Video University: Video University Forums: Filmmakers & Screenwriters: Which are you?

VideoUniversity.com
Home	Free Library	Store
Free Catalog Please support VU by making your B&H purchases and links through this B&H ad. Doesn't cost a penny more.

See The New VU Postcard Catalog

To post in the forums see the Forum Guidelines.

Join or Renew Today.
New Benefits for all VU Members

Forum Guidelines and FAQ
Main Index	Search Posts
Who's Online	Log In

Home: Video University Forums: Filmmakers & Screenwriters:
Which are you?

mvmaker
User

Aug 5, 2005, 9:17 AM

Post #1 of 9 (2273 views)
Shortcut

Which are you?	Can't Post

I've been involved with digital as a form of film-making since 93 and tried very hard in the mid 90s to convince some local film-makers that this was going to provide not just an alternative to traditional film-making but an actual form of art within its self. Needless to say I quickly became the "nut" in the film-making circles and didn't have much success with the local video industry either when I told them that their production houses could now become independent film companies financed with their bread and butter work and add to the fact that they have excellent abilities to get a job done on a limited budget and ungodly deadlines.

So here is the deal. I hear so many on other independent film sites claim that digital in all it's flavors is nothing more than an easy tool to get noticed so you can hope to bag that multi-million dollar budget and use 35mm or maybe even super 16mm. My question is this.........

Are you a die hard digital film-maker which I would define as someone who looks to progress the medium and stay true to it or are you an opportunist with 35mm glitter in your eye?

For the record and to clarify my stance I once read where Steven Spielberg gave a speech where he promised to never shoot on anything but film..........my reply to that is Mr.Spielberg I will never shoot a movie on anything but digital and all it's future derivatives

Ok people sound off lets hear your position.

MV.

smitty
User

Aug 5, 2005, 7:23 PM

Post #2 of 9 (2255 views)
Shortcut

Re: [mvmaker] Which are you? [In reply to]	Can't Post

To Mr.Spielberg............Never is a very long time.
To MV........................Never is a very long time.

mvmaker
User

Aug 6, 2005, 9:12 AM

Post #3 of 9 (2225 views)
Shortcut

Re: [smitty] Which are you? [In reply to]	Can't Post

Well considering that CGI intensive movies are now shooting these scenes with digital cams and Spielberg having no choice but to use this technology to stay in the game I think his never might just be longer than mine.

I'm a digital renengade while I respect the beautiful textures that film has I would prefer to stay digital and be there when the day comes that digital can faithfully reproduce the same quality. HDV and 24fps cams are finally on the right track so the future of digital media is gaining ground.

We all have to choose our own way in this business and my chosen path is digital and never filmstock. I see no reason to be considered short sighted in my choice.

DISCLAIMER:

All of the above could quite easily turn into "open mouth insert foot" so if you ever hear of me shooting using film please judge me kindly. Wink

djtoltz
User

Aug 13, 2005, 2:57 PM

Post #4 of 9 (2152 views)
Shortcut

Re: [mvmaker] Which are you? [In reply to]	Can't Post

I've been writing computer software professionally for over 20 years. I've owned digital cameras and video cameras (some analog) for well over a decade. My first digital camera was the Kodak DC-40. I'll be nobody even remembers that! I've written a lot of software to digitally manipulate images, most recently, I wrote my own vector chroma keyer, which is very good, and I'm offering it for sale, in case anyone is interested in a very good chroma keyer for DV or better.

However, I still shoot some portraits on 35mm film because of the lattitude of film, and the selective focus I get with a 35mm focal plane. I believe that film still has a place. The cost is definitely a detractor, and I use digital where it works. I could never afford (and I mean "never") to shoot a movie on 35mm film! If I ever had that kind of money, I'd find somewhere else to spend it, but I probably will never have to make that choice.

All things considered, I think digital will eventually invade the spaces that have been traditionally reserved for film, but it might take a while. I also think the U.S.A. will be the last convert, for non technical reasons.
---
Douglas Toltzman
Hubert, NC

vidguyz
User

Aug 14, 2005, 7:35 AM

Post #5 of 9 (2119 views)
Shortcut

Re: [mvmaker] Which are you? [In reply to]	Can't Post

The twain shall never meet, but they'll be closer every digital step along the way.

It still seems one of the most popular threads for DV movie makers is 'How do I get that film quality? '. For the most part, that question has been answered by tweaks in camera and in post. Lets face it though, a DV shot looks DV quality 900 out of 1000 times.

Being just an amateur, I've found that the 'film' look has as much to do with the staging and composition of the shot as ANY post fix.

mvmaker
User

Aug 14, 2005, 9:58 AM

Post #6 of 9 (2117 views)
Shortcut

Re: [vidguyz] Which are you? [In reply to]	Can't Post

I agree with you on the fact that to get the filmic look you have to do it in cam and on the shoot. 24fps really hasn't been the true answer to getting the film look it's been the ability to adjust your gamma controls in a more cinematic way, now add that to 24fps and you have something but nothing in post is going to make your video look like film if you haven't already lit your scene as you would film and of course adjusted the camera controls to match.

ericjon652004
Novice

Aug 31, 2005, 11:23 AM

Post #7 of 9 (1868 views)
Shortcut

Re: [djtoltz] Which are you? [In reply to]	Can't Post

Not sure how old this thread is but I'm guessing you already know "Attack of the Clones" was shot using digital video.

"The Sony 24p camera that we used for Clones had a resolution of 2.2 million pixels," explains McCallum, "but Sony is developing and working on a 10 million pixel camera. We're really hoping they'll get that together in time for us, even if it's just a prototype."

I used to know which model camera they used. Can't think of it right now but I do remember looking it up and seeing the price tag....$320.000.00.

LoL. I guess cracking open my piggy bank would yield enough cash to buy a lens cover for it......maybe.
Eric

vidguyz
User

Sep 4, 2005, 1:37 PM

Post #8 of 9 (1841 views)
Shortcut

Re: [mvmaker] Which are you? [In reply to]	Can't Post

Not to worry MV - yet. When you get to the 'Open mouth, change feet' stage in your life then you can shoot 35, 70, DV, BETA with abandon and say you never would.

mvmaker
User

Sep 4, 2005, 3:52 PM

Post #9 of 9 (1838 views)
Shortcut

Re: [vidguyz] Which are you? [In reply to]	Can't Post

Using film just does not interest me. I love video. I'm every bit as passionate about video as the most hardcore traditional film-maker is about film.

You don't need a George Lucas camera package to make movies. Lucas isn't helping the digital revolution for the indie scene. He's using overly expensive and sometimes untested equipment to make large scale productions which inspires the elite directors in Hollywood to follow in his footsteps. Most films from here on out that require extensive CGI and other effects will be shot using high end HD cams. Mean while the smaller production companies and indie film-makers will explore DV and HDV in plot driven narratives using the new 24fps DV and HDV cams.

The indie film scene is what's driving the 24fps and HDV market. You don't need a Grass Valley Viper system to make a great digital film.