FILMMAKER OR VIDEOGRAPHER?

Post by **Filmosity** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:03 pm

Ugh, you guys will argue about anything.

My two cents...Well it doesn't really matter to me.

I happen to be one of those cheesy wedding, corporate, and low budget commercial videographers. So thanks for totally insulting me and my profession.

I love film. When I make short movies, whether i shoot on video or film, I call it a movie or a flick. Plain and simple. I used to get all worked up when people called video film and vice versa. But who really cares? Are you honestly losing sleep over this?

You also need to take into account that as time and technology progress, so too does language and the way in which it is used. Over the years, many words have had their original meanings changed, mainly due to technological advances, social changes, and cultural melding. It has little to do with disrespect or trying to annoy you.

Anyhoo, that's my humble opinion.

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:06 pm

the two words just mean completely different things in the two contexts of shooting and presenting.

Exactly! At least everyone I know refers to "a long story with actors and such presented by rapidly changing pictures and sound" as a "film" nobody refers to, or thinks of, "a roll of film".

It is just "a" film.

What it was shot on or presented on doesenÃ‚Â´t matter, the story is the same, sure it looks different but doesenÃ‚Â´t "real films" look different from eachother too?

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:14 pm

By the way, why are everyone complaining about weddings being shot with video?

Who the hell can afford to hire someone to shoot their entire wedding in 35mm film? 8O

Post by **MovieStuff** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:38 pm

mattias wrote:
MovieStuff wrote:People making a film don't say they are shooting video and people shooting video continually claim they are making a film.
they both say they're making a film because they both are.

No. Read what I wrote again more carefully and think about it. "Making a film" is not the same thing as "shooting video". And "shooting video" is not the same thing as "making a film". You are referring to the concept of "making a music video" that might use film in the process. But people shooting film will never say they are shooting video, which is not the same thing as shooting "A" video. On the other hand, people shooting video usually say they are making a film when, in reality, they are making a video and shooting video with no film in the process whatsoever.

There is a difference in that people shooting film will never "accidentally" say they are shooting video but people shooting video have no problem claiming they are making a film because it makes them feel better.

Roger

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:47 pm

There is a difference in that people shooting film will never "accidentally" say they are shooting video but people shooting video have no problem claiming they are making a film.

Nope, I donÃ‚Â´t think it is "accidentally" in either way. If they both are making "a" film they will both say "I am making a film". No accidents here. But then again maybe it is a language-thing, in Sweden a film is a film is a film, whether is is shot on film or not.

The term "a film" means "a long story with actors...bla bla bla" and is not intended or received by anyone as "shot with a roll of film".

This is a thing that shall pass, in the future IÃ‚Â´m sure a film will be called a film, shot with HD or with a roll of film. It really doesenÃ‚Â´t matter.

Post by **PITIRRE** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:02 pm

Roger, you made the point, film is film and video is video. I want to make my point I made a film where the only images where photos and music, and that is film it doesn' t need a lot of bla,bla,bla to be qualified as a film

Post by **matt5791** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:24 pm

Filmosity wrote:I happen to be one of those cheesy wedding, corporate, and low budget commercial videographers. So thanks for totally insulting me and my profession.

I have no intention to insult anyone unless they deserve it. I was generalising, which I made clear by including the word "largely" in the context.

I know that there are some very skillful people out there shooting weddings - and I have to say I don't think I would want that sort of responsibility, so hats off to anyone prepared to take it on.

Matt

Post by **S8 Booster** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:33 pm

By the moment film-films are outnumbered by DIGI origination films video IS film. No doubt. it is going to be soon and it is going to go quick.

No one goes to a cinema to watch a Video! They go there to see a *film* whatever the medium of origin or projection is. Anything else is wordgaming.

Why are motorsÃ‚Â´ output given in Horse Power - HP rather than a technically more suitable physical value of kW? I know the industry try to introduce kW. The horses are since long gone but I bet YOU still use HP.

It is soon 100 years since horses were the motors and became the reference for output power units.
[1 HP (USA) = 745 watts - 1 HP (EUR) = 736 watts ]

R

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:16 pm

Damn it!:x
American horses are stronger than european horses! :lol:

Post by **mattias** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:38 pm

Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:Damn it!:x
American horses are stronger than european horses! :lol:

and that's even though they're half the size. amazing. the day i see a mustang win a tug of war against an ardenner i'll eat my canon 814e.

/matt