Additional Musings On Film & HD

[Guest dpforum1968]

You'll notice in my title I didn't even say film "vs" HD, just film "&" HD. :-)

 

Last night I was at Deluxe Toronto supervising a 35mm to SD D-Beta transfer of more of my "stuff."

 

At the end I was making some dubs in their big dub room and my shots where up on the SD monitor above the D-Beta deck. Right beside that monitor was the HD monitor playing back "Sue Thomas FB Eye." This show is shot in Toronto on HD.

 

I have to say, without trying to run down HD, that my 35mm SD looked better than the HD. The 35mm colours where so brilliant and vibrant, compared to the more flat look of the HD. Now before you start freaking out :-) There was another guy on my other thread who pointed out how nice 35mm looks on a production monitor even in SD, compared to HD. Several of the Deluxe dub room operators commented on my more brilliant looking 35mm.

 

Now alias I'm seeing more and more in recent days how HD video is taking over, as Sue Thomas is shot on HD and so is "Doc," which is also shot in Toronto and posted at Deluxe. There are obvious time and cost saving benefits to shooting TV shows on HD, of course there's no disputing the math. Oh well I guess only time will tell what the "fate" of film will really be.

 

I also had a look today at the new Sony three CCD HDV camera that just came out. I was not very impressed with this unit. The picture output just looks like slightly higher res video, it's certainly much closer to the look of DV, than "filmish" HD cameras. Of course I realize this is to be expected, it's a $3000.00 USD camera, not a monster custom made by Sony for Mr. Lucas.

 

The other thing about that camera that bothered me was that it was very light and felt cheaply built. Again I know, $3000.00.

 

And no this is not another "one is better than the other" post, merely a professional observation.

 

Peace to all.

 

DC

[Michael Nash]

Even two different 35mm shows could exhibit the differences you describe between your footage and Sue Thomas. There are so many little subtle controls to color throughout the production pipeline that sometimes it's a wonder a single show can maintain a consistent look from episode to episode. Not to mention the setup of the monitors you may have been viewing...

 

I've seen Sony HD look plenty color saturated and rich, although I don't think anyone disputes that film has more color depth than current HD cameras. And no, I'm not trying to stir up the debate either. I love both formats and prefer to be as honest as possible about the strengths and weaknesses of each.

[Brad Grimmett]

I love both formats and prefer to be as honest as possible about the strengths and weaknesses of each.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahhh, if only everyone felt that way we could put "THE ONGOING DEBATE" to rest.

[Guest dpforum1968]

Well this particular thread isn't so much an "ongoing debate" it's more of a "observations of one "and" the other."

 

Even the world's number one film supporter, that's me, can see the cost savings involved with HD. Obviously that's a big plus in favour of HD. Not to mention not having to worry about registration issues, scratching, neg dirt, and short loads.

 

In the end for me...beauty wins out. And that of course is in the eye of the beholder :-)

 

DC

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The problem is that for many people their feelings of how good it does or does not look are largely irrelevant. It's not little it's a little bit more expensive - it's tens or hundreds of times more expensive. I don't think most people really contend that it doesn't look better, for whatever reason.

 

I presume Kodak do somewhere have a "film that's not made from silver" department, and I wish it the very best of luck.

 

Phil

[Mike Brennan]

Hi,

I don't think most people really contend that it doesn't look better, for whatever reason.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. The (lack) of vibrant look is down to the reduced colour pallett most ccd cameras have in my view, only 12bit A/D and 8 bit recording.

But is this a big problem?

 

Apparently not or Kodak would have produced a test to prove that the increased colour pallette of film affects the viewer:)

Fortunatley for Sony our colour memory is very poor.

 

The Genesis side by side test is interesting, have you seen it?

Steven Poster says he couldn't tell the difference.

However the subject matter in the test didn't reach into the depths of skin tone gradations where film excells....

The new Genesis will have 14bit AD which would help but judging from digital stills cameras 16 bit is the benchmark to get close to films tonal/colour range/gradation.

 

Until then, as always has been the case, side by side comparisons from Sony have been few and far between.

 

Mike Brennan

[Guest dpforum1968]

I suspect Sony won't be putting out any tests that make them look bad. Nor do I expect Kodak to put out any tests that make them look bad either :-)

 

Kodak should be offering me 50K feet of free film to shoot my first feature with for all the defense and promotion of their product I dish out. Where is that Kodak rep when I need him?

 

But Phil's point is well taken. If you added up the cost savings of using HD over film on a TV series that ran for 10 years, the savings would be in the millions for sure.

 

Maybe film will be relegated to features and commercials? In these two cases the cost of the film stock is really irrelevant. On a 50 million dollar movie, 100K for raw stock is nothing.

 

If ER, Third Watch, and The West Wing, switch to HD that will really be a big deal.

 

DC

[Mark Allen]

When producers ask me the difference between film and HD - this is what I tell them trying to stick as much as possible to things I perceive as facts:

 

 

Film will capture more gradients in the skin tones which is often perceived as "quality."

 

HD will smooth out the subtleties in skin tones which is sort of like having an invisible mist filter on the lense. While some actresses might love this, it takes away some of the reality. (Note that I had a DP once say he could remove this and he tried and it never worked, it's true with my hgh end digital still camera too.)

 

With HD you have to be more careful with your specular and whites on the set - You have to always be concerned with too high lumanent contrast which can create blow outs which are often perceived as "low quality."

 

When you have an HD monitor on set, you know exactly what you are getting and you know that you have it safe on tape - the lab can't ruin it. With film, you rely on experience of knowing what it will look like and there is always the chance a lab or some chemical malfunction or unseen camera malfunction will harm the footage.

 

In HD you can take more shots because the tape is so much less expensive than film.

 

 

Bottom line for me is that the process for shooting HD is preferred, but the quality of film is preferred. Sometimes the process matters more than the look because the process will end up affecting the final performance.

 

Someone in the forums here once argued that we are used to the film look and that preference will fade overtime. While I find that an interesting argument - I think audiences will always respond more to what more closely approximates how our eyes see things - and regard that as more impressive.

 

If there were an HD camera which looked the same as 35mm, but retained all the production advantages of HD - would any really say "no, I would rather use the 900 or 950 because I like the look better."

[Mark Allen]

I just ran across this and thought is was an appropriate link to this discussion:

 

http://digitalcinemasociety.org/TechTips.p...=Fact+Sheet+101

[Guest dpforum1968]

Hey that's a very informative link, thanks.

 

I actually thought HD was a lot easier and cheaper before I read that link.

 

So you would save money using HD, but, not as much as I thought you would. The main savings is the film stock, looks like most of the other stuff remains close to the same with film.

 

At Deluxe Toronto they are still colour correcting Sue Thomas FB Eye through the DaVinci system just like they would with film, even though they are shooting HD. So they are not saving much on colour correction time.

 

The biggest savings for them would be the cost of HD tape vs film stock.

 

Kodak....how will you fix this "problem" :-)

 

DC

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Obviously to get similar results, you need similar resources. However I think there's a lot more of an option to cut back on crew and equipment with any video format - if you're doing a documentary, or whatever style of low-impact filmmaking works for the production. You can stick an F900 on your shoulder and go out shooting with it for 50 minutes with zero intervention; a film camera is always going to require half a dozen crew around it, unless you're willing for things like servicing the camera to take up a lot of time. There's more options.

 

Phil

[Mike Brennan]

Hi,

 

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Obviously to get similar results, you need similar resources. However I think there's a lot more of an option to cut back on crew and equipment with any video format - if you're doing a documentary, or whatever style of low-impact filmmaking works for the production. You can stick an F900 on your shoulder and go out shooting with it for 50 minutes with zero intervention; a film camera is always going to require half a dozen crew around it, unless you're willing for things like servicing the camera to take up a lot of time. There's more options.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes the info relates to adopting a traditional 35mm camera technique of working in features.

The production cost benifits of less insurance, striking sets same day ect ect are not detailed.

In respect of number of lights you need half the amount of light for same depth of field when using 2/3 inch digital cameras.

 

In my view as more producers and crew become used to shooting digital an improved pre and post workflow will develop. Also benifits/disadvantages are size of budget dependant.. where compromises such as recording sound on camera have a bigger % impact on post budget for a $300k movie than for a $5m movie.

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Guest dpforum1968]

Well you need a half dozen crew around a film camera on a big shoot but plenty of docs are done on film where the filmmaker shoots himself and does all the set ups himself.

 

That link provided about HD states the following:

 

MYTH: You need less Crew to shoot HD.

FACT: The same number of crew in every department is necessary to do the level of quality you expect. Only the Camera Department has a loss of the Loader but the necessary gain of an HD Engineer or ?DIT? Digital Imaging Technician at a pay rate between ?A? Camera Operator and the DP.

 

A big shoot done on HD, will need just as many people as a big shoot done on 35mm.

 

For me, when I'm shooting stock, HD makes zero sense. An HD camera capable of matching 35mm film is just too huge to pack around through airports etc. I can use a miniature 35mm film camera and pack it neatly in my checked luggage. There are no electronics in it so I don't worry about damage plus it's well padded. The camera takes a 200 ft load which is perfect for shooting stock shots, you only do 12-15 second shots at each set up, so a one hour load is never needed.

 

Then I have the shot on a 35mm neg which can be re-scanned into any format I want, plus used for theatre projection. And since we supply shots for features and all the way down to corporate video, HD simply isn't as versatile as film for this application. HD does of course have benefits for drama, there's no disputing that.

 

Plus there's the incredible cost of buying or renting a top of the line HD camera vs a good quality "B" 35mm film camera that can produce stunning stock shots.

 

I also have concerns about taking one of those pricey HD cameras into some of the environments we go to that are pretty harsh. This year alone I've shot out in the desert for three days, and the BC rain forest for two days. One place was hot and dry, the other wet and damp. The 35mm camera is a work horse that isn't bothered by its environment at all. I haven't used HD, so I can't say if they are as "rugged" as film cameras or not, but they don't appear to be from what I've seen. A motion picture camera is a pretty simple mechanical device, an HD camera is loaded with electronics.

 

It still amazes me how much money needs to be spent on an HD camera just so it can produce an image as good as a 50 year old film camera loaded with today's film stock.

 

I've looked at HDV, and it's a million miles away from matching 35mm scanned in a HD suite. I know there is no argument with that point on this forum.

 

So again, HD may be fine for some apps, certainly not for mine.

 

DC

[Jonas]

Someone in the forums here once argued that we are used to the film look and that preference will fade overtime.  While I find that an interesting argument - I think audiences will always respond more to what more closely approximates how our eyes see things - and regard that as more impressive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's interesting Mark. I often wonder whether movie-goers really distinguish between film and HD - and if they really care.

 

I actually think that if Cameron chose to shoot Titanic - even in DV - and said it was a result of artistic reasons in order to make it more realistic - moviegoers would accept it.

 

My girlfriend always tell me to shut up when I rant about whether a movie was shot on film, dv or hd. She always says: who cares?

 

Actually, after I got interested in filmmaking I now find it hard to enjoy a film.

I will look for all kind of technical aspects like the lighting, camera movements etc.

It's kind of sad!

Edited December 6, 2004 by Jonas

[John Sprung]

- I think audiences will always respond more to what more closely approximates how our eyes see things -

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

.... Yes, until we learn how to bypass eyes and ears, and somehow deliver a pre-recorded experience directly to the brain. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

The Genesis side by side test is interesting, have you seen it?

Steven Poster says he couldn't tell the difference.

However the subject matter in the test didn't reach into the depths of skin tone gradations where film excells....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I saw it at CineGear this summer. I couldn't tell the difference. I tried to guess, and got it wrong. Did Steve say that it "didn't reach into the depths of skin tone"? What would you like to see that they didn't do? Of course we can't expect generic tests to cover everything, each show should do its own, just as we still do with film. But if there's something that a lot of people think was missing, we can suggest it for additional tests. They'll be showing it again at HPA in February, which would be ideal for showing some new material.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Mark Allen]

That's interesting Mark. I often wonder whether movie-goers really distinguish between film and HD - and if they really care.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I absolutely believe people can sense a difference. In fact I had to study this for a project I worked on a few years ago. But for all the research, some of the most telling moments were just being at a Best Buy when the HD TVs first came out and non industry people would walk up to it and say to their wife or son or husband, "Wow - look at at that picture. That sure is beautiful. Look at the hills there." Once I heard this I started hanging around it casually and I would ask people acting like I didn't know, "What do you think makes it so different?" Most of the time they'd say "It just seems more life like." If they can tell the diffrenc between SD and HD, it means they can perceive a technical difference and it has an affect on their aesthetic experience.

 

Now - that said - an aesthetic experience is just that and the filmmaker gets to be in control of that - but the choices he or she makes should resonate from the subject matter and be an intentional part of the mood of the project. So - "Thirteen" and "Pieces of April" - would these movies have been better on 35mm instead of DV? Those films? I don't really think so - I think you could feel the energy of the small camera, the looser flow. "Charlotte Sometimes" - now that movie might have been better on film had the budget been there - I think it was such a quiet movie that it would have been better to have more clarity with the actors in the quiet moments. There were a lot of still moments which would been better served by more visual range.

 

"Spy Kids 2" - shot on HD - I don't think it made a bit of difference - in fact, I think HD might have even been a better choice than film because he really wanted that color pop and smoothing skin tons, occasional blow out - all those were fine. However, "Once upon a time in Mexico" (same director also shot on HD) - Personally the story seemed to be better suited for film from an aesthetics stand point.

 

So - Titanic. If it had been shot on DV it would not have had the same impact - it would have had to be shot totally different. Maybe if it were told from the perspective of the folks in the underbelly of the ship - something a little more fervent.

 

Obviously all of this is just my opinion based on what reactions I have and what I've seen other have. In keeping with the spirit of the topic here, I'm simply saying that there's a time and a place for any look if it makes sense with the story - but I do think audiences are going to be responding to that whether they can tell you why or not - it makes an aesthetic difference.

 

 

When the digital mediums are capturing a range like the analog mediums - then they'll be providing enough leeway to make whatever "look" you want and the choice can be made by convenience. I, by the way, am a huge advocate of the digital intermediate process even if that is being done with HD on D5. I think having that type of color control for your projects is supremely desireable. Also, I find that the HD on D5 has enough range to hold most of what I would want from the film anyway.

[Jonas]

Mark,

 

Maybe they sense a difference especially when you ask for it - but I think it's something the audience trust is a decision better left for the filmmaker to decide. They just want to be entertained. Think about your wife, girlfriend - your parents etc. Have you ever heard them say: Man, they should have shot the movie on film/Hd instead. (not talking about Dogme's shaky camera movements)

 

Of course you should opt for the medium that pleases you. But don't make the decision based on what the audience think. If it's entertaining - they'll eat it raw. That's my opinion.

Edited December 6, 2004 by Jonas

[Mark Allen]

Mark,  Maybe they sense a difference especially when you ask for it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm only "defending" here just to clarify that I would not ask people about their impressions when in Best Buy - they were just talking among themselves until I'd but in and ask why they felt that way. My assertion is simply that people are affected by the aesthetics whether they can label it or not. I've even heard kids ask why Soap Operas look different than movies.

[Jonas]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Mark.

 

I guess 'aesthetics' is a question of the eyes of the beholder.

[Guest dpforum1968]

Even the average porn viewer knows that those "films" made by Playboy with the 35mm production quality are much better "looking" than the cheap video stuff. Of course I hear this from people that watch porno movies, I don't have any direct experience of my own.

 

DC

[Ed Nyankori]

Even the average porn viewer knows that those "films" made by Playboy with the 35mm production quality are much better "looking" than the cheap video stuff.  Of course I hear this from people that watch porno movies, I don't have any direct experience of my own.

 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At one of my clients desks there is a quote "The difference between erotica and porn is the lighting"

[Guest dpforum1968]

Very good I like that!

 

Lighting can always make a huge difference.

 

Believe it or not I worked for a year as a producer for Canada's version of HBO, we call it TMN(The Movie Network). One of the guys there had the job of making promos for porno films, he would watch porn movies all day in the office and get paid for it!

 

Now there's a job your high school guidance counselor won't tell you about :-)

 

DC

[Michael Most]

So - "Thirteen" and "Pieces of April" - would these movies have been better on 35mm instead of DV? 

 

"Thirteen" wasn't shot on DV, it was shot on Super 16mm film.

 

Perhaps you can't always sense a difference?

<_<

[Mark Allen]

"Thirteen" wasn't shot on DV, it was shot on Super 16mm film.

Perhaps you can't always sense a difference?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ha! Good call. Interesting, I was told it was shot on DV when I went to see it at the theater and it certainly had that look. Apparently the director had been the Production Designer on "Three Kings" and was really inspired by how much post processing they had done to create vastly different looks. She decided to try that trick herself.

 

If you watch the film (in the theater at least) the end result of her look is basically that of DV - with all it's blow outing glory. So - that certainly proves the point that if you shoot in a medium that is superior, you can downgrade it. If it doesn't prove that point, it would prove that super 16 looks just awful when blown up. Knowing now that it was shot on super 16, I'm sort of shocked that she went so far with the the look - I thought she was doing her best to try to salvage the look of the film.