Debate between student and lecturer

Personally, I feel that while a merge between film and video is imminent, it is still in it's infancy. There are still enough differences between film and video production that the subjects should be taught separately.

The question of what to shoot a "feature film" on is answered in the second word of what your shooting.
 
Last edited:
Jim Simon said:
The question of what to shoot a "feature film" on in answered in the second word of what your shooting.
Click to expand...

Yes, great point - simply go back to your professor and explain to him that you should be shooting on 35mm film.

[/hair splitting]

Very well, how about what feature length narrative fiction videos should be shot on?
 
I have found out that we are actually going to be shooting on a Sony V7,

Probably shouldnt have posted in the HVX section but knew i would get a good response,

thanks to all the people that have replied
 
Hi RJB,

This would explain why the interlace/deinterlace decision. I do not believe that the V7 is a progressive capture camera and really just fakes it and between that and the HDV of it all makes for a pretty ugly outcome. Meaning the interlace/deinterlace would be better.

Best,

Jan
 
Jan-

It's my understanding that the Sony V7U does shoot true progressive imagery. And while we can argue til the cows come home about the quality of HDV vs. DVCProHD, it seems very petty of you to take swipes at your competitors here with terms like "ugly".

Like it or not, HDV has been and continues to be used by many video professionals to make features, television shows, and other works for hire. It doesn't do Panasonic any favors to have you spreading misinformation about Sony cameras and disparaging them in a public forum.

I've played around with the Z7U, and it's a joy to work with. It has many great features and has a great "feel" to it. That being said, when I finally sell my current camera (a DVX100B) I plan to get the HPX170.

But you're not inspiring much brand loyalty with posts like this. I'm not saying all this to be hurtful or to start a flame war. I just think you should realize the power of your words and try to stick to true facts and avoid ad hominem attacks on your competitors.
 
Ron Rodenmeyer said:
Jan-
it seems very petty of you to take swipes at your competitors here with terms like "ugly".
Click to expand...


Ron, wasn't meaning to be petty at all, just looking at the what I thought was the reality of the 24 frame iteration of the V7. And why the interlace choice would be better. No offense intended and it was not intended as any swipe at all just a clarity moment as to why the instructor was wanting to go interlace and the de-interlace in the camera.

Best,

Jan
 
Jan-

Perhaps I should have been more delicate with my choice of words. I just wanted to make sure you realized how that sounded, at least to me. You add a lot to these discussions, and I know that's not your style nor your intention.

I've just grown very tired of misleading, dismissive, and mean-spirited posts from all sides (EX1 , HVX, XLH1 users, etc.). I know that's not how you roll, so I should have not assumed the worst.

Barry on the other hand....

Just kidding. That was for Al.

Ron
 
Ron Rodenmeyer said:
Jan-
I've just grown very tired of misleading, dismissive, and mean-spirited posts from all sides (EX1 , HVX, XLH1 users, etc.). I know that's not how you roll, so I should have not assumed the worst.
Ron
Click to expand...


As one that receives a good ly share of the mean-spirited remarks I hear you. I will try to do a better job in choosing my words, but you know sometimes things can just be ugly. ;-)

Thanks for the slack,

Jan
 
I don't think it looks ugly at all.

We produced some great looking footage from a Z1U. Actually fabulous.

Editing, post and delivery was not optimal at all.

Our clients preferred DVCProHD originated DVDs far significantly than HDV originated DVDs.
 
Very well, how about what feature length narrative fiction videos should be shot on?
Click to expand...
My point was that while the artistic needs of visual storytelling may cross the film/video boundary, the sciences of image acquisition are still sufficiently different that anyone in film school should be using only film their entire time throughout.

It seems many film schools these days tend to shortcut the early learning process by using video to teach some of the basics of the art. But I think this cheats the students out of learning the technical capabilities of film which come with the experience of shooting on film.

Put another way, I think teaching the subject of narrative fiction on video cheats the student out of the full learning experience, much like teaching a guitarist on an electric rather than a classical acoustic cheats him out of a valuable learning experience.
 
Last edited:
Al MacLeod said:
Those that can...do...those that can't...teach.
Click to expand...

I don't think Barry's being over sensitive in as much the comment is thoughtless. It's a blanket disparagement on teachers. Aside from working in film for 20 years plus, I lectured at the university level for over ten years. It's not an easy job. In many ways it's more challenging than running a crew. On set everyone around you already has a minimum level of training as well as financial incentive to be there and behave. As a teacher you have to engage complete neophytes and impart what they need to know. The best lecturers have honed their skills over the years like well crafted theater - it intrigues you and has an impact. To take an alien concept, break it down, make it compelling and make it stick is not only like putting together a tight script but performing it as well. No small order. Camera operating is much easier. Take it from someone who has done a bit of both.

Trust me, the lecturers that make an indelible impression did not wing it.

But your follow up with the physicians metaphor is even more clueless. Getting in med school is so unbelievably difficult these days that only in a few small instances anyone who graduates has what it takes to practice.

Initially I thought the lecturer cited here didn't do his homework and is faking his expertise until I found out they're shooting on a V7. But unfortunately, teaching like any profession, gets its fair share of hacks (unlike the film industry?). Yet in the world of "doers" it is rare that I work for a director who hasn't had their moments of sub-genius. Just go to the movies and see for yourself - there's often better entertainment in a good lecture hall.


Tim Naylor - DP / Former Lecturer
www.timnaylor.com
 
Last edited:
Jim Simon said:
My point was that while the artistic needs of visual storytelling may cross the film/video boundary, the sciences of image acquisition are still sufficiently different that anyone in film school should be using only film their entire time throughout.

It seems many film schools these days tend to shortcut the early learning process by using video to teach some of the basics of the art. But I think this cheats the students out of learning the technical capabilities of film which come with the experience of shooting on film.

Put another way, I think teaching the subject of narrative fiction on video cheats the student out of the full learning experience, much like teaching a guitarist on an electric rather than a classical acoustic cheats him out of a valuable learning experience.
Click to expand...

You bring up some valid points. When I began teaching it was all film and flatbeds. The simplicity in technology was evident in their films. When I left it as all HD and Final Cut. Did the films improve? Not by a long shot. There was a significant decline. I'm not sure what the correct approach is as there's no denying the cost benefits of HD/NLE's. But I ponder why the black and white reversal non-sync films were far better. I concluded that the limitations forced the students to focus on the essentials rather than being exposed to so many options (every plug in they got their hands on) that they become half assed at all.

It got to the point I become much reviled by some students because of changes I'd make in my classroom that defied the curriculum - such as no transitions; or giving everyone the same half page of dialogue and then making them come up with the story; no music; etc. Eventually, my efforts to limit their choices conflicted with the administrations approach of offer everything to everybody (so long as their checks cleared) that I checked out. It's funny how the broad range of choices not only made the students lose focus but the institution as well.

Yet I do think a full experience can be taught on digital every bit as good or better than on film - so long as the focus is on effective storytelling. The costs advantage are undeniable. If I had an the option of HD as a student, the money saved from shooting on film could've gone to better actors, script or another film altogether.

As technology can't be turned back, schools have to accept it comes and goes but in and of itself does not make a strong program. In basic terms, word processors have yet to improve the novel.
 
Last edited:
Good Lord, one would think I shouted fire in a crowded theater and then locked the doors.

I am not the originator of this blasphmous phrase...as with many such utterances it survives and is repeated because in some cases_it is true_.

I regret never having had you as an instructor. The experience no doubt would have made up for the time spent listening to those not of your high caliber.

As I said before, and I won't attempt another metaphor...not all teachers are good. And the good ones recognise this and should take no offence.

And your opinion "But your follow up with the physicians metaphor is even more clueless."

You need to spend some time in a hospital pal...there the difference in skills is no longer academic. It's life and death!
 
dory_breaux said:
Anything from sony looks ugly, nuff said.
Click to expand...

Umm...CineAlta? The panasonic's can get terrible images, as can the RED, as can the panavision's. But to say everything SONY sucks is quite simply stupid.

And I agree film schools should still teach film. The digital realm is very different from film. While you can teach good story telling on video - you also teach students how to plan and be selective on shots, as well as working with film when you teach film.
 
Al MacLeod said:
as with many such utterances it survives and is repeated because in some cases_it is true_.
Click to expand...
Sure, there are many disparaging stereotypes made about all manner of groups that persist. That doesn't make them true. A hideous insult is a hideous insult, period.

I prefer to turn the statement around and say it thusly:

Those who can teach, do. Those who can't, suck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top