Are you a filmmaker or "Videomaker"?

B

brianluce

Carbonite Member
I have little startup humbly named "Sorrento Films". On my biz card I've got a pic of a video camera. Some guy was giving me grief today saying why do you say "Films" when there's a pic of a video cam?

I didn't have a good answer other than "These days the terms are normally considered interchangeable."

Am I right? Or should I remove the pic of the video cam on the calling card?
 
It's subjective.

I think filmmaker refers to somebody who makes films (which in my opinion is synonymous with movies). There isn't a word for somebody who shoots movies on video (videographer implies ENG work).

I think you're fine. Others may and will disagree.
 
I hear people around hear shooting with the HVX/DVX refer to it as filming. Techinically speaking there is no film involved in what most of us are doing, so no we aren't filming, however the term filming is very much becoming a word to describe shooting movies, the normal person relates "fiming" to production regardless of what formatt it is shot in, so no harm done in my opinion.
 
Kodak makes film, video cameras make video. I just take an idea, capture it to tape, and craft the best story I can. Does that help?
 
These sorts of semantics make my head hurt sometimes.
I think we're really splitting hairs here. Our of curiosity, I checked the dictionary:

FILM:
Noun
1. A form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence of images giving the illusion of continuous movement; "they went to a movie every Saturday night"; "the film was shot on location".

People still refer to 'albums' and 'records' and 'CDs' - when many of us just download our music from Itunes and the like.

Personally, I think as time moves on you'll find less and less guys like the one you ran into. Some people still want to draw a distinction in the verbage, and those are the ones who probably don't bother doing anything with either medium.
 
film is more than just a medium. a "filmmaker" isn't someone who literally makes film. just like a television producer isn't some who literally produces televisions.
 
One thing I haven't hear in years, the word "Taping". Use to hear it, "We're taping today..."

Anyone ever hear it to refer to videoTAPING?
 
brianluce said:
One thing I haven't hear in years, the word "Taping". Use to hear it, "We're taping today..."

Anyone ever hear it to refer to videoTAPING?
Click to expand...

Tape? What's that? :)
Even that terminology is getting outdated now.

smpproductions said:
film is more than just a medium. a "filmmaker" isn't someone who literally makes film. just like a television producer isn't some who literally produces televisions.
Click to expand...
Hahahahah
Good point.
:thumbsup:
 
brianluce said:
One thing I haven't hear in years, the word "Taping". Use to hear it, "We're taping today..."

Anyone ever hear it to refer to videoTAPING?
Click to expand...

Yes, I see it in print ALL. THE. TIME. (And, in regard to television productions, it seems that they get it wrong more often that they get it right. For example, they'll talk about some people "taping" a show that is produced on film, and "filming" a show that is produced on video. And of course they'll use both terms interchangeably in the same article, talking about a single production.)
 
If I'm shooting a movie; filmmaker

If I'm shooting weddings or special events; videographer.

Tell Michael Mann, Robert Rodriguez, Bryan Singer, Danny Boyle (and so on and so forth) that their not filmmakers
 
What John said and TBH I would consider saying to someone who is tugging such small strings to get over themselves. Actually I probably wouldnt because Im a peace loving human being which doesnt mean I dont have an opinion I am not willing to state - some people are confused by this it seems.

But exactly what to say would be - umm what John said but if they are that uneducated they may need something more obvious.
 
I know this guy who made two 16mm movies in college who, for some reason, thinks it's really important to distinct himself from me by calling me a "videomaker" or "video artist" when I call myself a filmmaker. And if I show any annoyance, he says "If you're so adamant about shooting digital, why do you call yourself a filmmaker, and call your videos 'films'? You're a videomaker." It's not the term that annoys me, it's the condescending attitude. I know quite a few asshats who think they're geniuses because they shoot on film, as opposed to video, which, according to them is "not serious". It really bugs me. I'm a filmmaker. I don't care if there's an emulsion, or a bunch of pixels, or a bird inside of a box, etching the images with it's beak.
 
Since a business card is about impressions, and the impression a prospective client/investor/whatever gets is only under limited control...you might want to consider a design that doesn't risk implanting the whole video-vs-film thing in your contacts' minds, at all.

Sure, it's about the content of what you do, and the specific tools you use to do it, are kind of beside the point...but the card ought to be doing something positive for you, in its limited way, and if you find that it's doing something more like distracting your contacts with stuff like "but that's a video camera..." then it isn't really serving you as well as it should.

Perhaps you can develop a business card design that communicates an impression you like, without using hardware as part of the look. Your production cred can be communicated, without a literal image like that - plus, you want to sell yourself as a creative guy. So invent a card that does that, for you!
 
If he was just pointing it out as a matter of fact, it's one thing...if the guy is harping on the difference between film and video, then he's just being a jerk.

Music videos used to be shot almost exclusively on film...yet called videos.

People who make documentaries usually use digital video now, but are called documentary filmmakers (yes, a hold over from early days....but if it really was a big deal, wouldn't somebody in the field have said something by now?)

The Academy refers to movies shot on video as films.

As for "taping," you still hear it...'In an interview we taped earlier...,' or 'for the taping of tonight's show...' I'm guessing many of those shows actually are taped, but you get the idea.

Shows used to announce if they were taped or filmed in front of a live audience during the end credits back in the 70s. I never notice that anymore.

Does this guy have problem with the term "shooting", or "shot,".....because the camera is not a gun, and it doesn't fire projectiles.

Don't many of us still say 'taping' when we record something on a digital recorder? When I used to do music journalism, I used to say I taped my interviews, when really they were digitally recorded.

Nobody had a fit.
 
I totally get all of this. Semantics are a bunch of crap and we all create content. Format is almost irrelevant.

But...

I shoot video because it's more forgiving. Honestly I probably wouldn't be doing this if film were the only option. The learning curve is both steep and expensive. If you use a good monitor, you almost always get the results you expect with video. Not so with film.

I know it's not rocket surgery or brain science, but there is a voodoo element to shooting on film that would scare more of us away than we might care to admit. While I see no reason to be snobby abouot it, I can see why an experienced DP who shoots film on a regular basis might get annoyed by some clown with a handycam calling himself a "filmmaker". The good news about video is anybody can do it. The bad news is that anybody does.
 
There's a fip side to that coin...

What about all the hacks who run around with cameras and a budget, shooting 35mm footage, and making pure crap.

Celebration, The Tracey Fragments, Collateral...they were all made on video, by filmmakers.

Uwe Boll shoots on 35mm...is he really any better than some yahoo with a digital camera?
 
DeSica said:
There's a fip side to that coin...

What about all the hacks who run around with cameras and a budget, shooting 35mm footage, and making pure crap.

Celebration, The Tracey Fragments, Collateral...they were all made on video, by filmmakers.

Uwe Boll shoots on 35mm...is he really any better than some yahoo with a digital camera?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I'm not arguing better or worse. I'm just stating that I can empathize why some accomplished DPs regard inexperienced people with video cameras who call themselves filmmakers with less than equal measure.

I'm not taking sides. We have a very experienced grip/gaffer as a consultant on a project. The guy owns a huge soundstage and a bajillion dollars worth of gear and trucks. He has lots of connections and experience and is very generous with helping us out. But when we get to the discussion of cameras, it's like talking to the wall. He says he'd rather see us shoot in 16mm than digital. "Oh, I thought you were making a FILM..." he says. If we bring up the RED, he almost has a stroke. So I understand the frustration. I face it too.
 
Jim Brennan said:
While I see no reason to be snobby abouot it, I can see why an experienced DP who shoots film on a regular basis might get annoyed by some clown with a handycam calling himself a "filmmaker".
Click to expand...

Last year I met with a team of third-year AFI students to discuss production design for their thesis project. Along the way I asked what format they were shooting; their DP pushed back his greasy hair, looked down his long nose at me, and sneered with the obligatory Eastern European accent, why, we urr shooting zeh thirty-five millimeter film, uff corze! with what I can only describe as disdainful outrage, that anyone might consider alternative formats.

And this guy wasn't even particularly experienced, yet.

Needless to say, all I could think about for a moment, were the various professional DPs alongside whom I've worked, who were happily shooting away with Cinealtas, Genesis, D20s, etc...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top