24p Mini DV on the way!

[Bradley Miller]

Peter, I've got news for you. Super 8mm film FAR beats out the resolution, contrast and everything else about video too...even with the XL1. 16mm actually only has a very slightly larger useable frame area and as such does not offer too much more of a significant improvement in resolution. Plus, there are labs that will custom slit down any 35mm filmstock (reversal or negative) to Super 8mm so you can even shoot like the big boys do with T-grain filmstocks. These facts have been documented many times in the industry. Video has a long way to go, but as you no doubt noticed, your PAL 25FPS camera looks pretty damn good.

billravens, "If you want the "film" look, use diffusion filters." Not trying to be an ass here, but that does not work. At least not to anyone who knows better. 30FPS with diffusion filters still looks like video.

[Bill Ravens]

Brad...

:-)...oops, I've been busted. But, I'm curious, what's the fascination with "film look" anyway? Seems like the only reason I've heard is, "because it's always been done that way by Hollywood". What if I'm not into romantic looking documentaries, or photo histories?

[Bradley Miller]

Personally I think EVERYTHING looks better if originated on film, but some things many people say look better on video (the most common one I've heard is porno movies, due to the more fluid motion). If you are trying to shoot something with a story, then I see no use for video for as I've stated before, it just looks like a cheap home movie made on Daddy's camcorder, regardless of the quality of camera, lighting, editing or sound is. It just looks amateurish.

Now before anyone asks the question "what about that latest projection training video Joe spoke of in another thread. Would you have shot that on film?" The answer is no. In that situation, part of the humor is mimicking those bad shot on video training tapes and sleazy used car salesman commercials. Shooting on film (or at 24FPS) would've taken away from the humor.

Shoot that exact same production shot for shot on real film and transfer over to video for editing and the finished tape will look much more professional. I have been shooting video and film since the early 80's. This 24FPS will absolutely take over once people see it. :)

[Ken Tanaka]

I really enjoy reading through good discussions like this. Inevitably I learn something new about both film and video technologies.

Those of us who love watching movies would be hard pressed to argue that stories skillfully ccommitted to film can be beautiful visions to behold. I recently saw "Tortilla Soup" for the first time and found myself mesmerized by just how beautifully it was shot and lit...on film. And, as an old film buff, I equally enjoy watching old b&w films.

But there are few truths more self-evident than that video will replace film as the mainstream motion picture medium. Aesthetics are fun but economics and sheer practicality are driving this train. Cinematographers, actors, directors, producers, et.al. may be a noisy lot but they have no meaningful power to stop the train. Either get on or stay behind at the station.

As an optmistic trend it looks like the video equipment industry is quickly rising to the challenge of producing imaging technologies that can rival and even exceed film's possibilities. Certainly this trend is being driven in no small part by the parties above.

So, from my seat, it's profoundly myopic to assert a position that includes statements like "...video will always...", or "...video will never...". The financial and human capital being devoted to video's development very likely exceeds the total of capital ever devoted to film's development by several orders of magnitude. The odds are overwhelming that you'll be caught bare-butt wrong, perhaps as soon as you click the Submit button.

It's up to us as admittedly small participants in this exciting trend to seize the day by learning to use the current technology to its fullest advantage, spend every otherwise idle hour learning about developments to which we are not normally exposed and to be advocates for future developments in the industry. Remember, when there is change there is opportunity. Let Speilberg shoot on film to the last unexposed frame. God bless him, with his talent I hope he just keeps shooting on -anything- that we can all see! Film, Etch-A-Sketch, whatever.

OK, I'll get off of the soap box now and fade back into lurker-land on this thread.

[Bill Ravens]

well, Brad...all I can say is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"....aka, whatever rings your bell. I submit that the average moviegoer doesn't recognize nor care about the difference until someone says "hey, that's not cool". Then watch the sheep jump on the bandwagon.And, you make an excellent point, Ken. Video requires different lighting techniques, and YES skill, than film. If you put a film maker on a video production, you'll get a video that looks like crap. Put someone experienced with video, without a preformed OPINION about video vs film, and I promise, you'll get a good looking video.
And finally, I'm not hoping to, nor do I want to replace film. Film has its place in art and entertainment. All I'm saying is that video has its applications that film won't meet. Just apply the tool to the right job.....people get so wrapped around the axle they forget about using a philips screwdriver when its a philips head screw.

[Rob Lohman]

I have this things that has bothered me for quite some
time now. This discussion of film vs. video is nice, but I
never here anyone on movies shot on film but transferred
to DVD for example. A zillion people (me included) have
DVD's and/or watch them. Now I never hear anyone complain
on this? Why is this? Because it was shot on film? Well,
you ARE watching video here!!

If you like DVD movies and don't think it looks like cheapy
camcordy stuff then we can mimick it too, because as stated
above video is video. If a movie (shot on film) can look good
on a DVD then ours can too! You only need to do it differently.

Since I am in a PAL country, thus shooting at 25 FPS, I can
easily create progressive DVD material that has at least
the motion signature of film (allmost 24 FPS, and progressive).
Ofcourse I would need to match this with proper lighting,
makeup, sets, wardrobe etc. But I am working in the same
resolution as DVD, so, in theory I must be able to create the
same look.

Any thoughts on this?

[Bradley Miller]

Shooting at 25FPS, yes with proper lighting, lenses and such you should be able to achieve a very film-like look. Here in the US at 30FPS, it just won't happen no matter how much digital processing there is because of the motion. Hollywood movies transferred to DVD look the way they do because they were originated on film at 24FPS.

How many people here have seen the Duality video? You can download it from www.crewoftwo.com Now granted some of the cgi stuff isn't quite up to Lucasfilm spec (it is a Star Wars takeoff), but just look at the thing overall. It looks completely like a Star Wars movie being played back on a video medium...except for the motion. It is too fluid.

[Charles Papert]

Regarding Rob's thoughts on DVD: The fantastic improvement in that medium over VHS (the previous wide-spread movie-watching format) has served to illustrate the vast superiority of film as an origination medium, if anything. Just because the results are both seen on a television is not to say that film and video will appear the same by any means. The processes retain their unique characteristics even as they take on certain of the attributes of the format they are displayed in.

It's easier to see when video is transferred to film and projected: the material gains the grain structure and 24 fps characteristics of film, but a very different rendition of color, contrast, tonality and resolution. This is a tricky point to make without visual aids, so I'll give up on this one, perhaps someone else can make more sense than I...

I will however question Brad's assertion that 16mm has only slightly larger useable image area than Super 8. Full aperture 16mm has greater than 300% of the area of Super 8 (both having approximately a 1:33 aperture), and Super 16 (at a 1.66 aperture) has closer to 400%.

Finally, I do agree that economic reasons will force all but the most celebrated i.e. powerful filmmakers into digital eventually--but really, it's not going to happen overnight. There are plenty of political forces in the way of that. As far as the amount of money that has been spent on film vs video technology development, witness the fact that while Arriflex has just introduced two brand new 35mm production cameras, Sony has not yet developed a digital camera truly designed for the motion picture industry (they are still using a chassis that is based on a news camera design). Kodak continues to introduce new film stocks every year that expand the cinematography palette.

The reality is, the cost of film stock, processing and printing (saved by shooting digitally) is not a huge line item in an $80 million feature. And in a film that costs under $10 million, the savings on the above items are generally offset by the cost of the transfer from digital to film for projection. The equipment costs the same to rent (I'm talking HD vs 35mm here, of course a DV feature is going to win out on this one) and production time is fairly equivalent, since you still need to light digital to make it look pretty. So it's not that much of an economic no-brainer at the current time.

Sorry, I'm prattling on, too late at night for this sort of thing...! Blah blah blah, head slumps on keyboard...

[Rob Lohman]

(my capatalized words are not to shout, yell or insult
people but to highlight the important words in my
sentence!)

I think my point is a bit missed here, perhaps I did not
explain it well.

" Just because the results are both seen on a television
is not to say that film and video will appear the same by
any means. "

Ofcourse this is true. Something will not magicaly look
the same if they are different. What I meant was that
with DVD (or any other home viewing media) the lines
IN WHICH TO WORK are the SAME! VHS is VHS. DVD is
DVD. If you make a movie that was shot on film and
one that was shot on video theoritacally you SHOULD be
able to get the EXACT SAME image (if you shoot on 24
or 25 FPS video that is)... I'm talking image here. This
must be possible because you are working in the same
constraints.

That is the point I am trying to make. If a movie shot on
film can look good (pleasing) on a VHS/DVD/TV then a
movie shot on video should be able to attain the same
if done right (correct FPS, correct lighting etc.)...

Hope this explains it a bit better. Not to start any flaming
or something, just to explain whats in my mind..

Ofcourse the otherway around does not hold true. A video
transferred to film and then watched side by side will
not be the same since the format (film) alows far more
(resolution, color depth etc) then video can produce. I am
not talking about this way (although I believe good results
can even then be achieved).

Thanks for reading

[Adrian Douglas]

<If you are trying to shoot something with a story, then I see no use for video for as I've stated before, it just looks like a cheap home movie made on Daddy's camcorder, regardless of the quality of camera, lighting, editing or sound is. It just looks amateurish. >

If this was the case then why do people contine to use video for feature films (ie Steven Soderburg). This is a very sweeping statement and on a forum like this where video professionals graciously help others it's also quite insulting. Of course video will never look as good as 35mm film, no one expects it to. How could you possibly make something that cost $20 000 to shoot look as good as an $80 million production.
We shoot video because we enjoy making movies, docos etc. I and I asume every member of this forum can't afford an Arri with Zeiss lenses. Enter video. I put 110% into my work and I am always totally professional about it. My work does not look as good as Lucus, or Spielburg, but it is my work, not the work of 300 people and 80million dollars. We just want to get the best look possible from the equipment we can afford and enjoy the fun and challenges of doing it. I don't expect to crack into Hollywood with my work, hell, I wouldn't want to go near the place. @%$# Hollywood.
Instead of sitting there procrastinating about how we don't have 35mm film cameras we get what we can and just go and do it. Punk Lives!!!!!!

[Bill Ravens]

AMEN!!!! Adrian

[Adrian Douglas]

Thanks for the support Bill

[Chris Hurd]

In the end, content rules over all. If you have a compelling story, the video vs. film debate becomes utterly meaningless. Generally speaking, an audience doesn't care if they're watching video or film. All that matters is the story. Frankly I think this discussion is a big non-issue. Just do the best you can with the tools at hand. You can comunicate with video just as you can with film. They're two very different mediums. I've seen beautiful and ugly on both. What really counts is the brain behind the eye behind the viewfinder.

[Joe Redifer]

I agree with what Rob had to say. That's why I'm excited about the prospect of a 24fps progressive MiniDV camera! That's been my point all along, actually. I don't think that I will ever get involved with film with the stuff I make unless someone else is footing the bill. I also have absolutely no plans to transfer my video to film (Blair Witch Project was the worst thing I have ever seen on a movie screen. It had almost zero color and detail). But with the 24p camera, it would make this possibility real and the film would look MUCH better than it would if sourced from any other video frame rate. And I wouldn't have to slow it down like I would with PAL 25 fps. Of course I'd only do this for stuff like film-festivals, etc.

Now my question is this: Will this new Panasonic do a 3:2 pulldown effect for NTSC just like DVDs do? I'm curious about that. I really hope Canon makes an XL2 and has this built in as a feature.

[Adrian Douglas]

Chris, I totally agree with you, and I'm sorry that I felt the need to post a relpy but I'm not sorry for what I said. I was just p.o'd by such a sweeping scathing comment, especially with the numbrer of pro guys who are always posting useful info. I really appreciate the info from this board, and the fact that it isn't like most of the others, and I'd hate to lose the input from experienced professional people