Film and Digital
Posted 27 September 2009 - 11:10 AM
I don't really understand whether the professional industry is going to be using film or digital, or why it really matters. I don't understand what the main differences are. Since I never really used film in my life I don't really know how it works, or how it is used in the professional film industry.
Will I have to use film in the professional industry/ is it likely to come up? Also, do they teach how to use film at most film schools?
Oh and one more thing; Is it best to go to a film school in California? Does it really matter?
Posted 27 September 2009 - 05:41 PM
It doesn't really matter which film school you go to, as long as it's a good one. New York, Chicago, and Florida also have some pretty good film schools.
Posted 27 September 2009 - 05:45 PM
Posted 01 October 2009 - 04:20 PM
I know that most colleges have film in their art department. This doesn't mean they expect you to be qualified in the other apects of the arts as well, does it? I like to think of myself as artistic, but when it comes to drawing/painting, depicting things to paper, I'm terrible.
Posted 02 October 2009 - 12:57 AM
My profession is stills photographer, Im learning 'motion' at the moment
I learned stills on film, you never saw your results 'on set' the learning process was very very slow
One had to be conservative with lighting, and motion blur
Now I see digital youngsters progress SO FAST
because the review is instant and the costs negligable
OK film has the edge for the next 3 years on ultimate quality but as a learning tool digital just rocks
Look how film just dropped from commercial stills photography - the same will happen for all but the most extreme budgets IMO
While a school that has film is no bad thing I think that experience and skill will come with hours shot, do the maths and buy a 7d to learn and get those hours
I have concerns that expensive rigs keep too much control in the hands of the tutors - I learned at college by getting out with a camera (and some great direction and critiques from the tutors)
Additionally you might actually NEED digital skills and an understanding of handling some of their horrors (evil highlights etc) to cut it in the commercial world
Just because one can shoot digital in a sloppy lazy and unplanned manner it does not need to be that way
Posted 07 December 2009 - 06:39 AM
Posted 07 December 2009 - 09:01 AM
Posted 07 December 2009 - 12:11 PM
But honestly, school should be about learning the fundamentals of image creation, not so much the details of a particular camera technology that will change year-by-year anyway.
I learned mostly by shooting Super-8 reversal, which doesn't look like 35mm color negative in terms of depth of field or dynamic range, but I learned composition and lighting that way, and those skills are transferable to any format.
The only argument I can make for going to a well-equipped school is that if they are willing to spend that much on equipment, they are also probably willing to spend enough to get a good facility. Because ultimately it's the teachers that matter.
Posted 07 December 2009 - 08:22 PM
Posted 10 December 2009 - 01:36 PM
When learning the cameras, you have three camera classes where the instructor goes over everything about the cameras from how to load to how to change lenses. But other than these camera classes the rest of the classes are all about the artistic side of cinematography. A camera is just a way to record images, but if you can't create those images it doesn't really matter how you record them.
I personally think that composition and lighting is much more important than what camera you use. Sure, if I got offered to shoot a film on the RED or another on a GL2 at the same time I'd probably go for the RED, but you need to know how to create images to help a movie progress and create themes of lighting or composition that evolve throughout a storyline.