A New Video Magazine??!!

[col lamb]

The thing is I just cannot see any point in a magazine aimed below the pro and semi-pro market

In fact I cannot see the point of this mag at all

There is a mass of information readily available online about movie making and reviews of kit, and not outdated kit reviews that happened three months prior, and then submitted by copy date, plus printing etc.

You could say the same of FVM, if FVM is not making a profit through the limited advertising that happens then it should go and be replaced by more online content or made available only online

Whilst we are on about FVM, I just cannot see the point at all of re-printing the IAC-NLE e-mails, the next copy should be good to see how much Colin squeezes out of biological archiving, & publisher to PDF

[Lee Prescott]

I have decided to enter into this thread further but with particular reference to Mike’s comments:-

To answer your being “intrigued” Mike “to know exactly who they (the advertisers) were”. During my several years and into Garth Hope’s time then: As I also did the invoicing, receipts and paying in, the following advertisers are from that source and not from old FVMs!
1. Motcombe Relf: 2. Track line: 3.AKM: 4. Cresta Electronics: 5. Carousel: 6.Wide Screen Centre:
7. Midnight Music: 8.East Anglican Film Archive: 9.Swan Rose Training: 10. Shoreditch Editors:
11. Amateur Cine Enthusiast: 12. AV World: 13. Independent Studios: 14. Wrap Sales:
15. Everyday Cut-Away: 16. Peter Sellers Insurance: Also but Date Specific – 17. CIFF. 18. Guernsey Lilly: 19. CIFVF.

As you say also, the readership of FVM does not even hit first base, at the earlier time then it must have been considered to do so! At the time of Liz Donlan’s tenure and into Garth’s. The print run was quoted to me as being around 2,600 and about 400 affiliated clubs, which meant that the possible readership would be far greater than that. Of course now that we are apparently down to a bit in excess of 1700 members and 247 affiliated clubs apparently, I accede and said that the viability is only “possibly beneficial”. I concede too Mike that your previous occupation is of more consequence here.
Perhaps with your qualifications you could increase the IACs income once again from looking after the advertising!.........(“Where have all the flowers gone”)!

As for you suggesting that I “myself put the money up” – I’m unsure if that comment is simple sarcasm or not – so I’ll ignore it except to add that I am not remotely anywhere near having an income akin to “Bankers Bonuses”.

As to people downloading Entry Forms from the Web Site – akin to shopping on line – a personal approach from anyone offering an Entry Form and a chat would be better where possible. One could then see properly what one is “buying”!

As Ned Cordery has sometimes suggested, isn’t it (past) time for FVM to go on line…bigger circulation?…..bigger available interest maybe? Save the crazy postage charges too.

As for your comment regarding any postings hereon from the hierarchy yes, well, I have been told more than once, that they “abhor anyone of independent mind rocking the boat”!

Regards to all.....LEE.

[Chris Abram]

Nice to see that Lee is back writing with bite again rather just sending me all his international jokes. I've got pages of them now!
However, to the point, magazines. Being ex marketing I do not think that there is sufficient interest in a dedicated magazine from those who could possibly advertise.The range of video capture devices is now very large, although not all are particularly high resolution. Take mobile phones, IPads and such like. There are plenty of dedicated mags for them covering every new app that comes out nearly every day. Whereas the new camcorders are getting fewer and fewer.
In my club, Morecambe Bay Movie Makers, so many people have moved away from tape based HD to SDLR's and IPHONES that no one would buy a magazine just devoted to the amateur filmmaker.

FVM was mentioned by several contributors and I agree with them, why does the IAC keep printing it? Apart from the high distribution costs the magazine itself is largely still lodged in the past. At this stage I have to admit two things. I was never a "film" maker and I am still using mini dv tape, mainly because I have about one hundred dvcam184's left which I have only used once and on to which now go my digital masters. I have two Sony Z1's and an Edius 6 editing suite so why do I need to study "camcorder" style magazines to learn about the latest technology. I am more interested in how to solve various problems which arise due to my finger trouble when editing my heritage productions.... and those solutions can easily be found in various forums. FVM offers me very little and as for all those subscribers to the letters pages... well, perhaps they need to see their name in print every now and again. FVM is outmoded and it would be more beneficial financially to the IAC if they just sent it out via the internet.

Now to end on a totally different and inflammatory subject. From what I saw at Grange AGM this year, we provided the technical backup for the weekend, the IAC needs to look for a lot more younger members and teach the judges to take into account good quality, balanced sound before they award the prizes. Some of the winners were deplorable!
And a good night from me.
Kind regards
Chris Abram

[Frank Maxwell]

Talking magazines, when cine film was about it was the bible to learn and know what clubs were doing in the country.
Today we are in the washing mode with PC and Mac magazines. I would not know what is in PC magazine as i use Apple. The Mac magazines are full of tutorials which i can learn on the internet and new software and gadgets. But nothing about the every day problems we have.
So what would make a good magazine???????. A good amateur video magazine on people using there equipment and tips and problem solving and how to shoot and edit etc. Also people with knowledge for the people who cant afford the latest equipment or software.
Plus a look at different video clubs up and down the country.

[Mike Shaw]

Just received my 'first' copy of DFM ... and I have mixed feelings. Difficult to say exactly who it is aimed at - anyone who makes movies one way or another, I guess, but with a bias I'd say towards the SLR camera. There's an article about using Adobe Premiere (by my mate Paul Ekert), and one or two other bits of mild interest.

Oh well. I have a year's subscription now to see how it develops. Something to read in the garden maybe, before using it to light a bonfire ... neither of which I could do with these 'on-line' magazines everyone is so keen about these days. I certainly don't like reading magazines on my smartphone, and have no desire to buy a Kindle or any other 'screen' machine.

Me Luddite is...

[TimStannard]

Just received my 'first' copy of DFM ... and I have mixed feelings. Difficult to say exactly who it is aimed at - anyone who makes movies one way or another, I guess, but with a bias I'd say towards the SLR camera.

Not surprising. That's where the market is. Either the "kids" who need to keep up with the latest developments (and, let's face it, can digest vast amounts of facts and figures and probably comete on a "I can out spec you" and "I've got a better hack than you" basis) or more established filmmakers who have moved over (eg Bob Lorrimer) and really understand what they're doing. However, I can't imagine the likes of Bob would gain much from magazines.

I have an 18 year old nephew who starts a Film Production degree course in September. He is quite taken by the difference between us "older" film makers and the young crowd. Whilst "we" have film makers using both camcorders and DSLRs, with a leaning towards traditional camcorders, he claims that absolutely everyone of his generation is exclusively using DSLRs (or micro four thirds) and don't even consider camcorders.

There is no doubt, these DSLRs, in the right hands, produce stunning images. But with a few exceptions (Bob Lorrimer for one) what I see is collections of stunning images, rather than films.

What I'm interested in, Mike (and I dont think it's fair to judge this based on one issue), is how much of the magazine covers capturing good audio (50%-70% of a good film according to many directors), good naratuion, presentation, sturcture, acting as opposed to photography - composition, lighting, grading.

Oh well. I have a year's subscription now to see how it develops. Something to read in the garden maybe, before using it to light a bonfire.

Rather than that, post your copy to me!
As for on-line. I love my Kindle (used mainly offline) but it works for printed text only - books with photos (to use a term from a different generation) suck. On-line magazines downloaded to an iPad are probably quite good - an iPad weoghs no more than a hefty magazine, but i don't own one. reading on a desktop or laptop PC doesn't appeal, other than for short articles, but i could tuck myself up in bed with a Kindle (and probably and iPad) quite happily.

[edin]

The Digital Filmaker is targeted at the independent film maker.

True it's content is for the DSLR users, but to deny they are not welcome into the IAC because they do not use camcorders is surely not a desirable attribute of the subscribers to this forum. The future of film making seems to be in the convergence of camcorder and DSLR, where the best of each camera format is available to all and democratises film making even more than today.

Is it heresy to use a DSLR to make a video? or just a certain conservatism in certain members of the IAC.

Remember it is not the equipment that makes the best films but the enthusiasm and creativity of the individual. I hope a more progressive attitude to filmmaking of all kinds is reflected in this forum.

[Dave Watterson]

Edin - I am not sure where you find a suggestion in this thread that DSLR users are not welcome in the IAC. As you rightly point out it is the person who makes films not the kit.

A number of contributors question whether this new magazine will appeal to IAC members ... but that is not to imply some kind of rejection of the DSLR systems.

Dave

[col lamb]

Edin I agree with Dave, and if anything using a DSLR to produce a movie requires more skill.

If I want to point and shoot and to adjust things manually I use my TM900 camcorder

If I want a better image with more dynamic range then I go for the 151 Camcorder

If I want to do a bit of videoing whilst out the then the Panasonic G5 camera comes into its own

For real creative endeavours with easily pulled focus, great dynamic range, shallow depth of field, then its the Canon 7D, but it is a pain to use, its big heavy, cumbersome to hold, requires seperate monitor or loupe, requires setting up for each shot very accurately, so all in all you have to have more skill in equipment handling to get better results than a standard point and shoot camcorder and the .MOV files that some DLSR's produce can be a total pain to edit on some systems (thakyou Apple for producing such a rubbish format as MP4 in a quicktime wrapper)

Now onto the magazine, it is the magazine in questions life that is limited, going back a few years we had Computer Video which was aimed at the growing market that was ourselves, then onto the market cam another similar mag by Future Publishing, it was big, it had great images, it felt nice to hold but the content was rubbish, if one tried to re-create what on earth the author was prattling on about then you failed, with Computer Video it just worked (a bit of bias coming out as I used to write for them), ultimately both ceased to exist.

A limited market and vast competition from the free internet will ensure the demise of the mag.

[edin]

On review I got the wrong end of the stick and Dave and Col posts are more reflective of the thread than my own. Apologies to anyone I may have offended by my remarks.
Edin

[Mike Shaw]

The only thing that I think is wrong with DSLRs is the price ... or to be more accurate, my lack of funds to get one ...

As Col says - not so easy to use, but the results (with all the extra effort involved) can be quite stunning. I kinda lean towards 'story first, quality second' (never mind the quality ... feel the width!), but would really like the depth of field capability DSLRs offer.

Many people don't like 'AVs', but at the festivals I always make a point of seeing them - to admire the stunning quality of the still pictures (these days, so often animated that it would be difficult to differentiate between an AV and a Ken Burns type movie).

Back on the magazine point though, it is difficult to see exactly who DFM is going to appeal to in the long run, once the 'novelty' factor has worn off. Maybe if they have articles on things like - 'shooting great virals with your smartphone' they'd attract the upcoming breed of film makers. (I actually found a video editing app that sort of works as designed on my Android (S3) ... but yet to go 'viral' ... I need that magazine perhaps!)

[col lamb]

Edin

No need to apologise, everyone has their own opinion

Using a DSLR in the IAC or at least for making the movies seen at BIAFF is no bar on achieving good results

Same can be said about using an iPhone to record video

Its the movie that matters not how it was made there is no snobbery about the cost of kit.

As usual Mike gets it right.....'story first, quality second'.......technical quality may be limited in some movies shown at BIAFF but that is not a bar on getting good results

Good luck with your own movie making

[Dave Watterson]

Back to the question of "Do we need a film/video/movie magazine?" I believe we do need reliable journalists.

How do we really get to know the qualities of new equipment? Someone buys it and then quickly gives it a positive review online - partly to justify their choice. There are forums and review websites but it is hard to know what the knowledge and experience of the contributors is. All too many seem to do little more than parrot the press-release data. When there were magazines you soon got to know which contributors knew their stuff. They might not be able to damn a product (their publishers needed the advertising revenue) but a lukewarm review gave you a good hint.

[Peter Copestake]

People talk as though there are thousands of camcorders out there. Earlier we had a celebration homecoming for our local Olympic cycling hero. We had a camcorder in the open-top car in which he was riding. In all his footage I didn't spot a single camcorder in the considerable crowd. There must have been one other than ours (which were obviously edited out of our record of the event) as someone, not a member, put a short clip on YouTube, and he may have been using a DSLR, but there were not so many that they showed up on our footage.

The last commercial mag. that I remember taking had an article or front cover photo I forget which but I think the former relating to filming ones 'bedroom romps', to put it politely. I complained and stopped my subscription and told them I didn't approve. (Someone will tell me what a *** prude I am) They replied that many of their readers used their camcorders for this purpose.

Since then pornography has infested the internet, so I read, I've never looked. The question is 'do we want them in the IAC?

I shall certainly carry the IAC card that came with the FVM with me, but in the several years that I have been carrying my club contact card with me I have only had the opportunity to give it to one person. I recently encouraged a man who was responsible for booking a show from our club to come to one of our meetings. He has a camcorder and his wife had a still camera. They go on at least one expensive trip abroad every year. When they went last year they found they couldn't get the card out of the camcorder - that's what he said but he's a bit vague with his terminology and it may have been the tape - and they get home and find they've hardly used the camera either.

What I'm getting at with this over-long tale is that I suspect many of the camcorders that have been sold have rarely been used to make films; perhaps to film the grandchildren, but they wouldn't need a mag or a club to help them do that (or wouldn't think they did).

[TimStannard]

What I'm getting at with this over-long tale is that I suspect many of the camcorders that have been sold have rarely been used to make films; perhaps to film the grandchildren, but they wouldn't need a mag or a club to help them do that (or wouldn't think they did).

That is so true, Peter. Many people might film something and then simply plug their camcorder into the TV and watch it back. End of story.
I think this is because people get wowed by the ease with which one can capture a high quality image. Once they realise the time and effort required to turn their 10 minutes of random footage into a remotely watchable one minute affair (quite apart from the time they need to invest in order to acquire the even the most basic skills in order to do so) most politley give up and tucjk their camcorders away at the back of a cupboard somewhere.

They can, and do, of course manage to capture "clips" which they will post in their entirety on YouTube on phones or stills cameras.

I think those of us who actually edit films are very much in the minority of camcorder owners. But there are still plenty of us and the manufacturers still clearly see a market - so I would have thought there was one for a decent magazine as well.