FILMMAKER OR VIDEOGRAPHER?

Post by **PITIRRE** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 1:38 pm

This is my opinion but I don't understand how the heck people record on video put some film look and they call it "A FILM BY..." recently I saw a video on t.v and they call it a movie! Videographers often called themselves filmmakers ( I think probably that the word filmmaker give them more status, I don't know)

When I record with a video camera I am a videographer and I put that on the credits (I video by...) when I used a film camera the same thing ( a film by...) I hear that the next STAR WARS will be record on HIGH DEFINITION VIDEO that means a film or HDV by George Lucas?

Post by **S8 Booster** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:49 pm

Welcome to the new age.

A "film" these days are not related to the medium at which it is shot or projected or distributed.

It is only describing a piece of commercial entertainment of "moving images" usually called film which nowadays is media independant and for which the term film is common.

I think.

R

Post by **timdrage** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:54 pm

hear that the next STAR WARS will be record on HIGH DEFINITION VIDEO

You're a bit late, that's happened already!

I tend to call my shorts 'films' even tho they may be video or even all animation, it's fair enough really I think... people don't really need to know what it was shot on, what's more important is to communicate that they'll be seeing some images move when they look at the work!

recently I saw a video on t.v and they call it a movie!

That seems more OK to me, as 'film' refers to film obviously, but movie is an abbreviation of moving pictures (i presume!) which doesn't specify film or video...

I know what you mean tho, but it doesn't bother me too much.

People still incorrectly refer to 'celluloid' after all!

But yeah, credits-wise videographer is more accurate for video of course!

When I went on Dov SS Simmons 2 day film course a couple of years back he told us to never refer to ourselves as 'filmmaker'... say producer (or director) instead, as they are meaningful titles which sound more professional... filmmaker doesn't really mean anything, partly for the reasons you mention!

Post by **woods01** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:34 pm

When I here the term videoographer I usually associate it with TV news
crews or those director-cameraman-editor types who do wedding videos,
industrials and low budget local commericals.

Website · Post by **BigBeaner** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:14 pm

What aggravates me the most is that someone that I know that is also deals with video lumps all of his videos under "filmography" on his website. He's also a self proclaimed genius yet can't tell the difference between film and video! Videographer definately sounds like tv news or National Geographic like but thats what they are. It was funny I was watching this cartoon "Home Movies" and this mother character told the young filmmaker to make a "film-video" "well which do you want film or video it's not both."

With star wars, ya Attack of the CLones was HD it gives it a drastically different look from all the movies, even from The Phantom Menace. Whatever, let him play with his new toy he's paid a lot for it.

Post by **T-Scan** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:18 pm

I have to admitt that it bugs me when videographers call themselves film makers. to me videography is more like survailance than film making. like Woods, I think of some cheesy "Video Production" company that shoots weddings or images with cheesy camera feature transitions. real film making has a different style and knowlege base.. videography is holding a camera in the same spot on auto focus while the infinite tape rolls.

Post by **Nigel** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:21 pm

Big Beaner--

I know a couple people that shoot Natural History for National Geo and TDC--They only shoot film.

Good Luck

Post by **TomFoolery** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:59 pm

similar topic, different subject matter... i hate when people refer to audio cds as albums or records. THEY ARE NOT!

i too, however, fall victum to calling videos films. i'm constantly checking myself in my classes when i'm talking to students about short films that i know they will be shooting on mini dv. :oops:

Post by **PITIRRE** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:04 pm

I think I open a pandora's box with this thing about filmmaker or videographer. Some people said they don't mind about the issue and it's ok for people who make video called themselves filmmaker, but I tell one thing, when you talked to the general public (including some people from the film industry) that you are doing a film on super 8 they look at you like a extraterrestrial and said that super 8 is a medium so old that nobody is using it, that is a home movie thing from the 70's, and that is so amateur.

This is my statement if I shot on film I am a filmmaker, if I recorded on video and show the final product on t.v or video projection then I am a videographer no matter if I am using a state of the art HDTV technology with the latest computer generated effects

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:07 pm

WHO CARES? :?:

A CD, isnÃ‚Â´t it recorded audio? DoesenÃ‚Â´t that make it a "record"?

And for a film or video, as long as it images that rapidly change and have a story to tell it qualifies as a "film", at least in Sweden. I donÃ‚Â´t know if there are huge language differences, but nobody I know has ever had anythng against calling a video-tape for a "film". A "film" is a story that you look at in a TV or in the movie-theater, it doesenÃ‚Â´t change from one to another just because it is currently recorded on a roll of film or on a VHS tape, or a DVD. And what it was originated on is irrelevant.

Post by **PITIRRE** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:50 pm

I CARE!

I don't know about where you from, but if I want to watch a game show I watch it in my home on my T.V. set and not on the big screen of the movie theater.

Just imaging this, And the oscar goes to..... DAN RATHER FOR BEST NEWSCASTER.
if you don't know the difference between videos and film it's your choice, but I prefer the look of images of film better than to watch images of a security monitor. Film and video are not the same.

Post by **mattias** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:01 pm

PITIRRE wrote:I CARE!

well sorry, but who cares? i can decide i don't want baloney to be called baloney and go on and bitch about it until i die, but who's likely to care?

/matt

Website · Post by **BigBeaner** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:28 am

I guess what I meant by National Geographic is that videographer has a more exotic sounding name, possibly because it hasn't been fully introduced and accepted into our society such as a cinematographer and photographer.

Post by **mattias** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:01 am

i'd like to make it perfectly clear that i prefer film to video too in most cases, but who cares what they *call* the final product? would you be more happy if every film in the theater was shot on video as long as they called it video? and by the way what you see in the theater is projected film anyway, no matter if it was shot on video, computer animated, drawn on cels or whatever, so the term isn't even wrong.

/matt

Post by **Nigel** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:10 am

Agfa, Ilford, Fuji, Kodak--These are film-makers.

When people ask me what I do I tell them that I am a DP, Cinematographer or a Cameraman.

In the end I am also partial to the term Moviemaker.

Good Luck