Film vs Video...THE LOOK

[Joe Redifer]

I think it would have an effect but I also think you'd have to be pretty anal to notice it. Of course the biggest difference you'd notice is that the source material originated on video.

[Charles Papert]

I agree that it would have a very minimal effect. I can generally spot film footage shot at 30 fps for telecine (if one needs to shoot a scene with a standard TV monitor in the shot playing NTSC, the "easy" way to achieve a sync image on the monitor is to film the shots that feature the monitor at 30 fps and the rest at 24--the better solution being 24 fps playback on the monitor and shooting everything at 24 fps). But I don't really think I could identify 25 fps projected at 25.

[Justin Chin]

donatello:

It would make a difference to George if the film cost jumped 5 million. For his films he likes to pay for things "out of pocket" and he puts every effort into not having to take any money from any outside sources. I've heard this time and time again - George wants to control the films, and in order to do that, he has to bank roll the films himself.

He certainly has a lot more money to play with the second time around, so he has taken advantage of that. But from my experience he doesn't pay a premium for anything. Everything is rock bottom. Just imagine all the talent you have out there willing to work for half, a quarter or even for free just to work on Star Wars. Hell, how do you think he budgeted EP1 at 65 million?

Okay, sorry about that. When the Big L is mentioned the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end...

[Justin Chin]

Okay, just by happenstance I came across this online article on the making of EP2. It's an interview with Rick McCallum.

The full article is on www.directorsworld.com.

-------------------------------
Can you quantify in terms of dollars what working in 24P HD means to your budget?

McCallum: Absolutely, but remember every single shot is a digital shot for us, which has a huge impact in terms of scanning in and scanning out of the computer. For us, the difference is about $1.8 million. We shot the equivalent of 1.2 million feet of film. That's the equivalent of 220 hours. When you take the cost of the negative, developing and printing it, the transfer, the sound transfers, and the telecine it equals a serious amount of money. And if you're shooting in different countries you have that negative shipped out, processed, and shipped back. There's freight agents involved and you risk your negative being lost or destroyed. When you're shooting in the digital arena, 220 hours of hi-def tape is $16,000.

And if you're simultaneously making a clone, which becomes your safety master, that's another $16,000. And then your down-conversion to put it into an editor is another $16,000. So for $48,000, you're making a movie without any of the cost of processing or transferring negative.

[Don Donatello]

so the difference is 1.8 million. now if you put youself in the shoes of BIG L for a moment. personel worth $600 ? million PLUS... the difference between 65 and 66.8 is SMALL ( compared to the BIG PICTURE it's pocket change OK wallet change ...) i'm not sure why he shot on 24P but i just can't see that it was only the $$ saved . well anyway i do remember that when he stated he would shoot on 24p 2 years ? ago others started to look at 24p ... plus big L seems to always be one of the 1st into a technology that he thinks is GOOD. plus like you say coulkd be a large part of that CONTROL - in house- ( no lab can make dupe negs of any rushes) no bad processing , scratch negative ...

i think we will see big L pushing digital projection in a BIG way SOON , very soon...

[Ken Tanaka]

Net worth aside, I salute George Lucas for pressing the "film" business into new frontiers. Unlike some of his peers who blather on about "digital revolutions" while they're loading their 1000ft magazines with film stock, Lucas has certainly put his money where his professional convictions are. Now, certainly, the Star Wars material lends itself very naturally to anchoring in a digital format. Nevertheless, a $100mil bet is a nervous proposition and a very big wager. Also, let's not forget the value that his Skywalker Ranch venture has provided for so many "filmmakers" over the years.

[Justin Chin]

donatello:
As for control. It's not just based on digital control, but with regards to total film control (e.g. property, distribution, dvd release etc.).

George doesn't consider $14,000 "pocket change". Believe me on this one. He counts his pennies.

I believe George has valid reasons for shooting in HD 24p. It allows him to expedite the digital process. He likes to take an actors facial expressions from one take and place it on their bodies from different take. To him filmmaking is an organic process. He always plans a re-shoot and sometimes several reshoots at the beginning of a project. He likes to be able to change his mind.

Ken Tanaka:
I think many filmmakers are very excited about new technology. But you have to understand that they are only a small part of the overall industry machine. Any industry loves standards, for good or bad. George is able to do his film the way he wants because he hold a lot of power. Like I said before, there are plenty of people who want to work on a Star Wars film. This includes Sony, Panavision and every distributor and studio. I'm glad he's pushing the limits.

On a more thread related note:
When compositing the digital effects with the HD background shots, they had to code new "digital grain" to match the computer generated image to the HD shot background. This is instead of their normal process of adding "film grain" to the computer generated images to match the background.

[Adam Lawrence]

i agree..


i think the 24p motive wasnt so much budget reason but more time effeciency
and digital luxuries such as live compositing and so forth.

i think theres a bit of "digital revolution" intertwined with that as well.

anyway, i dig it! and cant wait to see the final outcome. when watching the trailers though, is it me or can you tell its shot in 24p, nothing bad but
i can notice its not done with film in "some" shots.....oh and EP2 will be far more flattering without the kid that played Anikan in EP1.

[Peter Wiley]

I have to say that this film vs. video argument leaves me baffled.

It's a little like arguing that paintings done in oils are somehow better/worse than paintings done in watercolor. Such an idea is nonsense, of course.

What matters, at the end of the day, is the skill of the artist. What an artist can make compelling will attract an audience no matter the medium (or what it costs). Some day the next Orsen Welles will shoot something on DV and then everyone will understand -- and be falling down to imitate.

[Adam Lawrence]

more like finger paints vs acrylics....

film IS a better medium than video, in the "look" aspects.

yet a compelling peice may be composed in video too, just takes more work
and effort.

[Bill Ravens]

"Some people are so sincerely wrong"—Walt Whitman

[Justin Chin]

I truly believe this is a preferential thing. Personally I don't know many people who like the look of video over the look of film. In fact most don't really notice the difference. Or if they do, they can't explain why it's different.

I certainly hope someone makes a movie as good as Citizen Kane on video. It would be an accomplishment. Not because of the use of video, but because it takes skill, talent and hard work to make a good movie, let alone Citizen Kane. Plus, I'm always up for a good movie.

Each film has a tone a look that should reflect the theme and the plot the director and the DP strive for. Cinematography enables the story, it can tell it, reflect it, give us point of view and put us in places we have never thought of.

Use what works, what is necessary and make it happen.

[Adam Lawrence]

?

Im no scientist but film makes a better picture than video, technically and visually.

"And that's the way it is." - Walt Whitman

[Justin Chin]

Though I might agree with you artistically, the case is that a video camera CAN capture very similar images to 35mm.

You also might want to check out "Personal Velocity" shot by Ellen Kuras and directed by Rebecca Miller. It won the Sundance Excellence in Cinematography Award. It was shot all on a PD150.

[Adam Lawrence]

true,

im refering to the quality in an image, its a factor of films comprived grains of
indefinate color to videos limited pixelology. technically speaking ofcourse.

"Tape" is a movie i recently wanted to check out yet havent viewed it,

the specs were that it was shot with a pd-100, amazing picture,
very cinema savvy. I never was into the sony PD series yet i wonder
if the film was shot in progressive scan, due to its un-interlaced look.
does anyone know if this is a capability of the PD cameras, and if
so how does it differ from the XL1's "frame mode".

ive noticed many DV films shot with the PD-100, 150'S