super8 vs. digital filmmaking

[mattias]

> Are you sure your information specified that it was 60 field HD

yes. the 24p cameras weren't out yet, not even for lucas. my source is several posts by david mullen on alt.movies.cinematography. he was one of the first to use the 24p camera for a feature, so he should now. not to mention that he actually remembers every word in every issue of american cinematographer ever published... ;-)

/matt

[mattias]

here's a link: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=da...ink.net&rnum=9

[Matt Pacini]

<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:


"... No matter, it looked great and, if it was 60 field HD, then that only underscores my whole point. If 60 field HD can be made to look like film ..."
Roger</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm going to have to part company once again with you on this one Roger.
Like I keep saying, using anything Lucas is shooting as an example of what ANYBODY else can do with digital video, is like saying because NASA can go to the moon, I can go to the moon.
One has unlimited resources, the other does not.

Again, Lucas has whole warehouses full of people working on computers with proprietary code that is NOT available to anyone else, written to make anything look like anything, at the cost of many millions of dollars in R&D investment, as well as sheer manpower.
Not to mention, about 50%-90% of everything in the frame is CG composited into live motion shot over greenscreen; in other words, much if not most of what you're looking at did not original on film OR video, as it never passed through the lens of a camera!
A better example would be The Anniversary Party, which I thought looked like **** .

Matt Pacini

[8th Man]

Good point Matt. Episode 2 won't really be the best example of what even a full scale production could expect to get from these new cameras.
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.
Perhaps that Session 9 movie is a better example.
Either way if Ep.2 looks any good, and it probably will, lots more productions will try it, and they may fall flat on their faces.

[blackangus1]

Gotta go with Matt on this one. I just got back from NAB and stared at a LOT of 24P video systems. They all look like -- well, stuttery video. High-res, clear, sharp, and stuttery, and video through and through.

Yes I've seen Episode II's trailer, and yes from the trailer it looks very film-like, but I've got to assume that they spent a lot of time on a film-looking process (not for motion but certainly for texture and tonality). Of course, the transfer to film for the trailer probably helped quite a bit, so it would be interesting to see a direct digital projection to see how much of the film look is in the data and how much is from the film print.

24P by itself is not going to be the "magic bullet" -- heck, watch an episode of "100 Centre Street" -- it looks and smells and reeks of video even though it's 24P. But I think 24P HD with a dose of "CineLook" over it (withOUT any 3:2 manipulation) would probably do very nicely... once the cost of cameras come down, the decision is going to be much tougher for indie filmmakers to choose film over filmlooked 24P video... which means DV is DOA as any sort of serious choice.

Despite Sony's head start, it looks like Panasonic is making a grab to take the lead in digital cinematography, both with their "varicam" (that can do any frame rate from 4 to 60fps) and also with their consumer-aimed 3CCD Leica-lens 24P mini-DV camcorder (expected in September, MSRP ~$3500). Some of the Panasonic stuff looked much better than some of the Sony stuff -- Panasonic's 24P HD combined with their "cine gamma" technology was definitely more film-like than Sony's "Super 16 HD" camera... that thing stunk of video. (and I'm a dedicated Sony buyer, never bought a camera that wasn't Sony, but this NAB has me seriously thinking Panasonic).

[blackangus1]

One last note: "The Anniversary Party" is not 24P, wasn't even HD. It's straight DV shot on DSR-500's. (well, okay, straight "DVCAM", but still 25mbit/sec, not D-9 or HD or anything fancy)...

[mattias]

but wait a minute, all the star wars films, with the possible exception of "empire", look like shti, whether shot on film or not.

anybody seen "jackpot" by the way? i'm really curious, but it hasn't been released here in sweden (yet).

/matt

ps. have you noticed my creative misspelling of some words lately? pretty cool, huh? i'm sooo fukcing clever... ;-)

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 10, 2002 06:14 AM: Message edited by: mattias ]</font>

[MovieStuff]

<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:

Like I keep saying, using anything Lucas is shooting as an example of what ANYBODY else can do with digital video, is like saying because NASA can go to the moon, I can go to the moon.
One has unlimited resources, the other does not.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're missing the point, Matt. As I CLEARLY pointed out in an earlier post, I realize that the stuff we are forced to work with is not the same as what the big boys use. My point is simply that there is a change in technology coming and it is evidenced by what is happening at the top of the food chain. It WILL work its way down (sooner than later) and the idea that people will "always be shooting film" because film will always be superior is only wishful thinking. I don't care what the REASON is, if video can be made to look like film NOW, then the major battle is lost, as far as film vs video, since the rest is only a matter of economics and scale bringing the technology within the grasp of mortals like you and me. Look at NLE systems. Once was a time, not too long ago, that NLE systems had a mandatory starting price of $20,000+. People used to say that broadcast quality non-linear editing could NEVER be done on a home computer but look at what's happening now?

<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 blackangus1:

24P by itself is not going to be the "magic bullet" -- heck, watch an episode of "100 Centre Street" -- it looks and smells and reeks of video even though it's 24P. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny, I actually commented to my wife the other night about how great "100 Centre Street" looked. I had no idea it was 24p. I thought it was film! But I guess that's the whole point here. It does not matter what YOU or I think of any type of "Video Film Look" process, just like it does not matter what any of us think about the virtues of Super 8 over other formats like 16mm. It only matters what the paying audience thinks and how they accept the chosen format. Because, whether we like it or not, the audience dictates the direction that the technology takes and not the other way around. If audiences look at "100 Centre Street" and accept it as film (like I did), then the current minor differences between "true film" and "video film" mean nothing. And the more audiences accept the "video film", the more it will be used. The more it is used, the cheaper it will get and the more refinement of the medium that will take place.

I mean, come on guys, one of the key reasons most of us shoot super 8 is the convenience of getting a "film look" economically combined with the ease of slapping a preloaded cartridge into the camera. We don't do it because we specifically want the Kodachrome look all the time nor do we use super 8 because of the exceptionally fine grain and superior resolution it offers. We use it in SPITE of what ever deficiencies it may have and make the best of it because it offers a chance to tell a story that an audience will more readily accept because it still looks like "film". You think that people shooting 24p think any differently? You think an audience cares as long as it looks like "film", any kind of film?

This is not an "anti-film" rant, nor is it an "anti-super8" rant. It is just a reality check about the mortality of our beloved format. I feel that change is coming faster than any of us can imagine. Again, if I didn't have faith in the super 8 format, I would never have invested heavily into building the DV8. I just worry about how unfeeling and less-than-compassionate corportations like Kodak will respond to the digital threat. Because, regardless of what WE think about it, how Kodak responds will be the deciding factor. Will they pull the plug on super 8? Or will it still be offered as a rarity, the price of which will make it impractical compared to shooting something like oh, say, a 24p miniDV?

Roger

[crimsonson]

Agree with Roger 100%.
Just like to add...
The life expectancy rate of Super8 depends on its current users. Since there is basically no development from major manufacturers of anything new.

Also, 24p is being used in many sitcoms I bet you guys did not even know.

Matt I am suprised,
Even the trade papers you campaign for that we should read (Millimeter, AC, etc.) are all talking about the increase use of HD as an acquisition format.

NLE trade papers are filled with HD preview, review, use and case studies.

The cinematographers mailing list (where ACS, BCS, and many other international DPs are members) discussed HD at least half of the time.
And many are accepting 2k DP, 2k!!!, 2k!!! (Amelie, LoTR, and many future high budget films are doing 2K) only about a year ago, you could not get an AC to come within 50 yards of 2k DP.

[mcarter4121]

A good reason to own a mini'dv cam is for haveing your film transferred to video and using the miniDV to get it to your computer. You wouldn't want a VHS tape even if it was made with a 3 chip camera would you? A great pro transfer would loose it bad in VHS and keep most quality using the miniDV format.
My sister in law keeps me subscribed to Scientific American Magazine wherein an Astronomy article reminded me that film plates are no longer used for time exposures of stars and the like, a huge ccd chip is used instead because they are much more sensitive to light; at that size I suppose. What size are they anyway, surely not 8x10?
CCDs when big enough are more sensitive to light. That may impact movies when ccd chips become cubes, see Newsweek a couple weeks back, colors of light are now being captured in stacks of sensors instead of averaged by pixels side by side. Memory will be made in cubes at first.
The Borg are comming.