Tenolian Bell

They actually don't both have the exact same track record. The music industry by far made the worst choices. They have made a trifecta of stupid choices, first they were not interested in developing on-line music retail when it was new, next they attempted to completely stop consumers from downloading music, lastly they continued to sell CD's at inflatedly high prices. People wanted to download music and did so without buying it. The music industry attempted to sue individuals for downloading music which made no one sympathetic to their cause. As music (and movies) become more about money their is a decline in the quality of the bands music labels sign. Which helps in the decline of CD sales. After failed attempts to half heartedly create their own on-line music stores and no real strategy for internet music sales, the industry hesitantly agrees to sell its music on iTunes. In this deal the music industry makes 69 cents from each single song and $7 from each album. Their is no manufacturing, their is no shipping, and their is no storage of physical media. So that 69 cents or $7 is pure profit with no expense of physical media. This turns out to give the consumer what they want for the price they are willing to pay. iTunes is now the third largest music retailer in the US. The music industry of course cannot leave that success alone. They fight with iTunes because they want the ability to raise the prices. Apple fights back in forming them the reason iTunes is a success is because it sells at a price people are willing to pay. The movie/tv studios has had the comfort of learning from the music industries colossally stupid mistakes. Movie/tv is embracing the internet in a way that music never really did. The studios are trying various different models of delivering content in an attempt to figure out what people will like the best. The one on-line stores the studios are most hesitant about though is iTunes. iTunes has essentially set the price that music can be sold on-line and it is difficult for the music industry to sell anything for more than 99 cents. Music is really upset about that, even though they have made nearly 2.5 billion from iTunes. With DVD sales flattening. The movie/tv studios know that digital downloading from the internet and video on demand is their next area of revenue. But they still want to position it to make the most money they can. So they are afraid of iTunes setting the price as it did for music. I think what they both fail to understand is that the market sets the price it is willing to pay. The proliferation of bootleg media and on-line piracy is because the price is higher than the market is willing to pay.

I should have qualified my statement a bit better. I went to an ASC Technology Committee meeting. Where several industry experts meet to research and develop industry wide standard way to most effectively archive film and digital materials. It was there I heard the board proclaim tape dubbing is not a good long term archiving strategy. Of course no one has to follow their recommendation, but they are working to figure out the best strategy. I read that LTO tape is expected to last for 30 years. Just out of curiosity who is the we in your statement? Its difficult to say what may happen in the future. NHK's developing Ultra-HD technology, which includes a resolution of 8K -- or 16 times the amount of picture information found in today's HD format -- has been dazzling audiences at preview demonstrations. Now, standards-setting body Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers is close to completing technical standards for Ultra-HD, which are expected to be released by year's end. NHK had asked SMPTE to begin the standards-setting process, though it is viewed as being 15-20 years away from mainstream use. "This is a good time to nail down some parameters during the evolution so that we can learn more about how we want to use it," said Peter Symes, director of standards and engineering at SMPTE. "NHK is seeing it as a standard that will support very large displays with a lot of information on them, and that information won't always be one single picture. The sort of thing that NHK envisions is a wall in your house that's one big television screen, and various things might be happening on this at the same time. You might see a movie on one screen or kids might be doing their homework on another."

That's it exactly. When they made Star Trek they had no idea at the time that 40 years later the show would be repurposed for HD broadcast. In that same vein we don't really know what the state of television delivery will be 40 years from now. I've heard discussions on this and re-dubbing is not being considered for serious archiving. The amount of material that will have to be re-dubbed will exponentially grow as time goes on. Tape is also being ruled out as archivist think in hundreds of years, tape will not last that long.

Archiving is still a serious issue that has not been resolved with digital. Archiving is extremely important for long term revenue. With internet distribution growing any show can be distributed and bought in perpetuity. So you want your origination material to be as format agnostic as possible. HBO contractually requires film negative of all of its one hour dramas for this reason. Right now the short term expense of shooting on film provides a sure and known way of archiving for long term distribution.

As Hollywood digs in for a second week of a strike, the screenwriters might want to send a few angry picketers over to Will Smith?s place. Or Steven Spielberg?s. And maybe the studio executives should think about joining them on the line. As it turns out, the pot of money that the producers and writers are fighting over may have already been pocketed by the entertainment industry?s biggest talent. ...much of the income ? past and future ? that studios and writers have been fighting about has already gone to the biggest stars, directors and producers in the form of ballooning participation deals. A participation is a share in the gross revenue, not the profit, of a movie. ....a Hanks, Cruise or Carrey whose movie brings $600 million back to the studio from all sources might easily wind up with a $20 million salary, and an additional $50 million on the back end, while an A-list director and producer could take in tens of millions more. In fact, neither side should be cheered by figures that describe an industry that has increasingly doled out its wealth to star performers and filmmakers, at the expense of almost everyone else. New York Times

Numbers, The Shield, Pushing Daisies from what I remember. There were a few more shows the Kodak rep mentioned. The film stock for the L Word is called F-900. :), its actually shot on HD. All of the shows produced for Showtime are shot on HD. I agree they do an excellent job. The rep said '19 will be marketed as a premium product. Its expected to mostly be used by features for DI. They are not marketing it for television or indies.

Had a very interesting conversation with a Kodak rep last night. She told me how Kodak has struggled with second guessing its strategy for digital scanning of film over the past 15 years. In the early 90's Kodak pioneered film scanning technology with its Cineaon system. Kodak also began R&D in low contrast stocks purpose built for film scanning. But unfortunately all of this research was ahead of the industry. Kodak executives looked at the bottom line and saw this wasn't making the company much money and pulled the plug on its investment in Cineon. In the late 90's Kodak launched 5620. A 640T film intended only for television. The film was again ahead of its time, did not sell well, and was discontinued. Now that the DI post is becoming more the norm, Kodak realizes it missed the opportunity to be the market leader with Cineon. The current 5299 has come at the right time. A number of television shows use the film stock. 5299 was intended to be used in accordance with the KODAK VISION2 HD Digital Processor in post. The Digital Processor would add the color characteristic of any Kodak film stock the production chose. But what has unexpectedly happened is that shows love to shoot 5299 but do not use the digital processor. The colorist choose to create the look of the show from the raw image. The Kodak rep told me Kodak sees this as the direction the industry is headed and Kodak is attempting to get ahead of the trend. 5219/7219 is lower grain and lower contrast to accommodate DI. She told me they expect some DP's to initially complain about Kodak making its stocks too grainless or loose many of films older characteristics but this is the direction the industry is headed.

I agree shooting on 35mm helps in differentiating yourself from the multitude of DV projects. 35mm lends some credibly in that it takes some skill and effort to raise the resources required to shoot on 35mm. Also it helps that so much crap is produced on video. But the shooting format matters less if the story has some type of hook that would find an audience or the film has really strong direction and performances. Having well known leading actors in the film ultimately trumps shooting format and all but guarantees distribution.

A video from the writers perspective.

I also think the expectation and life style in LA are higher than they are in most other places. When I first began to take trips to LA. I came with the mindset that the primary reason we made movies and television were for the love of it. Of course we want to make money, as much as possible, but the love of the craft was the major motivator. As I got to know people who worked in Hollywood I quickly learned differently. Its about money. I would hear people frequently complain that they feel they weren't getting paid enough or that someone else is getting paid more than they are. Most of these people live very comfortable lives. Not rich but certainly making more than the average American. So I began to ask around why are people in Hollywood so concerned with money. The general explanation I got was as you start working steadily you are pretty happy and satisfied. Especially if you've been struggling for awhile you are really happy to have a steady income. But as time goes on you see people who started with very little become rich. You see them buy big houses, multiple luxury cars, and take trips around the world. You may be making $150,000 - $200,000 a year which is a very good salary because the average American makes $45,000. But still even with that you see other people accumulate wealth, they can choose to work or not work. While you have no choice but to continue to work, because you are not rich. You feel this other person is being valued more than you are which makes you want fight for more money.

Yes I agree. The art of cinema projection is extremely mediocre today. Once you actually see proper projection you could think it some new technology. But in reality its just a clean 35mm print and a properly maintained projector with a healthy xenon globe. There is nothing digital can do to help poor projection. With film you can have scratched prints, misaligned masks, dim globes and pops/cracks in the soundtrack. With digital if anything goes wrong you can easily have a blank screen.

Most of the people who work to sell films don't work for an upfront fee. Its more about people who believe in your film and believe it has the right elements to be profitable. They have the connections to get your film seen by distributors. Their fee will be a percentage of the sale. Even if the movie is shot on film there is slim chance a distributor will actually watch a film that has been walked cold into their office. It just does not work like that today. The reality is that the secretary will take your film and sit it on the pile of other walk-ins that will never be seen.

No its not my intention to come off overly US-centric. I complain about the way filmmaking is done in the US all the time. Its more about business and profit than it is about the art of cinema. But even within that there are advantages to the US system that make it desirable for people from all over the world. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing, it just is what it is. The money and resources the Hollywood studio system and US distribution companies are willing to pour into movies is staggering. That is why US distributed movies dominate the worlds theaters. A film made abroad has the best chance of moving from obscurity into worldwide sensation if it has been distributed and marketed by a US company. When going to Cannes, or Berlinale, or Venice. The US backed films generally have the biggest star actors and largest marketing campaigns. US distribution companies are prepared to pay the most money to buy unsold films. Our conversations here on this board. Even though people on this board are from all around the world generally our talks mostly gravitate around television and film produced through the Hollywood system or distributed by a US company. Sometimes we talk about British, Australian, and Hong Kong cinema, but mostly its about what is being produced in the US. Actually it would be interesting to have more conversations about cinema from around the world. Over the years on this board we've had a lot of people from overseas ask, "how can I come work in America" or "should I move to LA" or "should I apply to film school in NY or LA." All that to say is that I'm not making the conversation US-centric, the tone of this board already is.

In the context I was speaking this is true. This is a different context than what I was talking about. There are many films that get made because of less expensive formats, but at the same degree the far majority of these films will never be seen by a large audience. Working in Hollywood is what most of us here are talking about. When people say they want to make a film. It is generally implied they want to shoot a great film that will be bought by a large US distribution company which will provide a wide theatrical release. Of course films are made and distributed outside of the US industry. I've heard of successful production companies in Africa. Shooting films on mini DV and being very profitable, but that is not what most people here are aspiring to. I'm sure this is true, but that being true does not invalidate what I've said. Because where I am that is how it works. If someone is able to shoot a mini DV film and make money in a smaller market. I would imagine they would not be concerned about RED shooting 4K or how it compares to film. They would be too busy making films. In which case the acquisition format still does not matter.

Acquire, means to obtain or secure. Film and video are two formats used to record or acquire images. I agree from a technical point of view. But from an aesthetic point of view resolution does not matter so much if the audience is engrossed and moved by the story. People place too much emphasis on 4K recording. Resolution is an important aspect of filmmaking, but it is not the only or even a dominant aspect. There is a lot to know from the artistic side of movie making as well as the business side of movie making. Simply shooting 4K is not enough to complete a finished movie, create a great movie, or get around the challenges of marketing and distributing a movie. Yes all of those in accordance with the skill and talent of a great crew. But you can use lights, dollies, cranes, make up, costumes to produce great images on a PD-150. Technically it is not superior to a format with more resolution but the skill of the people using these things trumps the tools themselves. The business of marketing and distributing movies is not about film, HD, or 4K. There are many factors that go into what films are distributed and resolution is the least of it. The number of films a distributor will see is already decreased by film festivals, film markets, production companies and sales representatives. Any film that does not go through some official channel has next to zero chance of being viewed by any major distributor. I see what you are saying but I would look at it differently. A movie that has been shot on 35mm generally has had more advantages, that is why it has a higher probability of being sold. This type of film will generally have known actors, a higher budget, a skilled director, and a talented crew.

This all depends on the end expectation of the film. My comments were based on the fact that most people's desire is to produce a film that will be seen by a wide audience and produce a profit. Yes it is possible to make a movie for little money. What was the point of making the movie if there is no audience to see it. You are right if the entire budget of the movie is spent entirely on the camera and media. Then the acquisition format does play a part in whether that particular movie is made or not. This type of film has a very small chance of being seen by a wide audience or producing a profit. The majority of movies that are seen by a wide audience and produce a profit, acquisition format is expected to be 35mm by default so its rarely a factor. I am not making assumptions the acquisition format alone rarely plays much part in determining if a movie receives wide distribution. Unless you stretch YouTube, Myspace, and a screening on a living room television for friends and family as distribution. Investment on this type of movie is generally out of pocket and they rarely earn any money. 90% of the movies that receive wide distribution are not made this way.

There was really no money saved though. No one is going to say we spent 200 million, but at least we did not have to spend 200,000 on film. Not necessarily. mini DV makes it even more affordable than RED does. As we have learned over the past 8 years the acquisitions format does not really have much influence over whether a movie gets made. Nor does it determine if a movie is distributed. Investment and earnings is also not really determined by the acquisition format.

I think I would still come away from that demonstration with a healthy dose of skepticism. I've seen the RED footage at NAB and it looked great. But I'm still waiting for even more rigorous tests. Put the images through situations of extreme over exposure and underexposure to a degree where color correction cannot save the image. In a finished product anything can be color corrected to look any number of ways. Years ago I saw a demonstration that tried to show mini DV shot with a 35mm adaptor will appear indistinguishable from 35mm film. The video shot from the 35mm adaptor did indeed look good in relation to the 35mm film. But if you were to put both through full and rigourous testing we all know the mini DV would come up quite short. The DP is also a recent RED owner. I would imagine he plans to hire himself with the camera and is motivated to make it look and sound as great as possible. I'm not saying he is not telling the truth, but I am saying he is not a balanced and unbiased source.

Saw is in a different situation. Its a genre film produced by LionsGate. So it never had to go through the same hoops as an independent drama. It was only slightly touched on. Most of the producers said they did not care either way. But most all of the films discussed were shot on 35mm.

This was also discussed theatrical vs straight to DVD. There are disadvantages to straight to DVD. Essentially it does cost a lot less money but you get no glory either. There are many small films that have a theatrical run that hit the right chord and are big hits. You never really know what film that is going to be. Theatrically released films make more money in DVD sales and television rights. A straight to DVD film will not be eligible for awards season. You never quite know what film will be selected. If the Producer or Director wants a chance at a studio picture deal they have to have a theatrically released film. Lastly, no shooting on the Red camera in and of itself will not over come any of these obstacles.

I did somewhat provide half of the story. The panel whom discussed these topics were a mixture of directors, producers, and distributors from New York and Los Angeles. A couple of the directors were from other parts of the country. Much of what I described above was being pushed by the people from LA. - You must have known actors - You must hire a Producers Rep - You must go to some major festival - You must sell to a distributor for wide theatrical release. This was mostly from people who work in the Hollywood system as they are the system and benefit from it. Many of the people from New York or from other parts of the US did not follow this mantra so closely or even completely agree with it. These people generally don't have immediate access to the benefits of Hollywood or necessarily agree with its tenants. Several of the producers from NY described how they distribute their films can very much depend on the film and its target audience. Not every film they make will necessarily benefit from Sundance or being sold to a distributor for wide release. Some films benefit more from some form of alternative distribution or maybe even smaller theatrical release. Bob Berney the executive of Picturehouse (NY distributor) spoke. He said he's built his career on making films that defied the rules of what distributors want to distribute. Such as Memento, Whale Rider, Y Tu Mama Tambien, Prairie Home Companion, and recently Pans Labyrinth. He says he has championed many films that are regarded as undesirable because they are foreign language, or lack known actors, or have complicated themes that distributors fear the audience won't understand or like. New York has the benefit of being extremely supportive of the independent film community. There are a dozen theaters completely dedicated to showing independent and foreign cinema. Thus their is access to theaters for filmmakers in NY. I've heard that as many as 30 independent and foreign movies a month open in New York. Producers in NY take advantage of this by having their smaller films go for a theatrical run in NY. Garner media attention from the New York Times, Village Voice, MTV, the internet and various other NY media outlets. As the film grows in recognition have a wider run in more cities such as LA, Chicago, Austin TX, San Francisco. Targeting the film directly to its core audience then growing the audience from the grass roots up. This business model has worked well for quite a few films. In cutting out the producers reps, the PR, the festivals runs, and distributors, the film is able to go directly to the people who will enjoy it the most and more of the profit goes directly to the filmmakers. These films are not made with the money or resources of Hollywood. Nor will they make the equivalent amount of profit. Some alternative films have been able to recoup their entire investment and even make a good profit from the smaller theatrical run, then DVD sales are pure profit. But this doesn't work for every type of film. And doesn't always work with the film you expect it to.

I went to an extremely informative conference in LA this past weekend. In where we had stark and real lesson in how independent film is made and distributed today. The big question everyone asks is where does the money to make the film come from. There are a lot of private equity firms with fat pockets willing to put millions into films. Unfortunately for most of us this money is largely going to films with well known actors or well known directors. The type of film where Brad Pitt takes a pay cut to be in what they call a small "independent vehicle". The budget of the film will be smaller but in reality this type of film receives many of the same resources that larger budget movies will receive. Most independent movies are funded by friends and family (called F and F). Many times these films will only raise a portion of the budget through F and F, there are other funding sources used to raise the rest of the needed budget for production. Or funds to finish the film. There are ways to leverage money already raised to convince other investors or receive a bank loan. People also shoot in places with tax rebate incentives such as Canada, New Mexico, Arizona, New York. California currently has no tax rebate incentives. But there can be an argument that there is such a wealth of resources in Los Angeles that in many ways can save money. Most investors want to see a complete package for a film. They want to see fully casted, with a full crew, and a start date. Many investors will want a completion bond that insures the film will be finished on budget and on time. Completion bond costs around $30,000 - $75,000. There are two types of investors to contend with. An Active Investor and a Passive Investor. An active investor is someone who will actively be involved in the filmmaking process in some capacity. This can be a problem if that person knows nothing about filmmaking but wants to be in the decision making process. A passive investor is someone who signs the check and is not directly involved in the actual filmmaking. There can be serious problems because most films have more than one investor and may have a mix of active and passive investors, there can be some trade offs with their various wants or needs. Also in dealing with more than one investor is called "Marrying Money". In this situation it is important you keep the financial terms of the deals equal or at least similar. One investor will ask for more concessions than another. At the end of the process you want all of your investor to be happy they worked with you. So you don't want to give one much more favor than you give another. Another big resource for film funding are foreign pre-sales. The film will hire a foreign sales agent to go into Europe or Asia and sell the idea of the film. The foreign sales agent is paid 8% to 12% of the sale, and their marketing fees. Its suggested you cap the marketing fee when you negotiate the agents fees. The idea of the foreign pre-sale is that distributors in those different countries will buy the right to distribute the film based on the script. The film can then take the money from the pre-sales in Europe and Asia and use that money towards the actual production. Often in reality foreign distributors buy the rights to the film based on what actors are in the film. They will pay a lot of money if Brad Pitt is in the film, if Joe Nobody is the lead actor its likely no one will buy the film at all. It was also pointed out that if an American film stars an African-American, Latino, or Asian-American cast the chances for foreign pre-sales are near zero. There are also two types of bank loans a production can receive based on the foreign pre-sales. GAAP Financing and Mezzanine Financing. GAAP Financing is a loan on the equity of the amount of pre-sales a film has received. This is a low interest rate loan and has to be paid back before you pay any other investors back. Mezzanine Financing is a high interest rate loan that banks will give with no pre-sales equity to leverage the loan. This loan must be paid back as soon as possible. As the film goes into pre-production. There are various models for how a production can pay the cast and crew. If the budget is extremely tight many will go with whats called favorite nations. Where everyone is paid the same amount and gets the same amount of points on the film. Often to gain higher caliber talent especially in cast and sometimes in crew the production will have to offer that person more gross points of the film than other people are offered. Gross points are a percentage of the films profits before taxes are accounted for. Net profits are a percentage of the films profits after taxes are accounted for. You are most likely to actually receive money from a gross point deal than a net point deal. Many have moved on from gross point deals to Box Office Bonus deals. In where contractually a certain amount of payment is guaranteed if the film gross a certain amount of money. That is the surest way to actually receive any money at all on the back end. After the film that has been completed there comes the festival run and distribution. The first step is getting a sales representative also called a producers representative. The producers rep essentially sells the film to a distributor for a percentage of the sale. The Prod Rep works generally for around 8% - 15% of the sale. Its easier to negotiate for a lower percentage if the film is a hot commodity. If the prod rep feels it will be a challenge to sell the film then they may charge a higher percentage because they may spend more time trying to sell. What's also not widely known is that producer reps have relationship and connection to festival programmers. Prod reps will advocate and improve chances to get the film into Sundance, Cannes, Berlinale, Toronto, Tribeca and so on. It is strongly suggested you send your film to a producer rep well in advance of festival deadlines but as near to picture lock as possible. Producers reps see hundreds of films and only accept a few. There are only a few really good prod reps and if they all turn down your film you are essentially on your own. There are rare but known cases of films in a festival that have no prod rep that gain interest from distributors. Because of the interest a prod rep comes onto help sell the film during the festival. This is rare but not impossible. Films are not always sold during the festival. After Sundance the prod rep continues to get the film into more festivals and screenings trying to sell to a distributor. The prod reps themselves say they will champion a film as long as it takes to sell. While I heard from producers than a film that does not sell at a festival will receive less and less attention as time goes on. The film will also need a public relations person. This person generally works for an up front fee of $5000. Public relations are important because they help build buzz about the movie during the festival. One of PR primary jobs is to convince acquisitions people from distribution companies to come to the screening of the film. As well as a general audience to fill the theater and give positive reactions for the acquisitions people. So lets say a distribution company becomes interested in buying your film. The producers rep will negotiate a fee to acquire rights for distribution in the United States. If the film has had no foreign pre-sales then the film needs an International Sales Representative to sell the film to foreign markets. The public relations person sends out press releases about the sale of the film and its amount to begin the buzz of its theatrical run. When the film has been given rights to a distribution company the filmmaker essentially gives up all rights to the film for 15 - 25 years for an up front payment. Once the film has its first showing in theaters the distributor will analyze ticket sales on the first day as well the first weekend to determine how long they project the movie will have a profitable theatrical run. The distributor has all rights to DVD sales and television rights. The distributor has full control of back end payments to the filmmakers. As an example lets say you made a film for 2.5 million. Your investors gave you 2 million, you got the $500,000 through in-kind services and tax rebates. You go to Sundance and sell to a major distribution company. Typically that company will pay around 2 million for the rights to distribute the film. The Producers Rep gets 10% of that. The distribution company typically will not pay for deliverables. Some cases they may not pay for prints and advertising. Depending on the number of markets the film will show P&A can range from $500,000 to $10 million. Deliverables are elements needed for a full theatrical run. - Answer Print - Senior Positive - Inter-negative - HD Master (4x3, 16x9, 1.85 or 2.40) - NTSC Master - PAL Master - Music and Sound Effects The total cost for deliverables is typically $200,000. Other elements needed for a theatrical run that the distribution company may not pay for. - MPAA rating - Dolby Digital Surround Sound License - Print Continuity Check - Errors and Omissions Insurance These elements typically cost $33,000. Errors and Omissions Insurance can cost $12,000 to $15,000 alone. Of the 2 million advance you have to spend at least $233,000 to get the film into theaters, and possibly pay for prints and advertising with a small theatrical run will cost at least 1 million. You still owe your investors 2 million. If you have any high interest bank loans those need to be paid as soon as possible. As the film goes into its theatrical run the distribution company will view a financial success if it breaks even for the cost of distributing and advertising. If the film does make a profit in its theatrical run the chances are more than likely the distributor and theater will keep and split. This is where Box Office Bonus deals are an advantage because you are guaranteed payment of a back end deal if the film profits. Because of this a box office bonus is difficult to get. If the film does not break even in its theatrical run the distributor will recoup those losses in DVD sales. Of the DVD sales and television rights, 45% typically goes to the distributor, 45% goes to paying back the investors or bank loans, 10% goes to paying gross points to the filmmakers and actors. Case studies we heard from filmmakers many films were still in debt after its theatrical run and had taken months or years to pay back all of its debt. Which means the filmmakers and actors earned back no money from gross points. After going through this process some producer/directors have earned picture deals with major studios. Where they present scripts that the studio begins to take control of and add its own ideas of how the story should go. With the thought to a certain actor they would like to get into the film or themes and concepts that will play to a larger audience. Others that have not gone the studio route say they have started over again from the beginning with fund raising for their next film, and will go through the whole process again.

There are some key differences between the Mac and Windows user interfaces. Either just takes some getting used to. My experience with showing people the Mac who are used to Windows. They seemed to be inclined to make using a computer more difficult than it really is. When you finally get them to let go of how difficult computers are to use, then they understand how easy it can be. Final Cut Studio is Mac only. Just to blow your mind - at one time Avid, ProTools, Photoshop, and Word used to Mac only. Yes Avid pretty much is the standard in professional post houses. Largely because of its legacy. FCP has gained a loyal following with lower budget and independent filmmakers. Largely because of its functionality at a lower price.

65mm 8 perf is 8746x3835. I'm not sure about 15 perf. The actual usable information from a digital scan can vary depending on the speed of the film, how well it was exposed, the quality of the lens. The scanner/telecine itself offer various levels of quality, depending on the type of scanning technology, how much real information the scanner is recording, and the digital medium the scan is being recorded to. Admittedly I was being anal, but a lot of people confuse the two.

I don't know if I would use "canvass" as a metaphor to describe the difference between SD and HD. HD is not bigger in any physical terms, HD simply records more information than SD. The grain was always there, SD just did not resolve enough fine detail to allow you to see it. Digitally speaking S16 is around 2058x1237 pixels at 16bit and HD is 1920x1080 pixels at 10bit. Transferring S16 to HD is not a blow up. Digital is 100% completely grainless. Noise is a different artifact.