Is Filmmaking About StoryTelling Or The Gear You Use?

[Juno]

BOTH! The quality of the image is a part of the story. Otherwise why would people use different color lighting to achieve certain emotional values in a scene. Not that you can't do this with video but the quality of the film image by itself is it's own element to the story. That said, if you have a bad story, it does'nt matter what you shoot it on; if it sucks, it sucks! I think that the gear might make that extra impact on what kind of punch the story packs! If you feel that it is 100% about story telling and not gear then you don't need to be on this forum. Just keep shooting video. It might save you a lot of technical headaches and you can just focus on the creative/storytelling aspect of your work.

[teadub]

Godard said, 'what's the use of clear images, when you have fuzzy ideas".

I voted for storytelling.

[Juno]

Godard said, 'what's the use of clear images, when you have fuzzy ideas".

I voted for storytelling.

Juno said, " What effect will clear ideas have if you see them through cloudy glasses?"
I guess we have a checkmate!

[teadub]

So I guess you're suggesting all films made before modern / coated lenses have no "effect". And we might as well forget about the whole silent era while we're at it. Because we all know their lens hardly rendered clear images.

[Juno]

Those images could have been helped greatly by coated lenses. But I would take uncoated lenses over video any day because in truth, uncoated lenses did not always render poor images. If your scene and lighting was just right you could get decent quality images out of them. What about all of those civil was photos you've seen in books, were they all bad? I guess that I am dealing with quantum leaps in picture qulity which I don't believe would be the same as comparing video and uncoated motion picture film lenses. I mean, years from now, when the film emulsion, if there is any, is so technologically advanced that you will be able to get the resolution of current day 35mm on a Super 8 frame people could say the same thing about old film emulsions as you are saying about lenses.

[David M. Leugers]

My God, there have been hundreds of truely great films telling compelling, engaging stories shot with equipment that no one would use today. I am an equipment nut, but from a lover of things mechanical standpoint. I often enjoy filming with a piece of equipment that many would view as restrictive, yet can deliver images worth shooting. If you have a good story to tell, you can shoot it with whatever camera you can get your hands on. The latest and greatest 35mm rig will not make a good film for you. It will take pretty pictures...

As long as the equipment you use can deliver usable images, you can make a good film with it. I will refer to that great independant film of a few years ago "Pi" shot on standard 16mm black and white reversal film including shots made with a Bolex... it grossed millions.

Use what you can afford.

David M. Leugers

[Juno]

I don't disagree or agree with any of these oppinions. My position is that gear and story are both important. That is why we are all here. Otherwise we would be on a video forum with less technical complications than we are discussing. We are all trying to get the best picture quality for our budget. And since we all know that Super 8 is highly affordable to the average Joe, we use it because we understand it's asthetic merits over video. As a second thought, what about those hobbyist that shoot film simply because they like the look? Not every person that uses motion picture equipment does so because the want to tell some scripted story. Some hobbyist use it like many people today use video: to record family and everyday events. Sure, if you are going to tell a story and put a great deal of time and expense into it, you might as well make it a good story. That said, there is a lot of crap being put out there by the professional film industry in Hollywood!

[etimh]

Equipment fetishists please check out timdrage's amazing K40 pinhole images on other thread. The most primitive "camera" technology imaginable with fascinating results.

Not all "useable" images are representational.

Tim

[BK]

I voted for story telling.

In reality, filmmaking is both, a good script translated into competent visuals. And, having the right equipment to tell the kind of story you want does help.


Bill

[teadub]

Those images could have been helped greatly by coated lenses. But I would take uncoated lenses over video any day because in truth, uncoated lenses did not always render poor images.

Digibeta and HD render hard sharper images every day of the week. In fact the Cinealta has a setting on it to soften the image and make it look more 'filmic'. People often complain the image is too sharp. So I'm not sure what your getting at here.

If your scene and lighting was just right you could get decent quality images out of them. What about all of those civil was photos you've seen in books, were they all bad?

What does that have to do with anything? Camera Obscura can render sharp images, those have nothing to do with our conversation

I guess that I am dealing with quantum leaps in picture qulity which I don't believe would be the same as comparing video and uncoated motion picture film lenses. I mean, years from now, when the film emulsion, if there is any, is so technologically advanced that you will be able to get the resolution of current day 35mm on a Super 8 frame people could say the same thing about old film emulsions as you are saying about lenses.

If your suggesting that emulsions have more to do with rendering muddy images than lenses you're fucking retarded. Where does that leave Kodachrome? That stock is archaic in film terms. Or EXR 50D xx45?

My God, there have been hundreds of truely great films telling compelling, engaging stories shot with equipment that no one would use today.

That's my point. But Juno quetions "effect" when shot through "cloudy glasses".

[Juno]

I voted for story telling.

In reality, filmmaking is both, a good script translated into competent visuals. And, having the right equipment to tell the kind of story you want does help.


Bill

I can't vote because my answer is not offered as a choice: BOTH!

[Juno]

If your suggesting that emulsions have more to do with rendering muddy images than lenses you're fucking retarded

O.K, let's keep it clean or we'll have to put you in the zoo with Santo!
My main point is that while everyone here is boasting story telling, they are still the ones that talk about image quality everyday and the best way to gain it's full potential. We have choices but we choose film because we can afford Super 8 and we like it's look! Just like in the old days when they did not have coated lenses they chose the best possible option. It's not like someone said: " we have a choice between coated and uncoated lenses, but it doesn't matter to me because it is the compostition of the photo or the story of the film that really matters!" They used the best possible option available to them! What would have been better back then, film with uncoated lenses or video with uncoated lenses? Those of us on this forum prefer to use film to capture or else we would not be here! Do you see my point? people on this forum know what they prefer! The squables that I hear on this forum about this camera's lens being better than that one is ridiculous unless you are comparing something grossly inferior like a bently throw away super 8 camera. These stats that people read out about how this lens or that lens has a "wee" bit more resolution than that one is a joke. The people that make these squables would not know which top quality manufacturer it came from in a blind test because the difference is not that significant (Santo comes to mind here with his rants about Japanese zoom lenses). In this sense, superficial concerns about gear are not important. This is what I mean when I talk about quantum leaps in quality with respect to gear (video vs. film) . When you tell a story don't you try to package it the best way that you can? when you give a speach, presentation is very important to your credibility! Otherwise there would be no need for speaches. People could just read your ideas off of a piece of paper. The emulsion won't make the story but it sure goes a long way in how it is perceived and therefore has storymaking value in itself. What I am trying to say is that people don't fully understand the weight of their words when they make cut and dry choices! It is not as simple as black and white! When you make such a simple choice between storytelling and image quality, you are obligating yourself to the extremes of that choice. Just like the example that I used with lighting colors. These are used to give emotional values to different scenes. They are very much a part of the asthetic or image quality. They are also very much a part of the storytelling! Without which, the story would have much less impact!

[teadub]

O.K, let's keep it clean or we'll have to put you in the zoo with Santo!

You don't have to put me anywhere, I'd gladly join that Zoo.

My main point is that while everyone here is boasting story telling, they are still the ones that talk about image quality everyday and the best way to gain it's full potential. We have choices but we choose film because we can afford Super 8 and we like it's look!

love the look too. When it fits the story. I believe that's the only reason to shoot super 8. I don't think it is that cheap compared to 16mm, especially w/ no k40.

Just like in the old days when they did not have coated lenses they chose the best possible option. It's not like someone said: " we have a choice between coated and uncoated lenses, but it doesn't matter to me because it is the compostition of the photo or the story of the film that really matters!" They used the best possible option available to them!

I don't think you see what I'm getting at. People have the choice of using new glass and old glass today and still choose old. Because they like rough images. It can lend itself to storytelling. Take Guy Madden...

also see:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/moti ... thyP.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsl ... .9.8&lc=en

What would have been better back then, film with uncoated lenses or video with uncoated lenses? Those of us on this forum prefer to use film to capture or else we would not be here!

I shoot more often on film than not. I'm not sure why you keep on bringing it up.

Do you see my point? people on this forum know what they prefer! The squables that I hear on this forum about this camera's lens being better than that one is ridiculous unless you are comparing something grossly inferior like a bently throw away super 8 camera. These stats that people read out about how this lens or that lens has a "wee" bit more resolution than that one is a joke. The people that make these squables would not know which top quality manufacturer it came from in a blind test because the difference is not the noticeable. In this sense, superficial concerns about gear are not important.

I have nothing to do with those squables. For the record I shoot on a couple Bauers, a Nautica, a Minolta, and a GAF. None of the top cameras. (although, some on the board have said the Nautica have a sharp lens).

This is what I mean when I talk about quantum leaps in quality with respect to gear (video vs. film) . When you tell a story don't you try to package it the best way that you can?

Yes, that's why I usually work in film. However, I may DP a feature next year on the Cinealta. We'll see.

when you give a speach, presentation is very important to your credibility! Otherwise there would be no need for speaches. People could just read your ideas off of a piece of paper. The emulsion won't make the story but it sure goes a long way in how it is perceived and therefore has storymaking value in itself.

Agreed.

What I am trying to say is that people don't fully understand the weight of their words when they make cut and dry choices! It is not as simple as black and white! When you make such a simple choice between storytelling and image quality, you are obligating yourself to the extremes of that choice. Just like the example that I used with lighting color. These are used to give emotional values to different scenes. They are very much a part of the asthetic or image quality. They are also very much a part of the story telling! Without which the story would have much less impact!

I agree that aesthetic qualities lend themselves to storytelling. But once again it comes down to storytelling.

As far as I can tell this thread boils down to, "shoot more films everyone". Myself included.

[Alex]

Godard said, 'what's the use of clear images, when you have fuzzy ideas".

I voted for storytelling.

Juno said, " What effect will clear ideas have if you see them through cloudy glasses?"
I guess we have a checkmate!

Perhaps you meant to use the word "stalemate" (aka a draw, a mexican standoff).

[Juno]

Thankyou Sir Alex! You have truly (Sp?) humbled me. I showed gross error in my haste!