Sony HD900 vs. 750

Spider · July 26, 2004

Well the last film Anthony Dod Mandle did, and I consider him a quite good DP, was shot on HD. I think he was quite satisfied to work with it - thats my impression when working with him!

Phil Rhodes · July 26, 2004

Hi,

> And I think they would be quite insulted if someone suggested that all their hard

> work would be lost on an 'ordinary audience' which wouldn't even notice the

> differences between HD and 35mm.

You massively overestimate the sophistication of the average cinema audience.

As to why the people you work with don't choose HD, well, at the moment you don't save any significant money (although I'm fairly convinced that there are some attractive guerilla post routes for things like Kinetta footage). It also doesn't help that a lot of dramatic DPs in the UK are white-haired ex-BBC old crumblies who I wouldn't trust to take to HD even if it was technically superior.

Phil

Max Jacoby · July 26, 2004

Well the last film Anthony Dod Mandle did, and I consider him a quite good DP, was shot on HD. I think he was quite satisfied to work with it - thats my impression when working with him!

That was on 'Dogville' then obvioulsy. I'd like to point out that Lars von Trier's previous films were either shot on video (Idioterne, Dancer in the Dark) or shot on 35mm and transferred to video (Breaking the Waves). It is safe to assume that he does that because he likes that look, not because he thinks it will give him a 35mm look at a lesser cost.

I have no problems with people shooting HD for artistic reasons. Like I said before, I am very interested to see what Michael Mann will do with HD on 'Collateral'. What I do have a problem with is people who are forced to shoot on HD for budgetary reasons and then proclaim: 'Well it looks just as good as 35mm' or 'The average audience won't know the difference anyway'. Because in my opinion they are just trying to make themselves feel better for not being able to shoot 35mm.

Max Jacoby · July 26, 2004

You massively overestimate the sophistication of the average cinema audience.

If you don't think that your work will touch them, then why bother?

Phil Rhodes · July 26, 2004

Hi,

Because I find it interesting.

Phil

John Pytlak RIP · July 26, 2004

Over on http://www.film-tech.com , there are quite a few projectionists who certainly can SEE the difference, and usually prefer film origination. B)

Spider · July 26, 2004

No, the last feature Dod Mandle did was not Dogville but a film that has not yet been released. It is nothing like the dogma style of Lars but a completly mainstream (almost) high production value film. Actually Lars operates most of the camera himself on both Dogville and the sequal - not Dod Mandle.

By the way Phil, what a beautiful comment: Because I find it interesting!!!

Anyway I believe that HD is the future of film. Although the evolution of film is continous I think that HD will develop faster, not only the format, but also the tools for working with it (postsoftware, in-camera settings and software and so on), and that is perhaps why I will not in anyway avoid working with HD or degrading it from film, i would rather use a lot of my time to get to know all the different ways the format works and the advantages and disadvantages it has to film, so that one can improve it towards something even more interesting than film (perhaps).

Anyways thank you for a very fruitful discussion.

Spider

Mike Brennan · July 27, 2004

"I'd like to point out that Lars von Trier's previous films were either shot on video (Idioterne, Dancer in the Dark) or shot on 35mm and transferred to video (Breaking the Waves)."

HD didn't exist when Lars made Breaking the waves. Since then he has chosen HD to shoot Madelay and Dogville and his studio has produced others on HD.

"It is safe to assume that he does that because he likes that look, not because he thinks it will give him a 35mm look at a lesser cost."

But maybe he believes that it will give him a 35mm for lesser cost as well as liking the look!

Here is Lars personal assistants email; anne.mette.kjeldsen@filmbyen.com

I would be interested in you contacting him to clarify his position.

"What I do have a problem with is people who are forced to shoot on HD for budgetary reasons"

They have a choice and choose HD! because they think it is better for *their* movie.

No matter what the budget people can choose film or HD. Many peolple ar enot getting their facts straight when it comes to budgets , mainly becuse of the vested interst in telecines and film cameras.

and then proclaim: 'Well it looks just as good as 35mm' or 'The average audience won't know the difference anyway'

Since the average audience won't know the difference between HD and film that is a cool thing for them to say.

"Because in my opinion they are just trying to make themselves feel better for not being able to shoot 35mm."

Not all film makers are emotionally attached to shooting film, unfortunatly some of those who are wear their heart on their sleeve.

Mike Brennan

David Mullen ASC · July 27, 2004

The first thing in controlling ANY process, film or digital, is to acknowledge what their weaknesses are and deal with them rather than deny there are any problems.

Tenolian Bell · July 27, 2004

To give the audiences somehting you know is technically inferior just because they are't literate enough to tell the difference. I can't go along with that, that's not why I'm a filmmaker. I respect my art as well as the audience whom I would like to enjoy it. If they don't understand the visual vocabulary then it is our job to help teach them, not continue to keep them in ignorance.