Digital Video

[AdamShaw]

It's becoming more and more apparent to me that filming on celluloid is very expensive... but how much exactly? Like, does anyone know on average how much a minute of filming costs? Someone told me once and caused me to eject the sippage from my pint straight out my nose.

I've been shooting on a Sony VX2000 Digital Camcorder and in post there's a few things you can tweak to give the image a more "film like" feel. Similar to what they do in "The Office", they sort of splice the frames in the film to make it appear as though it's shot on celluloid.

So I guess the main argument I'm bringing forward is will Digital eventually take over celluloid due to the cheapness and ease of use? Discuss.

[Russ3001]

Hello, good subject im no expert but ive read alot about this stuff latley digital seems to be gettin alot better, cams with 24fps modes ,the new star wars was shot with digital cams HD though and cost 80 grand odd from what i hear, but film just has that quality about it like vinyl vs cd's , this kinda subject could go on forever very intresting though, id like to hear more about what ppl think about this too
cheers Russ

[theSteve]

Sadly I think most studios would opt for cheapest production versus maximum profit and screw picture quality.
No matter what direction it takes there will still be a hardcore of film makers using celluloid, and film goers preferring it to the more modern means.

Some movies just lend themselves better to digital and some I think look better if the image is less sharp, giving the film a more gritty look.

Like all good debates on subjects like this though, it's down to personal preference.

[Rich]

Here's just a few reasons why celluloid still finds favour over HD, despite the apparent extra expense.

1/. The look - HD gives a very very crisp image, everything is in focus and pin-sharp, so it all tends to be quite flat and momontonous. On screen, black objects just become very flat black, just a big black hole of emptiness. On close-ups, even people's skin suddenly shows every tiny blemish, certain patterns (of costume) etc, don't differentiate very well. At the moment, it is widely acknowledged that film still looks and feels much better than HD.

I must qualify this statement by saying that some HD productions have equalled film in terms of quality, but this has been achieved by spending huge amounts in post-production, adding very expensive effects to "dirty it up" and make it look like film. But if you're going to cancel out the cost savings of high-def by spending loads in post-production, why use it in the first place?

Crew - the key crew member who has to deal with HD is the director of photography (DoP). Very few DoP's are even trained to use HD, which is a completely different animal to film, demanding completely different lighting techniques etc. HD represents something of a leap into the unknown. And as mentioned in the previous point, the different demands of HD extend to virtually every production department from make-up through to production design, demands that few people are experienced in, so far. Obviously, things will improve with time, but that doesn't help the people thinking of making a project on HD now.

The cameras - for a while, panavision panicked about the possible rise in the use of HD, as it promised to make their stocks of lenses and ancillary equipment (which they hire to productions at vast expense) redundant. Then they hit on the idea of increasing the size of their HD cameras so they are compatible with their existing film lenses. Because all of the existing lenses are available, it is virtually a given that the director, operator etc will want to make use of them. This means that HD productions generally still hire in the lenses and still need several crew members working around camera, and still need vans etc to haul around the ancillary kit, again cancelling out the potential cost savings of HD.

Discipline around camera (on set) - this is an unusual but important point...because film stock is so expensive, crews do not shoot everything blithely. They can't afford to. Each scene is (generally) meticulously prepared and rehearsed before actually shooting. While HD promises to reduce this set-up time, the cheap stock means that any performance can be captured. Why bother rehearsing without shooting when it costs no more to shoot the rehearsal anyway? You can have multiple attempts at each scene, which might seem like an advantage, but what it can lead to is a lack of professionalism around camera. With film, the actor knows that the snap of the clapperboard is their cue to deliver, whereas on HD things can unfold more leisurely
without the clear distinction between the production itself and the production-making process. Crew can stand around wondering "Did we just shoot that?" And because an actor or director knows that asking for a subsequent take won't cost anything other than time, they'll do exactly that until they get what they perceive to be the perfect take. The result of such nitpicking is that the time savings (and subsequent cost savings) will be eroded while everyone spends ages searching for a perfection which isn't there anyway. And of course with such an approach, at the end of each day the editors are faced with huge amounts of footage to work through, leading to potentially much more expense in the editing stage.

The philosophy - quite simply, HD is not film. This might seem obvious but how many people say they hope to make a film on High def, despite there being no actual "film" being used in the process? Regarding cost, while initially HD promises to be a cheap alternative to the old way of doing things, those factors mentioned above can make HD as expensive a medium as film.

The alternative philosophy - is to see HD as being a completely different medium to film, and the way to do that is to present HD as it is, rather than dressing it up to look like film. If this happens, and audiences start getting used to it, then the use of HD will grow, and filter both up and down through the world of visual production, and I use the words "visual production" deliberately here. It would mean unlearning the current associations you have regarding the definition of the word "cinematic". However, what I have not accounted for is the almost certain advances in HD technology, which will improve it and make it more desirable, rendering much of the above discussion irrelevant.

Finally, regarding Shane's projects and the potential use of HD in future ones, I think the answer is "it all depends." For social realism and beautiful images, nothing at present can touch the quality of film. I think high-def is more likely to be used currently on slightly higher concept or more abstract works. Basically, if you're already asking the audience to journey with you into a very abstract place in terms of setting and plot, then why not ask them to take that journey through a completely different shooting media too?

[Rich]

nb I can spell monotonous, I just can't type it very easily..

[Russ3001]

good post v intresting, cheers
ive been messing around with dvcam latley and the footage just comes across as to 'realistic' everything is to in focus
,I read some intresting ways around this by making a device that can use a still photographic camera lens and a ground glass eg

www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index.htm

www.micro35.com/welcome.htm

I think the the footage on micro35 looks really good

thinkin of making one of these

Russ.