semantics - video/film, etc...

i hear the term "film" tossed around a lot (here and other forums) and it's almost never a "film"

for some reason this annoys the heck out of me...

i think it's because a "film" has a bit higher-end connotation. and it smacks of someone trying to sound cooler than they are. if you shoot your project on video, it's a video. NOT a film.

however, at the same time i also get miffed when i ask some young musician about their new "record" and they say "uh, we dont make records anymore, we make CD's" i just want to slap them. "record" as in RECORDING! you DO still do that right?

if you shoot your project on video, its not a film, its a video - then what do we call something shot to P2 or other media??? or does "video" refer to the camera and not "video tape"???

just thought this would be an interesting conversation ; )

Film > Movie... covers all types

Record is still used - that guy must just have been trying to wind you up



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

"Film by" sounds a helluva lot better than "video by". "A video by" sounds amateurish, in fact. Way back in film school I called my documentary projects "A document by". Embarrassing.

And on the Metal Gear Solid games, Hideo Kojima gives himself the credit "A game by". Who else thinks there's too much cheese on the pizza?


www.derekmok.com

how did i KNOW you two would be some of the first ones in ; ) - HA!

i guess the same goes for photographs. thats why i refer to digital images as pics as opposed to photos. i personally feel some obligation to pay homage to historic formats...

I'm also happy to go with film, movie, project, video, whatever. I think 'film' does tend to denote drama though. I don't think documentary when I hear the term 'film'.

Also, what about a project shot on film, cut digitally and delivered on Digibeta or HDCam SR? What does that come under?

We'll just have to get used to it - the terms are currently in transition. Soon, it appears, "film" will no longer be delivered to movie theaters - and, of course, electronic imaging is more and more replacing photochemical "film" as the most cost-effective means of capturing high-quality moving images.

I suppose we could call magnetic tape a type of "film", and hard discs do have a magnetic "film" on their platters. However, when everything's going to solid-state memory a decade from now, will we be going to the theater to see a "video"?

And, perhaps, in a few years, musicians will no longer be making "CDs". Maybe, by then, they'll be making "music".

Travis
VoiceOver Guy and Entertainment Technology Enthusiast
[www.VOTalent.com]

Some terms just have a ring to them. "Film" is probably a term that will stick around as a general descriptive term for long-form narrative moving images. Notice how the term "EP" stuck around long after the vinyl-record "Extended Play" format disappeared. "EP" just sounded right for a short three-to-six-song sampler. Even the term "LP" is still sometimes used for full-length albums even though no cassette or CD was ever designated "Long Play". So I'm guessing "film", "album", "record", "single", "EP" etc. will stick around for awhile. The associations people make in their brains when they hear these terms are valuable marketing-wise, while no teenage boy would take his date to "a video" at the local "YouTube station", would he?


www.derekmok.com

>Way back in film school I called my documentary projects "A document by". Embarrassing.

Lol. Done on Microsoft Word? Hmm... but "commercialized by" sounds pretty cool.

I'm kinda opposed to guys who shoot a "feature" on DV and pass it off as "film". Sacrilegious. Film is an art by itself- light passing through film to create images. Something very primal, and raw about it, like ballet, the strumming of a lyre... If musicians are to be making "music", then I'd prefer going along the lines of "story told by".

> I'm kinda opposed to guys who shoot a "feature" on DV and pass it off as "film". Sacrilegious.
> Film is an art by itself- light passing through film to create images.

Yipes! You're starting to sound like filmman!

Even with video cameras, you'd say "I'm filming an interview", "filming in progress". So I don't think it's a big deal! Formats die, but the origins of language remain.


www.derekmok.com

When I hear "film," I think MOVIE. Sure, it might have been shot on video, but the term FILM has come to mean 'a visual medium that tells a story.' I too have bad connotations with the term VIDEO...picturing it as very low end amateurish. And yeah, what about RED and P2 and XDCAM EX? A feature length movie is called FILM and a short subject is called a SHORT FILM. I don't have a problem with that. Or you can call it a MOVIE and a SHORT MOVIE if you want. Movie was the term coined for "moving picture." My great aunt (grandmothers sister) STILL refers to going to feature films as "I'm off to see a moving picture..."

Now...why are Music VIDEOS called VIDEOS if most of them are shot on film? Sure, back in the 80's when they were in their infancy, most were shot on video. But nowadays, most are on film....yet we still call them videos.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

> I'm kinda opposed to guys who shoot a "feature" on DV and pass it off as "film". Sacrilegious.
> Film is an art by itself- light passing through film to create images.

So, does it need to be cut as film on a Steinbeck to remain a 'film'? At which point is it OK to abandon the celluloid and still be considered a film?

We have one that was shot on 16mm, then dubbed to DVCAM for the offline. If it is released on DVCAM, is it a film or a video?

Haha. Who's filmman? The topic came up in a conversation with one of my ex lecturers who compared digital mediums to film like painting on canvas versus painting on a piece of acrylic. In film, the medium is an art form, but in the digital world it's all about perfect duplication, losslessness... I must say he has a point.

Where I am, it's called "shooting in progress"? Give me a whole bunch of analog modulators over
VST plugins anyday. I love looking at a patch bay and seeing cable snaking all over it. I love the digital medium because it makes a lot of things so much more affordable, but to shoot a film on DV and to pass it off as if there wasn't a difference between shooting 35mm and off a Canon XL1... Puhlese. I'd like to see them light metering someone's face on a DV shoot. If it's DV, call it video (it's 'digital video' anyway).

Formats will evolve, some names will stick, but definitely, new names will emerge- "Web Casting" for one. "Records", "Film", they're similar though time, because the viewing experience hasn't changed- you walk into a cinema and watch a film with friends, or you play a cd at home... Or you could use the word "movie".

> In film, the medium is an art form, but in the digital world it's all about perfect duplication,
> losslessness...

I'm going to make a passionate argument against that.

It's true, video has its limitations. It doesn't have as organic a "feel" as film, it doesn't respond as well to low light. But I think the main thing afflicting video narrative work is the thinking that it can't be used expressively, organically, artistically. That mindset prevents people from exploring the possibilities.

Years ago when I edited my directing partner's thesis film, I begged his DP to do tests to see which look we want to end up with. Yes, it was DV NTSC, but with film simulation, filtering and just plain old lighting and camera choice, we could have explored how the film would look. Instead, the DP just yessed me to death and ended up not involving post-production at all. So the footage came out of the camera, well, kind of flat. Like video. The director and I subsequently got a more creative-minded colorist to craft a look, but by that point, we were constrained by the fact that not enough conceptual cinematography was done before the shoot. The film turned out great, but I wonder if if would have been even better if the conception were more ambitious in pre-production.

Before that, I edited a film noir that was shot on DV NTSC. While the format was very bad for noir since it didn't handle shadows well and the video format gave it a "home movie" feel at points, the cinematographer on that shoot worked to create more contrast, more shadows, and a camera philosophy.

> why are Music VIDEOS called VIDEOS if most of them are shot on film?

Good point, Shane. It's all back to the origins of the format -- since music videos were made for television, and since "music film" implies something entirely different (Almost Famous, Gimme Shelter, The Last Waltz...), the term "music video" stuck.

Oh yeah, and "theatre" is still secure as a synonym for "cinemas". Don't think it'll go away soon, and there's no need for it to. And what about "YouTube"? How many viewers there are actually watching something with a tube in it?


www.derekmok.com

>But I think the main thing afflicting video narrative work is the thinking that it can't be used
>expressively, organically, artistically.

Good point. I was actually thinking of a bunch of "films" that were shot on DV only because of budget, and they didn't factor in the fact that it's a different medium, so it was like watching a sham. It was called a "film" only to attract investors, and it was basically dv stuff. It's important to take advantage of the limitations as well as the characteristics of whatever medium you're shooting in and turn that into a good final piece. On the contrary, there is also video art.

Lol. I never thought I'd take a purist stance. This isn't it. I'm still very cool with digital mediums, just not with deceiving the public, thinking they've paid for a piece of cake and all they got was a few crumbs of garlic bread. Thinking about it, will you celebrate someone's birthday with a piece of garlic bread and some candles?

On the "record" side of things, I have a friend who insists that "album" means a vinyl LP, when it really just means a collection of things (photo album anyone?). What amazes me even more is the number of people who refer to CDs as "tapes".

"Film" to me refers to the thin strip with a thin layer of light-sensitive emulsion, as well as the finished, projectible work that is on the same or similar stock. Since it's come to mean also the finished work itself, it's easy to call any moving picture a "film" but it always grates me because something on video is NOT ON FILM. More and more people will never see nor touch actual photographic film.

Video doesn't refer to the recording medium, it's reflective of the electronic scanning process that is performed on the focused image to convert it to electronic signal that can be recorded on the media of choice.

I agree that "video" immediately connotes an amateur production, deservedly or not.

Look on the bright side - in a couple of generations, there will be no one left whose knees will jerk at this unfortunate terminology.

Scott

Quote
Haha. Who's filmman?

"filmman" was the username of a guy who used to post here a lot.

he was a dyed in the wool film shooter. he kept trying to convince everyone to shoot film instead of video for all these crazy reasons. he would always post these crazy meandering topics and incorrect workflows. and one day he just disappeared...

anybody wonder what happened to him?

Nope!


www.derekmok.com

>>anybody wonder what happened to him?

Yeah, I wonder now and then. I can take the blame/credit for a New Topic that apparently chased him off. I thought it was pretty mild; he had endured a lot more flame before that. He said once that he had gone to SF State in late 60s; I did too and was going to PM him about it, but after a couple more of his posts I knew I didn't want to go there!

It's only right that a post about semantics should go off in odd directions....

Scott

filmman started posting at dvcreators.net shortly after leaving here. He didn't garner the attention that he found here and I guess that's a good thing.

I can remember him attracting some serious flames here -- back in the ol' days before Mike (wisely) required us to register, it could be a little more rowdy!

its still "rowdy" i think myself and grafixjoe were the hardest on him...

Yes Wayne, you were... I am witness.

Long form narratives are usually called films regardless of how they were shot.

Then there's the film/movie question?

For me it seems to be about production values and commercial considerations.

For example in the UK i'd say guys like ken loach or Mike Leigh make films. While people like Richard (Notting Hill) Curtis and Ridley Scott are making movies.

Just to confuse, i thought the last Ken Loach "film" is saw (wind that shakes the Barley) looked like it was shot on a PD150.

David Lynch's last 'movie' WAS shot on a PD150.

I recently saw Collatteral which struck me as very cinematic and it was shot on video.

Anyway, it's a mixed up muddled up shook up Postmodern world.

As Shane says, Isn't the advent of Red, P2, etc supposed to render this discussion obsolete?

OT. It occurred to me the other day that i remember when we used to have to stand to attention and sing God Save The Queen before the "presentation" began. Did you folks across the pond have to do anything like like that in the past?

i see a lot of BBC editors still get a "Film Editor" credit.
makes me feel all warm inside.

isn't "film" just a term that comes from the fact there was a "film" of photosensitive emulsion on a cellulose backing material?

dictionary: a thin layer covering a surface

and if so, then surely video tape, with it's "film" (as in "layer" of magnetic material on a plastic backing could also be called "film".

i used this argument once when i wanted a "film editor" credit for a video job!
(shot on "film" edited on "video"
everyone in the room just rolled their eyes and said "yes Nick, you can have a "film editor" credit if you really want"

Semantics do matter. Martin Scorsese has it in his DGA contract terms that his credit would be "A Martin Scorsese Picture" rather than "A Martin Scorsese Film" or "A Film by Martin Scorsese". My usual credit is "editor" rather than "edited by". Nothing to be embarrassed by as long as you're not asking for something like "picture cutter extraordinaire". I also did object one time when the directors wanted to be funny and put me as "Guy who put the pictures together" because I felt it was too frivolous and played into a stereotype of the editor which undervalued the job.


www.derekmok.com

>filmman started posting at dvcreators.net shortly after leaving here. He didn't garner the
>attention that he found here and I guess that's a good thing.

Was curious, went to do a search on the dvcreators... God. I thought he was a film student!

Some here would give him patient, considered answers, others would jump all over him, but it didn't matter - he never got it, and remained clueless. Still is, I gather. Polite as could be, but did not compute.

Scott

Isn't the word "film" just graduating to that place that so many motion picture industry words go? They stay around for ever to keep everything consistent. the industry is FULL of these.

Sticks or Slate - when was the last time a movie used sticks? or a chalk slate?

MOS - Mit Out Sound. it NEVER changed to WOS

even Dailies. If shot in video, how is it a daily? The video is ALWAYS available. You don't need to get "Dailies"

Reel # (in NLE) anyone starting with a reel?

even "cutting" (for editing)

or folders in editing programs being "Bins"

isn't even 'offline' and 'online' old terms that have morphed into something else? Meaning -does the origins of those words have anything to do with computer editing literally? doesn't it come from tape to tape editing? (i don't know)

what else?

We have newer terms- "importing", "exporting", which in the tape days would mean a whole other procedure. I suppose they never really had "render", "roundtrip workflows" or "codecs".

Where did "grease pencil" go? Or is that just a name we give our assistants today? lol

Quote
Where did "grease pencil" go?

It's now used on signatures like the one Nick Meyers has.



Michael Horton
-------------------