Why should we use the word 'video' if most of our stuff is going to DVD? If we're going to be really picky most of us should say that we are DVD camerapeople.

Or what do we call what we are doing if our project is going to be transferred to film? "Yeah, I'm shooting a film video DVD"

The HVX200, VAricam, and XDCAM HD should not have the terms 'undercrank' and 'overcrank' associated with them either.

In fact if we are to be REALLY finnicky someone who is shooting on film should not say that they are shooting 'a film'. They should say that they are shooting 'a films' since most productions consist of more than one reel.

Some people just have too much time on their hands.

Why does everybody use the word film?
 

I find myself wondering which term to use when writing up comments on entries on our Guernsey Lily Film Festival. Personally I tend to use the term film when thinking of fiction entries in particular, probably because I spent most of my teens going to the cinema, and made films with my brother peter originally on Standard 8mm filmstock then 16mm, so it just becomes habitual.
Talking about being finnickerty, try taking the Pedant test, answer this: Who led "The Pedant's Revolt"

Well heres my take on it,

Anyone can call themselves filmmakers, its not a prestigious title to have, you make a video you are a filmmaker, no if's and's or but's. Heck you could even put filmmaker next to your business card if you wanted to.

Also I prefer to tell the people I know im shooting in DV format instead of "Hey guys im going to shoot in film!". It sounds better and doesn't make you look cocky or make you look like you know everything.

The terms "video/videomaking" and "film/filmmaking" have been converging for a long time, sometimes the terms are interchangable, yet other times the terms are associated with very different sets of tools, techniques, grammars, and cultural practices surrounding the funding, production, distribution, and viewing of the respective categories of creative works.

Film has adopted much of the grammar of the "video" while video can now be used to shoot a film. Most people would describe "The Celebration" as a film, yet we know it was shot on video with consumer camcorders. Many music videos are shot on film and posted in video, yet we always call them "music videos." "Film" and "video" are terms that are overloaded with many layers of meaning. I wrote an essay related to this topic a while ago: "Film is dead… and we have killed it" as I find the topic fascinating.

One reason to use the word "film" to describe works shot on video is to tie them with the tradition of cinematic storytelling, which need not be bound to any specific medium, video technology has had the effect of democratizing filmmaking by reducing barriers to entry. When videomakers use the word "film" they lay claim to a storytelling tradition, which is celebrated at many "film" festivals around the world. Some film festivals used to ghettoize videos, and today this has changed for the most part with "films" shot on video being screened side by side with "films" shot on film. Times have changed.

I think one says film and filmmaker because if one uses video or videomaker it has 2 extra syllables.


It may not sound like much, but try it a few times (vi-de-o-ma-ker) and you'll see that filmmaker has an easier ring to it. And when you are pitching to someone and dont have much time--eliminating unnecessary syllables can be crucial.
:)

I think you're on to something there Kelly. That's my opinion as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=film

Over time, I suppose since physical film was the original media used to capture moving images, the word has just become synonymous with motion/moving pictures.

Technically speaking, if you use miniDV tapes you are still recording your binary stream to a celluloid film ...

Other terms that are used simlarly ...

VCR (Video Cassette Recorder): used to describe even the mini VHS tape players that don't record (probably stemmed from a Phillips trademark)

Coke (Coca-Cola Company Soft Drink): I hear it used often (mainly in the south) to describe ANY soft drink

FireWire (Apple Computers' trade name for the IEEE-1394 standard): How most folks refer to the physical cable and/or connection for the IEEE-1394 standard

Pencil Lead: While lead was once used for pencils, we now use graphite (lead is poisonous). We still call it pencil lead, not pencil graphite.

Escalator: The "moving stairs" we find in airports, malls, department stores, etc. - we call them ALL escalators. This word is actually a trademark name from Otis Elevator Company

Anyhow, I actually have a slight problem when describing shooting video as "filming". While it is becoming more common, I still have a little apprehension saying it, but I DO have a tendancy to refer to videography as filming.

One more ... A DP (Director of Photography) ... shouldn't he/she be a DF (Director of Filmography)?

I feel a little weird saying I'm a filmmaker, like I'm trying to make myself sound more important or something. I don't know why. It's a weird hangup. Anyway, lately I just say "I make movies." Seems accurate enough. If they press, I say "it's digital video."

Whenever someone asks me what I do, I say, "I'm a FIIIIILMAKER you thilly!"

Then I throw confetti all over the place.

I feel that gets me and my art the respect I deserve.

Here is the solution:

For each project you work on, shoot a couple minutes on super8... your a filmmaker!

final thoughts
 

quite a variety of replies.
certainly the option of using the term 'shooting' instead of 'filming' is easy.
as in "we wil start shooting the movie in august". logical and valid.
even 'filmmakers' use that terminology. somehow i am still left with the feeling that people who use the term 'film' conciously are still carrying a bit of inadequacy related to the fact they shoot on video. no doubt, a miniDV tape is very unimpressive. will never generate the excitement compared to breaking out film cans and reels. but breaking out the fully loaded xl2 (dual xlr jacks, mattebox, 16x lens, fu1000 viewfinder, lightwave systems mic isolator etc) you will get all that respect you are longing for. i find it much more impressive from a visual pov than an arri. its true.

in the end, i am sticking to using shooting, movies and video. when people show some kind of interest i then expound on the virtures of video over film- which in my little worlds opnion... are huge.

Unless you're talking to a prison when trying to arrange a location. apparently, they don't say they are tied up on the phone either ;).

While wearing my producer hat, I still tend to have to present this to folks who have preconcieved notions of what these terms mean. These folks live outside the cinematic community, so the technicality of the terms is completely irrelevant to them. Perception is all that matters when trying to get permission from a location. Independant filmmaker has a meaning that is understood as a serious pursuit, while Independant videomaker is an unrecognized term. Within this community, we all understand that film is diferent than video.

I deal with swords all the time, but when presenting them to the general public, I still call them swords rather than nit-picking the technicality of each individual piece of steel's proper name.

If you haven't needed to deal with the public from a producers' stand point, do it some time. Spend one day making phone calls around central minnesota trying to lock down locations using the term film and another using the term video...see which one gets the job done. I shoot on video exclusively (I do have some lighting tests on s8mm tri-x B/W outdoor reversal I have to develop yet, 2.5 minutes per cartridge - no thanks). I still have to sell myself and my productions to an underinformed public. I am an independant filmmaker.

If you can't get them to show interest based on your terminology, the statement is moot, you're closing doors based on the language you are consciously choosing...that's not good business. Don't sacrifice opportunities over semantics.

point taken.
 

swords???? interesting.

We run the fencing booth at the MN Ren fest. To make fencing approachable to non-fencers of any age, we fence sabre, but have modified the target area to head only using balloons as targets. 2 balloons per person per match. Pop, Pop, dead!

I've used this clip before, I'm in the grey...my business partner is in the green:

http://www.yafiunderground.com/Video/slomo.mov

Here is a piece I edited showing how we approach the sport of fencing:

http://www.yafiunderground.com/Video/fencing.sm.mov

Competitive fencers take them selves too seriously (in my experience). We just do it for the fun.

As always, this topic has many viewpoints. Here are some of mine:

* If you shoot on film, versus video tape, versus hardrive, versus optical drive, versus memory sticks (there are more than two options), you can still call yourself a filmmaker who is shooting a film if the intended distribution is a movie house. Why? Because your effort will more than likely need to be transfered to traditional film stock to be shown in theaters. The only exception is if your effort is shown at a theater with digital projectors--which are not yet common. Even then, you can use the term film and movie interchangeably. So, call yourself a filmmaker if you're making a movie (be it fiction or non-fiction).

* Many people refer to traditional, photosensitive stock as emulsion-based. But, video tape also has an emulsion. The word "emulsion" is a synonym for film--a thin layer of a substance.

* There are many movies that have significant portions that did not originate on traditional film stock. For instance, almost all of the VFX in modern movies is created in post on computers. So, would you call these portions of the movie not-film?

* There have been threads on the forum discussing the differences between a cinematographer and a videographer. Once again, cinematographer in its simplest definition means a person who makes motion pictures. It does not imply film versus video. However, cinematography is an art and it takes years to truly become a cinematographer.

Here's a DVInfo.net post on my views of what makes a cinematographer. Notice in this link my terminology for emulsion is different and, I now realize, inaccurate: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....4&postcount=29