Oh jeez...Hope this isn't someone here.

I appreciate it when people do videos. I learn better by putting hands and failing that to watch videos. Having said all this, why would you do an instructional video and then add a terrible 20's silent picture filter? IT kind of defeats the purpose if I can't see what's going on.


Dead Link Removed

If it should be called a "tutorial", little more clarity would be welcome.

The k3wl k1dz think this is the way to make their videos stand out....but you can spot one a mile off. I object also to the use of the word "filter" as a filter it most certainly is not.

In the video in question, you just cannot see what's going on...so even if the budding film-maker had simply intended to imbue a sense of the vintage...they've failed to produce something which is of any use.

I object to the term "silent film filter"; I work with original silent films daily and NONE of them look that bad...

THIS is what a typical silent film print looks like. That faux scratches and dirt stuff is for the birds...

He spoke reasonably slowly in a reasonably well modulated voice which maintained my interest but the picture quality was atrocious. It may have been that the camera unmanned and this had to be static so could zoom in on his hands and then out again.

It had the potential to be a useful video but failed. A great pity.

pentaxuser

It is a shame that with modern inexpensive digital video tools and equipment, that most internet tutorials are of low quality. Almost every computer sold these days comes with some type of video editing software. The silly filter obviously made things worse, but like most modern home-made videos, it was not well composed. The bookcase was distracting. Even without the filter, the actual film loading process would not have been easily visible. I understand he wanted a "film look", and black and white with a touch of fake grain might have accomplished that, but it is always tempting to overdo things. Unfortunately, most YouTube videos are like that.

Just people thinking they are being clever happens on TV shows a lot,fast editing, over powering music, fancy graphics, ect all carried out by people who have a degree but know sod all about what they are doing....Same for the music industry.

It is almost as if video production is actually a skilled field, which requires training and experience to do well?

Kind of like anyone can point a camera at something vaguely interesting, but it takes talent to consistently make something that looks interesting out of it.

Part of the problem is that anyone under 35 or so has been brought up on stuff like this. I remember watching a regular live TV show attempting to demonstrate some skill in the 90s with the volume muted....and it struck me that the camera was panning around like crazy, there were colour saturation effects applied, there was silly graphics.....without the soundtrack and music it all made no sense whatsoever. And the actual work of the camera operators, producer and such people was pretty poor.

What we're getting on Youtube now is a generation of people who have access to the tools, because any smartphone or basic digital camera can shoot decent quality video and editing software is available for free. Compare to the 90s when a camcorder was the only way to produce footage (or cine camera), editing was done on tape for the most part and required at least two machines plus vision and audio mixers....all cost a small fortune.

So now the tools are available to everyone, but they don't have any basic training. And they are brought up with "cool" videos where these "filters" are applied to make the accurate, crisp images look lo-fi. No concept of how to adjust the colours to actually look natural, no knowledge of how to record the audio, how to compose the image or when to zoom (and not)....and we get these awful videos.

I remember in the late 70s and 80s watching Open University education programmes....very dry, pure information with no superfluous graphics or fancy camera work....boring in some ways....but the pictures were composed properly, cameras were moved when it served the lecture, graphics were minimal maybe graphs or diagrams to explain what was being said by the presenter....the basics were there. I bet the people who made those programmes could shoot a 5 minute video on photography far better.

When I see a guy wearing a hat inside, I pass. If you want to talk to people, let's get good manners first.

old equipment demonstrated in old 8mm movie style was an interesting trip down memory lane. of course there arent many of those old tanks around so id say its unlikely anyone will be looking for instruction but had they found this... theyd be well informed despite the style it was filmed.

nice tutorial.

and yes, today not many know to remove their Fedora indoors. manners are long gone old chap.

Kino said:

I object to the term "silent film filter"; I work with original silent films daily and NONE of them look that bad...

THIS is what a typical silent film print looks like. That faux scratches and dirt stuff is for the birds...

View attachment 175656

Click to expand...

Simmer down....how is this? Looks like a silent film that was left out in the sun and not properly restored.


Shot....this one is better....looks like 8mm before being transferred to dvd.

edit

i have never seen one of those tanks before
and i love the flat b/w presentation and hat
they all go together like peanut butter and jelly

Harry Stevens said:

Just people thinking they are being clever happens on TV shows a lot,fast editing, over powering music, fancy graphics, ect all carried out by people who have a degree but know sod all about what they are doing....Same for the music industry.

Click to expand...

Fast editing is the worst. I also hate shaky hand cam. It was cool in Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers but come on. I don't want to feel like I am drunk while watching tv.

I've got a couple of the tanks, a couple of the period 35mm and 120 aprons and a couple of the weighted discs that go on top of the aprons.
I just wish I had one of the aprons for 616/116/70mm film.

jnanian said:

i have never seen one of those tanks before
and i love the flat b/w presentation and hat
they all go together like peanut butter and jelly

Click to expand...

Can't tell if you are serious or not.

Luckless said:

It is almost as if video production is actually a skilled field, which requires training and experience to do well?

Kind of like anyone can point a camera at something vaguely interesting, but it takes talent to consistently make something that looks interesting out of it.

Click to expand...

Who'd have thunk? I've always find it weird how the only time you here about editors is when they pass away or retire. All of the big name directors work with the same editors and I don't think they get enough respect or acclaim.

pentaxuser said:

He spoke reasonably slowly in a reasonably well modulated voice which maintained my interest but the picture quality was atrocious. It may have been that the camera unmanned and this had to be static so could zoom in on his hands and then out again.

It had the potential to be a useful video but failed. A great pity.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

It is a shame because it could have been a great tutorial for something you just don't see a lot of.

MattKing said:

I've got a couple of the tanks, a couple of the period 35mm and 120 aprons and a couple of the weighted discs that go on top of the aprons.
I just wish I had one of the aprons for 616/116/70mm film.

Click to expand...

How do you like them? Have you ever developed anything in them? Are they easy to use? They are pretty cheap and would like to get one but money is tight and I have to be smart in my spending.

Hubigpielover said:

Can't tell if you are serious or not.

Click to expand...

processing film is "olde tyme", those tanks are "olde tyme" ... the video looks "olde tyme"
if he had a edwardian suite and bowler hat and arrived on a high wheel velocipede
it would have been pretty cool too but his wardrobe wasn't bad as it was.
i was able to see fine what he was doing.
film photography is a quirky thing nowadays, why not make a quirky video for a quirky tank...
i don't think he wanted the video to be authentic-b/w 8mm/silent movie &c
im not really sure what the grumbling is about, its like someone going to a vintage auto show
with a speed graphic or folding camera or argus brick to take snapshots of the cars+characters
there are plenty of things to be offended by these days
i don't think a goofy video should be one of them, but i could be wrong ...

Hubigpielover said:

How do you like them? Have you ever developed anything in them? Are they easy to use? They are pretty cheap and would like to get one but money is tight and I have to be smart in my spending.

Click to expand...

I started using them very early on (40+ years ago!). They have particular suitability for me, because I have less than normal flexibility, dexterity and strength in my right hand. They generally work quite well, but you are slightly more likely to end up with uneven development than with regular reels.
They also are not designed for inversion - the fill valve on the top has no cap. You have to use figure eight agitation for acceptable results.
The best use for them is with really curly, old film. This is why I would like a 616 apron, as the only film around for my 616 camera is really curly old film.
I long ago transitioned to steel and plastic reels, and I would recommend those reels over the apron tanks, save and except if you have a more pronounced "challenge" than I do with my right hand, or deal a lot with those old films.
Here is a picture that I took many years ago and submitted to an APUG Monthly Shooting Assignment with the theme "Portals". It shows a tank, a well used 120 apron, and my 616 camera. All were of the time when my Dad introduced me to the darkroom - an important "Portal" for me.

jnanian said:

processing film is "olde tyme", those tanks are "olde tyme" ... the video looks "olde tyme"
if he had a edwardian suite and bowler hat and arrived on a high wheel velocipede
it would have been pretty cool too but his wardrobe wasn't bad as it was.
i was able to see fine what he was doing.
film photography is a quirky thing nowadays, why not make a quirky video for a quirky tank...
i don't think he wanted the video to be authentic-b/w 8mm/silent movie &c
im not really sure what the grumbling is about, its like someone going to a vintage auto show
with a speed graphic or folding camera or argus brick to take snapshots of the cars+characters
there are plenty of things to be offended by these days
i don't think a goofy video should be one of them, but i could be wrong ...

Click to expand...

Oh I am not offended I just think that for a tutorial it is the wrong way to go. I guess it bothers me the same way as when the history channel use to use black and white editing filter to make it seem someone was filming civil war battles. Just think it is the wrong way for a tutorial.

artistic license ?

jnanian said:

artistic license ?

Click to expand...

Sure...I sat through Showgirls because of the artistic license so who am I to judge

I could accept a "quirky" video....heck a guy in Edwardian dress, B&W effect, artificial grain applied....all rather silly in my book but still acceptable if the video gets it's message across.

The problem with this tutorial is that you cannot see what the guy is doing, and therefore learn nothing. Which is a shame as he clearly knows what he's doing.