High Definition video in feature filmmaking

[Shenan]

I originally posted this link in the "feeling old fashioned" topic, but Alex mentioned it might make a good thread of its own.

Bernard Rose, who directed Paperhouse, Candyman, Immortal Beloved, and Anna Karenina, shot his latest movie, Ivansxtc, in HD video, and has a lot to say about it. It appears that he is quite the anti-film militant these days, but these articles do have some interesting info:

http://www.cyberfilmschool.com/articles/ivansxtc_p1.htm (Interview with Bernard Rose)

http://www.filmisdead.com (The official website for "Ivansxtc") Hmmmm... do you get the subtle clues about his feelings on the future of film?

If you click on the "Film is Dead" link within the second website, you will see some pretty nice full screen frames from the movie.

http://www.nextwavefilms.com/ulbp/blines03.html (Some technical info about the production)


http://www.artbyte.com/mag/may_june_..._content.shtml (A longer, fairly balanced article about HD/DV vs. film)

Anyway, there you have it. Read it and see what you think.

Shenan


[This message has been edited by Shenan (edited October 12, 2001).]

[Alex]

I'm very intrigued by some of what I read from the above links.

"Film is a racist format toward black people" was one quote from the article, "HD is not".

Another theme presented in the article was lighting isn't as necessary with HD as it is with film. In many instances, NO LIGHTING will be the order of the day, and because of that, the HD shoots will get more done in less time, which will help keep the actors fresh and into the movie.

I would say both of these points above have some level of truth....(although calling film "racist" is a misappropriation of reality.)

Part of the process of filmmaking IS ISOLATION of the topic and location!

Just because HD will allow filming in locations previously untouchable by a large film crew, that doesn't mean film as we know it should disappear, it just means there is a new kid in the family.

And of course, the "new kid" (HD) is a brat!

The new kid shows all the classic signs of being the infant of the family. Bellicose yelling to announce their own arrival, self-absorbed behaviour down to counting their own toes over and over.

Creating a vision wherever they look, as if this vision means more than any vision that ever existed before, the parallels are many.

I think HD will create a new style of filmmaking. But remember this, crappy audio will ruin any good movie, and HD can't solve that problem. So go ahead and shoot on a Tokyo street without lighting to get that "real look in HD", then add fake audio dubbing in post!

Again I ask, why does every new technology have to automatically be touted as "better" in every way to existing technologies?



------------------
Alex



[This message has been edited by Alex (edited October 22, 2001).]

[Matt Pacini]

I could re-post my comments I've made before about predictions never coming true, (video phones, moving sidewalks, personal mini-commuter planes), but I'll just say this to keep it short:

Everyone mark your calendars for ten years from now, then look me up.
I'll bet you that in 2011, STILL, most movies will be shot on film.
I'll bet you $100, how'z that?
In fact, I'd say, that since digital video is such a compromise, that once the hype fades away, people will accept it's inferiority, and there will be even MORE Super 8 shooting!
You can see this already, wouldn't you agree?
Wouldn't you think that S8 would be dead by now, with the proliferation of cheap DV cameras?
More people than ever are shooting Super 8. (Well, OK, maybe not more than in 1973)...

Matt Pacini

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

[AlexGfromUK]

long live the photochemical emulsion! I love everything about film and it keeps getting better all the time. Personally I think that makes it seem strange how people expend so much energy on trying to replace it.

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

[Alex]

Welcome back!

------------------
Alex

[Matt Pacini]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlexGfromUK:
long live the photochemical emulsion! I love everything about film and it keeps getting better all the time. Personally I think that makes it seem strange how people expend so much energy on trying to replace it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah, the best thing anyone ever says about Digital video is "it looks almost like film" or some mutation of that...

I keep seeking out stuff shot on the verious DV formats, and granted, I haven't seen them all, but I just hate the look of everything I've seen.
It's all variations of the soap opera look.
Even lowly Super 8 looks better if shot correctly.

Matt Pacini

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

[MovieStuff]

(There is a similar discussion on another board so I took the liberty of just reposting my response here as well.)

Let me preface this by saying that I love and prefer film.

However I think, too, that people are sort of throwing around the term "digital" and "HD" with little discretion. Standard, interlaced HD video has been around for quite a while. The Tonight Show has been producing in HD for years. It has higher resolution than regular video, but it is still interlaced and LOOKS like video because it has the motion characteristics of video, i.e. 60 interlaced fields/pictures going by per second.

The HD video that Lucas and other theatrical homeys are shooting is NOT the same thing that the Tonight Show and other television shows are producing in. Lucas and company are using new Sony/Panavision HD cameras that shoot progressive scan (non-interlaced) video at 24 discrete FRAMES PER SECOND and not 60 interlace fields per second. Therefore, they aren't going to look a thing like video on playback.

A local company here in Houston just installed their HD 24P system and I saw some
test footage. It looked EXACTLY like film transferred to video. No kidding. There was nothing about it that looked "video" at all and I am a real stickler about that sort of thing.

Therefore, the whole "film vs digital" debate needs to be held in the proper perspective. It is pointless to rant about how miniDV or DV cam will never look like film when it was never INTENDED to look like film. That's like saying a cow will never win an Olympic gold medal because they can't swim as well as a human. The argument may be valid, but kind of pointless and more than obvious.

There is digital video that's meant to look like video and there's digital video meant to
look like film. They each do their job and many here on the board no doubt see commercials and other productions shot on "digital film" and are never the wiser. So, taking a "no prisoners" stance about film over video while selectively comparing interlaced video to film doesn't re-validate film, it just reveals a lack of understanding about the professional digital formats that are really out there and how often they are employed right before your unsuspecting eyes.

Roger Evans

[crimsonson]

Agree with Roger

HD is about 2K res. Which is considered bottom side of 35mm. This is why many pro DPs (such as those in the Lyris Cinematography group) have made it as an alternative to Super 16mm. Like I said dont make video meant to look like video to look like film (follow?). There are sitcoms and dramas out there that is shot in HD. Some of you would be surprised which is.

And no I do not want to see film die. I also love film - very much! But I do want both video and film to progress. Film technology has been quite stagnant for a while. Most advances has been in stock and development - and most IMHO are baby steps. A-minima is a great innovation. But industry support is still limited (currently only Kodak makes stock for it and small independat companies are the one making accessories for it). While video is quickly progressing in technology AND more importantly price. Lenses, compression, versatility (ie frame rate), editing etc, has all improved significantly just in the past 10 years.

Long Live Film, Long Live Video.



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

[mattias]

1920x1080 actually, if we're talking the sony 24p system.

/matt

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crimsonson:
[B]" Film technology has been quite stagnant for a while. Most advances has been in stock and development - and most IMHO are baby steps."

(Matt Pacini responds):
What other than film and stock would an advance in film technology BE????
I thinnk that's the whole point!

The fact that there are not 58 new cinema cameras coming out each year, with tons of new "features" which are just semi-useless doohickies, does not mean film is not advancing.

The DV market and digital video in general is marketed for the consumer market mostly, and therefore, they have to come out with a zillion different models with little things that don't necessarily do anything that makes better pictures.

Film technology (i.e. cameras) have had over 100 years to figure out what works, and settle down with that.
I would argue that the images a Panavision or Arri 35mm camera makes is so superior in quality, it doesn't need constant "improvements" to advance the craft and technology of film any more.

Matt Pacini

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