NEW! A music video from Finland!

[S8 Booster]

Try to re-read my first post again please ;-)

Not slamming anyone.

My only point is that I am personally never going to be really impressed by anything created after the film left the [any] camera and transferred or x-ferred to DV/computer for a post job.

It is mostly a simple task of trial and error 1 bilion times or more until you are satisfied - without any losses and you know that.


Here is an example of what quite a few S8 cameras can/could do and did so even back in the 70´s / early ´80s.

From an established shot at 18 or 24 fps (normal speed) make a
direct lap dissolve into 9fps (or 35/45/56 fps) to create a "dream" or flashback sequence then back to the reality at 18/24 fps via a lap dissolve into the real world sequences matched with a following suitable time lapse conclusion. Without any splices that is.

Remember this is an all in camera one lot job.

Yeah I know it is possible to do some of this in post if DV is the target format. Actually very simple in AP 4.0.

However, it is dirt simple to do this with a suitable S8 camera.

Quite/very difficult with a 16mm cam - if ever done - and probably never done with a 35+mm - now, why should they since it is all a lab job there.

All on the original film - there were no options.

Just to mention one.

So not slamming anyone.
Only point being: By having such options in the camera and shooting *expensive* film of limited supply this enhances crativity there and then.
Doesen´t it?

My 2 Riksdaler.

R

[jean]

Hmm, I must say that for me, the only thing that counts is the result. Whether shakespeare used office 2002 for mac or scratched the words in walls - may be interesting trivia, but is it relevant? Is romeo & juliet what it is because of the material it was written on?

Therefore a good film is a good film not because it's made on film or handpainted on handperforated handbleached snakeskin. A bad film is a bad film regardelss how it was made.

Now what I defentily see is that certain tools, like film, simply require a more thoughtful process, and can help a lot to obtain a good result. If a lap dissolve is a lot of work, you'll think twice when or why to use it. If it's no work at all, you might end up with a film completely drowned in annoying effects. You might, since it's up to you, in the end.. I experience similar effects in photography, where medium format mostly always yields more keepers for me, simply because i am forced to think a lot before pressing the shutter.

Other things in video I simply don't like, the blown out hihlights, big DOF, etc. But a good film is a good film, whatever it's made with.

Just my 0,02 €

[tim.callaghan]

Someone who makes a film using a video camera (maybe because of budget constraints or just convenience) does not make that person any less of a filmmaker.

Bloody hell!!

Someone on here with balanced and open views about video as a medium.

I nearly fell over

I like it!

Tim

[jukkasil]

Stop this stupid video vs film conversation and please give some creative comments to Lauri (the maker of this super 8 music video) about his music video, ok?

[disjecta]

Okay

I've already complimented Lauri for this work on another forum.

[tim.callaghan]

Sorry,

I think the work is great, and thanks for sharing it.

In fact, it was wonderful!

Tim

[Betamax]

That was a very good job.

I'm quite curious about how you transferred it. What did you edit it with?

Please, put some more detail about how you did it.

Thanks.

[Lauri Aalto]

Hi!

Here are the facts:

Camera - Canon 1014XL-S 24fps (one scene 36fps)
Transfer - Rank or some other pro-scanner
Edit - Premiere 6.5

I did the video without color corrections or effects, everything looked ok to me in the transfer.

[Betamax]

Was that the highest quality you could get? Or is that a lower quality so we could download it?

how much did the transfer cost?

[Lauri Aalto]

that's the lowest I could get with an mpg.
the quality of the avi (825mb) is much much better.

the film transfer was free.

[MovieStuff]

The clip looked very nice.

Someone who makes a film using a video camera (maybe because of budget constraints or just convenience) does not make that person any less of a filmmaker.

It makes them a videographer, not a film maker. To casually use one term to replace the other ignores a lifetime of disiplines that most people shooting video rarely learn for reasons that range from simple laziness to anxiety. A low budget is often the most common excuse used to hide the actual reason a simpler format is chosen, but shooting on the two formats isn't anything close to being the same thing and, as such, it creates two different types of people with different work habits.

And don't think I'm picking on videographers. I see it happen in super 8, as well, where people will point and shoot for years and years on super 8 simply because they're afraid of shooting in 16mm; afraid to learn light meters, afraid to learn budgets and how to deal with greater expense (ironically even as they shoot Pro8mm stock that often costs just as much). There is a "comfort zone" that exists for certain formats and people work in those formats for reasons that seem to defy logic, often to the detriment of the projects they work on, because they start to use the shortcomings of the format to hide deficiencies in their own ability to create a quality product.

The tool itself does not hamper imagination.

Academic, as long as it stays only in the imagination. But the tool certainly affects how easily one can manifest the imagination in the real world. Shooting video under available light and shooting K40 under the same conditions requires a huge shift in the manifestation process. I am not endorsing shooting under available light; only using such a simple scenario to illustrate that the tool does, indeed, affect the production methods required to shoot a given scene. As much as super 8 promoters seem to hate video, they would give their right nut to be able to shoot K40 under the light levels that video handles so effortlessly.

It comes down to a vision and a good story with good performance. A great looking film still needs good lighting, etc. regardless of its format. That's what makes a film, not a cartridge or a reel.

Again, you are using qualifiers to merge two different formats into some sort of hybrid that doesn't really exist. Something shot on film is "film" and the person that makes it is a "film maker", even if the results suck. Something that is shot on video is "video" and the person that makes it is a "videographer", even if the results are superior.

I make no judgement that one is 'better' than the other but to say that a videographer is the same thing as a film maker is like saying anyone that walks a rope stretched safely on the ground is a tight rope walker. Whether high in the air with no net or safely on the ground, both require that you walk on the rope but one carries more risk and requires a deeper sensibility and advanced skill level due to that risk.

In short, I have seen many film makers make the switch to video with little or no problem but I rarely see videographers make the jump to film without having to experience a deep learning curve that causes them to rethink how they approach a given project.

Film and video are not the same thing, working in the two formats is not the same thing, and the type of people that choose one format over the other are not the same type of people. Again, no judgment here, just making an observation based on years of experience shooting both film and video.

Now, having said that, I think I'm going to take the plunge and get one of the new Panasonic DVX100 24p cameras as a Christmas present to myself. A friend has one and the image from these little babies is unbelievable, for a video camera. Very cool.

Roger

[sunrise]

Hey, I liked this clip!

A few years back the Danish film institute supported a large survey to map people's cinematic habbits. As some of you might know a lot of new Danish films has since the Dogma movement been shot on video.

The big question of the survey was: Did the video look have any influence on people cinematic habbits?

The answer: Yes it did! Especcially young people preffered Hollywood productions to the Danish films if watching a movie in the cinema. And they waited untill the Danish films were released on video, so they could watch them at home, were the quality of video matched the viewing equipment.

So basically people who projected films wants the filmic quality, not grainy low res video.


And to the point mentioned earlier about digital postproduction was able to make video look like film:

Theoretically HDTV has the same resolution as 16mm, but HDTV requires a lot of post production work to get the same cinematic "feeling" as 16mm.

Why go through that costy and time consuming process?
Why through a 100 years of cinematic experience down the drain and replace it with computer experience instead?

Ever noticed that whenever someone talks about a digital camera it is always valued at how much it looks like film?


Cheers
sunrise

[Lex colby]

sorry - but isnt this is all pie in the sky.
I think most new young directors today are using tools to get a point across - whether film or video - its all about access to the equipment which starts with a budget - which is the most obvious factor of why "film" makers choose one medium over another .
The cinematic film age is getting on a bit & the digital age is here & evolving at an alarming rate. In 5 years a mac & hd cam will be hard to beat & film will only be used for an effect rather than to produce an entire film :idea:
There have been interviews with big directors like soderberg & even scorsese who are raving about digital & hd & they are embracing this medium with open arms.
Films like 28 days - star wars & once upon a time in mexico etc etc are just a start & may not quite have captured the perfect film look but, its improving very quickly & I really do believe that these "videographers" of today,as you call them, will have the last laugh & end up being the hollywood cream of tomorrow.
I dont think it matters if someone has put in years of training & mastering film compared to someone who just picks up a dv cam & has a knack for telling a good story - it does'nt mean one is superior than the other just that - the artist could only get access to that type of equipment at the time.
soon the film look debate will be a thing of the past & software will surpass the look of film - just like it already has for sound & music.:evil:

Actualy looking back at the thread - it does'nt really state that videograhers are far less superior than film makers but there is a condescending slant towards video, which is a bit narrow minded. :roll:

After all that - I love my s8 & if I had the money I would use film over dv anytime whether its out of date or not - it is a magical format that surprises all the time

[MovieStuff]

I dont think it matters if someone has put in years of training & mastering film compared to someone who just picks up a dv cam & has a knack for telling a good story

But the issue isn't whether or not someone has the right to be called a director or even if they are considered less of a story teller if they choose one format over another. I've seen many great productions shot on video and I've seen an equal number that sucked shot on film. But film is film and video is video. Creating an entertaining piece of serious work on video doesn't suddenly make it "film" any more than shooting the kid's birthday party on super 8 makes it "video".

I suggest no superiority of one format over another but, clearly, the goal of virtually all major digital formats is to make them look like film while, understandably, maintaining all the "conveniences" of shooting video, such as lower production costs, reduced light levels, instant feedback, faster turnaround times, etc. It's what the industry wants. I mean, how many After Effects plug ins have been created called "VideoLook" to make film take on the characteristics of video?

What I do find amusing is the number of hard core video proponents that insist film and video are the same but prefer to call their projects "film", even within the more militant video production circles. Why? They weren't shot on film. Why not call them "video"? Seeing as they were shot on video, wouldn't that be a more accurate description? And, since "film" and "video" are supposedly the same in their mind, then certainly one title doesn't carry a greater degree of respect than the other, right? ;)

A director can work in what ever medium that fits the budget or the end effect. I have no problem with that; in fact it's the smart thing to do. But while the world has far too many elitist film snobs, I also tire of wannabe film makers telling anyone that will listen they shot a "film" on their daddy's video camera. They didn't. They shot a video and they need to learn and respect the difference.

Film is film and video is video. Make believe belongs in the script, not in production.

[disjecta]

Oh man, now look what I've started! 8O