well, in that case get a hi8 for 50 bucks

@jpbturbo
Exactly! Back then we were literally forced by the limitations to think about content. Now we have less limits and the content is lacking.
@oscillian
for me my inspiration growing up on films thanks to my parents being film nuts and I loved animation also. As a result I always wanted to make films but as being from a poor working class family resources were limited...Its easier for the higher class beleive me!
(used to work at a posh school,same one sam mendes went to and saw the film education resources/access freely available for students if they wanted a film career..bastards!!)
Me bitter? Nooo...Thats life I guess! haha

Which brings me to the question of inspiration. How do you people look at inspiration?
Is it something that you wait for, in order to start something? Is it external? Stuff you experience?
Or is it the culmination of discipline? Just going through procedures and once you gain enough material something is created out of the discipline, and that is what inspires you. 8 hours of hard work, 15 minutes in the end of inspiration, sort of.

There was a talk at TED a while back where a Guy said that you shouldn't share your great ideas with people until they are finished. Telling people about your project is much easier than actually working on anything yet it causes the brain to feel a sort of satisfaction and approval from others which further postpones the need to do actual work. I think "researching gear" does the same thing for many of us. Before I had easy internet access I helped my sister start a film club at her college. We bought a gl1 and a shotgun mic and an imac dv and went out and started making movies. We never spent any time at all worrying about our gear, just the script and finding actors.

There used to be a time when people just wanted to tell stories first and formost and used any old "crappy" tool just to tell them.
Nowadays the trend is you cant tell these stories without having something new technical to show. This is a problem with even big hollywood productions these days also.

We have become spoiled by the toys we can have but dont really appreciate them and want more and more.
Usually the best art comes from the ones who have little amount of toys.
Technology and technique needs to have a balance.

With those who are gear obsessed there is little time to make anything worthwhile because within a following year some new gear comes out that they must test. I can never figure out some tests. What are they testing for? To see if it works?? If It takes a image then it works!!
These people are not filmmakers or are swayed away (by toys) from being filmmakers.

Im going to use EOSHD (sorry Andrew) as a example.
He makes comparison videos,he makes slideshow videos. Gets a lot of praises for them.
He actually makes an attempt to make a short film (patsy)...it gets flak from some for "posterisation in the background" or "shooting with original sound" rather than just watching the film...giving construct crit on improving technique.
Even if the film wasnt great it was 100x better than a fucking shot of a bush or alleyway! (So make more films Andrew!!)

So has this what it comes to? Films (loads of online ones for free viewing) even by no budget are scrutinised by what gear/technology is being used BEFORE the content.
Its a bizzarre mentality.

Ive nearly completed my first film,unfortunately Im waiting for a colleage to travel over to record some audio and he cant make it till end of january. I was hoping to post it up here but it'll have to wait.
I cant say it'll be any good but one thing I can say is theres nothing quite like creating...from a personal idea to seeing it alive in front of you.
This is why I got into traditional animation years ago but have no spare time anymore (it needs a lot).

It used to be that as a independant filmmaker you have no one to answer to. No rules no limits on subjects, no rails. Yet a lot of folks are putting themselves on rails inprisonment to the gear.
Go out and shoot on nothing. Minimal crew. Good times!

Thanks for this thread Vitaliy.
I personally think you would appreciate someone making a FILM with your hack way more than the sheer amount of comparison/test crap.
Sometimes I wonder if the hacks are like a frankenstein monster for you in some users hands ;-)

Well, if we're going into the realm of art (which is a philosophical mine field) then I have to cite my old Henri Matisse: "Il faut tout savoir. Il faut tout oublier" "Know everything. Forget everything", at least that is what my teachers in art school used to say, quoting him. I guess it's about the road to creation. Before you can create anything meaningful, it's good to study. But when you create, it has to be instinctive and not theoretically aware.

I guess we all here at PV are at different stages on this road, learning stuff along the way.

Or in the words of another great warrior: "You must unlearn what you have learned!" ;)

BTW: Nice touch with the snowflakes!

Since it seems somewhat on topic, I will share some of the opinions that I have formed after taking an Aesthetics course this last semester at university (this is the study of philosophy on art). Of course we studied the major historical philosophical schools concerning art . . . representational (art is that which mimics), emotional (art is that which gives the emotion of the artist to the viewer), formalism (art is that which is aesthetically beautiful).

But the theory that most intrigued me was one I suppose is best called transcendence. This theory proposes that good, true art is that which facilitates a connection with the transcendent. It reveals that special spark, connects you and opens your eyes to something outside yourself.

This is so far the explanation of art which I am most satisfied with, partially because it does not negate what the other theories value. A connection with reality, the imparting of emotion, and good aesthetic form are all useful tools for facilitating something special, but in and of themselves, they can be empty traps. Perhaps this is what @Vitaliy_Kiselev is getting at when he mentions "the human side" . . . there's something more there, something outside one's self that is experienced in a good film, or any good art.

There's my 2c. I've spent my time on the interwebz for today, and now I'm going to spend some time not staring at a stupid screen.

>I then don't know what the "Human side" would mean.

Human side allows us to expirience much deeper emotions.
Human side is the real creative process, discovery of new formula, building things, teaching other people, cleaning floors each day for 8 hours.
And I do not mean showing result of the work only.
You, normally do not see human side on TV, only results could pass the filter.
Somehow motherfuckers who make terrible films showed on limited fests started to think that they are creative.
They are FUCKING NOT CREATIVE.
Mother with three children on the job from 8 till 8. She is creative.

@Oedipax

A respectable, level-headed, post.

The reality of it is, though, as much as people want to say that it shouldn't be about money, this that or the other... well, cool... It seems like everyone here has incredible financial security and can afford to spend a lot of their spare time being innovative and revolutionary story tellers.

For the rest of us, without nine to five day jobs, aren't living with our parents, and doing this and only this... well, money is important. You find money by going to people with money who want to make money. You get to people who have money and want to make money by showing that you know how to make something that generates money.

After you have money, then you can be Cassavetes, Bresson, Godard, Ozu, Straub-Huillet, Antonioni, Bergman, Buñuel, Hou, Kiarostami, Tarr, Denis, Grandrieux... or if you want to be modern, Coppola (Sofia).

Do you know what most of those people have in common: they didnt' come from poor families... and guys like Godard were influenced by filmmakers before himself.

These luxuries are not ones that most of us possess, paths are different, everyone should be allowed to walk the one they choose without criticism of those who walk different paths, or do not walk at all.

I get a sense from a lot of the DSLR filmmaker types - heck, just low-end production in general, on whatever camera - that there's not a strong sense of film history there. I think it's crucial if we're going to try to do something that isn't just a poorer version of what Hollywood has mastered that we don't forget (or never learn) the history.

I know we sometimes talk about Tarkovsky, maybe because of the lenses, but see the films! And those of Cassavetes, Bresson, Godard, Ozu, Straub-Huillet, Antonioni, Bergman, Buñuel, Hou, Kiarostami, Tarr, Denis, Grandrieux, Wiseman, Tsai, Weerasethakul, Costa, Alonso, the list can go on and on and on. For way too many people, these are seen as things only pretentious film students care about. Having been to film school myself, I can tell you - most of them didn't care either! The world of cinema is so much more broad and exciting than most people give it credit for. And it's a hell of a lot bigger than your fucking Netflix queue! :)

It's a bit like studying biology and trying to have a research breakthrough without reading the work of generations of people who came before you. We as filmmakers rarely seem to want to benefit from the many lifetimes spent pioneering something new and exciting in this medium, and we end up just imitating the same old tired genres and conventions. Sorry if I sound too preachy but I like what VK is saying here because all too often I feel like I just have to turn off half of my brain when I talk filmmaking from a production standpoint.

Sorry for the preachy post!

I think you have a point, Vitaliy. There is a fixation on fame, money, .. all those things that really don't matter. And those who don't have it, are the ones that make the interesting films that don't spend their time shooting for the moon or watching camera shootouts, but rather gathering experience and developing their talent.
Yes, i totally agree here.

>Personally what I want to do is create videos that help people promote their music, or tell the story of projects. I'm not that interested in pretending to be a film director!!

Generally this is the thing we are talking about.
As i modern times you can, for example, promote music to specific niche.
For example, some fan base of all TV series :-)

I was wondering about this discussion because it seems to be about making movies, and "movie" type stories with big narratives (whatever that means). Personally what I want to do is create videos that help people promote their music, or tell the story of projects. I'm not that interested in pretending to be a film director!!