Generic Film vs. Video Thread

No matter what you call the thread, or what it seems to be about, essentially it becomes a film vs. video debate/argument.

Most people agree that right now, film is better than video, even though the word "better" is subjective.

Those who shoot video say that they have no choice - that it is financially more practical.

I shoot film. I am not a millionaire. Not even close. I have bills to pay just like everyone else. I know people who shoot film, and are also poor, or close to it.

Take control of your life. Be creative. There are ways to afford film. If you think you have no choice, then you are not in control of your life. Creativity is not just needed in storytelling, but in every other aspect.

Also, what are your priorities?
Is a big screen flat panel TV or computer monitor more important than your filmmaking tools?
Is a nice car more important than your filmmaking tools?
Is a DVD collection more important than your filmmaking tools?
Is a two-week vacation that will come and go more important then your filmmaking tools?
Are video games more important than your filmmaking tools?

The majority of established and celebrated filmmakers either came from families with money, or they were poor and had to make sacrifices.

i temporarily removed the ebay links cause something was wrong - when i fix them ill post them again

The film prices listed in the above links are just from one source. There are all kinds of deals out there, including ebay, although buying "pre-owned" film is risky, even if it was never exposed. The links to these prices are just examples.

Nigel, maybe this thread should be sticky.

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ March 04, 2005 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]</font></font>

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 10, 2005 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]</font>

I am currently on ?35 a week. Usually, it's less than this since my dad's a twatrag and deducts time I spend on the crapper since he doesn't give me a break.

Sure, if I was creative, perhaps saved up, I could afford to shoot film. But I'm shooting video so I can work on my craft, iron out all the flaws in my repetoire and when I'm ready, I will make the jump to film.

But until then, I'm sticking with video.

So stop bitching about it [img]wink.gif[/img]

Learn to tell stories with images and who gives a **** what medium it's shot on. 35mm shot lazily on a badly realised "film" will ALWAYS pale to an inventively lit and well told SVHS piece.

Learn LIGHTING first. There is NOTHING N-O-T-H-I-N-G uncreative about shooting video. Just because it's clearly NOT the medium dominant in the last century doesn't mean it's invalid and anyone who tells you it is has a chronic elitist insecurity (staunchly conservative and their work is obviously servely limited). If you want to survive and even be good as a lighting cameraman or filmmaker in general you must EMBRACE all forms of moving image, photographic storytelling- telling stories with images first and foremost.

There's a big pot of will-not-budge, alternative angle controversy for you. [img]tongue.gif[/img]


PS: I [img]graemlins/heart.gif[/img] video!

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 04, 2005 04:39 PM: Message edited by: tim partridge ]</font>

I am adressing those who want to shoot film, but think they can't. Those who always ask how to make video look like film. And those who say they shoot video because they have no choice.

I didn't say video wasn't creative. I was speaking about creativity in terms of reaching other goals - like buying eqiuipment and then returning it, seeking grants, selling stuff you don't use, borrowing equipment, etc.

Sure, if you like video and have no interest in film, then you're all set. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 04, 2005 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]</font>

TFL--

Perhaps you should add those links to the "Film Cameras" sticky. I really don't want to add a bunch of stickies. But if this doesn't turn into a flame war then I may consider it.

I think that to many people here assume that film is expensive. Expensive compared to what?? The weed you buy?? The beer you drink?? Think of how much beer you piss out and then think about what you could have bought instead. This doesn't mean I am going to stop drinking. It just means that Opportunity Cost is always in my head.

Good Luck

Tasty Fish-

Didn't mean to jump on your back mate, just making the "for/against" quota complete [img]smile.gif[/img] And I totally respect and support yourself, Nigel, Jb and everyone else in promoting awareness of photochemical. Except Alex. He's just a cock.

I can tell magical stories using DV [img]wink.gif[/img]

I don't have a flat screen tv, a car, a dvd collection, nor have I ever had a vacation. I still can't afford film. I'm sorry to start a debate about film v.s. video, I actualy was just wondering how to improve my video to make it look more like you're divine and wondrous Film, with all it's majesty and glory. That's all. I'm just a poor kid who wants to make movies. I'm glad you can afford to sacrifice you're video games for 2 meters of film, but I don't have any video games to sacrifice. Don't tell me to take control of my life when you don't know anything about me! If you ask me sir, you're an asshole. You have today lost a powerful ally.

I just says to myself, I says, "Hey this is called the Guerilla Film-Makers Forum, maybe this forum can be used as a tool to sharpen my filmmaking skills, and learn how to make what I have better." And then this Fish Lips guy says to me he says "God, what a noob. He doesn't even realize that this Forum is about me, and how sexy I am, and how I like to take in the ass all the time." And I cried myself to sleep that night because of guys like Fish Lips, who have to make people feel insignificant because they just want to be able to harness the power of producing a good movie with a small budget. It has been done before, a good movie with a small budget, you know. And I just thought that maybe the GUERILLA FILM MAKER'S forum could help me to learn how to do such a great task. Everyone has been helpful, in fact very helpful, but that damn fish lips guy seems to need to boost his self esteem by being a dick to unfortunate folks who have a passion for film making, but lack the deep pockets that film making truly does require. If you're ever in Reno, look me up Fish Lips, and I'l RomperStomp you're ass.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 05, 2005 11:02 PM: Message edited by: The Imaginable Sean Moss ]</font>

Interesting reaction.

Many people who shoot video ask how to make it look like film. It's like a broken record - not only on message boards but also in real life. I wasn't speaking exclusively about you.

I even found a little something that offers tips:
http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/filmlook.html

I would suggest that if you want to shoot film, but can't afford it, maybe you could raise some money by doing some street fighting or boxing.

Quote:

---

Also, what are your priorities?
Is a big screen flat panel TV or computer monitor more important than your filmmaking tools?
Is a nice car more important than your filmmaking tools?
Is a DVD collection more important than your filmmaking tools?
Is a two-week vacation that will come and go more important then your filmmaking tools?
Are video games more important than your filmmaking tools?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What the hell that has to do with whether to shoot film or record video is beyond me! Why not just take people's word that they can't afford or don't have the means to shoot film. Perhaps that they even WANT to record onto video [img]eek.gif[/img] .

Nigel has been pointing out the costs and benefits of shooting film longer than you've been a member! We all slap our foreheads when some kiddiewinkle asks how to make video look like film, but we all know that they just want to make video look *better*.

Quote:

---

Nigel, maybe this thread should be sticky.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Give me a fucking break! This topic's up every other week anyway and we're all sick of it! Tasty, why don't you just keep using film in the knowledge that all of us video users are wasting our time and spending our money on other things in life whilst you can really be 'creative'.

Am I angry, am I flaming? Well, I always think it disrespectful to question how people spend their money. I find it rude, obnoxious and coupled with the topic the whole thing comes across pompous.

You & Yours sir, you & yours [img]mad.gif[/img]

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.

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.

---

<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.

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.

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">[img]graemlins/sleepy.gif[/img]

Quote:

---

It's as if Kev O. has turned into another "person" from a year ago.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hahahahahahaha!

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.

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.

---

<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.

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.

Sean--

You seem to be a rational person with a decent sense of communication. If you can't find money for your film perhaps you just haven't tried the right methods.

Have you looked at the Nevada Arts Council?? The Reno Film office?? Have you tried a fundraiser?? Have you written the killer script and put together a truly professional proposal?? Maybe it has less to do with you and more to do where you are??

There are a ton of different funding sources out there--Your pockets are only one. Use the power of the internet to find some that are close to you.

Good Luck

Sean, I made one film once on a one to one ratio.

It took me 50 hours to shoot over several nights.

I had no help on location whatsoever.

I spent more on late night food than I did on the cartridge of film, developing and transfer.

I did budget a couple of hundred dollars for props.

High end film costs a lot of money, bare bones "do it yourself", learn things no one will ever teach can be done for next to nothing, especially with super-8.

There are links to both Fuji and Kodak in the cameras sticky.

Then you can use the internet to find a local lab for pricing on processing.

I did give Tim Partridge a very basic comparison on price between HD and film.

If you can find info about the XL2 then you can find local pricing info on film. If you go to the kodak site it will take you to labs in your area.

Good Luck

Quote:

---

Originally posted by richard.fisher:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alex:
Shooting strictly video can make one lazy in the respect of trying to learn how to shoot efficiently and wisely.

---

<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. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I said "can make one lazy", I'm not implying it is lazy filmmaking. The biggest advantage to video, unlimited videotaping, can also be it's biggest disadvantage.

From my own editing with clients experience, the family history videos that tend to get made are the ones revolving around film home movies transferred to video. Add a voice track, some music, and they have a very nice heirloom video of their own family history.

Editing 2 hours of film home movies down to 1 is quite doable, sifting through 50 hours of home video requires such a committment of time and money that it is generally those kind of projects that tend to not ever get done.

-----------

A simple way to look at the two formats is video is an audio format first and foremost, film is more of an "acting" and "scenic" type of format.

Video is not necessarily cheap. Capturing one minute of DigiBeta costs around ?1 per minute unless you have a DigiBeta VCR for &gt; ?20K plus the necessary capture equipment. A 44 min tape costs around ?25.

If possible I shoot a draft either on my camera phone (don't laugh) or my cheap DV handheld to analyse the shots and only then film very tight shots on the DVW-700WSP. It would be far too expensive otherwise.

Why don't I shoot on film at these costs? Because video is a smoother medium from a convenience point of view. You can record sound straight on it, tapes takes up less storage space and the gear is very easy to handle on set.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter_G:
Also, a prolific artist is a shit artist.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, that Shakespeare guy was a total amateur.


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

[img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img]

I knew that someone was going to cite examples in an attempt to disprove my prolific artist thing. These are what I call the exceptions that prove the rule.

I think that it's often ultimately less effort to work hard, save money and make a film on a reasonable budget then it is to shoe string.

Consider how Robert Rodriguez post synced all of "El Mariachi" himself, on 3/4 inch tape. I remember thinking that for the same effort it took to post sync an entire feature film (Think about the work required to get all of the original cast together months after the fact) he could have worked minimum wage and earned enough to rent a Nagra or something. That way, he would not have had the pace of the editing dictated by what parts of the dialogue happened to sync well with the picture.

If you would rather do a lot of groundwork yourself to save money, fine, but don?t undervalue your time.

Also, a prolific artist is a shit artist.

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

Earlier in this thread, I wrote:
"I didn't say video wasn't creative. I was speaking about creativity in terms of reaching other goals - like buying eqiuipment and then returning it, seeking grants, selling stuff you don't use, borrowing equipment, etc."

In the 16mm PROJECTORS THREAD Nigel spoke about how he obtained a 43 million dollar projector for free by intercepting it from a way-too-early resting place in a university dumpster.

Excellent idea.

I called up some local schools, high schools, colleges, libraries and asked if they have any film equipment that they no longer need.

The audio visual department of a local community college was actually getting rid of some projectors. They plan to auction off the ones that still work, but tossing the ones that don't. The auction is a month away, but I snagged a broken projector for free. I'm keeping it for parts as I will now buy the same model at their auction when it happens, or just keep an eye out for it on ebay.

The audio visual department being the dept that provides media for classroom presentations, not the school's actual film / video department. That department is still keeping their equipment. the av dept of course gave some stuff to the film / video deaprt, but they now have a surplus, hence the future auction which I hear will be cheap. Starting bids are like one dollar.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 20, 2005 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]</font>

Quote:

---

Consider how Robert Rodriguez post synced all of "El Mariachi" himself, on 3/4 inch tape. I remember thinking that for the same effort it took to post sync an entire feature film (Think about the work required to get all of the original cast together months after the fact) he could have worked minimum wage and earned enough to rent a Nagra or something. That way, he would not have had the pace of the editing dictated by what parts of the dialogue happened to sync well with the picture.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Having a Nagra would not have changed Rodriguez' situation. He "post synced" his film because the camera was too noisy.

And he did not "get all of the original cast together months after the fact." After each film take he would put the camera away, bring out the Marantz and have the cast repeat the scene.

MY priorities?
</font><ul type="square">[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is a big screen flat panel TV or computer monitor more important than your filmmaking tools?
I thought both of these were filmmaking tools.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Are video games more important than your filmmaking tools?
No. I don't play video games.</font>[/list]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Quote:

---

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

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not necessarily.

Quote:

---

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.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Depends on your perspective. For me, filmmaking is a vacation - can't think of anything else Id rather be doing.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 23, 2005 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]</font>

Quote:

---

Nice car doesn't automatically equal reliable.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To me it does. If a car is not reliable it is not nice. Nice car = brand new Honda = reliable car.

Quote:

---

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

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

Quote:

---

You can also car pool.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Meaning I have to have a car for the days when it's my turn in the barrel.

Quote:

---

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

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 23, 2005 04:46 AM: Message edited by: Actor ]</font>

Quote:

---

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

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

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...

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.
</font><ul type="square">[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font>[/list]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

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.

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.