HD IS NOT 20 X less expensive than FILM.

Alessandro Machi · June 27, 2004

HD will one day be significantly less expensive than shooting film, but nonetheless the percent of the total budget devoted to either Film or HD is still a small enough fraction of the total budget as to not merit being the sole reason a professional production would choose one method over the other.

Mike Brennan · June 29, 2004

"HD will one day be significantly less expensive than shooting film, but nonetheless the percent of the total budget devoted to either Film or HD is still a small enough fraction of the total budget as to not merit being the sole reason a professional production would choose one method over the other.'

If it is not cheaper, why do professional productions choose HD?

Mike Brennan

Max Jacoby · June 29, 2004

If it is not cheaper, why do professional productions choose HD?

Maybe because they believe everything Larry Thorpe says to be the truth... :D

Nate Downes · June 29, 2004

If it is not cheaper, why do professional productions choose HD?

Mike Brennan

Familiarity is one reason. More and more crew members are videographers rather than cinematographers. That means that their skill set is better utilized on a HD rather than film shoot. I was trained in the use of film, yet one job stuck me on a videocamera. The results were less than stellar. If you have a video crew, use video equipment.

There is also the convenience factor, you can see your "dailies" as you shoot them. Plus don't ignore the role that salespeople have in the equasion. If someone gets the right sales pitch, they'd buy anything. Same applies to your producer. The video job I mentioned is a classic example: the owner of the company spent a fortune migrating from BetaCAM to Digital-8. Now, I've used a BetaCAM before, and I could have pulled it off with that camera. The JVC Digital-8, I had not a clue how to operate. (the eyepiece wasn't even framed properly, only 70% of what you saw was actually being recorded) Why did he spend the $50k on new machines when the old ones did the job? A sales guy walked in one day and sold him on the new machines.

Rob Belics · June 29, 2004

If it is not cheaper, why do professional productions choose HD?

I must be out of the loop. All the professional productions I've been on chose film.

Brad Grimmett · June 29, 2004

If it is not cheaper, why do professional productions choose HD?

I must be out of the loop. All the professional productions I've been on chose film.

I've worked on two HD features this year, and I start another one tommorrow. Most of these are low budget features and they THINK they're saving money by shooting HD. Also, many of them don't have their budget for post secured when they start shooting and don't realize that it will cost them more in the long run if they end up making a print. So I do think that professionals productions choose HD solely to save money. Whether they're actually saving money is a whole other issue.

Personally, I don't mind it that much. Although the cameras are heavier and they're a pain in the ass for steadicam. It seems that those problems are being addressed with the newer designs though.

Luke Prendergast · June 29, 2004

zzzzzzzz...........

Alessandro Machi · June 30, 2004

John Smith, just what exactly are you zzzzzz'ng about?

The original point of this topic thread is that the actual acquisition format one chooses usually does not make up that huge a percentage of the total budget of most professional productions to warrant being the only consideration for choosing between film or digital.

Sometimes that point gets lost, as in the other topic title on this forum that claims that HD is 20 times cheaper to shoot than film.

Laurent Andrieux · July 3, 2004

for me also, film is still the reference but i was thinking of a couple of points that may seduce directors and producers :

- no more film means no more hassle with magazines and lab jobs that are a little bit frightening, film feels less secure than video.

- then you don't need these paranoîac obsessions about the media.

- you can hire a team that costs less because they don't manipulate the film and seem possibly to be less qualified to do the job

- won't they soon feel like (if not already) the dp's job is much easier and you don't need storaro to light the thing

- you can shoot more stock - production love "newcommers" and they may like to give them the possibility of being less productive. a 30' tape record much more stock than a 1000 feet magazine in 35 or a 400 in 16

- you can have small teams, costs less but is considered as more productive as well "we can do things we couldn't do with 2 assistants + a sound engeneer, as one man can deal with it

- the post production certainly is a big big point

it's not only a budget point it's like a revolution in their minds. They feel like being able to control things better. Isn't it what they certainly love ?