Jump to content

The HD Revolution?


Guest dpforum1968

Recommended Posts

Guest dpforum1968

One other major point I forgot to raise in favour of film is the extreme limitations of video, and when I say video I also mean HD.

 

Perhaps the HD folks can answer a few of these questions?

 

1) What about time lapse photography? Can you simply turn on the intervolometer on the HD camera and record true single frames? What about long exposures of say 2-5 seconds during time lapse so you get the effect of car lights streaking through the frame? Can you shoot time lapse stars in the night sky using a 10 second exposure for each frame with an HD camera?

 

I know you can capture HD stills to a hard drive on a lap top and build them into a movie, but now you've got to haul around a lap top as well.

 

2) What about vary speed shots? I recently inquired about renting an HD camera for a shoot that I wanted to use slow motion on. I was told I could shoot at 60 fps and that would be it. A film camera can shoot at a lot higher FPS than that! I need at least 120 for my applications, 200fps is even better. Can an HD Cam truly capture 200 frames of images per second?

 

So what if I want to shoot in HD for a feature and I need time lapse and vary speed shots in the production as well as real time. Will I have to shoot time lapse and vary speed on 35mm and intercut it? Next you'll tell me I need this gizmo and that gizmo to make it happen in HD, my response is just shoot film because it can do all of the above.

 

I recently watched an episode of Third Watch where they had a flash back sequence shot at about 8 fps and used lots of the camera flashes that appear on the roll when the camera is stopped. I could tell they did the entire sequence "in camera", changing the angle after each camera flash. Doing a sequence like that in HD video would be a major pain, it would take days in post to create the same effect created in half an hour on the set with a film camera.

 

My main point here is that film can shoot real time just as well as HD, and also deliver the extra benefits of being able to do time lapse and vary speed. Often with the SAME camera.

 

The elephant may be standing in the corner but he's terrified of the little mouse holding the film camera.

 

DC

 

3)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

I'm not going to disagree that there are tricks you can do with film cameras that you can't do with HD easily, but on the other hand, out of the 20 features that I shot in FILM, I've never had to do time-lapse or a speed-ramp, let alone the ones I shot in HD.

 

But if you are shooting a narrative film for a theatrical print, and can't afford a digital intermediate, then there is also a laundry list of things you can do in a digital color-correction suite with HD that you can't do in a traditional neg-pos printing system with film. Nor can you do a shot that lasts 50 minutes with film, but of course, how often does THAT come up (ignoring "Russian Ark")?

 

35mm is certainly a LOT more flexible to shoot because we have a hundred years worth of gizmos invented like Eyemos and high-speed cameras, etc. to help us out. On the other hand, a lot of the trickier stuff tends to be used more on commercials than a meat-and-potatoes narrative scene.

 

But HD can provide other forms of flexibility because of the fewer reloads. For example, I find it easier to shoot driving car dialogue scenes because I can run takes together without stopping and without reloading on the road as often. Similar to what you were saying about shooting underwater.

 

If you were shooting a feature mostly at 24 fps and you had ONE shot that had to be done at 200 fps, you'd either bring in 35mm camera for that shot or you'd bring in that new high-speed HD device that BandPro demo'd a few months ago. Either way, there wouldn't be a need to carry it for the length of the show when it could be day-played.

 

Even on my 35mm shoots, I run into the same problems. Most 35mm sync-sound cameras (not something you have to deal with when shooting stock footage) run at 60 fps max if you're lucky (Panaflexes don't even do that) so getting a camera that can do higher-speeds is an extra rental that gets hard to get a UPM to pay for, so even on my film shoots, a high-speed camera is a day-item.

 

A lot of the limitations with HD will be addressed over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1) What about time lapse photography?  Can you simply turn on the intervolometer on the HD camera and record true single frames? What about long exposures of say 2-5 seconds during time lapse so you get the effect of car lights streaking through the frame?  Can you shoot time lapse stars in the night sky using a 10 second exposure for each frame with an HD camera?

 

see: http://www.broadcam.com.au/varispeed.html

 

2) What about vary speed shots?  I recently inquired about renting an HD camera for a shoot that I wanted to use slow motion on.  I was told I could shoot at 60 fps and that would be it.  A film camera can shoot at a lot higher FPS than that!  I need at least 120 for my applications, 200fps is even better.  Can an HD Cam truly capture 200 frames of images per second?

 

see: http://www.cine-speedcam.com/news-l1cat3.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dpforum1968

Gee that was fast David I had not even left the room!

 

Yes of course you are correct that time lapse and vary speed are not used that often for a narrative film, especially drama. Nice to have high speed on an action film though.

 

And yes the long HD tapes for shooting long dialogue scenes are I'm sure a luxury.

 

Mainly I just wanted to point out that capturing 200 frames of "video" per second with an HD camera is I don't think technically possible at this stage. Where as it has been possible with film cameras for a long time :-)

 

Since you raise the point about me shooting stock footage, I would like to point out that I get two daily lists from two of the biggest stock houses in LA on a daily basis via e-mail. The list contains requests from features, MOWs, commercials, etc, for shots not currently in inventory.

 

99% of the requests start with, "Must have 35mm neg." Which tells me that the industry as a whole is not embracing the idea of shots originating on tape. Too many producers feel they'll get screwed some where down the road if they don't have a 35 neg backing up the shot.

 

Keep in mind these shot requests come from all the major studios and Madison Ave ad agencies. So it seems like the big guys are hesitant to insert stock shots that don't have a neg.

 

DC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dpforum1968

Geez nmilford that was fast also :-)

 

Ok so after reviewing the two links you kindly provided, it would appear that there is a way to do time lapse and vary speed with HD to a certain degree.

 

The one issue I couldn't find addressed on the links was the long exposures issue. Can either of these cameras give me a 10 second exposure on each frame so I can shoot stars or traffic with the streaking head lights?

 

2,000 fps is certainly nice. It looks like they've incorporated the same technology used by the stand alone high speed cameras that capture slow mo to the hard drive of a lap top, into the HD camera. Handy.

 

DC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yeah, I'm not aware of a long exposure technology. I'm sure some engineer, sitting in a dark room with a soldering iron and some nickleprint is working on it somewhere.

 

The VariCam is a pretty nice piece of kit. 4-60fps.

 

Sadly we do sell a lot more VariCams than we do XTRprods. We have a few clients who own the both though.

 

The XTRprod is my second love.

 

(The first being my ARRI 16SB)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

"Yeah, I'm not aware of a long exposure technology. I'm sure some engineer, sitting in a dark room with a soldering iron and some nickleprint is working on it "

 

 

Why not just use a digital still camera. My little Optio 555 can do 15 sec exposures at 2048x1536. You can program it to go off whenever you want. Then go into After effects or DF and convert the uncompressed .tif files to whatever you want.

 

Because 2048x1536 is bigger than HD you can even do a move on our footage in post production.

 

John Mastrogiacomo

Spectra Video

 

somewhere.

Yeah, I'm not aware of a long exposure technology.  I'm sure some engineer, sitting in a dark room with a soldering iron and some nickleprint is working on it somewhere.

 

The VariCam is a pretty nice piece of kit.  4-60fps.

 

Sadly we do sell a lot more VariCams than we do XTRprods.  We have a few clients who own the both though.

 

The XTRprod is my second love.

 

(The first being my ARRI 16SB)

Yeah, I'm not aware of a long exposure technology. I'm sure some engineer, sitting in a dark room with a soldering iron and some nickleprint is working on it somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's one thing this thread has shown me (something I have been reminded of before but occasionally can use a refresher such as this) it is that there are merits to both technologies and that there are people like myself who feel very strongly that film needs to go on and others that feel that the opposite is true. Like politics, there is a middleground here that will emerge, hopefully more in favor of film than has been the case in still photography. One hopeful sign is that a large part of prime time television continues to be shot on film despite predictions to the contrary four years ago. Digital has its place, and I welcome the improvements it has brought in film emulsion technology as well as the empowerment it has given to the low-budget filmmaker. Not only does your student filmmaker have wonderful digital cameras to chose from, but the increased pressure on Kodak and raw stock dealers has forced them to come down on prices of 16 and 35mm. Competition is good for the consumer, and I feel that continued rivalry between the silver and silicon industries will result in further exciting improvements in years to come. But enough talk. I'm going off to film a football game on VNF and there's no time like the present.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

FilmIs[ThePresent]

Is that better David Mullen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
As to the underwater question: The reason I say I would use HD underwater is for a few reasons. 1) I don't have a housing for any of my 35mm film cameras but I do have a housing for my three chip DV camera 2) On land you can re-load a film camera without any problems when you roll out, underwater you would have to surface to re-load.  This is a problem when you're at 65 feet, you can just pop up and down to re-load a film camera.  You'll get decompression sickness for sure.  The HD or DV cameras do allow you to have a 1 hour roll. 3) Size of the camera is also an issue, the new Sony HDV looks like it would fit into my housing quite nicely.  You need a much bigger housing for 35mm cameras as you have to house the batteries as well.

 

I would love to shoot 35mm underwater as well, and maybe I will one day.  But for now I think HD can work for this application.

 

DC

Having a longer roll time certainly makes sense, especially if you're shooting at depths like 65ft. The issue about the size of the camera is only really true with DV though. You may actually need a BIGGER housing for an HD camera. They're pretty long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sculptural artist can work with scrap metal, after all, and create art with it.

 

 

Like i said before... I've seen some damn good films be made with those Fisher Price Pixel Vision Cameras. I don't think any working professionals question your artistic talent for making the best of what you have David. That's what making movies is. Besides your thousands of posts have been really helpful. Thanks!

 

I think everyone is just afraid that if we don't keep reaffirming the virtues of film, or that producers believe HD is actually superior, all of us who love film(and sometimes get stuck shooting digital, or have a need for it at certain points) will wake up without any more film stock. Or, more likely, it exists in a niche market, but is so expensive no one can afford it, and then we all have to shoot digital.

 

I am not independently wealthy, and when i write a script, i have to work damn hard to pay for my film stock and processing, when i could easily shoot dv, or some mid range video. It wouldn't take much to price me out of film entirely. So its troubling when producers or directors don't care anymore, because a lot of us do. The day I bury my Bolex will be a sad day indeed. Remove the spring and let it finally rest in peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think it's VERY important to keep educating producers on the realities of digital and where it fails compared to film (and where it doesn't). It's one reason I participate in panel discussions and student talks (and on web forums...)

 

But we will only have credibility out there if we are perceived to not hold a bias against digital, but have based our opinions on honest facts about flexibility, costs, archivability, and image quality... and not emotions like nostalgia and romanticism. And that we avoid slipping into hyperbole or repeating hype and propaganda put out by either side of the issue.

 

Film continues to hold its own in mainstream studio production and will for years to come, exceptions like "Collateral" and "Attack of the Clones" not withstanding. But we will also see more and more important projects testing out the digital camera waters. But honestly, for the most part, film costs are not a major hindrence for a big-budget film, so why fix what ain't broke?

 

It's really the indie world operating below the 1-mil dollar budget mark that you will see major increases in digital shooting as a cheaper alternative to 35mm. However, this year has seen a resurgence in Super-16 shooting thanks to the Vision-2 stocks and some people losing interest in the digital hype, and if 2K digital intermediates and transfers to HD can come down enough, Super-16 will have a healthy marketshare for a while to come, or at least, until high-quality low-cost HD cameras become very commonplace (and current HDV does not look like it will be the solution...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we will only have credibility out there if we are perceived to not hold a bias against digital, but have based our opinions on honest facts about flexibility, costs, archivability, and image quality... and not emotions like nostalgia and romanticism.  And that we avoid slipping into hyperbole or repeating hype and propaganda put out by either side of the issue.

 

 

 

I find myself somewhere in the middle on this one.

 

The science/rational vs. non-science/irrational brings up big ???. There is as much mudslinging and underhanded deception coming from the video camp. Money, in the end, will be the deciding factor. People will do what is cheaper....path of least resistance and all that.

 

What's amazing to me is that a film like Bela Tarr's Santantango can get made. Shot entirely in 35mm B/W and running over 6 hours. Should be a model for all film students. ; )

 

What's killing 16mm or super 16mm film for much of the independent world is a crappy economy and lack of funding opportunities and conservative distributors and a dire exhibition situation. I have a friend who shot a brilliant 16mm narrative film which had a limited thearical run (self-distributed), and was picked up for a short run on the Sundance Channel. It has barely managed to cover the production costs. A recent investors help with blowing the film up to 35mm may give it a second life - check out http://www.funnyhahafilm.com/

 

I agree with you David that people should know the facts about each medium, but this whole techno cross comparison gets old (resolution, color reproduction, and latitude, etc) and presents a very limited approach to the arguement.

 

The fact is, the video industry is a destructive practice in its inability to establish a common standard and the equipment being manufactured with planned obsolence in mind. The testament to the film apparatus is, as someone else mentioned, that you can shoot with 50 year old camera and 30 year old projector with good results. (That we think that's a "long time" is the funny thing.)

 

Tools are tools but they are not "neutral".

 

 

Regards,

Alain LeTourneau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

I watch 35mm dailies every morning and there is no doubt it is the best format.

 

NONETHELESS, HOWEVER, THAT SAID, To deny the fact that HD is the next logical format is absurd. HD will absolutely supersede film! Anybody born in this century should acknowledge this. The rise of technology in the past century is nothing like anybody has ever seen. It?s a joke to think digital film making will not take over the industry within the next 20 or 30 years (probably much earlier).

 

HD looks good. 35mm film looks better. HD will absolutely look better than 35mm film eventually. Modern technology always gets better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The majority of feature films made use RENTED cameras, so the obsolescence rate of video equipment, other than the fact that it keeps rental prices high, is not much of a discouraging factor in whether a producer decides to make his feature digitally or in film. And their main focus is making a return on the investment within two years. Plus the honest truth is that these HD productions are probably NOT going to disappear, disintegrate, or be unviewable within the next few decades. They may not look as good compared to what HD can deliver a decade from now, but that's another matter. Most producers aren't basing decisions on the tastes of FUTURE audiences.

 

So the argument that video tape formats come and go too quickly is hardly going to sway a producer trying to decide what type of camera to rent for their next feature. You'd be better off demonstrating how the shoot may go smoother plus look better if the project was shot on film. For example, an ASC member was telling me about a TV movie that had decided to shoot in HD but a week before the shoot, changed their mind when they realized that shooting a whole show on the beach in harsh sunlight and sand with a video camera and a lot of cabling was probably not the best idea and may slow them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I love film but when the day comes when a digital camera has just as much latitude as film, does just as many functions, is just as flexible, produces a great image that rivals 35mm, is cheaper to shoot, etc. then I'm not going to reject it just because it ain't film.

 

The distant future IS going to be all-digital; the goal should be to make sure that this leads to an improvement in the way movies look and are shot, not a loss of quality. Partly this means resisting early adoption of anything that threatens to replace film, BUT it also means working with this early digital technology so we can push manufacturers to keep improving it. Because no one just invents something that is perfect.

 

Look at film technology history. We replaced 3-strip Technicolor with 35mm color negative even though the quality of the color was WORSE. But it allowed studios to use their regular Mitchells and develop the film in-house rather than deal with the Technicolor Corporation as a co-producer providing cameras, cameramen, lab work, etc. And even though there was a drop in quality, color negative technology allowed the explosion of widescreen formats in the 1950's, from CinemaScope, Cinerama, 70mm, etc. Even Technicolor knew a decade earlier that the "future" was in a single color negative.

 

We are experiencing a similar transitional period today. All of us have seen the problems with digital intermediate technology but honestly, if film is going to have a future in the next decade, the digital intermediate will be key to its survival. And it WILL get better. So while we should all be fighting any attempts to permanently make 2K a standard for all digital cinema work, the solution won't be to just not do any digital intermediate work until it can all be done at 4K. It's work being done at 2K that is developing the tools necessary to make 4K more practical. We have to go THROUGH the problem of digital technology rather than think we can go AROUND it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everybody!

 

Of course HD is better than SD. Theoretically. I´ve been to a Panasonic HD-Presentation in Germany and everybody went "Oh" & "Ah" looking at the new flatscreen displays in the lounge. In fact they were only SD-PAL-flatscreens. PAL is pretty good already. And a lot of the appearance of sharpness comes from the quality of the footage itself. And that is pretty lousy in most of the programs on TV anyway. I wonder if a porn-consumer would bother if the flick was shot on HD. And a lot of people buy big screens to show off and not to get a better image quality. I doubt that HD will create a larger market for quality images. In Europe there is only one HD channel and no plans so far to start adittional ones. German pay TV is airing most of the movies on Low-Res and high compression and gets away with it. Only sports and a few movies get full PAL on pay TV.

 

Best regards!

Schuh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern technology always gets better.

 

 

Modern technology may have its benefits, but one cannot view the benefits in a vaccum which is what the modern world is most comfortable doing at this point.

 

Here's one example: "Sure CCDs are toxic, but I don't have to work in that factory".

 

 

Regards,

Alain LeTourneau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everybody!

 

I doubt that HD will create a larger market for quality images. In Europe there is only one HD channel and no plans so far to start adittional ones.

Best regards!

Schuh

 

 

Schuh, like many of the postings on this particular list you are either repeating what you heard in the pub or maybe read in a pro film magazine! Where else do you get such off the mark information:)

 

The reality is the following plans have been announced:

French commercial TV network TF1, to transmit HD digital terrestrial system by next autumn;

 

French pay TV group Canal Plus premium channels end 2005.

 

French TPS plan to transmit their premium channels in HD via satellite by the end of 2005

 

German pay TV group Premiere, which promises to offer HD satellite and cable broadcasts by the end of 2005;

 

U.K. satcaster British Sky Broadcasting, overing all of Europe with a wide ranging HDTV service in 2006. (all 800 staff are undergoing training in early 2005)

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other major point I forgot to raise in favour of film is the extreme limitations of video, and when I say video I also mean HD.

 

Perhaps the HD folks can answer a few of these questions?

 

1) What about time lapse photography? 

2) What about vary speed shots?  I recently inquired about renting an HD camera for a shoot that I wanted to use slow motion on.  I was told I could shoot at 60 fps and that would be it.

 

So what if I want to shoot in HD for a feature and I need time lapse and vary speed shots in the production as well as real time. 

Doing a sequence like that in HD video would be a major pain, it would take days in post to create the same effect created in half an hour on the set with a film camera.

 

The elephant may be standing in the corner but he's terrified of the little mouse holding the film camera.

 

DC

 

3)

 

 

In response to some of your questions regarding digital...

 

*Timelapse is available on HDW750 cameras as well as varicam.

 

*Timelapse will be available on Genesis, using RAM buffer in the SRW1, down to 1 fps I believe.

 

*Since tape is relativly cheap and one is unlikely to leave a $100k camera unattended some people opt for recording real time if the duration of shooting is under 15 minutes.

 

*For long exposures digital still cameras will be the way to go. You don't need a hard drive

A large format digital back like the Imacon Ixpress 528C, can hold 850 frames (each frame 16bit 22 megapixel) With such a large frame you can leave the moco pan and tilt head at home. Benifit of digital timelapse is that you can replay to see exactly what happened in frame (if you have left the camera unattended)

 

*Digital slo mo is at a reasonable level of quality, but not up to film.

However latest Photron will do 3000 frames per second at 3k. These industrial cams need some work in post and really should not be considerd for feature work unless the shot and audience benifits from very high frame rates/low cost of shooting/instant replay.

 

*Next generation full res HD cams will do 60p don't be surprised if they go to 120p by 2006.

 

*Ikegami has a 120fps full res HD camera tethered to hard disk at NAB.

 

*The flash back sequence you descibe is just where HD and digital effects go hand in hand.

 

DPs (with majority of experience in film) should not be expected to pick up a professional digital knowledge and street smarts overnight.

 

Digital stills photographers have adjusted quickly as they are multiskilled producer shooter and post producer. The learning curve is much faster.

 

 

Mike Brennan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to following topics raised in this thread:

 

"Film will last a long time"

Not always, If The British Film Institute can't get it right who can? Check this out..http://www.hd24.com/parliamentry_report.htm

and

"we are all aware that every color image on film fades with time,.." Vittorio Storaro http://www.imago.org/aic/01_book/storaro_eng.htm

Like David Mullen, I have mulitple clones of my HD work as well as 35mm neg. Best of both worlds!

 

"Video is Artless"

Art is what ends up on screen, the tools to make it are irrelevant.

Thousands of digital stills photographers have switched to digital. Did they became artless overnight?

 

 

"Trying to Make video look like film?"

In resepct to making video look like film it may surprise US friends that in the UK we have been doing it for TV for over a decade, the day editor Josh Halil removed and delayed fields for a channel 4 series. Bingo! the stoboscopic motion gave it a prime time drama feel.

 

The drop in resolution made it look like 16mm rather than 35mm, but since all UK drama is shot on 16mm it worked. Commissioning editors, critics and the public thought it was filmic. It culminated in the series called "The Lakes" where the producer actually placed a notice in Broadcast Magazine stating it wasn't film.

 

For years we made a fortune shooting high end docs for the USA, we were making them look like film only we were doing it with electronic capture and post, a tool set much better suited to our workflow and creative ambitions.

 

But this so called "film effect" was more difficult to impliment in Prime Time drama in the US as 35mm was used and the drop in resolution would have been a giveaway that it wasn't "normal" drama.

 

With HD there is no need to deinterlace to create the stroboscopic motion so the resolution remains high and is more like 35mm than 16mm.

 

In the UK over the years we have done such a good job making SD look good that there was less pressure to shoot HD.

 

Even BBC, spending $400k per hour on some dramas shoot digi beta and deinterlace! Extra money shooting film is a waste and better spent in front of the camera.

 

So many of the opinions expressed on this list regarding the look of video, however strongly felt do not reflect the significant experience we have had in Europe.

 

Mike Brennan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schuh, like many of the postings on this particular list you are either repeating what you heard in the pub or maybe read in a pro film magazine! Where else do you get such off the mark information:)

 

etc......

The reality is the following plans have been announced:

French commercial TV network TF1,  to transmit HD  digital terrestrial system by Mike Brennan

 

Hi Mike!

 

That´s good to hear. I´m still wondering if the majority of the program-picture-quality will get any better through HDTV. Game shows will look the same on HD or SD. A lot of people watch telly on average TVs with really bad settings of contrast, color and brightness. A THX-like standard for consumer TVs would be more of an improvement than HD. Nevertheless HD-Recording offers far better images than Digibeta, even for SD-Television.

 

Thanks for your reply!

 

Schuh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...