Is film archaic and about to die?

[Tenolian Bell]

I was thinking 5% of the total production. So if for example you can save money in lighting by shooting HD then that's savings too.

 

That myth has also been dispelled. Money is not saved from lighting HD.

 

Because lighting is such a subjective art, you are lighting for mood just as much and in some cases more than you are lighting for exposure.

[David Mullen ASC]

I was thinking 5% of the total production. So if for example you can save money in lighting by shooting HD then that's savings too.

 

But I think you explained what my misunderstanding is, and that's the auxilary equipment that is needed to support an HD shoot almost ends up costing as much as shooting film. What (I think) Brian was talking about is the 'P2 revolutionary workflow' which I put in quotations because I don't know enough about it to speak twords it's greatness, but apparently you can avoid the deck costs that come with the VariCam and CineAlta.

 

 

I assume you mean "deck costs" as decks in the editing room, since these cameras are camcorders and don't need external decks.

 

Again, you have to compare apples to apples. Are you shooting film for an HD finish? Are you going to transfer film to HD tape, then make downconversions to SD for offline editing? So how is that cheaper than shooting in HD and having to make downconversions to SD for offline editing?

 

Sure, an HD post is more expensive than an SD post, but if you need to create an HD master, then you'll have to deal with it whether you shoot film or not.

 

As for whether 5% savings are significant or not, remember that on any production, they count pennies. I routinely get asked to shave down my camera, grip, and electric package, even if it means just cutting out $30 worth of filters to please them. The only question is whether the producers feel that they are compromising quality by using HD and therefore worth the small savings. That depends on the producers.

[Brad Grimmett]

That may be true for major hollywood features, but the percentage is much higher for other types of production, such as commercials. Last month, a national commercial was shot on the Panasonic HVX200 for Subway. It was the "A" camera; there were no film cameras at all. That tells you something, doesn't it?

It tells me that someone was either taking a risk or going for a specific look. Other than that it doesn't really tell me much. Now, if they shot their whole ad campaign for a year on the dvx200, then that would be a bit different, but one commercial doesn't really mean that much in the grand scheme of things. And I would bet that the reason they shot on that camera had nothing to do with money.