Does it irritate you at all...

[mr_goodbomb]

When people shooting digital call the act of shooting "filming?" Or when low-budget companies that produce digital shorts or features call themselves "______ Films?" I get that many still call movies "films," it's grandfathered in, like calling a band's new release an album, or a record, even when it's almost always 100% digital, or calling a PDF of a full piece of literature a book (though, usually, to it's credit, it started as a book).

I dunno why, it just gets to me. Tape has been around for a while, since Beta and VHS, and TV shows that shot to tape rather than film said "taped infront of a live audience," VS "filmed." But the trend to call movie companies that only do purely digital work "Films" still exists, and calling shoot dates and schedules "filming" is an every day common term, even with some professions.

Does it ever irk anyone else? Maybe I'm just a tense kinda dude. Just a thought though.

[Alasdair]

no because im not literally a gay shit baby

[Neaps]

yes because i am better than everyone else and i have shot on both film on REDs and can tell that film is way better. i am better than you stupid idiots that don't even know what film is. it annoys me. the world revolves around me. morons.

[Alasdair]

Camera: Sony HDR-TG3E (Maybe one day HV30)
Editing: Final Cut Express, Adobe After Effects CS4, iMovie 09
Computer: iMac 24" 2.4 Ghz

[Alasdair]

*literally masturbates*

[WesScog]

Does it ever irk anyone else? Maybe I'm just a tense kinda dude. Just a thought though.

No, not really it doesn't bother me really at all. It's gotten to the point where the quality difference between something that was "taped" and something that was "filmed" is becoming more and more blurred with each passing year.

So I see it as what is the difference really? You're still using a film, tape is really just a synonym of "film", their dictionary definition more or less means almost the same exact thing.

You could just as easily get upset over someone saying they are "taping" something when they are using flash cards in their camera. What are they supposed to say, "Oh, I have this event I have to flash next weekend, so can I borrow your light kit?"

It's just easier to say "filmed", everyone understands what it means, pointing a camera at something that is moving and recording that motion. I just don't see why it's absolutely necessary to strive for that level of precision, especially when saying that we're "taping" something is oftentimes just as equally (if not more so, since at least tape and film are structurally similar), inaccurate.

[Alasdair]

UGH those bakas talked about legolas "firing" arrows. one does not "fire" arrows there is no fire!!!!! the proper term is "loose"!!

[xsanmdanx]

UGH those bakas talked about legolas "firing" arrows. one does not "fire" arrows there is no fire!!!!! the proper term is "loose"!!
How about "shoot"?

[Myke013]

How about "shoot"?
Oh no, you can only shoot at somehting. You cannot shoot an arrow, because that would mean the arrow is your target. ;)

Why are we doing this?

I'm not irked, but then again I'm not as in to the technicalities of filmmaking as alot of you on here.

[NerdWithNoLife]

If you're going to be loose enough to call a production like Star Wars Episode One a film, this shouldn't bother you. You're right: it's like calling a CD release an album. While the definition usually applies to phonograph records, an album is a collection of songs. My computer has folders, but it doesn't mean they're made out of paper. I have the White Album on CD, and have no problem calling it such.

I'll admit it does bother me that we don't call interlaced video 30i, in NTSC land. (Fields are not interlaced, hence it shouldn't be 60 interlaced fields per second)

[bobaandy1]

If you're going to be loose enough to call a production like Star Wars Episode One a film, this shouldn't bother you. You're right: it's like calling a CD release an album. While the definition usually applies to phonograph records, an album is a collection of songs. My computer has folders, but it doesn't mean they're made out of paper. I have the White Album on CD, and have no problem calling it such.

I'll admit it does bother me that we don't call interlaced video 30i, in NTSC land. (Fields are not interlaced, hence it shouldn't be 60 interlaced fields per second)

Episode One WAS film. It was only two and three that were digital.

And it's like telling someone to "tilt left" or "pan up" or "dolly left", technically it doesn't make sense but everybody knows what you mean anyway.

[Alasdair]

How about "shoot"?

you can only loose an arrow

[Fisherking]

I shoot film and I'm disgusted by dirty digital-using peasants trying to co-opt the language of my chosen medium. Instead of calling what you're doing with a digital camera 'filming,' you should call it diarrheaing -- because that's what they're doing: diarrheaing all over the face of great filmic art.

[mr_goodbomb]

Episode One WAS film. It was only two and three that were digital.

And it's like telling someone to "tilt left" or "pan up" or "dolly left", technically it doesn't make sense but everybody knows what you mean anyway.

Well... You can tilt in a direction, and you can dolly side to side if your dolly runs in that direction.

[mr_goodbomb]

no because im not literally a gay shit baby

Your maturity is matched only by your charm.


yes because i am better than everyone else and i have shot on both film on REDs and can tell that film is way better. i am better than you stupid idiots that don't even know what film is. it annoys me. the world revolves around me. morons.

I shoot film and I'm disgusted by dirty digital-using peasants trying to co-opt the language of my chosen medium. Instead of calling what you're doing with a digital camera 'filming,' you should call it diarrheaing -- because that's what they're doing: diarrheaing all over the face of great filmic art.


I never suggested a superiority in any regard, be it personal or even the superiority of film over digital... only a difference. I also didn't insult ANYONE.

[Griffmo]

HAHAHAHAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS

[Koolpenguin89]

Well... You can tilt in a direction, and you can dolly side to side if your dolly runs in that direction.

I think he was referring to the names of the actual shots, not the physical act of moving the camera. A tilt shot refers to vertical up and down movement of the tripod (tilting to the side would be referred to as a dutch angle shot), panning refers to horizontal left-right movement of the tripod, and a dolly shot is specifically the act of pulling the camera away from the subject. Technically, "dollying in" is called a trucking shot, and dolling to the side is called a tracking shot. But like the guy said, people will know what you mean, and they will only point out your mistakes if they are a jerk.

Dylan

[Alasdair]

I never suggested a superiority in any regard, be it personal or even the superiority of film over digital... only a difference. I also didn't insult ANYONE.

if you can't see how you come across as condescending and smug you probably have asbergers

h

t

h

[mr_goodbomb]

if you can't see how you come across as condescending and smug you probably have asbergers

h

t

h

If you can't see how you seem like a middle schooler, then you're probably... in middle school?

[Alasdair]

If you can't see how you seem like a middle schooler, then you're probably... in middle school?

spergy spergy sperglord requires more spergerlords :gary:

[rrh]

Shut the hell up, Grampa! Words can mean anything I want them to mean!

Now I need someone to make me a professional intro for my production company that I can put on my youtube films.

[rrh]

I shoot film and I'm disgusted by dirty digital-using peasants trying to co-opt the language of my chosen medium. Instead of calling what you're doing with a digital camera 'filming,' you should call it diarrheaing -- because that's what they're doing: diarrheaing all over the face of great filmic art.
But, but you're being elitist! Baaaaw! :'( :( Everyone knows you have to treat everything everywhere as exactly the same or you're being elitist.

I'm better than you because I'm not an elitist.

[michaelbak]

Doesn't it irritate you when you write "snickers" and people think you're talking about the candy instead of the expression?

Or when people say "Digital Photo" instead of "A Binary Code Document on Positioning Color Pixels in to Different Positions to Create a Digital Image"?

[mr_goodbomb]

Doesn't it irritate you when you write "snickers" and people think you're talking about the candy instead of the expression?

Or when people say "Digital Photo" instead of "A Binary Code Document on Positioning Color Pixels in to Different Positions to Create a Digital Image"?

Why would you ever write an expression?

And that's a definition.

[WesScog]

He was trying to make a point about accuracy in wording. If we strived to label everything properly, instead of simply using shorthand that is already establish and that everyone already understands, we're going to be here all day fighting over worthless semantics, instead of actually working.

You're on set, you say, "Lets get this thing filmed!" and some wiseguy chims up and decides to try to spend 5 minutes arguing with you that you should actually have said, "Lets get this thing "taped".", because he thinks that accuracy is that important.

Everyone doesn't require that degree of precision in their conversation all of the time, most people are intelligent enough to be able to extrapolate what you're talking about and what you're saying even if you aren't completely and utterly accurate all of the time.

[rrh]

Doesn't it irritate you when you write "snickers" and people think you're talking about the candy instead of the expression?
"Snickers" is easy to keep straight, since one is a noun and the other is a verb. Anyone who confuses the two should be laughed at.

Or when people say "Digital Photo" instead of "A Binary Code Document on Positioning Color Pixels in to Different Positions to Create a Digital Image"?This isn't a great analogy to his "film" peeve because:
1) Saying "shoot" or "tape" instead of "film" isn't as arduous as saying a silly 17-word-long definition.
2) There's no pre-existing meaning to "digital photo" that could lead to confusion.

A better example with "digital photo" would be getting anal about always saying "digital photo" and letting it bug you when someone just says "photo."

[Wra1th13]

One does not 'shoot film' there are no bullets.

[legendarylugi]

Why don't we just stop calling them "movies", because technically the pictures aren't moving, they're just alternately displayed frames in rapid succession creating the illusion of movement? Because being that literal obscures meaning. They are supposed to be considered "moving" in that sense, they're recordings of actual movement.

Words are defined by their usage. With words, it's only "inaccurate" until that becomes the accepted definition. Which at this point, it has. Plenty of words we used started out as colloquialisms or metaphors until over time, the evolution of language caused it to become the literal word for it, and the old meaning possibly forgotten. Many of the words we use today, if used in the context they would have fit 300 years ago, would sound almost nonsensical, positively stilted.


I mean, should we abandon "footage" as the term we use for video because it started out referring to literal feet of wound film and later tape, and there are no longer feet of anything? No, because now, that's not what footage refers to. It refers to the video itself, and there's really no better way to say it then "footage". Even the word "clip" probably came from the act of cutting a spool of film and using the relevant frames.




And dude, Alasdair, as someone who actually has Aspergers, could I ask you to back the hell off, please?

[mr_goodbomb]

He was trying to make a point about accuracy in wording. If we strived to label everything properly, instead of simply using shorthand that is already establish and that everyone already understands, we're going to be here all day fighting over worthless semantics, instead of actually working.

You're on set, you say, "Lets get this thing filmed!" and some wiseguy chims up and decides to try to spend 5 minutes arguing with you that you should actually have said, "Lets get this thing "taped".", because he thinks that accuracy is that important.

Everyone doesn't require that degree of precision in their conversation all of the time, most people are intelligent enough to be able to extrapolate what you're talking about and what you're saying even if you aren't completely and utterly accurate all of the time.

If you're spending 5 minutes arguing over terminology, then you're incapable of speech.

It's a simple clarification. If you have this much trouble with it, there's some other issue going on.


Why don't we just stop calling them "movies"

Because "movies" doesn't sound dignified or professional. :D

[Duplo]

Ok so I usually say I'm going to "film" something on my HDD camera. Should I say instead: "i'm going to hard drive a scene for my upcoming short"?

[michaelbak]

One does not 'shoot film' there are no bullets.

Or Arrows.

[legendarylugi]

Because "movies" doesn't sound dignified or professional. :D

Uh-huh. And what's the other word for movies? Films!

If you're against calling them movies, and against calling them films, what exactly do you want them to be called?

And of course, your response pretty much ignores the entire point of my post.

[theSarge00]

Photography used to refer to a process of treating a piece of glass with chemicals, which was then exposed to light via lenses, then treated with more chemicals, had light focused back through it onto chemically treated paper, which was then treated with more chemicals to produce an image. Years go by, and the glass was replaced by a flexible media. Then a better flexible media. More years go by and now there are no chemicals involved and the image is collected by an electrical process to be reproduced in an electrical system.

It's still photography. The person who does it is still called a photographer.

Typography still uses the term leading, even though no lead is actually involved.

Your favorite recording artist still releases albums, even though they no longer sell the individual songs, each on it's own record, collected in a literal "album".

It's just peevishness to get bent over schoolyard semantics.

So the answer in short - no it doesn't irritate me at all.

[mr_goodbomb]

Uh-huh. And what's the other word for movies? Films!

If you're against calling them movies, and against calling them films, what exactly do you want them to be called?

And of course, your response pretty much ignores the entire point of my post.

It... was a joke.

[mr_goodbomb]

Ok so I usually say I'm going to "film" something on my HDD camera. Should I say instead: "i'm going to hard drive a scene for my upcoming short"?

Well, no. I say "shooting" because I feel like a poser saying I'm "filming" if I'm clearly not. I feel like anyone else with a rudimentary knowledge of equipment and the process of putting images into a camera of whatever format would hear it and wince at the misuse for the sake of sounding cooler.

[xsanmdanx]

You irritate me. I try not to say "to film" when I make videos, but I don't make a big number out of it.

[operationivy5656]

Or Arrows.
no you loose arrows.

[mr_goodbomb]

You irritate me. I try not to say "to film" when I make videos, but I don't make a big number out of it.

Neither do I. I asked casually and people carried it on into forever.

[WesScog]

Well, no. I say "shooting" because I feel like a poser saying I'm "filming" if I'm clearly not. I feel like anyone else with a rudimentary knowledge of equipment and the process of putting images into a camera of whatever format would hear it and wince at the misuse for the sake of sounding cooler.

But you aren't "shooting" anything either. If you aren't using guns, you aren't shooting.

Shooting is technically just as inaccurate as filming, when you're using a digital camera so why is that a better terminology than filming?

[copycat1992]

this whole thread makes no sense. Its like saying a filmmaker is someone who works for kodak making motion picture film.

[Alasdair]

mr goodbomb is "that guy"

[Fisherking]

The biggest 'That Guy' at IM. Some people, sadly, just don't get it and never will.

[elscottomagnifico]

Well, no. I say "shooting" because I feel like a poser saying I'm "filming" if I'm clearly not..

Was I the only one that noticed this

I'm planning to approach several local businesses and companies for endorsements with a feature film I'm working on. Very few people do video locally

in another thread (http://forum.indymogul.com/showthread.php?p=355302#post355302)

[mr_goodbomb]

Was I the only one that noticed this



in another thread (http://forum.indymogul.com/showthread.php?p=355302#post355302)

Did I say how or what I'm shooting on, kiddo?

[grandadmiral]

No it doesn't bother me, but what does bother is someone that uses film thinks they are better than some one that uses digital. They come off as snobs. Digital is just about as good as film. Its cheaper and with the way technology is going it will some day be superior to film.

[Fisherking]

Did I say how or what I'm shooting on, kiddo?

http://www.imagechicken.com/uploads/1258958061099284000.gif

If goodbomb keeps posting I'm going to wear this thing out.

The worst thing about being 'That Guy' is that you don't know it. Knowing that would make you too self-aware to truly be 'That Guy.'

[elscottomagnifico]

Did I say how or what I'm shooting on, kiddo?Let's see

1. You follow up "I'm making a feature film" by "not many people in town do video"

So either the video comment is completely pointless in the context of everything else in the post (if you were even partially literate you'd be able to keep it together long enough to not throw in off topic pointless things - seeing as you're posting on the interwebs, I'll call this one unlikely) or you're saying video because you plan to shoot video.

2. You have another thread whining about someone harassing you over trying to rent a RED - Sounds like you're going for higher end video in your projects and not film.

3. Kiddo? You have to be what 15 or 16?

With the overall smugness and complete lack of anything closely resembling an actual grasp of what you're talking about, anything over that would just be sad.

[Alasdair]

heh

[mr_goodbomb]

No it doesn't bother me, but what does bother is someone that uses film thinks they are better than some one that uses digital. They come off as snobs. Digital is just about as good as film. Its cheaper and with the way technology is going it will some day be superior to film.

Maybe some day, but talk to any decent DP and they'll tell you that nothing digital today can hold a candle to the higher-quality film stuff out there.

I'm not a "film" guy, I can't afford it. I'd like to be, but until then, I will use digital because it's what's available on a reasonable budget. However, I think part of the film v digital debate, and the reason for people coming off as "snobs," has less to do with the quality of the shooting material and more to do with what the quality says about the probable quality of the end product, and the budget of the project. If you've got a 100k+ budget, you can expect that the first place that money is going to is equipment rental and shooting stock. If a project was going to be on a decent-quality digital format for 10-50k and got bumped to 100-200k, you can bet that the first place that new money is going to is upgrading the quality of the equipment used. Crew will be drawn in by that equipment, and some will even take a financial hit just to work on that better equipment. Actors... Well, that's a different story all together.

[Maermaethor]

You say that you don't shoot using film, yet in another thread linked earlier to by elscottomagnifico, you say you are "planning to approach several local businesses and companies for endorsements with a feature FILM I'm working on." Note the word FILM in there. It seems that we have a hypocrite right here.

And if you are not filming, then what are you doing? You can't be shooting, there is nothing coming out of the camera. If you shoot using a camera, there must be some sort of projectile coming out of it, but I believe that your camera does not have such a function, thus making it impossible for you to shoot using your camera. Then, the only option left is to say that you are using your camera to capture still images that are then played fast after each other to produce the illusion of motion, and I am pretty sure you can nitpick at something in that definition too.

Just accept that you are wrong so people will stop laughing at you.

We have just turned your own words against you. You have just gotten pwned. Thank you, and have a nice day!

Maermaethor out.

[xsanmdanx]

Applause to Maermaethor