Jump to content

Calling your video project "a film".


Tim Tyler

Is it OK to call your 'all video' project 'a film'?  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it OK to call your 'all video' project 'a film'?

    • No
      15
    • Maybe
      5
    • Yes
      18


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

I guess you?ve never been to ?Steak and Shake?. They have exellent hamburgers that they call "steakburgers". Not sure why, but it doesn't change the fact that I LOVE their food! :D

 

Unfortunately, like McDonald?s, my stomach can only handle small doses.

 

Justin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

Again, I think it comes down to common usage: most people understand the difference between a hamburger and steak, whatever a dictionary says is a secondary definition of "steak", or even what McDonalds decides to call a hamburger. You can't easily alter cultural trends in language usage (unless you have the mega bucks of a mega corporation and they sometimes fail to ignite popular acceptance of a new concept or word usage.)

 

So I think this is a pointless exercise in trying to correct a popular trend to call movies "films" irregardless of the shooting medium. Besides, what do you call mixed-media films -- "a film/video by..."? What about non-video but nonetheless digital additions to a movie, like CGI? With a little film? "A semi-film, mostly digital production with a smattering of video by..." Do we have to get the DGA involved in deciding when a movie has a large enough percentage of film used for the photography to qualify for the "a film by..." label? Should the credits for "Collateral" read "A 70% Video / 30% Film By Michael Mann"? Or "Sort of A Film By Michael Mann If You Don't Care About Accuracy"?

 

When enough people use the terms "movie" and "film" interchangeably, there's not much you can do to reverse the trend. Personally, I've got better things to think about than whether I am technically a "cinematographer" or a "videographer" when I'm shooting an HD movie, or a "director of videography" (DV) instead of a "director of photography" (DP), etc. Should the ASC be changed to the ASCV? Do you REALLY want to open this can of worms, over WORDS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

"Personally, I've got better things to think about than whether I am technically a..."

 

Or more INTERESTING things to think about. This whole thread is funny. I?ve seen better drawings than paintings. What difference does it make?

 

In ten years, we'll all think this was funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think it's kinda funny now...!

 

People get in the strangest arguments over words. It never fails to amaze me. I mean, it's a valid point, but it's NOT the point. A movie is a movie. If you want to call it a film, you can do that too. It rolls off the tongue better than "video" anyway. And then similarly, "music video" sounds better than "music film" which just sounds sort of awkward.

 

I guess it's good that people question the English language, even if it sometimes seems petty and ridiculous. On the other hand, people make a lifetime out of squishing everything into neat little categories and slapping labels on them, instead of just enjoying them for whatever they are. We do it to each other, we do it to the music we listen to and the FILMS AND VIDEOS we watch, and it goes on. As someone who still gets called a "goth" whenever I happen to wear black clothing and eye makeup on the same day, I have very little patience for these things.

 

It's all just motion picture anyway! We could start calling them "talkies" again! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're getting a little confused, too, about what the general public calls a film and what the people who produce movies would call film/video. In this discussion, I thought we were talking from the view of production people. David is correct about the GP not knowing or caring what it is shot on though there are many knowledgeable folks who appreciate the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you don't decide what films to go see by their budget, but instead by artistic merit, then why should the technical format be the deciding factor (unless you are a DP studying movies)? "Honey, there's a great picture shot all on 100 ASA Kodak stock playing uptown? Do you want to see it or the push-processed 500 ASA film down the street? You know, the one that used the #1/4 ProMist? What, you want to see that Super-16 blow-up at the Ritz? Are you joking?"

 

lol.

 

i have an indie DOP friend who actually talks like that.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I think this is a pointless exercise in trying to correct a popular trend to call movies "films" irregardless of the shooting medium.  Besides, what do you call mixed-media films -- "a film/video by..."?  What about non-video but nonetheless digital additions to a movie, like CGI?  With a little film? "A semi-film, mostly digital production with a smattering of video by..."  Do we have to get the DGA involved in deciding when a movie has a large enough percentage of film used for the photography to qualify for the "a film by..." label?  Should the credits for "Collateral"  read "A 70% Video / 30% Film By Michael Mann"? Or "Sort of A Film By Michael Mann If You Don't Care About Accuracy"?

 

LOL!!!!!

 

Must admit- as a low end sub film student recently finished shooting (and producing) DVCAM shorts ready to shoot HD next year, I don't feel at all arrogant enough or entitled to say I have recently shot two "short films". There are guys out there (and girls) shooting regular 16/35mm, HD, Digibeta, 65mm or even DVCAM shorts with THOUSANDS, TENS of thousands of $$ with all of that pressure, client production companies etc and even for a wage! To draw attention to my work that way, to hint at dropping it into that league just seems like irresponsible false advertising to me, and that will only catch up with you. That is strictly however from a "professional status" perspective.

 

The irony is however that soon film will be out the window and everyone will shoot HD or whatever the later digital technology will be. Here's some controversy for you (and not everything I write I neccessarily agree with- just want to get minds ticking): I really want in to film school next year, but let's face it, paying to learn to shoot film with all of the costs etc when it's in it's last years is a pretty dumb idea, longterm. The disciplines of film and video are SO different, a world apart in how you record an image. Monitors, clipping, compression, Hz, etc. So long as the lessons and tricks of film adaptable to the video world are learned with the fundamental technical/historical info of the photochemical medium, what's the point in PAYING HUGE amounts to gain experience to shoot on film now? Before all the purists jump up and egg me for blasphemy, I doubt half the pro DPs who visit this board each day could confidently shoot slow speed b/w moving images today with a handcranked camera, yet they shoot brilliant colour FILM today. Or what about great film cameramen who haven't used the digital camera technology yet and probably never will right up until everyone is shooting digital? How does this all affect status and permission to boast they have shot "film" in the future?

 

Is HD film or video?

Edited by fstop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Now, if McDonalds started marketing their hamburgers as "steak sandwiches" some people would feel cheated and some people would accept it.

 

First you have to question whether or not those things they sell at McDonalds are actually hamburgers or not. That's certainly debateable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
but let's face it, paying to learn to shoot film with all of the costs etc when it's in it's last years is a pretty dumb idea, longterm. The disciplines of film and video are SO different, a world apart in how you record an image.

If you can light for film, then you can light for video. The same is true with operating. Learning the in's and out's of the cameras is no big deal for the most part. If you're intention is to be a D.P., then learning to shoot film is the best thing you can do for yourself, whether you think it's on it's last legs or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can light for film, then you can light for video.  The same is true with operating.  Learning the in's and out's of the cameras is no big deal for the most part.  If you're intention is to be a D.P., then learning to shoot film is the best thing you can do for yourself, whether you think it's on it's last legs or not.

 

If you can light for video, can you light for film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, if you believe that it's HARDER to light well for video, then why not?

 

But ultimately, a person who is good at lighting would manage to do good work on video or film. Good lighting is good lighting; you generally don't make huge conceptual leaps to work in one format or the other, you just make adjustments for how the formats handle dynamic range, just as you would if you were shooting film but it was color reversal or skip-bleached negative, etc. Would you say "he can light really well for skip-bleached negative but does he know how to light for normal color negative"?

 

Trouble is that some people believe there is something called "video lighting" when they are really thinking of lighting used for projects traditionally shot on video, like soap operas, news, documentary interviews, etc.

 

HD is video, by the way, at least current, commonly-used HD technology is. I don't know if someday when we have pure RGB data recording if we'll still call it a "video" camera. Is the Dalsa Origin a "video" camera?

 

In terms of film school, you can learning lighting on video, yes, but if you want to shoot film someday, at some point there are things to learn that are specific to film. Not so much about lighting, but understanding issues of density, grain, printing, negative size, presentation mediums and technologies, transfers to video, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it's easier for clients to understand you needing to "film" something as opposed to "videotaping."

Of course, if you say "tape" they think VHS and then the next logical step "I have a video camera, why am I hiring you again?"

Then there's Ron Dexter, who says that the principles are the same, lighting, framing, etc. It's just the medium that's different- it all goes to video in the end anyway.

Of course, it would be hard to call Monster Garage a film piece, but of course, no one's going to go to a theatre to see it either. I guess it's harder to say that something is 'Cinema' if it's done on video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm one of those 4 people that think it's perfectly acceptable to call your project a film regardless of orginination medium. The problem we're arguing about has more to do with the English language than filmmaking. This may be obvious, but the word "film" is used to refer to two different things: 1) the light-sensitive substance onto which an image is recorded, and 2) the sequence of images that have been edited together to tell a story. For the second definiton to be true it does not matter if the origination medium is photochemical or magnetic. No one would claim that the images recorded onto video tape are film--the substances are obviously different--but it is perfectly logical to say that the sequence of video images that you have put together to tell a story is a film.

 

If you can light for video, can you light for film?

 

Lighting for video I find to be simply different than lighting for film. The more limited contrast range of the medium forces you into artistic choices that you would not neccesarily be forced into if the orgination medium was film. The irony of course being that the entire time you're lighting video, you're generally trying to make it look less like video and more like film. In the end interesting lighting is interesting lighting, and a good story is a good story, regardless of how the images were created.

Edited by Matthew McDermott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of film school, you can learning lighting on video, yes, but if you want to shoot film someday, at some point there are things to learn that are specific to film.  Not so much about lighting, but understanding issues of density, grain, printing, negative size, presentation mediums and technologies, transfers to video, etc.

 

 

Interesting you say that David, because the first half of that stuff can be learned (unarguably) to a much more fulfilling degree by learning how to process and print still film. I personally know a dozen people who have all had the privilidge of shooting 16mm shorts who have only been told how to use a light meter, expose at neutral and go by that rule, it happens on film course ALL the time- let's not forget how many times yourself and others here personally have had to explain the science of haylides, push-processing, grain, printer lights, etc. to PRACTICING FILM DPs, all of whom would've benefited from going into a dark room after exposing their film and going through all the processes to see the science behind the art.

 

I am perhaps biased having come from stills, however alot of stuff I learned to get very specific and exact on film (pushing slower stocks, printing down on interiors, playing with the whites on tungsten film) has all been n/a when working with video. You are about to go for a take, you look at the monitor and think photographically it's all tip-top then all of a sudden the lightbulb goes on and you realise you can't print down due to "clipping"...

 

Phil Rhodes past and ongoing comments and posts on the snobbery surrounding filmVS.video I find to be particularly true: If you light DVCAM too dramatically it looks like a video recording of a theatre production; if you light DVCAM too naturalistically it ends up looking like news footage! VERY difficult to get the balance, and if the story itself sucks, the "cheapness" of the video format will be one of the first factors in line to get the blame. Phil's Noise Vs. Grain argument is also oh so true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on the side of it not being OK.

 

I mean, you can call anything whatever you want, and yes, there are many slang words for things, and nobody gets riled about that, but the primary definition of something is the right definition of something.

 

However, the word "film" does mean something, and I think the fact that there are so many DV/ Video shooters who have so highly touted the "digital" thing as being "just as good as film", or even "better than film", that IF you're going to take a stand on the quality issue, then by that same amount, you should clearly identify with your format of choice.

To me, it smacks of cowardice.

They will eagerly engage the "digital vs film" war, saying it doesn't matter, etc., then they will jump over and seek extra credibility by calling themselves "filmmakers".

I just don't buy it.

 

If I'm wrong, then why do DV/video shooters get so riled when I call them a videomaker?

The term means something, and they just don't want to wear that title.

They consider it demeaning somehow.

Well, so what. If you don't like it, then shoot film, and be an actual "filmmaker".

 

Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... The irony is however that soon film will be out the window and everyone will shoot HD or whatever..."

 

I gotta keep saying this over and over.

 

I've been hearing this since 1986 when I first heard of HD from my instructor when I took engineering at Soundmasters Audio/Video in N. Hollywood.

He had just seen HD demonstrated, and he said:

"In 5 years all TV sets will be HD, and nobody will be shooting film anymore."

 

That's 18 years ago, kids, and it hasn't happened yet.

 

I have no idea why people still think this is eminent, as if it's just a year or two away.

And yes, people thought I was an idiot when I said this ten years ago (some of them have now become greater film snobs than myself!)

 

Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

?If I'm wrong, then why do DV/video shooters get so riled when I call them a videomaker??

 

Why rile them up in the first place? Of late, I've been lucky enough to shoot more film than video and I?ve never read a script I thought would be better shot on video, but it?s not that often I?m given a choice. I like to shoot film as much as the next guy, but it?s a little silly to ball up the word ?videomaker? like it?s an insult and hurl it as some guy that shoots video out of necessity or (gasp!) actually prefers it.

 

Whatever the definition of ?filmmaker? is, the general public thinks it?s someone that makes movies. So why deny somebody (who works just as hard as the rest of us) this title when their making movies? When did the term ?filmmaker? become the ?Stone Cutter?s Club?. I?ve heard some say they didn?t consider themselves filmmakers until they landed their first paid job. That?s fine. They can call or not call themselves whatever they want. However, wouldn?t it be a little silly to demand everybody else be called ?unpaid filmmakers?? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest lonedog

Does anybody know what is a good price to pay for a 1962 EK Holden carburetor?

......................What?........................Sorry................. Wrong forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will eagerly engage the "digital vs film" war, saying it doesn't matter, etc., then they will jump over and seek extra credibility by calling themselves "filmmakers".

I just don't buy it.

 

If I'm wrong, then why do DV/video shooters get so riled when I call them a videomaker?

The term means something, and they just don't want to wear that title.

They consider it demeaning somehow.

Well, so what. If you don't like it, then shoot film, and be an actual "filmmaker".

 

Matt Pacini

 

You're right Matt some people don't want to wear that title because of the stigma that goes with it. Low quality,etc. I don't think it's deceptive.

 

What if the "filmmaker" started years ago shooting on film and now he shoots video? Is he not a "filmmaker' anymore? It's just semantics, people who make narrative pieces (as opposed to pure news and commercials) are called filmmakers. They are also "Motion Picture" makers, whether video or film. I think it's the "videomakers" intention to align himself with the narrative group and not the video (i.e news) group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear this will be my last post in this thread....

 

Should the credits for "Collateral"  read "A 70% Video / 30% Film By Michael Mann"? Or "Sort of A Film By Michael Mann If You Don't Care About Accuracy"?

 

I saw "Collateral" projected in 35mm. That movie was shot with a 'film finish' in mind. Michael Mann shot it on video (mostly), but he was making a film.

 

I know what you're saying, David, and I don't entirely disagree.

 

I just think that, unless motion picture film is factored into the project, people who are saying they're 'making a film' should think twice about that, and maybe say 'movie' or 'video' or 'motion picture' instead of 'film'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> If you don't like it, then shoot film, and be an actual "filmmaker".

 

I think that may be one of the most childish things I've ever heard on the subject. Oh, shoot film! Just like that! Once you fund me, you get to say that.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I've only called someone a videomaker once, and we had a laugh about it 'cause he was a friend.

It's not like I'm constantly insulting guys shooting video. One time only.

 

My point is, it just gets ridiculous when you meet someone, and you're having a conversation about what they're doing, and their conversation if choc full of:

"I'm making this film, and.. "

"we're making this film..."

"...and then we were filming this scene..."

" ..and then, while we were filming, this car pulls up..." blah blah blah,

 

Then when I ask what format they're shooting on, and they say "oh, we're shooting on DV".

 

It's ridiculous.

I don't see why you can't say "we were taping this scene", etc.

It's just that there are so many of these people that insist on using the right "jargon" to make themselves sound like all their filmmaking hero's. It's an image thing.

 

It's not as if video is "so new" that there's not yet established words and phrases for what you're doing yet, so you have to keep saying "film" and "filming" when it's really not.

 

Seems to me, that this has only popped up really, since the "digital is going to kill film" debate first reared it's silly head, with the hordes of beginners trying to look in every way, to be just as good as "real" film shooters.

Having said that, I do agree that if it's a film finish, it certainly is correct to call it a film.

But if I'm shooting DV, I'm not going to describe it as "filming", it's going to be "taping" or "shooting", and I don't see anything wrong with that, just like I don't see anything wrong with shooting video.

 

If you're embarrassed to be "taping" then either get over it, or don't shoot that format.

 

Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...