Low Budget Shoot On HD or 16mm?

[Martin Yernazian]

Hola Javier

That Package looks great.... but there is one problem

You can't check it out before you buy it!

The Best way for me is the following

 

Buy a 16mm camera, one that you have personally checked out and you like and you know where the owner lives ;)

then send it to Les Bosher in the UK, he will do some awesome conversion to the cam, and there will be to your specs

after that you can buy stuff separetly and beef up the camera at your own pace

[Martin Yernazian]

I agree with Tyler, Still, Javier if you feel that you are ready to make this film, go all in buddy, don't be a wuss like a lot people are , if you believe what you have is " the money" go on and make it, Like tyler said: video camera, film or a cellphone a movie should be entertaining. period

 

But I do disagree on something..... you have to be a jack of all trades, you have to be prepared for everything., as a director I have to tell you, that if my DP get's sick or my editor says good bye, well I can fill in perfectly and put one more hat on and kick ass.... ( with caution off course)

You have to be prepared and do your homework, there is also the problem where Filmakers, artist storytelles blah blah blah had all their lifes..... THEY ARE LAZY!!!! They get confy and in love with their own projects.....the more you fight that, the more prepared you are, the better army you'll have ( small or big) the better your movie will be.... but as David and other said, everything starts from the script, you can' make a great movie out of a crappy script.

 

And Michael and Walter.... the thread should not end, is now when is getting interesting, Filmmaking is about alot of things, including cinematography and this forum is here to help those to understand some parts of the process, and make contacts and etc etc etc. Please Allow us continue this conversation Thank You.

 

Happy Holidays everyone

 

 

Javier you need to call me buddy.....

[Tyler Purcell]

Javier you need to call me buddy.....

 

Javier, I think you do too! lol :)

 

Thanks for understanding Martin, good luck with your projects!!!

[Michael Lehnert]

And Michael and Walter.... the thread should not end, is now when is getting interesting, Filmmaking is about alot of things, including cinematography and this forum is here to help those to understand some parts of the process, and make contacts and etc etc etc. Please Allow us continue this conversation Thank You.

 

Martín, rest assured that I am in no position to terminate this thread, and had I moderator rights, I would certainly NOT close it down. This is a free forum in the "cloud", after all. And a thread without trolling or insults being thrown around should be free to venture on.

 

Nevertheless, I think my post is legitimate as ? after 4 pages and particularly Tyler's post ? I wanted to flag up an issue here concerning the exchanged content and what outcome this thread could possibly lead to. And that especially with regard to the efforts forum members had already made and the prominence this thread has now reached in this forum.

While typing a second reply that wanted to address some of Tyler's lines of thought, David made my effort obsolete by being kind-hearted enough to didactically analyse and comment on all this before me (read it again here)

 

The problem I saw is that this thread lacked from the start a clearly identified problem at hand which would then have allowed members here to productively contribute to tackle it. And because there was no clear problem, let alone questions to be asked, this thread did not get the chance to develop a concise and clear line of thought along which one can meaningfully contribute.

 

In fact, the points made and the arguments exchanged became increasingly self-centred, non-contributive and even technically incorrect, and occassionally so convoluted (like Tyler's last paragraph in post #70 here) that I think this thread became more confusing than helpful, as readers just get wrong impressions about what making films actually encompasses and requires to think about.

 

I love doing Q&As in the Super 8 subforum here, which is where many new-to-film talents show up nowadays willing to learn the craft "the hard way". Nevertheless, I openly deplore the approach an increasing amount of posters here have who just throw some fragments of a thought into this black box of a forum BEFORE even doing a basic netsearch (like googling or wikipedia'ing stuff ? oh, these words... :rolleyes: ), let alone undertaking a real research that attempts to grasp the basic concepts of this activity which we all so passionately pursue. Nevertheless, they seem to expect us to think for them by bringing order to their brains first and then guessing what other things might needed to be discussed. I am not sure if that is what this forum can really achieve and was originally created for.

 

Believe it or not, I can actually comprehend the points Tyler and you made, and I wouldn't say I totally agree or disagree with them, but the way the formulations are made and the points are put to the members of this forum is like stuffing too many ingredients into the turkey so that it will either explode in the oven and leave you with a mess, or that the chaos of mix'n pickles all around will leave you in the end with an inedible goose.

[David Mullen ASC]

Now we're having a discussion about the discussion...

 

Re-reading the original post, it seems that this was one of those cases where someone wanted to be convinced of an answer they already formulated. The only problem with that is that it can be a waste of time for everyone answering if the poster has made up there mind. I mean, if the original poster was unhappy with how a big-budget movie like "Apocalypto" looked shot on some of the best and most expensive digital technology available, then honestly, how are they ever going to be satisfied with their own no-budget project if they shoot digitally? Ultimately it's not a right or wrong decision, it comes down to personal taste. So if digital is not really an option for him, then he should shoot on film, even if this means looking for more money.

 

But that's sort of a separate question.

 

All of this shows the importance of asking clearly worded and narrowly focused questions IF you want narrowly focused answers. If you just want four pages of general pontificating, ask a very broad question but then don't complain that the answers aren't particularly helpful.

 

But the people promoting film as a solution have to stop thinking it's all about buying a cheap enough camera. The camera is not the significant cost in making a feature on film. Getting a 16mm sync-sound package, including lenses, for under $3000 doesn't help you avoid the possibly $30,000 (numbers will vary) in stock, processing, and telecine for a feature project shot in 16mm.

[Michael Lehnert]

Now we're having a discussion about the discussion...

 

My apologies for that ;) . I shall hence retire from this thread by agreeing with your above point, David, and conclude with an advisory quote to some here made by Jacques Lacan ? who once spoke decades ago in Paris about the circumstance that people only formulate questions to which they unconsciously already hold an answer of their own ? on the issue of the very first question one should ask oneself before continuing with any line of inquisitive thought:

 

"To what problem is your question the answer?"

 

I wish you (all) a very successful 2008, good light, and good luck.

 

Cheers,

 

-Michael

[David Mullen ASC]

"To what problem is your question the answer?"

 

That's a good quote. Sometimes people answer their own questions for themselves once they provide enough details as to what they want. The classic example is "how do I light a night exterior?" to which my first response is always "well, what do you want it to look like?" As soon as they can answer that, they are halfway there to an answer. You could respond the same way as to the question of what format to shoot.

[Tyler Purcell]

David and Michael, you guys are great fun... total film geeks like myself, I hope when I'm older I'll be doing the same thing you are doing now, spending free time helping others discover the magic of filmmaking. I appreciate the fact industry professionals like most of you, hang out on this forum and keep it lively. :)

 

There is something magical about film, before you've shot it. Just like there is something magical about a TV studio before you've been working in one for years. I've given huge talks about shooting in Digital video vs film in the past. I've written papers on the subject and even done tests when the first batch of medium grade HD cameras came out. I talk with at least 3 people a week about shooting HD on a budget, none of which take film into consideration. It hurts me to realize that in 20 years from now, the great filmmakers of our time will be retired and the new filmmakers, who take there place, will have grown up with HD and digital capturing mediums. In my opinion, film will disappear, not because of the demand changing, but because of new filmmakers themselves, never having touched or wanted it.

 

This relates directly to Javier and its the reason I made that huge post on how to make money. I think its a great idea to shoot film while you still can. Just the thought of shooting on film, keeps the format alive. Everybody should shoot film, especially 16mm... if there is a will, there is a way! :D

[Martin Yernazian]

Michael I never meant to insult anyone, I just felt that we where getting somewhere that it was of my interest, for example how we can make a film on 16mm for under 10-15k, rest assure that this copy is just for submission to festivals, after that, yes I understand the cost of 25-50 grand for a 35mm blow up or an HDCAM copy it will be necessary to show the project at a respectable theater

 

Anyhow I want to wish everybody a great 2008

[Javier Calderon]

"THE JVC HD200 along with a HZ-CA13U PL mount lens adapter is probably the best thing on the market. Here is an extensive article on it's remarkable abilities with this camera."

 

Thanks for the article, Walter. Pretty extensive stuff. I'll take a closer look at it in the very near future. Juggling quite a bit of work at present. :)

 

Javier

Edited January 7, 2008 by Javier Calderon

[Javier Calderon]

Wow. I'm gone from this forum for a week and I come back and there's a monster sitting here waiting for me! :lol:

 

Honestly I can't even BEGIN to respond to all the varied, helpful, intelligent, thought through comments made by everyone since my last major post on here. I'll shoot straight from my gut and simply say that I very much appreciate everyone's contributions.

 

I am an artist. What that exactly means I'm not going to worry about too much because - regardless of whether I am in full understanding of what it DOES mean or not - well . . . I am still that very thing nontheless. As such, I have ultimately made the decision to pursue those ends in the medium of film making. I act, I write, I paint, I play many different instruments, I compose scores, I direct, produce, edit, and generally do whatever it takes to make those visions (not infrequently nightmarish) make the transition from my imagination to some sort of tangible, external medium. This forum and the knowledgable folks on it are an appreciated avenue of perspective and information. Again, thanks.

 

It IS true. I would indeed prefer to shoot on film. David is correct. However, I am aware that there is a lot I do not know - much I would benefit from learning about - and because I am very well aware that many things I THOUGHT I wanted to do turned out to be things I really DIDN'T want to do (or shouldn't do) but only found out that I really didn't want to do them AFTER some serious cud-chewing, personal researching, and (yes) getting different perspectives - often certain very technical perspectives that I may not have even considered (like some of the ones on this very forum) - I felt it would not be a bad idea to ask a question or two on this forum and see what kind of help would occur. Often has it been that I was sided in one particular direction only to find out that I was headed toward a dead end - but ONLY after simply NOT giving in to my initial proclivity and, instead, continuing to "knead the dough" of my initial interest, so to speak.

 

Yes, it's looking more like I may very well shoot my next feature on film. Does that mean that this forum was a waste of time because I may have been bent that way from the very beginning? Absolutely not. I have gained invaluable information from everyone on here in terms of what to expect. It is information that has fleshed out my previous, very feeble knowledge on film. I am still in embryonic stages regarding shooting on film - I admit that now just as I did in the initial question that started this multi paged thread - but the more information I acrue prior to even BEGINNING my next feature . . . the better off I'll be when I actually start shooting . . . right?

 

So much more I can say, of course . . . but enough for now.

 

Martin and Tye, I will indeed call you both, gentlemen. I must, must, must complete these final stages on this film, however.

 

Everyone keep a sleepy eye open this year (or next, for that matter) for my film!

 

It's called "The God Project" and I hope to get at least some sort of minimal distribution for it. Then you guys (and gals) can see what on earth this crazy cinematography.com poster is about! :)

 

Again, as posted earlier in this thread, here's a youtube link on a quick teaser trailer for it:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5W81h7hVBk

 

Thanks all. Have a productive 2008.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Javier Calderon

[Keneu Luca]

I realize this thread may have lost all its momentum and that Javier may be ready to move on and put these discussions behind him. But Id like to address the issues raised by Tyler made in post #70 and the subsequent reactions his comments spawned.

 

I realized a long time ago, it doesn't matter what you shoot on, what makes a difference your story and how your telling it. Due to that, I've left the cinematography group and have become a jack of all trades; shooter, editor, director... though I'm probably one of the few people who is super proficient at all 3 things.

 

My advice to Javier has been to shoot in Digital. We are talking about telling a story and no matter how you tell it, HD, Film or a cell phone camera, its still a story acted out. Spending money on equipment and film stock is NOT part of the equation, especially if you don't know how to use said equipment.

 

I also am annoyed by the constant reminder on a cinematography forum of "it's the story that matters, not the cinematography" because it doesn't have to be a choice between one or the other.

 

Yep. Tyler, it is very difficut to come to a cinematography only board and say that it's not about cinematography.

 

Some believed that Javier had pretty much made up his mind before he began this thread. That seems reasonable; he posted the question exclusively in the 16MM FORUM, not in the HD FORUM or in the CINEMATOGRAPHERS FORUM. Unless i overlooked something. Maybe I did.

 

I think the issue is that despite being a question involving technical aspects of different mediums, the actual essence of the question was personal taste. Subjective. Therefore lending itself to a more human forum. Such as CINEMATOGRAPHERS or DIRECTORS CORNER.

 

Or, if it was a question of economics, then it was a question suited for a producer.

 

The more I think about it, the more I realize that it is essentially a question that JAvier can only answer himself. You already know what a narrative work of fiction looks like on film. And you know how it affects you. But how would YOUR movie look on HD? How would your material live and breathe in that medium, and does that satisfy YOU? Only you can answer that. Only you, as a director, can make that decision.

 

It is completely subjective.

 

I shoot film because for me, that is how a dramatic narrative piece lives. But when I watch a dramatic work of fiction on video/digital/HD, I have trouble taking it seriously. But thats me. I fully realize that other poeple react differently to these things. But in the end, since its my film, my work, I want that medium thatI feel comfortable with. And I only I know what that is.

 

We have all these choices.

 

Film.

Video.

HD.

Traditional animation.

Computer animation.

Still images.

Fisher-Price PXL 2000.

 

Choose the one that works for you. Because if its just a matter of economics, or you just worry about having a great script and the medium is incidental, I can save you the trouble with just three letters.

 

VHS.

[Javier Calderon]

Thank you for your input, Keneu. I was thinking a slight bit more about this the other day, and came upon the following personal rubric regarding film and video.

 

In film, the ends justify the means. In other words, the difficulty and cost that is entailed in the production is justified by the fact that the end result - the footage, the picture - tends to look the way it does.

 

In video, it's the exact opposite: The means justify the ends. The end result has, up to this point, tended to look far inferior to film, but the fact that it costs a lot less to produce those images, along with various other tangible conveniences, justify the significant cut in quality that most have to make when shooting on this medium.

[Rafael Rivera]

"Film is dead" blah blah . . . I keep hearing that from people . . . The battle rages on . . .

 

but - and I don't care what anyone says - the HD projects I've seen, from low end productions to top of the line, Apocalypto/Once Upon A Time In Mexico budgets . . . well . . . still look like video . . . Awesome, very clean, very nice video to be sure . . . but I can still tell they're NOT film.

 

Okay . . . So I'm not here to rant (believe it or not) . . . I'm here to throw in a few ideas that have been jiggling around in my mind for a while and see if anyone can offer some much needed help, advice, perspective, etc . . .

 

I'm finishing up post on a DV feature that I helmed. I've been considering the pros and cons of shooting the next feature on video or film . . . It seems that serious, yet very budget minded, productions are, at this point, no longer going to be shot on DV (correct? Does it seem like this is a fair assessment? Someone please let me know if they think or feel that the DV medium has NOT been left behind and is still a viable one at this point for indie feature film making. Heck I'd TOTALLY shoot my next film on DV if my assessment is incorrect. It's cheap comparitively speaking). So if one is serious, but on a budget . . . then . . . HD is one definite option . . . NOT HDV . . . HD. But what's out there? When it comes down to it and one does the cost analysis of doing a film on HD - HVX200 at around $4K, or the Sony PMW-EX1 for $7K as WELL as the computer, P2 cards, storage, etc that it takes to handle HD media - the final costs show up at around the $20K-40K range at the LOWEST.

 

Now then one has to ask themselves: What could the same price get me for a 16mm film production? It seems that for around that price, you can get a decent ACL II (around $2-4K) AND you wouldn't need to get the crazy HD setup that you would have to in order to do post on the Panasonic or the Sony footage. You can edit in SD so you wouldn't need as hefty a computer.

 

Two quick obvious pros of shooting w/HD are that 1) you have immediate visual access to the footage you just shot. Also, provided you have the disk space, 2) you can shoot take after take a-la Kubrik w/o incurring any extra costs (besides, that is, the extra time in post that it'll take to organize and choose between all those takes!).

 

Those two HD pros seem to be, conversely, two obvious film cons, namely 1) you DON'T really know what you're getting out of what you're shooting during production. You have to wait for film developement first; which brings me to the second film con. 2) On a budget, you have a limited number of takes, because each frame of film is money being spent.

 

However, the obvious pro of film is, well . . . it looks how it looks . . . and although HD is definitely making leaps and bounds . . . it's still not there yet . . .

 

It's not there yet . . . and yet in order to presently gear up an HD production . . . it seems you're going to end up spending about as much (if not more) as you would on a 16mm production.

 

It seems w/a video (HD) production, you're gaining in convenience, what you're losing in the "look".

 

Am I on the right track here, people? Again, help me out, and let me know if there are significant variables that I'm not addressing one way or the other that can effect the price of the film or HD prod here . . .

 

In the end, it's seeming to me that, if I'm going to end up HAVING to spend about $20-40K minimum to get an HD feature up and running . . . and that same amount of money could possibly allow me to do a 16mm production (granted w/very different considerations like 1) a much more limited number of takes, and 2) not being able to know if my day's shots are good or not until AFTER telecine) . . . then . . .

 

it almost seems like a no brainer (to me anyway) . . . shoot on 16 . . . right?

 

Okay fine . . . it might be more difficult, etc . . . . but so what? . . . it's art . . . nothing good is (or even should be) easy . . .

 

Anyway . . . Any thoughts on all this garble would be very much appreciated.

 

Thank you very much,

Javier Calderon

Hola Javier,

 

Check out a music video project I Directed recently and le tme know what you think. It was shot on film with an A-Minima and I had a lot of latitude in post for manipulating the image. Camera set ups were incredibly fast once the camera was built, no vectorscopes, waveform monitors or fear of blowing highlights. Plus camera rental was lower than an HD professional camcorder.

 

Click on Border Town

http://donfito.com/portfolio.html

Edited January 18, 2008 by Rafael Rivera

[Javier Calderon]

Man . . . Just finished color correcting my DV feature and WOW . . . you can really begin to see the differences between video and film when you start doing THIS particular process. Granted our footage - even for DV - was far from pristine (heck, even far from adequate at times), but when trying to push or crush colors - blacks, lights, etc - whew . . . it really left some nasty effects at times. Oh well, though . . . it is what it is, so I had to go with it. And I'm, of course, not sure if indeed color correcting film would allow for more flexibility in manipulating the colors since, as we all know at this point, I haven't shot using film (yet), but I can't imagine it would be worse than video.

[Javier Calderon]

Hey thanks for sharing and posting the link, Rafael. That was one long final shot! Impressive! No cuts . . . just rollin'. Your exteriors looked pretty darn natural (a good thing). I'm very interested to know the particulars of your shoot in terms of budget, shooting ratio, amount of film used etc. Contact me directly if you wish and let me know. :)

 

JavierC1972@Netscape.net

 

Good work,

Javier

[Javier Calderon]

Ha. Just read some of your links on production, Rafael. It answered a bit of the questions I had there. Very cool. :)

[Dory Breaux DP]

I'd also not compare HVX video to Super16 film results. S16 is a far superior medium. It uses real lenses and records far more overall information than consumer grade 1/3" chip HD devices, which is what the HVX is. You also have more DOF options, lens options and far more latitude.

 

One idea is to buy a simple wind-up 16mm camera like a Russian model for $250 to practice and hone with. Rent an SR2 or Aaton LTR54/XTR for your feature. You simply won't find a practical, feature ready S16 camera package for less than around $15,000. Rentals can be fairly cheap if you look around.

 

Not to be a Panasonic Whore (even though I am one), but that's not totally true. The HVX is far more then a "consumer grade 1/3' chip HD device". Yes, it "only" has 1/3 inch chips, however, please tell me how a camera that can capture 1080p24pA with a color space of 4:2:2 is "consumer" level? Prosumer, yes, more likely. Also, the fact that it can shoot multiple frame rates (granted, in 720p mode) that are not the regular 60p, 30p and 24p alone almost makes it professional. Yes, the DOF is deeper from 16mm, but that is not because of the size of the chips, or the fact that is a smaller camera. I do assume that you know that smaller chips is only relative to the field of view, not depth of field. This does link DOF to chip size, but in no way is it dependent on it. The best thing about the HVX (or any other mid to hi end HD camera) is that once you buy it and the P2/SxS (HVX/EX1), you dont have to spend a penny more, because the media is reusable. Granted, you could get into the 20k+ range with tripods, matteboxes, filter sets, 35 adapters and lenses, blah dee blah dee blah, but still, you have the potential to get a picture that is good enough with a budget that is only as much as a SR3 could cost for just a base package. When I say good enough, I am taking into account that SD is still the most standard medium of distribution (in the US at least), and even when something will look better in SD if it originated in a high resolution medium, when you factor costs, who is going to be watching your end product on what, the average budget of a small scale inde production is etc, it almost always makes more sens to shoot HD and let a good color grading artist do the fine tweeks. And, in reality, the average joe is not going to see the difference between well shot, lit and graded HD and 16mm. Now, THAT BEING SAID! I, HATE all digital formats (with the exception of REDCODE or RAW) with a passion. They are evil. Unfortunately, I can not afford to shoot film, because I am poor and have very little income, as well as being a high school student. I fully agree with you that nothing is like film, and that if you have the budget and experience there is no reason to shoot HD or anything but film (unless your on a SUPER tight schedule), but really, the point I am trying to make is that the picture from an HVX will fool 90 percent of the people who see it on most TVs into thinking it was shot on film, if it is lit properly. But who am I to talk, I shoot everything on a DVX100B and sometimes uprez for final output. Does it look like film? well, yeah, on an SD TV.

 

Wow, i didn't know I could rant like that...

[Paul Watt]

As has been stated farther up in the thread, shoot film if you can. It'll be gone someday. I suppose I'll enjoy not stressing from when the can's closed to when the transfer is done. But I'll also miss that stress, in a sick way. Not knowing exactly what you have right away adds something to the process, I think. Basically, film is really f***ing cool. Digi will take over, and maybe it's the solution for lots of people now, but it is a bit like McDonalds, Walmart, and Sony. Large corporations that invade culture, and redefine it to make their fortunes. If making films is art, then maybe we should choose our tools to reflect our art. For a while anyway.

[Dory Breaux DP]

As has been stated farther up in the thread, shoot film if you can. It'll be gone someday. I suppose I'll enjoy not stressing from when the can's closed to when the transfer is done. But I'll also miss that stress, in a sick way. Not knowing exactly what you have right away adds something to the process, I think. Basically, film is really f***ing cool. Digi will take over, and maybe it's the solution for lots of people now, but it is a bit like McDonalds, Walmart, and Sony. Large corporations that invade culture, and redefine it to make their fortunes. If making films is art, then maybe we should choose our tools to reflect our art. For a while anyway.

 

Nailed it.

[Michael Lehnert]

....

 

I walked away from this thread a while ago after my posts with David, but your post really merits a "WOW", Dory. Gosh, there are some issue here all coming together and falling all over each other... :)

 

And, in reality, the average joe is not going to see the difference between well shot, lit and graded HD and 16mm.

 

Incorrect. I really must beg to differ. And on that note: I am sorry to hear that you had such bad encounters with audiences and/or such an ungrateful understanding of the people you are making films for.

 

I think the biggest problem in the industry today is not about image acquisition formats or post chains or even availability of money, it is the circumstance that an increasing amount of people on all sides, makers, producers, and those who should now better, are under the belief that their opposite person is a stupidly-idiotic ignorant moron who doesn't get anything anyhow anyway. When people who should think in absolute ethics of quality start to say that "that won't get noticed. so skip it", then the spirale into mediocricy and below can no longer be halted. What a pitty, as this attitude will only socially reproduce exactly that: people constantly thinking that the other Joe or Jane is a dickhead and - essentially - can get screwed.

 

Maybe working for the public (which pro filmmaking actually is) isn't a job for you, Dory... ;)

 

Now, THAT BEING SAID! I, HATE all digital formats (with the exception of REDCODE or RAW) with a passion. They are evil. Unfortunately, I can not afford to shoot film, because I am poor and have very little income, as well as being a high school student

 

Try school-owned councelling services. It helps, and might be cheaper than either paying for a 2K telecine session or purchasing a new video equipment every odd-year...

 

The point I am trying to make is that the picture from an HVX will fool 90 percent of the people who see it on most TVs into thinking it was shot on film, if it is lit properly.

 

No. That is plain and simply delusional. And putting such a point forward in public is irresponsible. I am sorry to be so abrassive, but that's the only reaction possible to such a - literally - shortsighted statement - even when we are talking about screenings on a 1982 12" SD TV running on NTSC receiving the signal not via cable but "atherically" through a cheap dorm-style plug-in aerial.

 

Even if you believe that people cannot see the difference, trust me, people can actually feel the difference! And that is something I experienced with audiences over the past decades again and again. And that is what "capturing the imagination". feeling the visions of light truly means, and is the reason why cine-film is still around - not because Spielberg or those ASC/BSC/BVK/HKSC DoPs are so sclerotic and anti-progressive "not getting" Lucas and Panasony aesthetics. It's because these people are artists and hence have a more profound access to visual imagery than just progressive scan, resolution limits and colour modulation... Think about that term, 'artist'. what it encompasses, while I unsubscribe from this really :wacko:-thread.

[Javier Calderon]

Michael just addressed in a pretty accurate - if not indicative - manner my sentiments exactly. Granted I probably couldn't have explained myself quite as articulately or technically as he did . . . but, again, no matter how many times, by how many people (regardless of their level of knowledge, expertise or experience) I hear that 1) video will replace film, and/or 2) you really "can't" tell the difference between video and film . . . I get the "maybe I'm just crazy or stupid" feeling at that point because I don't feel I have ever NOT been able to tell the difference between film and video. One can tell the difference on still image capture, and one can REALLY tell the difference when the camera starts moving or panning. One can either be consciously aware of the technical differences, etc, or one can, as Michael mentioned "feel" the difference between the mediums.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Javier Calderon

[Andy_Alderslade]

2) you really "can't" tell the difference between video and film . . . I get the "maybe I'm just crazy or stupid" feeling at that point because I don't feel I have ever NOT been able to tell the difference between film and video.

 

Thats an interesting point, everyone seems to assume the average joe can't tell the difference and doesn't care.

 

When the opposite is true, the average person does see a difference, often labeling American shows like The OC, The Sopranos, Sex in the City, Ugly Betty as being 'glossier,' 'more cinematic' or 'more expensive-looking' than day-time soap operas, news coverage or many british produced dramas.

 

The average joe usually doesn't know this is why, and i've noticed that many mistakingly refer to these show as being shot in High Definition - but they certanly notice the difference, many even appreciate it.

[Walter Graff]

Recearch actually shows most consumers don't know and will pick what they think based on what they want to see. THere are many studies of this. In one from MIT where two tests wer done:

 

participants attending a multi-media performance watched film and video programming side by side, on two large screen video projection systems, both sources having been aquired in both mediums simultaniously. The results was 50% picked the correct medium. More importnatly viewers overall, wanted to believe that they preferred film, even when what they thought was film was actually video. In another test, viewers where shown thirty-second clips. They were asked to write down if the clips were made on film or video. The results showed they mostly tried to use content to tell, with only a few responding that they used the look or feel of the pieces. ANd that group was shown teh same footage as seen in the first test above, but this time on two TV sets. Most were able to determine which was film and which was video. Subjects said they wanted to prefer film and chose it more often.

 

When teh group was asked to articulate the difference between the "film look" and the "video look", most could not. Viewers did see a difference but mass audience and experts both had a difficult time pinpointing what that difference is. Most perceptions of the participants were colored by preconceived biases of which medium they thought belonged to a particular content type, such as news is shot normally in video.And when asked if they preferred movie theatres or television for viewing, the majority chose a theatre for screen size, environment, the higher picture quality, and because it is a social event.

[Michael Lehnert]

Recearch actually shows most consumers don't know and will pick what they think based on what they want to see. THere are many studies of this. In one from MIT where two tests wer done:

 

Actually, Walter, your above summarisation is in contrast to what the un-sourced media blurb you very kindly provided states, all-the-while that text also sounds like a web-journalist's read-over take-home from the executive summary of a MIT white paper!

(please don't read this as an attack on you; it's not at all! I appreciate highly that you brought that up. So, really, no misunderstanding between us, please!)

 

If the rules and customs in social scientific research and statistical evaluations havn't been fundamentally changed in the past minutes, you will find that a significant group of people were actually able to make out a distinct visual separation between different media in different set-ups, and the more the set-up was less alien to the audience, the lower the disgression between the felt expected-viewing experience and accustomed-viewing experience. Or to put it differently: the more the guinea pigs watched something they knew from home (tv set presentation of both film and video media and associated perceptions of "genre" and "quality" or rather "production values") the more the hit the home run and got the media right.

 

So actually, the audiences are able to make distinctions, and allocate samples to the right media in statistically viable quantities, whereas those going for the incorrect assumptions operate their visual perceptions on presumptions: older people on movie theatre conventions and genre-specific production values, younger people on marketing-induced ideas about technological advancements and thus associated absolute quality gains.

 

As the regards the inability to put into words what constitutes the "film look" and what constitutes the video look: if one is not a cinematographically-educated/experienced being, than putting even basic cinematographic aspects into words can be a serious challenge. How often do even we here struggle to put a scene or a cinematic motion or a take or visual reference of notion we grasped in a recently seen movie into words in order to write a opening post are make a reply "just so"? I recently had to define the "film look" in context of DI chains put on video media, and I mightily rung for every word...

 

 

Finally:

Because of my work in research at LSE and LBS and with MIT, I would kindly ask & warn anyone to use white papers or research papers for authority-inducing quotes in conversations or in public while not having read through the entire original document and especially the methodology and the researchers' background. I had to deal all-too-often with media fall-out because some goon of journo took a published scientific study, read through the executive summary, promptly misunderstood or misread it, and then carpet-bombed his ill-conceived reading flashily shortened to a even stupider headline over the global media. And suddenly your conclusion A actually means B and over time C for the public, while you get associated with D and XYZ because of some further assumptions people start to make. That can be pretty disheartening at times, especially if you have a team of young and bright students thinking stuff through over countless nights, and than you become a controversial headline. Makes you wanna do a "Britney", on occassion (uhm, bad-taste remark, that...).

 

I acknowledge after my earlier posts here, however, that I once made a false allocation as well. I was utterly certain that "The L-Word" was shot on 35 based on DVD viewing, and dito my partner (she has no ciné-background, BTW) while they actually used an F-900 set-up. Since then, I try to overplay this embarrasement by stating that the new "Fuji 900 T" really is a great film stock as seen on "The L-Word" :) .