4

We are launching an Filmmaking proposal (again). While there is an obvious overlapping of some issues, browsing AVP questions shows that some filmmaking issues remain untouched. And yet, I wonder whether a better solution is to try and expand the definition of AVP.

Another option is that the definition of AVP theoretically includes all filmmaking relating issues (casting, lighting, directing etc.) and is not very popular simply because current users are more into computer-related issues (editting, codecs, after effects etc.) Is this the case?

What should be a SE solution for questions related to the different departments of filmmaking?

4

While you are correct that there is definitely some overlap, personally, I don't think the film-making related issues (as you've listed) fall into the scope of AVP.

  • broadcast, film, audio, music, or location recording techniques
  • editing, mixing, mastering, and distribution post-production techniques
  • signal processing in a production context (for highly technical questions about digital signal processing, please visit Stack Exchange's DSP site)
  • asset management, media, and file formats
  • installation, configuration, and operation of software related to these topics

Casting, lighting, directing, etc., just don't fall into the (purposely focused) technically oriented production techniques outlined in the faq.

The overlap could potentially cover some tangentially related topics (lighting comes to mind), but I think you would be more likely to get the Q&A you're looking for at an SE site intended for film-making experts, rather than production experts.

1
  • The film industry already has elegant solutions to problems that videographers now increasingly face. Take, for instance, the explosion in DSLR grip equipment; steadicams, sliders, jibs, and cranes. This stuff used to be the exclusive domain of the film industry. But now, as production becomes cheaper, more elements of the traditional film business fall within the scope of the videographer. Grip, lighting, directing, & sound now. Casting soon. Apr 5 '13 at 13:16
-1

I'm new here, so forgive the presumption, but ...

it's time to expand the scope of this site to include film-making.

take a look at the Area51 stats. After 2 years, there's still a "Needs Work" and 3 OKs. That's quite bad.

As film-making is a reasonable way to expand scope, and would bring in new questions, new answers and new rep-gaining users, it makes sense to do that scope expansion now, to give this site a chance of surviving and graduating out of beta.

4
  • 2
    This site from the beginning was specifically scoped to the technical aspects of production. Expanding the scope in this way would IMHO make it too broad. Jan 17 '13 at 16:32
  • 1
    Video Production was added to the scope of this site in an attempt to address that. As the OP noted, a lot of those questions go unanswered. My opinion is that if anything the scope of this site is too broad already.
    – BenV
    Jan 22 '13 at 22:54
  • 1
    The differences between film and video are quickly dissolving. Blackmagic sells a digital film camera for $3K. It's time to get with the program. Apr 5 '13 at 12:58
  • 1
    The film industry already has elegant solutions to problems that videographers now increasingly face. Take, for instance, the explosion in DSLR grip equipment; steadicams, sliders, jibs, and cranes. This stuff used to be the exclusive domain of the film industry. But now, as production becomes cheaper, more elements of the traditional film business fall within the scope of the videographer. Grip, lighting, directing, & sound now. Casting soon. Sorry for double post. Mods delete this one? Apr 5 '13 at 13:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .