CineGear Expo - June 6th & June 7th

[vt220]

<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">Um, I missed the part where you mentioned Super-8 at all. [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img] </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

oops. yeah, well, er...

<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">Reducing yellow and giving the film more of a blue look [...] can make it look sharper.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

it actually did strike me that the color shift was probably helping to lessen the perceived amount of grain - neutral tones looked less "ruddy" in the print we watched. sometimes it was pleasing, sometimes the 5218 looked pretty "clinical", not so much in a good way (to my eye.)

[Alex]

I saw this issue unfold first hand when I was at film and video transfers in Northridge. We were retransfering 10 year expired footage.

We noticed that when we completely balanced the 10 year old film's color so that both yellow and blue were represented, the grain seemed to increase. But when we let one color dominate, (either the blue or the yellow or the other), the percieved grain noticeably decreased.

I'm a fan of adding blue without taking out the red and yellow tones when I work with video in my editing studio.

[nahie]

vt220,

Did you attend that lecture in the trailer/theater thing? The one about underwater photography and using super 16mm for docs instead of HD? The lady giving the lecture was a documentarian who 1) loved to shoot on film and recently won some award from Kodak and 2) was really big on "saving the environment" by making docs about underwater life and pollution, etc.

I found it ironic that she was all about shooting film docs about saving the environment, in particular the oceans and the water supply, when to process a single roll of film pollutes gallons of water. Compare that to video, which pollutes nothing to "process." I would have spoken up, but really, the whole lecture was a Kodak "pat on the back" pep-rally for film...

[Alex]

Have you ever unraveled one 2 hour VHS tape? It will easily fill a large garbage container.

[nahie]

So will 2 hours of film stock...in fact, on the last 16mm film project I helped edit, the excess cut material fil led a garbage can...

(why does the forum censor fill ed?)

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 13, 2003 11:09 AM: Message edited by: nahie ]</font>

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 13, 2003 11:10 AM: Message edited by: nahie ]</font>

[Alex]

For the record, I have no control over what words the automatic censor chooses to censor.

I think the video versus film issue is very complicated. When you shoot film, you shoot less than when shooting video, and you spend more time planning each shot and what your goal is.

The result is less overall footage. If you were to unspool every VHS tape you own and compared it to all of your film reels (which we would never unspool, as that would be sacriligious [img]rolleyes.gif[/img] )

You would find that you could fill hundreds of refuse containers with the VHS video footage that you already own, whereas the film would barely fill a couple of refuse containers. Why, because video is so cheap to shoot that many of us shoot a lot of it.

Environmentally speaking, each process has it's advantages and disadvantages.

[vt220]

<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 nahie:
vt220,

Did you attend that lecture in the trailer/theater thing? The one about underwater photography and using super 16mm for docs instead of HD?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

i didn't see that seminar, doesn't interest me too much. i do occassionally make documentaries (usually 16mm/DV hybrid), and i have shot film underwater, but i wasn't interested enough to actually attend.

<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">
I found it ironic that she was all about shooting film docs about saving the environment, in particular the oceans and the water supply, when to process a single roll of film pollutes gallons of water. Compare that to video, which pollutes nothing to "process." I would have spoken up, but really, the whole lecture was a Kodak "pat on the back" pep-rally for film...</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

so what's yer point?

[nahie]

I guess the whole thing threw me back to an incident in film school. In film 101, we all had to make a documentary. This one woman made one about water pollution, etc. It wasn't a bad doc, shot on film, etc. But the teacher pointed out that processing the film for that doc polluted a lot of water with the processing chemicals...it was just a side remark really. The student, however, was shocked. What? Developing film pollutes water!?!?!? Oh no! How could I have done such a thing...! Made a film about water pollution that polluted gallons of water!!! The universe will implode!!!

Haha! I just thought it was funny and wondered if the woman at the lecture knew that processing film polluted water.

The other funny thing was how they were all up and up over Super 16, how it was SOOOO much better than HD, etc. Yet in the same sentence, they mentioned that they shot some HD for practical reasons and cut it in with the Super 16 and no one could tell the difference...

Then there were the flippant remarks about how if you can't afford to shoot on film, you shouldn't be shooting your movie...

It finally hit me when the lecture panel went around and told what their backgrounds were. The guy leading the discussion was a Kodak rep! No wonder everyone was falling over kissing Kodak's behind on the Super 16...that and the underwater cine woman won an award and some film stock from Kodak... It was bothering because it looked like a big Kodak conspiracy. It's like those Kodak ads in mags...promoting film over video. All it really says to me is Kodak is afraid of digital. And if they're that afraid, there must be something to this digital stuff...

Hey, I love film and shoot it myself from time to time. I don't care that processing it pollutes the water. It isn't any worse than washing your clothes, really. It all ends up at the water treatment plant...right???

[vt220]

<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 nahie:
What? Developing film pollutes water!?!?!? Oh no! How could I have done such a thing...! Made a film about water pollution that polluted gallons of water!!! The universe will implode!!!
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

just for balance: magnetic tape consists of a magnetic coating on a polymer base film and is manufactured using a continuous wet coating process, where a magnetic dispersion is applied to the base film. this uses a number of organic solvents, including methylethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and toluene, which are all on the EPA's list of hazardous air pollutants.

<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">they mentioned that they shot some HD for practical reasons</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

what was the reason(s)?

<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">Then there were the flippant remarks about how if you can't afford to shoot on film, you shouldn't be shooting your movie...</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

well that's pretty annoying. there's all kinds of that attitude going around.

<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">It was bothering because it looked like a big Kodak conspiracy. It's like those Kodak ads in mags...promoting film over video. All it really says to me is Kodak is afraid of digital. And if they're that afraid, there must be something to this digital stuff...</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

i don't think kodak is afraid of digital. they consider the digital post process when designing their new emulsions, they have a child company that does digital grading/intermediates for features, and they promote film as a great origination format for projects finishing on video via digital post. i think it's a smart approach. i also believe that film is going to be around for a while, especially for commercials and music promos, where it's versatile "look" really shines. more and more features will be shot on HD, but 9 times out of ten, people i talk to who are working in DV/HD wish they could shoot film but can't cause of cost, lack of equipment, or whatever.

i think that says it all.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 14, 2003 05:06 PM: Message edited by: vt220 ]</font>

[nahie]

<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">they mentioned that they shot some HD for practical reasons.

what was the reason(s)?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were shooting a documentary on the holocaust and interviewing people in Israel. I guess after 9/11 (man, what isn't blamed on 9/11) they didn't want to take film on the plane because of the x-ray machines, and there is no film lab in Israel, so they decided to shoot those interviews with HDCAM.

They said they cut it with the super 16 and no one knew the difference. I think they caught themselves though because, after a few moments of uncomfortable-ness, they launched back into the greatness of Super 16...like, having to change mags every 20 minutes gives the interviewees a chance to rest...

Also they threw in the arguement that when you're shooting with film, you have to budget your shots more because you can't just shoot and shoot and shoot. I suppose that is a small point, but really just an excuse for being lazy and not planning your shots in the first place...