Can we please stay civil on this? I understand how some people
might see certain things as "personal attacks" or too much or
whatever, but please let us not go down that road and DISCUSS
the points we want to make. Kevin, I have removed some words
from your post because they do not conform with the forum
rules.

If we can't stay civil on this we will close the thread or remove
the offending posts!

Kevin, your lack of understanding is showing through. A director on a professional shoot would want far more than $20,000 just to show up. A SAG actor alone wants $550 per day minimum.

Sure, you can put "something" on the screen for $20,000 but, please, don't confuse the ability to do this with art or quality.

You're confusing your system with quality and art.

Are there highly talented actors in this world who aren't a part of SAG?

Are there highly creative directors that have never set foot in Hollywood?

Are there DP's that are highly effective in their mediums that have never touched a film camera, let alone worked in the Hollywood system?

The answer to the above questions is resoundingly YES!!!!!

You're way is not the only way to make a movie.

Quality and art are in no way constricted to your over priced world. You need to understand what is art and what isn't. Art is not merely what your system produces. Art is the outpouring of creativity from creative individuals. They are not going to let a lack of money or ability to shoot on film to stop that outpouring. Furthermore, quality can be obtained--even in SD! With the proper lighting, shot composition, set design, editing, etc. quality can be produced. Yes, technically it might not have the resolution of film, but there is vast difference between actual resolution and perceived resolution--in other words, what may not be as technically of high resolution may look just fine to the people you're trying to show your art to--ie: the public. The public (unless they are rather savvy and do some research) doesn't know when something is HD, Film or even DV (28 Days Later)--they just know it looks different.

So yes, you can produce good quality, artistic products on $20,000.

Rob,

The "arrogant" part is coming from lines like this:

" NO ONE here, if they had the money, would make a movie without film. "


How do you know what any other person would or
would not do? How do you know whether I would shoot on
film if I had $40 million or not? To get a bit back on topic: Robert
Rodriguez has a "professional" shoot but decides to shoot on
HD digital. If you don't agree that this is a professional shoot
how about the $100+ million (or how much it is) that George
Lucas is doing for Star Wars 2 & 3 in HD digital? They clearly
choose for it, so how can you say "NO ONE here" if we are all
clearly a digital society.

You are claiming no-one on a professional (whatever that may
be) shoot will show up for $20,000. If so, that would be truly
sad to hear.

One last thing. Rob: have you seen El Mariachi? If so, what
were your THOUGHTS on the movie itself [not the $7000 budget
or the way it was filmed]?

Ah, someone who gets it.

El Mariachi was a decent film. It was great on it's budget--but let's look at things other than the budget.

RR's intention was to make 3 practice films. These films were to be sold to the Mexican, direct to video market. Could the story have been better in El Mariachi? Of course. Could the acting? Assuredly. In a lot of ways, RR was producing a piece of work for his intended audience--I'm sure they would have thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. BUT--for $7,000 dollars, one man with a camera produced something that turned Hollywood on it's ear. If any of you have read Rebel without a Crew you know that RR turned everyone's head with El Mariachi. He had offers from nearly every major studio for it. Why? Because it was a good film.

Yeah I know, he shot it on film and I'm arguing HD and DV. But what I'm really arguing for is true independents making their art in the way that best suites them, regardless of what Hollywood says. If I want to shoot on DV the rest of my life, but people still watch my work and like what they see and I'm communicating the message that I wanted--what difference should it make to everyone else?

All I'm saying is that I agree that we should be open to shooting on things other than film and that not everyone is completely against the digital society.

So, in a way I disagree with one thing RR has said. I don't think film is dead--maybe it will be one day--but I think there are definately other options. Sure you might not ever see a commercial for one of my flicks. But you just might see one winning an award at a festival somewhere. Or you might not ever see it if I decided that I only want to create for myself. (Look for a massive posthumous collection some of the greatest works ever. . .yeah right.) The point is, not everyone buys into the commercial film system--and they shouldn't have to.

"You can get a good movie, with great production value done on DV for $20,000 easy."

It's been done. Blair Witch, mixed media, no-name actors, no above the line cost, no sets, but a killer hook and major internet buzz that set up huge grosses. Prefigured by The Last Broadcast, first movie to be produced and distributed digitally in cinemas, and later released in Hollywood Video. Jason Tomaric's postapocalyptic science fiction epic One, which to date has not seen distribution, but incorporated fairly sophisticated digital sets and effects.

But shoestring budget filmmaking is difficult to do without leaving some people feeling cheated. There are actors and crew willing to work for just meals, copy, and credit, but what happens when the local union shuts down the production by flyering the crew on a location shoot, as happened with The Year That Trembled?

Polished filmmaking efforts require competent talent and technicians to achieve a director's vision. These are necessarily experienced individuals, and one doesn't get experience in the movie business by working it as a weekend gig. And grips and extras need to pay rent, too, which explains the dearth of quality actors who work for peanuts. Of course the penurious producer can cast and crew his film with amateurs--it's a free country (setting aside, for the sake of argument, the difficulties in getting theatrical distribution he'll encounter later on)--but he'll get what he pays for. A callow performer's apprehensive portrayal, trained by a little more than community theatre stints, may induce today's savvy, Hollywood-spoiled audiences to cringe.

What's more, professionals will demand to have at their disposal the proper tools they'll need for the illusions they're called upon to conjure. This usually entails rentals of reusable equipment and purchases of expendables. A crafty independent filmmaker can sometimes find ways to beg, borrow, steal, make do without. But how does he prevent a mutiny when his crew is setting up shots in the rain and he must explain to them how he couldn't afford Visqueen to keep the lights dry? Or towels to dry the crew?

Location permits and security cost money. An auteur who tries to shoot an exterior daylight city street scene involving vehicles without getting proper authorization, shutting down the street if necessary, hiring city police, portajohns, etc., might find himself in trouble with the law.

Responsible filmmakers purchase insurance so that when the rented grip truck backs into a parked Porsche, they're not bankrupted before they wrap.

Cautious filmmakers invest in a completion bond so that when they become deathly ill halfway through production, their investors aren't SOL.

Even directors who set about to make films wholly by themselves in their living rooms snatch up the offer of Hollywood sheen if it's offered them, as happened to Kerry Conran, director of the upcoming Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

Yes, all those things are necessary or cost money. Hell, I'd jump at the chance if a studio offered me $$. But, my point is that art isn't contained in that system. You can make a quality product for less money (maybe $20,000 is a little low), and you should take care of what crew and cast you have, but you can still get your artistic expression out there. To say that it's film and Hollywood system or the highway is what I disagree with.

Robert understands.

How do I know Charles Papert wouldn't do it? I'm sure he's union. On a 40-day shoot minimum, he'd get around $20k.

Kevin, your point was not art can be made on a shoe string. You're point was film isn't necessary and DV has/will replace it.

Yes, Blair Witch made it. There are anomalys. Have you seen one since or before?

The truth? I speak the truth and I'm arrogant? Should I sugar coat it and say grab your dv and make "Gone with the Wind" today for $7000?

I defy any of you to make a digital feature length picture deliverable for projection at any movie house on 35mm film for $7000 complete using any method you choose.

Or do you not want to hear that?

I forgot were I read it, but El Mariachi probably would not have made it if someone hadn't drop a bundle on it.

Film will be around for a while, but I suspect its reign is almost over. I think the battle will be more akin to VHS/Beta/Windows/Mac debates. Is one better than the other and the answer is "of course."

However, is the other one good enough and lots cheaper? Well we know the answer there as well. While there are still a bunch of infra$tructure change$ before digital take$ off, it is pretty clear that film will be used only in specialty applications in the future.

I think the factor frequently overlooked is not the media entertainment is shot on, rather how entertainment will change.

There are a lot of bucks being made on game machines and interactive entertainment. That's is what in its infancy, not DV.

My analysis is that we are more than a few years away from it. I expect epic battles as the technology advances that will pit SAG, et al against the computer geeks that will make all this possible. After all, in order for such a change to take place computer animation has to jump a few levels to synthesize actors and landscapes. One only has too look at reruns of Voyager and Red Drawf to see what it might look like.

Frankly, I don't see how film will compete in that world...

Rob,

The part is "the truth". It sounds like your vision of the "truth"
and not somebody else's, that's where it is going "wrong".
Isn't it your opinion instead of the "truth" (whatever that may
be in such a highly subjective matter as we are all proving here)?

Your also asking us the wrong question. How could anyone
make a full length motion picture on 35mm for $7000. The film
itself would cost more. The question should be can anybody
make a good full length motion picture with a digital technology
for $7000. And I think they can. I've seen a 2 hour long movie
from a young guy here in Holland made for way less than that
which I saw myself in a theatre being projected from a DVD.
I thought it was a very entertaining story. Did it "look" as good
as a Hollywood production? Nope it didn't. Although some parts
definitely did (I didn't even spot a CGI bit which I usually can very
easily). It was shot on DV. Content over technology.

Also no-one said that DV is going to replace film. A lot of people
think that DIGITAL is going to replace film in the FUTURE. Not now,
and not on DV. That's what was originally said.

I felt the same way in 1997 when DV was first introduced, and so many were singing the praises of the digital revolution, recalling the Coppola dictum that the great film of the era would issue from a fat girl in Ohio, and before I understood the highly collaborative, justly expensive medium that is filmed entertainment, and the workings of the highly baroque Hollywood network that has flowered as a sensible system for rewarding good ideas and benefiting creative people.

As an outsider, it's easy to be cynical of the system, perplexed but its myriad mysterious quirks and even angered by its complex rules and heirarchies that seem at first glance to be nothing but thumbs to hold down the little guy who hasn't "paid his dues." But for all of them, and despite year after year of output the bulk of which is consistently dreck, Hollywood hasn't collapsed in on itself, as visionaries so prominent as Lucas were once predicting. Movie stars are still glamorous and everyone wants to pay to see them on the big screen. Authors and screenwriters who illuminate fascinating scenarios are still honored with large checks with which they proceed to buy large SUVs. And directors who demonstrate clarity of vision and integrity of purpose are still passed over every late winter for the guy who makes A Beautiful Mind.

I digress. Work hard outside the system, and you can find success without it. Have faith that cream rises to the top in the system, and you can find success within it. But believe it or not, if you have a truly good idea, the Hollywood system is still the path of least resistance to seeing it realized, for the simple reason that the system was set up and is maintained just for this purpose.

Bottom line, of course, is that the recording medium and its associated costs (camera rentals, stock, development/blowup) is only a minor consideration in a production whose budget matches its ambitions.

I work in the motion picture industry. I've worked in broadcast television. I've worked for SGI and Pixar. I think my "opinion" stands for something. I'm paid very well for my opinion. I work with and listen to other people's opinions in this industry also.

No. You cannot make a digital feature length motion picture for projection like RR claims he did for $7000 anywhere in the world.
Economically impossible. This is not my opinion. It is fact. Even if you could get everyone to work on it for free. Won't happen.

Here's only one reason: Les Ditt, on this forum, said he would transfer one hour of dv onto film at 2kx2k for $10K. End of story.

Thank you very much for explaining where you come from and
where your opinion lies as well. That's greatly appreciated.

As I said, you cannot make a 35mm film for under $7000, I think
anyone will agree with that.

We are talking about shooting the movie in digital, not paying
for a release print. And if everything would be digital then you
wouldn't need a release print as well. Even sound (like dts) is
already coming in digital on CD.

" I'm not kidding. I find it interesting that in this "age of DV," the most recent super low budget feature to get any publicity (Primer at Sundance) was shot on the ultra cheap on film. "

What about Open Water?

What about November?

Research is the key to any effective argument!

There is a misunderstanding here regarding RR and El Mariachi and the $7000 figure. It was not delivered complete to the theaters for that money. That money was simply the cost of production. There was a considerable amount of money involved beyond that, which eventually got it into theaters... if I recall correctly it was around two million dollars (all studio money, too), for editing, audio sweetening, marketing, distribution etc. The amount of $7000 is what it cost Rodriguez to shoot the thing and take a rough cut on 3/4" video with him to Hollywood to shop Mariachi around in search of a buyer.

This is all very well documented in his book, Rebel Without a Crew, in which Rodriguez does not claim to have made a digital feature length motion picture for projection. What he did for $7000 was to shoot on 16mm film using short ends with a borrowed camera, a one-man crew, a couple of work lights, a mostly unpaid cast whose families provided wardrobe and craft services, and existing locations wrangled for free. It was transferred to analog video and offlined for free at UT-Austin. That's as far as that $7K went. There was a lot more money involved to get it into theatrical release; some people overlook this fact when referring to the El Mariachi example.

_____________________________________________
Oh, and it doesn't cost millions to make a movie. It only cost millions to make a movie the Hollywood way. You can get a good movie, with great production value done on DV for $20,000 easy. Give HD a few years and you'll be doing the same with HD.
_______________________________________________

This is the statement that got me going on that. What I was trying to point out is that the cheapest production I ever worked on was $1.9 million. It was not a studio film and independently funded. Of that, iirc, $70k to $100k was for film camera, stock, dailies, etc.

Rental for a CineAlta would be equivalent to the camera. So that leaves film stock, prints, etc. How would DV, then, reduce the cost of that $1.9 million remembering that film was only $70k or so of the budget?

Would the crews work for less? No. Would the stars worked at all? No. Etc.

Production value? That's why it was done on film and not digital. It can't capture the images the way the DP and director wanted. In this case, DV was not even considered.

Making a good movie for $20,000? Might depend on what you mean by "making." Production costs are one thing, but there are so many other expenses involved if your goal is to put it in theaters or on the shelf at Blockbuster. Seems to me that $20,000 would barely cover marketing costs. However I have no doubt that an enterprising person could probably spend $20,000 on creating something that could be sold, and then completed with other money... or create something that would bring in the completion costs.

By the way, it doesn't look like anybody has brought up the Spy Kids examples... Spy Kids 2 & 3 are good, wholesome name-brand Hollywood theatrical releases with real crews and name actors (Steve Buscemi, Sylvester Stallone); both were shot entirely on HD. The budget for Spy Kids 2 was 35 million dollars. I don't see how anyone can equate HD production with low aesthetic quality or poor production values when this kind of money is thrown into it -- besides, the proof of how good HD looks in Spy Kids is right there on the screen.

This has to be one of the more popular debates since MAC/PC.

I am probally not adding anything new as I have said this before in past threads:

I am so happy with the DV medium. For once in my life I can pursue my dream on my own terms. I don't think there has been a 'film movement' like this since the 60's.

A full length feature film can be made. By us! Who knows what is in store after that. Maybe if it's great, a studio will swipe it up for a couple million and then pay for the markeing and release. Not too far fetched as it is happending as we speak. See OPEN WATER shot on the PD150.

If I had my choice, I would shoot on film using an Arri 535. I'd also have a crew of about 50 people and all of the toys for production. But I don't. I own the DVX100 and it is the first time in my life I have been in a position to make a real film of quality. There are so many possibilites. Theatrical Release (Never say never), cable, DVD.

The reality is is that I just want to make films. If I become the next big Sundance story then that is just Candy. If nothing ever comes of this, I'll be able to look back when I'm 70 and pop in a DVD and say to my grandchildren "I made this!".

As far as DV or HD replacing film. I feel it is inevitable. IT will and is happening every single day. Jeez, even Arri is making a DV camera. It is only a matter of time. It is technology. I sense alot of old school film purists are fighting this or in denial when in fact it should be embraced. The DV format is not yet perfect, but in computer technology (CCD) there are quantam leaps. There will be a time that a DV camera will look exactly like our beloved film, whether through real 'in camera' results or through post. There will be a time when all theatres will be DIGITAL PROJECTION.

It's not there yet, but where we are now is really close. The capability of making a quality feature length production is in our hands for once and in my lifetime. This is a great thing.

Write a great script, then all things are possible. Even at the 7k level....

There was a feature made for about $200.00 that played Sundance this year...I think that was Francis's "fat girl in Ohio" prediction coming true...

With digital projection, the film transfer can go away. However, even if you shoot your feature on a mini dv cam it still has to LOOK GOOD ENOUGH to get distribution.

I think you could shoot a good looking (enough) feature for 15-20k on a dvx100a, if your script just KICKED ASS (and how many of those are there?)

I also think you could make a VERY good looking feature on film for around 40-50k.

Keep writing!

Possible. If you use short ends and re-cans and can get the equipment cheap. I know that's been done. I know one cinematographer that just wrapped on one for $70k using all new stock.

Napoleon Dynamite, co- and line produced by a cohort of mine and picked up by Fox Searchlight for $3 mil at Sundance this year, was made for around $100 k, if I recall.

It was shot in the middle of Idaho and the closest thing it had to a star was Hilary Duff's big sis.

It shot on 35.

I'm going to shoot a feature this summer and our choice of cam (at this moment) is the a-minima...I own a dvx100a and believe me I'm tempted to use it, but DV does not hold up with objects more than 30 feet away....

I believe DV is applying pressure to film transfer and telecine prices. I see downward movements..

By the way, "Once upon a time in Mexico" is a LOUSY movie. RR was so jazzed up to shoot something he forgot the script.

"The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly" is a work of art. I saw the restored version on a huge scream recently, and it was beautiful. The graveyard scene gives me chills...

I am eagerly looking forward to see "November" projected on a big screen. A friend of mine shot a feature on a dvx100 but is trying to get a distributor to blow it up...

When "The Game of Their Lives" comes out this fall I'll help you guys pick me out on the screen.

Michael: I would be interested in hearing your reasons for choosing the A-Minima for your production camera. I've used it for "stunt" shots here and there but not decked out for primary camera use. So given that you have chosen Super16, how did you elect that camera over an SR or XTRProd--was it rental rates, availability, small footprint, etc.? Realizing that this is a tad off subject, but maybe we need a "cooling off" on this thread, a diversion might be interesting!

Oh incidentally--I keep seeing "DV" used as a generic term for "digitally oriented" or as a substitute for HD. Since we are technically minded here and are differentiating between mediums, I think it important that we pay attention to the terminology so that we can all keep on the same page. Example: from John Hudson: "even Arri is making a DV camera". The D-20 is an HD camera. Hope this doesn't appear nitpicky, but I feel we can keep from spinning off into miscommunication this way.

Charles:

I have a friend who owns an a-minima. He's shot commercials and shorts with it. I can get him cheap. If it doesn't work out I might rent another super16mm cam.

Also, the cam supplies some of the intimacy of the min dv. Actors relax with just a little cam only a couple feet away....

We are shooting in a small town on probably a 15 day (3 week) schedule. It's nice to just pick up that cam and march to the next setup..LOL

Distributors will pay attention to me if I say "shot on film".

I dunno, I think the damn a-minima is cool. Does that count?

Wish I could afford you, my man!

Thanks for the info Michael, it's interesting to hear. When the A-Minima was introduced, it was aimed at student and low budget filmmakers, and I hadn't heard if it had been adopted by that sector or not. We used to bring it in for days on "Scrubs" where we would strap it to gurneys, lash it into the ceiling, tie it onto actor's bodies, whatever! Sort of a pickle to thread as I recall. But yes, I think it's cool also. And I am intrigued about the small form factor and it's effect on actors--although when the camera is pointed at the actor, they only see it from the front, if they even notice it at all. Depends on the actor, I guess. I think the location and intensity of the lighting plus the amount of crew has more to do with it than the camera, myself. Altman keeps his cameras distant on long zooms to achieve the same thing.

I am currently beginning a project and had been debating which format to shoot with. Since there is a sci-fi aspect to it, with difficult acting, I had been banging my head against the wall on how to make my decision.

There are many difficulties in shooting with HD (DV also), yes you can see your results instantainously, and no they don't look that good. Somewhere in the area of the Sesame Street tv series and a cheap Spanish Soap Opera. The image is super flat and there are hot spots all over the place. The same goes for DV. Now this is all fine for documentaries, TV or fun [or even urgency as in "The Celebration"] but to get to blowup to 35mm you have to get more serious about the quailty.

Basically film set the standard for the floaty, dream like effect and its organic reproduction of how the human eye works and focuses. So we in the Digital community are trying to get to that level without all the headaches film brings.

Doing further research, I went to a small seminar this past weekend on the HD transfer process to film set up by a company called Swiss Effect for a film just release called Robot Stories. The took us through this elaborate method of shooting on a (borrowed) HD, editing it on FC, rolling it out to DVCAM for a tape to tape color correction, tranfering to film, then once again tranfering again to more film for another level of color correction and once again out to DVD for festival distribution. Using many, many free favors along the way toward their film look. The final result was that it DID look like film with the bounce, scratches, hair and final film contrast that kicked in-but it was a dizzy array of transfers, tests and favors that got them to that point, it all made my head spin.

When we asked about the final price from the director, the Swiss Rep., the producers, etc. there were lot's of "coughs," "ahems" and "well..." followed by numbers like $22k here or $37k here, and $300 per hour x 6 days a week, and 2 more days at $500 per hour, but that took 24 hours, and $2k for the answer print and another $6k here and there for the 35mm blowup..., blah, blah, blah-and well then there are the favors of course... and ending up NEVER getting a full amount of the project.

It seemed to me that going Digital, you either 1) have to be happy with the look you get, or aim for that look. 2) Realize it's distracting and TRY and make it look like film (see above). 3) or just shoot on S16 film transfer to 35mm and bypass all the mumbo jumbo.

So I've chosen to do my next project on S16 [most likely an Arri converted-since a-minima as so exponse] with DV (not HD) shots thrown in for sci-fi diversity.

True RR is famous for his DIY attitude, he's also suppose to be a real pain to work with-which would make sense in that he HAS to work alone vs. wanting to work alone. The color on his Spykids and newest projects looks like a high-dollar Nickelodian series. Sad but true.

Nice thread.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dino Reyes : There are many difficulties in shooting with HD (DV also), yes you can see your results instantainously, and no they don't look that good. Somewhere in the area of the Sesame Street tv series and a cheap Spanish Soap Opera. -->>>

Maybe you should get a DP who knows what they are doing?


<<< -- The image is super flat and there are hot spots all over the place. The same goes for DV. The color on his Spykids and newest projects looks like a high-dollar Nickelodian series. Sad but true. -->>>

That's not very accurate of a description, is it?

This thread keeps going in one huge circle. It's like a Black Hole.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : "Techniscope - a format close to 16mm in resolution."

Huh? Techniscope was shot on 35mm.

"The camera original had to be printed (optical) to a 35mm anamorphic print. You loose a lot of quality in the process. I don't don't doubt for one second that Rodriguez can do that with a modern day HD camera and still have a better image."

You lose quality in an optical process but it doesn't degrade to the level of HD. Because Techniscope wasn't squeezed, some think it had a better picture than Cinemascope. Something like they do with Super35 today. There is more of the negative used than Academy 35. So, if anything, you could say Tech was better due to the larger image.

RR gets more shots because he doesn't plan ahead of time to the detail that film directors do. So he wastes more time getting those shots and having to review them later.

RRs use of zoom lenses is a step down in quality from primes. He is not to be commended for this. -->>>

Yes Techniscope is 35mm. It uses only 2 and not 4 perforations (half the resolution compared to Academy). Which brings down the resolution of the frame pretty darn close to a S-16mm negative. And my opinion is that HD has the capability to produce image quality that holds up th well shot S-16mm. So Rodriguez are on the right track if he's trying to recreate a Leone film. The typical look of Leone is not Cinemascope - it's Techniscope.

Getting a lot of shots does not mean a high shooting ratio. Not if you shoot like Rodriguez. Listen to one of his audio commentarys. He almost always bring that up. He very seldom do more than two takes on anything. Most of the time it's only one take but he "edits in his head" as he shoots. He knows which parts of different takes are going to end up in the edited sequence. That's a talent not many directors have and one to be respected. I don't think he sits in the edit suite stressing out over all the covarage he's got. My guess is he edit's pretty fast since it's more a mechanical process. The movie is already edited in the camera. As I understand it he hates to interupt the flow of shooting with to much camera fuzz. He needs someone checking back focus and a good zoom and he's on his way. That appeals to me a lot and represents the eccense in the advantage of shooting digital.

I talked to a BBC DP not long ago and he was in praise of the extreme high quality in the latest stock of Fujinon zooms. Sharpest optics in the world according to him (and I know british BBC DP's are real anal about stuff like that). He said he'd tested them alongside the Panavision Primes for HDCAM and they didn't stand a chance. Now Lucas are using the Fujinons and not the Panavisions on EPIII.

2-perf only decreases the frame size in the vertical direction but maintains the horizontal. Nothing is lost since this vertical area would be masked off anyway when projected or in post.

____________________________________________
He very seldom do more than two takes on anything.
____________________________________________

That certainly explains a lot of things.

____________________________________________
he "edits in his head" as he shoots. That's a talent not many directors have
____________________________________________

Many directors edit in their head. Some don't and only get the shots they think they need. This is nothing new.

_____________________________________________
My guess is he edit's pretty fast since it's more a mechanical process.
______________________________________________

I'm waiting for all those editors out there to chime in about editing just being a mechanical process.

His fast editing also explains a lot of things.
_______________________________________________

It is physically impossible for zooms to maintain mechanical alignment through the length of their travel. They also contain more elements than prime lenses. When built, primes are adjusted for maximum quality at one point. So how can a zoom compete with that?

"2-perf only decreases the frame size in the vertical direction but maintains the horizontal. Nothing is lost since this vertical area would be masked off anyway when projected or in post."

Objection. The usual process to achieve a 2,35:1 projected aspect ratio is either to shoot anamorphic - which is more than double the negative resolution compared to 2-perf Techniscope. 2,35:1 is never "masked of" in a theatre. Only 1,85:1 or 1,66:1 are masked or "matted" in projection. A Techniscope negative is blown up to an anamorphic print for theatrical distribution. There are no Techniscope projectors out there. The other more common way to shoot 2,35:1 is by shooting super35. The "advantage" of super35 is that it can be shot for "open matte" 4x3 TV-viewing without cropping the sides of the image. super35 hasn't got the resolution of a true anamorphic negative but it's has a lot more resolution than Techniscope.

Techniscope is half the image resolution of Cinemascope. Half the resolution of a 35mm image is pretty close to super16.

"I'm waiting for all those editors out there to chime in about editing just being a mechanical process."

I did'nt say that film editing is just a mechanical process. I said it's probably a mechanical process for Rodriguez as he is also his own editor and he has already edited in camera. Much like it was to Hitchcock who also edited in camera. His reason for it was to maintain control over final cut. There are many ways to make a film. And there's no right or wrong in my book. A lot of people like Rodriguez movies so who are we to judge that he's doing it all wrong?

>>shoot anamorphic - which is more than double the negative >>resolution

Squeezing an image into the same size space does not increase resolution. That's like using an anamorphic lens on a dv camera with 786 horizontal pixels and saying now you have 1572 pixels. It doesn't create resolution.

Both techniscope and Super35 shoot full width of the negative, hence, they have the same resolving power. So does CinemaScope.

By "editing in camera" you aren't saying they transfer those edits directly to the finished product, are you?

I have to disagree once again. Super35 and Techniscope does not have the negative reolution of a scope image. They are not the same size at all. I could'nt find a web graphic of the different scope processes so I made one myself. Note the size of the full frame scope negative compared to the others. I did the graphics in a hurry so they're not completely correct. They're just meant to clarify the priciple behind the scope process and how techniscope only uses half (2-perf) of the full frame negative compared to scope that uses the full frame (4-perf). A theatrical scope print is 4-perf. That means you have to blow 2-perf techiscope up to 4-perf for projection. And keep in mind that super35 is a 3-perf process.

Here's the graphic:
http://www.operafilm.com/Images/scope.jpg

The equivalent to the Techniscope technique on a DV-frame would be that you shot the image at a resolution of 720x240. Remember that Techniscope is only using half the 35mm negative - and that would be half the DV image. Using a scope lens on that same camera would uitilize the full 720x480. That's the techichal difference between the processes. Providing you have a good lens the 720x480 image will look better projected than the 720x240.

By editing in camera I mean that you never ever do any master, two shots or close ups of the whole scene. You just shoot exactly what you're going to use in the editing. In the case of Hitchcock the editor really only trimmed the edges in most edits. Trimming is an artform too but you could really only edit a Hitchcock movie in one way. There wasn't much room (or footage) for creative editing like you see in other great films.

Rob, no one's gonna make Lawrence of Arabia on a MiniDV cam. :)

No.

But they will make "Larry of Arcadia"

: )

I'm really looking forward to see some HDCAM SR footage. Anyone out there that has?

Finally they're going the RGB route using 4:4:4. My guess is the next Star Wars intallment will be a major step up in image quality.