High-Definition Versus...????

[Alex]

Our newest contributor...toad_dance, mentioned that they shoot Super-8 while others in their area are shooting HI-DEFINITION VIDEO!

Is High-Def replacing film, OR is it primarily replacing the Beta-Cam SP and Digital Betacam video productions?

Film transfered onto High-Def will certainly look better than film transferred to Beta-Cam SP!

It wouldn't surprise me when some say that HIGH-DEF is increasing market share, what is really meant is that HIGH-DEF is replacing Beta-Cam SP and Digital Betacam!

But I'm sure the Digital Hypester Marketeers once again probably point to the OVERALL RISING HIGH-DEF numbers to imply that film is dying when in all probability 90% of HIGH-DEF production may simply be that their product is replacing BetaCam SP and Digital BetaCam!

Could you imagine some HIGH-DEF proponents padding their market share by including productions which have merely switched from other video formats to HIGH-DEF! Then using these inflated numbers to imply that film is dying!

I would consider that to be a breach of common ethical courtesy, perhaps even fraud, by touting the growth of HIGH-DEF by including productions that were previously shot in Beta-Cam SP or Digital BetaCam.

[GREATwarEAGLE]

D*mn Alex - you certainly are a Man on a Mission! [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

[TA152]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 28, 2003 11:15 PM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>

[cameraguy]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, 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, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by S8 Booster:

Video or high def DV is chosen for convenience (that includes magnetic media raw costs) nothing more nothing less.This is also the only reason (including the "freedom to tape hours and hours of useless takes at no costs) why the early video systems blew the S8 away 20 years ago.

</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not for major release movies. What difference does it make saving 50,000 dollars on film stock by using digital tapes when you are paying George Clooney $10,000,000 to star in the picture? Hd still requires lugging all the equipment around and paying people to do that. More takes means you pay them more.

Unfortunately picture quality does not matter to the average person. That may speed up the process of switching from film to digital. Plus if you shoot crappy video the S.O. effects won't look as fake as they would when mixed into higher resolution film.

[Mike Buckles]

You all make excellent points, and I think the main agreement is, that HD video and film look different. I flip back and forth on my tv from an HD film movie on HBO to the HD Discovery Channel Theater, which is mostly HD video. The HD video is clear and crisp, with rich, vibrant colors, and crystal clear details...the HD film is the same...but they look different...the HD video is like watching an extremely clear picture, while the HD film weaves more of a story that you could get involved in. A more ethereal form of visual, compared to the stark look of HD video. HD video is beautiful to look at, but so is film presented in HD...2 totally different looks...both have high resolution, both are beautiful pictures...just not the same. Mike

[crimsonson]

there is a growing number of sitcoms, episodic dramas, feature films and movies for TV that would have normally been shot in S16 or 35mm that is now shot in HD.

Each year it is growing.

Several Fox shows, TNT, A&E, etc are done in HD with more to come every fall.

HD is not replacing BetaSP since the cost differnce is huge - especially for ENG stuff
where a cam would cost $30,000.

"Video or high def DV is chosen for convenience"

that is partially true - remember many filmmakers argue about the "wired" factor- HD production still need to have wires connected while 35mm can be free from any - a big logistic factor.
Second- many DPs & Directors themselves are recommending HD for asthetic reasons. Listen, read and pay attention what many pro DPs are saying (AC, CML, IGN etc)

Look guys it is subjective. Like acryllic to oil, film photography and painting and now HD (or whatever it may be) and film - people argue that one is not "as good" as the other. Well, we and medium moves on - and those arguements are forgotten until rehashed by another medium wars.

Guys move on- if you dont like HD - dont watch the it, dont use it, dont even whisper it. Its not making us better filmmakers

[Alex]

You're shifting the discussion a bit. Film people don't care about HD, and smart film people see the value of HD.

What I can't stand is the HYPE that it is better than film. One reason HD is gaining is because it is new.

Instead of going to the same old same old film services, HD represents an "in" for those trying to break into the industry.

I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with people saying it is better than film when it is not, it's just a different way to do production.

As for how does this make us better filmmakers, Do You think the implementation of VHS helped Super-8 back in the 80's? That's why I complain about the hype, the hype makes corporate bean counters make unnecessary decisions that harm those who have a lifestyle in place that contributes to society as is.

What replaces that lifestyle, more money in Bill Gates pocket, that's what.

[crimsonson]

"You're shifting the discussion a bit"

from what? I gave you clear examples of where and what HD is replacing....

"Film people don't care about HD"
tell that to experience filmmakers (directors, producers and DPs) suggesting HD. My gosh read AC and at least one article is about HD.


"I do have a problem with people saying it is better than film when it is not,"

Please can you point out a particular ad, line, spot, etc that says so. All the ads I see implies ALTERNATIVE to film - in particular S16.

From Sony's website about HDWF900

"The Soft Focus adjustment is particularly convenient for those who find conventional digital images to be too sharp and allow cinematic or film-like images to be created."

Notice "film-like" and this is the only place it mentions it - not in color, resolution, contrast - nowhere else.


"That's why I complain about the hype, the hype makes corporate bean counters make unnecessary decisions that harm those who have a lifestyle in place that contributes to society as is."

Unnecessary? DP and broadcasters have been asking for better video formats every year. Supply is fed by demand - plain and simple. HD vs film is getting a little personal. I think we should stay away from such.


"What replaces that lifestyle"

a new one - for better or for worst.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 14, 2002 05:05 PM: Message edited by: crimsonson ]</font>

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 14, 2002 05:06 PM: Message edited by: crimsonson ]</font>

[Alex]

I think you cut some of my quotes in half, which make them out of context.

for instance... "Film people don't care about HD" is how you quoted me...but what I really said was...

"Film people don't care about HD, and smart film people see the value of HD".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the amount of film being shot going down, or is HD opening up new opportunities?

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 14, 2002 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>