I agree with Kev...I think that you could post the links in the "Film Cameras" sticky but this does seem to come up all the time.
Good Luck
Printable View
I agree with Kev...I think that you could post the links in the "Film Cameras" sticky but this does seem to come up all the time.
Good Luck
...which is why I suggested the whole thread be sticky.
Isn't that the point of sticky? For frequent topics?
If you don't want to do it, that's ok, this message board isn't my life, but I just thought it would make sense.
But I also understand you don't want to clutter the board with stickies.
[img]graemlins/dog.gif[/img]
But it's OK to rave about all the digital cameras that in the end are all very similar.
It's as if Kev O. has turned into another "person" from a year ago.
This topic was skillfully advanced by the author when one considers how easily it could have sounded like any other film vs video thread.
Yet Nigel, a film guy, ends up agreeing with Kev O.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree. TFL questioned how people spend their money; verging on telling people to stop wasting their money on luxuries and save up to use film- that's not a skillfull advancement Alex, that's personal and plain out of order! That goes further than any video Vs. film debate so far.Quote:
This topic was skillfully advanced by the author when one considers how easily it could have sounded like any other film vs video thread.
Plus didn't you read that Nigel only agreed about the thread not becoming a sticky? So what does it matter that he's a film guy? Should we be arguing?
Who is actually trying to turn this into a film Vs. Video debate Alex? Funny that you raise your ... "head" as soon as you get a sniff of a film Vs video debate.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[img]graemlins/sleepy.gif[/img]Quote:
But it's OK to rave about all the digital cameras that in the end are all very similar.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hahahahahahaha!Quote:
It's as if Kev O. has turned into another "person" from a year ago.
The primary message of this thread is to forget the idea you can't afford film and just buy a cheap film camera and learn how to use it.
As for being able to afford the film camera, the second idea presented was that if one adds up money spent on certain "luxuries" and simply gave up those luxuries for a while the film camera could be afforded, and that those "serious" about advancing their knowledge base would do so.
As for what this has to do with video, there I have a different opinion. How much video you shoot actually has no relevance to what you do with film.
Shooting strictly video can make one lazy in the respect of trying to learn how to shoot efficiently and wisely. One uses a very different thinking process when shooting with film instead of video. The different approach one uses when attempting even a small project in film helps round out the overall camera experience.
I've seen rank cintel operators fumble with a transfer scene because they didn't understand what the camera person did because they were clueless about how the scene was created. Do you really want to be clueless filmmaker who doesn't know what film is or how it works?
Just learn baby.
On the other hand, all the time spent learning as much on the computer is actually more important than learning a film camera because it can give you hireable skills.
The conclusion from my point of view is stick to just the computer if you hope to get a paying job someday working for someone else. If you hope to make your own films and sell them, completely understanding how film works even if you continue to shoot primarily video, will give you an edge.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I've seen it argued repeatedly that shooting far more footage than you need constitutes 'lazy' film-making. While it's true 90% of the time, if you say to the actors 'Can we go again, I just want to try something' the result is crap, that means that you still have some shots that you would never got if you had been in a position where every minute of footage was costing you more than 5p.Quote:
Originally posted by Alex:
Shooting strictly video can make one lazy in the respect of trying to learn how to shoot efficiently and wisely.
Many commercial films are storyboarded and shot on sets which have been specially constructed to allow the predetermined shots to be played out. However I imagine that many contributors to this board are in a similar position to myself, and rely 100% on locations. When on location you can't just slide a wall out of the way to widen your angle. You have to adapt/compremise constantly. The plus side of this is you can see and use things that you had not previously thought of. You can climb up a fence onto a roof and get someone to pass the camera up to you, and shoot down, if you want to try it. And if it doesn't work, you just climb back down, and have lost very little.
As for the cost of video vs. film. While a student, a friend and I made a 82 minute feature for ?200 (borrowed camera, tapes ?65, microphone and cables ?80, props + costumes ?55). Now I think film looks great, and am glad it is currently more accesible than ever before, but how much film and camera would I have got for ?65.
To me at least, the argument of film vs. video (the title of this thread) is a little like Michellangelo (the artist, not the ninja turtle) complaining about the invention of the coloured pencil.
[img]graemlins/thinking.gif[/img]
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 10, 2005 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Kev O. ]</font>
I would still say that the affordability of film is a grey area, perhaps in the 'film cameras sticky' Alex, TFL and Nigel (possibly Generic?) could post their film stock suppliers, where they get stuff processed, how much film they use etc. as I know that at the end of the day film users are always eager to educate people as to the costs of flm use.
As it goes Alex gave me some good advice a while back about getting a super-8 camera and the best companies to use for post etc.
That type of information is helpful. [img]graemlins/film.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/film.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/film.gif[/img]
I agree with Kev on a lot of things Kev agrees with me on a lot of things. TFL and I agree--sometimes we disagree.
It just so happens that this topic tends to become a flame war about who has an opinion they see as being truth.
The links are valuable and they should be added to an already existing sticky. That is that. The thread should go on and live out its natural course. Of you said--I say...
Good Luck
Actually, I Cage Fight for money, however, I don't make much more than it costs to stitch up my face. Like I said, I am still poor after taking you're advice, and still cannot afford film. What's the next step to be film maker? Get my wife pregnant and sell my babies through the Thialand Black Market. Just like when I was a kid in middle school, I am constantly oppressed for not having as much money as the "other" kids. I would like to stress once again that this is a Guerilla Film Makers forum, I thought that it would be a place where people who want to learn to make films who don't have the means to do so, i.e. Film School; $5,000 to buy a Canon for that "independent" look; and freaken wealthy Grandparents to fall back on if you have to declare bankruptcy due to you're latest achievement, CSI: The Movie. I guess I'll have to google another forum. I wonder if there is a "Just Give Up Because Modern Day Capatalism Doesn't Have Room For Free Thought, and Good Films Unless You Have Enough Money To Finance Yourself, and Have Tried Selling All You're Junk, and Still Can't Afford Film, Just Kill Yourself Because Nobody Cares About You're Art Forum" I'd like to check that out.