I personally have no problem with students/newbies or their productions. I'm glad a technology came along to put a fairly high-quality media in peoples hands on the cheap. It doesn't hurt my feelings if they want to call themselves cinematographers or whatever because if we are up for the same job, I think my work will speak for itself.

 

I totally agree with you that film is a marvelous and beautiful thing, far superior to video(thought the gap is closing). I love the textures and latitude and even just holding the strip of celluloid, but don't rip on people using "lesser" media because it fills a niche too and can look beautiful in it's own right.

[Deepak Bajracharya]

This thread has gotten way off track from talking about the title of videographer or cinematographer to being about amateurs and professionals and film vs. video.

 

Well, chief assisted for more than 35 features on 16mm to 35mm ( blow up ) projects. Shot two full length features, one on 16mm to 35mm and the other on super 16mm to 35mm wide screen. Equally shooting on BetaSP, DVcam and miniDVs. Definitely looking forward to shoot on 35mm anamorphic and HD format. Now shooting almost no-budget culture based documentary using my 3ccd GS 400 handycam. So, where do I stand in between cinematographer or videographer?

Regards,