my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » What some videographers will do for attention (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: What some videographers will do for attention Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-19-2002 03:37 PM                     See, John and Kodak have it right!  |  IP: Logged Lindsay Morris Expert Film Handler Posts: 233 From: Darlington, WA, Australia Registered: Sep 2002 posted 12-19-2002 05:46 PM                     John, The demo reel I ran for ACS was fully shot DIGITAL, except for the Super 16 segment from Denmark, which was converted to digital after shooting and all were editted/mixed etc in digital mode and finally the print neg done via the Arrilaser unit. There were thousands of $$$ worth of digital cameras there on display and the participants had obviously used many of them prior to the workshop. It was quite an interesting afternoon for me and to see the scope shots of Sydney which was shot FLAT with a digital camera and then electronically converted to scope for film projection was a real eye popper. Absolutely no loss of detail and pin sharp which was quite surprising given that many of the scenes were night time shots so the camera would have been working at wide apertures. The flexibility and ease of use with a digital camera will have tremendous impact on the way things have been done for the last 100 years of film making. When the end result of that process gives such superb screen results when projected via film (finally) the digital projection methods are going to have to really improve out of all sight to beat film in the final stages. The recent advances made by Kodak in fine grain films was also cited as another reason for the better results of film vs digital projection. Lindsay  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-19-2002 06:58 PM                    Although I am staunchly pro film I suppose one could make the case that "film" can refer to any thin coating, in this case a very thin coating on a thin support. That could be a photographic emulsion or magnetic oxide. Oh wait...Ark was shot straight to HD, right. OK, a thin film of oxide on aluminum platters? On the other hand if one wants to be very literal neither crowd makes anything. Just alters it.  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-19-2002 09:02 PM                        John, the article on 8 MILE has a phote that incorrectly states EMINEM and MEKHI PHEIPHER.... it is actually EMINEM and BRITTNEY MURPHY... SORRY FOR SHOUTING!!! The term "filmmaker" should never be applied to anyone that does not make film. A filmmaker actually makes film. The correct term has been correctly identified as "moviemaker". One who makes movies. Better yet, how about "director", or "producer". Those used to work in the past. Dave  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-20-2002 04:12 AM                        You're right Dave. But people are just so infatuated with the word "filmmaker" for some reason. Makes them feel special, I guess.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-20-2002 04:32 AM                     They're just embarassed to call themselves videomakers. Nobody ever said that the word "video" equals "bad" or anything. (Of course it is commonly the case, so perhaps that is why these people get their feathers ruffled when someone won't refer to their work as "films".)  |  IP: Logged Joe Beres Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 606 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 12-20-2002 09:58 AM                     Brad Miller said: quote: Nobody ever said that the word "video" equals "bad" or anything. Really, it seems to be pretty commonplace in these forums to show disdain for those (in the theatrical/film festival moviemaking world) foolish enough to work in video. Brad, to me, your comments seem to connote that video is wholly inferior to film; not just different, but bad. Dave Williams said: quote: The term "filmmaker" should never be applied to anyone that does not make film. A filmmaker actually makes film. That's what frustrates me about this particular circumstance. Sokurov has made many films, in 35mm even. He is an internationally acclaimed filmmaker, but now that he has experimented with a video format, he has become a videomaker. Like many people that participate in these forums, I am somewhat of a purist and passionate when it comes to film. However, it seems as though a lot of time is spent arguing about what is film and what is video. As time goes by, the line between the two is going to blur even further. If you are going to argue so vehemently against something like Russian Ark being called a film, then how do you feel about a movie that has a ton of cgi? When does a film become a video? How much of a movie's content needs to have originated on film to be a film? I'm not saying that anyone is wrong here, but where are the lines drawn? EDIT - 12/20/02 11:51am  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-20-2002 10:07 AM                        Interesting thread. As for the filmmaker/videomaker thing: I tend to think that the term "filmmaker" implies the use of light-sensitive motion-picture film and/or a final product which is intended to be presented by means of optical projection in a theatrical venue for an audience. There are some interesting caveats, though: while TV commercials are almost always shot on film, that doesn't make their directors "filmmakers" in my mind. On the other hand, one who shoots videotape, but releases the finished product on film for theatrical exhibition probably qualifies as a "filmmaker," as does someone who makes film (on actual film) but never exhibits them commercially (home movies, etc.).  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-20-2002 11:36 AM                        I think my actual question is why people insist on the term "filmmaker" when "moviemaker" or "director" or any number of other equally impressive terms more than qualify. They don't need to call themselves "videomakers". By the way, I work in video.  |  IP: Logged Michael Brown Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1522 From: Bradford, England Registered: May 2001 posted 12-20-2002 12:03 PM                     It's probably one shot, in the same way the opening of Snake Eyes was one shot. Got to be some cheating. -------- Steve Kraus wrote:On the other hand if one wants to be very literal neither crowd makes anything. Just alters it. You could also say that The Lab makes the film. So Technicolor or whoever are the filmmakers.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-20-2002 01:21 PM                        Michael Brown wrote: "You could also say that The Lab makes the film. So Technicolor or whoever are the filmmakers" And Kodak is the biggest "Filmmaker" of all! And also makes some of the biggest (22 megapixel!) digital sensors: http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20020924-03.shtml http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/easyShare/camerasMain.jhtml http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/camerasIndex.jhtml  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-20-2002 04:25 PM                     I can see the argument if a seasoned director who has shot many films suddenly decides to shoot something in another format (not film). An example of this would be Lucas. Yes I don't have a major problem with referring to him as a filmmaker, because he has made many of them. However, with Episode II care should have been taken to refrain from using the word "film" in advertising and interviews. It's these DV guys who have never picked up a real film camera who run around showing their crap (yes I said crap because 95% of the time it is) calling themselves filmmakers that really gets under my skin. With Russian Ark though, similar care should have been made to refrain from using the F word.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-20-2002 07:56 PM                        I just remembered that loooong ago when this forum first started I was talking about shooting something with my Canon XL1 camera. I have no idea what the subject was about, but I said something like "when I filmed this scene blah blah blah...." It didn't take long for someone to say "shame shame it's not film, it's video", and it WASN'T Brad. Funny (at least to me).  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 12-20-2002 11:08 PM                     quote: I said crap because 95% of the time it is As is the percentage of 35mm originated films that Hollywood has shoveled out lately.  |  IP: Logged Charles Everett Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: New Jersey Registered: May 2001 posted 12-21-2002 11:37 AM                     Some people must love Russian Ark: It took in $22,797 its opening weekend at the Lincoln Plaza in NYC (per EDI). The one review I saw (scroll down to near the end) has a great pullquote . . . "the year's ultimate space odyssey". At least Wellspring kept Russian Ark intact -- Miramax would have hacked it up.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.