Yep, it's wait and see. I don't think the HVX will look like what we think of when we thing "HD", although it will certainly better than mini-dv. But 1/3" chips are limiting.

I've found that the sdx900, which is a 25k cam with 2/3" chips, looks about like super16mm when used in closeups and interiors.

Can someone explain the basic workflow for S16 from acquisition to distribution. Just the basic steps. I understand that there's no room for a soundtrack on S16, so what format do you release it in? Oh, can you also provide the "normal" cost for each step. Let's take a 110 minute feature as an example. Don't forget to include the cost of printing dailies.

I'll take a stab at this, but I've never actually shot on film. I've just done a lot of reading and called a few labs. Anyone with actual experience, please correct me if I'm wrong.

The cheapest cameras that are quiet enough to shoot sync sound are the Eclair ACL, Eclair NPR and Cinema Products CP16r. You can get them for $1,500 to $4,000. Plan another $2,000 to have them reconditioned, which you will want to do unless you know and trust the seller. These cameras are decades old now. It would also be about $2,500 to have them converted to Super 16.

For the film istelf, it runs about 19 cents a foot for each step of the process -- film stock, developing, and telecine. This can vary a lot, especially if you shoot short ends, which is a good idea with the ACL since it's designed to use 200 foot mags anyway.

Check out Kodak's film calculator at:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/resources/index.jhtml?id=0.1.4.7&lc=en

One hundred and ten minutes of film is 2,520 feet. Many people budget a five-to-one shooting ratio, but a lot of working pros say that's unrealistic. Even a seven-to-one ratio is considered tight, and 10 to one is recommended.

So, 2,520 feet x five x .19 x 3 is $7,182. That figure will easily double on you if you can't keep the shooting ratio to five to one, which you probably won't be able to do.

No idea how dailies work in the process. The 19 cents a foot telecine figure is for a one light transfer to miniDV. I would guess you just watch those when they come back. A 2K transfer, which like the name implies is about 2,000 pixels horizontally (not exactly for some reason) is really expensive. I don't have exact figures because that seems to be budgeted by the hour, but they talk in terms of dollars per foot, so you get the idea. Creating a print from miniDV is also out of reach for do-it-yourselfers because of the cost. It would apparently be cheaper to create a projectable print by foregoing the digital intermediate and editing manually so that an optical print could be made. It would look much better too. I don't know anything about that process though, so maybe somebody else could help.

S16 is designed to be transfered, not projected. You either transfer it to video (SD or HD) for television/tape/dvd or optical print blow up to 35mm.

I would not reccomend shooting with the old 'synch' sound systems. Just rent a new s16 camera. Shoot double system sound. I'd do that anyway even if I was shooting a feature on my XL2. You want a good sound man with good gear (DAT) anyway. Synch in post on your NLE. So that workflow/ and cost is the same... whether you shoot 35, s16 or HD/DV (I'd use the audio track on mini-dv as a kind of synch track/backup)

I'd probably do a 'best light' instead of a one-light transfer. Get the footage back on DVCAM, synched with the DAT. Pull it into my AVID, cut/color corrrect and "Bob's your uncle" you're ready to send the video out to festivals. Plus with Avid and to a lesser extend FCP, you can generate a frame accurate cut list to send to your conformer IF you go to film out.

When we shot "After Twilight" we shot on 35mm (It was cut on FCP) and shot on weekends and some weekdays. This allowed us to view the footage between shooting weekends. But we also had a video tap, which S16 will have as well. We could review the videotap on set, for composition and continuity questions. The tap was fed into a DSR11, so at the end of the day, we could actually cut scenes off the tap, to look at how the footage was cutting together. This would have been done with 'dailies' on a hi-end production, but we skipped that. The same thing could be done with S16 of course.

We budgeted 6 to one on After twilight, and went a tad bit over. It takes discipline and planning, no question. Ten to one is pretty generous, I think for an indy, but I'd love to have it.

Film costs can be all over the place. Look for deals. We bought a HUGE chunk of unopened reels off EBAY from a film company that had them left over from a shoot in Canada. When my partner went to shoot "Mr. Hell" a few months after "Twilight" the pro-co got a GREAT deal on 35mm stock that was being discountinued by KODAK. Paid basically less than 16mm for 35mm stock. So that was a huge savings. IT takes some creativity, but then all aspects of Indy feature work are that way. My point is, shop around. Yeah, it's probably going to cost a bit more for film... but is it really the deal breaker, when you consider the trade off of increased resolution (even in S16), better DOF controll and all the other 'film look' qualities, and the negative for blow-up later.

Here's some interesting links.

http://www.kino-eye.com/archives/2005/03/kodak_to_build.html
http://www.catrack.com/pages/cam.htm

Again, I'm not saying Digital isn't the wave of the future... I'm just saying film still has a place in the workflow. Especially since digital is the main workflow of post anyway, even in feature films shot on 35.

Thanks Richard. Apologies. While I did write sync sound, I just meant that the cameras were designed to be quiet enough to use a microphone at all, and can use a crystal controlled motor to minimize drift. I assumed double system sound would be a given.

>>>I'm not talking about shooting 16mm for an artistic reason, if you want to do that, of course, but purely based on quality and budget...?<<<
Mathieu- aren't quality and artistic reason intertwined ? Hd and S16 each have their own advantages as does hdv. Digital imagery is flexible - film is more aestetically pleasing to most people but far more expensive for bugeteers. Some rationalize our present preference for the film look as something learned , which in turn implies the ability to unlearn it . Rodriguez got the job more for his business and organizational skills than for his cinematic talent. Please , the guys' no Cassevetes ! But , by the location of the thread , I can assume we are talking about a comparison between the AG-HDX200 and S16 - or, have we reached with the HDX a close enough approximation of 16mm quality that it makes the difference acceptable for the cost advantages of shooting digital ? We got to wait and see. Kurth

Maybe it is intertwined, it of course can be. I just thought of the example of a movie here in Belgium, Steve+Sky. It deals about hoockers and little criminials, but it is a love story (an a very beautiful one too). It's filmed on 16mm, positive (don't know if this is the right term, as I said: I haven't worked with 16mm or HD, just asked myself the question) but that brings out in the theatre (and even on the little screen) you have a rough image, but has little 'surealistic' shades of light to, because it's positive. I talked with the director, and he wanted that rough look, but he also said: the movie didn't have a budget for a 35mm stock. He even said he first wanted to film on video, because he likes to film a lot of footage, and improvise a lot, but the producer convinced him that he could shoot 16 mm too... So off course it's intertwined.

What I meant was: I haven't worked with HD. I haven't worked with 16mm. I have seen 16 mm projected (don't know anything of the 'new' super 16mm stocks or anything) in some movies (Steve+Sky, Leaving Las Vegas, some shorts...) and I have seen HD (Star Wars)...
And off course, 'quality' is very, very subjective, but with technical eyes, which one would be the best? That was my curiousity actually, and I wanted to hear some opinions.
Maybe the question is quite impossible to answer and one just has to see it for his self, and I'll do that one time, but in the meantime, I asked my question ;-)

BTW, did I just pass through to an alternate universe where DVInfo.net is really a film forum? <bg>

I think that's a kind of ridicolous remark (don't want to attack you or anything, don't be offended) because I think we all know how DVinfo started, but became a lot bigger than that. People don't only speak here about digital video, they talk about movie techniques, advice for filming gigs, questions about film stocks, lightning, mic's, advice on shorts, books on filmmaking, what's legal and what's not, contracts,... and so on and so on. I think we can all agree it comes down on people working with camera's, going from Indie filmmakers to professional cameramen, to guys who want to make a living from filming events and such... and they all try to help each other.
That's beautifull at this forum, it's not that I can only talk here about digital video, but also have some advice on a script or in this case reall film stock, so I can learn.
Okay, the name is DVinfo, it camera from digital video (I hope :-)?) but it has grown and grown and grown.
First there were only 52 posts around here...
I wasn't a member yet, somebody posted a link to an old adress from the forum, or a picture or something, from this forum when it just existed some weeks so...
I'm happy to learn around here, I am sure you'll agree :-) about that :-).
Please don't take this as an offending or something, and if it was a joking remark from your part, then I just took it too seriously and I need to laugh more :-D

Mathieu,

I take it the term you are referring to is "Reversal stock". Unlike 'negative' film stock, which produces a negative image when developed, reversal stock produces a 'positive' image when developed. It has a much different look to it than negative. It's what most people shoot when they shoot super 8. The 'Chrome" stocks, ektachrome and kodachrome are 'reversal stocks' Yes, it give a much different feel to the image.

And as I mentioned, the DIGITAL part of filmmaking was initially introduced in the post process, in editing. Not in the capture process... so filmmaking has been 'digital' a lot longer than the digital cameras have been around!

Mathieu,

I take it the term you are referring to is "Reversal stock"

Yes, that's it!
I know the word in Dutch, but sometimes it's hard to find the english one. Thanks!

Mathieu,

Please don't take this as an offending or something, and if it was a joking remark from your part, then I just took it too seriously and I need to laugh more :-D
My remark was indeed a "joking remark", tongue-in-cheek, as I tried to indicated with the "<bg>" tag, which means "big grin". This is just one reason we need the similies turned on in this forum. No matter how serious the subject there's always room for humor.

Best Regards,
Pete

What is best? Shoot on 16mm or this cam? This cam, I suppose?
I'm not talking about shooting 16mm for an artistic reason, if you want to do that, of course, but purely based on quality and budget...?
What's your opinion?


... do you realize what forum you have chose to post this in? you will get a biased answer anyway because everyone here is here because they want dv info!

me? 16mm in a heartbeat.

Mathieu,


My remark was indeed a "joking remark", tongue-in-cheek, as I tried to indicated with the "<bg>" tag, which means "big grin". This is just one reason we need the similies turned on in this forum. No matter how serious the subject there's always room for humor.

Best Regards,
Pete

Sorry then :-) Didn't realise it. Well, I suspected it, but... no I just fell for it ;-)

... do you realize what forum you have chose to post this in? you will get a biased answer anyway because everyone here is here because they want dv info!

me? 16mm in a heartbeat.

Indeed, I doubted where I would put it, I even thought to put it in Filmlook forum, or Open DV discussion, but ultimately I placed it here.

Yes, that's it!
I know the word in Dutch, but sometimes it's hard to find the english one. Thanks!

What is the Dutch word? I only know the English one. Heh.

What is the Dutch word? I only know the English one. Heh.

For Rob:
Zal dom klinken, maar 'omkeerfilm'. Of positieffilm. Of diafilm. Maar het was laat toen ik het typte, en ik kon écht niet op het woord komen :-)

Thanks Mathieu! It indeed sounds "stupid", as with a lot of english word
being translated into Dutch like "wagen terugloop met regel overslag". I
always have to laugh at some of the subtitles in TV shows like Star Trek.
Oh well... back to our regular programming!

Okay Rob, clue us in... Does that translate to "Wagon Train in Outer Space"???

No, it is a literal translation of "carriage return and line feed". But yours was pretty close *grin*

I agree with you on all your points but 1 Jason. Digital is way quicker to light and set up than film.


My experience, on both films and TV spots, has been precisly opposite. And I am known for my speed, and have shot both formats for a long time. Most DP's I know would also agree, given that situations are the same.

I once had the president of a large production company ask me why film shoots were so big and messy and complicated. I told him that big messy complicated shoots tended to shoot film, because they were not interested in compromising the image after all that work. Its important not to confuse dilletanting with workflow.

Film is usually more expensive than video. That is also my experience over years and several thousand TV spots.

The thing about it is if you are low budget, then shooting film is a huge part of the budget, and when we choose it in that situation, it is because most of the time thats the best way to put what money there is in a place where it makes the most difference, and thats the end product, the screen.

On projects with reasonable budgets, the decision to shoot video is often
pushed by people in the middle or higher up, so they can put more margin thier own pocket. Not all the time, but a great deal of the time. Thats an unfortunate fact, but these are business people, and thats the way most of them think. Most of the people pushing any format, on a professional level, film included, have there own agenda, and sometimes money is the agenda. Sometimes its about having enough money to do the project at all, and sometimes its about rat holing forty grand for a new car. Sometimes its in the middle of those two extremes.
One of the reasons Im so excited about the HVX is that it promises to add a better production quality to the projects that must currently be shot MiniDV.

My question is how to bill the camera. Can I reasonably bill more for shooting
HD than SD when its the same camera? Do I charge somewhere in the middle for whatever codec? Or more for HD because of the additional workload on memory and machines?

My question is how to bill the camera. Can I reasonably bill more for shooting
HD than SD when its the same camera? Do I charge somewhere in the middle for whatever codec? Or more for HD because of the additional workload on memory and machines?

I think you should, not because of the camera, but indeed because it's much more horsepower to edit than regular SD. That's my opinion though.
More work to edit - better picture quality-bigger price tag.
Not to rip people off, but else nobody would want SD anymore. While, for most weddings, it's more about a souvenir then resolution and so on.

I don't see how it is possible for S16 to cost less than HD, since S16 requires expensive film processing that HD does not. Also S16 requires that you record sound separately, adding cost for acquisition and post production.

But I especially want to address the cost of HD using the HVX100. This should cost quite a bit less than HD used to cost:

1. Cheaper camera (to buy or rent)
2. Doesn't require expensive HD decks
3. Simpler workflow

Here's a great explanation of the HVX100 workflow:



But the camera itself can transfer the contents of a P2 card onto any cheap USB2 hard disk (including the ipod). So you shoot to the card for a while, and then between takes you plug in your USB drive and offload it. Using that method you could store about 8 hours of 720/24p footage for under $200. You could use your ipod to store DVCPRO-HD data. You could edit directly from the ipod or from the cheap USB2 hard disk. You could deliver that hard disk to the producer at the end of the shoot, rather than handing over a box of undigitized tapes.

The hvx will of course be cheaper than shooting super16mm. But it will not look as good, if you are trying to go to film out.

It will probably look fine for TV, albeit with the video look.

When you say "HD" I think of the Varicam or the Sony 950.

Consumer's haven't yet seen what 1/3" chip DVCPROHD looks like.

I submit that the HVX100 may look different from S16, but as to whether it will look better or worse is a matter of opinion. :-)

As so many have mentioned so many times, the content will be far more compelling than the media.

If the objective is to get to a distribution deal for minimal costs, then the HVX may be an excellent option. Shooting with the HVX will provide a high quality (much, much higher than the best DV camera) product that will be an excellent vehicle to promote your motion picture.

To get a "distribution" deal, a star is probably more important that what you are shooting on.

When I said that it wouldn't be cheaper to shoot with the HVX100 right now, I was referring to the extra equipment you would need. For one thing, won't you absolutely have to have an HD monitor on the set? There's also the P2 cards and the editing and storage equipment, which is likely to be far beyond what practically anybody owns right now. As I wrote before, you could theoretically shoot a Super 16 feature for under $10,000, at least for the film stock, processing, and telecine. It's not hard envision spending that much on a DVCPRO HD workflow, although I have to confess that I only have a vague idea what it would cost. Anybody know? The latest issue of DV Magazine has an article on HDV workflows, and it's pretty daunting. Obviously, once you're all set up it would be far cheaper than Super 16 to shoot future projects.

I think the odds are going to 35mm are slim.

I say write a really good script. Then rewrite that really good script a dozen more times.

Put the money into an actor like Michael says for distribution. I've seen some nice stuff come out of the DV world. So going to HD with the new Panny is going to help.

Using a great DP will also help to bring up the production value.

But I still believe if someone is being entertained, they won't care what it's shot on.

>>As I wrote before, you could theoretically shoot a Super 16 feature for under $10,000, at least for the film stock, processing, and telecine.<<

Do you have an actual breakdown to prove this? To shoot a feature with Super 16mm would cost WAY more then 10k. How did you come up with this figure?

Check page three of this thread. In that post I included the caveat that I've never shot on film, so I'm not pretending that my figures are gospel or anything. It's also based on a telecine at NTSC resolutions. A 2K transfer is way more expensive.

Check page three of this thread. In that post I included the caveat that I've never shot on film, so I'm not pretending that my figures are gospel or anything.

Well, I was doing some math, and I have to admit, you might not be that far off.

I don't know the prices on lab and transfer cost off the top of my head (cause they change frequently), but if one were to shoot a 90 minute S16 film, one would have to figure something like this:

One 400' roll of S16 goes for about $100.00 a pop.

A 400' roll is roughly 11 minutes.

If one had an average of 3 shots/angles per scene, and if one took an average of 3 takes per shot/angle, then one would have a 9:1 shootnig ratio.

So now that would mean that one would have to buy 9x9 rolls of film, or 81 rolls of film. 81x100 is $8100.00.

I'm sure that processing, transfer cost, and syncing would be somewhere in the ball park of 9k to 6k. So 10k for a feature, I have to admit, is not THAT far off, but it's a lot more then 10k.

Sorry, I should have said page 4 of this thread. I have more detailed figures there. It boiled down to $7,182 for a five to one shooting ratio, which admittedly is probably too optimistic.

Film Stock (8 to 1 ratio) $7,500
Lab & Prep 30,000 feet x .16 = $4,800
Transfer 4 to 1 = 50 hours x $175 $8,750
Beta Stock 50 x $35 $1,750

$22,800

Now it can be done for less. But this is 75 400' rolls. I haven't check out 16mm or S16mm prices in a while.

Plus I only shot recans once on 16mm. So I'm basing this on the $100 per roll figure that someone gave.

I went back to try and find links for budget telecine outfits and turned up this -- http://www.bonolabs.com/HiDefspecials.htm

Bonolabs. If I'm reading this right, they offer a package for film stock, processing, and a 1080/24p uncompressed bestlight transfer delivered to you on a Lacie drive for $1 a foot. The site looks kind of iffy, but this is way cheaper than any other prices I've seen.

For one thing, won't you absolutely have to have an HD monitor on the set?
It would be silly not to. Doesn't have to be quite that expensive though -- Shannon wrote about his use of a monitor that I think cost him less than $1000.

There's also the P2 cards
Which can be rented
and the editing and storage equipment, which is likely to be far beyond what practically anybody owns right now.
No, a standard Final Cut Pro HD system can edit it just fine, with multiple streams in realtime. And storage is no big deal, 300 gigabytes costs around $200.

As I wrote before, you could theoretically shoot a Super 16 feature for under $10,000, at least for the film stock, processing, and telecine.
You can get S16 shot, processed, and transferred to DV for a total cost of about $30/minute. So for $10,000 you'd get 330 minutes, or just under a 4:1 shooting ratio. Mind you, that's with a mediocre telecine, you're not going to get a Millennium or Spirit at that price, but if your plan is to cut the negative and make a blowup, you'll be doing your final video version from that instead of from the original camera negatives. And you'll probably spend your money on the high-quality transfer at that time.

However, these cost comparisons are pretty much meaningless, because there are so many other factors here. First, we don't even know how good the HVX picture will look! Second, you're discounting the idea that you could just sell the camera on ebay and probably recover 75% of the cost... can't do that with your negative! Third, how much post costs are you going to incur to make your master print, and how will that offset the blowup costs from blowing up HD to 35mm... and fourth, what's the likelihood you're going to be blowing it up at all?

So it's all premature. Let's let the camera hit the shelves first, then we'll do some comparisons and find out how viable an alternative to S16 it actually is.

Barry's absolutely right - we have no idea if this camera can or should take the place of 16mm. I've shot alot of 16mm and I've never seem video that looks as good but , that said , we're getting alot closer. Shooting 16mm is expensive. Man, shooting super 8 is expensive ! But if you want to shoot a 16mm narrative film , then read , first Lenny Liptons' bible " Independant Filmaking" and Rick Schmidts' "Feature Filmmaking at Used Car Prices" . You don't need to have 8 to 1 shooting ratios - sometimes you can get by with 1 to 1. You also don't need to shoot super 16. There's 3 other , cheaper alternatives. One - regular 16. Stocks' about the same but the cameras are alot cheaper. Two - Ultra 16 - same advantages but with a wide image area. Three Ultra super 8 . Ok I hear the giggles but I've seen some wetgate telecined superduper 8( that's its' nickname) that looked almost as good as reg 16. That being said , I for one own alot of film ( still and movie ) cameras that are collecting dust because digital is so cheap and easy , esp. for a one-man band. For cheap telecine equipment check out moviestuff. Then after you telecine your film , you can start a telecine company for less than 2 grand for the 16mm setup. But the sad truth is we probably won't even have this choice much longer the way things are going for Kodak. And I have absolutely no sympathy for them since they stopped selling mag-striped super 8 stock - the absolutely worst mistake they could have made for keeping filmmaking alive. Kurth

If one had an average of 3 shots/angles per scene, and if one took an average of 3 takes per shot/angle, then one would have a 9:1 shootnig ratio.

So now that would mean that one would have to buy 9x9 rolls of film, or 81 rolls of film. 81x100 is $8100.00.

I'm sure that processing, transfer cost, and syncing would be somewhere in the ball park of 9k to 6k. So 10k for a feature, I have to admit, is not THAT far off, but it's a lot more then 10k.

A 9:1 shooting ratio can be reduced. Especially if you plan your shots carefully.

I made a feature film on 16mm. I bought three hours of film and the rough cut of the film was 2 hrs 15 mins. I think that is a 1:1.003 ratio. :) Of course, the film would have been better if it hadn't been a serious of master shots (a la' Clerks), but... it can be done.

The benefit of video is of course the shooting ratio. You really don't care too much about it. Stopping to offload a P2 card to a hard drive is no big deal if it means you are going to get a 15:1 ratio.

Here is a budget for a 4:1 ratio (bare bones)

9600 ft.(24 rolls) X $125 a roll = $3000
Processing at .12 a foot = $1152
Video Transfer 4 hrs x 3 = 12 hours transfer time @ $200 = $2400
(That would be for a one light)
Video stock = $500
Audio stock = $400
Shipping = $ 1000

$8452.00 Roughly. Probably very roughly. But..... sometimes you have to make do with what you have (or don't have).

As to if the camera will replace 16mm or not, I would offer this thought. The 2/3 inch 24p SD, and HD cameras have not taken its place, but rather, taken thier place as specific tools, with specific characteristics. I think the HVX will also take its own place, as an option, with its own advantages, and limitations. If 35mm did not have limitations (cost, logistics, etc) we would all shoot it all the time. If Mini DV had no limitations (compression rate, contrast, resolution, dynamic range) we would all shoot it all the time. There is no single killer camera or format, but rather, lucky for us, a wonderful range of options, that can be chosen to suit the form of each project, for every project we do is essentialy a custom job. I know I feel for me, If I had chained myself to one single thing, my career would be far behind where it is now. Will I shoot a "film" with the HVX? Well, yeah, probably, because there will be undoubtedly that situation, created in part, by the very existence of that camera. Will I use it on a project where camera and media are a miniscule part of the budget? If we're shooting HD, and I need a second or third camera, sure, just the way we use 35III's, and Eyemo's etc. to round out options on the 35mm stuff. In my opinion, this camera is a far greater "threat" to Mini DV, and SD in general, (at least in professional applications), than to any film format, if you go in for the "format competition" thing. So, Mathieu, keep us in the loop, when you make this film, let us know what you choose and the reasons, and then how it goes.
Its always a wonderful adventure. (Even the bad is fun, later)

So, Mathieu, keep us in the loop, when you make this film, let us know what you choose and the reasons, and then how it goes.
Its always a wonderful adventure. (Even the bad is fun, later)

Thank you very much for that kind remark, but as I said: I don't have any plans about making a movie with 16mm or HVX (yet of course, I'll begin film academy next year, I'm 18 now) I just asked the question on this forum to see what people's opinions where, because I asked the question myself. But thank you very much about the kind remark, maybe next year I'll experience a miracle and have a HVX and make a feature film with it, and it will be a huge hit over the whole world, and then I'll tell you how the camera was ;-)
Héhé,

best regards,
Mathieu

I think high definition video is the wave of the future. With high definition you can distribute your video in high definition because more people have HDTVs than they do 16mm projectors. However I suppose you can always have your 16mm film converted to high definition video but far too often people convert 16mm film to standard definition DVD and lose all the high resolution.

I think high definition video is the wave of the future. With high definition you can distribute your video in high definition because more people have HDTVs than they do 16mm projectors. However I suppose you can always have your 16mm film converted to high definition video but far too often people convert 16mm film to standard definition DVD and lose all the high resolution.

With respect, I would point out that production formats and distribution formats are entirely different things. In entertainment distribution for example, some HD options exist, but at this time SD is a must for hope of wide ranging sales on video. (not to say you can't do both, but you aren't seeing alot of maistream HD only distribution releases.) One of the hard facts about S16,
is you can have your SD now and your HD later, and that is a clear advantage. Other advantages and disadvantages of S16 are made clear in this thread as well. More movie theatres have 35mm projectors than SD TV's. More households have SD TV's than HDTV's, and so on. Just because its not this, doesn't mean it has to be that, if that makes any sense.

I'm not knocking the HD format at all, but rather trying to point out that its not just as simple as all that. Maybe if it were, TV would have killed radio long ago. ;)

I don't know for me the aspiration of the independent film maker to have his 16mm movie converted to 35mm and played at movie houses is a pipe dream. Other than the Blair Witch Project there is only a 100 to one chance that independent or amatuer movies make it the big screen. The big Holywood producers already have their big production companies and they really don't need any help from amatuers or independents. Thats why I think that it will be digital high definition that will save the day. Already independent producers are distributing high definition video usually in dual formats bundled with 2 discs one in standard definition and the other in high definition. For big producers Terminator 2 extreme high definition DVD was a very famous high definition release. Most windows Xp computers are high definition capable playback devices. Also televison broadcasting over the internet in high definition is a reality. Today anyone even a bum can set up his own high definition television broadcasting studio over the internet and broadcast high school football games and movies over the internet in high definition.
As far as high definition televisons go for anyone buying a brand new television HDTV is always the first consideration. You can get a good HDTV with a built in digital tuner starting at $550.
Also so called home theatre systems or being built by community organizations such as schools churches restuarants and bars. For schools not only can the children watch the PBS HD channel but students can videotape their games and plays in high definition. Libraries can build archives of HD material and even showcase it.
The point i'm trying to make is that digital high definition is a revolution in the making. With film the costs of production will not only kill you but editing is that much more difficult. Progressives like George Lucas know what they are talking about. People with their age old ideas will never accept the technology of high definition.

If you think getting your S16 to be a hit and get blown up to 35mm is a long shot, run the math on video produced projects. The ratio would be past astronomical.

Technology is evolution, not revolution. Market forces drive the business. Digital technology is helping to level the playing field, and giving access to many aspirants who would have had no chance even a few years ago. However, simply declaring a mainstream production format "dead" because its not your distribution format, and also doesn't meet your personal idea of budget, workflow, etc. is seeing things in a very provincial way, and may impede your ability to use all the technology available.
The argument can be made that HD is the perfect distribution medium for
film, because its the only video that is capable of displaying some of the resolution, and some of the dynamic range film is capable of.

The cost of film production is entirely relative to the budget. However, once again I would point out, that production and distribution formats are not the same thing. Projects that are produced in HD are not generally delivered in thier native codecs. A fast computer, and fast pipeline are viable ways to deliver HD content, but it is not currently the way the majority of audiences recieve or view content.

And by the way, I shoot plenty of Varicam and CineAlta HD, and make good money at it.
I do accept it, and I also know exactly what it is, and what it is capable of as a production format. Rejecting anything out of hand is not a progressive attitude. Lucas had many good reasons for his choices, and Star Wars cost plenty of money, so that's not the best one to hold up in the "cost of film production will kill you" category. Most film is transfered, then edited on an NLE, and then output to any format, including HD, or the negative is conformed to the NLE EDL, and prints are timed and struck at the end of that process, so thats not so different as you might think. There is also now the option of digital intermediary, and stuck in the rut old fogeys studio stooges such as the Coen Brothers, working with Roger Deakins, ASC, have done some astounding work with it.

Different production formats evolve to serve the needs of the production industry. Someone who embraces all options, and seeks to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the individual options is truly progressive. Making a format into a belief system is an "age old idea".

Tommy makes some interesting points.

Many of us on this board are anticipating the excitment of getting to use higher resolution tools such as the HVX in a similar fashion as we use miniDV currently.

However... Tommy makes some really cool points on alternative uses of HD, especially in broadcast and for private institutions. The overall improvment in video quality will have impacts way beyond just our desires to shoot on more professional formats.

All its gonna take is some kid to figure out the workflow and really demonstrate some unique approaches to media using the new technology of not only HD aquistion but the various codecs and delievery formats.

Dean,

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I'm trying to make the point that no production format is a panacea for all needs. The future has never been brighter, and in part, because so much is available.

The film vs video thing has been hacked to death by myopic people on both "sides".

HD and HDV are not "the future". They are here now. Its been 6 or 7 years since I first shot HD. Sometimes it is the perfect choice as a production format. I think that how the distribution formats evolve will be somewhat independent of the production format. We will most likely see an increase in lower budget HD production as a result of this camera. Its probably not going to make much of a dent in 16&35mm.

I also think that we will see an increase in HD distribution, not as a result of an increase in HD production, but because Blu-ray/HD-DVD will make HD distribution formats more or less available to the average person, who spends the money for the HDTV and the player. Will the players be expensive at first?
Yes, but I remember paying $400 for my first cell phone, $190 for my first calculator, and $650 for my first CD burner. (a 2x)

If someone figures out some other cool option for distribution, that's gonna be great, because as the quality and availability of distribution formats increase, so will the need for production value in the product. This should stimulate more production, and opportunities, across the board.

I'm going to see if I can pre order the HVX from ZGC next week.
That being said, I don't think I'll be dumping my other cameras anytime soon. (Well...cept maybe the betacam)

Just to toss in a 'fer instance'. The Sundance winner from 2004 , PRIMER, is out on DVD. Here's a review off Amazon. I saw a clip of this, and it looked interesting. Shot on 16mm for $7,000. It's a 'small film', minimal characters and locations... Great "hook" and script... far more important than the format.


Primer won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival and has drawn repeat viewers eager to crack writer-director-star Shane Carruth's puzzler of a time-travel drama. Carruth, an engineer by training, plays inventor Aaron, whose entrepreneurial partnership with fellow brainiac Abe (David Sullivan) unexpectedly results in a process for traveling back several hours in time. The men initially use these rewind sessions to succeed in the stock market. But a dark consequence of their daily journeys--the creation of Abe and Aaron's own doubles, wreaking havoc in the timeline--eventually preoccupies them with repairing altered realities. If this sounds like a very commercial, science fiction thriller, Primer is anything but that. Shot on 16mm for $7,000, the film has a tantalizing, sealed-in logic, akin to Memento, that forces viewers to see the fantastic with a certain dispassion. One may be tempted to sit through Primer again to more fully understand its paradoxes and ethical quandaries. --Tom Keogh

Richard, the issue of the legendary "$7000 budget" raises some interesting issues, but I think it's wondering off topic for this forum so I've answered over in the totem pole area...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=310786&postcount=1

Here's an interesting quote from Robert Rodriguez in his interview on AOL (http://www.godamongdirectors.com/rodriguez/faq/aol.html):

Robert Rodriguez Interview
Here's an interesting quote from Robert Rodriguez in his interview on AOL:
Quote:
Question: Robert, what was the REAL cost of "El Mariachi?" Was it really 7k?

RobtRodrgz: Yes. Usually when they talk about a movie's budget for an independent film, they talk about the budget up to the point where it gets sold to a distributor. What they teach you in film school and what most filmmakers do is to make a 16mm film print and show that to distributors. A film print costs you anywhere from $20,000 on up. What I did was to edit on videotape and show the videotape to distributors. Columbia Pictures bought the film off of videotape. That's the first time a studio bought a film from videotape. So, you can save a lot of money by using today's technology and not following what everyone else does.

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

RR's quote is confusing. The distributors bought the video version of the film because they knew he shot film and they could make a print from the original negative! Of course you don't have to make a print, but in answering that question, RR makes it sound like shooting his film, on film, was irrelevant.

Talk about biting the Kodak film hand that gave RR his opportunity, film transferred to video STILL LOOKS LIKE FILM, and then the distributors had the film negative to cut, from the quote you provided, that is not clear at all.

Alessanddro,

RR was/is a master of marketing. My point was to encourage everyone to be innovative in their thinking -- to take advantage of the current technology to produce/promote your "film".

Today, HD is the new, low-cost technology to provide relatively high-quality motion pictures. So, the question is, how do we take advantage of this technology to produce/promote our motion pictures??? Remember, more than anything else, movies are "magic"!

I would say that the comparisons between HD and Film are basically pointless since both promote different types of filmmaking.

Filmmaking with film requires much forethought in designing the production schedule, pre-scripting of dialogue and "essential" shot selection . HD, because it is cheaper to shoot per minute while recording audio (although there are hidden costs that rear their head later on), tends to promote a different style of shooting. RR has said this very thing himself.

But lets not proclaim that HD is some kind of emancipator because one can shoot more imagery for the same amount of money. HD provides an opportunity to shoot as much as one wants towards creating a final product, and that is an optimal way to make a film, but it is not the only way, and not necessarily the preferred way either.

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

Imagine you are in a Western and Clint Eastwood is your shooting buddy. You both pull out your weapons of choice and take aim at the enemy.

You pull out your HD gattling gun and fire several rounds and eventually down your target. Clint pulls out his six shooter and with one shot, nails his target.

You and Clint face each other and say "nice shot".

Would you really rather never have a Clint Eastwood type as a shooting partner? Would you really prefer that all your future partners be those who only use and can only succeed with a gattling gun, in essence being a mirror of your own tendencies?

Alessandro,

I beg to differ.
Filmmaking with film requires much forethought in designing the production schedule, pre-scripting of dialogue and "essential" shot selection.
This is true regardless of whether the scene is shot with film, HD, or even mini-DV. Quality filmmaking has little to do with the recording medium.

For the record, I didn't proclaim anything. If you want to stick with film -- fine, that's your choice. Many of us are interested in exploring how emerging technologies can assist us in producing/promoting our independent motion pictures.

Apparently I was still rewriting my message when you responded to it so it might not read exactly the way you originally read it.

Although digital filmmakers can make a film in exactly the same way that it is made in film, to use the exact same approach tends to minimize the advantages of HD video.