There are three kinds of cameras and I think the guy in the shop got confused.

Film - this is not easier or quicker and certainly not cheaper. The film has to be processed to make it digital before you can edit using a computer otherwise you have to have access to an old style editing machine that cuts and tapes the raw tape.

Digital Video - MiniDV tapes. This is what I think he was talking about. The tapes are cheap, the cameras are cheap. Most computer editors can handle them easily and everything is quick and easy. The problem is you need to pay a bit of extra attention to lightening if you don't want a "cheap video" look.

HDD - The new kid on the block. Looks awesome. New cameras are more expensive than MiniDV cameras and a lot of editing software can't handle HiDef yet. I know the newest versions of the Apple stuff does but I don't know about other software. You probably also need massive honking hard drives to handle the file size. This is the future. If your software can handle it it should be as quick and easy to edit as MiniDV.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Welcome to filmmaking.net. Check out these threads:
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7034
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6195
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6316
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4527
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4479
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4183
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4555

The issue with the HDD is compression.

Currently the MPEG2 compression used by most of the home computer editing
software is not compatible with this compression. Some of the newer HDD
cameras are using the AVCHD format which is more compatible.

I'll bet the guy in the shop doesn't carry any film cameras and either you or he are
using the now generic term "film" without meaning a camera that used actual film.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by krazeesquirrel

I was going to buy a camera to make films that I could edit, play about with etc. as I can't do this on my phone.

When I talked to the guy in the shop he said that film cameras are easier and quicker to edit with than HDD cameras and that's what I should be looking at.

Can this be true? can anyone give me advice or more details?

Thanks

Oh, I'm also concediering doing some stop-motion-ie things if that would effect things..

---

Technology is constantly changing, so it is difficult to nail down any specific camera that the aspiring filmmaker should use.

That said, FILM technology hasn't fundamentally changed in over fifty years, so if you're looking for a medium that is "safe," film really is the best in a lot of respects.

However, obtaining Super 8 or 16 film and equipment isn't as "easy" as getting video equipment. Quality filmstock, cameras, and editing equipment are mostly accessible to those who are near large production cities, like LA, NY, and Chicago.

BUT, what this question misses is what should be of utmost importance to the aspiring filmmaker. Anyone who wishes to "make movies" is probably wanting to "direct" and NOT shoot. So, that being the case, if you are an aspiring DIRECTOR, concentrate on writing a fantastic script, engaging the help of a competent PRODUCER who is instrumental in dealing with the logistics of production, and "hire" a Director of Photography who knows more about lighting and camera than you ever will be or want to be.

The point is to EMBRACE the specialization of filmmaking... figure out what YOU want to do and then find others who will help you to achieve it. If you don't want to be a DP, then find someone nearby who does. Let that person deal with the camera to use and the lights and the crew he/she needs to make it happen. As the Director, you are of course interested in knowing that the resources are there to bring the script to life, but being involved in the minutia of the equipment isn't necessary.

That said, it seems as if you (and the guy at the shop) do not have a firm understanding of the differences between film and video. The following is excerpted from the book, "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood"

When storytellers moved from the stage to the screen, film was the medium of choice then because, well, that's all there was. While significant advances in film technology have taken place, enabling things like low-light photography and high-speed photography, the basic technical fundamentals of shooting a movie have remained the same for nearly a hundred years. In the 1950's, electronic image acquisition was invented. It took a few years to refine, but video became an alternative for distribution to a mass audience, albeit only to television sets. As we enter the 21st century, storytellers (or "filmmakers" if you prefer) are being offered an alternative to the high cost of film and the traditionally maligned look of standard definition video.

More and more, the line between filmed programming and taped is getting blurrier. The development of HDTV (High Definition Television), amongst other technical advancements, may eventually make actual film a thing of the past. Only time will tell. In the meantime, if you choose to take work that primarily involves videotape over film, be it standard definition or High Definition, acquiring content with videotape still frequently involves a different discipline and may not be the straight path into Hollywood narrative "filmmaking" work that you hope for.

"Film" and "tape" are distinctly different ways of capturing an image for later viewing. Without being overly technical, film is the stuff you put into your still camera at home that comes in a small cartridge. It's generally a long black plastic-like strip that you wind every time you want to take another picture. A movie camera uses very long strips of film, usually 1000 foot rolls of it, that move through the camera to capture movement instead of still action. Film uses a photochemical process to turn light into actual images that you can see when you look at the strip itself.

Videotape, on the other hand, uses an electronic process to "store" image information magnetically. This too is a long strip of black material, but videotape is made of different stuff so that instead of converting light into an actual picture you can see like film does, a video camera converts light into electronic information that is stored on the videotape. If you hold a piece of shot videotape up to a light, you'll never see any pictures.

To most laymen, this might seem trivial. In both cases, an image is being saved, so what's the difference? A pretty big difference, if you ask those who work in the business. Traditional standard definition video has a definitive "sharpness" and looks "real" like you'd see the action as if you were actually standing there. Film has a "softer" almost more "ethereal" look. It is not capturing "reality? per se, but a more "romantic" and "hyper-real" version of what happened in front of the lens.

Some of this difference can be attributed to the variations in how film stock and how a video camera process the light. And some of the difference is on account of the frame rate that is used to capture images. Traditional standard definition video in the United States is shot and viewed at nearly 30 frames per second, meaning that it takes roughly 30 still image frames in quick succession to represent one second of real time (29.97 fps to be more precise). A standard film frame rate is exactly 24 frames per second, a difference of merely 6 frames per second. Again, what's the big deal? Plenty. Our eyes and our minds perceive that slight frames-per-second difference in significantly different ways. The higher the frame rate that you are viewing, the more "real" and "sharp" the image will be perceived by your mind. The slower the frame rate that you are viewing, the more your mind will perceive the moving images as "not as real."

This is why some programming is captured using film stock and some programming is captured using video technology. Generally, fictional narrative and "dramatic" programs are shot using film stock with film cameras. And generally, non-fiction or "live" events are shot using video cameras. For instance, all news programming now is shot using video technology for two reasons. The first is that the purpose of news is to give you a true sense of what is happening in reality. They don't (or shouldn't be trying to) dress up the world around us to make it seem more "romantic" or "hyper-real. Video is perceived as capturing a more authentic picture of what reality actually is, so it is the perfect medium for the job. The other reason that news programming and video work so well together is because of the immediacy that video offers. Because it is an electronic process, the images can be seen right away, as opposed to film stock, which must be "canned out" of the camera, taken to a film lab for processing, and then printed for viewing. Video can either be sent "live" or can be saved for later viewing on videotape.

In contrast to news programming, most movies are shot using film, which gives the audience a slightly less-reality based version of what was going on in front of the camera. And because fictional entertainment doesn't have to be put on your television by 6 o'clock tonight, there is time to take film to the lab and go through the methodical process that eventually becomes a movie or dramatic TV show.

So, what this boils down to is that when someone says that they are going to "film with their video camera," they are technically incorrect. Not that the message isn't getting across, but this is more a function of being lazy with the language. You can't literally "film" with a video camera, but because film is all we had to use for many years, it became the common way of describing image acquisition no matter what kind of camera was being used.

But, there's a wrench to throw into the question now, which is generated from the advent and growing use of High Definition technology. Essentially, High Definition is still video technology but with greater resolution than your normal standard definition television can offer. Without being technical about it, HD gives you a "better" picture than what you're used to. So cool, your TV will never look the same once everyone can afford it. What's the problem? Well, it depends on whom you talk to. For many, there isn't a problem at all. HD gives the user all the benefits that traditional video had to offer in providing a "real" version of life along with the immediacy of seeing your pictures right away. It's similar to the difference between your "old" film still camera at home and your shiny new digital still camera you got for your birthday. But HD also has the added capability of mimicking the "look" of traditional film if need be, sort of. How well it accomplishes that is a sometimes-heated debate among industry professionals. But the point here is that now some "films" that you see in the movie theater were actually shot using High Definition video technology, so they technically aren't "films" at all. If you're just starting out in the business and you don't understand the fundamental difference between film and video, it's important to learn because it will have an impact on the types of work you choose to take and whether or not your career goes in the direction you mean it to.

Don't confuse "image acquisition" with distribution and how an audience actually sees the final product. A still picture or a movie can be acquired using any kind of camera, be it a film camera (still or movie) or a video camera (digital, standard definition, or High Definition). Light reflects off of real objects and bounces through the lens on your camera. From there, it is either converted to electronic information (in the case of video) or the light reacts with the film stock to create a photochemical reaction, which results in actual images being created. Whichever method you choose, you have a representation of reality that was filtered through the idiosyncrasies of the technology you used and stored on either a strip of film or a strip of videotape (or even a computer hard drive).

Once that step is complete, those images can be converted to almost any other format. For instance, if you shot a movie using film, you can convert those frames of action to standard definition or High Definition video so that it can be viewed on a television monitor. The conversion can be saved to videotape, a DVD, or even to a computer hard drive because at this point, it is just electronic information. Even though the "movie" is now being saved electronically, the images were still acquired using actual film stock so that the overall quality reflects the way the film technology "records" the reality that actually happened. The conversion to video will introduce certain "video qualities," but the overall "look" will still be more like what you're used to seeing in the theater.

In the same way, some movies are now being acquired using 24-Frame High Definition cameras and later converted (scanned) onto actual film stock so that they can be projected in a movie theater using a traditional movie projector. In this case, the movie that you actually see has both the qualities of the High Definition camera that is was shot on and the qualities that the film stock added when the image was scanned onto it. To confuse matters even more, you could easily be watching a movie that was acquired using video, scanned onto film stock, and then converted back to "video" for viewing on TV, VHS videotape, or a DVD.

So it is not as simple as looking at your television set and thinking that just because it's on "video" that it was "filmed" using a "video camera." Using the proper terms is important and understanding is even more so.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com

I know this has nothing to do with the main question, and it may sound like a newbie question too, but what does the term "safe" mean, bj? I've heard that term before and still don't know what it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spokane36

I know this has nothing to do with the main question, and it may sound like a newbie question too, but what does the term "safe" mean, bj? I've heard that term before and still don't know what it is.

---

If I'm understanding the context of your question correctly, when I suggest the film is "safe," it means that in terms of an archiving media, film has proven itself to be a reliable form of "storing" images for significant lengths of time.

A "movie" that was made in, say, 1950 was photographed with film. That negative may or may not have survived the time, but any prints that were made may still be around. The point here is that if you pulled out a can with that film in it, you could roll it off, hold it up to the light, and you'd see pictures. And it's likely that you could find a working projector so you could actually see the movie as it was intended.

Now, take the example of a TV show that was shot in the 1950s with video cameras and saved on videotape. You'd be hard pressed to find any working 2" videotape playback machines anymore and when you hold the videotape up to light, all you'll see is a black strip... no pictures.

Both film and tape do degrade, but film has a resiliency that tape doesn't PLUS electronic technology is in a constantly evolving state, so the way we acquire electronic images today will likely be obsolete twenty years from now. Film, however, has proven itself to be the best choice for archiving as the technology that makes it work is fairly simple and the media itself (the film stock) lasts when taken care of properly.

Also, when a movie is shot, that exposed film is taken out of the magazine, put into a can by the LOADER, then taken to the lab where it is developed and printed and kept safe until editing. But when a movie is shot with electronic cameras (video), particularly when they are saving the information on harddrives or CF cards (not tape), there is a valid fear that any number of problems might cause the data to become corrupted, so it is important for a number of backups to be made so that a day of work isn't lost due to technical error.

So, for a number of reasons, film is safer to use than any electronic image acquisition.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com

Well, that's gonna be unfortunate for me. I'm probably going to be shooting most (if not all) of my movies on digital video.

Thanks for the information anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spokane36

Well, that's gonna be unfortunate for me. I'm probably going to be shooting most (if not all) of my movies on digital video.

Thanks for the information anyway.

---

Well, you and a lot of people who shoot millions of photos with digital cameras instead of old fashioned film.

Instead of having a box of negatives in the closet, we all have to make the extra effort to keep backups of the files in case our harddrives crash. And then as time goes on, we'll have to keep converting our files to current standards as they change. Computer programmers have boxes of punchcards from the 70s that are now no longer readable. That's the last thing you want to happen with anything you shoot today.

So, shoot away on digital cameras, but just know that it will take a little extra effort to keep your hard work safe for now and for the future.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spokane36

Well, that's gonna be unfortunate for me. I'm probably going to be shooting most (if not all) of my movies on digital video.

---

Why do you think that's unfortunate for you?

Inland Empire, Open Water, 28 Days Later, Pieces
of April, Dancer In The Dark, Full Frontal, Supersize
Me were all shot on digital video. Standard
definition digital video.

Battlestar Galactica, Zodiac, Crank, Dogville,
Fahrenheit 9/11, Spy Kids 2, Youth without Youth
and a couple of the Star Wars movies were all shot
on digital video. High def, but still digital video.

Shooting your movies on digital video isn't a bad
thing. I wonder why you think it's unfortunate for you....

Don't forget about Sin City and Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Robert Rodriguez swears by digital cameras.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

You're right, RJ.

My list is not a comprehensive list of all movie shot digitally. There are many more.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

OK, OK, I got the message. Now, can we get back on the subject, please?

OK, OK, we'll get back to the subject.

The subject is a guy in a shop somewhere in the UK told
krazeesquirrel that film cameras are easier and quicker to edit
with than HDD cameras. Both RJ and I said that isn?t true. Film
cameras are much more difficult to edit with than HDD cameras.

You changed the question and got an excellent answer from Brian.

So, would you be kind enough to answer my question? I'm curious.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Don't mind if I do.

I don't know the guy you met up with, krazeesquirrel, but I just can't imagine film cameras taking less time to edit and being easier to use. No, film is an awful lot harder to work with than HDD ever could be. Cinematographers have to work harder on a film camera more than on HDD. Film can be damaged or destroyed. HDD doesn't have any film at all, so you don't even have to worry about what happens to the film (I'm sure you know this already but HDD stands for Hard Disk Drive). You have to send film to the telecine bay in order to edit, which is a very costly transfer. All you need to do with HDD video is connect the camera to a computer that has a non-linear editing system, which will cost you a whole lot less than transferring something to telecine.

Considering the fact that you're probably doing stop-motion stuff, you don't necessarily have to be too worried about what kind of camcorder you should shoot in. In fact, you can even shoot that kind of stuff with a still camera. In all honesty, just pick whatever camera you believe works best for the stop-motion you're conveying, if that's what you are going to do in the future.

But I'm still curious about your answer to MY question to you.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)