What do I say to HD people?

[Galen Carter-Jeffrey]

I was talking to someone over the internet and he was being real rude to me. Saying stuff like Film sucks, HD is king etc...

 

First off what percentage of people use HD and film? Is it really that high? I thought that the only people who use HD are the people who don't have the budget for Film. I guess I am wrong.

 

Another thing I wanted to ask is, what do I tell people who are going on and on about noone shooting film anymore?

 

I am still in school so I really dont't have an opinon, I just like the way film looks. Although I understand that the cost is pretty heavy.

Edited May 4, 2006 by galeninjapan

[Frank DiBugnara]

Just be honest and say that it is not important to talk about which is better because they are different. Everyone uses the painting analogy. You can paint a portrait with oils and water paints--both paintings, yet both different. What's important is to match the right tool with the right project...not only practically (budget, workflow, etc) but artistically (the look of the photography).

 

Given all that, you can say that you really like the way film looks (and that Kodak and Fuji keep coming out with new stocks and that Aaton and Arri keep coming out with new film cameras). Nobody can fault you for saying that you prefer blonds to brunettes.

Edited May 4, 2006 by FrankDiBugnara

[Dan Goulder]

Nobody can fault you for saying that you prefer blonds to brunettes.

Oh yeah, just try running that one by a brunette girlfriend.

[Tenolian Bell]

I wouldn't pay those people much attention. Its obvious they are not working professionals in the film industry.

 

At this point 90% of Hollywood produced films are shot on 35mm film.

 

There was a report last year that most of the feature films at Sundance were shot on film.

 

Most commercials are shot on film. Pretty much all music videos you see on MTV have been shot in 35mm.

 

Nearly all hour long dramas on television are shot on film.

 

Many film shows have experimented with HD but decide to stay with film.

 

There have been a few hour long dramas shot on HD but it seems they are quickly cancelled.

 

The one show format to signficantly go HD have been sitcoms. Mostly because they are in a controlled studio environment.

[Rupe Whiteman]

I was talking to someone over the internet and he was being real rude to me. Saying stuff like Film sucks, HD is king etc...

 

...tell him to get his head out of his ass.

 

Then ask him to list his ten favourite movies... they'll be shot on film.

 

By the way saying that film sucks and Hd is king is that really rude to you?! I can think of worse things!

 

Endeavour to persevere...

 

Rupe Whiteman

[Dan Goulder]

There was a report last year that most of the feature films at Sundance were shot on film.

I'm not surprised. I predicted a couple of years ago that since film festivals were now getting bombarded with literally thousands of DV submissions, there would be an eventual backlash, moving people over to film (for narrative features) just to stand out from the crowd.

[Adam White]

It doesnt matter whether a shots in super35mm, super8, hi8 or the latest HD - if you cant frame, focus and expose then its gonna suck

 

Just ignore the bloke, sounds like a bit of a fool anyway.

 

Personally, I think every format has something to offer and multi-formats in one feature is a common occurance - "Natural Born Killers" comes to mind. . .

[John Pytlak RIP]

Kodak's website has good information in support of film origination:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why/?id=0.1.4.3&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/fastFacts/fastFacts.html

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newslett...d=0.1.4.9&lc=en

[Galen Carter-Jeffrey]

By the way saying that film sucks and Hd is king is that really rude to you?! I can think of worse things!

 

What happened was I was trying to sell a 16mm camera, and he emailed me and told me no one is going to buy it because nobody uses film anymore. I told him I liked the look of film and he said "What do you know you're only a student anyway"

 

 

I have worked on both film and HD sets and suprisngly the HD sets were not run as smoothly as the HD sets. In fact twice the hard drive crashed and they lost scenes!! :o

 

 

Oh well, to each his own. :)

[Dan Goulder]

Kodak's website has good information in support of film origination:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why/?id=0.1.4.3&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/fastFacts/fastFacts.html

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newslett...d=0.1.4.9&lc=en

My contribution for Film fact #11:

In the end, it all goes beyond easily quantifiable "numbers" and "resolutions". When it comes to film, you're talking about things on a chemical, atomic level, which goes WAY beyond digital measurements in terms of "pixels".

[Andy Sparaco SOC]

Question for John Pytlak:

 

How many gigs of data are effectively stored on a 400 ft roll of S16 film?

 

I have always thought it will get down to "storage". It will be a long time before magnetic storage will match the size/weight ability of photo-chemical "storage"

[Chris Burke]

Question for John Pytlak:

 

How many gigs of data are effectively stored on a 400 ft roll of S16 film?

 

I have always thought it will get down to "storage". It will be a long time before magnetic storage will match the size/weight ability of photo-chemical "storage"

 

 

Exactly! Film is still the best storage medium going. It stores more info, quicker, cheaper than any other technology. It is photo chemical so there for, in the digitial realm, it would take a 4k res camera or bettter to truly match the image. Given that, the cost and hassle for storage of 4k plus imaging is staggering. Film still is the easiest and best. I go by the saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". In terms of how many gigs, in HD terms, 11 minutes of uncompressed 10 bit footage shot at 24fps take about 87.72 gig. Super 16 is more in line with 2k imaging, so it would be even higher than that, probably a lot higher. I think around 300 gig. So film as a storage medium still wins out in terms of speed, cost per minute, flexiblity, longevity, archivability and so on and so on. I started out shooting digital and analogue video and have now gone all film. Film is an actual thing, not a collection of 1's and 0's exisisting in some virtual realm. When it comes to my art, I stick with the concrete, tried and true.

[Tenolian Bell]

I too wish the discussion of film or video could be framed by the needs of the particular production. Both have their unique advantages and its great to have choices.

 

Unfortunately marketing, hyperbole, and emotional loyalty get in the way. It is important we keep the discussion truthful and in the realm of our current reality.

 

I once heard this guy telling people HD is just as good as film and the only the reason Hollywood continues to use film as an expensive artificial barrier to keep most people out.

 

I told the guy the fact that you cannot afford to have Brad Pitt in your movie is the expensive barrier that keeps you from making a Hollywood film. Film itself has nothing to do with that.

[Michael Collier]

I'm not surprised. I predicted a couple of years ago that since film festivals were now getting bombarded with literally thousands of DV submissions, there would be an eventual backlash, moving people over to film (for narrative features) just to stand out from the crowd.

 

I think thats exactly what is happening. I myself am doing my first feature film, and the reason I went with film (given that I have an HD camera at my disposal practically for free) is that I have investors who want to make money. Film is easier to sell. Hands down. A film origination will make distrabutors more eager to buy and more willing to pay top dollar. That is exactly what I tell all my investors when I pitch the movie to them. I say yes, we are spending a lot more than we would with video, but we can make our money back easier. (also the story is 100% a film story. It needs a strong sense of contrast that video just doesnt provide. The highlights will be hot, the shadows deep deep blacks. No way any video camera could replicate what film would do. That said I have shot many HD and video features and its a pain. I spend more time fooling with the backlighting to get it to look good, but not blow out. Spend all that time and work and it looks like video, because you couldnt take 2-3 months to find investors to put up the 30-40K it would take to make a comperable film on 16mm film.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I was talking to someone over the internet and he was being real rude to me. Saying stuff like Film sucks, HD is king etc...

 

First off what percentage of people use HD and film? Is it really that high? I thought that the only people who use HD are the people who don't have the budget for Film. I guess I am wrong.

 

Another thing I wanted to ask is, what do I tell people who are going on and on about noone shooting film anymore?

 

I am still in school so I really dont't have an opinon, I just like the way film looks. Although I understand that the cost is pretty heavy.

 

If he was saying stuff like that, then he's obviously a complete prat who has no idea what he's talking about.

 

Don't get worked up over it.

Edited May 5, 2006 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Keneu Luca]

My two cents...

 

for those of us who do shoot film, lets say, for the sake of argument, that film will become obsolete in our lifetime, we will be able to say we have shot film, as opposed to everyone who easily dismisses it in favor of the newest digital wave.

 

Ive never owned a video camera, with exception to the Fisher Price PXL 2000. It was a gift when I was a kid...1990 I think. It introduced me to making movies. That thing was pretty cool, but most people never had even heard of them. You can still get em on ebay, they fetch a decent price. If you dont know, they shoot video on an analog audio tape!!! Crazy stuff.

 

Anyway....

 

But this isnt the reason why I shoot film. For fiction work, I think we collectively associate fiction work with film. It fits because that is, for the most part, always how it's been. Video was for sports and news and some docs.

 

Even when I watch stuff like "Collateral"...dont get me wrong, it does look good, but its certainly not film. And I am surprised by the (few) pro established fillmakers, like Michael Mann, who are crossing over. Hey, they can do what they want, and no matter how much I admire their work, they aint sellin me on pixels.

[Annie Wengenroth]

The phrase I constantly find myself repeating when faced with any "Film Versus Digital" issue is this: Apples and oranges. In other words, there's no "replacement" about it, there's no "versus", there's no "better than", whatever. It all comes down to what kind of fruit you want. To really punch holes in these debates, you can interchange "orange" or "apple" with any mention of "film" or "HD" and realize how ridiculous it is. We are in a day and age where there are suitable applications for each of these artistic methods. Personally, I never listen when someone tells me how "dead" or "obsolete" a technology is. I go to work and play with film cameras and HD cameras. When I sit on the subway I listen to my Ipod. When I come home, I spin records. Just because a particular medium takes on a new priority in the art world, does not make it any less ideal.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

It doesnt matter whether a shots in super35mm, super8, hi8 or the latest HD - if you cant frame, focus and expose then its gonna suck

 

Just ignore the bloke, sounds like a bit of a fool anyway.

Yes, I don't recall any "new Wave" of top-gun film editors suddenly appearing when the industry moved to non-linear desktop editing either. You still have to know how to edit, regardless of the actual technique you use to put your decisions into practice. This applies whether you're editing 35mm flm on Avid, or miniDV with Windows Movie Maker!

[K Borowski]

When I sit on the subway I listen to my Ipod. When I come home, I spin records.

 

: - )

 

To answer the title of the post (forget which movie this is from) "SAY NOTHING!" If they don't know why people still prefer film, they'll probably never figure it out. . . I'll never understand how, in a field dominated by visual imagery, people cannot tell the difference between the two. All one really has to do (although this isn't really a fair comparison between the two) is to watch a movie, and then the "making of" trailer on TV or on the disk. Even with the same lighting, it's like night and day between video and film. Granted there is filtration, different angles, etc, but there really is a huge difference, although HD certainly looks to be about on par with 16mm (in terms of resolution) now.

 

~Karl

[Adam White]

I have worked on both film and HD sets and suprisngly the HD sets were not run as smoothly as the HD sets. In fact twice the hard drive crashed and they lost scenes!! :o

 

I know this subject has been endlessly debated in many forum posts but, whatever a person may think of film camera's in this supposedly "HD world" it is a sad fact that many sets seem to loose focus without the demands of a film camera. producers seem to feel that the cameras light themselves and even that "awe area" (people leave the camera team be because they know they dont have a clue about the kit, which is helpfull) seems to disapear, which results in way too many people being in the way.

[Andy_Alderslade]

I know this subject has been endlessly debated in many forum posts but, whatever a person may think of film camera's in this supposedly "HD world" it is a sad fact that many sets seem to loose focus without the demands of a film camera. producers seem to feel that the cameras light themselves and even that "awe area" (people leave the camera team be because they know they dont have a clue about the kit, which is helpfull) seems to disapear, which results in way too many people being in the way.

 

I guess if your working on a really tight budget and schedule, the last thing you want is half the crew gawping at that all important monitor, and with film you don't necessarily need one, some famous directors never use them.

[Phil Rhodes]

You don't necessarily need one with video either. Tons of beautiful video is shot with nothing more than the viewfinder, zebra stripes, and skill.

 

One thing to ponder: if video is so easy to shoot, how come so much of it looks like crap?

 

Phil

[John Pytlak RIP]

One thing to ponder: if video is so easy to shoot, how come so much of it looks like crap?

 

Phil

 

Because it's often treated as a "point and shoot" device, without realizing that you have to work within the constraints (especially latitude) of current image sensors. Noisy blacks and blown-out highlights and speculars are the hallmarks of videos that seemed easy to shoot, but weren't.

[Filip Plesha]

This guy sounds like he has the esthetic sensibility of a guy trying to figure out which plasma gives a better picture of a soccer game.

Most of the laymen out there have really low esthetic awareness (ability to spot patterns in color, tonality etc.)

 

My father,for example, who used to be a B/W amateur in 70's, can not figure out the difference between simple SD interlaced video and film, you'd expect more from an amateur photographer.

When he turns on the TV, and there is some kind of a cheap video soap opera, he has no clue wheather it is that or a movie. It's amazing. And the only image criteria he values is sharpness of the picture and contrast. And all his esthetic problems can be fixed by changing contrast and color on the remote, and getting a good TV signal.

[John King]

Hello everyone,

 

This topic is really interesting to me, as I had to contend with these same questions when I decided to get back into filmmaking. Back in the 1980s I shot some short films on Super8. My dream was to graduate to 16mm. However, I had an irrational fear of renting equipment --if I could'nt buy it and own the camera and gear the film was'nt going to get made-- Back in those days just about any 16mm gear was too cost prohibitive for me (I was a poor boy --still am really-- and barely cold afford to shoot the Super8) going video in the 1980s was simply out of the question. Video back then was terrible as an originating medium. Now digital video is different, its speacial, but if a lot of care is not taken it still looks video-ish.

 

Actually I think other people can tell the difference between film and video although they may not be able to adequately articulate why what they are seeing on the screen is "so different" than this other movie they just watched (which was shot on film)--btw they generally do not like the digital film, again just cannot explain why. Now Mr. Pytlak and others who are engaged in the business of film can explain all these nuances and differences in very technical terms-- hey its their job to know these terms. But generally speaking what these technical terms boild down to is there is a textural difference between the two media that is observable to the eye. Whereas digital video is good and getting better, overall I think most will agree that film still has that texture that is not yet met, let alone 'beat' by digital video (although that may change in the future).

 

About a year or so ago, Kodak carried an excellent article in MovieMaker magazine where they (very effectively) called into question another issue relating to the debate between film and digital video--> That is which format was the more reliable as a storable medium. Kodak cited many outside sources (so it was'nt "just Kodak" saying this). The article pointed out that inspite of all the advances made by digital technology, it was still very much uncertain whether or not digital would be a reliable storable medium. There is the issue of file corruption that is of yet not resolved, and there is also the issue of advances in technology out-racing the current market.

 

In other words all those DVDs you're buying up today to fill your movie library may not even play on machines they come out with 10, 20 or maybe even 5 years down the road. The other great advantage to film is that the information (or picture) is captured by a mechanical and (relatively simple) chemical process. Once done, the film is there, and the machines needed to retrieve (or play) that picture are not that complicated really-- at least not as complicated as machines that retrieve a code of 1s and 0s to do it. Films, especially on the tougher longer lasting polyester bases, will last around 100 years before you (or actually your decendants) would have to worry about pulling a newer, fresher copy.

 

Now as far as the issue about digital being cheaper than film? That's relative, I think. HD might be cheaper if you already own the equipment (again owing here to my irrational fear of renting equipment-- but really I'm not sure what digital equipment rents for as opposed to film equipment). For me the decision to stay with film proved cheaper in the long run. Others can say I'm biased towards film, maybe so, but really it has been cheaper for me. Again remember that it is my own personal policy that I must own my equipment before I use it. Really in a way I'm glad the 'digital revolution' happened, it proved a boon to my efforts to go into 16mm. Remember my saying that back in the 1980s film equipment was too high for me? Well that did not change much during the 1990s either.

 

However, sometime after the digital revolution had already bursted open, I was trolling around ebay, you know, "just looking". What I saw at first shocked me. I was overjoyed! Finally I started seeing film cameras and related equipment in 16mm in price ranges that I could afford! I started buying cameras and gear a little here a little there. Today I am capable of shooting on film, editing and post sound (to include mixing) on film and mag stock. As far as the latter goes I have already bought two Moviola 6-plate flatbed editors for well under $1,000 (I can remember when these babies fetched more than $20,000!). Even with Kodak announcing that the cost of film stock would be increasing around 17%, I can still shoot and edit film cheaper than I could invest in the extremely expensive digital equipment. So in a way the digital revolution paid off for me. While everyone was running and investing in the newer digital gear, the demand for film gear declined to a point where I could afford to get in.

 

That trend is still on-going, but I am already seeing signs that its about to swing the other way. I think that more and more younger filmmakers are finding the film gear cheaper in comparison and the demand for film gear is starting to be on the rise.

 

Best regards,

 

J.M. King