Benefits To Film Because Of HD.

August 17, 2006

Lens and filmstock yes. As for the DP, blind luck in my case

Mark Wilson · August 17, 2006

On my last feature which was on 35, one of my camera assistants was extremely excited about his next project which was going to be his first on HD.

AJB

Yes but what exactly was he excited ABOUT?

When you say "his next project" do mean that it is actually "His" or just his next job?

Then again, if my current job was a 35mm chewing gum commercial and my next job was another Star Wars or Superman film on HD, well I'd probably be excited too.

His excitement may simply be that he will at last get some HD experience under his belt, or from simple ignorance. I certainly know enough people who were extremely excited when they got to work on their first film job (of any gauge). B)

Actually David, I aspire to work with a IIC wrapped in a sound blanket. I'm doing this shoot with a Konvas 1M inside a padded fruit crate :D

But it's still 35mm!!

Actually this is something I have often wondered about.

I can imagine that on a sound stage using boom microphones obviously you'd need an extremely quiet camera. But outdoors using wireless mics, how much of a problem is the noise from the average MOS camera such as an Arri 3? Do people get away with it? I suppose it all depends on the sort of lens you use.

I've heard that most "Bollywood" films are shot silent with any old clunker they have to hand and the dialogue is dubbed in later.

Would it be practical to record just the sound of the camera itself and then use that to cancel it out of the main sound recording in post-production?

David Mullen ASC · August 17, 2006

Would it be practical to record just the sound of the camera itself and then use that to cancel it out of the main sound recording in post-production?

Not really -- camera motor noise has too many midtones that crossover with human voice characteristics. If it were a high-pitched whine, maybe. I think the best thing would be to show an extra using a coffee grinder in the background, maybe as a plane crosses over his head.

David W Scott · August 17, 2006

Not really -- camera motor noise has too many midtones that crossover with human voice characteristics. If it were a high-pitched whine, maybe. I think the best thing would be to show an extra using a coffee grinder in the background, maybe as a plane crosses over his head.

:lol: The old coffee-grinder in the shot trick! Almost as common as the dog-barking sound mix...

Dan Goulder · August 17, 2006

Would it be practical to record just the sound of the camera itself and then use that to cancel it out of the main sound recording in post-production?

Some modern audio software, such as Adobe Audition, etc., can do a remarkable job at isolating background noise from production audio. You can even sample and remove the sound of a roaring Arri 2C, while still ending up with usable dialogue. The results are not artifact-free, but they're good. Running music softly under the dialogue can even cover the artifacts. However, there are limitations: The dialogue needs to be delivered well above the level of the camera noise. I wouldn't recommend this method on scenes where the dialogue is to be delivered in a more softspoken, nuanced manner. Also, actors with experience working with blimped cameras will likely be annoyed and perhaps distracted as well by having to work this way. It'll do in a pinch.

Leo Anthony Vale · August 17, 2006

Not really -- camera motor noise has too many midtones that crossover with human voice characteristics. If it were a high-pitched whine, maybe. I think the best thing would be to show an extra using a coffee grinder in the background, maybe as a plane crosses over his head.

---I was watching Antonioni's "The Passenger".

Shoot all off your interiors in rooms with incredibly noisy ceiling fans.

Those fans had the loudest, grindiest motors I've ever heard.

Sam Wells · August 18, 2006

:lol: The old coffee-grinder in the shot trick! Almost as common as the dog-barking sound mix...

Like the gunshot or truck backfiring to cover a bump in a camera move :D

-Sam

chris dye · August 21, 2006

I love the film/video debate, so for my first post, I'll chime in with a little something.

I'm a film guy all the way. Nothing snobby about it. Just a preference. Film has a 'magical' quality to it that I can't explain in words. Video (HD or otherwise) just isn't the same. Watching my first film dailies many moons ago was the coolest thing ever (I still very much look forward to 'dailies'). As a kid I even got excited getting back my Super 8 footage from Fotomat (remember those?). I've shot video and it never had the same effect as film did when watching it.

I bought my first Super 8 camera back in 1985, just when home video cameras were putting the final deathblow into Super 8 film cameras. I remember the salesman trying to sell me a video camera instead. I think my response to him was 'but I want to make movies with it'.

That's not to say I ignore what's happening in the video realm. I've always paid attention to it. I first saw HD in person back in 1990 and was very impressed, but not for making a movie. I even remember reading an American Cinematographer article back in 1992 about a Sony/Panavision HD camera that was being tested and thinking 'cool'. From what I see of the Genesis, it seems awesome, but it's quite expensive to rent I'm sure.

Anyway, I think what's most disturbing about the 'digital' hype is not that digital isn't as good as film or that it will eventully take over, but that most of those falling for the hype and pushing for the death of film seem to be amateurs and 'wannabes' who believe the cost of film was the only thing stopping them from making a film. The reality is they hate film because it's expensive. They can't possibly hate film for the way it looks because I guarantee their favorite films are shot on film.

Not to mention, many of these DV 'amateurs' believe their first 'films' are good enough for festivals and distribution.

So in an age where there is a slew of shot on DV 'films' out there, it isn't surprising to hear that distributors are praising you if you shoot something on film. If you're making an 'indie' film and wou want to stand out in the crowd, all you have to do is shoot 35mm (or better yet 65mm). No one will reject you because you shot on 35mm (as David said, 35mm suggests money was spent on the production).

You're still taken more seriously when you shoot on a 'professional' format. Not on a camera you can buy at CIrcuit City (please don't bring up Blair Witch).

Matthew W. Phillips · August 21, 2006

Anyway, I think what's most disturbing about the 'digital' hype is not that digital isn't as good as film or that it will eventully take over, but that most of those falling for the hype and pushing for the death of film seem to be amateurs and 'wannabes' who believe the cost of film was the only thing stopping them from making a film. The reality is they hate film because it's expensive. They can't possibly hate film for the way it looks because I guarantee their favorite films are shot on film.

Not to mention, many of these DV 'amateurs' believe their first 'films' are good enough for festivals and distribution.

What you described sounds exactly like those guys at DVXuser.com. Not to be rude, but many of them are these guys that think film is dying because THEY can't afford it, as though that really matters.

My take on "Digi-heads" is that they not only abhor the cost of film, but they are also too impatient to wait for processing and transfer to see their results. I think that if you are impatient, you are already showing immaturity and an inability to succeed in this industry. I personally think that the value of shooting on film shows quality in many more ways than just the image on the screen. It shows you have patience, take care in your shots (because it's too costly to mess up), and you are truly more dedicated.

As far as whether HD looks as good as 35mm, I would argue that well shot S16 or 16 footage looks better than most HD I have seen. I had one gentleman from DVXuser (he was young so forgive his ignorance) claim that his footage from a MiniDV DVX100 looked as good as 35mm footage. I was blown away...I couldn't believe someone could convince themselves of something so absurd. I personally will continue to shoot on film regardless of if it is popular or not. To me, film will always be a unique look that will not be completely imitated by video.

Edited August 21, 2006 by M.W.Phillips

Kevin Zanit · August 21, 2006

I don?t really feel like a merits of film vs video debate, so I'll skip that part, but Richard brings up a good point.

I have not been shooting HD for nearly as long as someone like David, my first HD shoot was in 2000ish (don?t really remember), but even I have noticed a trend that at first people being somewhat impressed/ interested with the fact a shoot was being done in HD. Maybe because it was still even then relatively new to the filmmaking world (or perhaps just the circle of people I interacted with) around then. But more recently, people seem to be more surprised when working in 35. I think it is because the type of shows I do (mostly very to moderately low budget projects) are being mostly shot in HD now that when I do a 35 project people are more surprised.

I don?t think investors/ a distributor being more impressed with 35 is anything new. It is a more expensive format, and it tends to mean a show will have better production value. It is the same as when 16/S16 were the only other option.

I have noticed a trend with actors to be more interested/ impressed by a format recently. An actress and I were talking about this. She was saying she started asking people at casting sessions that seemed low budget (off of nowcasting.com type sites) what format they were shooting because she was really tired of working for free or next to it on a project that was more or less misrepresented to her. She would show up for free on a project that was very amateurish, etc. I am sure this comes from the wide availability of MiniDV and HDV type cameras that allow a "film-maker" the ability to shoot something for nothing, and think it will look decent (sometimes it does).

I did a lower budget HD project that the director was at the casting session for, and an actor asked him what format they were shooting. He told them HD, and the guy wanted to know more details about the camera, the director just said they were coming from Panavision and he could call the DP if he wanted to get more info. It turns out the actor worked on an "HD" project being shot in HDV, and was still very amateurish, resembaling a MiniDV project (not to say that all F900 type HD projects are more pro, but they tend to be). I do have some concern with these HDV cameras being touted as HD. I know that the numbers make them true HD cameras, but it?s just that most people have the association of HD with big expensive, proper camera setup. Of course as HDV becomes more widespread, that all will change.

Kevin Zanit

Rafa · August 21, 2006

production value or production control?

I don't know if you guys are having the same experience than me here in NYC, but I believe that some producers prefer HD because makes them feel with more control over the shoot.

I've been in several productions meetings where we got through the whole argument about shooting HD or film and I always choose film and explain that if we keep control over how much material we expend they can keep cost around the same numbers if S16 or HD. They do the math, agree with me and pick up.........HD.

I personally hate the HD workflow, the sizes of the camera and operating them. You give me a SR3 or XTRProd and I'm a very happy DP, but the producer doesn't really know what's happening inside the camera and that drives them crazy .

Is this just my personal "paranoia" or somebody out there agrees with me?

Matt Workman · August 24, 2006

Whats wrong with the look of X-Men 3? :unsure: Please ellaborate. I guess I'm a minority in enjoying that movie.

Going back to the original post: I agree that a 35mm project will be taken more seriously by almost everyone involved, because it suggests that you didn't just go buy a HVX and shoot without lights, finished script, or talent. Harsh :/

Also shooting 35mm means hopefully that you have an experienced DP who hires a reliable crew. Even if only keys. Many HD shoots cut corners with crew, maybe that just low budget producing :unsure:

I am working with a director who has a fixed budget, sub-$200k and we agree that if he can budget a 35mm it will attract better people, because working at that budget people aren't going to get their regular rates. If we shot HD for the same budget I doubt I could convice a gaffer to do me a favor and work for reduced rates.

DVXuser.com is a great forum. There are many experienced people there, and taking comments from the newer people is mis-representing the community. Its also very active and welcoming. :ph34r: