During our thesis proposal, we all wrote in our papers that we would be doing a "short film". My professor said that we should change it to "short narrative video" instead since none of us would really use film to shoot. He does have a point, I mean why call it "full length film" or "short film" if you're not even going to use film? Just an observation.
Why call it "film" when you're using digital?
- Thread starter charles827
- Start date
I can't really answer this question, but my Wordpress spell check rejects 'movie'...
Not the same thing, but film seems to be the proper term.
Not the same thing, but film seems to be the proper term.
It has become a generic term. The term "film" also has more artistic and professional connotations. If you're a videomaker you're some clown aiming a $99.99 camcorder somewhere in the direction of his kids and pets. If you're a filmmaker you are on a par (at least in your own mind) with Ford, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Spielberg...
I think "short narrative video" sounds a bit wanky when talking outside the context of the classroom or with non-filmmakers. Anglophiles tend to say film rather than movie, so I suppose that's part of it for me. This debate only ever seems to crop up when talking about amateur filmmaking - I never saw anyone calling Steven Soderberg's excellent Che two-parter a video.
There are several accepted definitions of "video":
- the system of recording, reproducing, or broadcasting
moving visual images on or from videotape.
- Of or relating to television, especially televised images.
- Of or relating to videotaped productions or videotape
equipment and technology.
- A videocassette or videotape, especially one containing
a recording of a movie, music performance, or television
program.
Why call it a "video" if you aren't using tape? What do we
call it then?
There are several accepted definitions of "film":
- a medium that disseminates moving pictures
- a form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence
of images giving the illusion of continuous movement
- a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving
images
This is a reason I don't like film school. The professor should
allow students to use the term "film" even when capturing
the image on tape, hard drive or solid state media.
- the system of recording, reproducing, or broadcasting
moving visual images on or from videotape.
- Of or relating to television, especially televised images.
- Of or relating to videotaped productions or videotape
equipment and technology.
- A videocassette or videotape, especially one containing
a recording of a movie, music performance, or television
program.
Why call it a "video" if you aren't using tape? What do we
call it then?
There are several accepted definitions of "film":
- a medium that disseminates moving pictures
- a form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence
of images giving the illusion of continuous movement
- a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving
images
This is a reason I don't like film school. The professor should
allow students to use the term "film" even when capturing
the image on tape, hard drive or solid state media.
Film = "A form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence
of images giving the illusion of continuous movement"
directorik said it well.
of images giving the illusion of continuous movement"
directorik said it well.
I started out using video and videographer when trying to produce "Short Narrative Video" and got laughed at due to the stigma that the word "Video" holds.
Whether or not it's an accurate presentation of the format you'll be using to capturing images, if you want to get anything made... you're filming and making a film as the description give a sense of the production as being taken seriously, rather than high schoolers tossing around a consumer camera.
The perception is the reason I'm a filmmaker who uses digital formats to film my short narratives.
Whether or not it's an accurate presentation of the format you'll be using to capturing images, if you want to get anything made... you're filming and making a film as the description give a sense of the production as being taken seriously, rather than high schoolers tossing around a consumer camera.
The perception is the reason I'm a filmmaker who uses digital formats to film my short narratives.
And not sure about Knightly or anyone else, but my use of digital is 100% driven by cost. If I could shoot on film for the same, or even twice the cost of digital I would be shooting on film.
filmmaker:
- a producer of motion pictures
- one who produces or directs movies
- one who makes motion pictures
Three definitions from three well respected dictionaries.
And not one mention if using film as opposed to another
medium. Seems to me that with the various definitions
of "film" someone using a video camera to make a short
film can use both words - film and filmmaker.
- a producer of motion pictures
- one who produces or directs movies
- one who makes motion pictures
Three definitions from three well respected dictionaries.
And not one mention if using film as opposed to another
medium. Seems to me that with the various definitions
of "film" someone using a video camera to make a short
film can use both words - film and filmmaker.
I've only done one project that I would've used film for if I could've afforded to, but for the others I don't think it would've been the appropriate tool for the job. I'd love to shoot on film one day, but for the time being I'm just grateful there are so many fantastic digital cameras available at this level.
I'd call it "motion picture" instead, it would be the most neutral term that reflects the right signification. Both the words video and film derive from a format-thing. Now I''m not a native speaker of English, but it seems to me that movie is something made up from motion and video? Or am I totally wrong?
Anyone who says it's not a film unless it's shot on film needs to watch David Lynch's Inland Empire.
Me too, I wouldn't be making "films", or more likely I'd be making 8mm or 16mm films, less frequently.
The only time I would pick digital over film would maybe be a "run and gun" type doc. Any kind of narrative "film" I'd pick film over digital 100% of the time. The reason I don't is the fact it would increase my budget by a factor of probably 10.
I used to think the same way. Then again, when you get cut, do you ask for an adhesive bandage, or Band-Aid? Ah, semantics.
I'd just call it a "short". The new buzzword is to call the DSLR and RED type cameras "Digital" instead of "Video" because of the connotation that video is some how cheap.
or a 'Feature' instead of Feature Film.
No one important really cares what it was shot on, just whether it's good or not.
or a 'Feature' instead of Feature Film.
No one important really cares what it was shot on, just whether it's good or not.
There are parts of the South, where the following conversation makes perfect sense:
- Hey, you want a Coke?
- Yeah, that'd be great.
- What kind?
- Sprite.
Language is fluid. It changes. Did you ever think "friend" would be a verb? Well, it is. A videographer is someone who shoots weddings. People who make movies are filmmakers. That's just the commonly accepted definition/perception.
- Hey, you want a Coke?
- Yeah, that'd be great.
- What kind?
- Sprite.
Language is fluid. It changes. Did you ever think "friend" would be a verb? Well, it is. A videographer is someone who shoots weddings. People who make movies are filmmakers. That's just the commonly accepted definition/perception.
In the motion picture industry - because it is constantly changing - there are many such terms which become outmoded but are still used...out of tradition, I suppose.
One that springs immediately to mind is the word "gels" -- i.e. the transparent plastic sheets used to tint lights. In the pre-plastic days they were made from two sheets of glass with colored gelatin sandwiched in-between. Those haven't been used for half a century, but we still call them gels (though some simply refer to them as "color").
Also, ADR is often still called "looping". Originally, parts of a movie's work print were physically spliced together in a continuous loop that ran repeatedly through a projector so an actor could watch it in a studio while re-recording dialogue. It probably hasn't been done that way since the 1970s, but its still common to hear it called "looping". (Even "ADR" is a misnomer anymore, for that matter.)
I'll bet that others on here can come up with even more examples.
One that springs immediately to mind is the word "gels" -- i.e. the transparent plastic sheets used to tint lights. In the pre-plastic days they were made from two sheets of glass with colored gelatin sandwiched in-between. Those haven't been used for half a century, but we still call them gels (though some simply refer to them as "color").
Also, ADR is often still called "looping". Originally, parts of a movie's work print were physically spliced together in a continuous loop that ran repeatedly through a projector so an actor could watch it in a studio while re-recording dialogue. It probably hasn't been done that way since the 1970s, but its still common to hear it called "looping". (Even "ADR" is a misnomer anymore, for that matter.)
I'll bet that others on here can come up with even more examples.
Lol. Nicole had a good laugh when I said 'pop' while I was packing up for the pepsi commercial.
Personally, I love those little differences between regions. And I love learning new ones.