If it's "obsolete" can it still be good?

[Annie Wengenroth]

My friend and I are in this ongoing debate that seems to be having a considerable effect on an otherwise amiable relationship. You see, I am completely smitten with the DVX-100a. This has spawned many a heated argument about how much the camera and format matters when you're trying to make the best damn movie you can.

 

I realize some people on this forum- since we all have a passion for cinematography-might be slightly biased! But I'm curious to hear your thoughts anyway. My argument is basically this:

 

1. To an extent, NO. The equipment/format does NOT make the film. I can appreciate something shot on super-8 just as I can appreciate something shot on 35, or HD, or at 24P, or whatever format you choose. And yeah, maybe the most important thing is the story, just like my writer/director friend insists. I appreciate a good story because I come from an animation and writing background. But again, I like the look too, and I think that both of these things in combination, are what make a good film (or animation).

2. Having said this, cinematography is obviously a part of the production as well, and I feel that if a film looks bad because it was shot on inferior equipment, then it therefore is *not* as good overall- people might not like it as much and it will lose its impact.

3. In other words, isn't there a *reason* why people don't shoot feature-length movies on $300 camcorders, or am I missing something??

 

:rolleyes: What do you even say to people who insist that It's All About the Story, at all costs, and that to place importance on format is a frivolous waste of time?

 

Again, I'm probably biased because 1. my primary interest as a filmmaker is in cinematography so I'm a sucker for something that looks good, and 2. I work at the film and video building at my school in the equipment checkout cage and refuse to believe that it doesn't matter if you shoot on a 6-year old DVCPro or a new DVX-100a. (Just ask me how many older DVCPro models I take off the shelf every day versus how many students come in asking about the "nice new 24P cameras!")

 

Another side of this is that I look at buying video cameras like buying a computer. It *will* become obsolete, to a pretty big extent, after let's say, 4 years or so. In theory, yeah, you could continue on with Windows 95, but people would probably start snickering at you behind your back. Similarly, since the miniDV format has come down in price, not many people shoot on hi-8 anymore. (at least that's the impression I get...correct me if I'm wrong)

 

However, my friend maintains that I'm thinking about it the wrong way, that nothing is obsolete, and it shouldn't matter. Well, I can't shake the belief that it does matter. Shouldn't you always choose the best tools you can get your hands on to get the job done? What do you think? Should I just pocket my 3 grand and go get a little camcorder from Best Buy, or should I maintain my status as Equipment Snob? :P

 

Sorry this is so long, I just wonder how other people see the technology of video equipment and how they think it will affect us all. I have been following the threads about HD and find them very interesting.

[John Pytlak RIP]

As I said in another thread: "Different horses for different courses".

 

Does the format fit the story? What are the drawbacks of the format for production, post production, "repurposing" the images, and future use and display? What quality and "look" do you want?

[Jonathan Spear]

hey,

 

good question. in my humble opinion, i'd have to say that good equipment won't necessarily make a great movie (and vice versa). it's all about choosing the most appropriate format to tell your story.

 

perfect example: the blair witch project vs. blair witch 2:book of shadows

 

pro's, please correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the first one was shot on a CP16 and some entry level camcorder. it looked like crap and i think that was the look they were going for.

on the other hand, the final product scared the HELL out of millions of people.

it worked!!!

 

the sequel however was a 'prettier' film and was for the most part shot on 35mm. it desperately lacked that amateur-ish grittiness the first film had.

...and (IMHO) it sucked!!!

 

i can't imagine seeing a film like the matrix if it were shot on a Hi-8 camcorder, nor can i imagine a film like 'el mariachi' shot in super35 with elaborate camera rigs and expensive panavision cameras and lenses.

 

each film should tell a different story and use the format which best suits the director/DOP/producer's vision.

 

and what's so cool about making movies using only the most expensive equipment money can buy (or rent...hint hint ;) ) anyway?

that would be like choosing to only date supermodels.

 

i'll take that whimsical looking beauty who hangs out with the band geeks any day of the week.

 

:D

[Nate Downes]

Might I point out that not all productions work with all formats. I have a script I'm working on that would not work, period, if shot on 35mm or DV. It looks right if done on 16mm or Super8. I have another that I would not dare shoot on anything but 35mm or 70mm. It just lends too much to the story.

 

After all, Blair Witch was done on a Hi8 and antique 16mm camera, not even Digital tech there.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Certainly you want to get the best you can get your hands on. Get the best you can afford now and make your movies now.

 

Personally I find it a bit funny when people compare 24p camcorders to 60i camcorders. Because I'm thinking, what the hell else do you want it for if you aren't going to shoot 24p? 24p exists because it emulates a film look, plain and simple. A film look or film itself, in my book, is necessary probably for 95% of anything I would care to shoot. I don't shoot sports and news and I feel documentaries and EPK's benefit from a film look. Even infomercials can get a boost in legitimacy from a film look.

 

This obsoletion issue is another strong reason to rent if you can. It's interesting what your friend says about nothing being truly obsolete. That's true to a point. Equipment becoming obsolete to the majority of professionals is what it's really about. There's many obsolete film and video cameras but an artist can still find use for them. This reminds me of a band called Treewave, they use old Atari's, old PC's, old printers and all kinds of obsolete stuff to make music. They litteraly mic up a dot-matrix printer to get a beat!

[GeorgeSelinsky]

There's many obsolete film and video cameras but an artist can still find use for them.  This reminds me of a band called Treewave, they use old Atari's, old PC's, old printers and all kinds of obsolete stuff to make music.  They litteraly mic up a dot-matrix printer to get a beat!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lol, I gotta check them out, sounds like the best use for old equipment I've ever heard of!

 

It's interesting when you compare film to the music industry. Nobody wants an old sampler from the 80's, but many keyboardists would kill for an analog modular moog synthesizer of the sort that Keith Emerson used in ELP.

 

Sure, you can't get a moog or VCS-3 to sound like a real trumphet, but the exclusive sound that the analog synth emanates is hard to replicate digitally even to this day - the closest you can get is a real sample from the instrument. I watched a film of how Dave Gilmour and Roger Waters made the most awesome sound montages on the Dark Side of the Moon with all the filter and oscillator action on those Synthi's. It was incredible, still sounds fresh today. No wonder EMS is still in business selling refirbished and new Synthi models at $4K a pop.

 

It's kinda ironic but just like the EMS Synths, the same 16mm Eclair that was used to film Dave and Roger working in the Floyd's studio at Abbey Road back in 1973 can be purchased today used for close to its original selling price new (it's important to note here that the actual value is still less when you calculate inflation over the years). Try selling a 3/4 inch camera recorder package (which is technically much 'newer') - good luck! Video equipment that once cost tens of thousands of dollars is now going for a few hundred.

 

- G.

Edited December 7, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Annie Wengenroth]

Hm. Well this is interesting, it's funny you compare it to synthesizers because I love old analog synths and feel nothing digital can ever capture that nice fat, warm sound. Oh for the record, I'm talking about video here and not film cameras. I have a 40-year old Bolex that I love to death so you'd hardly see me knocking the technology there!

 

As far as Blair Witch goes, that's a good point. But on the other hand, I recently watched "Thirteen" (shutup, it was on TV!) and the whole time I thought "it looks kinda...gritty and raw..kinda cool...wonder what it is?") Turns out it was shot with Panavision gear, which I might not have guessed. So I dunno. It can work both ways, I guess? :shrug:

 

It's kinda funny because as far as animation goes, I've worked with paper, clay and foam puppets, and Maya. And I F-ing HATE working in 3D. It just doesn't do it for me at all. Meanwhile I've got Jack Skellington tattooed on my arm, to give you a vague idea of where my loyalties lie.

 

I suppose it's a neverending combination of personal aesthetics and whatever you can get your hands on. If I could only shoot on a $500 hi-8 camcorder and had absolutely no access to a higher-end video camera, I'd make the hi-8 work, but alas I have been spoiled...

 

Edit: the irony is that while I was writing this, my dad called from the other room, "Hey, this miniDV camcorder's only 300 bucks! That's a good deal!" I guess it is considering that for my high school graduation present, the poor man spent $700 for a hi-8 cam...

Edited December 7, 2004 by SpikeyAnnie

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Behold Treewave in all its analog/old skool digital glory.

[DavidSloan]

A good director and DP can make an "obsolete format" watchable, and even beautiful if the story, feeling, sound, and editing, is there. A friend of mine just shot a beautiful little story about a guy who discovers that his father commited a murder. The film is told in a verite, documentary style with haunting V.O and super wide shots. I was very moved emotionally by this film and the "cheaper format" only added to the feeling. I also shot a little short in New York, on Coney Island on a PD100, and a lot of people have told me that it was very beautiful and moving.

 

It's not the format it's the artist.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Behold Treewave in all its analog/old skool digital glory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dude, that ROCKS! Talk about doing something innovative with old technology, this is the best I've seen, um, heard so far. Great how they did the webpage so old fasioned BBS style!

 

Getting back to the original post, there are three reasons why a $300 camcorder isn't used to make feature films....

 

1) Quality. Rather obvious, the cheaper stuff is going to not only have crappier imaging chips (with a lower dynamic range) and less advanced circuitry, but small and crappy optics that breathe and flare like crazy. There are some shots where this will be less noticeable, others there will be a world of a difference.

 

2) Flexibility - no manual focus, no manual exposure, no manual whitebalance, no timecode, all of these things make life much tougher in a practical situation. For example, the gear will have an automatically preset level of edge enhancement that you can't take away. It's made for a different group of people than pro's.

 

3) Reliability - these things aren't made to endure long periods of useage and shuttle through a lot of tape. They're made to lower standards. The tape motor may burn out faster, for example.

 

Now imagine a photographer who wants to do a great shot that he can either sell or showcase his talent with. He spends days and days concieving of what he's going to do on the resources he has. He pulls all his strings to get the best looking models he can, clears away his basement to make an elaborate set, goes out prop hunting, spends hours pre-lighting and lighting. Then when it's all ready to go, he comes there with an old 110 Kodak Instamatic or a Polaroid with a plastic fixed focus lens and says "cheese"...

 

Wouldn't make much sense would it? Sure he'd get an image, and it might even look interesting. But that fixed focus plastic lens is going to create this dullish image that will have no contrast and look fuzzy - especially if he tries to blow it up. And what if the camera's auto exposure decided against his lighting plan? It wouldn't, put simply, create the best impression because he went through all the trouble to get everything together, yet when it came to the camera he couldnt' do any better.

 

He could have saved up some more money and gotten himself a cheap Pentax SLR. Wouldn't be the best choice, but would yield considerably better results. He could have asked a photographer to borrow his Nikon and offer him something of value from his house as collateral (or invited him to the set and bought him a few beers later).

 

With a movie, when it comes down to it, all those people are standing around there because there is a camera there to record what the actors are doing. That's the key difference between film and theater. If it wasn't for that camera, you wouldn't need half the crew, and you'd have to put the actors in a theater where everything takes place (unless your audience is willing to go out and drive to each location :)).

 

The camera is the eyeball with which the image is recorded, it's the audience's eyeball basically. Film cameras, including your and my 40 year old Bolexes, can reproduce images in a way that is in my opinion closer to reality than what a very expensive video camera can do (HDTV being the only place where we can begin having a debate).

 

When you look at an image you want clarity usually. That's why most movies are shot on 35mm film if the budget can justify it, because we want to see the clearest reproduction of reality in most cases.

 

Now, film as we well know is about manipulating images, so playing with variables is part of the game. Image resolution is one of the variables we are allowed to play with.

 

As with any artistic decision you have to be sure that in your situation the overall artisitc effect of what you're trying to do will benefit your case. In the majority of cases, we seem to all agree that better image clarity is a desireable attribute to our enjoyment of the story. I will not as a general rule go out there and make a crappier tape of a film because I enjoy the lower resolution.

 

So, this really explains why it's not just about the story and the acting. Sure, that's the main reason why people are there, but image is also an important part of a visual medium.

 

In the beginning you're in a situation where you have several factors playing against you. The key factor is your overall inexperience, and the overwhelming likelihood that the other people you'll be working with will also be newbies who will be making mistakes. Let's face it, the first film you make will be like the first anything you do - with flaws (and Orson Welles, who was a very experienced theatrical director, had a lot of experienced talent like DP Greg Toland working for him). The strong desire is of course to make a profit, so many first time filmmakers are like gamblers, they put all their chips on this first film making them into something, which is against all odds. This is the main reason they try to shoot on film, because they not only want the film to look good but hope their film will make a sale.

 

Their choice of opting for film is sound from a business and even an artistic perspective. But it may not be the best choice from a practical perspective, which is a very big "but". People have to be honest with how much experience they have and try to take smaller steps. The "DV revolution" (which was a reimbodiment of the "Hi8 revolution", itself a reincarnation of the earlier "Super 8 revolution" - consumer technology being pushed to the limits) is guilty not so much of lowering quality standards of on screen product as it is in emboldening the wrong people to try their hands at filmmaking.

 

Back before video was an acceptable format for origination, only those who could convince sponsors that they had a sellable idea could make a film. Passing this test requires being able to tell SOME sort of story and show a certain business sense - even though in many cases tons of money was wasted on total junk, and even more junk was never finished, but that's a different story...

 

Now, with video originated feature films like Blair Witch making not just festival but box office marks (unlike the first video feature, Zappa's nutzy "200 Motels" - which incidentally featured some recognized faces like Ringo Star and Theodore Bikel) people don't have to go through that pitching process as much, so they are more inclined to just "do it". I'm not saying this doesn't have its positive attributes, but I'm not about to go advocate the "reach for the stars with your Pixelvision" idea either - that's naivete.

 

Also, it's important to point out that people always say that a real good DP will be able to make a good image out of bad equipment. But most DP's who are that good don't have to worry about that problem, unless we're talking about the USSR where film technology was lagging because the government was too busy spending money on the arms race.

 

- G.

Edited December 8, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Chris Keth]

I don't think all equipment really goes obsolete, per se. You might not want the best quality image there is. You might like gritty 16.

 

The equipment has to fit the film, really. Let me put it another way:

 

Imagine if The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original one) was high budget and was shot on 70mm with dolly moves, steadycam, etc. It'd be entirely different and would probably look awfully slick in the production department but it wouldn't fit at all.

 

 

Then consider what would happen if you tried to shoot Lawrence of Arabia on 16mm.

 

See my point? They're both valid but have different looks for different purposes.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

See my point? They're both valid but have different looks for different purposes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but then that means that all people who can only shoot on grainy B&W 16mm film or video have to find a story and situation that is appropriate for that format. On top of a filmmaker being challenged with the usual issues of making a film they now have to bend their style to fit into this category.

 

The reality is that with the exception of Blair Witch and Texas Chainsaw, and a few other films, most films would benefit from the clarity of 35mm - if we are to look at it from a cinematographic POV. Most audiences want to see clear images in color with good camera work, it tends to go well with most stories.

 

As for the claim that a good performance and engauging story can rescue anything, that has a lot of truth in it. However, good stories and engauging performances (and attracting those actors who can deliver them) takes so much work that usually the people who succeed in this area manage to find the resources to get the best camera/format they can afford.

 

- G.

[John Sprung]

Should I just pocket my 3 grand and go get a little camcorder from Best Buy, or should I maintain my status as Equipment Snob.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neither -- Rent or borrow whatever equipment is appropriate for what you want to do. The rental houses are in the business of eating the depreciation on cameras that are sort of the electronic equivalent of ice sculptures.

 

You might consider buying something you need for a project, but only if it's so obsolete than nobody rents it, and cheaper than renting something that can be used to simulate the look.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Chris Keth]

Yes, but then that means that all people who can only shoot on grainy B&W 16mm film or video have to find a story and situation that is appropriate for that format. On top of a filmmaker being challenged with the usual issues of making a film they now have to bend their style to fit into this category.

 

The reality is that with the exception of Blair Witch and Texas Chainsaw, and a few other films, most films would benefit from the clarity of 35mm - if we are to look at it from a cinematographic POV. Most audiences want to see clear images in color with good camera work, it tends to go well with most stories.

 

As for the claim that a good performance and engauging story can rescue anything, that has a lot of truth in it. However, good stories and engauging performances (and attracting those actors who can deliver them) takes so much work that usually the people who succeed in this area manage to find the resources to get the best camera/format they can afford.

 

- G.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Oh, it's absolutely true that most stories benefit from the clarity of 35mm. But, at the same time, there are a lot of stories that wouldn't necessarily be hurt by being shot on super 16. Sort of a "this is good, but 35 would be better" thing.

[Jayson Crothers]

It all comes down to how to BEST tell your story.

 

You could certainly make any movie with an type of equipment on any format, but choosing the $1000 video system versus the $60,000 system may or may not be more suited to creating the "look" you believe is best for the story.

 

I did a shoot a few years ago where the director and I pushed for standard 16 pushed 2 stops over a 35mm shoot because it was a better look for how we saw the story (though upon hindsight, maybe I should have gone with the 35mm............) :D

 

Currently, a friend of mine is testing an old tube camera for his upcoming shoot - they have a top of the line HD system with digi primes if they want it, but they're seriously considering this ancient camera because of the look it gives them.

 

The true joy of art is that there's not really a right or wrong way of doing anything.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

but they're seriously considering this ancient camera because of the look it gives them.

 

The true joy of art is that there's not really a right or wrong way of doing anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd love to try shooting on an old B&W tube camera because I love that black flare, it looks real vintage cool. There's only one type of tube that does this though, the later B&W cameras had this problem fixed...

 

That said, I've noticed that most productions are too scared to go with a strange format even if the script calls for it. They'll shoot in 35 then try to degrade the image in post somehow, which in my opinion never quite looks it. I've seen enough fake "WWII combat footage", people are too scared to grab an Eyemo, hand process the negative and allow it to get some scratches and dust on it. They could even get the lab to do a dupe and do it with that just so they don't mess it up - it's not like they don't have the money for it.

 

I remember watching the credit sequence to the "Wonder Years", they tried to make it look like 8mm home movies with the handheld style and adding electronic scratches. But you can tell all too easily they shot it on 35mm color negative and used good lenses. I'm sure it wouldn't have been hard for them to get a Kodak S8 camera with a fixed focus lens and do the whole K-40 cartridge/PK-59 mailer/film chain bit. But I bet you anything that if you told that idea to a producer they'd be too chicken to try it. Maybe the DP was scared of using an old camera and shooting on reversal film. Who knows. But it would have looked better and much more genuine if they did, that's for sure.

 

That said I myself would be chicken to shoot on an old B&W tube camera. What if the thing dies on you during the shoot? How are you going to get it fixed? Care to search for a knowlegable repair man who is still alive, let alone find the parts? ;)

It's either that or have several cameras as a backup waiting.

 

- G.

Edited December 8, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[John Pytlak RIP]

It's interesting when you compare film to the music industry. Nobody wants an old sampler from the 80's, but many keyboardists would kill for an analog modular moog synthesizer of the sort that Keith Emerson used in ELP.

 

Sure, you can't get a moog or VCS-3 to sound like a real trumphet, but the exclusive sound that the analog synth emanates is hard to replicate digitally even to this day - the closest you can get is a real sample from the instrument. I watched a film of how Dave Gilmour and Roger Waters made the most awesome sound montages on the Dark Side of the Moon with all the filter and oscillator action on those Synthi's. It was incredible, still sounds fresh today. No wonder EMS is still in business selling refirbished and new Synthi models at $4K a pop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This discussion reminds me of the time I met Wendy Carlos, one of the pioneer artists of the Moog ("Switched on Bach"). She performed the scores for quite a few films too, including "Tron" and "A Clockwork Orange". She was attending the Audio Technology session at an SMPTE Technical Conference in NYC to hear a technical paper introducing Dolby Digital sound presented by Ioan Allen of Dolby Laboratories. She had worked with Ioan on the music for the Dolby test film "Listen". Not only is Wendy a renowned musician, she is very knowledgeable and versed in audio technology, and was a member of the SMPTE:

 

http://www.wendycarlos.com

Edited December 8, 2004 by John_P_Pytlak

[Chris Keth]

Lol, I gotta check them out, sounds like the best use for old equipment I've ever heard of!

 

It's interesting when you compare film to the music industry. Nobody wants an old sampler from the 80's, but many keyboardists would kill for an analog modular moog synthesizer of the sort that Keith Emerson used in ELP.

 

 

- G.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Not only that but 90% of performing guitarists use analog circuit tube amplifiers. You just can't get that sound out of solid state or modeling amps yet.

[Annie Wengenroth]

Well, my theory is that if I buy a DVX-100a within the next year or so, it will eventually "pay off" [at least somewhat] in the work that I get. I mean, I like the camera, I'm comfortable with it, I like the look, and considering that it's about the same price range as a lot of video cameras that do *not* have the 24P option (and I personally *want* that 24P option), I figure what the heck, I should go for it. It just so happens that it's *also* The Latest Thing out there and everyone's raving about it (well not everyone...but a fair amount of people...).

 

However, just because I want one of these cameras to go along with my beloved Bolex, does not mean that suddenly all my aesthetics have become reliant on the type of camera and not the story I am trying to tell. It's just a different set of tools to accomplish the same purpose.

 

I try to learn about and appreciate each and every subtle difference between each video camera that's out there these days, because I feel that it's important for me to know that. I think Panasonic has really got something good with their cinema series of cameras and it's a bandwagon that I'm totally cool with jumping on, call me trendy but it's true! My frustration is with the people who seem to sell themselves short, and shoot with certain types of equipment when they could have something more advanced, and this is regardless of the final "look" of the piece.

 

Mind you, my first experiences getting my feet wet in filmmaking were strange ones, in part because I work at the equipment checkout in the film/video/sound design building at my school. So for a little while, there were many pieces of equipment that I was checking and packing for other people before I actually used them myself. I packed up an Arriflex SRII at least 10 times before it occurred to me that I could duck into the back room on my break and build the damn thing myself and figure it out, which I did.

 

I'm not bitterly jealous of my friends who have been able to afford and pursue a more legitimate film school education (which is another can of worms entirely!), because they've got their priorities and I've got mine. I just think they need to truly learn and appreciate what they have at their disposal. I know out in the "real world" it's a different story with the rental houses and it becomes a lot harder to get what you want or need, but if you've got an opportunity for something really good, shouldn't you take that and run with it while you can, if that's what your vision requires? I wonder why people resist this- are these the same people who won't go near computers because they aren't interested in the technology?

 

A little side note: my grandfather is 82 years old and has been a photographer for many years. When digital cameras first started coming out, he was absolutely fascinated with the idea. He packed up his darkroom and bought a negative scanner and a Photoshop software package for his computer. Then after doing some extensive research via the Internet, he got a very good digital camera, and he loves it. It's not that he doesn't like 35mm photography anymore, but he really enjoys the capabilities of digital photography in conjunction with photo-manipulation software.

 

I think we're all in the middle of a revolution in technology and I am very proud to be a part of it. It's a unique situation where we have access to the older classics and the newer advancements, without sacrificing our visions.

[Matt Pacini]

I think this issue is clouded by a lot of "urban legend" & "sound bite" logic, instead of common sense.

 

First of all, I've heard Blair Witch Project used time and time again, as an example of why supposedly "format doesn't matter", and it's ridiculous.

 

The format you shoot on should be the absolute best quality possible, with the teeny tiny exception of films where the format itself is part of the story, or HAS to conform to the story.

Blair Witch project would have looked preposterous in 35mm, because it would have been obvious that the images didn't come from her little camcorder, so that film proves nothing about format not being important.

 

In fact, I hate to say it, but there are far more films that are successful, that LACK IN STORY, but have quality visuals, than films with good story but bad visuals. (The new Star Wars films, Pearl Harbor and Independence Day being a terrific examples, even to the point of setting box office records.)

 

So there's more ammunition for someone making the argument that format matters MORE than story, than the opposite.

And I'm sure that the Joel Silvers and Jerry Bruckheimers would use their several billion dollars worth of box office receipts as pretty good evidence of that.

 

Now obviously we can't all afford to shoot on 65mm, or even 35mm, so in order to get SOMETHING done, we shoot on lesser formats.

(I'm shooting 16mm & Super 8 for instance, and have tube amps for my guitar as well!).

That's fine, but it's another thing entirely to claim it doesn't matter.

Comprimises of any kind almost always show up onscreen, and it's an act of self-delusion to think otherwise.

 

It's the exception, not the rule, that a good story will succeed when executed in an inferior manner (wether that's from the format or other reasons).

 

And the other thing that gives birth to these illogical statements, is the fact that EVERYTHING is absolutly crucial to making a good film.

 

Good Story is EVERYTHING.

Good Acting is EVERYTHING.

Good Directing is EVERYTHING.

Good Editing is EVERYTHING.

Good Image Quality is EVERYTHING.

 

Any one of these things can kill your film, but the opposite is not true:

Just getting one of these things right is not going to make the others irrelevant.

 

And I think that's really what's the cause of this mistake, that is unfortunatly regurgitated over and over until many people think it's really true.

Our mistaken logic, where we say; "if A is true, then B must be false".

 

Matt Pacini

[John Sprung]

That said, I've noticed that most productions are too scared to go with a strange format even if the script calls for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So why not set your dangerous strange obsolete tube camera up alongisde the Panaflex, and shoot with both? If it works, you get the exotic effect. If not, your tushie is covered, and you make the effect in post.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[David Mullen ASC]

The format you shoot on should be the absolute best quality possible, with the teeny tiny exception of films where the format itself is part of the story, or HAS to conform to the story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I disagree somewhat, not completely. I'd modify that to say that "format choice and image quality are dependent on the artistic needs of the story."

 

The exceptions are hardly limited to "Blair Witch Project" where the plot itself demanded a certain low-rez format be used.

 

Look at a typical urban crime movie; while it may be shot in 35mm, it's rarely shot in the "best quality possible" -- i.e. they don't always use only slow-speed film stocks and prime lenses shot at their optimal f-stop. They'll use grain and handheld or zoom lenses or fast lenses shot wide-open in low-light, etc. to add a certain gritty texture. Same with a romantic comedy -- do you really want to see the average Hollywood starlet shot as razor-sharp as possible?

 

Look at people who shoot high-end commercials on old Cooke lenses because they are more flattering to the model -- they aren't going for the "best quality possible", they are going for the most appropriate look possible, a different concept. "Best possible quality" implies that most movies should conform to one standard of image quality when that really has to be a case-by-case decision.

 

So I agree that image quality and format choice are intrinsic to the artistry and narrative effectiveness of a movie and how good it is as an overall work of art -- but that image quality is rarely the "best possible" if by "best" you mean technically best.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I think that one of the biggest mistakes beginning filmmakers make (and I was guilty of this myself) is this desire to say "If I shoot my film on video (or S8, or B&W 16mm) it won't matter, right? I still stand the same chance as everyone else..."

 

They're looking for the "Of course it doesn't matter what format you shoot it on, so long as it's a good story! Take that Hi8 camera and goooo!" argument so they can wipe out that sense of the fact that they're stuck with a lower format.

 

Imagine the question being rephrased "If I shoot my film using actors who aren't so great, but the story is interesting and I shoot it on 35mm film, it doesn't really matter, right?" You hardly hear that question being asked, but it makes as much sense as the question about format.

 

The only reason you hear the first variant concerning image format is because people can get actors and locations for free or for very little, but they can't get 35mm filmstock or camera equipment for next to nothing in most cases (and those of you who were lucky enough to get all free film from short ends and recans, or free camera rental, are quite the exception I have to say).

 

The bottom line is that you're a slave to audience perception in the end, that's all that really matters. Even though they wouldn't know how to describe the difference between 5245 filmed with Cooke S4's and mini DV taped with a palmcorder, they can feel it in their subconscious. I've often done a test, shown people one shot on film and another on videotape, asked them what is the difference. They couldn't say it in words. But when I show them stuff I shot on film, even if it's just landscapes, they almost always go "Hey, that looks like a 'real movie'".

 

The reality of audience perception may conflict with your personal reality as a filmmaker, unfortunately, but you have to figure out when it's worth it for you to go ahead and when you aught to wait and work on finding ways of doing something differently. If all you have is a Hi8 camera or a crappy DV camera, and you have people who are willing to work for days and days and locations lined up, together with a good story, you should be all the more confident that you have something worthwhile enough to find a better camera, even a video camera (perhaps an HDTV camera - if you go straight to tape it's probably a good solution).

 

That said I still think that most people rush into making their first feature length film, it's like a rock group that wants to record their first album right away. The Beatles played clubs for years before George Martin laid down "Love Me Do" with them in Abbey Road studios. There are early Beatle recordings that they made before they met Martin, and while the recordings are nice and well done - it wasn't A rate material. Today with multitrack digital recording available on a PC for under $1000, things are different.

Edited December 8, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[David Mullen ASC]

I'll add though that projection standards in theaters should be as high as possible to accurately reflect the work of the filmmakers and increase the viewing experience. And filmmakers should have more access to the highest-quality tools as possible, if only to give them the freedom to technically degrade them for artistic effect!

 

From a real-world standard, I don't actually believe that format is equal to story and acting. Otherwise you could just release Kodak's demo films to the theaters. A low-rez movie like "Celebration" proves that you can get emotionally hooked on something shot with a $1000 DV camera, while "Speed 2" proved that throwing more money and technology at a weak script wasn't going to make something good.

 

Ideally, with a good story and good actors, you'd then proceed to employ all your cinematic skills at most effectively telling that story, so obviously I believe that format is intrinsically important ONCE you have the right elements in place. Otherwise, you'd be saying that the story was important but that the storyteller wasn't (and format is part of the tools of the storyteller.) If that were true, any fifth grader could direct a decent version of "Hamlet".

 

I also believe in "momentum" in one's career and if all the elements are in place except for the budget to shoot in 35mm, it still may be worth your while to go ahead and make the movie rather than wait for more money and lose the momentum and the investors. But it depends on the story; you don't want to screw it up by shooting it in a totally inappropriate manner.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

So I agree that image quality and format choice are intrinsic to the artistry and narrative effectiveness of a movie and how good it is as an overall work of art -- but that image quality is rarely the "best possible" if by "best" you mean technically best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but I think it's one thing when we're talking different lenses on 35mm cameras and even different filmstocks - it's another when we're talking something like DV versus 16mm or 35mm.

 

When the overall resolution and dynamic range of film and video are at contest, it's a considerably more dramatic difference that makes a pretty serious mark on what you're doing in terms of style and so on.

 

- G.