Calling your video project "a film".

[Brad Grimmett]

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".

 

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From what I've observed in the past it appears that many of those people just flat out don't know the difference. When they say "filming" they don't even realize that that's not what they're doing. They think that if you hit the start/stop button on a camera (no matter what the format) you are "filming". They're just ignorant of the facts. Of course, I'm sure there are plently that say it for the reason you mentioned above as well.

[Jon Allen]

The reason I say "film" at a video shoot is simply because the people I'm dealing with simply don't know the difference.

"Shoot" is misunderstood way too easily.

Say "Record" and you get a lot of blank stares.

"Videographing" just sounds funny and means you need to elaborate more to those involved.

However, if you say "filming" while holding a video camera, people tend to take you seriously at least a little bit.

Ron Dexter on Vid vs Film

http://www.rondexter.com/library/film_vs_video.htm

[John Sprung]

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,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I have a pre-1910 hand crank camera that I restored back in 1978. I shot a test on it using 5247. Very disappointing, it was sharp and steady, not much different from what you'd get from an Arri or Panaflex.

 

As for the disputed term "film", to me it means that I'm going to see actors performing pre-arranged scenes for the camera, subsequently edited to tell a story, or to make me laugh. Whether the production, post, or exhibition technology is photochemical or digital I really don't care. Tell me it's a "video" and I come expecting one piece of current popular music with a lot of visual creativity, but no story or jokes. Again, which technology where in the chain doesn't matter.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Sam Wells]

"Actually I have a pre-1910 hand crank camera that I restored back in 1978. I shot a test on it using 5247. Very disappointing, it was sharp and steady, not much different from what you'd get from an Arri or Panaflex."

 

 

:D

 

My favorite post of the year....

 

-Sam

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

This thread reminds me of an old studio audio engineer who used to get pissed because people wouldn't know what he meant when he said Cue and Review.

[John Sprung]

My favorite post of the year....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks .... ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Matt Pacini]

Actually I have a pre-1910 hand crank camera that I restored back in 1978.  I shot a test on it using 5247.  Very disappointing, it was sharp and steady, not much different from what you'd get from an Arri or Panaflex.

-- J.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is funny!

I had a brief interest in getting an old 35mm camera... until I saw them going for thousands of dollars on ebay!

There's quite a collectors market for these things.

 

How sharp are those old lenses?

 

Matt Pacini

[John Sprung]

How sharp are those old lenses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lenses? You get one lens. Using different focal lengths is a newfangled high-end professional big-time movie idea. So is using film to tell stories and jokes. ;-)

 

The lens on this one is a later modification, 47 mm f/2.5 Taylor Hobson Cooke. From the patent dates, it's from the 1920's. It's not so difficult to make sharp lenses if they don't have to be terribly fast. The one test I did was just an ex-girlfriend's ex-roommate walking towards camera, magic hour exterior. So, my judgement of sharpness was purely subjective.

 

(Come to think of it, the woman in the test, Jo Carson, was working at ILM last I heard. Could it be that it's a small enough world that someone here knows her?)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Edited December 1, 2004 by John Sprung

[Cris Moris]

If someone has a project say a feature length narrative, or a documentary for that matter. And that person hires a 40 person crew, and it takes 6 months to finish, and the final product has a theatrical release, an then video, but was shot on a video format, is it not valid to call that project a film?

I guess Mike Figgis should refer to Time Code as a video. Or Soderbergh should call Full Frontal a video. What about Blair Witch Project, Super Size Me, The Weather Underground, The Star Wars Episode (yeah try to convince Lucas he didn't make a film).

 

I think this is ridiculous and I have to agree with Mr. Mullen that the word FILM is used interchangeably to describe a motion picture and it all comes down to linguistics.

I bet Noam Chomski would fine this thread amusing.

 

I too have made films shot on my XL1, because it was what I could afford at the time. But the video format also lends it self to documentaries because you can keep the camera(s) rolling for a fraction of the cost.

 

The process is still the same. You write script, you seek funding, you get it produced, shoot, edit, and then show it and hopefully if you are lucky get a diistribution deal.

[Rob Belics]

No. It's a movie. You would be using the term "film" incorrectly.

 

For that matter, when I am generating a totally computer based scene including actors can I say I am filming? No. I am not using film. I may output to film for projection but in no way am I filming. Neither is a videographer "filming" while recording to tape.

 

Another problem we have here is how do you differentiate between one medium and the other if we use the same word to describe both? Why should you have to be unsure when someone says they are filming as to whether it's on film or video tape?

[Matt Pacini]

OK, i don't expect anyone to call themselves "videographers", or say "we're taping", etc.

But I see no reason why it would be insulting oneself, to say:

"We're shooting a scene" instead of "we're filming a scene", or say:

"We're making a movie" or "We're making a feature", instead of saying "We're making a film".

 

Word do mean something, and slang is slang, but using slang, (when it actually has a specific DIFFERENT meaning as part of the same "jargon" that is used in the very same art/industry), in place of technical terms that have speciic, useful meanings I think just doesn't fly with me.

The term "video" and "film" actually mean something.

 

To me, this makes as much sense, as if you were on a set, and a DP said "get me the Zeiss Super Speeds" and you go over to the lens case, and see only an old, crappy Angeniuex zoom.

As you're scratching your head, he says "yeah, that's it!" because he's too embarrassed for anyone to know he's shooting with inferior glass.

 

Understandable, perhaps, but ridiculous.

 

Matt Pacini

Edited December 2, 2004 by Matt Pacini

[Sam Wells]

"How sharp are those old lenses?"

 

"Lenses? You get one lens. Using different focal lengths is a newfangled high-end professional big-time movie idea. So is using film to tell stories and jokes. ;-) "

 

When he was colorist at Tape House John Dowdell put out a great DVD, shooting 5245 on his 1911 Williamson camera. I don't know what the lens on that thing is, but the pix look pretty nice !

 

-Sam

[John Sprung]

I have that DVD. Jon Dowdell's Williamson is a much fancier and more professional camera than my Ensign Cinematograph.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Sam Wells]

"Jon Dowdell's Williamson is a much fancier and more professional camera than my Ensign Cinematograph."

 

But will your clients see the difference ? :D

 

"Love that Williamson look"

 

-Sam