Film vs. Video - Let the Games Begins

Yesterday I was reading the summer 2007 issue of Your Wedding Day magazine and I came across a comment that truly shocked me. What's worse, it was made by a fellow visual artist. Paul Korver is the founder of Fifty Foot Films. He is one of the most celebrated and perhaps the highest paid wedding cinematographer in the country. He shoots exclusively on super 8 and 16mm film, and has even begun offering weddings on 35mm. His work has been featured on television and he has a long list of celebrity clients. He recently started a subsidiary called Paper Tape Films that is designed to bring super 8 wedding cinematography to the masses. In the YWD Spotlight article, Mr. Korver talks about all the subcontractors nationwide he's hired to shoot for Paper Tape Films as being film school graduates. He comments:

"This is key because shooting a film camera is far different than a video camera. It requires knowledge of over 50 different film stocks, f-stops, film speeds, shutter angles, gel filtration, and much, much more. You can't just push 'play,' point the camera, and get a good shot like you can with video. There's an entirely different skillset involved because it's a manual art form."

I couldn't believe I read what I just read. Here was a respected visual artist serving the wedding industry, a fellow filmmaker, basically saying that you don't need any talent to shoot a video camera, but it takes a real artist to use a film camera. At least, that's the implication I get. Yes, I agree shooting film is different than shooting video. But to suggest that all you have to do to get a good shot in video is push "play" (actually, it's "record", but I digress) is insulting to an industry of visual artists who work very hard at what they do to preserve the most precious memories in a couple's life. There are an equal number of visual parameters a video shooter must master and monitor, many of which are the same as film (e.g. aperture, shutter speed, tape stock, 720p, 1080i, 60i, color space, etc.) And on top of all that, the video shooter also has to monitor audio!—UHF vs. VHF, true diversity wireless connectivity, audio channels, squelch levels, XLR, shielded vs. non-shielded cables, direct boxes, channel interference...you get the idea. I wrote Mr. Korver personally to share with him how I felt and that I was going to write this article. I assured him that my blog article would not malign his name. He's probably a nice guy and he's obviously a smart business man. And I can appreciate a business setting themselves apart from the rest. But, to malign a whole industry the way he did, I feel is not only insulting and denigrating to those artists, but is a disservice to the industry and the brides in search for someone to capture those memories.

A Case of the Emperor's New Clothes

Since the start of Fifty Foot Films in 2001, super 8mm wedding cinematography has skyrocketed in popularity. Heck, even my company, Cinematic Studios, offers super 8mm and 16mm film productions. I love the look of film and no one can deny, that when in the hands of an experienced artist, the results are incredible. And used sparingly throughout a well crafted wedding video, it adds a very nice, artistic touch. However, in my humble opinion, most of the wedding clips I've seen shot on super 8mm pale in comparison to the most artfully crafted weddings shot on video. In fact, many of them look like my grand daddy's home movies shot on his super 8. Not all, but many of the clips I've seen are underexposed, shaky, out of focus, and if the same footage was shot with video, it would be hailed as garbage. Yet, somehow, because it's on filmstock, it's art.

I've read time and time again in articles and on blogs how wedding videos are long and boring. So, to make up for that, some companies are offering Super 8. Hello! It's not the medium that makes a wedding video long and boring. It's how it's edited. You can have a long and boring and cheesy wedding movie shot in film just as much as one shot on video.

It's sort of like the Hans Christian Anderson story, "The Emperor's New Clothes." The emperor was bamboozled into thinking he was wearing the most luxurious garments known to man. When in fact, the man was butt naked. Likewise, brides are being sold the line that true cinematography can only be done on real film. When, the truth is, the most "cinematic," impressive, artistic, and creative wedding productions are all shot on video! Those of you out there who have done your homework know exactly what I'm talking about. But, many are given "Emperor's Clothes" as a wedding movie and told it's cinematic art. Again, lest I be accused of doing to film shooters what I'm accusing Paul of doing to video shooters, not ALL weddings shot on film are that bad (but a heck of a lot are. IMHO :-)

It's the Talent, not the Tools

Mr. Korver mentions on his website that video is the medium used by soap operas, and that film is used by the people who make "real" movies. I feel that is gross misinformation at best, a lie at worst. It's another way to prolong the stereotype that video is "cheesy." The truth is, more and more Hollywood movies are being shot on VIDEO. Granted, it's HD video, but it's still video. In fact, many of today's most talented filmmakers are even shooting movies on standard definition video—yep, the same mini DV tapes you buy at Wal-Mart for $5.99 a pack. Even such respected filmmakers a Steven Soderbergh, Robert Rodriquez, and Spike Lee have all shot feature films on video (in some cases standard video).

My friends, what it comes down to is the talent, not the tools. What sets true artistry from "Uncle Charlie" garbage, is NOT the medium that is used, but the person handling the medium. I don't care if you shoot on super 8, 16mm, standard definition, HD, or even 35mm, what makes a wedding movie truly "cinematic" is not the medium. It's how it's composed, lit, edited, etc. Put a super 8mm or 35mm film camera in the hands of an inexperienced person, you're going to get a crappy wedding movie. However, give a really talented and experienced artist even the cheapest consumer camcorder, and you WILL see true cinema!

YOU Be the Judge

So, let's let YOU be the judge. Film vs. Video? Who represents the truest version of "cinema?" (i.e. you feel like you're watching a movie.) I've compiled a list of just seven videographers whose work has inspired or astounded me. They are some of the best video artists in wedding cinematography today. (I think we're pretty good too, but for this list, I'm only mentioning my fellow colleagues). This is a very small list to be sure. There are many, many more that I just don't have time nor space to mention. Some are multiple award-winners, some are less known. But all, you will see, are exceptional at their craft. I challenge you to view their work then compare it to the work of some super 8mm wedding cinematographers (the second list). For the record, I'm not making any judgments on the super 8mm cinematographers I list. Even though the medium is growing in popularity, there are still only a relatively small number of companies offering it exclusively, so there are only so many companies to name. I just listed the ones I already knew about or could find on Google. I have not seen all of their work, nor are these necessarily the ones I alluded to earlier in this article. I'm just listing them to make it easy for you to compare.

In this corner, the Video Shooters

• Angel de Armas
• blue core media
• Blue Skies Cinema
• Cinematic Bride
• The CVP Experience
• Iris Cinema
• Memory Tracks Films

In the other corner, the Super 8mm shooters

• Creel Photo
• Fifty Foot Films
• Paper Tape Films
• Reel Sixty
• Stellar Films
• Super 8 Girl

Whichever you like best, tell us why. Hopefully, if we're lucky, we're get a rebuttal to my post from Mr. Korver himself. Let's see.

technorati tags: YWD_Magaszine,Fifty_Foot_Films, , Paper_Tape_Films, Cinematic_Studios, Super_8mm, 16mm, wedding_cinematography, wedding_videography, Angel_de_Armas, Cinematic_Bride, CVP_Experience, DVideography, blue_core_media, Iris_Cinema, Memory_Tracks_Films, CreelPhoto, Reel_Sixty, Super8_Girl, Stellar_Films

Comments

[Julie Hill]

Well written Ron! Although I respect people who shoot film (especially the ones who do it WELL) your article makes a great point. It's not the medium that makes a good product, it's the artist behind it. :)

[Ron]

Thanks for the comment Julie. Always nice when you visit. I totally respect film shooters too. And as far as I know, most of them respect video shooters. Unfortunately, Paul doesn't seem to be someone who does. Not that I can tell anyway.

[Andrew Hsu]

Nice, Ron.

George Lucas and Michael Mann like video too.

[Jason Magbanua]

Let's not forget film was used in shooting modern day classics like Catwoman and Norbit.

[Alessandro Machi]

Paul Korver is my hero.

I can attest to being the ONLY guy in the mid 90's who bothered to try and take S-VHS ENG video work to the next level. How did I do it? While the rest of you were either working on yoweee Hi-8 camcorders that were illegally rigged by Sony to look better on a television monitor than they could ever look off of tape, and while some others were editing S-VHS to S-VHS....

I bought the aftermarket fujinon lens that blew away the factory JVC and Panasonic camera lens in low light, for 3,000 dollars. I Purchased the aftermarket camera time-code generator for 900 bucks, the Time-code card and time-base corrector card for the JVC-SVHS decks another 1,000 bucks, purchased the DNR card for a JVC deck). Waveform AND vectorscope in facility from the early 90's. Professional monitors with underscan and blue only, and oh yeah, TWO betacam sp decks, one to directly S-VHS to betacam sp, the second to use as a player for betacam to betacam editing.

I bet there isn't one other person out there, in the wedding busines, that bought all of that gear, well, maybe there is one. Oh yeah, I wasn't in the wedding business. The point is the wedding video guys whined about your gear but never bought any of the aftermarket products that would have given you the real edge.

Instead you whined for digital cameras, and when those came out, the first generation or two were not worth it, and you whined about that. Just because you may good at operating a current digital camcorder does not belie the fact the history of wedding video is one of rampant tightwadness and whining without ever committing to the real gear needed to do a good job when Wedding Videos were more in their infancy.

That's why video sucks and film is better.

[Ron]

Alessandro,

Wow! Your comment is almost as long as my post. :-) I'm not quite sure I understand your point, but thanks for participating.

For the record, I'm not saying one format is better than the other. As I stated in my post, it's the talent, not the tools that make the difference. The only point of my Film vs. Video challenge in the end is to show that the statment that film weddings are more "cinematic" than video weddings just because they're on film, is false.

Just curious. Did you take the time to look at the sites I mentioned? If so, I'd love to hear/read your opinions on the video cinematography vs. the film cinematography.

[Dave Graton]

Cool article Ron.
I liked almost all of the "video" samples in your list more than the "film" ones.
I think film is akin to photography because it's an older medium so somehow it demands more respect. Yea... ok.
And with Super8 having NO audio, it just proves the point even more.

[Dave Williams]

Ron,

As you know, Paul has set himself apart. Part of his pitch is beating up on the point and shoot videographers. I guess it works for him.

As you know, we shoot Super8, 16mm, and HD video. It works for us and gives our clients more choices.

Dave Williams
DVideography
Dave Williams Films

[Ron Dawson]

Hey Dave,

It's an honor to have you visit our little corner of the video world. I think super 8, 16mm, etc, is great. I love the look and feel. We too offer it. My problem is when people say that weddings shot on film are more "cinematic" that those shot on video just because it's film. Your company is one of the greats. You of all people know that it's not the medium that makes a wedding movie "cinematic," it's how it's shot and edited. When I read "hype" on the websites of film-only wedding cinematographers bashing video as being "cheesy" and not as artistic as film, well, I get irked. I can respect marketing yourself and declaring what sets you apart. But, if you have to lie to do it (and to me, it's empirically lying), and by doing so put down a whole industry of hard working artists, then as one of those artists who primarily shoots in video, I'm going to shoot back. Only, I hope I'm doing it in a way that really points to the truth of the debate--it's not the tools, it's the talent!

Hope to see more comments from you in the future. I love your perspective.

[Jaime]

Whatever you say - every wedding video i have seen is CHEESY!!!!!

And trust me you dont have to know everything about shutter speed, exposure and all that other crap to make a great 8mm!!! Im self taught and starting a business in australia!

Leave Paul alone - you guys have too much time on your hands!
You dont see him putting huge post on website about bagging your video films!
EVERYONE KNOWS WEDDING VIDEOS ARE CHEESY - but Paul has made them classy again - you should thank him!

[Ron]

Jaime,

I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post. I'll ask you though, did you even look at the wedding videos on the colleagues' sites I posted in the article? If so, please tell me which ones you think are cheesy and what about them makes them cheesy. I don't think you did. Anyone who thinks ALL wedding videos are cheesy only illustrate their own ignorance and/or arrogance. If you're going to come to the table to debate the topic, at least come prepared.

And for the record, I'm not bagging on Paul. He really doesn't need you to defend him. I told Paul ahead of time that I would post about him and I gave him the option to rebut. He's extremely successful and very busy, and I'm sure he could care less about my blog or my post. I bet you're taking it 10 times worse than he has. :-)

[Dave Williams]

Hey Ron - I demand to be put in a third category above. . ."Those who mix Film AND HD Video"

:-)

[Mili Ghosh]

Hi Ron,

I'm visiting your website for the first time and was really happy to read your post. Im also a wedding cinematographer but we mainly cater to east-indian clients and I don't think super 8 or super 16 works for our east indian clients so we only offer HD.

I don't know Paul personally but I remember visiting fifty foot films at some point where I saw clips of super 8 v/s video on his first page and then of course the whole sentence about how video's are used in 'soap opera's' etc. At that point I just thought oh well the american brides are probably looking for this and maybe it is more classy than video but i guess its a matter of personal choice. Even then.. I think it's technically wrong for anyone like him to say that video basically has less of an aesthetic value than super 8. I wonder why he chooses not to offer SD or HD? at least have the clients decide for themselves. And like you said its not the medium is the person behind it. I started off using only one used xl1's and an IMAC and thats all I could afford- (this was in late 2004.) I know I have a lot of learn still but nevertheless I have realized how sometimes the most simplest and most beautiful creations come out of an ordinary technique or camera and one doesn't always need to have expensive gear. The story, the compositions, the colors, the music, the moments all are much more important than the medium we use to capture them but Video/Film both deserve equal amount of respect and should be left for couples to decide what they like best.

-Mili

[jbryan@camden.k12.nj.us]

film, for the win.

[SamG]

Ron your right on. Just to butress your argument, Director Alex Proyas did his recent movie "THE KNOWING" all digital using RED and he say's he's "not going back" to celluloid
Read the article here:
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/03/knowing-directo/