super8 vs. digital filmmaking

[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">&lt;font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt;&lt;font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt;Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

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

I'm saying they don't know if you're shooting on a Panavision Platinum 35mm camera, or a Sears VHS camcorder.

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.
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/font&gt;</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. But why would that matter if the audience doesn't care?

The fact is that the audience CAN tell the difference between something shot on plain video and something that looks like film. As you pointed out, they might not be able to articulate that difference but they know when something looks like a soap opera and when something looks like a movie.

Audiences prefer film, which is why you wanted the "film look" for Lost Tribes, and super 8 was the cheapest way to get the "film look" that you considered viable. That doesn't mean there weren't video film look applications available for you to choose from; only that you felt they didn't look authentic enough to suit your standards.

The problem is that YOUR standards do not represent those of all audiences for all subjects. That is why some producers are starting to use film look and 24p in their productions because some audiences think it looks authentic. As you pointed out yourself, they don't know if it's shot on a Panavision or a home VHS camera. They only know it either looks like film or it does not.

Ultimately if it looks like film, then it looks like film. Any audience that can't tell the difference between Panavision camera footage and VHS footage certainly isn't going to be dissatisfied simply because "film look" has only one generic sort of "film" mode. That mode is STILL going to be preferable to raw video and will be authentic enough to satisfy the audiences' need to see "film". Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean the rest of the industry can't find a use for it commercially. As you also pointed out, it matters not what your format is, if you don't have a name star, it is going to be tough to get distribution, even if you shot in Panavision.

Roger

&lt;font color="#a62a2a" size="1"&gt;[ April 11, 2002 02:36 PM: Message edited by: MovieStuff ]&lt;/font&gt;

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 13, 2002 08:18 AM: Message edited by: MovieStuff ]</font>

[TA152]

Just a comment.

Last summer I visited Paramout among other LA+ studios. They proudly announced that they only use film for all their productions except stuff that are to aired the same evening.

I think that if, or more correctly when P goes digital it will be a good indicator of when the 35mm is over its heydays, maybe.

And S8 remains the only film format left?

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 12, 2002 10:27 AM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>

[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">&lt;font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt;Originally posted by S8 Booster:
"...I think that if, or more correctly when P goes digital it will be a good indicator of when the 35mm is over its heydays, maybe..."
&lt;/font&gt;</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, this is the kind of wild assumptions that I'm talking about, that seem to me, to be coming from the subconcious effect of all the hype and marketing of digital.

Here a studio proclaims they will only shoot film, and that is used as evidence that they are going to switch to digital???
Huh?
They just said the exact opposite.

By their statement, there is no reason to make the assumption that they're going to switch to video, period.
And even if they did, since when does Paramount rule the entertainment world?

I'm sorry, but the logical extension here is just vast and over-exaggerated.

Paramount saying what they did makes the point FOR film and AGAINST digital.

SOMEBODY thinks it's still a good idea to shoot film, and that "somebody" is still most of the industry, and a good piece of the ametuer market (us Super 8 and even 16mm shooters).

I really think that anyone shooting on DV today, certainly on MiniDV, in a few years are going to be sitting on footage that is considered just as technologically advanced and cool and "as good as film", as if you have a room full of 3/4 inch video, or Hi8 or S-VHS video now.
I remember at the time, having people rant and rave about how superiour all these video formats were at the time, now it's doubtful that anybody would even bother to watch your stuff if you said you shot on one of these formats.
Film formats last 50-100 years (and the media can last that long too), and video formats come and go every 3-5 years.


Matt Pacini

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 12, 2002 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Matt Pacini ]</font>

[TA152]

Dont?t disagree for a second Matt. Think you misunderstood what I wrote a little. Personally I hope DIGITAL will be later than sooner.

I am not saying that Paramount is ruling the ent buzz. It?s only that this was the only big studio of the four I visited; WB, Universal, Sony and Paramount that I where they emphasized that they only used film due to the image quality which made it logical to assume that the others do mix the stuff a bit more because they never mentioned anything about this?

Personally I was on the step tp buy a MiniDV cam or a BETA (not digi) but I started to look back on the past 15 years I had gone through using the different amateur/semi/pro video formats and admitted to my self that all of them except for the Beta produced garbage compared to the S8 I had used simultanously.

I had the oportunity to compare the two format S8 / MiniDV side by side recently and that made me go for an easy decition. Shoot S8 unitl there no more film availble or the last S8 cam has broken down or is finacially out of reach.

Looking back: 15 years of videotaping with different formats is really 15 years of big disappointment. Even the Mini DV is just a step midway on the DV path to me, not worth touching or waste money on.

Well, to me anyway.

[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:

SOMEBODY thinks it's still a good idea to shoot film, and that "somebody" is still most of the industry, and a good piece of the ametuer market (us Super 8 and even 16mm shooters).</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Matt, no one is arguing with that at all! It is obvious that most of the industry still shoots film and for a lot of very good reasons. However, your statement above is a FAR cry from your original statement where you insisted:

<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:
If video can look just like film, then NOBODY would still be shooting film. Fact is, it doesn't look like film.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

In short, your "fact" is simply not. Video CAN be made to look like film and the proof is by your own insisted standard: SOMEBODY thinks it looks good enough that many production companies that once used film are now using either 24p or film look. If video could NOT be made to look like film then it would not be used where film was once the only alternative for the look desired. After all, plain video with it's "plain video look" has ALWAYS been available. Therefore, the change over to 24p isn't because they suddenly wanted the video look. It is because the producers found a more effecient way to meet the audience's need to "see film". Now THAT'S a fact you can bank on. Lord knows many companies at NAB have!

Look, it's just like the whole super 8 versus 16mm thing: We hear all the time that super 8 on video can look "just like 16mm". Now you could take the position that, if such a statement were really true, then NOBODY would be shooting 16mm and EVERYBODY would be shooting super 8! But, obviously, there are many, many factors that have nothing to do with how the image compares to 16mm and more to do with equipment considerations, distribution, post, etc. Also, you can not ignore simple bias against a medium that many producers and DPs still consider to be amateur; an ironic position considering that many of those same DPs once considered 16mm to be amateur as well.

Therefore, in the continuing debate about digital versus super 8, it is merely my position that more and more professionals will start using 24p instead of film and the reason will be determined by a whole list of considerations. However, the one consideration that will quickly be either accepted or rejected is whether or not digital can be made to look enough like film to pass as film to a viewing audience.

So you are quite right that most of the industry still uses film but that has no bearing on what tomorrow holds nor does it mean that tomorrow is that far away since many production companies are using it TODAY!

Wow, it's a good thing that you and I agree on everything! [img]wink.gif[/img]

Roger

[AlexGfromUK]

Sheesh!

I was almost tempted to spend four hours reading this insanely long thread! My feeling is that Matt Pacini was absolutely right in his first post.

"Listen, I've been hearing for five years that film will be replaced by digital video any day now.
Look me up in five or ten more years, and I guarantee you, people are still going to be arguing this, and most movies will still be shot on film.
It just plain looks better.
You can argue specs and what costs more/less all day long, but film still has a certain look, that people respond to emotionally, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with resolution either.

Matt Pacini"

I don't want to involve myself in the technical side of the argument too much, But I know that professional DPs think of 24p systems as an alternative to 16mm, not to 35mm. The resolution has a long way to go to reach 35mm levels yet. Most of the times this discussion comes up though people say that the real problem is the huge difference in lattitude

David Mullen a professional DP who shot MIB 2, on cinematographer.com said that "Digital will not replace film". He puts it that simply. Of course he is not automatically right just becuase he's a full time pro, but his technical knowlege and experience is probably going to be greater than that of anyone here.

I read loads of interviews with contemporary Cinematographers whose knowlege is vast, and overwhelmingly the view that comes up is that they are interested in the ways 24p systems can help out in a feature e.g by providing coverage in extreme low light conditions. They do NOT think that HI-DEF systems can be used in place of the tradtional 35mm camera package though.

Even the great idol of DPs Vittorio Storaro said something along the lines of he'd be interested in seeing how Digital capture will provide future film-makers with new looks to work with and alternative asthetics to explore. He put it very much in terms of something that would come to be used to work alongside Film though, not to try and replace it. As far as I'm concerned, thats what I think is starting to happen in good films now, like "ALI".

Are any of us even answering this poor guy's question anyway?!

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 12, 2002 06:09 PM: Message edited by: AlexGfromUK ]</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 AlexGfromUK:
Sheesh!I was almost tempted to spend four hours reading this insanely long thread!
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Coward! [img]wink.gif[/img]

<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 AlexGfromUK:

My feeling is that Matt Pacini was absolutely right in his first post.

"It [film] just plain looks better.
You can argue specs and what costs more/less all day long, but film still has a certain look, that people respond to emotionally, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with resolution either." </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that there are two arguments being drawn, here.

a) Can video's "film look" or 24p satisfy an audience's need to "see film"?

b) Will 24p replace film altogether in the future?

As far as "A" is concerned, the obvious answer is that yes, video can be altered to satisfy and audience's needs to "see film". This is not anyone's opinion. It is a fact as illustrated by the contemporary use of film look or 24p in television production today as well as more and more theatrical features. Anyone arguing that it isn't being used successfully by pointing to bad examples of "video film" are merely being selective to support their argument. That would be like someone pointing to bad super 8 as the benchmark for what all others can NOT achieve with super 8.

Regarding question "B", obviously film is not going to be around forever. And the rate that it becomes too expensive to use is totally dependent on how much is STILL used after digital begins to invade more of films current territory. It is a fact of economics that the more rare something is the more expensive it becomes.

More importantly, one can not point to the number of people currently shooting film as an indicator of how things will be in the future any more than someone could point to the number of people shooting super 8 in 1984 as an indicator of where super 8 would be ten years from then. And, let's face it, ten years is not very long.

Regarding the quote by David Mullen where he said, "Digital will not replace film". Well, I don't know how to put this but he is simply wrong and that's all there is to it since digital HAS replaced film in a number of productions ranging from lower budget television shows like Witchblade, or 100 Centre Street to medium budget theatrical movies like Spy Kids 2 to big budget shows like the up coming Star Wars movie.

I am not saying that we should all run out and switch to 24p miniDV! On the contrary, what I am saying is that we need to shoot more super 8 to offset the coming digital onslaught. Do NOT underestimate it or we will find ourselves right back in 1984 only it won't be camera manufacturers pulling the plug. It will be Kodak. After that, it won't matter what any of us think about 24p, now will it?

Roger

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 12, 2002 09:07 PM: Message edited by: MovieStuff ]</font>