Film Schools

[Jack Turits]

Anybody know of any film schools that placed orders on a RED ONE?

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Well, I'll give you one that didn't, that way we can narrow down if any have yet.

I know the Los Angeles Film School on Sunset, where I attended briefly, had a "wait and see" attitude about the RED One. In other words, they planned to place orders well after they are being used in the industry, and to my knowledge still have not done so. My production company will have 4 before they even have one, and that makes me happy. ;)

[Jack Turits]

What the hell is wrong with them? Any school not jumping on the RED wagon will be left in the dust.

[Rick Darge]

Schools don't really need to buy RED cameras, I'm sure some will eventually, but there is no quick demand for it. In school, we shot with PD-150s, 16mm, and 35mm for the graduate students. It is never about the 'camera' in film school. It's about telling good stories. I'm sure my alma mater will buy some REDS relatively soon since they are phasing out film and moving towards digital acquisition, but its not a priority with most of the professors as far as I'm aware.

[10s]

In many cases giving good cameras to students is foolish; they break them. The other problem is that when it's time for senior projects then there is never enough gear to go around and one or two students hog the equipment while others wait and eventually suffer. I'm sure some schools will eventually buy a few REDs so advanced students can get their hands on them, but for most projects a DVX is more than enough to learn the craft.

[Jack Turits]

But, high-end Arri's and others like them are used at least by your fourth year if not before. Why not a RED. There's more to break in an Arri which has many moving parts (kinda). I don't see the problem. There is no reason why you shouldn't be on the cutting edge, even if you are a student. They don't want painting students using shitty paintbrushes in art school. They want the best paintbrushes! So get the best cameras!

[Jack Turits]

I do agree with you though rgdfilmsRED, storytelling in film school is key.

[M Most]

But, high-end Arri's and others like them are used at least by your fourth year if not before. Why not a RED. There's more to break in an Arri which has many moving parts (kinda). I don't see the problem. There is no reason why you shouldn't be on the cutting edge, even if you are a student. They don't want painting students using shitty paintbrushes in art school. They want the best paintbrushes! So get the best cameras!

If you're talking about trade schools - schools which primarily train students to be crew members - I can see your point. If you're talking about film schools, well, a film school is not a trade school. What's taught in film school is respect for and history of the arts, respect for the story, and respect for and knowledge of the craft. Not to mention that many film schools use, well, film. But what happens to be in the camera is far less important than what's being done with it.

As far as Arris, well, yes, they do have moving parts. But most film schools also have a repair shop in the camera department and a good supply of spare parts for the cameras - and people who know how to maintain them. Honestly, who at this point in time would be able to repair a Red?

[Jack Turits]

Well said. But if you give me a RED and lock me in a room for a couple of months I bet I could learn how to fix it. JK :). I very much agree with you on your trade school vs. film school points.

[Emanuel A.]

Anybody know of any film schools that placed orders on a RED ONE?Yes, I know and I've been actually working and commited enough for such purpose. But I'm not allowed to unveil any details on subject. Sorry. Just for the record. There is and with upcoming success.

Cheers ;-)

[Shawn Nelson]

I think Red would be the perfect film school camera. More so than DVX100s or anything. Red is very pure, it's just digital 35. Set your shutter speed and then you're just dialing in lenses and using light meters. All that and you don't have the expense of film processing (a big barrier, I have poor film student friends choking under the expense of a 16mm senior project).

[Emanuel A.]

Exactly. Speaking as proud pioneer, that's what I thought since day one.

[Ryan Sims]

RED should be well suited for schools. It's an all manual camera. You'll learn a lot more from it than an all auto DVX or PD150. RED is a cinema camera. The best benefit is that a RED will not cost you $200 in film and lab work to just see your under-exposed, out-of-focus class projects.

[Rick Darge]

I like the schools that continue to shoot and edit with film, on flatbeds. A lot of schools are pushing towards digital, which is nice and pretty but there's something lost in the process. I took a still photography class and for the first month, we were using pinhole cameras made out of a tube of cardboard. 2-15 minute exposures. Everytime we took a shot, we had to walk back to the lab to develop and reshoot. I learned more doing that than any dSLR could have taught me. We all know quality trumps with the red but having to use the most basic original elements of making a film teaches you to respect the masters. It's easy to preview and delete, but with film, you have to get it right the first time. And if you don't its fun to F up and learn from that.

[Matt Setnes]

Regardless of the medium used it is never really cost effective, except for places like Full Sail, to have budgets to fill the department. Another major factor I hear from school faculty is that "students break them, I would never even bother" Truth is once Red's popularity kicks up next year (I don't think it will dramatically hit this year), school's will realize this camera is a great marketing tool.

Either way, snooze you lose

[El_Mariachi94]

I'm at New York University (NYU) in the undergraduate film and television program and I heard from a big guy upstairs that the decision has been made to purchase a RED Camera in the future. Just not now, especially since the RED ONE is back ordered.

[Ryan Sims]

I like the schools that continue to shoot and edit with film, on flatbeds. A lot of schools are pushing towards digital, which is nice and pretty but there's something lost in the process. I took a still photography class and for the first month, we were using pinhole cameras made out of a tube of cardboard.

Asking a student to shoot and edit film to appreciate the masters now after RED is like telling the kid he can't enjoy a Playstation3 until he has mastered Pong and completed all levels of Pacman. Checking the gate?

I was forced to take FORTRAN as a computer language as well in college to get my degree. C was a non-credited option in another department. I never have used FORTRAN again, but I sure could have C.

[Bruce Allen]

I'm pretty sure USC is testing 'em. But they have a very "closed system" approach to technology so I'm sure they'll screw up the workflow somehow.

When I was there, they had a ludicrous setup for editing where they essentially wanted to make it as hard as possible for you to connect a firewire drive to the editing computer. Just doing a couple of things in After Effects was a major battle. They waste money like nobody's business. So, my prediction is they'll have a bunch of Red Ones but only allow you to digitize footage by plugging the HD-SDI output into a DV downconverter ;)

I totally agree with the above points though that the camera you use is not particularly important. On the other hand, Red helps people understand things like f-stop, lens choices, etc a lot better than a PD150 does. When people went from PD150s in one semester to 16mm in the next, there were a lot of serious screwups made by students that could have been avoided if basic camera concepts had been understood.

Of course, you could also give students HV20s + 35mm adapters but that would probably scare the heck out of the faculty. I mean, jibs made them nervous...

In South Africa (where the building of homemade jibs and dollies by crazy students is definitely encouraged rather than discouraged), I expect a couple of more technically-oriented places to get them at some point in time. And some of the more forward-looking universities might get one to play with. Rest assured that faculty there is definitely aware of the Red and probably can't wait to play with one themselves. They are incredibly expensive though and again everyone would probably be better served by a stack of 35mm adapter-ed HV20s. Anyway, I'm sure you'll see a whack of Red-shot stuff from all over the world shot on cameras rented by eager students who take the initiative themselves. Overkill, of course, but if you were a film student, how could you resist renting one for a day?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Greg Voevodsky]

I like the schools that continue to shoot and edit with film, on flatbeds. A lot of schools are pushing towards digital, which is nice and pretty but there's something lost in the process. I took a still photography class and for the first month, we were using pinhole cameras made out of a tube of cardboard. 2-15 minute exposures. Everytime we took a shot, we had to walk back to the lab to develop and reshoot. I learned more doing that than any dSLR could have taught me. We all know quality trumps with the red but having to use the most basic original elements of making a film teaches you to respect the masters. It's easy to preview and delete, but with film, you have to get it right the first time. And if you don't its fun to F up and learn from that.

I was one of the last film students who shot 8mm at LMU, 16 mm in B/W at USC, 16mm and 35mm at Art Center in Color... and I came from shooting VHS and 8mm video with 4, 45+ minute slash edited vhs and 8mm programs before dealing with horrible moviolas at USC summer production workshops for 3 summers... and later flat beds at LMU and later Art Center.

Spending $1.00 a foot or roughly $1.00 a second on 35mm film - 30 cent stock, 30 cent processing, 30 cent print... back in1995... plus $80 an hour for 20 track sound mixing... $400 an hour mixing in Hollywood, Digital rocks!

Film Students are way better off with HDV and soon RED. Film is Dead in the next 5 years - both as an acquisition platform and delivery... all will be digital and it will save everyone lots of money.

I had teachers from USC and Art Center say film will never die at least for 50 years and post production convergence which was obvious to me, would never happen with the same person doing picture, sound, graphics, and FX... I guess I was ahead of my time... and they like all the editors who could not adapt to AVID since they loved the touch of film became unemployed very quickly.

I also see the film shooters who love $1 a foot in 35mm for 24 frames or roughly $.30 cents a foot in for 3 seconds in 16mm will soon be out of a job when RED and similar cameras take over with better and cheeper results like the digital still cameras... the difference is Nikon and Canon changed jobs form film to digital... can Arri, Panavision, Fuji and Kodak change? Will Sony, Canon, Nikon do the job? Or is it RED, to lead the way, like Apple into the new digital landscape?!

[Nook Kim]

Hi,

In my opinion, it's how you teach the students no matter what camera there is available.
Instead of teaching students (especially, DoP ones) how to record a series of images, I think it is a lot more
beneficial if they learn how those images are made through a digital camera.
Resolution, pixel shifting, ADC, color sampling (color space), quantization, and recording medium. These are
some of the things that I had to learn by myself while attending a film graduate school.

Having more hi-end cameras is very helpful for the students get their hands-on, but without learning these advanced concepts, one
would never be able to take advantage of shooting digital.

On the other hand, when all those necessary knowledge is taught, having hi-end cameras will enable them
to obtain the best image quality possible. Of course, I am talking only about the camera side.

Sorry for going off topic. I'm writing my thesis paper on these topics, now. :)

[Darwin]

Asking a student to shoot and edit film to appreciate the masters now after RED is like telling the kid he can't enjoy a Playstation3 until he has mastered Pong and completed all levels of Pacman.

My friend That was hilarious 'well said'

[miles]

I know our school would buy it if we only had the funds for it.
Maybe someday ...

[Jack Turits]

Maybe you won't use a RED for learning the foundations but anyone shooting their thesis is gonna want to shoot RED. If the school does not have them then students will be forced with there measley budget to go out to a rental house and get one. Schools should be able to support there students with the equipment they want to shoot on. I think RED will be the weapon of choice.

[G. Haz]

If the film schools are grading their students on lines of resolution instead of strory telling, direction and composition then the industry in in a lot of trouble.

Saying that film schools need to to use Reds is like saying the drivers education classes should be using Ferrari's.

[Júlio Taubkin]

If the film schools are grading their students on lines of resolution instead of strory telling, direction and composition then the industry in in a lot of trouble.

Saying that film schools need to to use Reds is like saying the drivers education classes should be using Ferrari's.

When you are shooting your thesis, and paying lot of your savings to do it, you want a final copy that can compete in the best festivals, looking as good as the more expensive professionally made 35mm shorts and features. It's just that. You can't blame any storyteller to want more technical quality of their work.

BTW, if you want to train a professional pilot how to run at 250 mph, you can't do it in a 1972 volkswagen (no matter how much I like them!).

[Jeff Kilgroe]

In the not too distant future... Schools will be teaching the process and techniques of film from a historical approach. also have to add that once RED is more established in the industry, schools can't afford to not buy RED cameras. The savings alone over shooting film will be worth it, not to mention it will be a top-end production tool that students will most likely encounter as soon as they leave school.


Asking a student to shoot and edit film to appreciate the masters now after RED is like telling the kid he can't enjoy a Playstation3 until he has mastered Pong and completed all levels of Pacman. Checking the gate?

Hehe. As for the checking the gate, it will now be "is the sensor clean?"

[laguun]

For us as employer it is highly problematic, that students don´t learn the modern tools.

After 8 years of HDCAM in the market, dozens of A-Budget Movies on HDCAM and 100s, if not 1000s of episodes of series, i have yet to meet a German student who learned cinealta cameras at the university.

Focusing for 2k, let alone, 4k, that can´t be repeated enough, is nothing you will learn by shooting dv/hdv/s16. Measuring yes, but most folks sadly often focus these cameras optical.

Having raw sensor data in the camera furthermore is a factor students shouldn´t underestimate.

The question is: will the DP will control light/exposure or the "digital lab".
I want the DP/1st AC do it.
However, if the students don´t learn this but only DV/16/35, i can see -many- productions going the road to shoot "boring" in order to set this in post.

Therefore i sincerely hope that film schools will not miss, another time, the chance to provide their pupils education which employers and employees need.

Having said this - i didn´t interrupt one of the most important, 60 years old, professors for camera in Germany, when he, in a lengthy way, explained this April 2007, why it is technically impossible to build the Red camera. In front of an auditorium. After CTL at NAB. In front of 100s of other professional educators. There are many teachers who will need to learn many new things. Sadly, this probably will take years.

[Jack Turits]

If the film schools are grading their students on lines of resolution instead of strory telling, direction and composition then the industry in in a lot of trouble.

Saying that film schools need to to use Reds is like saying the drivers education classes should be using Ferrari's.

Ferrari's cost a lot for a high quality machine. RED costs little for a high quality machine.

[Matt Setnes]

Drivers Ed does not follow the same concept as the Ferrari. Drivers Ed is about safety and rules of the road, not driving fast as you can :)
I think that if a school doesn't look at opportunities like these for their students they are being careless on their education and what they will need to know in the future.

[Andrew Kimery]

I think that if a school doesn't look at opportunities like these for their students they are being careless on their education and what they will need to know in the future.
Schools that put too much weight on technology and too little on actually teaching their students in the art and craft of storytelling in a visual and aural medium are being careless w/their students' education. Of course technology has a role to play, but when every other person has FCP and an HD camera the technological advantage becomes moot and it goes back to quality of work over quantity of technology. :wink:

A guy I went to school w/got job offers from Dateline NBC w/a package he shot on an old S-VHS camera.


-A

[Matt Setnes]

I meant from a school's perspective, not the teacher. The teachers supply the knowledge, the school supplies the technology. It just seems they both should be balanced in my opinion.

[Craig Ryan]

As a Jr. College student currently, all I can say is I'll be disappointed if I don't get to use a RED while I attend a film school within the next 2 years. There are plenty of reasons, which have all been mentioned so far, that show how RED is something all film schools should be adopting.

First of all, I agree that above all, students need to learn and respect the history of film as an art, and to focus on STORYTELLING above all. We all agree that if your film looks/sounds great but sucks nobody will want to see it. If you have a good story...but the quality is low, people are much more forgiving...I'm sure we've all seen things on youtube and have been sucked into the story/content even though we're staring at horrible compression artifacts. With this in mind, we all know that cameras like the DVX, HV20, or what have you, are all great tools for learning the craft of storytelling.

Aside from that though, another point is that students should be ready to dive into the professional world once they graduate, and should know most of the technicalities of the process. This is where many argue that cameras like the DVX aren't as capable as teaching students about things like lenses, film stock, exposure, how to use a light meter..."check the gate", all the other things that go along with a professional film production. It seems logical that the best solution today is for students to learn BOTH film and digital processes so that they not only know the technicalities of both, but can use every asset of the professional world to tell their story better. And I'm not excluding other digital formats like HDCAM, which I'm sure will be around a while even with RED.

This is where RED comes in perfectly; simply put it’s the best of both worlds right now. Out of all the digital formats, it comes the closest to looking/feeling like film, and with the capability of shooting RAW ONBOARD, it offers total flexibility in post. On top of that, it takes advantage of time and money savings associated with a pure digital workflow (no film costs, dailies, or telecine costs). It's also an all manual camera, which means students would get hands on experience learning all the critical aspects of shooting like being a focus puller, all the way to being a DIT. Of course most of these things can be learned on cameras like the CineAlta, but Red is much cheaper, and superior in its abilities, and again offers RAW recording. Students should also have experience on other HD formats like HDCAM too, but RED will soon be widely available, and students should know its workflow. It's only logcial for film schools to take advantage of RED right now; it’s beneficial for the schools and for the student's professional careers when they graduate.

Sorry for the long post, but it's something I've given a lot of thought to as I will be shelling out the big bucks next year when I head off to film school, so I'm very much interested in this subject.

[Robert Mott]

I know of a school on the east coast that is getting one.

RKM

[Craig Bowman]

The Centre for Arts and Technology in Kelowna has reservation #681 and its on the map.

I got them to make the reservation last October when I filled in for a while as dept. head.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

What the hell is wrong with them? Any school not jumping on the RED wagon will be left in the dust.

Hahahaha. Obviously you never went to a film school. :biggrin:

[J.D.]

Hello.
I am a college prof in the midwest. I teach at a small liberal arts college where we offer a degree in Cinema. This is my first post, even though I have been here many, many times. I learned about the red it seems several yrs ago on DVX user and since then I cannot tell you how badly I want a Red camera.
However, for my school it boils down to stretching a thin budget and doing what's best for the most students. For example this year I could have purchased another HVX for our dept, but instead I bought 2 more DVX's.

So we do what we can. I focus on teaching our students to become good storytellers, on the page and visually with a camera and editing.
So we don't use the best cameras in the world..(the Red) but it's not for a lack of interest or belief in the red.

On another note... Thanks to all on this web site that share their wealth of professional knowledge its a great help to those like myself that aren't out in the trenches shooting everyday. I have learned a lot from you, and I pass it on to my students. And I encourage them to visit this site and DVX User.

JD

[Neil Duffy]

I wouldn't mind taking a two week intensive course on shooting with the RED at a film school. The whole concept of shooting in RAW - and digital - and 4K - has to alter the whole story telling process. Things will be possible (both technically and financially) that were not before. For instance, giving the look to the whole film in post, rather than selecting it on site. Not changing film rolls. And the supremely minor issue of not having $100,000 of your $150,000 indie budget taken up by film costs.
Neil

[GlennChan]

Some random observations:
A- Film schools can have a weird hodgepodge of equipment. They get a lot of things for cheap/free. Sometimes these may be somewhat defective products (even seen ND filters or broadcast monitors with color casts in them?) or models that didn't sell well.
Weird stuff happens from student abuse, funding, politics, and the (in)experience of the staff.

Their equipment will not compare to higher-end shoots. e.g. no generator. You probably won't learn that aspect of production and things like electrical safety for that type of equipment (e.g. what T caps are... what color is neutral... what order you should plug stuff in).

B- One very important skill is how well you work with others and how you deal with people (co-workers or clients). Unfortunately film schools don't really teach you this and will hinder you somewhat if they make you cocky. When you graduate, you actually don't know that much and have little relevant experience (the film/video industry has lots of niches, each with their own needs and workflows).

C- You can go to film school and not know what each job in the credits is. e.g. Inferno, 3-D rigging, online editing

Technology-wise, they can't teach you things that don't exist or aren't viable yet (e.g. 3-D, Lightstage, etc.). e.g. you would never have been able to learn non-linear editing before it existed.

They can't and don't teach you everything.

D- Having professors who have worked professionally in the past few years makes a big difference. Otherwise you are learning outdated and impractical/irrelevant practices out of a textbook.

E- Most schools will claim that the professors have professional experience and that their gear is top-notch. The first can be true, though you should check what areas they work in. The second is usually not true... usually it only looks the part.

F- If you're cash-strapped, you're likely better off PAing (or working an entry-level job) and working your way up. You'll break into the industry faster and make money while doing so (instead of paying tuition and spending money on your own films). And you'll know if you like that particular aspect of the film/video industry (e.g. long hours suck). School doesn't give you a real taste of that.

[Jack Turits]

Why are so many people looking at film students using RED's as a negative? It can only be positive IMO. Maybe it is because I am a student.

[Benjamin Epps]

I am shooting my thesis project at the American Film Institute in a month.

I have been wrestling with my faculty since July just to get permission to use the RED that my company is purchasing!

There are two reasons for this:

1) Workflow - Film schools try to minimize the headache of having multiple workflows. They want it to work over and over again. So, once they figure out how to get 100 films made in a year. That's it. The system is locked. Even if it is not a completely logical system, if it generally functions, that's the way they want to operate.

So, when I bring up the RED they have a heart attack. They are interested in the technology, but don't want it in their house until the performance is proven and the workflow is rock solid. Because they know that if I can make it work, everyone else will want to jump on board. And the REDvolution will just mean more headaches for them in the short run, even though in the long run the quality of production will rise and cost will fall.

2) Story - AFI really only cares about story, which is a good thing. So, they don't want the students stressing over the technical aspects so much that they forget to plan their creative attack of the narrative. Of course, we need to learn little by little how to handle the technical aspects of making movies, but technique always follows story, it never leads it.

All that being said, I hope that we get to shoot on the RED, because I know that we will have a far superior product compared to using the school's F900 cameras.

Here's to hoping. And here's to the REDvolution at AFI!

[Andrew Kimery]

Why are so many people looking at film students using RED's as a negative? It can only be positive IMO. Maybe it is because I am a student.
Hindsight. :turned:

It's not that there is anything necessarily wrong w/getting to play w/the newest toys, but it can be a distraction from focusing on more important skills. For example, I'm sure any student would say their edit lab sucked if it was populated with G4's running OS 10.2 and similarly old versions of Avid or FCP. But many machines that old, and older (OS 9 anyone?), are used every day in Los Angeles to cut prime time network and cable programing. Learning how to just operate an NLE isn't worth much but learning how to edit a story is.

Once you get out of school and start working full time professionally you'll learn that you didn't learn nearly as much applicable, "real world" knowledge in school as you thought you did. Think of it kinda like learning the "text book" version of a English in a classroom then moving to the deep south. The language you learned and the language used are the same in theory, but very different in practice.

My biggest piece of advice for college students is get as much practical, real world experience as you can. Intern at a post house. Work weekends schlepping cable for the local cable station. PA for peanuts on a low budget feature. Pretty much do anything to get as much practical experience as you can. Real World Work+Real World Contacts will beat Student Film+Bleeding Edge Technology any day of the week and twice on Sunday.


-A

[Bob Melville]

The Digital Film Department at Ringling College of Art and Design in Sarasota, Florida has purchased RED and a professional complement of RED primes and zooms. Like everyone else we will be receiving the camera in due course.

The future is RED and we consider it absolutely necessary that our students receive an education in how a high end professional camera works. RED goes beyond mere acquisition of a 4K image at a great price point. With the accessories and lenses available from RED, Ringling College Digital Film students will learn all aspects of how a professional camera department works in a digital cinema environment. This means that our students will receive a feature film experience.

RED is as significant a teaching tool as it is a production tool. Ringling College of Art and Design has joined the revolution.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

But, high-end Arri's and others like them are used at least by your fourth year if not before. Why not a RED. There's more to break in an Arri which has many moving parts (kinda). I don't see the problem. There is no reason why you shouldn't be on the cutting edge, even if you are a student. They don't want painting students using shitty paintbrushes in art school. They want the best paintbrushes! So get the best cameras!

Well, jt, you are actually smart, you understand some simple things. Most people either don't seem to understand this, or don't care, and especially not film schools.

OMG LOL WTF film school students will break teh equipment!1!11!!11111. You're kidding, right? Please tell me that was a joke. They have insurance for that, first of all, and second, I paid $37,000 for the Los Angeles Film School. Let me write that out so it's more clear: THIRTY-SEVEN-THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!!!!!! If you have 30 students entering every month you BETTER have 30 RED cameras so that EVERY SINGLE STUDENT THESIS FILM can be shot on that camera if need be, and you better have $25,000 Archer steadicams, and you better have professional sound stages, and you better hire teachers who have more than 2-4 years of industry experience, and you better not tell me that Avid is the only editing system anyone uses (I can't believe what BS that was). If you think I hate the L.A. Film School, you have no idea how much I hate it. I swear to god on everything I own and every dime I will possess in my life, I will bring that school to its knees. And if need be I'll buy it myself in 15 to 20 years and show the world what a real film school looks like -- and it looks a lot more like Chapman University or USC than Los Angeles Film School, aka Scam Artists, Inc.

That school's equipment was so pathetic that what I'm shooting with next March will be vastly superior to what any student there has access to using. First off, my computer will be much better. Second, my sound effects library is far better. I have 101 DVDs of stock footage. They have zero. I have 63 CDs of royalty-free music, plus two expansions to garage band. They have nothing like that. I'll have 4 REDs. They have a few XDCams, two Sony F900s, and two Sony F950s, nothing as good as my equipment and not that many good cameras, either, given the huge and growing student body. Their dolly is beatup and crappy, I still think my indie dolly is smoother than that POS regardless of what its original price was. The Los Angeles County landfill has better props than L.A. Film School, which couldn't auction its prop room off for a burger and fries at Carl's Jr. The sound stages are noisier than an airport runway. The actual space itself isn't as nice as most bums have under a bridge. They don't have generators you can use on location; I at least have one. Their lighting equipment they give to most students is garbage, unless you're using it on their quote-unquote soundstages. Even my Arri kit is better than anything the students learn to shoot with.

I can't express enough how angry everyone should be at a school charging that much money and then telling us that because we're students we don't DESERVE better than a $1,000 steadicam. Are you serious?! If you're training people to work in the business professionally, they damn well better have access to professional equipment and teachers who know what the hell they're doing, especially for $37,000. If it cost $10,000 a year I'd change my tune and say it's a great learning experience for such a cheap price. But that's like saying if a Honda Element cost $500 it'd be an amazing vehicle. It doesn't, and it isn't.

PS: I agree the story is always the most important part. But I also don't believe you can teach that. You can teach a formula, but you can't teach creativity. So IMO, don't bother with film school at all. If you have money, you can buy all the equipment yourself that you need to shoot low budget. If you don't have money, you can't afford to go into debt on something as uncertain as film because in general that's just stupid. This isn't law school, med school, or engineering school. So either way I move for a vote of no confidence in film school ;)

[Keith Alan Morris]

Well, jt, you are actually smart, you understand some simple things. Most people either don't seem to understand this, or don't care, and especially not film schools.

OMG LOL WTF film school students will break teh equipment!1!11!!11111. You're kidding, right? Please tell me that was a joke. They have insurance for that, first of all, and second, I paid $37,000 for the Los Angeles Film School. Let me write that out so it's more clear: THIRTY-SEVEN-THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!!!!!! If you have 30 students entering every month you BETTER have 30 RED cameras so that EVERY SINGLE STUDENT THESIS FILM can be shot on that camera if need be, and you better have $25,000 Archer steadicams, and you better have professional sound stages, and you better hire teachers who have more than 2-4 years of industry experience, and you better not tell me that Avid is the only editing system anyone uses (I can't believe what BS that was). If you think I hate the L.A. Film School, you have no idea how much I hate it. I swear to god on everything I own and every dime I will possess in my life, I will bring that school to its knees. And if need be I'll buy it myself in 15 to 20 years and show the world what a real film school looks like -- and it looks a lot more like Chapman University or USC than Los Angeles Film School, aka Scam Artists, Inc.

That school's equipment was so pathetic that what I'm shooting with next March will be vastly superior to what any student there has access to using. First off, my computer will be much better. Second, my sound effects library is far better. I have 101 DVDs of stock footage. They have zero. I have 63 CDs of royalty-free music, plus two expansions to garage band. They have nothing like that. I'll have 4 REDs. They have a few XDCams, two Sony F900s, and two Sony F950s, nothing as good as my equipment and not that many good cameras, either, given the huge and growing student body. Their dolly is beatup and crappy, I still think my indie dolly is smoother than that POS regardless of what its original price was. The Los Angeles County landfill has better props than L.A. Film School, which couldn't auction its prop room off for a burger and fries at Carl's Jr. The sound stages are noisier than an airport runway. The actual space itself isn't as nice as most bums have under a bridge. They don't have generators you can use on location; I at least have one. Their lighting equipment they give to most students is garbage, unless you're using it on their quote-unquote soundstages. Even my Arri kit is better than anything the students learn to shoot with.

I can't express enough how angry everyone should be at a school charging that much money and then telling us that because we're students we don't DESERVE better than a $1,000 steadicam. Are you serious?! If you're training people to work in the business professionally, they damn well better have access to professional equipment and teachers who know what the hell they're doing, especially for $37,000. If it cost $10,000 a year I'd change my tune and say it's a great learning experience for such a cheap price. But that's like saying if a Honda Element cost $500 it'd be an amazing vehicle. It doesn't, and it isn't.

PS: I agree the story is always the most important part. But I also don't believe you can teach that. You can teach a formula, but you can't teach creativity. So IMO, don't bother with film school at all. If you have money, you can buy all the equipment yourself that you need to shoot low budget. If you don't have money, you can't afford to go into debt on something as uncertain as film because in general that's just stupid. This isn't law school, med school, or engineering school. So either way I move for a vote of no confidence in film school ;)

i like it when you get on your rant, but i think you just had a bad experience. i mean--nothing personal--if you're going to dump 37k a year into art school, the joke is on you. it was your choice up front. kids that dump that much money into art school without checking how big the class sizes are etc...thats just bad choicemaking. once again, nothing personal.