LaKapitone
Active Member
For the most part, I joined the class for needed knowledge that I felt I may not have had [which I have learned things, I won't lie] but at the same time I had much knowledge that the instructor herself did not possess. I find it more as a networking source for me. I also joined for the mere fact that I would not have to dish out $1,000+ on a Cannon, in this particular course, they supply us with 'Sony HDR-FX1' which is one of the higher-end [not highest] of HD cameras available for filming independently. I find it does enough for my uses, of course Cannon is the leader in independent shooting.<--Going to school right now for Digital media/video production. Just out of curiousity, What kinda rig are they letting you use? I'm actually lookin to get into DSLR filming as a start. I'm pickin up a T2i in a few days and i'm gonna get too work! haha.
And Same. i agree 100% with this
They also set us up with Adobe Premier fully updated to the newest version, which I believe were currently using CS5. Although I do not use this program for editing as I find Sony Vegas much more user-friendly & better all-around. I also use Photoshop CS5 for editing which is provided, I understand PS is used for graphics in photos on a norm, but can also be used for video-editing if you know what your doing. Between the camera & program alone, your looking at over $7,000 in savings instantly, so the $115 per-semester for the class is well-wroth it.
I think it depends on the area you live in as well, since I am just hours away from Hollywood myself & being in California, the filming courses here are much better then that of Texas, or Florida, you know? More filmmakers come here or start here, & most are made here, so we are funded much better then other states. I believe New York is a close 2nd, but even being a close 2nd, they are still far behind us as far as what you will gain by taking the course. They also hook us up with a state of the art green-screen platform that spans approximately 24x24 which is enough to film virtually anything, the only way to really go bigger is to be in a studio set-up. The technology between the camera/editing software we are provided with allows us to not only film in HD but digitally [of course] rather then with film. I, for one, find many advantages to using film over digital, but there is also advantages to using digital over film of course. Most theater/cinema's are set-up for FILM, they are ran through a huge projector, now a-days although, I have noticed all the newer theater/cinema's being constructed are digital screens, like many in my area. In fact, when you go to Fandango.com, they will state on the theater time, whether it is a digital screen or film, because many people prefer the digital screen due to quality/clarity, the quality is untouchable as apposed to film.
Sorry if this was to much information, I'm a writer, so... anytime you engage in conversation with me... expect a lot of reading, too me, this isn't even considered a lot. Lol.
EDIT; If you plan to shoot films, I would not go the rout of DSLR. That's just my own personal opinion, you will get better results elsewhere. Your going to be spending a grip of doe to begin with on a DSLR, in the hundreds, you might as well go big or go home & save for an extra month or two longer to get the better product. Chances are, once you get your camera, you won't begin shooting for a few weeks/months anyways, so with that spare time, why not hold off, save, then buy? In the meantime, begin brainstorming/perfecting what you plan to develop. Developing a film is much more difficult then shooting a film. Shooting takes 2-3 months depending on you/your actors schedules, writing/editing a film can take anywhere from 1/2 a year to 3 years... not many times will you find a film that was shot over a 3 year span. Usually a film takes so long to release in theater due to editing, writing, not shooting.