|  IP: Logged

No one's going to take a filmmaker that shoots his first project in video seriously. But if there's a way to make a first time project look as close to professional as film and is as cheap as shooting in video, I don't see that being anything to look down on. A majority of an amateur independent's project cost is going to be the film stock. Now when you talk about bigger projects that necessitate a crew, a cast with names, and major lighting and location rentals, it's no longer an independent project and you're better off using film instead of digital anyway.

But that's a lot to ask of a first time director with little experience. At least one of my friends is making a film with the Canon DV camcorder, and he went to film school at UNT in Denton, Texas. And I'm sure he'd much rather shoot his film on film, but he doesn't have the budget for it. It's filmmakers like him that I'm saying this digital technology would be good for. For major studio projects, it's a dumb idea. And as for my friend's cast and crew, all his crew and actors are volunteering for exposure and experience while he just wants at least one feature length project in his portfolio. I didn't read his script or have anything to do with the project because I've moved to Colorado, but I've seen his student projects, and he's very good at directing action shorts. Nice clean edits, very good tempo. I'd really like to see him make it.

If he can get his feature to look good enough to get him a contract with a major studio, then it's worth shooting in digital. But, as a said before, the convenience of shooting in digital video may open the flood gates to a variety of filmmaker wannabes putting out a variety of crap. As for the Darwinian theory of good filmmakers surviving the rigors of filming, don't count on it. Take a good look at most of the independent crap OR some of the major studio releases that come out. Better yet, the filmmakers (you know, the ones that went to the $35,000 a year schools like UCLA and NYU?) that made those Coke commerial snipes. For filmmakers like that, it's not what they know so much as who they know.
------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Most people blame release print unsteadiness and sharpness loss on high speed release printing. It seems to make sense that printing at over 1000 feet per minute is somehow inherently worse quality than 180 feet per minute. I disagree.

An excellent presentation by Irwin Young of DuArt Labs at the SMPTE Technical Conference a few years ago blames most of the unsteadiness and sharpness loss in release prints on not using a step printer for the critical Master Positive to Duplicate Negative printing step.

When using a continuous contact printer, the processed original and the raw stock are wrapped around a 64-tooth (12-inch circumference) printing sprocket. Ideally, the "pitch" (distance between each perforation) of the original film should be 0.3 percent shorter than that of the raw stock, to avoid "slippage" of the films as they go around the sprocket. If this relationship is not maintained, unsteadiness and sharpness loss can occur. In making a direct print, a "short pitch" BH-1866 negative is printed to a "long pitch" KS-1870 print stock, so printer slippage is negligible.

When going through a release printing system, the short pitch negative can be continuous contact printed to a long pitch master positive. But that long pitch master positive should be STEP-PRINTED onto a short-pitch duplicate negative, using full-fitting registration pins. Then the short pitch duplicate negative can be release printed onto long pitch print film using a continuous contact printer.

Unfortunately, today's most common practice prints the short pitch camera negative to a short pitch master positive to a short pitch duplicate negative and finally to a long pitch release print, all using continuous contact printers. Those steps of printing short-pitch to short-pitch on a continuous contact printer are where the unsteadiness and sharpness loss can creep in.

An excellent discussion of this is in book "Motion Picture Film Processing" by Dominic Case (Focal Press Media Manuals, TR88.2.C37, ISBN 0-240-51243-X), in the section on "Continuous-contact Printers" (page 100-101).

Unfortunately, time and cost constraints often prevent labs from using a pin-registered step printer to maintain the proper film-pitch relationship. But even assuming a mediocre 50 line pairs per millimeter system resolution, a release print still would have an equivalent 2096 X 1752 resolution for the anamorphic format. Look at a release print of "The Thin Red Line" and you'll see excellent sharpness.

As I noted, the dynamic range and "bit depth" of film is also significantly better than existing digital cameras. Look at that "metachlorian blood sampling" scene in TPM again, and you'll see what I mean.

That scene shot with the digital Sony camera in Episode I was plainly lacking in resolution from the rest of the movie. Now don't misinterpret that as my claiming I thought the prints looked good, because they did not. That is the one film that really stands out in my mind as poor quality...and with the power and cash of Lucas behind it, it should NOT have been like that.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Really, how many EXHIBITORS made some money from episode 1? With its unrealistic stipulations of having to keep it on the largest screen, higher rentals for longer periods etc...Most cinemas here didn't even make it to the minimum number of weeks and were not required to 'cos it was as dead as dead after week three, much less week nine or ten!

You'd think he would have shot himself in the foot with that balls-up, but lets face facts... It (supposedly) is Star Wars and the hype machine will gear up all over again. If you don't take it, then it'll be a case of..."Well, then I'm afraid you can't have "X","Y" or "Z" either."

They'll all have short memories.

I just hope Julia Roberts is making another romantic comedy so they can bring it out in week two of episode 2 just like they did with Notting Hill against episode 1 and make a killing. I'd be booking that one now.

As Joe Pesci said... "They fuck you at the drive though"

I think there's something in that for all of us.

 |  IP: Logged

Plus, I don't want to "make it" in Hollywood by knowing someone. I'm sure if I really shmoozed at enough festivals, I could someday be able to land in the director's chair for some movie like "Kazaam!", but I'd rather make a GREAT film/video, even if only my friends end up seeing it.

------------------
Scott A. Magie

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

"Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn.
I didn't see SW1 and won't see SW2 although I am a SciFi fan. I'm getting really tired of computer effects. They're so ....computery. Give me stop motion and strings on the giant spider, anytime. It gives my voluntary suspension of disbelief, a chance to exercise. Filmakers in general need to figure out that special effects of any kind are only an aid to telling the story, not the story itself. Kinda reminds me of the James Bond movies and their advance into gimmicks, impossible physics, and absurdity."

-----

i hear and agree with what you're saying. i love seeking out bad movies with cheesy special effects (probably the reason i so eagerly became a MSTie). But, it's Star Wars, man! give in and watch it! don't make me use the jedi mind trick on you..

jasoN

I am directing a low budget independant film that goes into production in late july. We thought long and hard about it and finally came to the conclusion to use digital rather than film for capture. heres why:

1. We will use the Canon DMXL-1. It captures images at 625 full frame horizontal fields, 25 times a second. After line doubling and lazer film recording, the resolution will be greater than that of 16mm film.

2. The camera will record in 16.9 format, and we will have an anamorphic attachment to force a full 2.4 to 1 ratio, full widescreen without any cropping, keeping the full resolution.

3. Instant editing. We can edit on location, that moment. Try that with film.

4. Our shooting ratio will be 100:1. Sorry but I just cannot afford that in film.

5. Its true that we will spend roughly $500,000.00 in film recording cost with the transfer we want, HOWEVER, you still cannot get the shooting ratio like 100:1 on film for that kind of money, not even in 8mm.

6. With our monitor, we will be able to see what it looks like before and during the shoot, not one single thought will enter our minds if it looks right once we get the dailys back.

7. True it shoots 25 full frames instead of 24, but we will slow it down to 24 frames and it will not ever be noticable. As for sound, that is taken care of in re-recording anyway, so that isnt even a problem. The sound will be normal.

8. AND DAMN I LOVE THIS CAMERA!!!