Film School or not

[cubes]

I know this is a much debated subject. I've researched the pros and cons myself. I agree, it's not for everyone, but not all of us can have the good fortune of jumping right out of the gate into a career in film. I guess it boils down to being honest with yourself and what your individual situation is, what resources and contacts you have, and how serious you are about pursuing it as a career. I tried to jump off into it. Gathered equipment, assembled a crew, started developing a screenplay with several people. Sometimes life can throw a few curve balls, but that wasn't the biggest hurdle. People may have talent and skills but they have to have one key component. The desire to make movies, the motivation and dedication it requires to make it in this business. My crew of about 16 various people was a complete washout except for a few. So the decision was made to enroll in one of our states Digital fill courses. Being around like minded individuals, access to the latest equipment (they are upgrading to Red Scarlets). I hear alot of people complain about not having people to help them, or are interested enough. Why not do something that puts you in that environment? I think the majority of the ones who say a film program isn't for them have unrealistic ideas about what they are doing. Just remember just as you go from job to job, situation to situation, take as much information as you can from it because thet will be the tools you use to reach your goals. I hope everyone achieves what they want, just be honest with yourself.

[Shade2193]

Big wall o' text!

[Koolpenguin89]

they are upgrading to Red Scarlets

Lmao, thats like the car mechanics course saying that they will be upgrading to hover-cars. One day, maybe, but don't hold your breath.

Dylan

[TheResignation00]

Lmao, thats like the car mechanics course saying that they will be upgrading to hover-cars. One day, maybe, but don't hold your breath.

Dylan
The scarlets are going to be relatively cheap, especially for a Universities budget.

Anyway, I'm currently majoring in Film. Honestly, if you want to be a screenwriter, or something that doesn't involve touching the hardware, film school might not be neccesary. I recommend going to college regardless, but you can major in something else. I feel that film majors are mainly useful for film "specialists". Like...getting training in cinematography, editing, and more production things.

You also meet great people who are obviously interested and striving towards the same goal you are. I feel as though I'm paying for connections to people, and I'm getting experience at the same time.

[DigitalVideo]

Honestly, film school is a must for me. I have a couple contacts who are doing well in the industry, but that's all I have. Around here, there's no internships at any studios, there's no film stuff going on, not even indy films. There's also nobody else interested in film, and nobody else who wants to help. So I need film school to help me meet people who have the same goals and hobbies, otherwise I won't make it.

[michaelbak]

In college your supposed to you pick a degree you like so i guess going to film school makes sense. I mean you get a degree and you learn what you love for years. I've read a lot about "The Film School Filmmaking Process" But most colleges i have seen have been going in to "Indi Film Production" or "Digital Film Production". These i can see because most schools would make you work with film.

It amazes me how in every other medium institutions advance where as with film they stay behind. Film is almost 130 years old and is a hassle to use and is more expensive to shoot with. Digital cameras can provide better resolution , proven cheaper and easier to work with , and is faster to work with. With film you have to send it to a lab to get it developed which can take months and costs a lot for chemicals. You then have to ether get it scanned to digital or get a series of rolls to edit in to a master. There are things like effects and color correction that can't apply to film since most of this is digital. Color correction must be done while the roll is still undeveloped using chemicals to get just the right look but once its in the film the color can never be changed back again. Also film decays over time (faster then tapes) and rolls loose quality when they are transfered in to new rolls which most editors and colorists need. Some people still like the soft look of film and the feel of it but film should be seen as a antique item. Film is still good heck , It's great but for most of us it's not a option due to many reasons and colleges need to understand that and give us more options on what we want to learn.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.

[TheResignation00]

In college your supposed to you pick a degree you like so i guess going to film school makes sense. I mean you get a degree and you learn what you love for years. I've read a lot about "The Film School Filmmaking Process" But most colleges i have seen have been going in to "Indi Film Production" or "Digital Film Production". These i can see because most schools would make you work with film.

It amazes me how in every other medium institutions advance where as with film they stay behind. Film is almost 130 years old and is a hassle to use and is more expensive to shoot with. Digital cameras can provide better resolution , proven cheaper and easier to work with , and is faster to work with. With film you have to send it to a lab to get it developed which can take months and costs a lot for chemicals. You then have to ether get it scanned to digital or get a series of rolls to edit in to a master. There are things like effects and color correction that can't apply to film since most of this is digital. Color correction must be done while the roll is still undeveloped using chemicals to get just the right look but once its in the film the color can never be changed back again. Also film decays over time (faster then tapes) and rolls loose quality when they are transfered in to new rolls which most editors and colorists need. Some people still like the soft look of film and the feel of it but film should be seen as a antique item. Film is still good heck , It's great but for most of us it's not a option due to many reasons and colleges need to understand that and give us more options on what we want to learn.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.

digital cameras do not provide better resolution, at all.

film cannot be replicated. digital formats can come damn close, but it is not film. film photographs and films will be around forever. you simply cannot replace them.

[Episk Productions]

Honestly, film school is a must for me. I have a couple contacts who are doing well in the industry, but that's all I have. Around here, there's no internships at any studios, there's no film stuff going on, not even indy films. There's also nobody else interested in film, and nobody else who wants to help. So I need film school to help me meet people who have the same goals and hobbies, otherwise I won't make it.
this

[WesScog]

Lmao, thats like the car mechanics course saying that they will be upgrading to hover-cars. One day, maybe, but don't hold your breath.

Dylan

They already have them in prototype, and it's rumored they are testing Beta versions right now with a bunch of select cinematographers.

There has been nothing to suggest that they aren't on schedule.

[WesScog]

digital cameras do not provide better resolution, at all.

Depends what film and what digital you're talking about.

Comparing sub 900-lines of resolution mass release 35mm prints (that were source from 35mm sources) to 2 or 4K digital projected digital films from professional digital cinema cams, the digital films will definitely have the higher resolution since they have less generational degradation.

Also depends on what films you're talking about. Throw down some 50 speed against some 500, and you're going to see significantly more grain in the latter, and less usable resolution thanks to the increased grain structure.

Not to mention that 35mm is mastered at 2-4K most of the time, and if you're shooting a camera with 4K resolutions, and mastering it the same, it'll be practically indistinguishable once you get to the DI stage (even though very low-speed film shot through great glass would depending on the digital camera source possibly look sharper at this phase thanks nyquist sampling), but realistically more often than not in the real world it's a lot closer than you'd imagine.

Regardless, a LOT of variables here, and unless you pin down what film stocks, shot through what glass, to what digital cinema cams shooting through what glass, saying, "Digital doesn't provide a better resolution" is ultimately a vague enough statement to while not necessarily being false, is also not necessarily true either.

film cannot be replicated.

Why not? Also what film are we talking about here?

digital formats can come damn close, but it is not film. film photographs and films will be around forever. you simply cannot replace them.

Really, it will be around forever? As in for all eternity?

On the contrary, digital cinema is a paradigm shift, and is quickly planning on superseding film in all qualities, and within the decade most major productions will be utilizing digital rather than film, simply because of all of the additional capabilities it'll offer.

Digital will offer the ability in shoot in better than IMAX definitions, which would simply be uneconomical.

There is no reason to assume that film will maintain itself as the preeminent source format for anymore than 20 years at most.

[WesScog]

It amazes me how in every other medium institutions advance where as with film they stay behind. Film is almost 130 years old and is a hassle to use and is more expensive to shoot with. Digital cameras can provide better resolution , proven cheaper and easier to work with , and is faster to work with. With film you have to send it to a lab to get it developed which can take months and costs a lot for chemicals. You then have to ether get it scanned to digital or get a series of rolls to edit in to a master. There are things like effects and color correction that can't apply to film since most of this is digital. Color correction must be done while the roll is still undeveloped using chemicals to get just the right look but once its in the film the color can never be changed back again. Also film decays over time (faster then tapes) and rolls loose quality when they are transfered in to new rolls which most editors and colorists need. Some people still like the soft look of film and the feel of it but film should be seen as a antique item. Film is still good heck , It's great but for most of us it's not a option due to many reasons and colleges need to understand that and give us more options on what we want to learn.

While it is true that certain digital formats can beat certain film formats, it's not always true. Film still has many things going for it (especially in regards to the medium-range digital camera systems that most colleges have access to), especially in regards to dynamic range, and color accuracy.

While film is harder to work with, my philosophy is that film is great to train on for a few reasons... Firstly film is harder to shoot with, and requires a certain discipline out of you that is going to end up making your digital cinematography look better in the end.

Secondarily, learning to deal with labs and how to handle and ship off film are important skills to learn, especially with the indie filmmaker who might end up having to work on a project that is going to be sourced in 16mm (As I have a fair share of the projects i've assisted with in the last few years).

In regards to Color Correction and Effects, that is total baloney and I don't know who told you that. You send off to the lab, and order back DPX files, process those (usually at this stage most people will go in and clean up scratches and dust and run it through Grain/Noise Reduction filters), then you color correction the Digital Intermediary files and composite with those.

There is absolutely nothing that stops your from color correcting digitally, and currently most films CC work is done digitally to the DI, then sent to film out, very little of it is done chemically anymore because you get far more control working with the DI in DaVinci.

You can have almost total control of the color, the first thing you do is when you do the slate, you put up a white/gray/black spectrum, and a color test sheet. That way you know what is white, what is black, and what is each color, giving you absolute control over all of those elements (because you've been able to tag down what they are in the film).

Getting it developed usually at most takes 2 weeks, (much less generally depending on proximity to the lab), and does not take months.

Film in controlled settings can take over a century to decay, especially in regards to modern stocks. I think that magnetic tape has been listed at half a century without major degradation, but I don't think that they are an ideal storage format.

Finally not all film has a "soft look" (unless you're throwing some Tiffen's in front of it in the matte box), and each stock has a unique quality.

Film is going to die out eventually, and digital eventually will be able to beat it in every way in regards to quality, but film still has a lot going for it, and I don't think should be something that is just discarded or cast out.

Learning film production I think is VERY important, and the discipline and complexities involved can make you a better videographer, and a better rounded filmmaker, even if you never touch film again. (Which most of us WILL be having to deal with for at least another 20 years, even if it'll continually get more rare.)

[WesScog]

Being around like minded individuals, access to the latest equipment (they are upgrading to Red Scarlets). I hear alot of people complain about not having people to help them, or are interested enough. Why not do something that puts you in that environment? I think the majority of the ones who say a film program isn't for them have unrealistic ideas about what they are doing. Just remember just as you go from job to job, situation to situation, take as much information as you can from it because thet will be the tools you use to reach your goals. I hope everyone achieves what they want, just be honest with yourself.

I think it would be a very good idea, talk to some people who've been through it, and ask them about it.

Talk to the professors, and ask to sit in a class or two to get a feel for it.

Being around people who love filmmaking as well is a great plan, and could definitely help to be around people who are interested in being in film production, and it could definitely help you make films if you're around people who are interested in helping you (and you helping them) rather than people with dayjobs that could be flaky and bail on you.

Check it out, and I wish you the best!

[theSarge00]

The grain issue is already a part of the pipeline in digital effects - when combining cg and live action elements, one of the final passes is to calculate the grain from the live action portions and apply it just to the cg you're adding, because perceptually, cg has no grain. Some will be reintroduced when the files are scanned back onto film, but then the live action gets another dose of grain as well.

As stated elsewhere, in an argument over 3d vs 2d animation, every time a new medium emerges, an older medium screams that it will never be replaced. It happened when photography came along and painters were up in arms about the inferiority of photography in interpreting emotion/the "soul" of the subject. It's happening now with 2d decrying what they perceive as a lack of artistry in 3d (making the leap that the computer is doing all the work).

Relax.

There are still painters, even though they are no longer the ONLY way to record images anymore. There are still sculptors, even though with 3d printing, a lot of their old territory will be taken over by output by computers. There will continue to be 2d animated cartoons, even though 3d (and even computer generated 2d) is going to fill most of their old shoes. And there will still be traditional filmmakers, even though digital formats will tend to relegate them to "boutique" artisans (you want to relive this argument in FILM history...go back to the 20's when talkies came in, and hop forward to the changeover from b&w to color). I know a calligrapher who hand inscribed an entire book, and bound it himself, and he will likely continue to do it, even after we have all but completely switched over to digital publishing.

Film WILL be replaced in most of it's commercial applications. It's a fact of life. And Digital will be supplanted by whatever comes after it. Doesn't mean it will completely disappear - it just means it'll no longer be the 800 lb gorilla.

RIP Kodachrome.

[Koolpenguin89]

They already have them in prototype, and it's rumored they are testing Beta versions right now with a bunch of select cinematographers.

There has been nothing to suggest that they aren't on schedule.

Fair enough, but Red themselves have taught me not to rely too much on their release dates being accurate, thats all.

Dylan

[TheResignation00]

The grain issue is already a part of the pipeline in digital effects - when combining cg and live action elements, one of the final passes is to calculate the grain from the live action portions and apply it just to the cg you're adding, because perceptually, cg has no grain. Some will be reintroduced when the files are scanned back onto film, but then the live action gets another dose of grain as well.

As stated elsewhere, in an argument over 3d vs 2d animation, every time a new medium emerges, an older medium screams that it will never be replaced. It happened when photography came along and painters were up in arms about the inferiority of photography in interpreting emotion/the "soul" of the subject. It's happening now with 2d decrying what they perceive as a lack of artistry in 3d (making the leap that the computer is doing all the work).

Relax.

There are still painters, even though they are no longer the ONLY way to record images anymore. There are still sculptors, even though with 3d printing, a lot of their old territory will be taken over by output by computers. There will continue to be 2d animated cartoons, even though 3d (and even computer generated 2d) is going to fill most of their old shoes. And there will still be traditional filmmakers, even though digital formats will tend to relegate them to "boutique" artisans (you want to relive this argument in FILM history...go back to the 20's when talkies came in, and hop forward to the changeover from b&w to color). I know a calligrapher who hand inscribed an entire book, and bound it himself, and he will likely continue to do it, even after we have all but completely switched over to digital publishing.

Film WILL be replaced in most of it's commercial applications. It's a fact of life. And Digital will be supplanted by whatever comes after it. Doesn't mean it will completely disappear - it just means it'll no longer be the 800 lb gorilla.

RIP Kodachrome.

this is what i agree with. film will never completely disappear.

[gonzo_entertainment]

Couple things...

on film...
There is no HD digital camera on the market (or any on the horizon) that looks as good as 35mm. It doesn't exist, there isn't one, and likely won't be for some time if ever. A RED or a 4K looks great. It looks so good it compares favorably with film but film still looks better. This is without even going down the road of how superior analog of any type is to digital. Analog is organic. Digital is ALWAYS A SAMPLE. Those samples might be numerous, and small, but they are still samples, and always will be. There is exactly one reason to shoot digital, cost, no other reason.

As far as your crew problems...
Well, how much does film school cost... it isn't free, if you had taken the multi-grand film school is gonna cost and paid your crew I bet they would have remained a LOT more interested.

[WesScog]

There is no HD digital camera on the market (or any on the horizon) that looks as good as 35mm. It doesn't exist, there isn't one, and likely won't be for some time if ever. A RED or a 4K looks great. It looks so good it compares favorably with film but film still looks better.

Once again... What films? 16mm? Red and most other Digital Cinema Cams blow it completely out of the water.

Regardless, throwing them head to head depends totally on the grounds where you're doing it. Throw a mass market 35mm print up against a Sony 4K projector with material sourced from a Red One?

The Red footage will completely destroy the 35mm footage.

Take that same Red Footage and do a filmout to a 35mm print, and then project the 4K digital master from the 35mm footage?

The 35mm footage will look astounding.

It has everything to do with how it's presented. Digital cinema has gone from 10 years to being seen as impossible to be utilized for a major motion picture release, to being used in a dozen major productions a year.

Digital technologies have almost accomplished in image qualities in 10 years, what took film over a century to accomplish.

There will be digital systems that will surpass 35mm in every way, WITHIN THE YEAR. Within 10 years most major productions will be digital, with film becoming a continually marginalized format.

Within 40 years it will have totally disappeared (that's a liberal estimate), simply becoming uneconomical to keep producing when digital can produce vastly superior resolutions, cheaper and quicker.


This is without even going down the road of how superior analog of any type is to digital. Analog is organic. Digital is ALWAYS A SAMPLE. Those samples might be numerous, and small, but they are still samples, and always will be. There is exactly one reason to shoot digital, cost, no other reason.

Analog ISN'T organic. It's Chemical, and it's still just a sample of reality. Analog has MAJOR limitations, including cost, difficulty to shoot with, grain structures, and economical limitations to the size you can make the film.

Film of any type IS NOT superior to digital of any time, that is simply not true in any way.

Regardless, you're pushing what amounts to superstition, sampling can be mathematically loseless, and beyond the ability of human optics to distinguish between it and something that is "analog".

There are far far more reasons to shoot digital other than simply "cost". Film doesn't beat it in every way, nor in every circumstance.

[WesScog]

this is what i agree with. film will never completely disappear.

Never? What makes you think that?

[gonzo_entertainment]

I said 35 mm, and comparable quality, i.e. put a superior grade 35mm print up on the best available projector against a digital format on the best available projector and most people won't be able to tell the difference, but some people could, and most will prefer the film.

It's like analog vs digital recording. analog recordings are superior in every way to any digital recording format that has ever or will ever be invented. Digital is just cheaper, easier to edit, etc.. etc... and has reached a point where most people couldn't tell the difference, but it's still inferior. A digital recording is discrete samples of a wave. An analog recording IS a wave.

It comes BACK to cost. Everything that is a pain in the ass about film can all be overcome, if you have the time/money (which are the same thing usually).

[gonzo_entertainment]

Never? What makes you think that?

After reaching a low in the late 90's early 2000's vinyl record sales are now growing like 200% a year. Sometimes things get discarded only to have people say realize they are in many ways superior to what replaced them. Film will become a niche thing as digital is so cheap and easy, but it will ALWAYS have it's adherents.

[WesScog]

It's mathematically loseless, no one can tell the difference between professional analog and digital recordings. It's beyond human ability to register.

They have found that no one can tell the difference. The only correlation they were able to find is that people prefer what they grew up listening too. People who great up in the 70's prefer vinyl, people that have ground up in the 00's tend to show a preference for how MP3's sound even though they are lower quality.

As far as visual imagery is concerned, most films AREN'T analog anymore, they create DI's and that is what they usually edit and CC with before they send it out to filmout, because it avoids much of the generational degradation you get from making answer prints, etc.

So you're arguing that analog is better when it isn't even analog anymore, every major release is "digital", and has been digitalized somewhere along the line. So ultimately your argument is moot.

It's simply unscientific, people can't tell the difference, and everything is digitized somewhere along the route now anyway, so you're still watching a "sampled" copy, even when you're looking at a 35mm print, from a film sourced in 35mm.

[gonzo_entertainment]

I'm a luddite, what can I say. I'll just alway prefer film. If I have $100,000 budget I'm gonna shoot digital. If I have a $2,000,000 budget I'm going to spend the couple hundred thousand extra it would cost to shoot film.

[WesScog]

After reaching a low in the late 90's early 2000's vinyl record sales are now growing like 200% a year. Sometimes things get discarded only to have people say realize they are in many ways superior to what replaced them. Film will become a niche thing as digital is so cheap and easy, but it will ALWAYS have it's adherents.

Vinyl is inferior, people just like the crackle about it, and the nostalgic quality.

It's been proven, put a high quality digital recording and a vinyl recording head to head, without people knowing what they are and the usually prefer the high quality digital recording.

People also ascribe warmness and "crackle" to something when they are told it's vinyl, even if they are really just listening to a CD.

It's all psychological.

Regardless, film requires mass production facilities, and Kodak and Fuji will eventually stop producing it. Digital is going to overtake film.

[gonzo_entertainment]

Man did we get sidetracked or what.....

I actually started as a musician and our last album was (because I insisted) analog all the way, never converted to a digital format at anytime until the CDs were printed, the vinyl was never digital.

I'll agree it's a "taste" thing. I also shoot more stuff with my medium format film camera than I do my digital, I'm old.

[michaelbak]

This is a video that i like that is on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1QVRyN_3SM

[WesScog]

That is a great talk. And he is very right.

[TheResignation00]

film will never disappear because there will always be a niche group of filmmakers who want to make things the old fashioned way, on film. regardless of which can get the better picture, there will always be people who prefer shooting on film. always.

[WesScog]

Those people will all pass on eventually, Kodak is not going to keep producing film FOREVER, eventually they will switch over to what's more economical too.

In 40 years if film is still around, it'll be limited batches going for a LOT of money, to a very small niche market.

Unless home molecular assemblers become common, we're not going to see anyone really using film anymore.

And people are going to realize that not only can digital beat film in every way, and not only is it cheaper, but it can do everything they love, only better.

Digital can do what film can do, and what digital can do. But film can only do what film can do, and it can never do what digital can do.

When you can run your footage through a processing program, and have any kind of grain you want applied in post, simulated accurately down to the molecular level, all cheaper and faster than film.

There simply isn't going to be an rational for shooting in film anymore.

[TheResignation00]

Those people will all pass on eventually, Kodak is not going to keep producing film FOREVER, eventually they will switch over to what's more economical too.

In 40 years if film is still around, it'll be limited batches going for a LOT of money, to a very small niche market.

Unless home molecular assemblers become common, we're not going to see anyone really using film anymore.

And people are going to realize that not only can digital beat film in every way, and not only is it cheaper, but it can do everything they love, only better.

Digital can do what film can do, and what digital can do. But film can only do what film can do, and it can never do what digital can do.

When you can run your footage through a processing program, and have any kind of grain you want applied in post, simulated accurately down to the molecular level, all cheaper and faster than film.

There simply isn't going to be an rational for shooting in film anymore.

everything you said is true, but my POINT is that there will always be people who don't care if digital is more rational. people will still want to shoot on film simply to say they shot it on film. regardless of price or difficulty.

[gonzo_entertainment]

everything you said is true, but my POINT is that there will always be people who don't care if digital is more rational. people will still want to shoot on film simply to say they shot it on film. regardless of price or difficulty.

My Pal Lloyd kaufman refuses to shoot digital. Believe it or not ALL the Troma produced titles are 35mm film. That's why he spends 500K making a movie he could make for 200K, he won't even discuss it. He's all for the democratization that digital has brought to filmmaking, but he won't do it.

[WesScog]

I think it's just the stuff he directed himself, because I think a lot of the Troma stuff has been shot digitally.

If I recall correctly, Redneck Zombies was the first feature length film shot on video that got a wide release. I also believe Rockabilly Vampire (I am starting to see a pattern with these titles...) and many other Troma features were shot on video.

[WesScog]

everything you said is true, but my POINT is that there will always be people who don't care if digital is more rational. people will still want to shoot on film simply to say they shot it on film. regardless of price or difficulty.

True, just like i'm sure there are people who refuse to release anything on anything other than vinyl.

Those people are quickly becoming a minority. Film has practical limitations in how big you can make the filmstock, and how accurately all of the mechanics can be made.