Format for Television Series

[Book/TV Project]

I am working with a high-end chef on a cookbook. We've decided that in addition to the book, we want to do a pilot for a 1/2 hour television series. The pilot will focus on demonstration, in a studio setting, of recipes and techniques, but it will also involve footage taken at markets, at suppliers, in a restaurant kitchen, etc. While we intend to exercise influence over the concept for the series, we will involve others with appropriate expertise to actually do the pilot. The point of this post is to test a couple of our gut feelings with people who, unlike us, actually work with film and video.

 

Our inclination is to do the pilot on 16mm film. In part, this inclination comes from the fact that both of us are proficient at large format still photography. On projection, 16mm film may not offer the same sharpness and resolution of 4"x5" film, but I suspect that it is better than digital video. In addition, it is our understanding, which may or may not be correct, that 16mm film, compared to video, will show a significantly broader range of contrast.

 

If 16mm film does offer better quality, is that quality apparent on television? Does it matter whether the television broadcast is high definition? If there are good reasons to do this project on 16mm, does it matter whether we use standard or super 16mm having regard to the fact that television is the only intended market for the series?

 

What is the best process for converting 16mm film into a product intended for projection on television? Does it matter if one wants to keep open the option of selling a series to European as well as North American markets?

 

We want to do the pilot with a couple of cameras that are completely reliable. Lens quality is important. The gear will be rented. What is out there that would be a good combination without being overkill?

 

Finally, what difference does it make whether sound is recorded on the film or separately?

 

Thanks.

Edited November 8, 2004 by Book/TV Project

[Chance Shirley]

I can't answer all of your questions, but I'll take a stab at a few...

 

> On projection, 16mm film may not offer the same sharpness and

> resolution of 4"x5" film, but I suspect that it is better than digital video.

 

Absolutely. 16mm is capable of much more resolution than standard-def video.

 

> ...16mm film, compared to video, will show a significantly broader

> range of contrast.

 

Also true.

 

> If the foregoing is correct, does it matter whether we use standard or

> super 16mm having regard to the fact that television is the only

> intended market for the series?

 

I'd actually lean toward Super 16 here, with its wider aspect ratio, just in case you want the option of going to Hi-Def with the pilot at some point. If you do shoot Super 16, be sure and protect for a 4:3, standard-def transfer, too.

 

> We want to do the pilot with a couple of cameras that are completely

> reliable. Lens quality is important. The gear will be rented.

> What is out there that would be a good combination without being overkill?

 

Most rental places will probably steer you toward a newer Arri or Aaton package. Both companies make good cameras.

 

> Finally, what difference does it make whether sound is

> recorded on the film or separately?

 

I don't think anybody really records audio on film anymore. You'll probably record the audio on a separate machine using a DAT deck or some type of disk-based digital recorder.

 

Hope that helps.

 

-Chance Shirley

Birmingham, Alabama

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

If you can afford to shoot it on 16, shoot it on 16 by all means. This will help you especially if you're going to shoot in an actual working kitchen where you may not be able to control lighting very completely, and which may include lots of specular surfaces. 16mm has greater dynamic range and raw resolution than standard definition video but may show grain, more so than 35mm - you will probably need to use fairly slow stock and work at a higher light level than you would for video to ensure that the smaller format is acceptably grain-free for what must presumably be a pretty cosmetically conscious subject. Video cameras are significantly more sensitive than most film stocks. You can certainly finish 16mm to hi-def with excellent results but this will exacerbate the grain issue.

 

> What is the best process for converting 16mm film into a product intended for

> projection on television?

 

Well, you don't project it on television, you transfer it to videotape. This is one of the contradictions of shooting film for TV - you end up with a technically equivalent product, but the film certainly does give you a richness of image that's difficult (not impossible) to achieve through other means. You have the option to colour-correct and manipulate the image at this point, but the process is expensive - hundreds per hour of machine time, and you will need about three times as much time in the suite as you have material.

 

> Does it matter if one wants to keep open the option of selling a series to

> European as well as North American markets?

 

It matters, but shooting film (and finishing to a 24fps video format) actually makes it easier - PAL video system countries are used to watching 24fps motion pictures (it's just run at 25fps, hang the difference!) and all is good.

 

> We want to do the pilot with a couple of cameras that are completely reliable.

 

No technology is completely reliable, but I think it's unavoidable that the film process is considerably less reliable than just shooting tape if only by virtue of the number of steps involved and the relative delicacy of the medium. The main problem with film and reliability is that you will not know that anything has gone wrong until it may be much too late to reshoot bad material; if you're doing it quickly or on a budget, this can scupper entire productions.

 

I think at this level you should probably try to interest someone who has experience in the area; this is not something to jump into cold. My phone number is...

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

Phil is over-playing the unreliability issue of film. If it were as unreliable as he makes it out to be, no production could ever get insurance. "Oh we're shooting in a format where we might lose the entire episide... is that OK?" "Sure!"

 

Of course, it takes competence among those involved, and the equipment HAS to be properly prepped before shooting.

 

I actually did hear about an entire feature in NYC that was shot out-of-focus in Super-16 and an insurance claim was filed. Later, the entire feature was reshot in 35mm. But honestly, when one hears the rare story like that, one tends not to think that "film must be unreliable", but that someone was asleep at the wheel. Even if the problem was that video dailies were only used, all it would have taken was a simple test in prep to discover a problem, or printing the first rolls shot on the first day, all very standard procedures for this very reason: you have to know the reliability of the equipment so you can trust it, but you don't trust it without testing it yourself just like you don't jump out of an airplane with someone else's parachute (except in emergencies I guess...)

 

And honestly, the back-focus problem they had could have also happened in video and they might have missed it if they never bothered to watch the image on a decent monitor until after it was shot, etc. so it wasn't really a film vs. video issue.

 

TV shows shoot all the time on film, even some travel shows (like Michael Palin's). If anything, people will travel to the remote corners of the world with film cameras because of reliability and ruggedness, not in spite of it. But as to whether it makes sense to shoot a cooking show in 16mm, it depends on your budget and your shooting ratio, perhaps your turnaround time to delivery. But certainly it could be a very nice-looking cooking show shot on film.

[Book/TV Project]

Thanks very much.

 

I'm not worried about the reliability of film as a medium. If I were, I wouldn't use a large format camera for still photography, I'd use a digital camera. In still photography, I generally take a Polaroid or two to confirm exposure and composition. I'm more concerned about making sure that this project is done on a motion picture camera that is mechanically reliable and with ensuring that the lenses are of high quality. For large format, I use Rodenstock and Schneider lenses. I have no idea what the motion picture equivalents are, but lens quality is an important issue for us.

 

I have no problem using fairly low ISO film and lots of light, probably tungsten, for the interior shots. That should handle the grain issue.

 

The question of cost is interesting. Until a couple of days ago, we just took it for granted that cost considerations favoured video. Then a lighting designer told me that we'd get appreciably better quality, and that the pilot would actually cost less, if we used 16mm film. Hence some rethinking, and this post. If 16mm and HD video are even approximately in the same ballpark, from a cost perspective, on a pilot for a half hour programme, 16mm starts to look attractive if the format has advantages that are noticeable in the finished product.

[Book/TV Project]

Could I ask one other question, recognizing that it should perhaps be asked in the lighting forum.

 

Does anyone have observations to make about choice of format given that we will be lighting food? I gather, perhaps wrongly, that video is significantly more efficient than film when it comes to the demands for light. I'm not overly concerned about this, because we are currently using tungsten to light still photographs for this project, and contary to assertions by people who use strobes (aka flash), the world has not come to an end. But I would be interested in any observations on combining 16mm film and tungsten or HMI to light subjects that include food. If this is the wrong forum, let me know.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> "Oh we're shooting in a format where we might lose the entire episide... is that

> OK?"

 

If you're shooting episodic TV or features where you're several days at one location or on one set, if you're lucky enough to have the overnight processing and transfer, then you're fine. If it's a one-off, this could easily screw you up. I'm in the early stages of planning a short with a friend of mine and we're no more than one day on each location. Screw up even a reel's worth and you can throw the rest of the show in the bin and go home because there's no way you're reshooting it. If you're going for deals on processing and transfer you won't see the results for weeks at least. This stuff happens. Maybe not on big features and series, but it happens. This sounds like exactly such a non-big-feature situation.

 

Stills are different because the ratio is higher - you can shoot miles of stuff and pick the dozen best. You can bracket exposures, there's much less complexity in the chain, particularly where you might process in house, and you can shoot miles of stuff in the knowledge that most of it will not be used. Shooting stills on medium format is absolutely not a model for shooting motion picture film.

 

Big names in motion picture lenses are Zeiss, Cooke and Panavision, but you won't see much Panavision stuff for 16mm.

 

> I have no problem using fairly low ISO film and lots of light, probably tungsten,

> for the interior shots. That should handle the grain issue.

 

That'll help, certainly, but if you need high levels tungsten can get very wearing to work under - it pumps out heat. Consider fluorescent lighting - it's good for situations where you might be moving around a lot and it's highly efficient, so you can probably run it from the wall sockets. Common misconception is that HMI lighting is expensive - yeah, it's pricey to rent, but it's a lot less pricey than renting a generator to run the large amounts of tungsten you might otherwise need. Of course, you'll lose a stop or so filtering it back to tungsten balance, but you're still ahead.

 

> I gather, perhaps wrongly, that video is significantly more efficient than film

> when it comes to the demands for light

 

Pretty much, yes. You can shoot on 500ASA film stock and you're probably beginning to approach the sensitivity of a video camera, but you don't really want to do that. Video cameras in general are at least several times more sensitive than 200ASA film.

 

> Until a couple of days ago, we just took it for granted that cost considerations

> favoured video. Then a lighting designer told me that we'd get appreciably

> better quality, and that the pilot would actually cost less, if we used 16mm film

 

That's quite a difficult conclusion to draw in anythnig other than very specific circumstances. You'll probably get better quality, assuming you use experienced people, but you will pay for it, especially in documentary where the ratio is liable to be quite high. Consider the routes - video, you rent the camera, which may be more expensive than the film camera if it's hi def, but probably not much, shoot, and at the end of the day walk away with a tape in your hand. Film, you rent the camera, buy the stock, shoot it, process it, transfer it, spend at least several days working on all this stuff, and finally you have an apparently identical video tape. You pay a lot in cash and hassle for those nice images. The main costs for film are fairly obviously the consumables, but also the transfer, which is at least several thousand on the smallest of small shoots.

 

Film shoots generally require at least one and more usually two more members of crew in the camera department, too, so there's a staffing issue. This may only be because video camera operators are usually used to pulling their own focus, and the format promotes deep depth of field which makes this more feasible, but it's still a cost. As a general rule film will take longer although if you light the video to look equally nice, it's actually liable to require more messing about - although of course you can see what you're doing.

 

Phil

[oscar jimenez]

Could I ask one other question, recognizing that it should perhaps be asked in the lighting forum.

" Might I suggest use of kino flos? 4 banks and 10 banks come pretty handy, and low power consumption" As for other alternative format you might would think about shooting Digi Beta, as an option for HD. 

 

Does anyone have observations to make about choice of format given that we will be lighting food?  I gather, perhaps wrongly, that video is significantly more efficient than film when it comes to the demands for light.  I'm not overly concerned about this, because we are currently using tungsten to light still photographs for this project, and contary to assertions by people who use strobes (aka flash), the world has not come to an end.  But I would be interested in any observations on combining 16mm film and tungsten or HMI to light subjects that include food.  If this is the wrong forum, let me know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Michael Nash]

You might consider shooting 24P HD as an alternative to film. It's true that HD cameras don't have the same color depth and dynamic range as film, but it can look pretty darned nice and people shoot food with it all the time.

 

One thing to consider with a cooking show is using multiple cameras to cover the action in real time. This is where your footage costs will start to add up, and you'll save money with HD over 16mm.

 

Light levels really aren't an issue with either film or video (or HD video) for this project. There are film stocks and video cameras that can handle the unpredictable lighting you might encounter during the shopping sequences, and you're going to want to light your kitchen set anyway.

 

Are there any cooking shows that you like the look of? You could find out what approach they take. I haven't seen the shows in a while, but what do Jaimie Oliver and Nigella Lawson shoot on?

[Book/TV Project]

Michael,

 

Your references to Oliver and Lawson are interesting. Patricia Llewellyn pretty much revolutionized the look of cooking shows when she produced Oliver's first series. I haven't seen those programmes in some time, although I have a DVD on order, but my recollection is that they were shot in whole or in part with video cameras and that the editing was pretty frenetic. In the UK, at least, his demographic is young and brought up on music videos. The people who did Lawson's shows figured out that she is a rather attractive woman, and brought a look to the shows that - how shall I put this - has ensured that she has a strong following among British men. I'm not sure how her shows are shot.

 

I'd like to thank everyone for their comments and observations. I've now got a fairly good idea about what our options are, and of the factors that need to be considered in choosing options.

[Matt Wells]

Definitely super16.

 

I am however a film obsessive to the extent that I even shoot all my home movies on super8 (16mm on one occasion), and my holiday snapps with a Hasselblad, so basically I'm biased.

 

However, you sound like you're into pretty serious still film photography.

 

There is a series running here on the BBC at the moment called Himalya - a travel documentary series in serveral parts presented by Michael Palin. This is shot super16 and looks superb.

 

Try and get a look at it - although I don't know whether you (I assume you are in the US) can pick up our terrestial BBC channels.

 

Matt

[John Sprung]

Does anyone have observations to make about choice of format given that we will be lighting food

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What kind of food? Steaks and stews can stand more heat than salads and ice cream. Kino Flo flourescents are a good option where heat is a problem.

 

Back to your original question, 16mm is very unlikely to be as cost effective as shooting 24p HD video. With film, you have to pay for raw stock, developing, and telecine to get a day's work on tape. With 24p, you're at that point when you push eject on the camcorder. Sitcoms are pretty much all shooting HD now. A cooking show should be logistically similar, all done on a few sets, all on stage, generally lit quite bright and flat.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Book/TV Project]

Matt,

 

The fact that I know something about. and am sympathetic toward, large format still photography is precisely what I have to be careful about when making decisiions about this project :)

 

John,

 

The underlying point about a number of the posts, including yours, is that in the end the choice of format is going to depend on what kind of "cooking show" we want.

 

On the lighting side, it's interesting that there are so many references to Kino Flo. We have a couple of Dedolights and a projection attachment, which are being used for still photography in what are small sets with windowlight and/or Lowel Totalight. One of the things that we need to do is decide what to use when we move to video and need to light larger areas - Lowel Totalights, Kino Flos or perhaps even Dedo 650w light that has been softened. We aren't at that particular problem yet, but we'll get there soon enough.

 

By the way, I accidentally came across Michael Ondaatje's boook about Walter Murch a few hours ago, and have gotten engrossed in it. I wouldn't have noticed the book, let alone bought it, were it not for the fact that I have read everthing Ondaatje has written. Based on the first hundred pages, this is a pretty remarkable book.

Edited November 10, 2004 by Book/TV Project

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Himalya - a travel documentary series in serveral parts presented by Michael Palin.

> This is shot super16 and looks superb

 

Actually I thought it looked rotten compared to the other Palin travel series. Typically cautious old-school BBC cameraman, cautious transfer, and I'm going to borrow Tony Brown's description of the Vision 2 stocks in this situation - gutless. I am of course assuming it's Vision 2, probably the 500 - that's what I'd use.

 

Phil