Willy's comments about being able to shoot an entire polo match, for example,
on tape when in 8mm he could only have caught 3 minute chunks of it made
me wonder ...
How many of us still think in terms of the costs and limitations of 8mm /
9.5mm / 16mm when shooting even though we work these days on video?
Someone told me that holding an Arriflex 16mm camera felt like carrying a
sewing machine on your shoulder and hearing it chewing up through bank notes
as it ran. Film was expensive.
Is Willy the only documentary maker who re-takes shots of static objects
like scenery because he is not happy with the camera pan? Do the fiction
film makers ever re-take for the sake of their own technical hiccups rather
than problems with performances?
How much does the economics of our hobby (current or remembered from the
cine past) influence the way we work today?
- Dave
Does the 8mm mentality persist?
-
Ned C
Re: Does the 8mm mentality persist?
Making films on 8mm was rather like mud wrestling for dwarves, amazing that
it was done at all let alone done well. The ace 8mm film makers needed a
combination of patience and skill well beyond most people's abilities, there
were some with a high level of creativity as well, but they were few and
far between. Modern technology has minimised the technical obstacles leaving
the poverty of creativity fully exposed. Economics should not be an obstacle
to film making, there are enough arts centres with access to a full range
of production/post production facilities at low or even no charges for anyone
with an idea to make a film. However, these film makers are disconnected
from the amateur world and the challenge is to get them in before we all
fall off our perches. They don't want to join clubs but need a distribution
and festival system for their work, much of which will be strange to the
traditional amateur, but like Rap it isn't going to go away so we had better
learn the new language of film makers rather than basing our critiques on
an imagined production of the 1950s.
Ned C
"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
it was done at all let alone done well. The ace 8mm film makers needed a
combination of patience and skill well beyond most people's abilities, there
were some with a high level of creativity as well, but they were few and
far between. Modern technology has minimised the technical obstacles leaving
the poverty of creativity fully exposed. Economics should not be an obstacle
to film making, there are enough arts centres with access to a full range
of production/post production facilities at low or even no charges for anyone
with an idea to make a film. However, these film makers are disconnected
from the amateur world and the challenge is to get them in before we all
fall off our perches. They don't want to join clubs but need a distribution
and festival system for their work, much of which will be strange to the
traditional amateur, but like Rap it isn't going to go away so we had better
learn the new language of film makers rather than basing our critiques on
an imagined production of the 1950s.
Ned C
"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
Willy's comments about being able to shoot an entire polo match, for example,
on tape when in 8mm he could only have caught 3 minute chunks of it made
me wonder ...
How many of us still think in terms of the costs and limitations of 8mm
/
9.5mm / 16mm when shooting even though we work these days on video?
Someone told me that holding an Arriflex 16mm camera felt like carrying
a
sewing machine on your shoulder and hearing it chewing up through bank notes
as it ran. Film was expensive.
Is Willy the only documentary maker who re-takes shots of static objects
like scenery because he is not happy with the camera pan? Do the fiction
film makers ever re-take for the sake of their own technical hiccups rather
than problems with performances?
How much does the economics of our hobby (current or remembered from the
cine past) influence the way we work today?
- Dave
-
Michael Slowe
Re: Does the 8mm mentality persist?
"Ned C" <ned@ampsvideo.com> wrote:
having seen some of todays output from new young film makers not in the 'amateur'
movement and they are very different from what we see at the astablished
amateur festivals. They are not all that good for the most part but they
sure are different and some are very good indeed. The whole thought process
is new and the conventional language of film structure and editing is new.
There is no doubt that the access to video equipment has been the catalyst,
these people would never have taken the care and trouble that we did with
8 (or even 16mm) film, but they do have imagination.
By the way Dave, of course one should re take any shot static or otherwise
if it is not as good as it was intended to be if a re take is possible -
that applies to film or tape.
Ned is so right. The language is changing. I have come up against this changeMaking films on 8mm was rather like mud wrestling for dwarves, amazing that
it was done at all let alone done well. The ace 8mm film makers needed a
combination of patience and skill well beyond most people's abilities, there
were some with a high level of creativity as well, but they were few and
far between. Modern technology has minimised the technical obstacles leaving
the poverty of creativity fully exposed. Economics should not be an obstacle
to film making, there are enough arts centres with access to a full range
of production/post production facilities at low or even no charges for anyone
with an idea to make a film. However, these film makers are disconnected
from the amateur world and the challenge is to get them in before we all
fall off our perches. They don't want to join clubs but need a distribution
and festival system for their work, much of which will be strange to the
traditional amateur, but like Rap it isn't going to go away so we had better
learn the new language of film makers rather than basing our critiques on
an imagined production of the 1950s.
Ned C
"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
Willy's comments about being able to shoot an entire polo match, for example,
on tape when in 8mm he could only have caught 3 minute chunks of it made
me wonder ...
How many of us still think in terms of the costs and limitations of 8mm
/
9.5mm / 16mm when shooting even though we work these days on video?
Someone told me that holding an Arriflex 16mm camera felt like carrying
a
sewing machine on your shoulder and hearing it chewing up through bank
notes
as it ran. Film was expensive.
Is Willy the only documentary maker who re-takes shots of static objects
like scenery because he is not happy with the camera pan? Do the fiction
film makers ever re-take for the sake of their own technical hiccups rather
than problems with performances?
How much does the economics of our hobby (current or remembered from the
cine past) influence the way we work today?
- Dave
having seen some of todays output from new young film makers not in the 'amateur'
movement and they are very different from what we see at the astablished
amateur festivals. They are not all that good for the most part but they
sure are different and some are very good indeed. The whole thought process
is new and the conventional language of film structure and editing is new.
There is no doubt that the access to video equipment has been the catalyst,
these people would never have taken the care and trouble that we did with
8 (or even 16mm) film, but they do have imagination.
By the way Dave, of course one should re take any shot static or otherwise
if it is not as good as it was intended to be if a re take is possible -
that applies to film or tape.
-
Atta Chui
Re: Does the 8mm mentality persist?
By the way you can see today's shorts by young film makers on BBC2's "Homegrown
Hollywood" on Thursday late-night.
The coming one on 8th September starts at 2am.
2 weeks ago I saw Rocket Boy Roger by Russell Holliss (BIAFF 2004 Best British
Entry)
Atta
"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:
Hollywood" on Thursday late-night.
The coming one on 8th September starts at 2am.
2 weeks ago I saw Rocket Boy Roger by Russell Holliss (BIAFF 2004 Best British
Entry)
Atta
"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:
Ned is so right. The language is changing. I have come up against this
change
having seen some of todays output from new young film makers not in the
'amateur'
movement and they are very different from what we see at the astablished
amateur festivals.
-
Atta Chui
Re: Does the 8mm mentality persist?
Oops it is on Tuesday (6 September) and Wednesday as well.
That's quite a number of films to be shown... Wonder if any other IAC memebers
entered their films too?
Atta
"Atta Chui" <atta.chui@ntlworld.com> wrote:
That's quite a number of films to be shown... Wonder if any other IAC memebers
entered their films too?
Atta
"Atta Chui" <atta.chui@ntlworld.com> wrote:
By the way you can see today's shorts by young film makers on BBC2's "Homegrown
Hollywood" on Thursday late-night.
The coming one on 8th September starts at 2am.
2 weeks ago I saw Rocket Boy Roger by Russell Holliss (BIAFF 2004 Best British
Entry)
Atta
"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:
Ned is so right. The language is changing. I have come up against this
change
having seen some of todays output from new young film makers not in the
'amateur'
movement and they are very different from what we see at the astablished
amateur festivals.
-
Cinema For Thurso Group
Re: Does the 8mm mentality persist?
"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
was set up with super 8 in mind but has advantages when filming in tight
schedules nevermind budgets.
has been. Seven years ago we were getting Kodachrome 40 at £13.95, in the
last 3 years we've been getting it at £11.99.
or otherwise. There's no need to go silly on it (slate 15, take 26!) though.
masses of tape. That makes editing a major headache. If you've learnt your
film making skills on super 8 and got good at it you will have better skill
at getting your movie in the can quicker but with the best results. The cost
of film in the back of ones head makes for a sharp eye in what and when to
film- a skill lost to many domestic video users.
In part see my response to "Shouting Action" thread. Our filming techniqueWilly's comments about being able to shoot an entire polo match, for example,
on tape when in 8mm he could only have caught 3 minute chunks of it made
me wonder ...
How many of us still think in terms of the costs and limitations of 8mm
/
9.5mm / 16mm when shooting even though we work these days on video?
was set up with super 8 in mind but has advantages when filming in tight
schedules nevermind budgets.
Film still is expensive but it is proportionately cheaper now than it everSomeone told me that holding an Arriflex 16mm camera felt like carrying
a
sewing machine on your shoulder and hearing it chewing up through bank notes
as it ran. Film was expensive.
has been. Seven years ago we were getting Kodachrome 40 at £13.95, in the
last 3 years we've been getting it at £11.99.
Retakes are essential if there is any kind of fault with a shot, performanceIs Willy the only documentary maker who re-takes shots of static objects
like scenery because he is not happy with the camera pan? Do the fiction
film makers ever re-take for the sake of their own technical hiccups rather
than problems with performances?
or otherwise. There's no need to go silly on it (slate 15, take 26!) though.
Just because video gives more footage for you money is no reason to go shootingHow much does the economics of our hobby (current or remembered from the
cine past) influence the way we work today?
masses of tape. That makes editing a major headache. If you've learnt your
film making skills on super 8 and got good at it you will have better skill
at getting your movie in the can quicker but with the best results. The cost
of film in the back of ones head makes for a sharp eye in what and when to
film- a skill lost to many domestic video users.
- Dave