I searched our forums for this recent article (http://millimeter.com/ar/video_man_hates_film/index.htm) in Millemeter Magazine on Robert Rodriguez and his use of HD for movie making. I'm looking forward to the comments.

Jeff

I love Robert Rodriguez.

Good article. R.R. makes many points that are so self-evident thay're hardly worth acknowledging.

Technicians vested in film will always find reasons to howl at a digital-only production, ultimately landing on advantages of obscure aesthetic subtleties of film that are invisible to most viewers' eyes. Digital production and is an inevitability, and a highly desireable one at that.

It is the obligation of those of us who delight in the art and science of video acquisition technology, especially the youngest of us, to leverage the technology to great storytelling advantage while prodding it towards constant improvement.

I don't like Robert Rodriguez. Saying something like I hate film is just silly. Digital still has a long way to go....

Yeah, Digital certainly has room for improvement, but it IS inevitable. Film won't disappear, but as the years go by Digital will take over the medium. And, honestly, most people right now can't tell the difference between film and Hi-def digital. That plus the fact that it's only gonna get better is what R. Rodriguez is talking about. Plus, I can't believe Spy Kids 2 cost only $13 million!

Jaime

With regards to Spy Kids 2's budget, $13 million is the reputed below-the-line cost, that is, what the movie would have cost had the writer(s), director, producer(s), and star(s) all worked for free. (The total cost was actually $30 million, $5 million less than Spy Kids.) Even so, $13 million is a good price for an action film with special effects sequences--too good a price. The fact that the sequel was awarded a lower budget than its profitable parent (suspect in itself), and the fact that the cinematographer and production designer were jettisoned leaving the director to deal with the tasks of both, leads me to wonder if the sequel didn't suffer from creative malnutrition resulting from the production cutbacks and the abandonment of production value. (You tell me--I haven't seen it.)

Rodriguez's quoted objections to film come off as disingenuous (implying a cinematographer wouldn't know what a filmed shot will look like; or, "It just seems crazy to me that any filmmaker would prefer to wait a day to see what they filmed"--as if any director sits and does playback on set while the payroll clock is ticking and light is dwindling... for what, to test the focus puller?) or categorically absurd (film being "too contrasty"--vastly wider dynamic range is precisely film's critical superiority to present generation digital video systems). That he would try to act as supreme auteur, discarding crucial crew members and scorning his video engineers ("they helped us hot-rod the cameras and try a few different things") on the type of shoot where the engineer makes all the difference between well-exposed, color balanced shots and unusable footage, make me wonder about his confidence in human competence and his capability as a director to inspire and lead others.

Yet Spy Kids 2 appears to have been well received, critically, gleaning a 75% (Fresh) rating on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com) (88% in the Cream of the Crop), better by far than Rodriguez's hero's latest effort (Clones weighs in with an embarrasingly scrawny 63%/36%--the critical equivalent of a 98 pound weakling). And Rodriguez's dictum of intimate personal control over all aspects of his works could be argued to be the digital era fulfillment of the "One man, one film" manifesto championed by Frank Capra (my hero following cessation of my denial of Lucas's hacksmanship) back in the studio committee-control heyday of the 1930s.

Capra held a long winning streak that resulted in several Oscars, made him the populist king of Hollywood in its Golden Era, and single-handedly elevated Columbia Pictures from Poverty Row to major studio. Throughout his career he fostered relationships with many other film artists, and Capra himself had a few significant repeat collaborators (notably, screenwriter Bob Riskin, production designer [back then called "art director"] Stephen Goosson, and cinematographer Joe Walker), but I'm not sure if he lived today and had access to "ten computer screens" in his office that he would have preferred to wear all their hats himself: you see, I think Capra believed in the magic precipitated by contributions of his creative partners, and that every inventive, fitting suggestion throughout development and production would add to the sum total of the artwork under construction.

No. I think "One man, one film" referred not to a dictatorial DIY attitude toward filmmaking, but rather, "One man, one film" meant having courage to uphold one's personal convictions about one's art, the chutzpa to stick to the vision all the way through execution. "One man, one film" is knowing what one wants to say, believing in the message, and delivering it without selling out to pressures from suits wielding focus group feedback cards. It's a philosophy that emphasizes singular, centralized command & control over a film's elements, but maintains checks and balances; it's moderation in excercise of power; classically speaking, it's ego without vanity. It's sharing. It's inclusive.

So can a rebel without a crew possibly make good movies? Well, Rodiguez is, thus far, both populist and profitable. Validation of his autocratic methods of operation--that is, what will determine if Robert Rodiguez becomes the next George Lucas, or even the next Frank Capra--may come if he maintains his streak and manages to accomplish a film that gets accoladed.

Well now that I've had a little sleep, I realize I veered way off topic with that last post. Sorry.

Film baaad. Digital gooood.

It is important to remember, Rodriguez is talking about HD, not DV.

Also, I haven't seen Spy Kids II yet. Shall we have a DVInfo field trip?! Make sure you get your parents to sign the consent form, boys and girls. Lets go to the movies!!!

@Robert

You sound like you know a movie called Zoolander. Am I right? ;-))

BTW.. I completely agree with the other Robert and his attitude toward film and HD.

Cheers, Peter

Can't wait to see his third Mariachi: Once Upon a Time in Mexico
which is being shot fully digital as well.... 2003 is gonna be a
year with some interesting movies!

>>So can a rebel without a crew possibly make good movies? Well, Rodiguez is, thus far, both populist and profitable. Validation of his autocratic methods of operation-<<
Commercial success does not mean it's a good movie. (Sorry couldn't resist).

But I think the reason for the lower budget was in exchange for total control and final cut. The budget it came in on made it almost a garauntee to make money with world wide distribution and the soon to be released DVD. Once the suits were calmed, they let him have his way. Plus, I liked how he was able to do this around his family. Sleeping when the kids were in school and cutting and editing at night when they wouldn't bother him.


BTW, does anyone remember the aritcle in Newsweek that said the new Matrix movies were gonna raise the bar even more than the first one did. In a way the couldn't be easily converted to cheesy comercials? (at least thats what the producers hope).
And in a show of respect for the fans, they are going to release both sequels 6 months apart instead of a year.

The article also went on to point out the continuing influence 'The Matrix' is having on movies and pop culture in general.

He went to a rough screening and left using superlatives like 'Jaws dropping on the floor'. Gonna be a great year for digital features.


there were also some very good counter points to using HD versus film. They are at the same site the above article is posted.
Worth reading both sides of the issue.

"And in a show of respect for the fans, they are going to release both sequels 6 months apart instead of a year."

More a money saving feature than anything else, shooting two films at once cuts down the overall commitment by actors, reduces some risks associated with down times and changeovers, prevents shooting from needlessly becoming a relay race with essentially the same work getting handed off to different crews, producers, etc. The Back to the Future sequels and Lord of the Rings trilogy followed the same strategy.

I've seen the Matrix trailers. Let's hope they're holding back on all the best stuff: from what's shown in the trailers it's all the same wire-fu ad nauseum.

For you Matrix fans out there, the new Superbowl trailer has
hit online in glorious high quality QuickTime. It is almost 25 MB
and can be found here:

http://progressive.stream.aol.com/wb/gl/wbonline/progressive/thematrix/us/med/superbowltrailer640_dl.mov

BEWARE OF SPOILERS!!!

I've seen the Matrix trailers. Let's hope they're holding back on all the best stuff: from what's shown in the trailers it's all the same wire-fu ad nauseum.
This new trailer shows some more stuff that you haven't seen
yet on any other movie. Quite interesting. We will have to wait
for the final movie to see if it really is that ground breaking again
ofcourse.

>>Can't wait to see his third Mariachi: Once Upon a Time in Mexico
which is being shot fully digital as well>>

I have seen some footage from this screened on 35mm at eFilm, the facility that did the film out of this feature. I have to say that is the first truly impressive example of HD filmmaking I haved yet seen (Attack of the Clones was merely impressive, and only at times). The rendering of tones throughout the image, particular the skin tones, was pleasing and managed to feel unquestionably cinematic while still retaining its own look, distinct from 35mm. I'm not a fan of HD, still preferring film (especially the over-sharpness of HD which I find somewhat irratating) but this was exceptional looking stuff. I have my issues with Rodriguez and his statements, but the fact that he owns his HD cameras and has figured out how to tweak them to generate this look is worthy of recognition.

Okay, this must be one of the most exciting things I have ever
read here Charles. You've got me drooling here and I must say
I am jaleous at you that you've already seen it. Can't wait to
see how it looks!

One thing that is really bothering me, though, is that OUATIM
is being pushed back and back and back. It should have been
out last year (hell, photography wrapped in 2001!) and the
release date was March 2003. This has just been pushed back
to September 2003. I hope it is not going to be shelled. At
least give me a DVD release.

I hope this tale ends with a smile, we will see....

Thanks very much for the information Charles!!

Robert, actually there was fear that releasing the third film so soon after the second would hurt revenues. Long discussions on that one.
Thats why LOT is put a year apart even though all they do now is go back and fix things.
The Warshowsky (mispelled) bros didn't want people to wait that long. At least per the article.

"There was fear that releasing the third film so soon after the second would hurt revenues. Long discussions on that one."

If they really said that, they might have been acting a bit disingenuous. On the contrary, these days the quicker the sequel release the better. Studios now operate under the theory that theatrical distribution marketing dollars for a quickly-released sequel simultaneously work to boost sales of a DVD release of the previous film. (Most films, even blockbuster films, are released on DVD 6-8 months following theatrical release.) Studio return on theatrical films after three to four months is virtually nihil anyway, even for high-performing films with staying power, because of exhibition deals with theater owners, which give studios a high percentage of ticket sales in the first two weeks of release and ever-dwindling returns thereafter. When Titanic was in its fifth month of release, exhibitors, not the two studios that financed the film, were raking in the largest chunk of box office receipts. [There's a good section on all the dirty convoluted intricacies of exhibition deals in The Movie Business Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067175095X/qid=1043706826/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-8726587-0922338?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), a collection of essays on the commercial side of filmmaking, written by various Hollywood names and edited by Jason Squire. (I took some of Squire's courses at USC.)]

If rapid-fire sequel release hurts anybody, it's theater owners, not studios; but probably it could be argued that even bargain theater attendance of Matrix Reloaded will enjoy floating on upcurrents from the first-run release of Matrix Revolutions.

Thanks Robert, seems the more I learn, the more depressing the film business is. Yet people still want to be in it.:)

I wonder what the return on 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' was since it built it's box office over a few months and started out slow.
Based on what you said, it sounds like most of the 300 mill will be going to the theaters.

"I wonder what the return on 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' was since it built it's box office over a few months and started out slow. Based on what you said, it sounds like most of the 300 mill will be going to the theaters."

Well, not really, because Greek Wedding was a tiered release, and it didn't open in many theaters until it had proved itself in limited markets. It premiered in February, entered limited release in April (limited release usually means a few screens in the largest cities [typically, New York, L.A.] or cities that are demographically important to what the studio perceives as the film's audience), and then slowly expanded into other markets as the year went on, climaxing around September or October. The profit clock starts ticking for a theater when it opens in that theater, not from the point of its initial release date.

Still, theater owners love films like Greek Wedding that grow by word of mouth a lot better than big blockbusters like the two STAR WARS prequels, which carried heavy restrictions all designed to make maximum profit for Lucasfilm and minimum profit for the theater owners. For example, Lucasfilm demanded an exceptionally high cut of profits in the first two weeks, and that multiplexes were required to show the film on multiple screens in that time period. For the STAR WARS films, theater owners were given a raw deal, but they could hardly say no when a STAR WARS film is a known quantity and sure to attract audiences and turn a profit.

(Incidentally, the original STAR WARS in 1977 opened to a very slow tiered release. While L.A. and New York and a few other cities saw the film on its premiere date, most cities had to wait until later in the summer. STAR WARS changed many things about the exhibition business, particularly, prior to STAR WARS, you were allowed to buy a movie ticket and stay in the theater as long as you liked, through as many screenings of the film as you wished. After STAR WARS starting playing to consecutive sell-out crowds who all wanted to stay to see the movie again, a new era in exhibition was born--one ticket, one showing.)

The only thing that keeps many theaters in business is the concept of the house nut, which is the initial slice off the top of box office revenues which covers operational expenses (rent, maintenance & custodial, salaries for the ushers and projectionists). This money is collected before the studio gets their cut. The theater doesn't make money off of it, but it gets the theater through dry spells when no blockbusters are opening.

Theaters also make up profit by selling overpriced concessions.

I saw Spy Kids 2 at the 29th Case Science Fiction Marathon (http://films.cwru.edu/sfmarathon29/sfmarathon29.html) this past weekend and, I'll be damned, I liked it. See my writeup of the Marathon (http://www.robertks.com/showlogentry.php?entry_id=305).

Hahaha! A whole year! To be honest I couldnt sit through Spy Kids 2. I had to turn off the dvd. I thought it was cut really bad, the story was awful, acting terrible and all this from me, who loved Robert Rodriguez' style everything else of his I've seen. Guess you had to be a kid to really like it....That or be RKS ;)

Aaron

That, or see it at the Marathon. It's tough not to love even the worst films when they're played in a venue as tribal.

What is the 'Marathon'?

Aaron

As Charles said, most cinematographers have "issues" with Rodriguez. Just because he uses hd doesn't mean Hollywood will soon follow. It is still an inferior product. While some will say you can't tell the difference, I say comparing to what? If you display on the screen a hd scene and a film scene of exactly the same thing, you will notice a substantial difference. But to blindly look at a scene with no comparison is foolish.

"Rodriguez's hyperbole aside..."

hyperbole - A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect.

I just finished reading the article:

"Everyone rents cameras, but I bought mine..."

Why is that Robert?

"I used a combination of Fujinon lenses, zooms only, no primes,..."

Something no self respecting dp would normally do.

Somehow he implies that shooting "Parent Trap" for $50 million would have been reduced by using HD. Yet at his budget of $13 million, film costs are only a small part.

He also implies that he can spend evenings at home due to digital. But he only edits on his Avid like any other editor would. Read hyperbole above.

“We prepped for about three weeks and shot the whole thing in seven, and now I'm editing it. We started without a script because Antonio was only available if we did it right away, plus there was the actor's strike looming. I never could have met that kind of schedule if we had shot film.”

Why not? What is different? This paragraph shows how Rodriguez must operate. He starts with no script?!!!!

Rodriguez says depth of field is irrelevant (!).

He says he wants his films to look like Sergio Leone's whom he admires, yet Leone used film.

Like Robert said, Rodriguez obviously thinks the director should do it all but not everyone is talented in all areas. Rodriguez seems talented in few.

"I predict it's only a matter of time before they stop going to the theater anyway if digital projection doesn't proliferate soon."

Gee, it's like the 1940s all over again. I can't see people wanting to get out of the house either.

"..guys who still shoot on film will get their stuff seen the way they meant for it to be seen when they put it on negative."

Well he got this right.

Okay, I over-hyped myself on this movie, so that when I finally watched the DVD in it's entirety (regular audio, both commentators tracks, all deleted scenes and all features) the movie struck me as a little lack luster. Then again, I watched it 3 times, maybe I'm burnt out. . .

Anyways, I love Robert Rodriguez' style, I love his thoughts on how to shoot creatively. . .What most people seem to miss is that Robert wants to do his own thing. He wants creative control of everything he can possible handle. BUT, he does enjoy collaboration. If you listen to the director's commentary track (not the audio one) from Mexico, you find out that Johnny Depp improved nearly all his lines, he and Robert rewrote parts together, Depp and Hayek provided music for different parts of the movie, etc.

I fully understand Robert's desire to control a story and characters he created as much as possible--wouldn't we all like to see our visions leap from our heads onto a big screen somewhere?

As for Film v. HD. . . .yes they are different. Some difference are HUGE, some. . .not so big. BUT, Rodriguez' points about it not taking nearly as long and being much cheaper are right. He can roll tape all day long and not come close to paying for 1/10th that amount of film, which means every little nuance an actor ever tries gets captured. Plus. . .he know the instant a shot is done whether or not it was captured the way he wanted. . .why? Because with video monitors he can see exactly how the lighting, the colors, everything is captured. Couple that with the knowledge of what can and can't be fixed in post and he can just run all day long. . .shooting and changing things up on the fly as his imagination leads him. Does he deny HD has much more sharpness than film? No, instead he uses it to his advantage. Honestly, film is no more organic, no more aestetically "superior" than HD. It's just different. However. . .while it will not disappear it is going to have to share it's market more and more with HD (or whatever type of video will replace HD). Eventually HD (or whatever) will become the reigning king. . .why? Because it does move faster, the "deficiencies" it has to film are already being worked on and solved, and it will continue to become cheaper and cheaper. Film, by neccessity, will always be pricey. . .until perhaps so few people want to use it that they have to lower prices to stay in business.

Honestly, I cannot wait for what the future holds for movie making. With the advances in computers and HD (and other realms of video) the little guy can now compete with the big dogs. Sure, maybe his picture isn't as technically "sound" (ie: it's not shot on film) as Hollywood. . .but anyone can learn to light correctly, any one can learn exposure, color control. . .pacing. . .whatever. . .and video can capture beautiful images if the image placed in front of it is composed correctly. It's time the little guys quit waiting. Your camera does nothing but record what's in front of it--whether it's film, HD, or DV--learn what you need to put in front of it to tell you story as beautifully as possible and just do it. As either Robert Zemeckis or Don Burgess said of Forrest Gump (I don't remember which), "We could have shot this on 8mm film and it would have been just as effective because the story was there."

Oh, and . . .

""Everyone rents cameras, but I bought mine..."

Why is that Robert?"

--you make a boatload more money if you buy your own equipment. . .any videographer will tell you that. . .

""I used a combination of Fujinon lenses, zooms only, no primes,..."

Something no self respecting dp would normally do."

--because film exposure changes as you zoom in. . .you need more and more light, something that is hard to adjust on the fly in the middle of zooming in on a shot. . .

"He says he wants his films to look like Sergio Leone's whom he admires, yet Leone used film."

--HELLO??? HD WASN'T INVENTED WHEN LEONE WAS SHOOTING THE GOOD, THE BAD, and THE UGLY! How could he have shot on HD. Dumb point.

Anyways. . .I'm done for now

I apologize if this wandered off topic too much. I'm just passionate and ADHD. . .I have no idea how to stay on topic. . .

Film also captures all the nuances. Though you can't afford to let it run as long as video, an actor has his limits also. You try and get your scene in as few takes as possibler because actors get tired and lose their edge. There is no hd advantage there.

And this brings up on of the evils of hd. Because it's on tape, some directors feel they can shoot all day, hence, burning up studio time and labor which all costs money. The ability to go where his creative juices are flowing can be great except this should have been covered in pre-pro. Any wavering from that costs money and can easily frustrate a crew.

Most film shoots are done with ccd add-ons allowing the director to see what he's got on a video monitor also. So dv has no advantage there.

How does he use HD's lack of sharpness to his advantage?

No. HD is not always cheaper or faster. By the time it's ready for distribution, either costs about the same. The cost of film or tape is only a small portion of the cost of movie making. A friend of mine just shot a 90-minute feature. Total cost raw stock through answer print was $70,000. But the budget was $4 million. Even is tape would have been $10,000 (and it would not) you would still have to come up with $3.9 million to "play with the big dogs" and do the same feature he did.

Most, though not all of course, DPs won't even use zoom lenses due to their inferior qualities to prime lenses. Film does NOT lose exposure when zooming but zoom lenses cannot maintain what qualities they have during a zoom.

You obviously don't understand my "dumb point" about Leone. Rodriguez says he wants to shoot as good as Leone's films yet he says shooting on film is stupid. Rodriguez speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He praises and flames the same thing.

Okay, first of all. . .you can praise a film and still prefer to shoot on HD. Otherwise we would just have to say that if you like HD you can no longer talk about anything ever done on film. . .that doesn't seem very smart. Of course he can praise Leone's work. . .that doesn't mean that he has to like working on film. A movie is 90% creativity and 10% what freakin' format you shoot it on.

You shoot film in as few takes as possible because it costs a lot to roll film. However, in between takes you have the actors and directors talking. . the actors working their lines. . .etc. So. . .if you can keep your camera rolling then you can capture something you never would have gotten on film.

And as far as letting your creativity lead, who said anything about running around all over town? When I'm talking about creativity leading I mean if you're running HD and you know you've got it in one take then you've got time to try another angle or what have you that maybe you didn't notice before.

The point about monitoring was apparently missed by you as well. Yes, I know there are video monitors on the set of a film. However, the film does not necessarily capture the exact same image that you see on the CCD. With HD however you know that the exact same thing you are seeing on your 24" HD color monitor is the exact same thing that was just recorded to your HD tape and that it will look exactly the same on your HD monitor back in the editing suite. Even the best properly calibrated film monitor is still not seeing the image exactly as it's recorded. The actual film stock and exposure settings can change the look of things.

I disagree with your example about your friend. You don't NEED the other 3.9 million just to make the same feature. Sure, if you're doing it for some kind of studio or company, you'll have that money for distribution and marketing, but what about Joe Schmoe, "I wanna make a movie" guy? He needs the equipment to actually make the movie and then a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to get people to see it. . .not money. If you spend your time coming up with a creative and well done piece, someone will buy it from you eventually. And HD costs are only gonna come down.

I never said HD had a lack of sharpness. I said he never denied HD had more sharpness (this means that HD would therefore have more sharpness. . .in case you needed a little help). As far as using it to your advantage. . .there is great advantage to having a crisp, sharp, very real and edgy look. . .it's called aesthetics. Who ever said that the only aesthetic you could have is a fuzzy one? All that means is that that person doesn't know the definition of aesthetics. . .

Zoom lenses do maintain their qualities (at least the video zooms I've used do) otherwise. . .no one would make and/or want them at all.

All I'm saying is. . .let's not blind ourselves to the obvious advantages that video and HD can bring to the table now that the quality is close to that of film. Let's not hobble ourselves for the sake of tradition or snobbery about how much money we can spend on film. Let's explore and most of all. . .let's create.

After ranting about how hd is better than film, RR says, "I wanted that feeling of being able to see Lee Van Cleef's pupils sweat, like in those Sergio Leone movies, and HD is perfect for that." So he wants his movies to be as good as those films but only HD is perfect for that? But he just said he can't see why anyone would use film!

A movie may be 90% creativity but that doesn't give you license to choose an inferior format. You let the story choose the format, not the other way around. DPs spend time trying to decide between 1.85, Super35, anamorphic, etc. and even HD and choose the one appropriate for the story. Boyle used dv for "28 Days.." because he thought it suited the story even though he could have shot on film.

In between takes you spend more time working on camera positions and lighting than actors do talking to the director. They should be prepared before they go to the set and only simple directions given during. You think a professional set keeps their tapes and cameras running full time and actors are doing the same? Then you have never been to a professional set.

The monitors used in film are more to review the action than anything else. Any decent DP knows what he's going to get on the film when it's running. That's why he selects the film stock he does and the settings.

You make a $4 million dollar movie and you don't think it all goes into the production?! Film costs were $70,000 and you think using HD would reduce that $4 million dollar figure?! That number did not include distribution at all. How would DV change that? Which unions would you have take a cut? (Ha!)

By the way, my friend has a half way chance of being nominated for an Oscar. We'll know soon.

HDs sharpness is due to its lack of resolution. There is no visual data between pixels so there is a sharp dropoff. Film can display this visual information, hence it's "softness" compared to digital. (You can find this same information from the thread that links to the cinematographer's e-book from USC).

Zooms maintain "their" qualities, yes. Better than primes? Ha! Never have. Never will. Can't! Rather than getting into technicals, why do you think most Hollywood features don't even use zooms?

Video is close to film? The barely acceptable scan of motion picture films is 2K and filmmakers complain about that including tonal and color ranges. 4K scans are preferred and still don't match film. When a professional wants to make a movie, his first choice is always film. If anyone here had the money to shoot a film for the theatre, his first choice would definitely be film. It is the finest art.

This is the last I will have to say about this. Over the last 30 years I have worked in video and with feature films. Some may think I am anti-video but that is not the case. In most cases you'll find I respond to those who seem to think hd, dv or video is better or even competent with film.

I realize most here consider this a hobby so I try not to get too riled up. But you would find the discussions that take place between here and real video and film cinematographers on a set are quite different in their views.

Digital vs Film

Pro Life or Right to Choose

Christianity vs. Islam

9mm vs. 45 ACP.

Wow! Neat thread. Learned a lot.

In 1969 Stanley Kubrick predicted dramatic changes in the film industry:

“It’s now getting to the point where a filmmaker almost has the same freedom a novelist has when he buys himself some paper.” –Stanley Kubrick.

In speaking of independent filmmakers, he went on to say "...at some point someone's going to do something on a level that's going to be shattering."

For those who have neither read Robert Rodriguez' book "Rebel Without A Crew" nor closely studied the manner in which 'El Mariachi' was made, the era predicted by Stanley Kubrick is upon us, and RR happens to be leading by example. Anyone who can hold their own camera should realize we are in the middle of a paradigm shift. Everything has gone back to point zero.

The HD vs. Film debate is entirely misunderstood and misconstrued. No one said that just shooting HD alone saves you all this money. But what it does is to fit in closely with RR's implementation of the same style, manner, and techniques, which led to El Mariachi, and are the same techniques anyone else is free to use.

After El Mariachi was completed RR attempted to explain how he did it and was repeatedly told by 'experts' that "you can't do it that way". This was a 23 filmmaker who went to Mexico with a borrowed 16mm camera, two light bulbs, and a tape recorder. Editing was originally done by connecting two VCRs together to edit the transferred footage.

Say what you will about the final product, but the limited resources are indisputable.

When told 'El Mariachi' cost only $7K to make, one industry doubter claimed it was impossible, that the food for the crew alone would surpass that budget. Surprise. No crew.

This is the real argument. A locked in dogmatic belief of what can be done, or worse, what cannot be done- some people cannot comprehend anything less. Such hard set beliefs only serve to handcuff the creative individual out there who might otherwise try something ambitious if only he realized the tools were so close in hand.

Clearly RR is not hyping HD for the sake of HD, but because he has found an additional tool that allows him the freedom to do what he does best. Whether you shoot film or video, pixel-vision, RR's techniques and creative solutions over spending money philosophy should be prized by any aspiring filmmaker. RR's 10 minute film school segments on his DVDs are remarkable simply because his common sense secrets are so freely shared.

A key aspect of a Paradigm Shift is that when the shift occurs, some people see it, some don't, while others have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Knocking RR is like knocking the guys who first conceived NLE.

Stanley Kubrick himself, who was one of the first to adapt video replay for his on set direction may not have used DV or HD, but he probably has more in common with RR than may on the surface be apparent. Nicole Kidman, who had been accustomed to a style of production, was surprised by the small crew and methods used by Kubrick in Eyes Wide Shut. At times Kubrick and only one or two others would be present making the movie. She commented that it felt like she were working on a student film. This comment was not intended as an insult, but as commentary on how Stanley Kubrick simplified his process, creatively using available resources to allow him the independence he sought.

And Danny Boyle? Yeah, Mini DV may have fit the story, but guess what? 28 Days Later was his THIRD DV film. Danny Boyle has been open minded to the idea of using alternative methods to achieve his desired ends.

James Cameron just announced his first narrative film project since Titanic will be shot on HD. I believe he can afford film.

The point is to unlock your pre-formed opinions and look beyond the apparent 5K vs 1080 and realize that even if you only have a 16mm camera which runs louder than a sewing machine, a cassette tape recorder and a turtle, you can still do great things as long as your limitations do not extend to the space between your ears.

Brian

Okay, I may be thick headed and like to argue for the sake of arguing and get really off topic. . .but this is exaclty what I've been trying to say. . .

You don't need the other $3.9 million dollars if you're doing your own thing and you don't pay unions. Forget everything you've been told and do what your creativity demands!

Thank you for saying what my stubborn ass couldn't.

Of course you can capture the sweat in Lee van Cleefs eyes shooting HD. Leone used Techniscope - a format close to 16mm in resolution. Tecniscope i 2 perf 35mm using regular spherical lenses. 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.

Everyone whos ever seen how Rodriguez shoots his movies knows why he loves HD and zoom lenses. The guy get's six shots when a regular director get's one. Take a look on the outtakes on some of his DVD's. The guy isn't wasting any time and practically edit's in camera zooming in and out of compositions and doing quick setups to get maximum of cuts for that typical Rodriguez style of editing.

Not all of his films are my cup of tea but I admire him a lot.

I find this thread quite ironic given that not 3 years ago the celluloid zealots were everywhere. Now we have here a whole series of postings by respected videographers praising the advantages of DV. Given that DV has come a long ways in three years, including the evolution to SDI/HD. More evolution to come, stay tuned.

Digital is fine for films but it has to be used right. George Lucas uses it for all the wrong reasons - he has the money for film, but he just wants to make it easier to create effects. Frankly, Episode II especially boasted some extremely fake looking sequences. Whether or not this is directly attributable to filming in CineAlta is arguable, but the fact that nearly every shot in the movie was an effects shot, and most sets were done in the computer and bluescreened, made it extremely cheesy.

Rodriguez, OTOH, still has sets, props, and the normal aspects of film production. He's using digital for the speed and convenience of shooting quickly and watching the dailies without developing. IMO, this is a much more valid reason. Once Upon A Time in Mexico had wonderful colors and a very textured look. I wonder why Lucas wasn't able to use the medium so effectively? He probably doesn't want to...

"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.

If you guys want a real treat, rent Robert Rodriguez' DVD "Once Upon A Time In Mexico". His six featurettes are awesome. One is a ten minute lecture he gave at Sony's Cary Grant Theatre concerning his use of HD 24p, four fantastic behind the scenes featurettes about the movie's production and how easy it was for him to manipulate his images in order to add special effects (case in point: he showed how he digitally manipulated a gunfight scene where he added, in post, a bullet hole effect in a bad guy's forehead. Can you imagine how much money he saved doing it that way as opposed to actually squibbing the actor's forehead which looks cheesy as hell anyway? He also showed how he added machine gun muzzle flash effects in post when, during the early shots in production, Antonio Banderas had to use a non-firing rubber machine gun and "pretend" to be firing it by mouthing the machine gun noise. Rodriguez showed the before and after examples and I swear to you, I could not believe how real the muzzle flash looked when he added the effect in post. Amazing!) Plus, the DVD version shows the movie the way it was meant to be shown: In it's original HD 24p format. The picture is fabulous with no filmout fuzz. Give yourselves a treat and rent this DVD.

Film-out fuzz? I'm not sure I understand what this means.

First of all, if it's a DVD, it's in SD resolution and heavily compressed in MPEG-2 so you're definitely not seeing it in its native HD 24P. In fact, unless you have a higher end television with a progressive scan DVD player, you are seeing it with a pulldown added, which I've heard further degrades the image, if only slightly (not having the upper level gear myself with which to compare).

Second of all, I've never heard of any "fuzz," or loss of resolution, or anything of that nature, when up-rezzing to 35mm and then telecining back to SD. Perhaps you're referring to the wear and tear that happens to a film print over time in theaters which may show up on projection. Of course a fresh print is used for telecine to SD, or increasingly HD, from which to make the DVD compliant MPEG-2 file, so the wear and tear is nonexistent.

I'm curious what you mean by fuzz.

mg

I rented this DVD and noticed the lack of film grain animation, or what Hugh refers to as film-out fuzz. The DVD looked great (much better than anything I've ever shot), and, unlike the DV feature "28 days later", I was unable to notice any DV artifacts on the DVD. I wish I had seen this movie in the theaters. Before this DVD, I thought that I needed to add this noise to animate edges for a good film-look. Vegas grain animation isn't particularly convincing, so I had thought about writing code for
my own plug-in. Not anymore.

I'm afraid this discussion will rage on until film is, well, dead.

Which, as digital formats have shown thus far, will probably be never.



mg

Hugh:

By "real" looking muzzle flash, presumably you mean that it looks just like the effect we are used to seeing in movies when blanks are fired, which are more aggressive than actual rounds!!

Gints:

"28 Days Later" was shot on DV, "One Upon a Time in Mexico" was HD. If there had been the same level of artifacting, I would say that Rodriguez had spent about $47K too much on his cameras....

Film grain and image weave fall into the category of "things to emulate to duplicate the fillm look that are soon to be obsolete". My firm guess is that within ten years, we will have become so conditioned as a culture to digitally originated images that these aspects of film imaging will be considered old school. I don't doubt that period pieces made in the future will call for an emulation of the "film look". I now think of this when I watch trailers at the theatre and notice the weave and dirt on the green MPAA ratings screen, having experienced the same with digital projection.I haven't forgotten how much crackling and popping used to accompany that ratings billboard on the soundtrack in the days before digital sound, although it's hard to imagine now.

<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Groff : Which, as digital formats have shown thus far, will probably be never.



mg -->>>

You're kidding right? Look at where video has come in just the past 5 years--let alone where it was 20 years ago! There is no comparison--and not just shooting, but the whole digital process. In 10 years kids will be editing HD in their family rooms because it'll be the low end of what's produced if things keep going the way they are now.

Everything just keeps getting better and cheaper. . .

When it comes to the old digital vs. analog debate, "better" is a relative term.

We just got a new HDTV at home, top of the line. It's great that we don't get ghosting any more, as we did with analog transmissions. But in most cases the digital artifacts are more distracting than any of the signal distortions that came with analog broadcasts ever were. A commercial displays black text on a white background, but it doesn't get read--I'm too busy allowing myself to be hypnotized by the mosquito noise swimming around each edge. Don't try to watch a movie that puts its detail in shadow--hard as you may look, all you'll see are banded macroblocks.

Similarly, there's no indication that the HDV standard will substantively improve consumer video presentations. The higher resolution comes at the price of signal integrity, and for many, this may not be an appealing tradeoff.

Lucas was overzealous in his push to put out an all digital film with Episode II. The video noise and limited dynamic range in that early generation of HDCams yielded a picture marred by flatness and a frenzied video grain far more flustering than film grain had been on the 1970s stocks used to shoot the first STAR WARS films. (Cf. the screen captures printed as stills in childrens' picture books for Episode II (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375815341/qid=1076388701/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-1848193-7813565?v=glance&s=books) with those in picture books for the original STAR WARS (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394837851/qid=1076388741/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-1848193-7813565?v=glance&s=books). The 2001 images are densely speckled with polychromatic CCD noise, while the 1976 blow-ups suffer from relatively benign photochemical grain.) Hopefully, we can look forward to an improvement with Episode III.

There's little doubt that film will inevitably be replaced by digital systems in the next two decades, but if I were to shoot a feature in 2004 and my foremost value was image integrity, I'd pick 35 mm stock over a CineAlta or a Viper in a heartbeat.

<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin Dooley :
You're kidding right? Look at where video has come in just the past 5 years--let alone where it was 20 years ago! There is no comparison--and not just shooting, but the whole digital process. In 10 years kids will be editing HD in their family rooms because it'll be the low end of what's produced if things keep going the way they are now.

Everything just keeps getting better and cheaper. . . -->>>

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.

Apparently you think that kids editing HD in their family rooms will mean anything. If the "DV revolution" has taught us anything, it's that video is still second fiddle and there is no reason to believe that it will change anytime soon. It's also taught us that access to equipment means relatively little.

I'm a member of this board because I shoot video from time to time and I want to know what people are up to and things that would help me, and I own a GL-1. But film. It's always film. Nothing compares to it, and I don't want to hear about budgetary concerns. The way I see it, if you really believe in your project, you find a way to shoot film.

mg

Matthew

It is going to happen. Here is what I want you to do:

Print out this thread and file it. Keep it. Don't open it. Just keep it.

It is going to happen. It is where the industry is headed.

They said the same thing about sound films (talkies)

They said the same about Television

Thye said the same about 8 track and tape and Beta and VHS and...

It already is happening. It's not if. It already is. Is it ready to take over? Not yet. But it will.

Okay look, film has been around forever. Great. It looks good and has great pros to it--but it's still got a great share of cons. And anyone who says that if you really care about your project you'll find a way to shoot on film is simply close minded and snobbish. I guarantee you that some of the most creative people on the planet can't afford film. Hell, some of them might not want to be able to afford film because it gives them a chance to creatively work around THAT problem. Saying nothing will ever come close to film and that film is the only way. . .it's just pure idiocy. As if film is the best thing we've ever invented. Boy, I'm glad no one got stock on the Model A like this--otherwise it would sure as hell be cold on the way to work today.

Oh, and access to the equipment is the point. That's one of film's biggest drawbacks and video's biggest strengths--it allows people who aren't part of the elite, or people who can't possibly afford film to have a chance.

Matthew,

I'm not too much interested in debating what will happen or
who is "wrong" or "right" if there is even such a thing. As always
time and history will tell the final tale in due time.

You say:

" 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. "

and

" Apparently you think that kids editing HD in their family rooms will mean anything. If the "DV revolution" has taught us anything, it's that video is still second fiddle and there is no reason to believe that it will change anytime soon. It's also taught us that access to equipment means relatively little "

Ofcourse the large percentage of people with a DV camera will
not actually make a movie that will get any notice. That's just how
it works. Not everybody is a great moviemaker or can get his
or her work seen. If you already own a 35mm camera you mostly
are working in the Hollywood system or have connections there
which will help you. And when shelling out that much cash (if
you buy it yourself) there is a much better chance you know you
are going to sell something.

With that said, I'm not at all suprised that we do not hear more
about DV and "common" folk making a hit movie. You didn't hear
that a lot before DV either. In my mind that has nothing to do with
technology. Yes it is more accesible, but that doesn't mean more
and better things will happen.

I do understand this was in reaction to someone else's post, but
I just wanted to give my two digital cents on that.

Second, film has gone through it's many revelations as well (and
I'm no film specialist at all) like 16mm -> 35mm and super35,
anamorphic, 70mm and whatnot.

How can you say this process will not evolve any further? I'm just
curious to that. You must agree that in a lot of theatres around
the world (I hope you have visited and seen some of the bad
presentations here in Europe for example) the film presentations
are just plain bad. Ofcourse this has nothing to do with film, but
it does indicate that it is a very fragile system and there is lots
of room for improvement (even if it just is in handling).

Why do you think a digital system 10 or 20 years from now might
not replace film? I'm not saying it will, but it might.

A lot of films are already using the Digital Intermediates to go
through a digital grading process or visual effects. I never ever
hear any of the film "people" ever complain that this degrades
the film although it is being scanned at 2K resolution or less
(which the newer camera's are shooting) at almost the same
bitdepth. Ofcourse visual effects can be done badly and those
will be commented on.

But if you take a good one like perhaps "O Brother Where Art
Thou". I've never read that there was a lack of resolution or
that it didn't look like film etc. although it went through a digital
process completely. Ofcourse it originated in film and thus got
certain aspects with it from that, but my point is that the digital
work lateron was able to PRESERVE these characteristics
and thus proves (in my mind) that digital can hold up to film if
used properly.

Now we might not be at the point in time just yet where the
footage originating in digital form will be able to hold up to film,
but giving all that I've written it looks to me like it should be
possible with the right techniques. How long these will fully
take to develop is anybody's guess.

Any thoughts on my points?

Actually, Rob, I did complain about the digital intermediate and 2K scans somewhere, possibly this same thread. And it is a quality issue in Hollywood also.

Kevin, they also said television would replace movie theatres yet the amount spent on movies has increased a large amount.

You say dv or hd allows the everyday guy to make his own feature yet you're forgetting hd cameras are the bare minimum right now that someone like RR can use. But the price of the Viper or CineAlta are hardly in the range of "everyman" and, in fact, cost as much or more than 35mm film cameras.

DV/HD is not cheaper than film at the end of the day. Unrelated to movies, you can get a cheap 35mm film camera for a few bucks and take pictures. You can't do that with video.

Some think because they can take pictures without development and instant viewing that it automatically makes it better. But the picture is not as good as film, therefore, art is thrown out the window.

Artists still use paint and pencils.

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

DV/HD is not the admission ticket to movie making. It will cost millions no matter what the medium.

<<<-- But the picture is not as good as film, therefore, art is thrown out the window.

Artists still use paint and pencils.

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

DV/HD is not the admission ticket to movie making. It will cost millions no matter what the medium. -->>>

Art doesn't need the best picture in the world--are has been done with a burnt stick on the inside of a cave. But has also been created on a someone's PC. Techniques do not define what is or isn't art. Creativity does.

Just so you know, long before your comment about all of us wishing we could shoot film I had decided that even if given the option I would not shoot on film. Why? I like the medium of video. I like working with it. Is it as "perfect" as you think film is? No. Not yet. But that doesn't matter to me. I like the medium I work in.

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.

To completely dismiss the DV/HD revolution as crap is ridiculous and I seriously doubt you'd find much support for your view from true artists.