why does everyone use the word 'film'?
 

i know this may seem petty to some, but i really dont think it is.

i find it really wierd that everyone feels compelled to call their work 'films' and themselves 'filmakers'.

are people ashamed that they record in video? no doubt it is intentional, as everytime i discuss my work with people i use the term 'movies' and 'music videos'. i refer to myself as a videographer. that is what i am. in the beginning i also used to just agree with others who used the word film, but everytime it registered.

while i seek the film look in video, if i was to begin referring to myself as fllmmaker, i would shoot in film. i have no shame i am make digital movies and videography.

bottom line, if someone put a film movie camera in most of our hands, we would not be quite sure what to do with it. almost none of us have ever used one

Believe it or not, this is about the third or fourth thread posing this very same question.

technically, nobody on here is a filmmaker unless they work for kodak/ilford/fujifilm etc (just thought id take it literally)

the word "film" has become a "generic" ...
back in the 70-80's if one said they had a film shoot on saturday - they would be shooting on FILM stock ... or they would state they had a video shoot - 2 different formats - 2 different groups of persons ..and lets face it video was looked down by FILM persons back then ..... from my memory it was sony's 1st hand size DV camera that film/filmming started to become generic .. which if you look back over the past 10 years most that have hand size dv camera's are trying to get the "film " look .. i have a video shoot friday vs. i have a film shoot friday ..well it appears film shoot is winning ...
soooooooooooo film/filmming will be the word for future formats ...

I still call them "talkies"...

I think it's different for different people.

You could still call your work a short film, feature length film, etc., even if shot on miniDV. It just doesn' SOUND right to say "Yeah, I made a feature length video." It will probably be greeted by most with "a video of what?" Whereas if you just called it a film, they'd get it.

And yes, there is a shame/equality factor in there, I think. Go to cinematography.com, and see any one of the threads extolling the superiority of film/mediocrity of video. Many people probably want to feel like the "big boys" with budgets to shoot film, but in reality are working with video and little/no budget.

We're busy right now shooting a feature length fiction piece. Helluva a story. Nothing but cinematic techniqies: Steadycam, 40'crane, car trailer and dollies. This little release will be sent to print. Also scaled to 2k for digital playback on the Christie 10k projector. Lots of film look added in post to achieve the right feel.

The above is all true and should satisfy the appetite of the most concerned observer with regard to equipment and output. I don't really care about the penis envy that goes with this or that cam or format. Light it right, know how to compose a shot and score the "film" is the biggest deal.

For the record, we're using 3 XL2s.

There's got to be a thin film of something on the tape somewhere, so we are okay....

BTW, Jimmy, is there a website for the movie ?

Greg,

Yesterday, I had this exact discussion with a friend of mine who is in film school.

In looking back at some of his earlier work on film, he's disappointed in some of it because of the lack of camera movement and angles that tell the story, and at other times disappointed with the other students attention to detail in the technical aspects of the production. He's consistently disappointed with the quality or processing and telecine coming back from FotoKem when submitted as a "student film." This is all part of the learning process.

I'm the DOP on his latest project, which we are shooting on a DVX. However, this time around, we're intensely focusing on the cinematography and camera direction (with dollies, cranes, etc.) and making sure every sequence and shot is masterfully controlled in the interests of telling the story.

So, which is more of a film? The one shot on 16mm film, but lacking in many areas? Or the one shot on DV, with the benefit of experience and attention to detail?

To me, film is how you approach the art of creating moving images, not the medium you shoot it on. Even before I was interested in filmmaking, I knew that there was a difference between a "film" and a "movie."

Josh

Bingo. End of discussion.

i dont think anyone here is ashamed of the fact that they use video. I have lots of friends that shoot on film. Im constantly braggin about the fact that i dont have to break the bank to shoot my movies. I can afford to make alot more movies, and gain more experience than the average low budget film maker who shoots his/her one short a year on film. When you mention the word filmmaker to someone who is not intimately familiar with movie making, the picture they get in their head is not exclusively someone who shoots only on film.. they see someone who makes a movie, tells a story through moving images that they can watch on tv, theatre, or a computer. Its a figure of speech in a way.. the same as someone might say "that band has great record sales" the band obviously didnt sell "records"... sure they could say "we sell alot of compact disks" but it sounds dumb.. same as me saying im a videomaker sounds dumb.... people would think i shoot weddings or something... (no offence to the wedding forum)

Video has a stigma to it with the general public...not a negative one, just an unprofessional one. They know what video looks like, shaky and unedited. They know what film looks like...beautiful and cinematic...nary the twain shall meet. I prefer motion photgraphy...but noone else gets that either. ;)

I use movie and cinema when possible on this board as not to offend the folks who hang out here who make the distinction. I use film/filmmaker when talking to people trying to get locations or other pieces for my movies. people understand what film means...and until *YOU* convince them otherwise, I will continue to use film interchangeably with video.

Right you are, Chris. Most good quality mini-dv tape has done away with the iron oxide glued to a mylar backing. It just doesn't have the magnetic retention to capture that much information.

There is a 'thin film' of metal evaporative coating on the tape these days. That's why you see the letters 'ME" on the tape stock.

Years ago in the semi-conductor industry, we used metal evaporative processes to apply the metal layer to the wafers. It has long since given way to metal sputtering which is much more accurate and controllable.

A similar thing happened in the mid-80s with hard disk technology. Regular iron oxide was enough for 17 sectors/track but then RLE disk controllers came along and bumped the drive capacity by 1.5X using 25 sectors/track. This technique required a switch to 'plated oxide media' which like the mini-dv example I gave, allows for higher information density in a given amount of real-estate.

Ok, enough of the history lesson. I'm starting to show my age.

-gb-

In some other non-english speaking countries, the word "film" means "movie".

interesting results
 

some good insight.
thanks.
the distinction btwn a movie and a film is noted. i use the term 'film' when i see something exceptional that doesnt rely on explosions and exploitation.
ok, so maybe 'cliffhanger' was a film too.........