"Test Your Film Skill-Level" - very cool!

Graham Bernard · July 20th, 2005, 04:25 AM

Lorinda - pleasure.

Your 41 is STILL too hot - you're more temperate compared to my glacial ice blue. But I did get into double figures - and they are both MINE ! !

Grazie

Christopher C. Murphy · July 20th, 2005, 09:41 AM

It's funny, I've never even shot "film" other than 8mm stuff. I just read so much that I knew some of the "film" answers. But, on a practical level..I've never used the knowledge before. I'm sure that I'd get an F if I were in charge of a real "film" shoot. Video on the other hand....I know quite a bit and have real world experience.

Just my opinion, but spending lots of dough on learning film related stuff seems to be getting dated quickly. If you really want something worth the money...it seems to me that learning HD inside and out will be more valuable as time goes on. I know Hollywood still shoots on film everyday, but HD for young people going to college seems like a better bet. If I were 20 years old I'd be spending all my time writing and learning HD filmmaking inside and out..

The test does prove one thing...some of us are going to summer school. lol

Joshua Starnes · July 20th, 2005, 10:09 AM

51 out of 73 - 4th level. I don't feel too bad about that.

Joshua Starnes · July 20th, 2005, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yi Fong Yu

i coulda sworn that in the black pirate starring douglas fairbanks, they used a technicolor process that was only 2 colors cause it was the first popular film using technicolor. later on they invented 3 color and it was much smoother. is this true? if so, then the question has to be scratched out because it doesn't ask "when" technicolor is using different color processes.

i got a 37/73, does that make me a film-retard?

That's partially true - the Black Pirate used a di-color process that was the forerunner to Technicolor and led to the invention of what became 'true' Technicolor, but isn't itself actually Technicolor.

Krystian Ramlogan · July 20th, 2005, 10:50 AM

So I got a 49. That's not too bad for a rising sophmore!

There were a number of things I just never came across and a couple I clicked on too fast and should have gotten correct.

A couple of questions I think were open to interpretation, so those were trick questions.Still, it was an interesting test.

I have to disagree that learning "film" stuff is dated or irrelevant; at any level whether you are 12 or 40, absorbing knowledge is beneficial. Anyone who avoids learning all there is to filmmaking (video, film, digital media) is setting themselves up for a skill level far below those who do take the time to learn every avenue available?

Compare any film/filmmaker of today with those of yesterday and tell me which/who compares? Does anyone think Lucas would have gotten so far with HD if he wasn't first a "film" maker and understood its nuances? Even RRodriguez had to start with film because you cannot belittle its importance - personally I do not like his movies as they seem too studio built, lack realism. Compare Tarantino to RR, who makes better movies? Who uses what?

Seems to me, people want to arrive at DP or Director status without paying their dues or putting in the work required to really achieve the level those appelations deserve. Remember as well, there exists filmmakers outside of the US and many people do not support the view worldwide that HD is comparable to film just yet - its a horse of a different color.

Learning is supposed to be cumulative, not exclusionary. So how could anyone call themselves a filmmaker if they know absolutely nothing about "film" making which is far more than just the use of "film" to capture an image.

Personally I am very excited at this new phase cinema is going through, and I think HD will become a viable and valid medium on par with film depending on your project and ultimate goal. But, to discount film at this stage seems premature to me.

For the record, I've never shot HD, but I've done everything from Digibeta to VHS, 16mm and 35mm (though I was only a line producer on the 35mm). I write, direct, produce, edit, shoot, light, composite, finish. So I've done it all. Film still blows away HD/video. And because I'm comfortable around both film and video shoots I can be a part of far more projects than someone who can only understand HD/Video. I'm even working on a DV to Film feature right now and I worked on a Digital-S feature a couple years ago.

I can use my skills regardless of the medium chosen for any project I'm a part of; why would I want to limit myself?

Just my opinion, though I feel strongly about it and I am a film student at present. Feel free to disagree.

Charles Papert · July 20th, 2005, 12:54 PM

Between my not being a great tester (testee?), some "trick" questions (Yi Fong is right, there was a 2-strip Technicolor) and a few I just plain got wrong, I turned in a 65. Oh well.

Was a bit disconsolate until I forwarded it to a DP friend whose last movie had an $80 million budget; he got a 63. We'd both like to think that it's one of those "book smart" type of tests...!

Christopher C. Murphy · July 20th, 2005, 01:37 PM

I should have charged admission! lol

Hey Krystian, I'm standing by my statement. Learning "film" is a crap shoot because of the cost involved in making a film. If you know film that's great, but if you are skilled in HD production the future is very bright.

You can definately get on film shoots and even become a film DP, but it's way easier to get on "video" shoots and get paid for it. It's always better to learn where it all came from..of course. But, practically speaking...learning HD "film" production is definately not a crap shoot. The ratio of my opportunities to work on "film" shoots versus "video" shoots has been like 100 to 1. I've definately been in the right places for it, but "film" crews are very tight knit and moving up that chain is different than video chains. Ask Charles Papert...he's a pro film and video guy. I bet he'll say profession "film" and "video" gigs are different. I'm not talking 1 day gigs..I'm talking budgeted productions.

By the way, saying that you have to shoot "film" or you ain't a filmmaker isn't going to fly today. If you want to write books does that mean you're not a book writer unless you only use a pencil and paper? No, you can use a computer or any tool you can get your hands on...you're still a book writer.

I believe "filmmaker" today is a term applied to anyone using film or video to tell stories. Where that "film" goes via distribution is another topic.

Lorinda Norton · July 20th, 2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

Was a bit disconsolate until I forwarded it to a DP friend whose last movie had an $80 million budget; he got a 63. We'd both like to think that it's one of those "book smart" type of tests...!

Hi Charles!
There's the real deal--you guys prove yourselves every day. (OT: Still waiting for The Perfect Sleep to hit theatres! Can't wait to see your work.)

@ Krystian: "people want to arrive at DP or Director status without paying their dues or putting in the work required to really achieve the level those appelations deserve." Shoot, I'd be the water girl if they'd let me on a set! (Oh, wait, that's basketball.)
The film world is still more "romantic" than all this digital stuff, and I trust it'll stick around for a long time. But one question for you, "at any level whether you are 12 or 40, absorbing knowledge is beneficial" -- how come you drew the line at 40? ;)

@ Ranier: "Hmm. I thought Barney was the (short) friend of Fred, wasn't he?
I pushed a lot of film around on my editing table and into the bin, back in the days of Super 8."
Funny! And how could I forget my beloved Barney Fife? To be honest, it was so late last night when I took the test I still don't know what a barney is. But I'll be danged if I'm wading through that thing again--it's too long!

Rainer Hoffmann · July 20th, 2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorinda Norton

To be honest, it was so late last night when I took the test I still don't know what a barney is. But I'll be danged if I'm wading through that thing again--it's too long!

Lorinda,

I always thought a barney was a blimp. May be Charles can explain the difference?

Rainer Hoffmann · July 20th, 2005, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

Film still blows away HD/video.

Agreed, Krystian!

Two years ago I said the same about digital still photography and 35mm film photography. Today, however...

It's sooo exiting to see the possibilities of digital cinematography. Then again, cinematography is so much more about storytelling than technical means, that I am still quite comfortable with DV.

Charles Papert · July 20th, 2005, 02:29 PM

Barneys and blimps both are used to muffle camera noise--a blimp is a solid assembly that completely surrounds the camera and lens, whereas a barney is a magazine cover made of material.

Steven Gotz · July 20th, 2005, 02:38 PM

I know nothing about film - started shooting video only a few years ago. Was upset with a couple I missed, the rest I didn't expect that I would know. 25 for me - with a majority of I Don't Knows. Actually missed two I thought I would know.

Dan Diaconu · July 20th, 2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

Barneys and blimps both are used to...

I'm not sure about Fred and Barney, but the barn doors DO keep the cows inside! (the rest is just "smart movie talk"!) (;-))<

Patrick King · July 20th, 2005, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Gotz

I know nothing about film - started shooting video only a few years ago. Was upset with a couple I missed, the rest I didn't expect that I would know. 25 for me - with a majority of I Don't Knows. Actually missed two I thought I would know.

Steve, its not just you, I edited myself in a 60 point bump above, just because I was the only sub-50 score. The quiz didn't ask a thing about editing in Vegas or shooting with an XL2 so I was as lost as last years Easter eggs. It was still fun and educational.

Devin Eskew · July 20th, 2005, 03:35 PM

Yuck! I know NOTHING!!!! Better bone up on my file knowledge, I've just been in the DV world too long. Lets just say that my score was under 50 but above 20.

July 20th, 2005, 09:41 AM	#17
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	It's funny, I've never even shot "film" other than 8mm stuff. I just read so much that I knew some of the "film" answers. But, on a practical level..I've never used the knowledge before. I'm sure that I'd get an F if I were in charge of a real "film" shoot. Video on the other hand....I know quite a bit and have real world experience. Just my opinion, but spending lots of dough on learning film related stuff seems to be getting dated quickly. If you really want something worth the money...it seems to me that learning HD inside and out will be more valuable as time goes on. I know Hollywood still shoots on film everyday, but HD for young people going to college seems like a better bet. If I were 20 years old I'd be spending all my time writing and learning HD filmmaking inside and out.. The test does prove one thing...some of us are going to summer school. lol __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

July 20th, 2005, 12:54 PM	#21
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Between my not being a great tester (testee?), some "trick" questions (Yi Fong is right, there was a 2-strip Technicolor) and a few I just plain got wrong, I turned in a 65. Oh well. Was a bit disconsolate until I forwarded it to a DP friend whose last movie had an $80 million budget; he got a 63. We'd both like to think that it's one of those "book smart" type of tests...! __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

July 20th, 2005, 01:37 PM	#22
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	I should have charged admission! lol Hey Krystian, I'm standing by my statement. Learning "film" is a crap shoot because of the cost involved in making a film. If you know film that's great, but if you are skilled in HD production the future is very bright. You can definately get on film shoots and even become a film DP, but it's way easier to get on "video" shoots and get paid for it. It's always better to learn where it all came from..of course. But, practically speaking...learning HD "film" production is definately not a crap shoot. The ratio of my opportunities to work on "film" shoots versus "video" shoots has been like 100 to 1. I've definately been in the right places for it, but "film" crews are very tight knit and moving up that chain is different than video chains. Ask Charles Papert...he's a pro film and video guy. I bet he'll say profession "film" and "video" gigs are different. I'm not talking 1 day gigs..I'm talking budgeted productions. By the way, saying that you have to shoot "film" or you ain't a filmmaker isn't going to fly today. If you want to write books does that mean you're not a book writer unless you only use a pencil and paper? No, you can use a computer or any tool you can get your hands on...you're still a book writer. I believe "filmmaker" today is a term applied to anyone using film or video to tell stories. Where that "film" goes via distribution is another topic. __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

July 20th, 2005, 02:29 PM	#26
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Barneys and blimps both are used to muffle camera noise--a blimp is a solid assembly that completely surrounds the camera and lens, whereas a barney is a magazine cover made of material. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

July 20th, 2005, 02:38 PM	#27
Steven Gotz Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Clermont, FL Posts: 1,520	I know nothing about film - started shooting video only a few years ago. Was upset with a couple I missed, the rest I didn't expect that I would know. 25 for me - with a majority of I Don't Knows. Actually missed two I thought I would know. __________________ Steven Gotz http://www.stevengotz.com

July 20th, 2005, 04:25 AM	#16
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Lorinda - pleasure. Your 41 is STILL too hot - you're more temperate compared to my glacial ice blue. But I did get into double figures - and they are both MINE ! ! Grazie

July 20th, 2005, 10:09 AM	#18
Joshua Starnes Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 356	51 out of 73 - 4th level. I don't feel too bad about that.

July 20th, 2005, 10:50 AM	#20
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	So I got a 49. That's not too bad for a rising sophmore! There were a number of things I just never came across and a couple I clicked on too fast and should have gotten correct. A couple of questions I think were open to interpretation, so those were trick questions.Still, it was an interesting test. I have to disagree that learning "film" stuff is dated or irrelevant; at any level whether you are 12 or 40, absorbing knowledge is beneficial. Anyone who avoids learning all there is to filmmaking (video, film, digital media) is setting themselves up for a skill level far below those who do take the time to learn every avenue available? Compare any film/filmmaker of today with those of yesterday and tell me which/who compares? Does anyone think Lucas would have gotten so far with HD if he wasn't first a "film" maker and understood its nuances? Even RRodriguez had to start with film because you cannot belittle its importance - personally I do not like his movies as they seem too studio built, lack realism. Compare Tarantino to RR, who makes better movies? Who uses what? Seems to me, people want to arrive at DP or Director status without paying their dues or putting in the work required to really achieve the level those appelations deserve. Remember as well, there exists filmmakers outside of the US and many people do not support the view worldwide that HD is comparable to film just yet - its a horse of a different color. Learning is supposed to be cumulative, not exclusionary. So how could anyone call themselves a filmmaker if they know absolutely nothing about "film" making which is far more than just the use of "film" to capture an image. Personally I am very excited at this new phase cinema is going through, and I think HD will become a viable and valid medium on par with film depending on your project and ultimate goal. But, to discount film at this stage seems premature to me. For the record, I've never shot HD, but I've done everything from Digibeta to VHS, 16mm and 35mm (though I was only a line producer on the 35mm). I write, direct, produce, edit, shoot, light, composite, finish. So I've done it all. Film still blows away HD/video. And because I'm comfortable around both film and video shoots I can be a part of far more projects than someone who can only understand HD/Video. I'm even working on a DV to Film feature right now and I worked on a Digital-S feature a couple years ago. I can use my skills regardless of the medium chosen for any project I'm a part of; why would I want to limit myself? Just my opinion, though I feel strongly about it and I am a film student at present. Feel free to disagree.

July 20th, 2005, 03:35 PM	#30
Devin Eskew Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 115	Yuck! I know NOTHING!!!! Better bone up on my file knowledge, I've just been in the DV world too long. Lets just say that my score was under 50 but above 20. __________________ We learn by doing, we learn better by making mistakes!