Generic Film vs. Video Thread

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

March 26th, 2005, 08:06 AM
Actor

Quote:

Actor:

the trouble is that none of that stuff will be broadcast quality, and at the end of the day, that's the name of the game for most of us.

If memory serves Brodsky & Treadway addressed the broadcast quality issue in their book and concluded that It is really just a way of avoiding saying "we think your content is crap." For any serious potential exhibitor the cost of upgrading any footage to broadcast quality is minimal.

Rodriguez' advise (before he switched to video) was "shoot film, edit on video, and when you find a distributor, let him pay for a print."

Update this to "shoot miniDV, edit on computer, and when you find a distributor, let him pay for the upgrade to broadcast quality."

Quote:

Nigel is just trying to say that professional film and video costs are roughly the same. Film costs are slightly higher because production costs a bit more because the wages are higher.

I find that hard to believe, even with the extra costs that Nigel throws in. I'd like to see some hard numbers.

Quote:

As for the out of focus etc argument. At some point you have to accept the fact that you need talent to do this.

Then why are so many big time directors like Coppola, Cameron, Rodriguiz, whose talents supposedly are not in question, making the same argument?

Quote:

We know we "got that shot" because we're good at what we do.

Missing the shot has happened more than once to the best of them. That's why they have dailies.

I think Sidney Lumet tells a story in his book about having to rebuilt a set and repeat an entire day's shoot because none of the shots came out. These people knew they had gotten the shot because they were good at what they did, otherwise they wouldn't have struck the set. In the end it turned out not to be true.
March 26th, 2005, 08:14 AM
Actor

Quote:

Originally posted by jb.:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Peter_G:
Also, a prolific artist is a shit artist.

Yeah, that Shakespeare guy was a total amateur.

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

[img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img] <hr /></blockquote>Not to mention

<ul type="square">[*]Isaac Asimov[*]Alexandre Dumas[*]Charles Dickens[*]Mark Twain[/list]
March 26th, 2005, 12:00 PM
jb_617

Quote:

Originally posted by Actor:

If memory serves Brodsky & Treadway addressed the broadcast quality issue in their book and concluded that It is really just a way of avoiding saying "we think your content is crap." For any serious potential exhibitor the cost of upgrading any footage to broadcast quality is minimal.

Rodriguez' advise (before he switched to video) was "shoot film, edit on video, and when you find a distributor, let him pay for a print."

Update this to "shoot miniDV, edit on computer, and when you find a distributor, let him pay for the upgrade to broadcast quality."

No, you are looking at this the wrong way. You CANNOT "upgrade" the picture quality once it's been captured. If you shoot miniDV it will always look like miniDV regardless of what you do to it.

I've never heard of Breadbasket & Trotsky or whoever they are. But if that's their opinion, then they don't know shit about broadcasting.

Quote:

I find that hard to believe, even with the extra costs that Nigel throws in. I'd like to see some hard numbers.

Film and video costs are about the same, look into it.

Quote:

Then why are so many big time directors like Coppola, Cameron, Rodriguiz, whose talents supposedly are not in question, making the same argument?

Because they get paid millions of dollars by big corporations to sell you shit you don't need.

Quote:

Missing the shot has happened more than once to the best of them. That's why they have dailies.

I think Sidney Lumet tells a story in his book about having to rebuilt a set and repeat an entire day's shoot because none of the shots came out. These people knew they had gotten the shot because they were good at what they did, otherwise they wouldn't have struck the set. In the end it turned out not to be true.

That happens to everyone, just less often to those who are good at what they do. I don't think saying that "everyone is useless so you'd better shoot video because it's cheaper" is a particularly useful argument. Smacks of wanna-be if you want my opinion.

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

Over and out.

[ March 26, 2005 08:02 AM: Message edited by: jb. ]
March 26th, 2005, 05:35 PM
Actor

Quote:

Originally posted by jb.:

Smacks of wanna-be if you want my opinion.

There's nothing wrong with being wanna-be. Wanna-be has to come before try-to-be, which has to come before "is." I don't care what Yoda says. No success comes without effort and effort does not come without desire.

99% of the people on this board are wanna-be. If you're not, post your filmography so I'll know what to look for the next time I'm at Blockbuster Video.
March 26th, 2005, 05:39 PM
Tasty Fish Lips

Last time I checked, Blockbuster doesn't exactly have a great selection of short films, including those that have been nominated for Academy Awards.
March 26th, 2005, 06:48 PM
Alex

Quote:

Originally posted by jb.:
BetaSP is no longer considered broadcast quality in the UK. I only know about Channel 4, but they require DigiBeta as a minimum, unless there's a good reason, such as archive footage or a hidden camera show. XL-1's, BetaSP and the rest, just don't cut it anymore.

The picture quality for UK TV (especially on digital) is very very high at the moment and I think they want to keep that standard high. I can see a time where HD (if it proves itself) will be the de facto standard.

I guess in the US it doesn't matter too much as your TV picture is crap. [img]wink.gif[/img]

Just kidding, but whenever I'm in the US, I thank god for PAL.

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

I have a really really bad cold.

You stay in the U.S.A., where, the Vagabond Inn?

There's nothing wrong with American television picture quality. Your statements about BetaCam SP are probably not entirely correct as BetaCam SP looks absolutely spectacular.

BetaCam SP on a component monitor is even more incredible.

HD transmission still uses horrific motion compression in many instances. Then one must factor in the different quality of compression cards that are installed into the HD television of choice based on how much the television set costs.

I cannot watch some broadcast HD with the inferior motion compression because I can see the actual pixels degrade during motion shots and then come back to normal when the picture or action stops moving.

Maybe the fact that Pal uses 16% less frames per second than NTSC enables HD to work better in Europe at a lower cost per second than in the states.

Betacam SP would look perfectly fine but the need to make all images horizontal rather than square will degrade the betacam sp signal when it is stretched.

It's a shame that the younger generation doesn't get to see what is what and only has the new stuff to drool over without the ability to really compare it.
March 27th, 2005, 12:13 AM
jb_617

Younger generation?

You don't know shit Alex. Shut up. Maybe you're an old man harking back to "how it used to be", I don't really care. I'm a mere 27, but I know what I'm doing. I've been doing it for a while, and although it's not full time ( I have another perfectly good career), I still get paid for the TV work that I do.

SP was the top quality video standard, now it has been replaced. I've been working with a production company recently on a project for serial broadcast over here and they have been explicitly told by the broadcaster that they will only accept DigiBeta or better (i.e S16mm).

I have no idea what is acceptable in the US, I don't work there. But here, it's been DigiBeta for a while.

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

Ah...up.

[ March 26, 2005 08:28 PM: Message edited by: jb. ]
March 27th, 2005, 12:15 AM
jb_617

Actor:

I was refering to the writers of the text that you were refering to, not anyone on this board.

Apologies for the confusion.

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

Copacetic?

[ March 26, 2005 08:30 PM: Message edited by: jb. ]
March 27th, 2005, 12:29 AM
Alex

jb, there was no insult in my last post.

another overreaction.
March 27th, 2005, 12:35 AM
jb_617

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
jb, there was no insult in my last post.

another overreaction.

Fair enough. I stand by what I said though. For someone who was going nuts over "misinformation" in another thread, I think you should go and check your facts before you try and turn someone else's post around on them.

It's not an over-reaction, it's just hard to tell where you are coming from sometimes as all you seem to do is antagonise people.

I hope in future we can get along around here, but at the moment, you just push my buttons, and not in a funny way.

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

[img]mad.gif[/img]

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page