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.........

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

film processing pollution
 

You're a Film School until I phone you up to ask you if you teach a course on responsible film processing at "the lab". I'm talking Zero Effluent Output of arsenic and other carcinogenic chemicals that are a by-product of film processing. Suddenly you only teach drama for video.
You're a Film School because you qualify for government grants if you lie about your numerous Vidiotica/Gamer courses that are popular with students but not with wise older politicians.
You're a Film School because you travel the world looking for gullable film wanna be's with heavy pockets that are intrigued that your video school has the word Film in its title and is on the same coast as Hollywood.

Why would you rant about this?

When people say film, they are not directly refering to the medium of film. A film is just another term for a movie or motion picture, just as one can call a photograph, well, a photograph or a picture. I would prefer to say that I make films, and by doing so, I am not saying that I make movies out of film.

Saying that you make videos is so broad; it can mean you shoot narratives, T.V. shows, weddings, etc. When some one says that they make films, they are almost exclusively referring to making motion pictures, or narratives.

That's just my opinion.

True. I think that works most of the time relative to the "I am a filmmaker" line.

...then one day somebody coined the term "documentary filmmaker". Also, one would figure that sports is related to video, rather than film, yet the NFL's media company is called "NFL Films". So much for simple definitions.

In the end it's pointless to try to describe one's art in a single word. And any attempt to make a word "exclusive" will fail - unless you own the trademark and a team of lawyers!