Question.

[starbella]

Several feature films have explored shooting on an alternative medium to traditional motion picture film. What is this new technology? Im very curious. If anyone can help that would be fantastic!

[Alex]

That would be super-8!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Kidding.

Basically, all the digital video formats tout themselves as being the answer to film.

Now High-Def has come along. Roberto Rodriguez used it on Spy Kids II and loves it. So does George Lucas.

Many others are waiting.

Many many many others are salivating over the idea that they can make a film and not need a big crew (theoretically).

[Mike Buckles]

Yes, and you can see the difference...you can tell the spy kids movie does not have the contrast, color, or tonal range that film has, it just doesn't look as good..at least George Lucas was very careful to make his product as good as it can get, but other directors won't be as careful, because they don't have to "sell" hi-def like Lucas did...the result is a smaller crew, shoddier work, and an inferior quality product.

[Mike Buckles]

PS....the frames up above from "The Brady Bunch" to me look better than the spy kids movie. Too bad a 30 year old tv show looks better than a brand new production! (to me, at least!)

[starbella]

ok, thank you both for your insight. So these are the 24p Sony HD Digital Camera's being used in both of those films? Spy Kids and Ep II?

Would you guys know why these filmmakers chose to use this new technology?

Also, do you know if more, if not all, filmmakers are going to follow in Lucas's footsteps? If not, why? If so, why?

[cameraguy]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 30, 2003 10:30 AM: Message edited by: cameraguy ]</font>

[Alex]

Well, it probably is just a matter of time before HI-DEF takes hold, if for no other reason than the economy.

The American economy dictates that new things replace existing things, even if the existing things are fine. Film already exists so it's time for a new technology to compete with film.

Here are the perceived advantages of HI-DEF versus film. HI-DEF is instantaneous. When the shot is finished, it can be reviewed, approved, and then it's on to the next set-up. This is the key element. No producer, no production company, no filmmaking entity wants to hear the next day that the film had a problem and did not turn out.

It's possible that over time, less and less producers will not want to "risk" not knowing how their film turned out until the next day.

My solution to this scenario is portable film developing trucks.

The other advantage of HI-DEF is eventually the cameras will be smaller and very portable. Combine that with electronic, real-time, on location color correcting and that could prove to be a huge advantage.

The conundrum in all of this is the possibility that even as low-budget independents heralding the arrival of HI-DEF as "leveling" the playing field, the real problem may emerge in the movie theatres.

If HI-DEF takes hold, the logical assumption is that movie theatres will convert to HI-DEF projection. Many view this as a blessing for the independent filmmaker.

The irony is it may NOT be a blessing for the independent filmmaker. Digital business practices are among the most hideous of all!

The ability to instantly change programming is NOT a good thing. Ever wonder why sometimes your celluar phone breaks up? It may be because you are out of range, or it may be because your "allocation" of bandwidth has been reduced to meet the demands of high peak activity!

Twice the profit, half the quality & service! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

And that is the key. The easier it is to "change the channel" for HI-DEF distribution, the harder it is to compete with the Christine Aguilar live from Kokomo Beach concert that will REPLACE actual film theatre screenings.

[starbella]

i read that all theaters in the future will be converting to Digital, so there are a few disadvantages to that then?

Ive only been hearing praise about filmmakers in what is now the Digital Age. Im quite confused.

[Alex]

This is an interesting topic.

yes, most "oppressed" filmmakers hail the advent of digital transmission as giving them a better chance to have their product shown elsewhere.

Maybe yes, probably no. [img]confused.gif[/img]

Instead of replacing existing movie theatres, why not just build new ones?

This would create a two tier system of entertainment.

The digital stuff would cost more, the film projection stuff would cost less.

The problem with beaming stuff all over is that it will ultimately end up being a competition between live events and filmed events.

Eventually, I see the live events winning out.

Something as simple as a live car chase can capture our attention. Reality TV is easier to document, and less expensive to manufacture.

I think we could witness an erosion in society's attentive skills once movie theatre digital transmission takes over and replaces the standard motion picture presentation.

I'd like to see then co-exist, but the digi-head b bean counters don't care about what might be best for society, just what makes the most money.

The live products will get all the hype. The "canned" product could become less promoted and less valued.

[Greg Crawford]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">Originally posted by MikeyB:Yes, and you can see the difference...you can tell the spy kids movie does not have the contrast, color, or tonal range that film has, it just doesn't look as good..at least George Lucas was very careful to make his product as good as it can get, but other directors won't be as careful, because they don't have to "sell" hi-def like Lucas did...the result is a smaller crew, shoddier work, and an inferior quality product.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

In American Cinematographer we learned that most of the film was shot in the studio.

Perfect!

Where the lighting could be carefully crafted ...in fact if you take a look at a lot of the shots composition computer generated animation and matt shots, will notice that some of the illusion of a long tonal range is because the background plate was designed to give the feel of daylight. While the principle photography was shot on a sound state with very low contrast lighting.

Rodriguez has never impressed me as being overly skilled in the craft of Cinematography...in fact he has made statements that are hostel as fair as the contribution of the Cinematographers.

I think Mr. Rodriguez has gotten caught up in the hype of shooting digital.

Fair warning don't believe all the press releases about anything. Especially digital.

Some time ago a did a post on an article where the writer was making the statements that digital would ultimately improve when the whole process would be digital. (The analog image) needs to be converted to digital, before it can be recorded digitally.

The problem is the lens must first captures life and things in the real world converting it into an optical image in varying shades of gray and color, all items that are real and observed in the world. We live in analog space.

Audiophiles prefer the warm sound of quality amps using tubes. Imagine that! And we prefer the organic feel of film, the shades of gray, grain and infinite colors.