Film vs Video Article

[sk360]

Yes another one, but pretty interesting as they interviewed such top notch Cinematographer's like Harris Savides and Ellen Kuras who for the most part, are still very much pro film.

http://www.ifp.org/features/newsitem.php?id=124

[ccortez]

Nice article. Thanks for the post.

- c.

[David M. Leugers]

"I tried hard to impart a character to the imagery that would make it feel like film, or at least older than the footage I initially saw from the Viper. I struggled with the technology to give it a look of film - and I think we were pretty successful. It's very banal. It's very dull.

That is when I stopped reading...



David M. Leugers

[mattias]

yeah, people are finally starting to state the obvious that many of us have known for a decade. video is cheap and video has its own look, these are two things that we can use. it doesn't, however, look like film. et voila, that's it, case closed. ;-)

/matt

[Dr Smith]

I was stunned to discover that Zodiac was not shot on film. It looks beautiful and really does have a great retro 70's film look to it.

Considering the obscene amount of money Hollywood movies cost to make (excluding star salaries) and since seeing Zodiac I do think the writing must definitely be on the wall for film, certainly as far as the investors are concerned. It could be great news for indie film makers too as the millions saved cutting out the film and lab costs should mean that a whole bunch of smaller films might get made that would not have.

Did anyone see The Last Broadcast? I seem to recall that the guys who shot and produced that were also pioneering digital projection AND that for at least one screening the data came in via satellite too!

I'm probably horribly out of date on the digital distribution front as I don't know if things have already started moving in the US with satellite broadcast movies. I attended a seminar on Digital vs. Film in London about six years ago. There was a lot of talk about revitalising cinema attendance with satellite broadcasts of major sporting events and concerts.

I think they said an average film print is 'good' for about 40 projections before it needed replacing.

Thanks for posting the article sk360.

[mattias]

It could be great news for indie film makers too as the millions saved cutting out the film and lab costs

millions of what? cents? it doesn't have to cost more than around $100,000 to shoot a feature on 35mm, even less if you're clever. indie films have been shot on dv and hdv for years and the ones that haven't been successful wouldn't have been on 35mm either, if you know what i'm saying.

/matt

[Scotness]

I assume for Hollywood etc if you're paying 10million plus per star your film stock and devpt costs are the least of your worries.

Perhaps we'll end up with lots of films originating on film, but being projected digitally, if the average print only lasts 40 runs. I'm sure I've seen some that are alot more worn out than that though!

Scot

[Dr Smith]

It could be great news for indie film makers too as the millions saved cutting out the film and lab costs

millions of what? cents? it doesn't have to cost more than around $100,000 to shoot a feature on 35mm, even less if you're clever. indie films have been shot on dv and hdv for years and the ones that haven't been successful wouldn't have been on 35mm either, if you know what i'm saying.

/matt

What I meant to say was that if investors had to risk less on the more high profile Hollywood 'product' then there might be a little bit more floating around for those lower down the food chain - for whom even 100, 000 is hardly pocket money.

And I do passionately believe that imagination, good story telling, photography and acting are what makes a film watchable not how expensive the medium itself is or is not. Personally, I would be happy to make films in Pixelvision if that look suited the kind of stories I wanted to present.

I went to the Berlinale European Film Market again this year and spent some time with some distributors of low and ultra-low budget DV productions. No surprise it's mostly fifth rate tits and horror schlock made for 10 - 20, 000 bucks on DV that makes any money - if they are lucky enough to sell the rights to a couple of TV networks and maybe only then just make their money back.

[mattias]

What I meant to say was that if investors had to risk less on the more high profile Hollywood 'product' then there might be a little bit more floating around for those lower down the food chain - for whom even 100, 000 is hardly pocket money.

oh, you mean they will go "wow, you're only spending $50,000 on acquisition instead of $100,000, then i guess rather than giving you a $50,000,000 budget you'll get $49,950,000 and since that reduces the risk for us substantially we'll give the rest to your neighbor's dv feature"?

well that makes total sense. :-)

i've assistant directed two features in the $200,000 budget range so i know how much money's worth. we spent around $10,000 on each for cameras and tape stock, for reference. on one we bought an hdv and on one we rented an imx. we would never have been able to afford a genesis or viper, not even a cinealta.

/matt

[MusicConductor]

Go see a blockbuster at ArcLight Cinemas in Hollywood at the end of a long run, and chances are it will look brand new. Now, I can't be certain that it isn't a replacement print. However, it seems reasonable to think that with proper print lubrication, daily projector maintenance, and use of particle transfer rollers that you should be able to get hundreds of runs out of a print.

Digital projection looks clean. Too clean.

[yolia]

"I tried hard to impart a character to the imagery that would make it feel like film, or at least older than the footage I initially saw from the Viper. I struggled with the technology to give it a look of film - and I think we were pretty successful. It's very banal. It's very dull.

That is when I stopped reading...



David M. Leugers

Yeah. Rather f-ing silly to spend all that time, energy, and money to try to make HD look like film. Just shoot film genius! We're they trying to save money on film stock by shooting HD?!? I didn't read the whole article. Anyway, whatever...

[MovieStuff]

"I tried hard to impart a character to the imagery that would make it feel like film, or at least older than the footage I initially saw from the Viper. I struggled with the technology to give it a look of film - and I think we were pretty successful. It's very banal. It's very dull.

That is when I stopped reading...



David M. Leugers

Yeah. Rather f-ing silly to spend all that time, energy, and money to try to make HD look like film. Just shoot film genius! We're they trying to save money on film stock by shooting HD?!? I didn't read the whole article. Anyway, whatever...

(A bit of insomnia has me up at this ungodly hour.)

I think the point is that contemporary film stock doesn't look like film shot in the 70s, either, so shooting on film isn't going to automatically do the trick for the look they wanted in Zodiac. Digital is easily manipulated to look pretty much how anyone wants it to look. Had they shot on modern negative stock, they'd most likely be digitizing it anyway and then they'd have to spend time getting rid of the modern look before they could apply a more retro look. By shooting on digital directly, it was probably easier to get the look they wanted, assuming that digital was going to be part of the equation, even if they had shot on film.

Regarding the whole film-vs-video thing: The cost of raw stock versus video isn't really the whole issue for big budget productions. Speed of delivery on the final product is the issue. Even if you want to take the position that shooting on digital takes the same amount of time as film, the post is always faster with digital. It is not unheard of to begin posting at night on things shot during the day. A typical 100 million dollar budget represents a considerable loss of interest for every day that money isn't in the bank. Anything that will speed up the process and get a film to market faster is welcomed by the bean counters in Hollywood.

As an aside: Considering how apathetic audiences are getting these days, it would be very easy for the digital industry just to "coast" and wait for such apathy to supplant the need for effective R&D into a digital 35mm quality alternative. If digital is going to take over, then I welcome anyone that keeps pushing and pushing for more film-like quality from digital NOW because the alternative could be a rather horrid all digital future that looked nothing like film at all simply because there was no demand for it. Obviously the manufacturers are going to try and push the cheapest thing they can on the film industry with all kinds of claims about how great it looks. If these DPs and directors don't "push back" and demand better asthetics from a digital future, then who will? But to do that, they have to shoot films like Zodiac or Miami Vice, just to see what the current limitations of the digital medium are in an actual big budget production. So using digital now isn't so much about saving money as it is keeping a watchful eye on the future quality of digital.

My two cents. Going back to bed now......

Roger

[jpolzfuss]

It is not unheard of to begin posting at night on things shot during the day.

That's correct. But developping and scanning the film doesn't take that long either. Even in the 50s the directors/producers were able to see some rushes in their home-/studio-cinemas only a few hours after the daily shooting has stopped...

Jörg

[MovieStuff]

It is not unheard of to begin posting at night on things shot during the day.

That's correct. But developping and scanning the film doesn't take that long either. Even in the 50s the directors/producers were able to see some rushes in their home-/studio-cinemas only a few hours after the daily shooting has stopped...

Jörg

Of course but processing and scanning does take additional time and money that shooting digital does not. There is also an every day concern about liability, and shooting digital cuts down the number of people handling the master footage exponentially, which can also cut down production insurance rates. Also, after something is shot on film, the soundstage area is usually kept in tact until they know everything related to its usage is processed and scanned. Shooting on digital means they don't have to wait. If they can cut a week off the shooting schedule, then that's a week less of cartering and crew that they need. If they can get off an outdoor set a day early, then that decreases the likelihood of a delay due to weather. My point is simply that there are various related budget line-items that are affected by shooting digital, even if it isn't an effects heavy picture. These are the things that interest the producers and bean counters in Hollywood while the DPs and directors are concerned with not losing the film look that they prefer. Thus you have directors like Fincher working on his own to try and wrestle with the digi-film problem. I say cheers to him but that's just my opinion....

Back to work!......

Roger

[ccortez]

I went to the Berlinale European Film Market again this year and spent some time with some distributors of low and ultra-low budget DV productions.

Well, don't believe a word that crazy Lloyd Kaufman tells you. ;-)