Additional Musings On Film & HD

Max Jacoby · December 7, 2004

I don't think 'Thirteen' looked like DV at all. It was a DI, which did account for a certain 'electronic' look, but there were some scenes that were intentionally grainy and that looked quite nice.

It's kind of like the beginning of 'Collateral' where some people might think: 'Hey, HD looks really nice', until they realize that is is actually film...

Phil Rhodes · December 7, 2004

Hi,

Personally I don't think the average theatre-going audience gives two hoots. I'm sure if you quizzed people about how it looked they might be able to describe it as smooth or soft or slightly flat-looking or whatever, but if that's appropriate for the piece who cares. I've said this before, but I thought Star Wars looked fine. Bit soft maybe, but certainly not disastrous, and certainly not bad enough to worry anyone.

Phil

Mark Allen · December 7, 2004

Personally I don't think the average theatre-going audience gives two hoots.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do keep in mind that the average theatre going audience isn't going to see a movie unless a distributor picks it up and these folks are not the average theatre-going audience.

In actuality - I would be really curious to know what the average audience would think. I mean, most televisions are cranked way too high on the picture and chroma levels because they seem to sell better in the stores that way. (Though while I may say this looks worse, it does demonstrate a preference "hoot." - but just one.)

The real question is would the experience of the movie be different. If you've ever watched non industry people watch uncolortimed footage and then see the colortimed afterwards they do comment that it looks better.... so they have perceptual skills for these sorts of things - they prefer the look of DVD to VHS. They prefer the HD to the NTSC. All this tells me that they would have a greater aesthetic experience with an appropriate medium to the subject.

Then again - I could be wrong. Maybe if 5,000 people saw a movie shot in DV and 5,000 saw the same movie shot in Film - maybe there would be only a discrepancy in opinion of the experience by 20% or less.

I might be wrong about the mass audience. I don't think I'm wrong about distributors though.

All this said, if the Panavision Genesis or other cameras with larger sensors really are as impressive as people are commenting - I definitely think there is a range where it really won't make a difference to the average audience. The question is only in where is that cut off. I would gladly sacrifice 3%, maybe 5%, of what I perceive to be as quality for the convenience of HD.

December 7, 2004

I'd just like to point out that the "amateur" and "amateur" simulating market for porn is VERY significant now and alot of pornographers have gotten their fastest, most popular results from using low end miniDV and shooting in verite fashion- it umps the voyeuristic element and suggests a more raw, purer representation of sexuality as oppose to pancake base covered gym bunnies lying in blocked positions under overtly artificial, flat and photogenic chimera softbox light. And just how many hot-selling video copies on the internet alone of homemade amateur couples could you find on paysites these days?

As well as this, HUGE moneymaking sites like Seancody.com (who had job ads on respectable cinematography sites like the 2pop forum at cinemtographer.com for many months) NEED digitally originated footage as it's going onto the net paysites anyway. Coupled with the internets requirements and the voyeuoristic element mentioned in my above paragraph, why would you need to shoot on film?

Hugh Heffner may be making glamour-fetishised throwback trash heritage on 35mm (and Playboy/girl is unarguably a world renowned institution without competitors), but his tradition aside, there is no argument that the world of soft and hard core pornography (where the big business is) SWEARS by Digitally originated loyalty.

PS listen to Phil- I TOTALLY agree. i saw that Once Upon a Time in Mexico movie that Rodrigez did and nearly passed out by the amateurishness of some of that video stuff clearly running at 60 fps- nobody else batted an eyelid. I think the low standard of 2K mastered FX blockbusters has also helped make joe public immune to anything.

December 7, 2004

"I would gladly sacrifice 3%, maybe 5%, of what I perceive to be as quality for the convenience of HD."

In my view it's more like, 60% of a sacrifice for HD. But that is only my opinion.

Certainly the average Johnny Lunch Box can not appreciate the subtlties of film.

I have to wonder though if audiences are so immune to the difference between 35mm and DV, then why shoot "er," "The West Wing," "Law and Order," on 35mm?

You would think that smart business people would use DV and save a fortune! The stories and actors would all be the same.

I find it hard to believe that they shoot the "BIG" prime time shows on 35mm simply to please the handful of industry viewers like us out there. That doesn't make economic sense.

If they switch to using Canon GL1s on the West Wing I would bet the cable company would get a lot of calls. People screaming about how bad the West Wing looks on their TV all of a sudden.

Could they articulate the difference between DV and 35, probably not, yet people would certainly notice a change for the worse.

DC

December 7, 2004

Oh I should add that in my business, stock footage, we will often shoot a DV back up of a shot after we have used the 35mm film camera.

Some times I will show guests who are not in the film business samples of our library. I will put up a tight shot of a butterfly on a flower shot on 35mm on the TV, and people "oooo" and "ahhhh." Then the same butterfly shot with a 3CCD DV camera goes up on the monitor.

Most of the time people certainly prefer the colour and "movement" of the film sourced footage. But there is always some guy in the crowd, who upon seeing the DV shot, says "Oh I like that much better."

To me this is the same as saying, "I like the art in the Archie Comics much better than the Mona Lisa."

But, what can you do? To some people's eyes and perception they like video better. It's weird to me, but that's life.

DC