New Film School

[not valid]

Hello All i am new to this forum and trying to get the word out for a film school that i am a part of.

BTW great forum i will learn alot from here.

Anyway

I am Part Of The Armidale Film and Television School in association with TAFE.

The school is a reasonably new school and is the only film school available in the Country NSW region. If by any chance their is anyone reading this post and is intrested in learning filmmaking and lives in the New England area of NSW i strongly recomend you attend this school. This is my seceond year at the school and i am extremely impressed with the progress the school has made.

Unfortunatly at the moment due to budget constaints we are only using mini DV 3CCD cameras but eventually with more funding and more projects we will be able to upgrade to film.

We are using Final Cut Pro, Motion, Pro Tools, Livetype, Soundtrack, Imovie and DVD pro on G5 imacs.

The school now has 4 teachers. Stephen Dobson A.C.S, Stephen is an extremely talented DOP who won an AFI award for his work in the film Ground Zero, He has also worked on Moulin Rouge doing the DOP for the minitures, Heartbreak Hotel and various other films, A very talented enthusiastic caring and intelligent man.

Peter Lawless who is also a teacher at the school is quite popular in Australia for his talents in location Managment. Peter has worked on The red planet, Eucylyptus (cancelled), Babe and lots of other features.

Paul Fogo, Paul has worked for many years teaching at UTS and producing documentaries for Museums internationaly. He has also spent time in Tibet teaching Monks the art of filmmaking.

 

This is just a quick intro about the school if anyone is interested send me an email and ill tell you everyhting you want to know.

[Guest]

They can't even buy you a few K-3s to shoot 16mm on?

 

Not even Super 8?

 

Richard

[Dominic Case]

Knowing the sort of budgets that TAFE (NSW Department of Technical and Further Education) colleges have to work on, the answer is probably "no". But it wouldn't just be the camera(s). Unfortunately stock and processing is an expense that can only be reduced a certain amount: and there is certainly a lot more to cinematography than lighting and exposing for film.

 

I can't believe it's me saying that: I certainly believe you can't leave any film school as a cinematographer without film experience on real film. It's just a real world fact that things don't always happen the way they should.

 

As for "a few" Krasnogorsks. . . . just one would probably be a luxury!

 

I also wonder if it is smart to learn on a camera that you are very unlikely to use professionally.

 

Still, Stephen is doing a great job out there at Armidale. FIght for the filmstock, guys - and bring it here!

[not valid]

Thanks for your support guys

 

Yeah it is unfortunate that we can not afford Film Cameras as i am keen to learn to light for film. Buying a camera is not the issue as allready mentioned the issue is paying for the processing and film that we use. At the moment we are doing alot of television style shoots ie. Multicam setups. As you can imagine doing a 7 camera shoot on film is alot more expensive then using digital. Personally i belive the distant future in filmaking will become digital so i suppose alot of the work we are doing is relevant in that form.

 

The money to begin working on film would be great but realistically it is out of the question at the moment especially when considering that we are doing close to 20 shoots at any one time. Thats alot of film stock.

 

It is great that you have heard of our school and that we are begining to become noticed, steve and the students have put alot of hardork into this school and it has the potential to be one of the largest film schools in Australia it is definetly growing at a huge speed. The school started with 30 students (roughly) This year it has doubled meaning that we are getting even more exposure and work. Allready we have filmed commercials and one awards for our work. In fact i have just finished Doping a film clip for an up and coming country music star named Brock Colley (Bad Name but still a good artist {sorry Brock}) His clip will be screened on the country music channel very soon. Check it out tell me what you think. This clip was shot on our digital equipment the same as our commercials so their is potential for digital products.

 

Thanks again for your support.

[Guest]

"Unfortunately stock and processing is an expense that can only be reduced a certain amount:"

 

Yes that's true there is also stock and processing, but I'm not sure I buy this argument coming from a "film" school, which is really a "video" school since you are not shooting film.

 

I shot over 20 Super 8 films as a high school student, bought all the stock and paid for the processing via my work at the grocery store.

 

In film school I shot tons of film, on 16mm, stock and processing paid for by me via side jobs. All of my classmates did the same, no one ever complained, that's part of film school.

 

"I also wonder if it is smart to learn on a camera that you are very unlikely to use professionally."

 

Well come on Dominic the K-3 idea is to get the students hands on experience working with and shooting film for a low cost, vs buying a SRIII. There is absolutely no replacement for experience when it comes to film, you can NOT learn it reading books. You must shoot, develop view, shoot develop view......on and on and on.

 

How did I become such a brilliant cinematographer? :D

 

Thanks to my opportunites shooting stock footage I am shooting 35mm every WEEK, and in transfer 2-3 times a month, every month. Just from repetition I able to see, learn, and improve on a constant basis. I don't have to wait long periods between shoots and I use all types of film stocks under a wide variety of conditions, plus I have a way to pay for it all.

 

Yes I know not every one can do that, my point is that it's repetition using film that has advanced me. If I was Jake I, I would buy my own K-3 and start shooting while he has access to some very talented pro DOPs at his school. They will be happy to help him, but how can they if no one has a film camera handy?

 

Heck this is such a sob story I'm tempted to donate one of my K-3s and one of my Konvas 35mm cameras, then at least the folks down under can give film a try.

 

Question: How did Auzzie develop such an amazing kick ass film industry under such conditions?

 

Look at Canada by comparision, 12 million more people, and no film industry to speak of. I don't consider Hollywood films shot in Canada to be "the Canadian film industry."

 

Richard

[Robert Hughes]

Let me get this straight. You've got 3CCD cameras, G5 Macs, Final Cut Pro - and you can't scratch for a used film camera? My most recent Bell & Howell Filmo 70-DR (with lens) came off of eBay for $29 US. I slapped a roll of TriX in it and it came out perfect.

And I process my own film for about $5 a roll.

 

You can buy a lot of Filmos for the cost of a 3CCD camera.

[not valid]

The Issuse is that to cater for 60 students using film cameras is a tedius task. The first year in this school is desgined for people with little or no knowledge of film. There is alot of students that are interested in alot of other film areas other then cinematography (unfortunate for me). The Tafe system will only fund money to us if we are spending money in areas that will benefit not only our students but students from digital media graphic desgin audio engeneering ect. (its the unfortunate way tafe works) I would love to buy a film camera but, as all i have been working with is digital im unsure as to where i would look to buy a second hand camera as my budget is beond tight.

 

I will do my best to try and get us a film camera at the school maybe from the profits we are getting in from doing promotional and to some extent community work. We have just about finished buying our audio gear which is good seeing as we have some orchaestral filming to do very soon.

 

So the bottom line is digital is working fine for the students unless they are aspiring to have the best job in the industry DOPing like myself. On the plus side more time to work on my shot composition and get a better understanding of lighting setups. If i can get some stills of the stuff i have been working on ill post them here and hopefully get some feedback.

 

Thanks again for your support.

 

The Film Cameras will hopefully be on the way soon. (crossing my fingers)

[Dominic Case]

Well come on Dominic the K-3 idea is to get the students hands on experience working with and shooting film for a low cost, vs buying a SRIII. There is absolutely no replacement for experience when it comes to film, you can NOT learn it reading books. You must shoot, develop view, shoot develop view......on and on and on.

Look, I really agree with you. And I think I indicated that in my previous post -

 

I can't believe it's me saying that: I certainly believe you can't leave any film school as a cinematographer without film experience on real film. It's just a real world fact that things don't always happen the way they should.

It's certainly true that you must shoot film to know film. What I'm saying is that there is a lot more to learn that you CAN learn using video, and that ought to preserve funds so that when you come to shoot on film you can do it properly, and get experience on a professional camera at the same time.

 

It's also a complaint about every practical course in every college (not just film) that students don't have the latest industry equipment to learn on. If you go to learn practical skills so as to become employable, then you need to have industry-useable skills on industry-used equipment. I expect Jake would acknowledge (I'm guessing here, but am I right?) that the digital department recognises this: it's certainly the case in other colleges that I'm familiar with. Older versions of software don't cut it! What they have to do in Armidale is find the most cost-efficient way of getting the most relevant film training, and take that to the accountants and administrators.

 

Question: How did Auzzie develop such an amazing kick ass film industry under such conditions?

Well the truth is that it was and still is exactly those conditions that helped. The generation of cinematographers who really got the ball rolling in the 1970s (Russell Boyd, Peter James, John Seale, Dean Semmler, etc) had miniscule budgets to work with. They had to light and shoot fast, and make no mistakes. Many of them grew up shooting reversal for TV news and current affairs - no latitude, no chance for grading - and when they got to work on features, they retained those skills. One light work prints (no feature could ever afford graded rushes) are a great leveller! Only the best and the most dedicated survived. (That's nothing new though!).

[Guest]

"as all i have been working with is digital im unsure as to where i would look to buy a second hand camera as my budget is beond tight. "

 

Go to www.ebay.com, type "krasnogorsk".

 

Problem solved.

 

RDCB

 

BTW Jake, is that a cigar you're holding? Interesting look for a renegade filmmaker, but just use it as a prop don't smoke it. Other wise you won't be around long enough to get your film career off the ground :o

[not valid]

QUOTE

Well come on Dominic the K-3 idea is to get the students hands on experience working with and shooting film for a low cost, vs buying a SRIII. There is absolutely no replacement for experience when it comes to film, you can NOT learn it reading books. You must shoot, develop view, shoot develop view......on and on and on.

 

Look, I really agree with you. And I think I indicated that in my previous post -

 

I also agree with this but there is alot to learn about film rather filmaking that you do not need a camera for ie. Language of film (i know this is basic stuff but it is esential) dealing with producers, Clients, butts (no offence intended mere personal experiance) composition, Angles, budgeting, lighting (to an extent) lighting techniques, teamwork, OH&S (unfortunatly) general filming experiance. I beleive if i try to apply for AFTVRS or work experiance, clapper loaders positions, with knowledge and experiance in the above areas then i am far more likely to gain the position as opposed to not having that experiance. Im sure that with conducting shoots as profesionally and practically as i can then i will pick up the differences with film very quickly.

I also believe that film (you may disagree) is coming to an end and digital will be the standard in the not to distant future.

 

regardless i have spoken to steve and he is going to supply me with one of his old film cameras as well as workshops in using film.

 

 

  "as all i have been working with is digital im unsure as to where i would look to buy a second hand camera as my budget is beond tight. "

 

Go to www.ebay.com, type "krasnogorsk".

 

Problem solved.

 

I can afford the camera i just cant afford the processing. I live in the country about 5 hours from Brisbane and 6 From Sydney so the stock will have to be sent away to be procesed in one of those places, meaning as well as processing costs i will have to pay postage. For me the most sensible option untill i start earning more money is digital.

 

BTW Jake, is that a cigar you're holding? Interesting look for a renegade filmmaker, but just use it as a prop don't smoke it. Other wise you won't be around long enough to get your film career off the ground ohmy.gif

 

Renegade indeed that avatar is actualy a picture of won of my idols Che Guevara but i do strangely look quite similar to him, so much so that i have a picture of him on my wall and my (sortof) Daughter points at it and says Jake. I suppose that is a compliment hehehehe.

[Guest]

"I also believe that film (you may disagree) is coming to an end and digital will be the standard in the not to distant future."

 

Yes, I disagree :D

 

As will most on this forum. I hope they are not teaching you this nonsense in school?

 

Digital will be the standard for what? Cheap poor quality?

 

If it is coming to an end I wonder why I don't see more signs of this? In North America for instance 99% of high end nationally broadcast TV commercials are shot on 35mm. And film is still the standard for Hollywood movies, regardless of George Lucas using that silly HD camera that needs 15 strong men just to move it.

 

There was a stat posted on the forum around the time of Sundance this year, it reported that the vast majority of submissions where actually shot on film, very few HD shot submissions.

 

You would think that if HD where to be making in roads any place it would be with indy film makers?

 

And as I have pointed out before the current HD tape formats will end up on the scrap heap of history the same way 2", 1", & 3/4, did. And now look at Beta SP, once a standard now well on it's way out replaced by DV Cam, and DV Cam will be replaced by......

 

Film is eternal, learn it.

 

Richard

[not valid]

Im Glad you believe it richard. I think it is good that people have faith in the original medium. By no way am i trying to dishonur film but film stills cameras are becomming more and more unpopular and due to the fact that digital has the potential to A. becoming more high quality then film.

Digital is by far cheaper then film because stock does not need to be processed.

 

Basically what i am trying to say is the technology is still relativly new of course the quality is not going to be as good as film YET. The potential that digital

[not valid]

Im Glad you believe it richard. I think it is good that people have faith in the original medium. By no way am i trying to dishonur film but film stills cameras are becomming more and more unpopular and due to the fact that digital has the potential to A. becoming more high quality then film.

Digital is by far cheaper then film because stock does not need to be processed.

 

Basically what i am trying to say is the technology is still relativly new of course the quality is not going to be as good as film YET. The potential that digital has means that it is very possible that film will eventually become obsolete.

 

Digital can be smaller, Digital can be cheaper, Digital can be more accessible, and eventually digital will become better quality.

 

much like that old hair commercial it wont happen overnight but it will happen.

 

Richard you have to understand the potential that digital has.

 

You are completely right at the moment it is nowhere near what film has but you said your self that some of the entries in sundance were digital. i can almost guarentee five years ago the amount of digital films in sundance was alot less. year after year the digital phenomina will increase untill the point where shooting on film will be so expensive and time consuming )comparred to digital) that it will not longer be used.

[Guest]

"Richard you have to understand the potential that digital has."

 

Well no offense but I've been in the business working professionally for a lot longer than you have, so I'm well aware of the "potential" for digital. I get access on a weekly basis to ultra high end gear and facilities, and the people who make it tick, so I have solid base of information to work from.

 

Film isn't just some thing to "believe in", that's like saying air is just some thing to "believe in".

 

Buy any HD camera and because it's electronic it will imediately begin to go obsolete, because some newer and better electronic gizmos and gadgets and always being developed.

 

Have you any idea how many 20+ year old film cameras are still in service and doing a great job? How many 20+ year old video cameras are being used today.

 

You forget that film is a chemical process, video is electronic, which means that video will never really be like film or have the same "feel."

 

Plus keep in mind that Kodak and Fuji are constantly making break throughs with newer and better stocks. Stocks you can just plunk into your existing film camera.

 

I've said this once, I'll say it again, a lot of film school students these days say things like, "Richard you have to understand the potential that digital has." Because they don't have the self discipline to learn how to shoot film. Video offers instant gratification, which is some thing the younger generation of "film" makers crave.

 

Richard

[Tom Wills]

Hey Guys, first post here but long time lurker, I just felt the need to comment on the comments about younger filmmakers wanting to use video.

 

Well, yes, I am an incredibly young filmmaker, (I just got hired as a DoP on a low-budget DV film), and I do shoot digital. The thing is that I learned digital after I learned 35mm still and learned various types of Motion Picture Film from my father, a cinematpgrapher of more than 40 years. I really love film and the asthetics it has, and I love the simplicity of it all, but for me digital has a time and place. It's not perfect for the biggest, best features out there, but it's perfect for those with low budgets, simply because of the cost, and it also gives a look which I love. Even with the most simplistic of cameras, a great image can be made if you understand how to shoot properly. DV isn't perfect for everything, but then again neither is film.

 

Well, now to get down off of my soap box. Have a nice day. :D

[not valid]

Buy any HD camera and because it's electronic it will imediately begin to go obsolete, because some newer and better electronic gizmos and gadgets and always being developed.

 

Exactly what im saying the technology is improving daily meaning everyday it is catching up to the quality of film and everyday it is getting new features to make processes using film easier and easier.

 

Have you any idea how many 20+ year old film cameras are still in service and doing a great job? How many 20+ year old video cameras are being used today.

 

Very true also reinforcing my point that film cameras have hit their peak because 20 year old cameras are still being used digital will hit this point somewhere in the next 50 years where the improvements made to the digital cameras will be so petty that noone will bother upgrading.

 

 

You forget that film is a chemical process, video is electronic, which means that video will never really be like film or have the same "feel."

 

I feel this is true to a certain extent but technolgy will be released for digital cameras to almost exactly replicate the style of film. Possible effects will be created so this can be added in post-prod.

 

Plus keep in mind that Kodak and Fuji are constantly making break throughs with newer and better stocks. Stocks you can just plunk into your existing film camera

 

The same thing is happening with digital to some extend.

 

I've said this once, I'll say it again, a lot of film school students these days say things like, "Richard you have to understand the potential that digital has." Because they don't have the self discipline to learn how to shoot film. Video offers instant gratification, which is some thing the younger generation of "film" makers crave.

 

Your wrong about this one i would pefer to be using film my self it is just that economically for me that is not possible so i use digital. I mean sure it doesnt look as nice and it doesnt have the classic sort of feel to it but im sure learning alot from it and realise that their is a good chance in the near future that clients will be looking for a more digital feel for their products. (this is when the technology improves) and allready some clients cant pick the difference.

Take for example this situation. Steve was telling me that he was doing a big job for farm safety a few years ago and for reasons out of their control they couldnt get access to a film camera or the processing or whatever screwed up ( not important) so the ad was shot on digital but the client was under the impression that it was shot on film and was not any wiser after the Ad was relased. It goes to show that allready some people do not realise the difference between the product. I would say the majority of people would be like that. It is only the ones with the trained eye that realise.

 

I want to get it straight that i am not trying to bash film in any way. I am merely saying that digital technology is pushing forward so quickly that it will be recognised as an equal to film in time and because of the bonuses of digital i think it will become pefered to film.

 

I think you might say we agree to disagree on this one Richard.

[Sebastian Matthias]

hello everybody!

i´m new in this forum (normaly hang out in the steadicam-forum) and

actually just looked for a school to learn a bit more.

it´s pretty much of a show-down you are doing :D

i´ve got a little to say to both of you:

jake,you are probably right when you say that digital is the future.here in europe hd is becoming bigger and bigger . the main reason for this is that

most productions want to offer the newest technology to their customers,to be ahead of other productions. (everyone´s got a beta-sp,but if you have a hd-camera you just can get more money from your customer ).also the possibilities you have in the post are enourmous.even most tv-stations upgrade to varicam or something similar. in my personal opinion hd will be the standard,just as beta-sp has been the standard for such a long time. and yes, the digital cameras become better all the time and more and more movies will be shot digital.

nowadays there are 2k-cameras that even allow you to change all parameters as you want to. (the ARRI D-20 for example.wich has a big fat ugly cable,soevery steadicam-öperator like me would hate it :blink: )

just now the"kinetta" came out,wich has a hard-disk to record on and its also very small (a bit bigger than the a-minima from aaton).it also uses prime lenses. BUT: although all this new technology is really amazing

i don´t believe that film ever dies!!!!

since digital becomes standard, the "top league" allways will want to shoot on film and because everyone wants to shoot like the "top league"

everyone will want to shoot on film. film is just the real thing !´

that has to do a lot with ego.

and i´m not sure if ever the real film-look can be created digitally.even if you use a p+s pro35 together with a top end hd-camera.

film has survived 100 years,why should it die ?

and:digital does not mean less money. in my believe you can just shoot as cheap on film as you can on hd. when the shots are carefully planned

and time for rehearsing is taken you might just need 3 takes instead of maybe 10 (because tape is cheap).also the post in hd is very expensive.

 

opinions to this topic will be allways very different ,but also evryone should be open to new technologies. never know what your next customer wants you to shoot on :blink:

 

pretty long post for my first post on this forum!

 

all the best to you and get a filmcamera

 

sebastian-loves-to -write-long-posts matthias

[Robert Hughes]

The film versus video argument has been flayed for thirty years and isn't going to be resolved any time soon. And most people on this board have shot enough film and video tape to realize that each format has its place in education and the world.

 

What is causing the uproar here, though, is that Jake is calling Armidale a "new film school", teaching beginning filmmakers without investing in film equipment. Here in the USA they call that mentality "bait and switch", a clever con job to separate students from their money without providing the advertised product.

 

If Armidale Digital Television School is a more appropriate name, that accurately and honestly describes your program, why not use that?

[Dominic Case]

a clever con job to separate students from their money without providing the advertised product.

I understand Robert Hughes' point, and from a distance it may seem that is what is happening.

 

But it's a very far cry from the truth. TAFE (College of Technical and Further Education) is the government system of post-secondary education in Australia. It is publicly funded (by the states, not federally) at a scandalously low level, and charges ludicrously low fees to students in order to provide accessibility to all, regardless of their wealth. Fees for a Certificate course are a few hundred dollars, no more. Not sure exactly what level course Jake is on, but it's absolutely NOT a money-making venture for the college. No way.

As to the idea of a film school that doesn't shoot on film, there may be some argument about that if it's a purely cinematography course. But for a more general film course, let's get real and recognise that the physical recording medium is only a very small part of it all.

 

Are we going to object to digital entries at the Sundance FILM festival? Please, grow up. I've got more issue with calling it a school - it's a college, which teaches not only screen production, but also, inter alia, Business Administration, Massage, Chainsaw operation, Woolclassing, and Resopnsible Service of Alcohol (this last one is a required qualification for all barhands and waiers in licenced restaurants in NSW - probably the most useful qualification a filmmaker can have in these tough times :P

http://www.tafensw.edu.au/featnews/film.htm

[not valid]

Of course it is a film school i mean come on guys you cant be so naive to think just because we arnt shooting on film it means that we arnt learning film making. As Dominic has said their is alot more to film making then the medium. On the plus side we are working on getting a 35mm camera soon but as i have said previously we are a long distance from the closest processing place and having 65 students shooting day in and day out on film in a TAFE college is just not possible, Especially considering alot of the shoots that we are doing are multicam shoots. As far as i am aware to do a multicam shoot using film would mean that we need to purchase a new vision mixer as well as processing for the 4-7 cameras that we use.

 

On the TAFE note what we are trying to do is establish the school in association with Tafe rather then another faculty of Tafe, so that we keep the prices down for students (which i feel is terribly important otherwise i wouldnt be becoming a filmmaker) and make us available for additional funding from other sources. If we were to be another faculty of Tafe then what would happen is any donations to the film school or any grants or any money in general would go directly to Tafe and be spread around all the faculties rather then just the film school.

 

Do you understand the predicament we are in?

 

Just because we arnt using film it doesnt mean that we are inferior filmakers to school that does use film. As a mater of fact i have been watching some of the UTS (university of Technology Sydney) short films who do use films and without being patriotic or egotystical at all i believe some of the shorts we are making far outdo the majority of their work.

 

Doesnt the word school imply Learning? and we are learning about film so how is that false advertising?

Film is not just a medium its an industry.

Edited May 5, 2005 by Jake I

[Alessandro Machi]

A suggestion.

 

A Beginner's class film project could be shot on Super-8 film. It's the quickest way to hammer home the importance of contrast, exposure, AND shooting efficiently. I think Black and white Super-8 film would achieve this goal.

 

Rather than a film versus digital debate, I'm pointing out that the two most common ways to learn production are shoot a lot of digital and edit even more, or metciulously plan most or all of your shoots, shot by shot, and shoot in film. The planned shoots tend to be film because one usually has less film to shoot than video, and the efficient use usually is related to the higher cost of shooting on film.

 

Both learning methods are entirely valid, what I disagree with is only teaching one of these two methods and ignoring the other method entirely.

[Robert Hughes]

It appears I stand corrected on the current usage of the term. "Film" as used by Jake et al refers to the art, business and technique of motion picture production rather than the chemical versus electronic medium employed.

 

From wikipedia: "Film":

 

"Some films in recent decades have been recorded using analog video technology similar to that used in television production. More recently, many films are being recorded with a digital video camera and later projected using digital projectors and/or transferred to film. One of the major benefits of shooting digitally is that decisions can be made without waiting for the film stock to be processed."

 

Just a note: when I went to film school, we shot film. When someone asked the instructor why we didn't shoot video, he welcomed us to do that outside of class. And so we did.

Edited May 9, 2005 by Robert Hughes

[not valid]

It appears I stand corrected on the current usage of the term. "Film" as used by Jake et al refers to the art, business and technique of motion picture production rather than the chemical versus electronic medium employed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If someone said to you that they are a film-maker would you then believe they were involved with the creation of the medium?

 

 

Update: Last week we bought a copy of combustion. The premeire of NSW also came up to open the building that we have been in for the last two years¿ (the building opened in 1929 it makes no sence to me) Anyway he had a tour through the film school and he was actually a guest on a shoot that we were doing at the time. The outcome will hopefully be a nice juicy check in the mail to help build the school as the regional AFTVRS so depending on the amount that we get (if we get any im being optimistic) we will hopefully be buying a few film cameras. So their is still hope in the near future.

[Robert Hughes]

If someone told me they were a videographer I would expect them to be shooting video. I would expect a filmmaker to be making a film.