I don't know if we ever got into this or not but, just what is "DV". DV in some circles just means Digital Video. If that's the definition, my cell phone does DV, as does a Sony D8 or DVCam, MiniDV, DVCPro, DVCPro50, and on up the line to a Genesis in 4k files. Anything captured directly to a PC, Mac or even an iPod is a digital video as soon as it's captured.

How broad are we going with the term? If someone captures analog footage into a PC to edit it, as in VHS or Beta original material, is the fact that it's now digital enough to qualify as DV? What if I shoot and capture some 8mm, Super 8, 16mm, etc film footage via telecine or just shooting it off the wall and into my DV camera or my PC, is that not digital video as well then?

I think we should almost stick to digitally "originated" footage but that would still include Pixelvision, cell phones, iPods hooked directly to an analog camera, etc.

Not trying to be a pain as it's sort of a non issue at this point but I was just thinking, if I had a RED ONE or an XDCam, would that be digital video (DV)? What about camcorders that record on DVDs?

So many questions...

Sean

Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it the "Non-animated and non-still photo montage challenge?" :)

I think we are going to define the boundries as we go, but so far the only excluded things are animation and still photo montage,

Would Stop-Motion fall under the allowed or not-allowed category? Some consider it "movie/film" while others consider it "animation".

But for the challenge, what is it ruled?

Would Stop-Motion fall under the allowed or not-allowed category? Some consider it "movie/film" while others consider it "animation".

But for the challenge, what is it ruled?

I call it animation, so have to rule out stop-motion.

Ah Darn.

That's ok though, it's way more work then live action ;-)

I think to the extent that everything is essentially digital, so we see the DV moniker used less to refer to video being digital and not analog. To me when I see DV I automatically assume they mean DV codec.

When I see DV, I associate it only with the video format defined by IEC-61834.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it the "Non-animated and non-still photo montage challenge?" :)


Uh, I hate to shatter the illusions but all DV (and all film, video and other "motion pictures) is "still photo animation". All motion pictures are an illusion.

It's just animation shot at 24 fps. "No animation" would also mean no CGI, no compositing, to titles, graphics, VFX, motion tracking rotoscoping etc. not to mention we would all have to show up at your house and act our films out so you could avoid any exposure to still photographs :)

I'm a little passionate since I've made several shorts with still photos (shooting 4fps motordrive 35mm SLR and interpolating to 24fps). And I'm currently using "animation" to create a full motion Imax film about Saturn.

So I vote for striking any "rules" about what "kind" of DV piece people turn in.

Hey Stephen
I was actually waiting to see if anyone asked the question...

"What if I shot on a Canon 1D MkIII at 10fps..."

To which I would have answered...

"Sweeet...."


Anyway, thems the rules.

Anyway, thems the rules.

Uh, no. Even without "thems", your rule is not clear english sentence much less a "rule".

Excluding "stop motion" and "still photo montage" can not be defined in any way that would not exclude all footage shot with a DV camera especially use of speed ramps or fast motion or time lapse or CGI. I can think of several DV challengers that used CGI animation, time lapse, speed ramps etc. We'll need "DV Challenge Lawyers" to sort it all out.

So if someone wants to take their DV camera and shoot "time lapse" of clay characters, why do you want to exclude it?

And per "stop-motion", watch this "stop-motion" short short I did a few years back (it's only 10 second long)

http://www.sv2studios.com/clients/

Or watch the trailer here - all made 100% every single frame (except text of course) a still photo montage:

http://www.outsideinthemovie.com/media/teasertrailer.html

Trying to come with rules about what people can and can't submit as "DV" means you are ignoring the fact that there is not such thing as "moving" pictures. Every motion picture is a visual special effect that relies on creating the illusion of motion.

This is like Lars von Triers and the "Dogme" movement. They had a "no animation or special effect rule" conveniently ignoring that film and video are special effects. Most importantly, I saw no evidence that the Dogme films were as good or better than films made without artificial rules.

What if someone wants to do a time lapse piece? That's stop motion. Or maybe just run their short at double-speed?

I just might have to make a piece that's half "Dylan's Dogme" and half "stop motion - still photo montage" and see if anyone can figure which is which...

Uh, no. Even without "thems", your rule is not clear english sentence much less a "rule".

Jus cause I's grown up pon a 'tater farm, dozent mean I's don't no rules!



Anyway, $5 says that I'm right.


Excluding "stop motion" and "still photo montage" can not be defined in any way that would not exclude all footage shot with a DV camera especially use of speed ramps or fast motion or time lapse or CGI. I can think of several DV challengers that used CGI animation, time lapse, speed ramps etc. We'll need "DV Challenge Lawyers" to sort it all out.

Actually, I just make the decision. It's easier. It's cheaper. Have I DQ'ed someone yet? (actually, I did privately, once, but not for that)


Trying to come with rules about what people can and can't submit as "DV" means you are ignoring the fact that there is not such thing as "moving" pictures. Every motion picture is a visual special effect that relies on creating the illusion of motion.

I'm probably one of the most fun people to argue with, and to be honest, I love doing it and would be happy to engage you in this, except for two things.

1) I'm not changing my mind.

2) I have a date with a margarita and a pool of bikini clad beauties in Las Vegas in a couple hours. This seems to me just a little more important than argueing whether or not 24 frames of film in sequence is stop motion or not.


I just might have to make a piece that's half "Dylan's Dogme" and half "stop motion - still photo montage" and see if anyone can figure which is which...

Do it. I'll make up a rule right now called the SVV Rule: "Any short which lampoons Dylan's rules may be submitted in any format and created in any way."

In any case, here is why montages and animation of any type are not allowed to be the principal form of your work. They change the dynamic of the pieces created, and allow a variable that is not available to all participants. The reason for not allowing these is to keep the playing field flat and even. Having said that, you are allowed to incorporate any creative elements you want in your piece, which we've had many brilliant examples of in the past. Read again: they can be IN your film, they just cannot BE your film. How much is allowed? I will not set a rule on that, but if the primary thread of your story is displayed exclusively in one of those mediums, you are risking DQ.

I'll bring you back something from Vegas.

Anyway, $5 says that I'm right.

You're on, though you've already lost. DV is measured in frames per second. A frame is still image.

I will take my $5 in form of tax-exempt donation to my film "Outside In" - (see how I worked yet another shameless plug in?) - donate at www.outsideinthemovie.com


Actually, I just make the decision. It's easier. It's cheaper.


Uh, no. Check out my stop motion short on Youtube plug wars. Made with $100 digital still camera in a week. It was done at 720p 24fps. And maybe search "stop-motion" on youtube - there's plenty of junk but also some incredible stuff done, cheap and easy, but creative. That's what the DV Challenge is about - right?


1) I'm not changing my mind.


Neither is the guy who insist the earth is still center of the universe http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ and he uses stop motion and time lapse photos to prove it - you gotta love it.


2) I have a date with a margarita and a pool of bikini clad beauties in Las Vegas in a couple hours. This seems to me just a little more important than argueing whether or not 24 frames of film in sequence is stop motion or not.


For some reason, I'm recalling the fast/stop motion sequence in "A Clockwork Orange"...I wonder why.


Do it. I'll make up a rule right now called the SVV Rule: "Any short which lampoons Dylan's rules may be submitted in any format and created in any way."


Ah, another "rule". I couldn't follow it, I would have to break it.


In any case, here is why montages and animation of any type are not allowed to be the principal form of your work. They change the dynamic of the pieces created, and allow a variable that is not available to all participants. The reason for not allowing these is to keep the playing field flat and even.


A nice sentiment but it won't work - what about music, crane shots, steadicam, compositing, 35mm adapters? Filmmaking ain't NASCAR - unless you plan on issuing standard kit and cloning us/you - it's not close to a level playing field. Why not just let people's creativity go and enjoy (or suffer) through the results. I will guarantee rules free = more interesting films.

I'll bring you back something from Vegas.

If it's an investor with $500k, I'm interested....

I have to mention, good arguing on all sides. Video however is actually measured in Fields and not frames although that term is oft applied to it. As in 30fps when they really mean 60i (interlaced fields). Some will say that you can capture in 24p. That is true but to play on a standard US television, (and even more to the point, Standard Def Broadcasting) is still 60 interlaced fields. With the exception of HD, television is broadcast in fields.

Also, Dylan is right in that live action has a completely different creative process and thought dynamic to it. Both take planning and skill, etc. but there is a manipulation of the footage one frame at a time in stop motion where as a live video has the flow of time in a specific set measurement - 60i.

All I really wanted to know is if I shoot on Super 8 and transfer it to digital for editing does that count. Personally, I don't think it should but I wanted to know for sure. Also, what about shooting the whole thing on my cell phone? I thought I would ask.

Good luck everyone.

See you all in 2 weeks.

Sean

Video however is actually measured in Fields and not frames although that term is oft applied to it. As in 30fps when they really mean 60i (interlaced fields).

I don't think you can say that. Video can be progressive or interlaced and all of it is measure in frames e.g. 60i is more correctly 29.97fps. Interlacing (fields) is just a necessary evil creating by broadcasting & other bandwidth limitations as was thus widely adopted by broadcast video. But there has always been progressive video in the past, present and future.

But either way, a field or frame is a still image.


Also, Dylan is right in that live action has a completely different creative process and thought dynamic to it. Both take planning and skill, etc. but there is a manipulation of the footage one frame at a time in stop motion where as a live video has the flow of time in a specific set measurement - 60i.


I could not disagree more. I've made over 20 shorts - live action, stop-motion, animation, narrative in various genres. Stop motion has a different feel but so does slow motion or fast motion. Shooting handheld scene on 1-chip consumer cam with natural lighting is very different process from a crane shot with 2/3" broadcast camera on a sound stage with green screen.

Again, filmmaking is not stock car racing.

As for "flow of time", I would just recommend best book I've read on the medium of film "Sculpting in Time" by Tarkovsky who was a great director that died young.

Obviously there are some different opinions here.

I think you should either follow the rules Dylan set, or just not do the contest.

Ah shucks. Don't pay us no mind. We're just pokin' our sticks in the mud.

We always play by the rules, don't we Stephen? Just testing how strong the envelope is, and what it all means. Opinions will vary.

Sean

Hopefully I didn't come across as rude....

I'm not telling anyone to go away. My comment was mainly aimed at Stephen... only because it was like, man, do we really need an argument/debate over THIS?

I don't know one way or the other with the format discussion, but this interests me:

I don't think you can say that. Video can be progressive or interlaced and all of it is measure in frames e.g. 60i is more correctly 29.97fps. Interlacing (fields) is just a necessary evil creating by broadcasting & other bandwidth limitations as was thus widely adopted by broadcast video. But there has always been progressive video in the past, present and future.

But either way, a field or frame is a still image.

"Frame" can have one of two definitions, as I understand it: one complete image, or one sample of time. In the film world, they are one and the same. Twenty-four complete pictures are exposed every second, and the motion of the scene is sampled twenty-four times. But video is different. In normal NTSC video, the camera never captures a complete set of scan lines, only one field at a time. This gives us zero frames per second by the first definition, but 59.94 under the second.

Video captured progressively, or film sources transferred to video, are progressive even if displayed as interlaced, because they take an entire, solid image and break it up into two fields. Regular, run-of-the-mill interlaced footage, however, is captured and played back (though perhaps not stored) field by field, and what we call a "frame" is actually composed of two individual, distinct images, separated by just about one sixtieth of a second. They're close, but they are discrete, hence the comb effect at the edges of moving objects.

Video is spoken about in terms of frames as a matter of convenience, for comparison to film, and because that's how it gets cut, but video frames are markedly different than film frames, and I should think discussing fields would be the most technically accurate way of describing the footage.

"Rarrick!" - Gabby Johnson in Blazing Saddles.

"On the nosey" - Igor in Young Frankenstein.

Robert is right. 1 field cannot be a frame of video really as if you eliminate the blank scan lines in a single field you would have an image that's full width but half height. Not a usable "frame" of video there. If you could view a single fields of video on some sort of screen, you would find it unwatchable.

Still, it's just another interesting debate. I am a Broadcast Engineer don't forget. I do know a little about television (can't say I like the programming all that much). Film still baffles me but TV I sort of get.

Sometimes I don't choose my words as exactly as an Engineering type should and that can muddy the issue.

Sean

Broadcast and interlaced video are not the only forms of video. Web video, computer video, CGI etc. have existed for decades with no interlacing fields used at all. So frames is the operative word, not fields. All video has frames. Some video is interlaced into fields. "Progressive video" is not a new thing.

The very first video in fact was "sequential scanning" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan

Ah, now that is a good point Stephen. My assumption (yes, I know) is that everything I do will one day be shown to an audience live, and it has so far, on a projector or some sort of broadcast capable viewing device, that to me says standard broadcast definition video/audio in 60i.

However - since most folks see this contest and it's results on the web, that is quite a good argument for doing any darned frame rate that a computer can display. However the question remains. Can I shoot it on my cell phone or VHS, or beta or whatever as long as the final form didn't derive from animation or film.

I suppose if you eliminate animation and film sources, everything else except a paper flip book (which really would be animation I guess) should be good-to-go.

PS, saw INLAND EMPIRE Friday night - my brain is still swollen.

And Stephen, you're a good guy but DV as in the DV format is by definition 60i, interlaced video so once again we are at, "define DV".

Sean