3D HD CineAlta, etc.

[John Pytlak RIP]

That's the pixel count on the CCD sensors. The actual resolution is much less because of the anti-aliasing (Nyquist) filter, subsampling, and limitations (compression) of the HDCAM recording system. The anti-aliasing filter alone reduces resolution by over half.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, if it seems like a stretch to use 1920 x 1080 pixels to fill a theater screen, you should be amazed that a postage stamp-sized piece of film can be enlarged to that degree as well! At some level, as you sit close enough, with either approach you see the basic image structure (grain with film, pixels with digital.) And the on-screen resolution of projected piece of 35mm movie film isn't all that higher than 1080 lines either. Most side-by-side tests show that 2K projection has, to the eye, a similar resolution to projecting a 35mm print made off of a 35mm original negative (even though the negative is more like 4K to 6K in resolution.)

 

It's more like a continuum -- higher resolution holds up better on larger screens. 35mm projection looks great but 70mm projection looks better, etc. There's no absolute cut-off point where "x" amount of resolution is needed.

 

By the way, even though print projection is more like 2K resolution, it does not logically mean than one can just start out with 2K for origination as well, since one has to factor in the loss of resolution through printing and projection, hence why 4K origination or D.I. should be a goal to match 35mm resolution even if the projected image is 2K.

[John Pytlak RIP]

The recently published SMPTE papers by Kodak image scientist Dr. Roger Morton and his team certainly show why you want the highest possible resolution capture medium to avoid artifacts and loss of resolution as you go through the post-production and distribution process:

 

http://www.electronicipc.com/journalez/det...=45390011120508

 

http://www.electronicipc.com/journalez/det...=45390011120705

 

http://www.smpte.org/members_only/library/...file=morton.pdf (SMPTE membership required to access)

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Ok thanks, so what you?re basically saying is that even though it's a small resolution, it will still look ok blown up onto a cinema screen.

 

And, I also heard there is a new camera being designed that instead of burning the movie to digital tape it burns ir onto a disc. Is this true? If so, it's kind of weird because I own a basic video camera and when uploading the uncompressed movie data onto the computer it goes way over 4.7 GB which exceeds even the DVD discs capacity. So, will it use different discs? I know it can be compressed, but that involves losing unrecoverable quality.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Ok thanks, so what you?re basically saying is that even though it's a small resolution, it will still look ok blown up onto a cinema screen.

 

Fine, if "ok" is good enough for you. I personally prefer film, especially when you have to sit closer to the screen, or have long shots where the lack of real resolution compared to film starts to show.

 

There certainly have been successful "films" shot with HD. But I got a headache watching "Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones" on an IMAX screen, trying to see detail that just wasn't there while ignoring the compression artifacts.

 

Even DV looks "ok" from 5 or 6 image heights viewing distance. But how does it look up-close at 2 image heights distance, where many modern theatres place their seats? Or when you need to manipulate the image in post production? :(

 

As Mr. Mullen said:

 

By the way, even though print projection is more like 2K resolution, it does not logically mean than one can just start out with 2K for origination as well, since one has to factor in the loss of resolution through printing and projection, hence why 4K origination or D.I. should be a goal to match 35mm resolution even if the projected image is 2K.

 

Which is a similar conclusion as the work by Dr. Morton and his team at Kodak --- start out with the highest resolution you can afford.

[Alvin Pingol]

>>>And, I also heard there is a new camera being designed that instead of

>>>burning the movie to digital tape it burns ir onto a disc. Is this true? If so, it's

>>>kind of weird because I own a basic video camera and when uploading the

>>>uncompressed movie data

 

Uncompressed? If your "basic" video camera is MiniDV or Digital8, the data is heavily compressed. To capture uncompressed data you would need an analogue capture card and an analogue output to feed the card, and all of that data would be converted to digital and saved as Uncompressed RGB. But if the data is going from your camera to your computer via IEEE1394 (a.k.a. "Firewire," or "i.Link"), odds are it's compressed.

 

If analogue capture was what you meant, however, then I guess I misunderstood.

 

 

>>>onto the computer it goes way over 4.7 GB which exceeds even the DVD

>>>discs capacity. So, will it use different discs? I know it can be compressed, but

>>>that involves losing unrecoverable quality.

 

Compression is the only solution. However, having said that, the results wouldn't be as bad as you'd think. Standard DV compression runs at 25Mbps. MPEG2 DVD compression is usually 8 to 9Mbps, and starts to get mushy at around 7Mbps. Unrecoverable loss? Yes, but it's the only way when you've got limited space.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

2K digital production is good enough for most indie films. Until now the way to do it was to use $100K Sony F900, $20K lens, $20K NLE. Very soon you will be able to use $4-40K camera, $1-20K lens, $24K Boxx RT with Prospect HD for both acquisition and post. Add monitor, viewfinder costs, etc. on both systems. The Boxx computer with Prospect HD will allow approx. 30 hrs of 1080/24p recording. If your film is 2 hrs long, that is 15:1 shooting ratio. When you make your film, you'll distribute digital prints via Landmark theaters. People on this board have no imagination; are stuck in the celluloid groove. These are the facts. If you have tight budget and you want to own your equipment, which you will be using for more productions, the above is the only way to go. Forget 16 mm, forget optical prints. Save a lot of $ for something that look very sharp on a big theater screen. B)

[Rob Belics]

More comments from a guy that has never done this himself and probably never will.

[Max Jacoby]

What is it with HD that seems to attract these idiots?

[K Borowski]

If video took over 8mm right away, then what did I go around shooting this past Saturday??? When you video guys can come up with a camera that sells for $20-50 and gets better resolution than HD with interchangeable sensors that are constantly (more or less) being upgraded, then we'll talk.

 

Regards.

[David Mullen ASC]

I've been dealing with this guy for years in other forums -- he usually manages to antagonize most digital people with his ravings, his inaccuracies, and the ridiculous predictions he keeps making. I remember three years ago when he predicted that was the year of HD and people would stop shooting standard def video and film was dead, etc. He keeps changing the name he posts under and then says he's not the other guy, and then says he IS when he gets caught, on and on and on. Says he lives in Japan, then says he lives in Eastern Europe, then the U.S., etc. Posts under Japanese names, under women's names, under monikers, etc.

 

I apologized when he first appeared in this forum for saying he was these other people on other forums, but he has since shown his true colors and reverted to the same behavior.

 

He's even said in the past that he was occasionally paid to promote HD online, but now I don't even believe that because no company would hire a guy who does this bad of a job. He manages to piss off even pro-HD people, let alone people who shoot film. He's either been kicked out -- or pissed off so many people as to leave voluntarily -- digital forums like DVInfo.Net, DV.Com, Creative Cow, and Cinematographer.Com (although often to reappear under a new name and start the cycle all over again). I was dreading the day he would show up on our relatively peaceful forum.

 

Hopefully Tim will simply ban him, but if not, I suggest we all make an effort to ignore him until he learns to behave himself.

[harryprayiv]

Bill, you have never corected me, except making some statements that you never backed up by numbers.

 

For the rest of you guys:

 

I'll try to summarize all this in laymen's terms. And I am sure that many will disagree. In these times of new digital technologies taking foothold in cinema production, there is a lot of antipathy to digital. It is rightful. 35 mm is better. But when it comes to the real world, situation is a little differnt. Optical projectors in theaters generally do not have higher resolution than CineAlta. CineAlta, due to lack of grain, looks generally sharper than film that has grain.

 

CineAlta has some problems. You've probably all seen Once Upon A Time in Mexico and Spy Kids 2. If you have not, go see it. You'll see what Rodrigues accomplished with CineAlta.

 

CineAlta has a lot less lattitude than film, so if the image is to look good, it has to be more contrasty. The chips have problem with highlights. You can't speed up the camera so for slow motion you need to shoot celluloid. There are ways around it. You can switch to interlaced; then do couple software tricks and you have pretty decent 2x slow motion.

 

What CineAlta SR does is it increases the lattitude of CineAlta by one F stop; it's still a lot less than film, but you can work with it. It is a lot less compressed format than CineAlta, and has excellent colors.

 

You get shallower DOF with 35 mm, but with Pro 35 mm adapter and 35 mm cine lenses you take care of this problem. And you have the advantage of a lot increased DOF, if needed.

 

The new CineAlta SR recorder also lets you run 2 CineAlta F900 cameras and record them in synch on one tape; it's perfect for 3D setup. You should again gain one f-stop lattitude compared to CineAlta, and have a significantly better color.

 

It is generally the optical projector and the lens, zoom especially, that limits resolution on a 35 mm originated project.

 

CineAlta SR is expensive, but although many will disagree, it is my opinion that it will make production more efficient than shooting celluloid.

 

If you thought that the 2 Rodrigues' films I mentioned had sufficient quality, the SR system should be about equal to celluloid, by the time it gets projected. I do not mean equal for a fine DP to analyze it. It will be good enough for the producer, and it will be good enough for most directors, and it will be more than enough for the average theater goer. It will not be better or equal to film, it will be good enough. CineAlta was not good enough.

 

This is the significace of CineAlta SR. It is good enough to compete with celluloid.

This post has probably already been posted, but if the lattitude of film is not even closely matched by video, why would video be close to being as good as film...especially since you would need a 6k or 4k signal to even remotely reach the resolution that 35 produces. Granted you seem to know all of this, but as a DP, when going for pristine imagery, I for one am going to continue using film until

 

a. video gets better at accepting highlights and has even better lattitude than film

b. film stops being produced

c. theaters catch up and put at least 4k projectors in every theater across the country (US)

d. if video presents me with some kind of image quality advantage for less money...which I don't see happening for another 10 to 15 years minimum

e. video has a higher resolution than film (right now, you can get away with scanning a piece of film at extreme resolutions and cropping the image drastically without introducing lots of grain....also, I should add that even the largest grains you would see would be a LOT more forgivable than pixellation even at similar ratios).

 

My point is, for now, super high quality video is a more expensive format for something that I happen to think is not even close to film's aesthetic qualities. Why should I call it "good enough" when I have something in my arsenal that beats it hands down for cheaper?!?!?

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Hi again, thanks for that guys. It's something iv always wondered.

 

I would use film, but I won?t and cant for the following reasons.

 

1. Working with film is a lot harder

 

2. Working with film is a lot more expensive, and I can?t afford it.

 

3. If you make mistakes it can cost a lot of money

 

4. I?m not sure about this one, but I?ve always thought you can?t view the film until you develop it. Which means if you were to make a mistake, you wouldn?t know until it's been developed. Which could be days after when shooting has stopped and that time has been completely wasted.

 

Well that?s basically why I like digital, the only disadvantage to digital is that of the quality. The resolution and actually picture qualities don?t nearly match 35mm.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

And about my video camera. Well, it's in DV-AVI. Now, as far as I know AVI is the container that contains the DV, which is uncompressed (I think).

[Rob Belics]

1) Film is not harder. It's actually easier as far as lighting goes.

2) If you want a presentation in a theatre, film is not more expensive.

3) If you make mistakes in video, it can be quite expensive, too.

4) You get "dailies" back, um, DAILY. Not days later.

 

I wish all my competition would shoot video for the lower quality also. Damn film's only advantage is quality and I don't know what to do.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

To respond a little more, uh, accurately - film is easier to light. It is harder in absolutely every other way. Let's face it, folks, the reason people are chasing video is that film is essentially a pain in the backside. It's horribly expensive, tricky and labour-intensive, time-consuming and unpredictable. It isn't easier overall, it's a hell of a lot trickier. Most low-end stuff will never see a theatrical release, so that's no issue either. Mistakes in film will always be more expensive than mistakes in video, even if you just take into account the cost of the wasted stock. This is exacerbated by the fact that most low-end productions won't see the material for ages, so your sets, costumes, and people will be scattered to the four winds before you have any idea there's a problem (this is by far the main problem with it for me). You folks working on your high-end hollywood projects or big flash commercials have it very, very easy - everyone else shoots their stuff, then gets it all into a big job lot and processes later, at least days later and maybe weeks.

 

If you're a huge production most of these things are moderated. At the end of the day, Mr. Mullen for example doesn't need to actually physically touch a camera from one day to the next so for all his encyclopedic experience he probably isn't actually the man to ask! If you're not a huge production, video is so much easier it's ridiculous, and trying to make out otherwise is as bad as this pro-hi-def stuff we've been hearing.

 

Phil

[Alvin Pingol]

3. If you make mistakes it can cost a lot of money

That's part of the beauty of film. It actually forces (well, not really, but it really pushes) you to take proper time to set up your shots, lighting, and be sure your actors REALLY study their lines! Shooting video, a lot of sloppy, quick takes are done because people don't have to worry about not being able to rewind and do it again. This consequently results in a tape full of mediocre takes that could, had they been shot on film, have been much better prepared and more professional looking.

 

>>Quote: And about my video camera. Well, it's in DV-AVI. Now, as far as I know

>>AVI is the container that contains the DV, which is uncompressed (I think).

 

A common misconception. DV is compressed heavily, at 25Mbit/sec.

[Rob Belics]

Phil,

 

As David has said here before, there aren't that many real surprises shooting film for an experienced DP. Nor is it trickier. Film is rather predictable, in fact.

 

The cost of errors in video would be the same as film if you want to talk about sets, costumes and people. Have you ever had a tape with dropouts or otherwise screwed up?

 

What is the difference if David can hire someone to work the camera? How does this make film and video different? I can guarantee you that, if and when video replaces film, the dp on large productions will still have a camera operator operate it for him.

[Guest J Jukuzami]

Rob Belics Posted on Jun 1 2004, 02:45 PM

  1) Film is not harder. It's actually easier as far as lighting goes. VIDEO IS HARDER FOR THE DP TO LIGHT. fILM IS HARDER FOR MANY THINGS.

 

2) If you want a presentation in a theatre, film is not more expensive. NOT SO. LANDMARK THEATERS ARE IN ALL MAJOR MARKETS AND ARE CONVERTING 170 SCREENS TO DIGITAL. EVEN MORE SCREENS WILL BE IN ENGLAND. THEY ARE EVEN IN IN PLACES SUCH AS INDIA. YOU CAN START AT LANDMARK AND GET OPTICAL PRINTS ONLY IF YOU WANT TO GO WITH WIDER DISTRIBUTION.

 

3) If you make mistakes in video, it can be quite expensive, too. TAPE COSTS NOTHING, CAN DO MANY TAKES; FILM IS EXPENSIVE.

 

4) You get "dailies" back, um, DAILY. Not days later. INSTSNTLY IS A LOT BETTER.

 

I wish all my competition would shoot video for the lower quality also. Damn film's only advantage is quality and I don't know what to do.  MANY TOP DIRECTORS ARE SATISFIED WITH HD QUALITY. THE AUDIENCE IS SATISFIED EVEN WITH DV -- 28 DAYS LATER. THE DP'S WANTS 70 MM FILM. THE MAJORITY OF THE ONES HERE SHOOT MOSTLY DV AND TALK HD DOWN. MAKES SENSE?

 

 

Comments in CAPS.

[Mitch Gross]

It's easier to get an image in video, but it's easier to get a good looking image in film.

:P

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Until you've actually gone through the experience of working with both on a serious project, you won't really be able to say what is and isn't easier!

 

I have shot a fair amount of video. Video is nice because I can go out and film, er, tape whatever I want, just grab images off the street, improv on the spot, not be afraid to try things out. I can get color sync sound images and pay a pittance for an hour of of tapestock, which I can simply pop into the camera. I can then sit down and look at my footage at the end of the day (if you try doing playbacks on the set after every shot, you will eat a lot of time up - and you'll wear out your camera head faster plus drain the battery). I don't have to travel into town (or worry about sending someone out for me) to the lab with my film cans either, and needless to say I have no price to pay for developing and transfer.

 

But the difference all lies in what's on the actual screen. I have a lot of problems out in the sunlight, clipping whites. I have too much depth of field, which is okay when I have no time to focus as in a documentary, but not dramatically interesting for some situations. I have to fly in fill lights or cards to reduce the lighting ratio, so my whites don't clip. When I project it on a large screen another can of worms opens up.

 

So, insert Mitch's last quote here...

 

With film I have a major expense up front in film and lab costs, so I'm not likely to pick up my camera to go on a quazi anthropological experiment and grab footage to "see what happens" (that said, it's almost exactly what I did two years ago and I'm just starting the edit now :P ). It forces you to say "Okay, THIS is what I am going to do, because I gotta shell out up front". It makes you feel a sense of commitment immediately, and to me that is a good thing. It cuts down on wasted time and film. That said, it's ridiculous not to allow for some experimentation, you need some breathing space no matter what you do. It's not like you can shoot a film on a 1:1 ratio.

 

What concerns ergonomics, video cameras are great when they behave but when they misbehave they are just awful. Film cameras require some fairly standard maintanance (the optical alignment is probably one of the most delicate areas), but they are more rugged as a general rule. Things like threading film become second nature with practice. It's not something you can't learn, and with time you'll have someone taking care of that for you, i.e. Dave's camera assistants.

 

I myself can tell you this from firsthand experience - I am the director and DP of a 35mm feature film. I operate the camera and light everything myself on the set. Sometimes I get a hand, but most often I'm lucky if I'll get help taking my equipment in. Yeah, my Arri weighs 15 lbs as opposed to the Canon XL-1. Yeah it's annoying to have to load film versus popping in a tape.

 

But damn, I love the results, and shooting on short ends which cost one sixth the price of new film, I can't say it's entirely out of my reach - even though it isn't exactly a ten dollar tape. I spend less time lighting. I have more flexibility, so long as my meter is registering an exposure. Everyone is impressed with the dailies, "it looks like a real movie", as opposed to "it looks like a soap" or "it looks like a porn".

 

Furthermore, even if I don't go back to film, I can do so much color and exposure correction in the final supervised transfer. You try correcting something that looked passable in your camera's color LCD finder but was totally off when you saw it off a real CRT.

 

Tapes in my opinion drop out more often than film scratches or tears. I remember when I shot my first commercial job on mini DV. I looked at that small tape and said "Darn, this is an entire day's worth of work, of all the talent and crew - on this little fragile palm sized tape". It's a bit scary :blink: Quite a contrast to those nice sizeable film cans you get back from the lab - which the lab usually keeps in its conditioned vault where it is safe and can always be used again should your master tape get erased by the magnetic fields of a vaccum cleaner.

 

- G.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> The cost of errors in video would be the same as film if you want to talk about

> sets, costumes and people.

 

Sure, but in video you know about it. In film you know about it a week later and have to effectively put together a complete new production with the added annoyance of trying to make everything exactly the same as last time. Pain in the neck.

 

> Have you ever had a tape with dropouts or otherwise screwed up?

 

Nothing I couldn't fix!

 

> What is the difference if David can hire someone to work the camera?

 

Because most lower-end productions where this all becomes an issue can't hire three ACs and a loader, so you end up with one person trying to deal with it all. Easy on video. Very hard on film.

 

> I can guarantee you that, if and when video replaces film, the dp on large

> productions will still have a camera operator operate it for him.

 

Exactly, but I'm not talking about large productions - this came up in reference to some little indie, which is exactly the situation where film is an expensive pain in the neck. You do need a huge and very experienced crew and lots of money, and suddenly it all becomes very easy. If you don't, you're stuffed.

 

Phil

[Mike Brennan]

Sorry for the long post.

 

>until you've actually gone through the experience of working with both on a serious project, you won't really be able to say what is and isn't easier!

 

One needs a lot of experience to draw conclusions. A few projects are valuable no doubt, but the goal posts are moving, cameras and lenses are improving and their are many workflows to be tried.

 

 

>But the difference all lies in what's on the actual screen. I have a lot of problems out in the sunlight, clipping whites.

 

Yes HD has less dynamic range. But I'd still prefer a nice sunny day to a overcast day.

When transfered to film the HD image as presented to the audience has same contrast range as if the movie originated on film.

 

>I have too much depth of field, which is okay when I have no time to focus as in a documentary, but not dramatically interesting for some situations. I have to fly in fill lights or cards to reduce the lighting ratio, so my whites don't clip.

 

Good depth of field is also an advantage for bluescreen low light and long lens work.

As much as it is a pain to control highlights it is a breeze to control and monitor shadows.

 

 

 

>When I project it on a large screen another can of worms opens up.

 

With good on set monitoring and or an experienced crew who know what they are doing there should be no surprises on the big screen.

 

 

>With film I have a major expense up front in film and lab costs, so I'm not likely to pick up my camera to go on a quazi anthropological experiment and grab footage to "see what happens" (that said, it's almost exactly what I did two years ago and I'm just starting the edit now ). It forces you to say "Okay, THIS is what I am going to do, because I gotta shell out up front".

 

Yes film does put a limit on the number of takes a director can go for. Hardly good for the audience if the director has to stop when he has a "near enough" performance. Low shooting cost allows a disciplined director to go for a few more takes. Undisciplined directors will be wasteful no matter what the format, but a disciplined director is still at the mercy of the talent, weather bad luck or any member of the crew having an off day.

 

>It makes you feel a sense of commitment immediately, and to me that is a good thing.

 

How does one format make you feel a sense of commitment more than another format? DPs need to be committed no matter what the format.

 

 

>What concerns ergonomics, video cameras are great when they behave but when they misbehave they are just awful.

 

So what? You get another camera. You can see a problem *before* you shoot if you have an experienced crew who check back colour bars after recording them.

 

>Film cameras require some fairly standard maintenance (the optical alignment is probably one of the most delicate areas), but they are more rugged as a general rule.

 

Not so! if you consider that the film inside your camera is so sensitive to xrays and heat! A remote head camera can withstand many Gs. I've had a f900 strapped to a bean bag on a super cart at 150mph. However there are manufacturing and assembly faults with some HD cameras.

 

>Things like threading film become second nature with practice. It's not something you can't learn, and with time you'll have someone taking care of that for you, i.e. Dave's camera assistants.

 

Yes HD also requires trained and experienced crew.

 

>I myself can tell you this from firsthand experience - I am the director and DP of a 35mm feature film. I operate the camera and light everything myself on the set.

 

With HD you can direct, shoot and edit! Sounds like the ideal format for you.

 

>Sometimes I get a hand, but most often I'm lucky if I'll get help taking my equipment in. Yeah, my Arri weighs 15 lbs as opposed to the Canon XL-1. Yeah it's annoying to have to load film versus popping in a tape.

 

I thought were were talking about HD not DV.

Without a focus puller both HD or film is likely to be soft if the camera or subject are moving.

 

>But damn, I love the results, and shooting on short ends which cost one sixth the price of new film, I can't say it's entirely out of my reach - even though it isn't exactly a ten dollar tape. I spend less time lighting. I have more flexibility, so long as my meter is registering an exposure. Everyone is impressed with the dailies, "it looks like a real movie", as opposed to "it looks like a soap" or "it looks like a porn".

 

I applaud your enthusiasm and commitment to film but your assertions that HD can't look like a movie or looks like "soap" or "porn" are simply inaccurate and an indication of the lack of experience of the production team rather than any failings of the aesthetics of the format.

 

>Furthermore, even if I don't go back to film, I can do so much color and exposure correction in the final supervised transfer. You try correcting something that looked passable in your camera's color LCD finder but was totally off when you saw it off a real CRT.

 

The mistake in you made was using a LCD viewfinder for colour evaluation in the first place.

All HD takes are available in a online for grading and and can benefit from an extraordinary range of production value boosting effects and secondary grading. These effects can be explored in low cost offline environments and OMF files transferred to the online where even a 4 pass moc move can be conformed in minutes. Creation of in-shot sign-age, removing advertising mixing two exposures are a few simple ideas that boost production value (if the camera is locked off) Not to mention being able to drop a portable blue screen into shot every now and then.

 

>Tapes in my opinion drop out more often than film scratches or tears.

 

I've shot over 4000 digital tapes over 12 years, apparently without a dropout.

 

>I remember when I shot my first commercial job on mini DV. I looked at that small tape and said "Darn, this is an entire day's worth of work, of all the talent and crew - on this little fragile palm sized tape".

 

 

Size means everything to some people:)

 

 

>It's a bit scary Quite a contrast to those nice size-able film cans you get back from the lab - which the lab usually keeps in its conditioned vault where it is safe and can always be used again should your master tape get erased by the magnetic fields of a vaccum cleaner.

 

HD recording requires a hugh magnetic field to be affected. You could run a metal detector over a metal tape all day and not have it affected. Even powerful hand held tape eraser passed over a tape will not effect a HD recording. I have yet to see a documented case of a recording being damaged by spurious magnetic fields. Consider the thousands of tapes being shot and shipped by TV crews around the world.

 

I have clones of my important work so don't need to worry about a single master being damaged, nor pay a premium for airconditioned storage of comparatively bulky film cans.

 

 

Mike Brennan

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I thought we were comparing SDTV more, my error. I haven't shot HD but I'd still prefer film.

 

Not so! if you consider that the film inside your camera is so sensitive to xrays and heat! A remote head camera can withstand many Gs. I've had a f900 strapped to a bean bag on a super cart at 150mph. However there are manufacturing and assembly faults with some HD cameras.

 

You can strap an under $1000 Eyemo on a car and crash it if you wanted to. The quality you'd get from that camera in my view would superceed the $100,000 F900. X-rays as a rule don't abound by a set!

 

 

but your assertions that HD can't look like a movie or looks like "soap" or "porn" are simply inaccurate and an indication of the lack of experience of the production team rather than any failings of the aesthetics of the format.

 

Never specifically mentioned HD, again I was thinking more SDTV here, because my impression was that the convo moved in that direction. Sorry I guess I was wrong. Still, I know what HD looks like on a CRT and I still say it looks too video.

 

With HD you can direct, shoot and edit! Sounds like the ideal format for you.

 

I can direct, shoot, and edit on film too - no difference there. Some people think film is more inhibiting than video including HD, that it takes more work. I disagree.

 

Anyway, I could keep arguing this further but it's pointless. I've been shooting in a zero budget situation with 35mm and I think that's the best choice I could have made. Film is not more expensive to make mistakes on when you consider the time that has gone into it.

 

Too much buzz is made about HD being a "perfect" low budget and ergonomics format, and I don't really think it's true. Some people just don't like using older methods, but that's a different story.

 

- G.

[Mike Brennan]

>Anyway, I could keep arguing this further but it's pointless.

 

Since you said you work on zero budgets I can see why any discussion about production value is pointless, apart from the important work of clarifying your assertions regarding HD.

 

>I've been shooting in a zero budget situation with 35mm and I think that's the best choice I could have made.

 

I agree that personal preferences hold great store when it comes to zero budget filmaking.

But when it comes to producing the best on screen production value, then hard facts and experience are needed to choose the best format for the job.

 

>Film is not more expensive to make mistakes on when you consider the time that has gone into it.

 

A qualification to your original statement and since your budget is zero, in theory your mistakes cost nothing, regardless of format :)

 

 

>Too much buzz is made about HD being a "perfect" low budget and ergonomics format, and I don't really think it's true.

 

Apart from the zero budget example explain why you don't think it is true?

 

 

>Some people just don't like using older methods, but that's a different story.

 

Another story is how some people just don't like newer methods.

 

 

Mike Brennan

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Since you said you work on zero budgets I can see why any discussion about production value is pointless, apart from the important work of clarifying your assertions regarding HD.

 

....

 

A qualification to your original statement and since your budget is zero, in theory your mistakes cost nothing, regardless of format

 

Sorry Mike but your presumptuous statements here aren't really bolstering your argument.

 

The point I'm making is that you can shoot 35 on a very low budget, which most people think is impossible. I disagree because of my personal experiences shooting on film. I'm sure I'll be shooting HD some day but I think film is simply better in all categories that I consider important, so I will continue to use it if I can, until HD improves in both quality and cost.

 

For bigger budgeted films, it seems that 35mm is still doing very, very well, and Super 16 use has picked up. That's just a cold hard fact which is sort of hard to argue with, unless you want to be like Mr. Ultra Definition here.

 

If I was into older methods, I'd be cutting my film on a flatbed or moviola, and using 100 asa film for everything. I'm just a practical person. If I was asked to shoot a straight to tape TV series HD would be a consideration, but film would always be the preference. If I was asked to do a feature for theatrical, 35mm would be my choice and I'd fight hard to keep it that way over anything else. Nothing to do with sentimental feelings, I think I'm being practical.

 

- G.