The Digital BANDWAGON...

[robert_cissell]

i agree. thankfully the school that i go to teaches everything from broadcasting, to mini-dv, to 35mm, so that is great. out of the different mediums of movies film is by far superior because of (like you said) the diversity of it and the amount of personal style and technique that can be added that cannot be done with video.

[Kev Owens]

To be honest Alex, I think that nowhere near as many people have any experience at all with film, and that Mini-DV is the easy (and possibly lazy option). Depending on the sort of movie, digital may suit it. But as you point out there are some fantastic filming techniques that can only be achieved with film, plus of course the actual look of it.

Why don't you start your own Super-8 Film school? You could strike rich!

[Alex]

You bring up an excellent point Kev. At some point, a HYBRID Digital School that teaches Digital Filmmaking AND also the concept of Film Origination, Digital Destination, may prove to be a better learning experience than a VILM School that simply teaches digital filmmaking concepts only.

Only a charlatan will somewho link the amazing things that you can do with digital editing equipment with the notion that you must originate on the Mini-DV platform.

The most logical reason to ONLY use Mini-DV for camera acquisition, the firewire interface, has been superceded by the growth of many non-linear editing systems that provide both an ease of use and are very affordable.

Why not feed your NLE system some projects that originate in Mini-DV AND other projects that orginate from Film? Most Digital schools don't offer the film option because the money spent on film, processing, and transer is money that could be going into the schools pocket, pure and simple.

You could shoot 3 super-8 film projects, including buying the camera, buying, developing the film and then transfering to to video, for under a thousand dollars.

Since most Vilmmakers nowadays already own a digital camera, the video schools don't want to tell them to buy any other gear when that money could go into "educating" that vilmmaker while subsequently padding the Vilm School's pockets.

[Alex]

I was just thinking of all the amazing in-camera techniques that can be achieved by shooting with film, Super-8 film to be exact.

For the life of me, I just can't understand why anyone would ONLY shoot in Mini-DV. It seems so ridiculously stupid to ONLY SHOOT in Mini-DV.

When I begin to multiply the 9 available film stocks with the numerous filming speed choices, plus shutter angles with generous zoom lenses, I can get literally hundreds of combinations of filming techniques that can then be further enhanced by editing digitally, (if one feels the need to not cut the film).

Why ONLY start with a Mini-DV image and then get all excited because it can edited digitally, SUPER-8 FILM can ALSO be edited digitally, yet Super-8 Film can create so many different looks BEFORE you have even imported it into the computer.

I hope the VILM schools wake up and realize how idiotic they are by ONLY offering Mini-DV classes.

You people who encourage your VILM students to ONLY shoot in Mini-DV and forgo Super-8 altogether need to take a good look in the mirror and realize just how big of a charlatan you have become.

[Alex]

Robert, you hit on the solution. BOTH video and film techniques provide a well rounded education.

[Mike Buckles]

I enjoy the convenience of video, but love the look of film! I saw Terminator 3 today, and it does look like it was made on film...if it was made on video, I tip my hat to the videographer for pulling it off! Anyone know if this movie was done on film?

[Alex]

Hey Mikey B, I spent 45 minutes trying to find the answer. [img]eek.gif[/img]

What was Terminator 3 Shot on???

[cameraguy]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 29, 2003 06:26 AM: Message edited by: cameraguy ]</font>

[vt220]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">Originally posted by cameraguy:
I fail to see why they bother shooting on film if they are just going to scan it all to digital and turn it into a video game cartoon. Of course I'd rather them use film just so that it stays around longer.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

um, cause it's more forgiving, more mobile, offers a greater lens/camera selection, and looks better?

[cameraguy]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 29, 2003 06:26 AM: Message edited by: cameraguy ]</font>