-
<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"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 8th Man:
"... Hwever, The Anniversary Party may not be either. Was that shot on HD? I seem to think maybe not. That film was more or less one of those Dogme 95 type of films in it's tone, more like Dancer in the Dark and may not really be the best one to compare...</font></font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have no idea where these rumors get started.
Anniversary Party was indeed shot on HD, and it was NOT a Dogme film by any definition.
It was shot using multiple cameras, using professional dollies, by a DP who is one of the top DP's in the industry, professionally lit, acted, edited, etc., and cost well over a million to make, which would be quite strange for a Dogme film, eh?
There was a lengthy and complete article in American Cinematographer, compete with pictures of the cameras on big freakin dollies, a regular crew, etc.
Roger, I think you and a couple others here are missing my point entirely.
I'm not saying that NOBODY is going to shoot more video than they are now.
I'm simply saying, that given all the things you're claiming about video's capabilies NOW (you're saying it can be made to look like film NOW), some people are still shooting film.
It is totally irrlelevant WHY they want to continue to do it, they could be insane, stupid, or whatever, but they (we) still want to do it.
So there must be some reason other than those reaons you site, that will have to change before they (we) stop shooting film and start shooting digital video.
And it's NOT just because it's still expensive, because it's most of the "big boys" with all the money, are continuing to shoot film, even though they can afford all this now, and it's the little guys who are switching.
So it is not logical to say "video can look like film NOW, so everyone's going to switch to it IN THE FUTURE.
If it looks like film NOW, then everyone should be switching NOW!!!!
There is a missing piece to your logic, see?
Why in the future, and not now?
If it's the money part like you say, that needs to get cheaper before everyone switches, then everyone would be saying "gee, I'd really love to switch to shooting on video instead of film, but it's too expensive right now", which of course, is backward and absurd.
Listen to yourself Roger!
Your'e saying film is cheaper than video!
I'm dumbfounded by this! It makes no sense!
Why in the world are we on this board shooting Super 8 instead of video?
There simply is very little technological justification for it, right?
Anser: We just simply like the way it looks better.
And you're partially right about the "trickle down" effect of things getting cheaper, but that's not always how it works, because things are very complicated sometimes.
It's not a universal rule. (Try buying an airplane and see how cheap it is.)
For instance, we refer to "digital video" or "digital projection" as if it's one thing, but the fact is, all these manufacturing companies are still fighting it out for who gets to be "the standard".
There is not yet a standard for digital projection.
That's another big reason the theater chains aren't going to rush into it.
History shows that the studios and distributors are always competing against each other, and they play these games with the theater owners.
Like Lucas did for Staw Wars - the Phantom Mayonnaise. Remember?
He made the theaters sign contracts, that they would have it on so many screens, for a certain amount of days REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE SEATS OR NOT, or they would not be allowed to get the film.
In fact, when I went to see it, there were like 2 other people in the theater, and the theater continued to run this for 4 or 5 weeks afterwards!
I lost all respect for G.L. then, because that's basically a fascist method of distribution.
So I could see a situation (and Im' sure the theater owners have thought of this) where a MovieHouse "A" has the Kodak system, but Star Wars Episode 28 gets distributed using the TI system, or whatever, so MovieHouse "A" doesn't get to show that picture, because he doesn't have the "right" system, (which undoubtedly, Lucas will own part of, like the THX system).
That's one reason I think Lucas is so big on this;
he wants to own part of the technology, so every time a movie is shown somewhere, he gets money (like with THX).
Matt Pacini
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 10, 2002 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Matt Pacini ]</font>
-
> professionally lit, acted, edited, etc., and cost well over a million to make, which would be quite strange for a Dogme film, eh?
ok, a dogma film mustn't be lit, but they are all *extremely* well acted, and the editing is *great*. and they all had a budget of at least a million... :-)
/matt
-
<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 Matt Pacini:
So it is not logical to say "video can look like film NOW, so everyone's going to switch to it IN THE FUTURE. If it looks like film NOW, then everyone should be switching NOW!!!! There is a missing piece to your logic, see?
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nah. Not in the slightest. You have a tendency to go to extremes, Matt! [img]smile.gif[/img] No offense, but with you it seems either "everyone" does something or "no one" will be doing anything! If that were the case, there would be only one format that "everyone" was using because "no one" was using anything else. Obviously, there are a variety of formats because there are a variety of needs and opinions about each.
As such, what I clearly said is that video can be made to look like film now which is why more and more production companies are starting to use it. I never implied that it would be an immediate, overnight thing. That's something that you brought into all this. I KNOW the change will be gradual, only faster than most of us realize. At this point in the game, some (like you and blackangus) don't feel it looks enough like film and it, therefore, doesn't meet your requirements. Still, others feel that it does look authentic enough to satisfy an audience's needs to "see" film and are starting to use it more and more where film was once used.
Basically, it's going through the same curve that Super16 went though. For many projects, there is no logical reason not to use Super16 yet project after project is shot on 35mm, even when the budget can't afford it. Why? Because there is a bias, justified or not, against 16mm in general by many professionals working in the film industry. Likewise, as illustrated by yourself and blackangus on this forum, there are people that feel the current "film look" and 24p mediums don't measure up to your standards. That's admirable, but does not mean that an audience would necessarily share your point of view or even care. YOU might not like 24p, but chances are very high that the typical audience would not know the difference. It is this reality that will be the determining factor on the longevity of film; not whether you or I WANT to keep using it. We will keep using it if we are ALLOWED to keep using it, either by availability or budget.
Roger
-
<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 Matt Pacini:
I have no idea where these rumors get started.
Anniversary Party was indeed shot on HD, and it was NOT a Dogme film by any definition.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 10, 2002 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Matt Pacini ]</font></font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Matt where did you get that? Can you point it out to me... I thought it has been well documented that AP was shot on Sony DSR 500 (DVCAM)? Far from being HD
-
<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 MovieStuff:
"...YOU might not like 24p, but chances are very high that the typical audience would not know the difference. It is this reality that will be the determining factor on the longevity of film; not whether you or I WANT to keep using it. ..."
Roger</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Roger, I disagree.
The audience doesn't care what filmmakers shoot on, and usually, they don't know what filmmakers shoot on. They just go to see a movie they think may be good.
They most certainly do NOT dictate what a movie is shot on, they simply respond to it, after the decision is made what format to shoot on.
Sure, ultimately they pay the money, etc., but this is like saying the audience dictates what brand of C-stand a production uses.
They don't care, and they don't know.
It's the production that makes the decision.
For the audience to dictate it, as you say, they would have to be demanding digitally shot films, which means they would have to stay home, instead of go to the theater to see a movie projected from a film print.
That's what "the determining factor" would be, and I just can't see that happening, ever.
And crimsonson, you may be right. I'm a little foggy on which camera was used on Anniversary Party, now that I remember back, but I'm not on the other factors.
And Mattias, ALL Dogme films have had over a million dollar budget?
I can't say I've seen every Dogme movie made (and neither can you, I'm sure) but really, ALL of them?
Over a million?
Kind of defeats the whole purpose, if you ask me.
I didn't think Anniversary Party was particularly well acted, either.
Extremely predictable.
I get so tired of movies, where their "big dramatic character moment" always = "people screaming at each other, with fuckk being used about every fourth word for dramatic emphasis".
Yawn...
Matt Pacini
-
I'm going to have to backtrack a little -- I spent a lot of time at NAB today talking to one of the major DP's of 24P indie features, and I pointed out the horrible harsh video look of all the 24P systems, and I basically said "What the **** is this?" and he pointed out that "look, we're at NAB, and the "B" stands for "Broadcasters", not filmmakers -- so everyone has their camera calibrated to look as "video-ish" as they can get it!" He said the camera system, especially the Panasonic Varicam, is capable of delivering about any look you want it to -- and for this convention everyone pretty much chose "video".
Makes no sense to me at all -- I mean, the whole reason to develop 24P was to imitate/emulate film motion, right? So why accentuate the "video" aspects? But that's what the manufacturers chose to do...
And while I do think "100 Centre Street" is very obviously video, as are several concerts and other shows I've seen in 24P, I think "Witchblade" and "Titus" and "Earth: Final Conflict" are better examples of a look that's closer to film and probably "good enough". Properly calibrated, it'll probably be acceptable to the public.
Like it or hate it, 24P is coming, and all I was saying before was that there was a "missing link" before it was competitive with film... perhaps that missing link was the use of CineLook, or being transferred to real film, or perhaps it's just a skilled and talented DP & camera tech extracting the right look from the camera.
24P will definitely take over in dramatic and sitcom production -- I've said that since I saw a demo two years ago at the Nashville film festival -- and my fear for all of us, as filmmakers, is if the TV shows move to video then that will cut off an enormous source of revenue for Kodak and Fuji. If we lose the economies of scale that currently exist, it could push film into much higher costs -- exactly the wrong move when film is already fighting a battle of costs!
Film will survive (and thrive) as long as it does something unique, or extremely better than, the alternatives. It used to be if you wanted slow-mo you needed film because video couldn't do it (which is why parts of Episode II were shot on film); but with the Panasonic Varicam that's no longer necessarily true, at least up to 60fps. If you need extended latitude you need film -- but that's probably achievable with video in a few years. Film had unique motion characteristics owing to its frame rate -- but that's being stepped on now by 24P video. Film has infinitely superior resolution, but that's being chipped away by HD. Currently film has a huge edge in distribution (you can play a 35mm film anywhere in the world, but try getting a 24P HD projection somewhere...) but that will change someday. When it does, things will look pretty grim for our friend film, unless the costs come down substantially. And with less of it being used it seems unlikely costs will come down substantially, it seems the opposite is likely. And it won't just be features that suffer, it'll be all film formats because of the economies of scale...
"Who wants to hear actors talk anyway?"
-
> Anniversary Party was indeed shot on HD
no, not at all. seriously matt, if you use the same rather agressive "i'm right" tone in two statements, and it's easy to prove that one of them is wrong, you can guess how we'll feel about the other, right? i suggest you get your facts straight before you put on your "besserwisser hat" the next time...
/matt
-
Matt&Matt:
Admits that I haven?t a faintest idea but can this help you some way?
http://www.editorsguild.com/newslett...ilmmaking.html
[ame="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Anniversary+Party+was+indeed+shot+o n+HD&btnG=Google+Search"]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Anniversary+Party+was+indeed+shot+o n+HD&btnG=Google+Search[/ame]
-
<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 Matt Pacini:
The audience doesn't care what filmmakers shoot on, and usually, they don't know what filmmakers shoot on. They just go to see a movie they think may be good.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahh, I never said that an audience knew what format a movie is shot on nor did I imply that they dictated a specific format. What I clearly said is that audiences prefer the look of film over video. If that look can be achieved without actually using film, then associated suppliers and labs will either drop product lines, close down services or raise prices to offset the deficit created by the decreased use of film. In fact, that is already happening. There are only TWO Kodachrome super 8 labs in the world, Matt, when there used to me many more. The reason is the decreased use of super 8 and the increased use of video as a home movie medium. That is a prime example of what I am talking about.
We can endure that, to a point. But at some point shooting film (even super 8) will get so expensive, compared to shooting 24p video, that we will be forced to make a change. Just as we currently use super 8, despite all its deficiencies, we may find ourselves making the same consessions with the 24p miniDV format, depsite all its deficiencies.
But, Matt, if audiences don't care what movies are shot on, then why did you bust your nuts shooting Lost Tribes on super 8? According to you, the audience would have liked it just as much if you had shot it on miniDV! The reason that you know to be true is that distributors prefer products shot on film because they (and you) know that AUDIENCES prefer the look of film, regardless of HOW that look is achieved.
Since audiences prefer the look of film, and since film look can now be achieved on video, with even greater improvements in fidelity as time goes by, more and more production companies are starting to use film look and 24p for their productions. By the way, this isn't my opinion, here, Matt. This is a fact. So, I'll reverse the question you asked me before:
If, as you claim, there is statistical evidence that an audience doesn't care what format a movie is shot on (film or video), then why are more and more production companies starting to use film look and 24p cameras? Why not just shoot plain old video and get on with it? After all, according to you, the audience just wants to see a good story. Why bother with trying to make it look like film at all?
There is a piece missing to your logic, yes? [img]wink.gif[/img]
Roger
-
<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 MovieStuff:
"...But, Matt, if audiences don't care what movies are shot on, then why did you bust your nuts shooting Lost Tribes on super 8? According to you, the audience would have liked it just as much if you had shot it on miniDV!..."
Roger</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Roger, you're either just not getting what I'm saying, or you're trying to use Clinton-esque word twisting on me!
Obviously, what I mean by saying the audience doesn't care what you shoot on, is that they have no idea of what technical aspect creates what look, quality, or whatever, therefore if you ASK THEM, they will say they don't care.
If a DP chooses say Fuji film instead of Kodak because he thinks the look will be more effective for that particular story line, thne the audience is going to respond better to the story and like the film more.
Now, if you then ask the audience if they would have liked it more if it were shot on Kodak stock, they have no idea.
I'm not saying it ACTUALLY MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, I'm saying they don't know if you're shooting on a Panavision Platinum 35mm camera, or a Sears VHS camcorder.
And if you asked most of them which they preferred, they would probably say they didn't know, or didn't care.
That's what I'm talking about.
I shot Lost Tribes on Super 8 film, because for all it's deficiencies, it looks more like "a movie" than "a home video", which is what it would have looked like had I shot it on DV.
And from a strictly business point of view, shooting on film has currency with distributors, still.
I go to these "let's do lunch" pitching sessions in L.A. from time to time, and from what I've seen, STILL, nobody who's buying films is at all impressed when someone says they shot on DV.
They get the blank stare, because distributors know that any yahoo can shoot on DV, and they figure if they watch this guys film, it's about a 99% chance he's going to be looking at some unpolished piece of **** .
I know that's unfair, I'm just repeating what I'm seeing and hearing in these pitch meetings.
What you read in the magazines, and what's going on in the real world are not necessarily the same thing.
I think if you have a star in your movie, then you have a chance getting a DV feature seen, but if you don't, your chances are even less than a no-star movie shot on film.
And s far as the NAB goes, I find it a stretch to say that EVERY SINGLE CAMERA and VIRTUALLY ALL THE FOOTAGE SHOT THERE, OR BEFOREHAND was intentionally made to NOT look like film, by all the different people, considering that it seems to me that everything on TV that is shooting DV/HD these days is trying to look like film, not video. Sounds like a fishy excuse to me...
"Oh, it could look like film if we wanted it to, we just don't want it to".
Uh huh...
Matt Pacini
