Film or Video?

[kotte]

I know this has been talked about but it's important so I'll start another thread.

As PTA said, film and video can exist in a perfect harmony if they don't try to imitate each other.

We see video imitate film but NOT ther other way around. Why? Because film rules. Why? No can put their finger on it but we can all feel it.

If you're making a short. A short you want to be considered seriously, film is the way to go...

Sure, people like Soderbergh and Rodrigues experiment with it, but they can because they're professionals.

Video is cheaper...and is the way to go when you're learning and experimenting...but shorts that wants to be taken seriously should  be shot on film.

My opinion.

[Ghostboy]

You may have opened a can of worms here, but I'll throw in my two cents...

They're both great, and they both can be used for great projects, no matter how established you are. It's true, though, that you get more 'respect' now if you're an unknown shooting on film. People will take it more seriously, although that doesn't really mean anything. It doesn't mean you have any more of a chance of getting recognized, or 'making it.' If your film was shot on film and it's great, people will pay more attention. If it's crappy, no one's going to care what it was shot on.

[kotte]

Film is expensive. I'm not saying video is crappy, bad and unprofessional.

If you know you'll be shooting video, try to find a project suited for it.

[Recce]

Well, video technology is getting better and better and is looking more and more like film, thanks to different things like 24fps video cameras, etc. Even shooting with a mediocre camera, if you light as if you're lighting for film and shoot it like a film, it wont look so bad. I've only ever shot one project on 16mm. It was more trouble then it was worth. I got that cool grainy look, sure, but i had to ration my film, light very carefully and risked over or under exposing. With video, you can get a fairly decent facsimily and it could still look great. Plus, you can shoot hours of footage and it'll cost maybe 50$ for tapes. I'm sold on video. Maybe when I'm a pro, but till then, video.

[kotte]

Maybe when I'm a pro, but till then, video.

I would give alot to feel that way. But I just can't see the benefits of video when it comes to look.

Film rules. That's way video tries to imitate it.

[Recce]

I can't say I really go in on a shoot thinking 'this one has to look like film'. I try to make it as perty as I can. Film jsut happens to be up there.

[aclockworkjj]

If you know you'll be shooting video, try to find a project suited for it.

I completely agree...too many are looking at video as a means of a cheap film...no!

It's got a lot of other options, as well as cheap on the pocket.  I don't think video can not be great.  But it shouldn't be an alternative.

I respect the likes of Figgis and such...for even dabbling....even if it may suck.

ps. Reece: don't let one shitty experience turn you from film tho, yes, it killed my pocket too.  But if you hit it...even if only a few great exposures....seeing yer shit flicker is like nothing surreal...

[mutinyco]

It all depends what your intentions are. I think DV is fine -- if your intent is to show what you can do. But if you're using that cheaper format you've got to make it look as professional as possible. The reason "pros" take you more seriously if you shoot film is because it looks like you're better connected and have access to money -- that you're up and coming, not just anybody. (Same thing with women -- if you have money you look more successful and more desireable.) But ultimately, it's always going to come down to the same thing: story and performances. DV is a place to start, but the idea should be to progress and convince people to invest more so your production values can go up.

[metroshane]

I think that both are great...but film is not quite worth it to me.  I think the problem with video is that people think that since it's cheaper they don't have to pay attention to the details...which is wrong.  You still have to do the prep work and go the extra distance with lighting and such.  And that's why video is looking so bad.  I don't think we've seen video's full capabilities yet.

PS:  the new issue of movie maker claims Swingers was shot on XL1.  Is that possible?

[BonBon85]

Despite how much I love the look of film, I'm just not very good with it. So far all 3 of my attempts at shooting film have been ruined by either technical difficulties or my own ineptitude. For now I prefer using video, but I'm sure that'll change if I ever get my hands on a camera that's not an ancient and defective film school camera.

[mutinyco]

I'm pretty sure Swingers was super-16...

[BonBon85]

According to imdb it was 35mm

[mutinyco]

I still think it was shot in super-16...but I could be wrong...

[Cecil]

film is worth it

[TheVoiceOfNick]

As i've said in the past, its all about the story and performances, like mutinyco said... i'd rather watch something that looks crappy on video, but engages me, than something on film that is beautiful but makes me snore...

if you light DV just right, and use the right equipment, you can make DV look like film... as long as you don't blow it up... DV doesn't look great on the big screen because it's too pixelated... also, since DV cameras are smaller, they tend to shake more, making the video look like home video...

on the bright side, i've seen video shot on an XL-1, with professional lenses, great lighting, and superb heavy-camera movement, and it looked EXACTLY like film on my 27" TV... i couldn't tell the difference... it looked gorgeous...