Michael Most

I think it probably has more to do with the tendencies of music videos to shoot an absurdly large amount of material. The more one shoots, the cheaper an electronic alternative becomes. Not to mention the fact that music videos never have to be concerned with a theatrical release.

Not that surprising when you consider that the Phantom RAW files are uncompressed.

As a percentage drop, yes, it's rather dramatic. But it should also be pointed out that the actual number of shows - especially network shows - that were on 16mm has always been rather small, despite the best efforts on the part of those supporting the format to make it seem otherwise. In the last few seasons, the main use of 16mm has been on cable, Fox, and the WB (now the CW) networks. There has been very little use of it on the "big 3," although the NBC series "Chuck" is currently an example. In the last few seasons, the WB had Veronica Mars, One Tree Hill, Roswell, and the first few seasons of Buffy all on 16mm. Fox had The OC, Point Pleasant, and a number of comedies on the format. On cable you had Monk, and that was about it. Today, nearly all of those shows are gone. The CW still has One Tree Hill on 16mm, but all new shows on that network are done on digital cameras, as is the case with Showtime. Even Smallville, historically a 35mm show, switched to the Genesis this season, leaving Supernatural as the only 35mm show on the CW. The fact is that there are digital choices that were not available just 2 years ago that go considerably beyond what the "traditional" F900 was capable of, and thus there is far less need for a "mini 35" film format - especially when the electronic alternatives are less costly. And Walter, while it's amusing to read all of your conspiracy theories, the fact remains that today's digital production cameras are not your typical "HD" units. And one of the reasons they're being accepted in more and more production situations today is that they are not restricted to what was deemed appropriate for the television broadcast market. I don't think it's sensible to call a Red - or even a D21 - an "HD" camera, just as it's not sensible to say that 16mm and 35mm are equal just because they happen to use similar technology. We've long since moved away from the arguments as to whether HD broadcast is necessary, just as we're beginning to move away from the arguments that electronic cameras can't produce imagery appropriate for cinema presentation. So the conspiracies, while they might be historically interesting, are now quite irrelevant.

While that is often the case, it's not universally true. Especially when the filmmaker is someone with at least a modicum of a track record, and the movie is so good in terms of the story it tells and how it tells it that it becomes appealing enough to transcend the normal rules. Exhibit "A": "Slumdog Millionaire."

It's not. It's made (largely) in Singapore.

If you also count above the line as labor (i.e., producers, director, actors) I guess that's true. But if you're talking about general crew costs, on most productions the cost of locations, construction, wardrobe, set dressing, props, and transportation usually dwarf the basic cost of crew.

Showtime's mandate is that shows originate on digital formats (rather than film), not necessarily a specific camera. As an example, the upcoming program "United States of Tara" is shot on the Genesis. And, as previously mentioned, Dexter is on the F23. I believe Californication is as well. At one point, Weeds was going to use the Red, although I'm not sure if that actually happened.

Tyler, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but if you want to advertise here, you should purchase an ad. I'm sure cinematography.com would be happy to sell you space on the side of the page.

Laguna Beach was shot on SDX900's, not DVX100's.

Already released? None, unless you count "Che", which has had a few screenings. Upcoming? There are a few, but I don't know if I'd call the ones I know about "major." That's not to say it won't happen, it most certainly will. But if you're looking for examples in your local theater, you won't find them at this point in time.

"Big time" television dramas are primarily on film (at least for the current season), mostly 35 mm 3 perf - unless they're on the CW network. The only film shows on the CW are One Tree Hill (shot on S16mm) and Supernatural (shot on 3 perf 35mm). Every other drama on that network is shot on a video camera, almost exclusively either Panavision Genesis or Sony F900. There is no network drama shot on Varicam as far as I know, only cable productions (American Chopper comes to mind). To answer your specific question, House is on 35mm 3 perf film. I believe Fringe is as well, although it's possible that the series is on the Genesis.

"Big time" television dramas are primarily on film (at least for the current season), mostly 35 mm 3 perf - unless they're on the CW network. The only film shows on the CW are One Tree Hill (shot on S16mm) and Supernatural (shot on 3 perf 35mm). Every other drama on that network is shot on a video camera, almost exclusively either Panavision Genesis or Sony F900. There is no network drama shot on Varicam as far as I know, only cable productions (American Chopper comes to mind).

Glen, Interesting that you switched to HD capture this season. Was that by choice, by network request, or budget related? Just an observation: With Smallville going to the Genesis, by what I can see the only remaining film shows on the CW network this season are One Tree Hill (shot on S16mm) and Supernatural (which I assume is still on 35mm - correct me if I'm wrong on that, it's in your backyard..). All other programs are captured on HD video cameras, including 90210, Reaper, Privileged, Gossip Girl, and all of the reality shows.

I don't think the sky will fall in, and I don't think it's unthinkable. It's just a really bad idea. The problem isn't specific color accuracy. The problem is blacks, gamma, and overall contrast range. Computer monitors don't have true blacks, don't have the same gamma as television monitors, and have different resultant contrast. You can use profiling, but it only gets you so far. Of course, if you're not working on a professional project that must pass QC for the specific format of the deliverables, then knock yourself out and use whatever you have.

I would think that someone at Postworks can fill you in, since they know what they'll be using (and nobody here does). Have you asked them?

Many facilities, including the one I work in (Cineworks, in Miami) can go directly from a telecine into either a capture card on a computer or a disk recorder that acts like a VTR, but actually takes in uncompressed video and writes it directly to file formats. Both methods are used to create files from video that has never gone to tape and never been compressed. The advantage of the disk recroder is the ability to use sync sound on material that is being recorded "shot by shot." When going directly to a capture card, we usually have to do "one edit per lab roll," because there is no way to control the capture with an edit controller - you simply do a "capture now" and stop it when the roll is complete. In either case, however, there is no videotape involved.

No, I think that's what YOU believe. I would say that an awful lot of people really do believe it only requires equipment, just like a lot of people believe buying Final Cut makes you a professional editor, buying After Effects makes you a crack visual effects artist, and buying Final Draft makes you a master screenwriter, all regardless of age, knowledge, or experience. Oh, and by the way, all of that stuff should be free.

You can also replace everything after step 4 with: 5. Bring everything to your DI facility. 6. Relax while the show is conformed, color corrected, and deliverables of all types are created by professionals who do this sort of thing for a living and are very good at it. 7. Realize that you have a considerably better product and the money was well spent. Now, this approach doesn't necessarily work for no-budget, do-it-yourself, hobbyist projects. But for anything you actually expect to sell, it's certainly worth considering.

But you're still going through a facility based dailies process, along with daily duplication. That certainly isn't equal to the cost of a telecine process either, but it isn't free. But with the time factors involved in scanning negative, except in this case it's spent for file restoration and file conversions. Which shouldn't be free either, but might wind up being free because facilities are anxious to get this work and are currently willing to give away things that are not labor intensive. True. But especially in your case, "low budget" doesn't mean no budget. As it does for many on this and other Internet forums.

There is no such thing as 4:4:4 D5. D5 is a 4:2:2 format. The only current videotape format that supports 4:4:4 recording and playback is HDCam SR (which can do 4:2:2 as well, and is most often used in that mode). Also, DVCPro HD files are more compact than either flavor of ProRes. As an example, an hour or DVCPro HD at 1080/24p will require a bit under 40GB. An hour of Pro Res 422 at the same size and frame rate will require almost 50GB. Saul's comments regarding the viability of HDCam and the "proper" circumstances for using SR are right on the money. Old wives tales and slavish adherence to numbers aside, nearly every sitcom -and a number of dramas as well - that you see on the air today are recorded on HDCam. This would include dramas such as Gossip Girl, Reaper, Dexter, The Tudors, The L Word, Jericho, Moonlight, and a number of others. One other thing to beware of is that if you ask a facility for files only, it is your responsibility to back up those files. The facility is not responsible for keeping multiple copies on either a disk or a backup system unless you're requesting and paying for that. If you get a videotape as well, that media becomes your backup in case of file corruption or disk crashes. Just a thought.

Sophisticated. multi-pass, adaptive motion estimation and anti alias technology. Software could do such things, but the rendering time would be exorbitant, and the software is usually not that sophisticated as it is usually just one feature of a product that is built for a different purpose. Dedicated hardware boxes, like the Snell and Wilcox and Teranex products, are specifically built to do what we're talking about, and have much more sophisticated processing for things like pulldown detection, deinterlacing, and antialiasing.

As a former colorist, I would suggest that the best approach - especially for a student - is to stay away from anything specific or technical. Instead, direct the colorist as you would direct actors. If you want something to be very dark and contrasty, don't ask them to "crush the blacks." Instead, ask them to make it overly dramatic, or perhaps "bolder". If you want it warmer, it might be a better approach to ask them to make it "happier" rather than to say "add more yellow/red." If you want to put a window on someone's face and brighten it up individually, you might request that the colorist "put a light" on the face. Staying away from specific technical terms not only respects the colorist's experience and knowledge - after all, if they're sitting in the chair, they should be presumed to know more about the technical aspects of the job than you do - it encourages them to use technical and visual creativity to create something that's better than what you might be expecting. It makes them feel more like a collaborator and less like a button pusher, and gets you a better product, usually in a lot less time. No creative person likes to be told every step. Artists don't like to be given specific instructions regarding technique, actors don't like to be given line readings, and colorists don't like being told "make the blacks a bit cyan then crush them then bring up the gamma and balance the whites." Just a thought.

Isn't that Viper based show recording on HDCam SR tape? Or have they changed to a Codex or S.two?

Use the ColorX node and enter expressions for R, G, and B based on the matrix math. Be aware that you need to put the incoming material in at least 16 bit (preferably float) space (use a Bytes node) and linearize it (use a Gamma node with the inverse of whatever gamma the material is in) prior to any matrix transform, and then raise the result back to whatever gamma is required on output (which is basically what Glenn is describing). The much easier way to do this if you're not really familiar with matrix transforms or color space conversions is to use the color management that's built into After Effects CS3.

That's done all the time these days. But keep in mind that you still can't go "directly" to a single drive with most uncompressed formats because that implies the ability to sustain a very high data rate. Unless you're doing either standard definition, or compressed HD (and I mean heavily compressed, such as DVCProHD) you'll have to record to a disk array that can support high data rates and then copy the files to your single drive.