Generic Film vs. Video Thread

**Actor** · March 23rd, 2005, 01:37 AM

MY priorities?
<ul type="square">[*]Is a big screen flat panel TV or computer monitor more important than your filmmaking tools?
I thought both of these were filmmaking tools.[*]Is a nice car more important than your filmmaking tools?
Absolutely! Nice car = reliable car = way to get back and forth to work = way to put food on the table.[*]Is a DVD collection more important than your filmmaking tools?
About equal. DVD collection really does not cost that much when acquired one disk at a time over several years.[*]Is a two-week vacation that will come and go more important then your filmmaking tools?
Yes! Studies indicate that people who take regular vacations are healthier and live longer than people who don't.[*]Are video games more important than your filmmaking tools?
No. I don't play video games.[/list]

**Tasty Fish Lips** · March 23rd, 2005, 06:05 AM

Is a big screen flat panel TV or computer monitor more important than your filmmaking tools?
I thought both of these were filmmaking tools.

Not necessarily.

Is a nice car more important than your filmmaking tools?
Absolutely! Nice car = reliable car = way to get back and forth to work = way to put food on the table.

Nice car doesn't automatically equal reliable. Many nice cars are gas-guzzlers and rob you of that food-on-table money. Studies indicate that people who walk or ride their bike to work if possible are healthier and live longer than people who don't. You can also car pool.

Is a two-week vacation that will come and go more important then your filmmaking tools?
Yes! Studies indicate that people who take regular vacations are healthier and live longer than people who don't.

Depends on your perspective. For me, filmmaking is a vacation - can't think of anything else Id rather be doing.

[ March 23, 2005 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]

**Actor** · March 23rd, 2005, 08:43 AM

Nice car doesn't automatically equal reliable.

To me it does. If a car is not reliable it is not nice. Nice car = brand new Honda = reliable car.

Studies indicate that people who walk or ride their bike to work if possible are healthier and live longer than people who don't.

Key words = "if possible." Not possible for me. I work the late shift and get off at midnight. There is a bike path that I could use to get to work but it is closed at sunset. There no legal SAFE way for me to get home except to drive. And in the winter when the snows come, forget it.

You can also car pool.

Meaning I have to have a car for the days when it's my turn in the barrel.

For me, filmmaking is a vacation - can't think of anything else Id rather be doing.

I can think of lots of things I'd rather be doing, most of them involving the fair sex. Anyway the root word of vacation is vacate. Get away from it all. Even if I'm doing something I enjoy, like filmmaking, the pressures are still there if I'm at home. Of course I take some of my cameras on vacation with me.

And my vacations don't "come and go." They stay with me forever. Memories are priceless.

[ March 23, 2005 04:46 AM: Message edited by: Actor ]

somedeadguy · March 24th, 2005, 03:07 PM

My advice to The Imaginable Sean Moss: Stop being a fucking cry baby.

Everybody watch out! Apparently asking how to become a better film maker is considered being a cry baby, yet whining about the volume of "Generice Film vs Video" threads is perfectly acceptable on the "GUERILLA FILM MAKERS FORUM."

Sorry for shorting out you're server with my flood of tears, I promise I won't post again until I'm a "good" artist, which I guess doesan't happen until I've saved up enough money to buy a film camera? Sorry for once again lowering the financial standards of the forum.

**jb_617** · March 24th, 2005, 03:20 PM

I wouldn't worry too much about Peter_G, Sean. He thinks the Hitchcock was "shit" so you're never going to win against that kind of metality.

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

Ho hum...

**Actor** · March 25th, 2005, 02:58 AM

Responding to Tasty's initial post of this thread I'll start by saying that I'm essentially a film guy. All things being equal I'll shoot film.

But life is cruel. All things are not equal.
<ul type="square">[*]One advantage of video that is not related to cost is the immediate feedback you get. You can tell right now if you really got the shot. Film shooters can use video assist but the fact remains that you don't know what's on the film until you get it back from the lab. This has been hammered home to me. An entire shoot was a bust because of a continuity error that we did not know about until we got the film back.

With video you know immediately if the exposure is right. If the picture is in focus. Etc.[*]Back to the issue of cost, the really big cost of film is not the camera but the film itself. For me this comes down to super8/16mm film vs. miniDV. (I don't see digibeta in my future although HDV may be a possibility if prices continue to decline.)

For raw stock, processing and telecine super8 costs $16/minute; 16mm costs $30/minute. With a shooting ratio of 3:1 a 90 minute film is going to cost you $4,000 with super8. On 16mm it's going to cost you $9,000.

MiniDV costs 16 cents/minute. Your 90 minute feature will cost $50. That's with a 3:1 ratio. But why limit yourself to 3:1. Even if you don't re-use any of the tape you can be a new age Stanley Kubrick and shoot 100:1 for only $1,500.

Now you can call a high shooting ratio "lazy filmmaking" if you want, but Kubrick was not the only great who shot high ratios. William Wyler was another. And the way Sidney Lumet described shooting 12 Angry Men he must have burned a lot of film.

I recommend Edward Dmytryk's book On Film Editing. Dmytryk rails against the director who "edits in camera", shooting only what he thinks he will need and neglecting to shoot coverage. Dmytryk calls this false economy. For the indie who is financing his project out of his own pocket it may be a necessary economy. The one who shoots video needn't burden himself that way.[/list]I've yet to shoot video with actors in front of the camera. So far my video experience is limited to home movies and vacation footage. But reality has raised its ugly head and forced me to re-examine my commitment to film. $9,000 is a lot of money. I'm beginning to think that it would be better spent on what goes in front of the camera instead of what goes into the camera.

**peter_g** · March 25th, 2005, 06:15 AM

I consider my telling you to stop being a fucking cry baby very sound advice. You see, no one here, least of all me, gives a shit if your vision is never realised in any meaningful way. That is not to say that yours is not a valid vision, or one not worth listening to. I don't care that you cannot afford to buy film stock or clothing; these things do not concern me. Naturally, if one uses better or more expensive equipment, all other things being equal the results will be better. Naturally, if one has a lot of money one is in a position to buy nice things like film stock and Aaton cameras. You?re economic status makes film inaccessible to you. Shoot something good on video. Innovate, try harder, be better. Most people have a preference for that film look. What you consider to be pompous arrogance is, in fact, just people liking nice things. Alternatively, you could continue to be a whiney, immature, homophobic, self-righteous turd. You could put a message at the start of your films: ?The film maker could not afford to shoot film. Please adjust your bourgeois preferences accordingly?.

I think that it?s fucking hilarious that you?ve linked the film Vs video debate to anarcho-syndacalist class struggle. If nothing else, I have to give you points for originality.

**Actor** · March 25th, 2005, 09:20 AM

What about the fact that you will have to spenbd huge bucks to color correct you tapes to match during your online?? Or the fact that you will have to run some major interpolation to get the colors to come up to snuff and even then they will look like shit?? Video be it MiniDV or HD has a big black hole on the back end to get it to look half way decent. The biggest issue with MiniDV is color. It just can't hold enough color information and it starts to fall apart very very quickly unless you throw a bunch of money at it.

Really?

I've been shooting video for 20+ years, albeit just vacations and home movie stuff, and it all looks just fine to me. That includes the VHS from the 1980s (which I've copied to miniDV) as well as the latest stuff from my $400 single chip miniDV. Just shoot it, import it to iMovie, edit and make VHS copies. I've never done any color correction.

I had a college teacher who liked to use the term "chasing zeros." His specialty was low temperature studies. Chasing zeros referred to the practice of spending tons of money to get an incremental increase in performance. In his particular field he said he could do plenty of research at 4K. By spending a million dollars you can get the temperature down to 0.04K. Ten million will get you down to 0.004K.

To my mind spending big bucks for color correction is chasing zeros: order of magnitude spending for incremental improvements in quality. If I chase zeros I'm going to price myself right out of the game.

I don't think my potential audience is any more discriminating than I am, at least not about color or picture quality. What they notice most is the story, the acting and (although they are not aware of it) the editing. I.e., the cinematics, not the cinematography. To rephrase the last point of my post, put your money in front of the camera, not into the camera.

**MatJimMood** · March 25th, 2005, 10:29 AM

I'm interested in what Nigel is talking about.

Are you refering to consumer level miniDV or to HDV?

What do you mean by having to spend loads of money on colour correction? I do colour correct all my footage but i just use non-linear editing software.

I've also started to use magic bullet on some of my footage which helps a bit (in the right circumstances).

What about the interpolation? Is there a more advanced way of doing it beyond what home computer software can do?

Colour is shit on miniDV and thats something that has bothered me ever since i started using it. I often desaturate the image and adjust the contrast or just shoot completely in B&W so the image doesn't look as flat or shitty.

What are the methods you can use to improve the colour that cost a load of money you are talking about?

I'm about to start shooting an important project for uni and i'd like to know these things before i start incase they help in anyway.

**jb_617** · March 25th, 2005, 10:30 AM

Actor:

the trouble is that none of that stuff will be broadcast quality, and at the end of the day, that's the name of the game for most of us.

Nigel is just trying to say that professional film and video costs are roughly the same. Film costs are slightly higher because production costs a bit more because the wages are higher.

As for the out of focus etc argument. At some point you have to accept the fact that you need talent to do this. We know we "got that shot" because we're good at what we do. Except me, but them I'm a writer [img]wink.gif[/img]

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

I have a wicked head cold.

Thread: Generic Film vs. Video Thread

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions