www.nevershootfilm.com my blog

N

Nik Manning

Well-known member
As you can probably tell from the title, I am not really a film guy. I have never shot film and don't want to ever. But my bias doesn't make me stupid we still need better options on the video front. We are however my friends very close. 2 years from NAB and film will be refered to as doing it the old way. As the saying I just made up goes, "If it's good enough for George Lucas it's good enough for me". Better than film is coming soon. Who is with me? The revolution will be televised in High Definition!
 
desperatecomfort said:
this is a very silly post.



That go for story and characterization as well?
Click to expand...

Damn you beat me to it! I'll just add Jar Jar specifically to that list.

Or how about butchering a classic film and denying people who loved it the way it was originally released from ever seeing it on DVD?

Also, film is awesome. I just wish I could afford it!
 
As long as the goal is to "make it look like film" it's hard to see that film will go away until digital can truly duplicate the film look. I think in our heart of hearts most of us would LOVE to shoot on film...it's a matter of cost. All things being equal (which they're not) it would be great to shoot a movie on film.
 
I tend to still think of them as completely separate media, really. It's hard for me to think they are in competition. We had this talk at the NYC DVX meeting. Like for the little iPod Man-Hole videos I'm doing, video is the right format. But I'm still not sure I buy feature films on video. Not even HD. It's just a different animal in my eyes. It's tough to say. I like them both for different things.
 
Blaine said:
As long as the goal is to "make it look like film" it's hard to see that film will go away until digital can truly duplicate the film look. I think in our heart of hearts most of us would LOVE to shoot on film...it's a matter of cost. All things being equal (which they're not) it would be great to shoot a movie on film.
Click to expand...
Dammit, Blaine...you beat me to the punch.

I feel DV in general is a way to break into the latest incarnation of Hollywood. Once upon a time, a filmmaker could work his way up the ranks to the elusive director's chair. Long gone are those days.

More recently (the 1990's), the likes of Ed Burns, Robert Rodriguez & Kevin Smith navigated a new trade route to the biz...braving the open frontier of the ultra-low budget 16mm. That trade route has since fallen off the map.

The latest avenue to the "big show", the Digital one, is here to stay IMO. Whether or not it ever becomes the norm is anyones guess. I feel the ultimate pot o' gold (for now) would be to get a relatively big budget 35mm film production with our respective names atop it. I know that's my ambition...and the digital medium (hand-in-hand with HD) is the golden ticket needed to get inside that factory (movie, not chocolate.)

IMHO of course.
 
Story is key. You're average joe doesn't give a rat's ass if its HD 1080i or 1080p with 24f or 16mm. We do. The film/movie geeks. Whatever media you shoot on, its all about the story you are trying to tell. There are definite advantages to shooting certain pieces on certain media, definitely, but really to me it doesn't matter if it was shot on a 1 megapixel Fisher Price camera if it has a compelling story to tell.

I think people get so hung up on the video vs. film arguement (which to me is much like Mac vs. PC, pluses and minuses on both sides and advocates/fanatics of both) and trying so hard to make their dv look like anything but that forget story is key. Lynch, Lucas are among many eary adopters to "go digital" for their own reasons. I like having choices. I like that film isn't the ONLY media available to shoot a short movie or feature or just my wife stepping out the shower buck naked. Choice is a good thing in my eyes and I'm glad that DV has come a long way in such a short time.

I don't know that there will ever be just one almight medium, and I am completely fine with that.
 
Film rocks. If I were independently wealthy I'd shoot on 35mm, 16mm and have my DVX by my side as well. I'd use anything I could get my freakin hands on.

How about focusing on being an artist? Use whatever you can to express yourself. Don't restrict yourself to clay, canvas, celluloid or CCD's.
 
Noct said:
Film rocks. If I were independently wealthy I'd shoot on 35mm, 16mm and have my DVX by my side as well. I'd use anything I could get my freakin hands on.

How about focusing on being an artist? Use whatever you can to express yourself. Don't restrict yourself to clay, canvas, celluloid or CCD's.
Click to expand...

Amen!
 
George Lucas owns you all, stop hating cuz you don't dig his stuff like you used to, or you're jealous.
 
Kubrick71 said:
George Lucas owns you all, stop hating cuz you don't dig his stuff like you used to, or you're jealous.
Click to expand...


I personally don't hate the man. I just think his choice to alter IV, V and VI and not provide the original content is ludicrous. He can make whatever bad movies going forward and I don't have to watch them. But why won't he release the unadulerated (damn it Greedo did NOT shoot first) cuts of the films? He testified before congress in the 80's to not have black and white films colorized. He said “Would color distract from their comedy and make it not as funny anymore? Maybe just the fact that they’re in black and white makes it funny, because their humor is dated. But by putting it in black and white, it puts it in a context where you can appreciate it for what it was."

I guess he is immune from his own logic.
 
I know what you mean about his own restorations, but simply it is his movie and he can do whatever he thinks is right and it's right for his movie. But for the sake of arguing, he doesnt want color to distrct from the original intent of the movie, the changes George makes to his own movies do not distort the original intention, he just improves on his original, or fixes mistakes, however you want to look at it.
 
Nevershootfilm.com. Well I had to call the blog something.


I have a friend/mentor who is a film advocate. He went to New York film Academy, has shot a handful of shorts in 16mm and super 16, and now trying to secure funding for a feature that he will hopefully shoot on 35.
His website I developed is www.tigistfilms.com (audio on page).

What I have to say is that he is a very talented director if he shot his films with web cams it would still be better than most. He is spending a tremendous amount of money buying film, transferring from film, back to film, because he shot film.
I try to convince him once a week that he should shoot his first feature digitally. He is always talking about latitude, depth of field, and film motion. I agree film is better, but how close is close enough. If he shot his first indie feature film using the HVX200 how much money would he save? Also the Canon XL H1 is also an option that is being compared to the F900.

I have always been an early adopter. I was ridiculed when I bought a digital camera from Cord Camera in 2002 where I worked and recommended anyone who was getting into photography to also get one. They though I was crazy just think working around film camera geeks saying it will be 10 years before digital was close enough for pro work. I went back into Cord Camera last year and they all had Digital SLR’s. Yes digital. Cord Camera has 3 cameras that shot film and about 20 that shoot digital on display.

Well I told them and I’m telling you film will soon be the old way. The masses will follow the early adopters. All you HD camera owners are early adopters. HDTV isn’t even in the majority of households but you still bought one. You are looking to the future. You know that the day will soon come and it doesn’t make sense to buy old technology like standard def. Film is old technology it doesn’t make sense for new moviemakers to master old technology.

So the HVX200 made confident enough to say it and the Canon XL H1 helped me prove it. So finally nevershootfilm.

Side note my friend also just bought a used film SLR. He is one hard sell. Soon the change will come.
 
Dude, did film like beat you up in school and take your lunch money? You sure have it in for the poor old guy...
 
Challenge

Challenge

desperatecomfort said:
Dude, did film like beat you up in school and take your lunch money? You sure have it in for the poor old guy...
Click to expand...

Nope. I just would like for people to be able to make movies without draining their savings accounts or having to wait years to finally find sponsors. I know that I will be shooting my first music video this month on a rented dvx that will cost me $100 for the day rental and maybe $30 for tapes. If I shot film what would the cost be? I know film is overkill for my first video but why if I become really good at it should I now learn a new way of doing things that will complicate my workflow. So I won’t shot film. I'll just move up to the HVX200. And then maybe the Canon XL H1

Have you checked out my blog desperatecomfort? You seem to feel the most uncomfortable with my position. If you were shooting your first film (lets say it's panic room or house of a 1000 corpses) and you have a $100,000 budget how would you divide up the money? Lets say your shot ratio is 5 to 1. What medium would you shot with? After that change your budget to $500,000.
Now after you made these movies and you are big time you now want to switch to film. Why, because that’s what you where told the pros shoot on. If you keep shooting digital would this now make your movies somehow inferior, because I would view them as cutting edge.

Budget doesn't include color correction and final transfer to film.
 
Noct said:
Film rocks. If I were independently wealthy I'd shoot on 35mm, 16mm and have my DVX by my side as well. I'd use anything I could get my freakin hands on.

How about focusing on being an artist? Use whatever you can to express yourself. Don't restrict yourself to clay, canvas, celluloid or CCD's.
Click to expand...

I most agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top