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.
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.
