i just joined. i go to csun film school im going to be a senior and im 21.

ill get right into it: i think dv is too easy. yeah its cheap- but it also looks cheap. plus, anyone can make a dv movie. it is quite an accomplishment to make a film on film, be it 8mm, 16mm, or 35mm. in fact, i would rather make a crappy 16mm film than a good dv film. i believe that if youve made a film actually shot on film, that it says, not only do you know how to work a film camera, but you also know how to raise money for a film and go the whole 9 yards with it. dv is point and shoot, amateurish, and unless you really, REALLY know what youre doing, that will never change. if youre fourteen and your parents bought you a dv cam for xmas, i think thats great and i encourage you to play with it. but my god, if youre already an adult you should put down the toy and pick up the real thing.

but i really am friendly and knowledgeble... just thought everyone should know where i stand on the dv vs film issue. there is no revolution as far as im concearned. real movies will always be shot on film, with very few exceptions.

anyway, aside from the technical stuff, im also a rabid film theorist and historian and i have much disrespect for many movies and many people who are not well-seen in the classics (inclding foreign classics).

here are the 6 most imprtant films in film history according to baloo (in chronological order- note only 3 are american):

1.A Trip to the Moon - 1902, Melies
2.Birth of a Nation - 1915, Griffith
3.The Battleship Potemkin - 1925, Eisenstein
4.The Jazz Singer - 1927, (WB-director unimportant)
5.Citizen Kane - 1941, welles
6.Breathless - 1960, godard

if you want to get into film, watch these and read about them- even if they bore you. these are the films that defined filmmaking. if there is anyone out there who has seen all of these already, i will be impressed and look foreward to speaking with you in these forums. to everyone else, good luck impressing me. hahaha!

no really, nice to meet you all.

well baloo, i think its great that you love the proffesional look of film. most ppl still do in the indie world and refuse to go to DV, I do think that ppl like Robert Rodriguez do a great job with DV though in his films although he is probably one of the, "really, REALLY know what youre doing" types. nonetheless, without DV very few on this site would be able to share their films over the internet, let alone make them. because our films arent making any money there is no way to raise enough money to shoot on film as no one in their right mind would fund a non-proffit film, like the ones on this site. all the same, good luck making films and im sure they will look crisp and beautiful like u want them to.

i agree that film, in the hands of an expert, looks a heck of a lot better.

anyway, dv allows me to learn how to direct and edit, how to light and compose a scene, how to create a story that flows well, it basically allows me to learn all the artistic pieces of filmmaking without spending a fortune on film. if i tried to use film i'd still be saving up for it.

Baloo I don't think you've experimented around enough with digital video, rent Once Upon a Time in MExico and watch the extras where Rodriguez talks about digital cinema.

im not a robert rodriguez fan. ive never seen any of his movies.

and dont anyone ever tell me that you cant afford film, or dont have the means or time to raise money for it. ive shot all of my independent shorts on film and raised my own money.

and i have yet to meet anone on the internet who actually knows what theyre doing when it comes to directing or cinematography. even worse, i have yet to meet someone at a film school (any film production school) who knows anything about story. i have read soooo many screenplays by other students and have yet to be impressed by one. usually i just totally mark it up with red pen. i dont mean to imply that i know everything about everything, but i dont know more than most my age. after all, i have studied film for 4 years now in college-- you would hope id learn something.

yeah maybe we CAN get people to raise money and donate for film, but that doesnt mean we should. No offense but college doesnt always mean anything. I know a guy who didnt even finish highschool but knows more about networking then people I know who went to school for 4 years. Im glad you have a preference and some people atually perfer dv.

for some people, they wont go to film school in college and make it big in the business. you can count them on one hand.

for the rest of us, you need to learn it somewhere, and youre not going to learn it in a message forun, in a book, or even by shooting your own movies. there is a reason people go to school for it, and its not just to spend the money.

and by the way, there is a difference between prefering one format, and being limited to one. i dont think financs should limit someone if they want to shoot on film... but i doubt anyone who has worked on dv all their young career will have any sort of clue how to shot on film, and in my eyes, THAT is the big limitaion for most people. i doubt most dv people even know what a light meter is, or a nagra or have ever heard of telecine.

I'd be interested in knowing how you have managed to raise all the money to shoot on film. Did you do fundraisers, find corporate sponsors, or what?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baloo:
for the rest of us, you need to learn it somewhere, and youre not going to learn it in a message forun, in a book, or even by shooting your own movies. there is a reason people go to school for it, and its not just to spend the money.

---

1) Isn't that what film school is? A place where you read books and shoot your own movies then discuss them with others in a forum?

2) Wait, you're not a fan of Robert Rodreguiz yet you haven't seen any of his movies?

Baloo...I've shot on film and DV and all things being equal would usually rather shoot on film. That said I think most of your opinions are just that, opinions and most are very short sighted. DV is a great tool to shoot things much cheaper and still gain experiance. You may not be trying to come off as arrogent but let me asure you that you are. In a year or 2 you will realize like all other film students do, that what you did in film school will have very little to do with whether you make it or not and you will realize that maybe you didn't know everything at 21.

ps: light meters are used for dv too

Cammo

I'm guessing this entire post is more in response to my introduction post in the first place, so it's time to throw in my two cents.

You don't seem to have the best understanding of video. Film and video have their differences, but are still very similiar none-the-less, for good and obvious reason. You must still light video properly, where light meters help tremendously, and you don't need telecine, because, well, if you don't know why you're stupid. I'll give you the fact that I had to look up Nagra, but audio can be recorded on a seperate machine just like you would do for film. Light meters and Nagra aren't very film specific, telecine, on the other hand, is and quite frankly is just a pain in the ass and expensive step, advantage video.

I went to school for Video Production, but they tought us plenty of cinema studies. I learned a lot in the year I was there, we got to use a lot of equipment, and I even got to edit on an Avid station before I quit. Aside from a few technical things, I really feel the school just tought me what to look for in a good movie. Now that my eyes are opened to that I feel I'm qualified to make the best damn movie possible with whatever resources I have available. You made need to justify spending the amount of money you did on school by saying that you soaked every necassery thing out of it like a sponge and that everyone else should too so that you're not the only schmuck who blew tens of grands of dollars for school in a field that has a very low success rate, but some of us are doing fine. If at the very least you make some great connections in your school like I did mine, good, then hopefully you'll be taught that that is the most important factor in a good film school.

-Elliott

bear with me, im on a mac and i cant use the toolbar at top, so i cant really quote anyone, but ill reference.

someone asked how i get the money i do for my films. it is basically through networking that ive met lots of people who are interested in putting money into films. why? they have their own reasons. but like any movie deal it starts with a pitch (you know, where you give the concept and brief account of the story). i hype up what im doing and say "so-and-so is interested in this project. in fact, they gave me $2000 already." that gets em every time.

the next thing they want to do is read the script. most of them know what good screenwriting is, so if they have any quiffs about the script, they tell me their concearns, but i havent had anyone do that yet. if they like the screenplay, they make a commitment to give me money or sign a check.

ive never had a corporate sponsor or applied for any grants, and i have NEVER spent a dime of my own money. the trick is to get $25 here, a hundered here, a thousand there, and pretty soon you have a budget.

-----
"1) Isn't that what film school is? A place where you read books and shoot your own movies then discuss them with others in a forum?"

uh, kind of. but dont forget the all important part of lecture and demonstration by the professor. otherwise what would be the point? you'd just be teaching yourself and not have the expertise and experience of the teacher to help and guide you.

"2) Wait, you're not a fan of Robert Rodreguiz yet you haven't seen any of his movies?"

well i dont see how you can be a fan of anyone having not seen their work. so, to answer your question, yeah. thing is, im not interested in any of his work. and in not a fan of tarantino either (for the record, the only film of his ive seen is pulp fiction).

-----
>>>>"That said I think most of your opinions are just that, opinions and most are very short sighted"<<<<

well considering im not the only one with the opinion that film is better than dv- there are a lot of short sighted people around.

>>>>"DV is a great tool to shoot things much cheaper and still gain experiance. "<<<<

consider: all but a few movies that go on to make money, or win awards or acclaim, or inject any sort of relevance to the medium are shot on film. i plan on being a professional FILMmaker in the industry (be it indie or hollywood) and so i am learning FILM- not DV. and if youve ever worked with film before, you would know that there IS a lot of difference. in fact, the only thing similar is that fact that you point a camera and press record. everything else is different. so get out of here wih your non-24-frames-per-second self.

>>>>"You may not be trying to come off as arrogent but let me asure you that you are. In a year or 2 you will realize like all other film students do, that what you did in film school will have very little to do with whether you make it or not and you will realize that maybe you didn't know everything at 21."<<<<

im a film purist- if that makes me arrogant amongst you video people, fine. i could cae less if people think im arrogant. it doesnt change the fact that film is the respected medium in the profession. and i say again, RESPECTED- not popular or most used or cheapest or whatever you got.

ane youre wrong about what you said about film school not affecting your success. anyone whose gone to film school (well, a good one anyway) knows that once they graduate, they have the knowledge and some skill to enter the industry confident that they will be able to work. and i never claimed to know everything.

-----
>>>>"You don't seem to have the best understanding of video. Film and video have their differences, but are still very similiar none-the-less, for good and obvious reason. "<<<<

whats to understand? like i said: point and shoot. sure you can doctor it up with lighting or using fancy lenses, etc- but why even waste the money. save it and spend it on film stock.

and how can you say that light meters arent film specific- unless youre using magic 16, you cant do much without a light meter if your shooting film. otherwise you can plan on having some pretty crappy prints.

telecine is expenive considering a video budget-- but on a film budget, its nothing. just part of the process. sure, you can skip telecine and just cut the film by hand but not many do that. telecine in film is just a given and it only costs like $300 to transfer film for what would be a 10 minute film. when film budgets are in the thousands, $300 isnt much.

>>>>"You made need to justify spending the amount of money you did on school by saying that you soaked every necassery thing out of it like a sponge and that everyone else should too so that you're not the only schmuck who blew tens of grands of dollars for school in a field that has a very low success rate, but some of us are doing fine.<<<<"

i dont need to justify anything, my work speaks for itself. connections arent the only thing you get out of film school- but i wouldnt know about video school. ive learned so many things in film school that make the complexity of video look like an ameba. i had my own days in video, and trust me i will never go back.

sure ive made connections in film school, but ive made more valuable ones outside of school. film school has been valuable enough itself.

you're right of course, about film being the respected, and currently best, media availble. i just think DV is a great tool as well.

also, just a though, does it not seem likly that film will eventually go the way of film still cameras?
(admitedly, they're not nearly dead yet, but digital is catching up FAST) wouldn't it be nice when you have the same optics and the same quality, and you can edit it online instantly?

it will never happen. dv and film will always co-exist. even when dv exuals the exact quality of film, it will still exist because there will always be purists and hollywood.

What a way to make an entrance.... Baloo.


Let me point out something to you. Opinions like yours are a dime a dozen from film school students, and the newly graduated. They often go in not knowing much, learn some stuff, then come out with HUGE egos and not much (really) to show for it. They talk about being purists, they talk "film" up, they slam dv, and they
glorify obscure foreign films.... generally they claim to know more than everyone around them, including top players in the field (people with credits pages long --- people that have been around the block "TWICE")

Now, the number one thing Hollywood people WILL NOT put up with is some film school grad sporting an undeserved ego. I don't know where you are located but if you plan on "working" in the industry you may want to tone down the rhetoric... for your own good.

Like i said it's very typical behavior from film school types excited about what they've recently learned.... Although there's a better way to share your info than to belittle people. Some dudes here are still in grade school, one size does not fit all. In time you'll realize how hard it actually is to get jobs, an agent, a studio deal, etc. etc. You'll realize how hard it is to even get those types to take you seriously, even though you shot on film. To them that is really of NO significance, trust me.......

The fact that you graduated film school hardly assures you a job in this industry. And it surly doesn't assure you that you'll "work" as a director. No one is gonna take a call from "Film School Grad". It's a long road full of tremendous odds, and much politics, not to mention unforeseen obstacles....

As well, what is taught in film school is of little relevance to Hollywood professionals... no one I know looks at resumes. The film always speaks for its self... film school or not.


Like I said, that ego ain't gonna last long, give it two years.... you'll see how hard this industry really is... even for the talented people. It's much more than theories and observant "observations" of obscure foreign films (please don't "point out" the fact that your list contains foreign films, well unless you want people to roll their eyes) Talent alone is hardly enough, though. The reality is that, in Hollywood, film grads are a dime a dozen, most of them work menial jobs.... and many end up going home after a few years of brutal rejection, an no interest.


You got a long road ahead of you....



Good Luck.

Jay

thanks for all the info jay, but i guess i failed to mention that i already do have a job in th industry, and furthermore, i am directing- yes, directing- my own films for $$$. i attribute it to being in the right place at the right time, and a bit to my skills as a writer. sure, its nothing big and im sure ill move on to much bigger things- (especially considering im only working for a small indie film company)- however, i do have a job and i am getting paid for doing what i want to do.

but thanks anyway for your rhetoric. i knew all that going into school, and i heard it from plenty of people. what can i say, though? those are my kind of odds: me against the world (as if you hadn't noticed already). i dont need ego; i have things bigger than an ego jay- i have talent, confidence and opportunity. now all i need is a bit of luck.

and thanks-- i really do know how to make an entrance, dont i?

Glad to hear you have a job, but you're correct in that it's not directing (yet). I'm assuming you aren't directing the films for this indie film company... that'll take a minute.

quote:

---

i dont need ego; i have things bigger than an ego jay- i have talent, confidence and opportunity. now all i need is a bit of luck.

---

Well you are coming off as a typical egotistical film school noob, just so you know. Perhaps you act differently in the professional world, lets hope so. I've seen plenty of people get ahead of themselves that ended up getting fired from good "opportunities". You know, trying to play the game in reverse...


Those are all good qualities to posses (talent, confidence.. opportunity) But the "luck" part is attained for the most part in how you present yourself. Don't expect people more established than you to help you find this "luck" if you act like an azz... people help people they LIKE. Not smart azz noobs... ask your boss.


You sound like someone who may just blow a good opportunity simply because you are too excited about your newly attained knowledge of film.... just be careful is all. If you blow it, it's hard to gain peoples trust (in Hollywood) more than once.

Plenty of people much more established than whatever your position is treat people 'lower" than them with respect, and don't speak to them in a patronizing way.


And btw, the reason you've heard this rhetoric (my rhetoric) prior to entering film school is because that is the reality here... no other reason.

There is a way to lessen your "odds"... it's called, "be someone people want to be around". Try that till you do something meaningful and see how much "faster" you arrive at "lucky breaks". Once you do a critically acclaimed film on the indie circuit, or have a 60 mill opening weekend, at that point you'll be "qualified" to flaunt the ego... a well deserved ego.

Or should I have said "attitude"... "cockiness"...

think about it...

...or you just looking to argue? There's no reason to go on the attack... If you know something try and help these younger dudes, not talk down to them. If they attack YOU when you're trying to help, well, that's a different story...


Jay

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jay888,

I did not realize people still had these debates.

Here's my perspective as an aspiring cinematographer:

I don't think it's a big secret that I'm a fan of celuloid. Given the choice for a project, I would need a very compelling aesthetic reason to choose video over film. I'm certianly not married to any given format, though. If/when video or electronic aquisition is capable of providing the image I want I'll be just as happy to shoot it (This has not happened yet, though). Also, I certainly won't/don't turn down projects because they only have video sized budgets. There will always be limitations, and it's my job to deliver the best image in spite of them.

The main fear of cinematographers for the future is that they'll lose image control to pasty post folks due to the misconceptions around digital technologies. This extends to film posted through D.I. as well. I've already had this happened to me once, and I'm still peeved (The thing looks like garbage as a result).

I certainly think students should work in both mediums. To a certain extent Elliott is right that there are a lot of similarities between them, and as technology progresses, that will be even more the case (Look at the new digital cameras slated to come out from Dalsa, Arri, Kinetta and Panavision for evidence).

End rant

Oh, and more flies with honey than arrogance.

Welcome to the boards Baloo!

Nota "Trying to be a student again for some reason" Mono

BTW--

As a music guy, this kinda debate reminds me of the "Analog vs Digital" debate...

What's your take on digitally created music, Baloo, would you use it in your films? What's your criteria for music?

Jay

baloo...erm...
srry... it doesnt matter what format the movie is shot on....
if the story sucks, nobody will give a ****...