digital overboard

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr Blackstock:

I do understand that editing is a very important part of filming, but if i may quote a member out of context, "the most important [aspect] of filming is the twelve inches behind the viewfinder"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't like to brag but....

No, I understand what you are saying. It's just that discussing a visual medium in a written forum is like the local Classic Car Club getting together via a conference call instead of meeting in the Kmart parking lot on a pleasant Sunday afternoon. We are reduced, by necessity, to what we can talk about and how we can commnunicate. No kicking the tires at this meeting. So, it's not surprising that various discussions drift off topic.

I think that there are still plenty of people like those you describe. However, applide technology is a natural progression. After all, one doesn't HAVE to use a light meter to calculate exposure, but it sure makes for a more consistant end result. One doesn't HAVE to send their Ektachrome in for processing, but it certainly keeps the kitchen cleaner.

In my opinion, people are attracted to super 8 because it offers the classic "film" image for (theoretically) the least possible money, depending on the skill of the user. Raising the awareness of available tools to assist that user is hardly heresy. Some people can handle cutting their original without scratching it and some can't. Everyone's skill level at handling spagetti is different. If digitizing and editing electronically works better for them than a Ciro splicer, then who am I to question their methods or their desire to share those techniques?

Personally, I have a bigger issue with those that talk endlessly about making a movie and never shoot a frame. In that context, as much as I dislike video, I would rather see a noble attempt in video that failed (if that's all they had to work with) than another vaporware movie on super 8 that never materialized a frame.

In short, at least we are a forum of do-ers and not just talkers.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited January 05, 2002).]

[rollemfilm]

it sounds like mr. blackstock (i may be wrong) does not like editing. as if this is not a creative pursuit. the "film" is made in the edit. even if you shoot in series, you edit in the camera. to have a film concept to your moving pictures you must have some type of edit process. when i first started to shoot film, i would shoot in series. this is a great learning tool and can be very successful, however, with super 8 you are limited by the camera in most cases to create many special effects that are created in editing. cameras like the bolex h8 are more versital. then we move on to sound....as another point, i don't feel too many topics are "off". filmmaking is a very strange medium. it requires constant study and on many topics. just pick one part of filmmaking like scripting. the knowledge required to create this part is vast. where do you end the conversation? this is why filmmaking requires so many people. just some random saturday morning thoughts....

------------------

[Mr Blackstock]

To put the cat among the pidgeons....with everyones reliance on digital transfering, editing, and transfer back to dvd or vcd or vhs et al, not to mention the inevitable focus on software compatibility, and hardware conflicts, would super8 forums run the risk of becomming computer film editing and transfering F.A.Q pages?


I do understand that editing is a very important part of filming, but if i may quote a member out of context, "the most important [aspect] of filming is the twelve inches behind the viewfinder" (i think thats what they said)

What happened to the film makers who did not spend thousands on a camera? nor hundreds on lighting kits? nor more hundreds on computer systems and cards?

Where have the creative people gone? Who don't superimpose scenery digitally, who spend time planning a script, instead of downloading a "script" writing program, who struggle to master a shot, take after take, instead of relying on post editing to correct their errors or to enlargen their lack of creative "spark."

I am not attacking people who have done all this and want to express their creativity further, nor am i attacking beginners, like myself. I am merely exasperated at the lack of creativity in the amatuer film world, people seem only intent on expressing their own elusive, often sensless, view of their world, which is often very small and only understandable to them and their mates.

So many films i view are similar to private jokes, "you had to be there."


------------------

[Matt Pacini]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr Blackstock:
"Where have the creative people gone? Who don't superimpose scenery digitally, who spend time planning a script, instead of downloading a "script" writing program, who struggle to master a shot, take after take, instead of relying on post editing to correct their errors or to enlargen their lack of creative "spark."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think you're making some broad assumptions, based on your own stereotypes of what you think of filmmakers, and lack of experience. I have a feeling you have been neither of these examples you give.

As one who has cut an entire feature ON FILM, then switched to digital non-linear editing, I can tell you, it's the norm now, because it's simply a better and more efficient way of accomplishing the same end.
It's not any less creative, it's more creative, and it wasn't invented to "fix what was wrong" with the shoot, or "sloppy shooting" or whatever. And anyone who intentionally shoots sloppy, and says "we'll fix it in post" is screaming to the world their ignorance about how to make a film, and all the slickest software in the world is not going to save their production from looking like crap, if they work like this.
You are highly overestimating what these tools are capable of, the exception being multi-million dollar budgets, where they can have a room full of people doing CG to make a poorly directed movie at least look slick (Star Wars Episode I & II being prime examples...) But that's not who you are talking about.

You're assuming that if someone does the one thing, then they can't do the other.
The fact is, that these things you list are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Sure, tools that make things easier, open the floodgates for the hordes of the untalented to rush in, mediocre films in their hands, claiming "I'm a filmmaker".

But that's doesn't mean that's the inevitable result when talented people use the tools.

P.S. Scriptwriting software DOES NOT WRITE YOUR SCRIPT FOR YOU. It just helps with the formatting, and other things to speed up the process.
It's not any more "cheating" than using a computer is cheating, over using a typewriter to write your script.

Matt Pacini

------------------

[dogstarman]

My thought is (and everyone chime in if I'm way off here) that the reason many on this forum spend a lot of time concentrated on the digital editing aspect of the craft is that, until low-cost PC/Mac based editing come along, editing was the one aspect of S8 filmmaking that kept the gauge in the stone ages. Really. One could get a great camera. One could get good filmstock. Sound. Lights. All that. BUT, when it came time to cut that film... look out.

Most of the stuff that I have shot has been simple: wildlife, fauna, a couple of parades, christmas parties. But when I took those four reels of beautiful images I had shot at a botanical graden and started splicing them... I wanted to cry. Even with the best splicer and tape I could put my hands on, it was still jumpy, blurry at the splices, and worse: no matter how carefully I handled my film, I still got scratches, dirt, dust and all sorts of garbage on it. Not tons. But it was there.

So I'll counter your statement: IF I'm going to spend a lot of time planning a script (which I am) and I'm going to go to great lengths to get great images and have good actors, good sound, proper lighting, on and on... WHY IN THE WORLD would I ever electively let my film negative be DESTROYED in the editing phase?

And another thing: digital editing doesn't have to cost thousands of dollars. Yes there are compatibility issues if you have a PC. On the other hand, you can get an iMac G3 for $800, and there are no compatability issues, because iMacs have firewire ports standard and even come with a really quite nice editing program. It's not Premiere, but it works.

SRM

------------------

[PhillipF]

I have some good programs for my system, and I'm proud that I have them. In a lot of cases I NEED the digital technology to help me out. I like to make fantasy/sci-fi films so it requires a certain amount of computer help to achieve certain looks. However, the images are still originated on film. I agree with the above statements. You can have all of the best computer software at your fingertips, but if the FILMMAKER isn't any good - then the FILM won't be any good. I use a script writing program and love it. Like Matt said, it doesn't write the thing for me - nore would I want it to - but it helps the process along as far as formatting goes.
There is a film that I just completed writing. It's a sci-fi and it will NEED the help of computer graphics and traveling mattes. Does that make me a piss poor filmmaker? I don't think so. But I can appreciate and utelize the products that are out there to make my "little super 8 movie" better. (did I ramble? I think I DID. Sorry)

PhilF

------------------

[Mr Blackstock]

Well, the pidgeons have scattered and the cat is happy!

There are some damn fine points there, and yes i do edit, i do get frustrated, and yes i even am in the process of getting my footage onto computer.

The main reason for the post was to put an open call out there to see if people were aware of the dangers of misunderstood technology, computers are a god send without doubt, but they remain a tool only. A point i tried to make, (probably failed!) was...do people know of the fine line between using the tool to create, or using it to heighten the films effect without relying on the computer.

This "bent" of mine revolves around the number of people i come across who suggest the quick, easy way, without realising the benefits of doing it the hard way....like learning.

I am not judging a community i do not know(you lot out there) just stirring the pot!

------------------

[8th Man]

You know, this may be the most interesting discussion this forum has had in a long while. Not so much because of the specifics of the topic of digital editing, but because it seems like this board can so often become stuck in the details of rather small topics concerning bits of cameras and belts on a projector. Don't get me wrong, that sort of thing is VERY valuable, I just wish a larger percentage of topics leaned toward the other aspects of the craft. How to direct actors, why cuts work, when to fade as opposed to dissolve, story structure. The list goes on and on.
My point is that this forum is called super8 filmmaking and more often it seems to be super8 cinematography instead, and I think it's a crime to have peolpe whove done so much in filmmaking not discussing more aspects of the craft/art.
As for digital editing, it's an incredibly valuable tool that we all could benefit from, but I will add IMHO, that not even the best flying spot scanner can yet reproduce in the slightest the connection I get from experiencing film thrown up on a screen, or even a wall from a projector.
Nope, not even close. I could watch B/W reversal projected all day long, but on a t.v. it just looses so much.

------------------
PRM

[Matt Pacini]

8th Man, you're absoluley right.
I think I have an answer, or at least an opinion as to why (so what else is new?)

I think we tend to discount the effect that our mass commercialized culture has on us.
I'm not saying it's inherently bad, in fact, I'm a confirmed capitalist, so I dont' want to sound like a socialist or whatever.

It's just that if you scan all the current filmmaking magazines, (that I'm sure we all read) they are full of advertisements of what new goodies and gadgets are out there to make us all geniuses at whatever aspect of filmmaking we're invovled in.
(This is even more so in music magazines, that have about 98% ads for new guitars, synthesizers, digital effects, etc., then a couple articles about anything musical at all).

We see all this, and we ignore that it really does have an effect on how we think, but then when we talk about "where filmmaking is going" or whatever, it always turns into an argument about digital technology, or whatever.
What we all talk about and think about, to a certain extent, is what "they" tell us to talk about and think about.
This is just part of advertising, and it's fine, that's what makes the machinery work, and us all have jobs, etc., but we as artists, just have to realize the impact of this, and concentrate on ALL the things that make up our art.
Not to exclude the technological aspect, but not to have that be 85% of what we think it's all about.
Ultimately, I think my point is that the commercial message has gotten across: "Use these tools, and you will make it".
Unfortunately, the woods are full of people who actually got into filmmaking after having read all this stuff, and they DO think that the technology IS THE ART, not that it's a tool to the art.

I think a good excersize for these people, would be for them to have to cut something together just cutting the film itself, and still make it work.
I'm not suggesting they cut an entire feature this way, like I did. It almost drove me mad!

Matt Pacini



------------------

[rollemfilm]

i suggest too that if you have not taken the time to read "a slight degression" thread, please do so.

------------------