This is topic What some videographers will do for attention in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001543

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2002, 01:39 PM:
 
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/russian_ark.html

Yes this is indeed impressive, but how exactly do they reload the camera? I know that a Steadicam can be passed off to another operator (not easily, but it can be done) to keep a long shot going, but what a pain this must've been to shoot.
 

---

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 12-14-2002, 02:28 PM:
 
According to the production notes, there was no reloading of the camera.
It was recorded onto some sort of hard disk system instead of film or tape.

It also says the director was not interested in setting records or creating something new, but just didnt feel like editing.
I guess they just decided afterwards to market the movie that way.

Id like to see it to see how it all turns out.
Too bad it wont look that good.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2002, 02:59 PM:
 
Oh, it appears I have poorly chosen a subject title for this thread. Allow me to correct this to remove the word film, since it is NOT a film.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2002, 03:11 PM:
 
Well if nothing else this will show those jokers who like to cut off an ID frame at the beginning and end of each reel.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-14-2002, 04:09 PM:
 
I can't fathom what a staging and rehearsal nightmare it must've been! Imagine getting a couple hours into the take and then picking up a light stand or microphone!

Joe, that's funny!!
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-14-2002, 06:03 PM:
 
When I saw the ad for this in the fall issue of FILMMAKER, I could only imagine the logistical nightmare involved.

BTW, maybe it's time they change the name of the magazine to something more all-encompassing.
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 12-14-2002, 07:10 PM:
 
The idea of using the Hermitage as a setting for showing the history of the palace and of Russian history with emphasis on its royal patrons of the arts, with brilliant costuming and thousands of extras,
should make for a grand entertainment. After reading the New York Times condensed review, my wife can hardly wait to see it.
 

---

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 12-14-2002, 07:19 PM:
 
I have seen and shown a fair amounf of Sokurov's work. It is unlike anything else I have seen, but the comparisons to Andrei Tarkovsky are fitting. Sokurov's films tend to unfold slowly and deliberately. People seem to either love or loathe them.

The Russian Ark looks to be a bit of a departure for him, but I'm sure it will be quite beautiful. I'm looking forward to it.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 12-15-2002, 10:22 AM:
 
This video played as a film at the Telluride Film Festival and was very well received. I heard that they rehearsed for 6-weeks to do the film. The filmmaker only got access to the Hermitage Museum for 6-house to do the film. That meant that they only had 6-hours to stage, block and video the whole thing.

The critics love this film. I think it might bore the tears out of our audience but I have been wrong before. I might like to see it on television.

I thought our audience would be bored by Rivers and Tides but there was a tremendous call for the film and it made good money, albeit at another theatre.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-15-2002, 11:01 AM:
 
Ahem, Ian...it's not "filmmaker". Shame on you.
 

---

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 12-15-2002, 11:44 AM:
 
Maybe he is a filmmaker and now a videomaker as well
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 12-15-2002, 03:30 PM:
 
He's a filmmaker as the final product is film.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-15-2002, 04:16 PM:
 
No Mr. Ian, i don't think so. With respect to this production, it is videomaker.

I guess Spielberg is a videomaker according to your reasoning, Ian. Since all Spielberg movies end up on video, that would only make sense. That Saving Private Ryan sure was a good videomovie!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-15-2002, 06:11 PM:
 
Ian- So how did it play at Telluride? You would have to make frame accurate changeovers which even the mighty Steve Guttag cannot do every single time (he called and told me this--- and then hung up!). I assume it looked like a few frames were missing at each changeover.

A platter would be the only acceptable way to run the film version of this movie, leaving 100% of the frames intact for 100% of the times its shown. Well unless you cue it up like the mighty Brad Miller does and let the automation do the changeover!
 

---

Posted by Don E. Nelson (Member # 1049) on 12-16-2002, 03:20 PM:
 
I must see this film, just imagining the filming logistics is incredible. This could never be done in Hollywood without "cheating" a shot here and there. Plus they could never leave a film like this, unedited,

The title of the film is briliant, Russian Ark.

The ark of a scene is a term used by screenwriters to describe the point at which the character, plot and story elements come together in a formulaic way in the development of the plot/story line. It has, I think, seven points.
The broader explanation of a story arc or (ark) is that a story arc exists when the hero of a plot has strong similarities to heroes and/or plotlines used in fables and older works.
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 12-16-2002, 08:34 PM:
 
Don,
I find your exposition of the title fascinating. It adds another dimension to the production. I was thinking "ark" as in the story of Noah, in that the Hermitage provided an escape from the bloody flood of Russian history. And like the Ark, it contained the seeds of an entire civilization within it, etc.
Gerard
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-16-2002, 09:44 PM:
 
My own opinion about whether it is film or video is pretty much based on the original recorded medium. If film cameras were used, then it is a film. If video cameras were used, then it is a video.

But I suppose one could still call "Russian Ark" a "movie."

One continuous shot for the entire movie. That really is something. Brian DePalma must be gnawing out his liver in jealousy over that one. Kinda makes those super-long Steadicam shots in "Bonfire of the Vanities" and "Snake Eyes" seem pretty minor by comparison.

Since the hard disc system used on "Russian Ark" has a maximum capacity of 100 minutes, I would guess the video would have to be a tad bit shorter in run time.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-17-2002, 12:15 AM:
 
The straight-to-film release is 96 minutes (at least, in France and Japan) according to IMDB.

However, the Time Magazine review has it clocking in at 87 minutes. hmmm, something tells me this ISN'T a film to be cut for different markets
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 12-17-2002, 05:01 PM:
 
From the Telluride Film Festival's schedule.

Hitchcock dreamed of making a film in a single take, but Alexander Sokurov, thanks to HD video technology, accomplished it. RUSSIAN ARK is a 96-minute dream journey through St. Petersburg’s Hermitage, three centuries of Russian culture, 33 rooms and 2000 extras. A French Marquis guides us, commentating on Russian art, interacting with historical figures (Catherine the Great, Nicholas and Alexandra), all the while responding to the dreamer’s often incredulous reactions. This is a startling departure from the austere earlier films of Sokurov, who was a Telluride tributee in 1998. The film’s final sequence—a Royal Ball of 1913 with hundreds of resplendently costumed dancers—eclipses even Visconti's THE LEOPARD as perhaps the cinema's richest evocation of the aristocratic culture of Europe in its fading hours. Brilliant. You’ve never seen anything like this. Filmed by Steadicam operator Tilman Büettner (RUN LOLA RUN). –PS (Russia, 2002, 96m)
Preceded by POPULI (8m, see page 32) In person: Tilman Büettner, David Russo

Both the Telluride Film Festival and the Hawaii Film Festival presented Russian Ark on film, doing manual changeovers on 2,000 foot reels. If this disappoints you, you'll just have to learn to live with disappointment.

From Merriam Webster's

Main Entry: film·mak·er
Pronunciation: 'film-"mA-k&r
Function: noun
Date: 1908
: one who makes motion pictures

film·mak·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (flmmkr)
n.
One who directs or produces movies

Just because you want to make a point and change the word, doesn't make it so.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-17-2002, 05:31 PM:
 
That's not what I asked, Ian. I want to know about all of the missed frames that occured at Telluride at each changeover! You can't tell me it was as smooth as a newborn baby's ass.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 12-17-2002, 06:10 PM:
 
Well if you must know, the plot was revealed in those missing 6-10 frames that were cut off in each changeover. Without the plot, it was just another boring Russian tour of an art museum.

Also the “filmmaker” used transition shots just like Hitchcock did in Rope. He would zoom in on a painting while behind him the actors were resetting the shot for a change in time period. Hitchcock had people walk in front of the camera with their dark suite jackets so he could stop the shot to change film magazines. Conversely this is also where all the changeovers are located.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2002, 06:15 PM:
 
Dictionaries have changed their definitions over the years. Also, how many people at Websters even know anything about "film"? I doubt if there are any employees at that company with the letters "ASC" printed after their name.

My point with that is items like word definitions in a dictionary can be hotly contested points of entirely subjective argument.

My own opinion goes to the medium. We call that celluloid strip "film". That magnetic medium in an electronic camera has been "videotape" for decades. And most technical people in the film and TV industries have drawn the lines between "film" and "video". I think they are the ones above all others who deserve to declare the true definition of "film."
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-17-2002, 09:22 PM:
 
Sorry Ian, but if you shoot on video (or some form of "digital"), then you have no right to call yourself a filmmaker. There are a multitude of other words that are completely appropriate for someone shooting a movie on a non-film format, but calling videomakers "filmmakers" is insulting to the film format. Shame on you.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-18-2002, 02:01 AM:
 
Also, video wasn't around in 1908 when that definition was written, so obviously it is a bit skewed, since back then there was no other way to make movies except using film.
 

---

Posted by Lindsay Morris (Member # 1430) on 12-19-2002, 03:27 AM:
 
Splitting hairs here guys, as it appears that a lot more movies are being shot DIGITALLY, editted, sound mixed and finally tidied up all digital.
Then a printing neg is burnt using an Arrilaser machine and then what you see on the projection print is second generation from the camera lens.
I was privileged about 18 months ago to screen a demo reel of this stuff for ACS people here in Perth (Australia).
The whole workshop was about using digital cameras, taking the recorded stuff back the editor on a memory stick or something similar (I was not at that session so not really sure of what method was used)
The captured images are then worked on all digitally and the final result when everyone is happy is to send it into the Arrilaser and out pops the printing negs.
It was a 20 min reel with about 5 segments and I had to stop and start on cue from the podium speaker.
There were demos of stuff shot in Super 16, converted to digital, editted and finally a neg made. Stuff in 1.85 WS normal and the most remarkable demo was footage shot around Sydney at night with a spherical camera lens and then converted DIGITALLY to scope.
That scope image almost popped out of the screen it was so sharp and an absolute joy to focus... even edge to edge the best I have seen in scope and NOT filmed with an anamorphic lens.
The reasoning behind using a speherical camera lens and digitally going to scope for projection is the removal of the lens distortions that an anamorphic lens produces. I have made plenty of 8mm films using an anamorphic lens on camera and then onto the projector and with that small frame size would have thought that I would see distortions other than some bending of vertical lines so I don't really know if that angle is valid.
The guy running the workshop was saying that in his opinion that the digital revolution has actually extended the life of 35mm projection by some 8 to 12 years or more. This is all due to the quantum leap forward in making of the film going all digital right up until a printing neg is struck which gives an effective SECOND generation from the camera lens onto the screen rather than around 10 or more generation steps done in the traditional way with camera negs, internegs etc etc until a master copy is ready for the printing stage of print negs.
The digital editting suite is an absolute breeze compared to the older methods we have all heard about or done or seen.
From a projectionist's point of view what I saw on the screen that day was nothing short of startling and so crisp and sharp that the new fine grained films coupled with the digital process far exceeds the BEST that digital projection can do at present.
He did rattle off the various comparison figures of pixels and grain size but I was too busy to jot anything much down (waiting for my cue to get rolling again etc.)
I don't think it matters how the film is produced it is the end result on the screen that is important. The digital revolution has given film projection a huge shot in the arm that will probably keep digital projection in the background for sometime until they catch up.
I believe that Atlab in Sydney have two Arrilaser machines and are ready to use them if not already doing so and from the photos they just look like a big fat washing machine.
Digital info goes in and a laser burnt printing neg rolls out.
Just for those who dislike Ballantynes.
The demo was done on a Pro 35 and as long as I pay attention to the gate tension I have NEVER had a problem running it.
So keep your eyes peeled for some better quality film coming your way thanks to the digital process that made it.
Lindsay
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-19-2002, 04:45 AM:
 
That's good news Lindsay and I look forward to seeing some digital movies, or digital productions, or digital features and even running some digital shows on real film, but using the word "film" to describe a production not shot on actual film is insulting in my book. (Perhaps I should add this to the policies of this board, as this is primarily a film based website.)
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-19-2002, 08:16 AM:
 
Lindsay Morris: Most of what you describe is "Digital Intermediate", using FILM originals:

Kodak Future Technology

Digital Intermediate for "8 Mile"

Prieto Interview

Digital Intermediate for "Traffic"

Digital Intermediates

Digital Intermediate for "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"

KODAK VISION2 Films
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-19-2002, 10:28 AM:
 

quote:

---

calling videomakers "filmmakers" is insulting to the film format.

---

quote:

---

I doubt if there are any employees at that company with the letters "ASC" printed after their name.

---

quote:

---

And most technical people in the film and TV industries have drawn the lines between "film" and "video".

---

Historically true, but this was mainly due to producers getting a way to decrease union rates for a new medium. Currently, the technical unions are battling that distinction and hope to erase it now that new technologies are increasingly being employed in the industry, especially for TV production. This suibject has been covered extensively by Variety and the Los Angeles Times.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-19-2002, 10:38 AM:
 
Many people still think of Kodak as only a "FILM" company, yet we are a world-class supplier of digital imaging technology, services and products, and have led the way in developing "hybrid" imaging technologies combining film and digital imaging. Kodak calls it "InfoImaging":

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/infoImaging/

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/techProdHighlights.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/

IMAGING is our business.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 12-19-2002, 01:35 PM:
 
Imanginering Disney

Motion Picture Maker clunky

Moviemaker
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-19-2002, 03:37 PM:
 
See, John and Kodak have it right!
 

---

Posted by Lindsay Morris (Member # 1430) on 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
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 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
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 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".)
 

---

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 12-20-2002, 09:58 AM:
 
Brad Miller said:

quote:

---

Nobody ever said that the word "video" equals "bad" or anything.

---

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
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 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.).
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 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.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 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
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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).
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 12-22-2002, 02:45 AM:
 
I think the term "crap" as referred to the percentage of video movies released had to do with presentation and capture, not quality.

However, quality wise, about 95 percent of most movies released are in fact, very foul smelly crap.

Dave
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-22-2002, 11:39 AM:
 

quote:

---

I think the term "crap" as referred to the percentage of video movies released had to do with presentation and capture, not quality.

---