FILMMAKER OR VIDEOGRAPHER?

Post by **mattias** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:27 am

Nigel wrote:Agfa, Ilford, Fuji, Kodak--These are film-makers.

fair point, but only valid for those who associate the word film with light sensitive celluloid, which is likely to be very few. to the rest a film is a motion picture, so to them anyone who makes those is a filmmaker.

/matt

Post by **T-Scan** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:42 am

Nigel wrote:Big Beaner--

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

Good Luck

I met a guy from National Geographic out at Mt. St. Helens. He was shooting 250D 35mm.

Post by **PITIRRE** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:55 am

Well I guess pretty soon we have to go to the movie theater to watch NBC NEWS, WHEEL OF FORTUNE, JEOPARDY AND TELETUBBIES they are really good "films"

Post by **timdrage** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:01 am

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

If you want to be that pedantic I can beat that: you're probably wrong too because vinyl LPs are not 'albums' either; the word album comes from the 78rpm days when a recording of a symphony or whatever would be sold as a set of several records in an actual album.

But of course language changes and now you can call an album an album and people will know what you're on about regardless...

..it's all just semantics... don't let it get to you! ;)

Well I guess pretty soon we have to go to the movie theater to watch NBC NEWS, WHEEL OF FORTUNE, JEOPARDY AND TELETUBBIES they are really good "films"

That doesn't make a bit of sense! Calm down!

Post by **mattias** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:11 am

PITIRRE wrote:Well I guess pretty soon we have to go to the movie theater to watch NBC NEWS, WHEEL OF FORTUNE, JEOPARDY AND TELETUBBIES they are really good "films"

if i understand you correctly you'd gladly pay to see those in a theater if they were just shot on film? that doesn't make sense at all to me, but to each his own.

(i'd love to see a teletubbies movie btw)

/matt

Post by **JoshuaRyan** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:29 am

As an 18 year old, from what ive grown up with, a "film" more than likely means a story told by moving images. Ive never seen any home movies on film, so I dont accociate it with that. Yah, technically, people who shoot video arent filmmakers, but that is what it has grown to be. People who spend time lighting thier shots, do alot of preproduction (well production and post as well I guess), and trying to make a good looking "video" is considered a filmmaker. The word "film" has grown to mean- a professional and creative display of moving images. "Videomaker" wouldnt suit all the hard working individuals that cant afford to shoot on film, or perhaps dont want to shoot on film. Dont worry so much about the words here people, focus on the meanings.

Post by **Dusty** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:49 am

BigBeaner wrote: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."

"The Party", great episode. It's an excellent series, a shame so few people know of Home Movies.

Trudy (Fenton's mother): Brendon--
Brendon: Ahem, Hi.
Trudy: Bendon--
Brendon: Hi.
Trudy: Um, I have a favor to ask.
Brendon: Oh.
Trudy: Ah, um, I know you're the one who does the filming-videos (mimes cranking a camera) and I was wondering--
Bendon: Um--
Trudy: --if you would do a birthday tribute to Fenton and show it at his birthday party.
Brendon: Oh. Well, um... Wah-ah, how much you looking to spend?
Paula (Brendon's mother): Brendon.
Brendon: Hah, hom, ah... what, ah, what I-what I meant to say was, okay, th-the party's in two days.
Trudy: Oh, thank you so much!
Brendon: What?
Trudy: You're such a sweet, wonderful person!
Brendon: Wha...
Trudy: Thank you, thank you, thank you! Fenton will be so grateful.

Later, at Fenton's party:

Trudy: Oh, Brendon, you made the video-film.
Brendon: Ah, yeah, yeah, um, hey, but listen, it-it's either film or video.
Trudy: Oh, thank you for being Fenton's friend.
Brendon: N-no, film or video, it's not "video-film".
Fenton: Brendon!
Bendon: Yeah?
Fenton: You got me a video-film camera for my birthday?
Brendon: Hum, ah, ah, no, actually.
Trudy: Bendon made a filmdeo about you for your birthday, that's his gift to you.

The RetroScripting (the script is just plot points, everything else is improvised in recording) makes the dialogue very realistic.

Sorry, that was more than a little off-topic, but I always get very excited when someone else has heard of my favorite cartoon.

I agree, a video is not a film and I would never call it such. As for filmmaker, I apply the title to both those who physically make the film (though for them, it would be two words, "film maker") and those who use it. I don't agree that a CD is not a record, though. I think of a record as anything recorded, not a specific medium. My CDs are as much records as my 78s are (35 cranks on the gramophone to play the record the whole way through without stopping).

Post by **S8 Booster** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:22 am

Well, video often appears on film these days.

Numerous "films" are originated on PAL25i and now most likly 24/5P cams seeing their end format at the cinemas as 35mm film projected.

So....

R

Post by **matt5791** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:41 am

BigBeaner wrote: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.

OK - this is my interpretation of "videographer" in the UK.

This is a term that has been assumed by a group of people over the last 20 years who, largely, have never used film, and never will use film. As a result of this it is a technology they don't understand, and this is why they don't use it - rather like a circle. They generally spend most of their time shooting weddings.

To me I associate "videographer" with a certain image and the one that always comes to mind is a person who spends far too much time going on about the amount of "features" the camera has, and is usually under a big misaprehension as to the quality of the footage they shoot.

I had a discussion with one the other day who was absolutely convinced that what he was shooting with his MiniDV camera and watching on his TV was far superior to anything you would see in a cinema - hollywood production and all. Yes - he had really convinced himself of this.

There are probably some very good "videographers" out there, but I always have this image pop into my mind whenever the word is mentioned.

It definitely does not conjure up an exotic image - well not for me anyway.

In the UK there is, amazingly, an "institute of Videography" and people can complain to them about a member if their wedding video is crap.

Matt

Post by **PITIRRE** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:48 pm

I have nothing against filmmaker or videomaker, I just want to put on perspective what is this controversy is all about. I have made a lot of video production even when I was doing my master on the university my thesis was a documentary, and at the beginning of the video I put a video by...I don't have any problem with that, and the same apply with film. I you do a video don't try to cheat the public.

A lot of people make excellent videos far superior that a lot of films. You can said, I made a video using film techniques and people understand that.
Can you imaging going to a film school and expecting to do at least a really nice short film that you show to the film industry and ended in a place that they only do video and calling that film, you can do two things stay and think that video and film are the same thing anyway or get out from that place before you pay any money.

Post by **PITIRRE** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:50 pm

mattias wrote:
PITIRRE wrote:Well I guess pretty soon we have to go to the movie theater to watch NBC NEWS, WHEEL OF FORTUNE, JEOPARDY AND TELETUBBIES they are really good "films"
if i understand you correctly you'd gladly pay to see those in a theater if they were just shot on film? that doesn't make sense at all to me, but to each his own.

(i'd love to see a teletubbies movie btw)

/matt

I was very sarcastic when I wrote this.

Post by **mattias** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:29 pm

PITIRRE wrote:I was very sarcastic when I wrote this.

i know, but you picked a bad example.

btw, if you guys became your own, would you still come and work illegaly or would the restaurant guest in new york have to do their own dishes? :-)

/matt

Post by **MovieStuff** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:30 pm

People making a film don't say they are shooting video and people shooting video continually claim they are making a film.

One wonders how the video equipment industry keeps afloat since, apparently, no one is shooting video at all! :lol:

Roger

Post by **mattias** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:38 pm

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. and people who shoot videos on film usually *do* say they're shooting a video. i still don't see the problem. the two words just mean completely different things in the two contexts of shooting and presenting.

/matt

Post by **mattias** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:44 pm

film, according to the dictionary:
noun: a movie
verb. tr: to make a movie based on
verb. intr: to shoot scenes for a movie

this could just as well refer to the word tape.

tape, according to the dictionary:
noun: a continuous narrow, flexible strip of cloth, metal, paper, or plastic.

and this could just as well refer to?

:-)

/matt