Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Filming in Digital?

This is topic Filming in Digital? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003822

Posted by Justin McLeod (Member # 1329) on 08-06-2002, 04:23 PM:

I dont know if this is the right place for this topic but if it isnt,please feel free to close this thread.

If anybody here had the chance to film anything in digtial with the present digtial filming technonogy,would you do it? I read on cinescape.com that speilberg would shoot Indy 4 in digital given his position against it.

Would anybody here wait till digital technology advances enough?

It really looks like digital filming and digital projection are becoming more of an accepted medium as time goes by.

Brad, since DIGITAL is a different medium than FILM is, how about setting up a digital chat forum?

Posted by Justin McLeod (Member # 1329) on 08-06-2002, 04:29 PM:

brad, I meant to say a DLP chat forum. I realize Film-Tech has gone digital

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-06-2002, 04:34 PM:

Well since digital is a different media than film like you said, perhaps you might want to say "Shooting in digital" instead of "Filming in digital", which is literally impossible.

I have shot stuff in digital on a Canon XL1 just like Steven Sodaburger did for Full Frontal. Only my results looked about 10,000 times better. And no, I did not transfer anything to film. If I were dead serious about making something that would end up on film, I'd try to get the budget together to rent the film gear. Otherwise it's gonna be "Made for TV" so to speak.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-06-2002, 05:38 PM:

I call "shooting in digital" just plain videotaping. It is videography, not cinematography.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-06-2002, 09:23 PM:

Bobby Henderson wrote:

quote:
call "shooting in digital" just plain videotaping. It is videography, not cinematography.

That can be innacurate as there are digital camcorders that store information on floppy disc or hard disc.

Posted by Matt Close (Member # 996) on 08-06-2002, 09:28 PM:

It doesn't matter what 'system' is used to store video ..... it's still shooting video

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-06-2002, 09:39 PM:

photography
1. the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays.
2. cinematography.

cinematography
the art or technique of motion-picture photography

electronic cinematography
cinematography using an electronic video camera to create a videotape [or presumably other digital recording media] that can be viewed on a monitor, edited electronically, and transferred to film for motion-picture projectors

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-06-2002, 09:52 PM:

I've been learning quite a bit about Sony's 24P "HDCAM" format (what Lucas used for Star Wars) over the past few days. It has a "different" look to it when projected with a DLP video projector. It doesn't look like film and doesn't look like video, either. It's not up to film quality in terms of resolution and has some major weaknesses in capturing shadow detail. I've also seen quite a few compression artifacts in 24P-originated material, though it's not as bad as DV or Digi-Beta. Basically, the look comes closest to being like really, really good video, but it's still not at all like NTSC television (much better, actually).

I'd choose film over HDCAM in a second for a feature production, but I can see where high-quality video would be useful for many non-feature applications. The camera itself is very lightweight (weighs less than a 16mm Arriflex) and each tape runs for about 50 minutes. There are four audio tracks on the tape and, of course, sound can be recorded double-system as with film.

There are some other limitations as well: HDCAM doesn't support variable frame rates, timelapse, or several other common film techniques. The picture is limited to a native aspect ratio of 1.77 (which the video people call "16x9"); this can be cropped, of course, to create other formats, but then you lose resolution.

I should add here that even Sony doesn't consider HDCAM to be a replacement for film just yet. They do seem to be serious about fixing the current limitations, and I think that we can look forward to some competition for improved image quality among Sony, other electronics manufacturers, and Kodak and other film manufacturers. Hopefully the end result will be good for all sides.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-06-2002, 10:23 PM:

I have no problem with video cameras being used to create any form of non-feature film material, be it home video capture or a national broadcast. But commercial films for theatrical release need to use film as the origination medium, especially when presenting the best image quality possible to the audience is a priority.

And to get back to terms, any electronic capture of a moving image is video. Doesn't matter if the bits are recorded on tape, disc or even etched into stone tablets. It is still video.

Only film is film.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-06-2002, 10:51 PM:

Matt Close responded to my respnse by saying:

quote:
It doesn't matter what 'system' is used to store video ..... it's still shooting video

I was referring to the term videoTAPING. in the conteext of what was being said, videoTAPING would be incorrect.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-06-2002, 11:08 PM:

HDCam is a pathetic format, recording far less than full Hi Def resolution, already a lot poorer than 35mm film.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 08-07-2002, 07:57 AM:

---------
But commercial films for theatrical release need to use film as the origination medium, especially when presenting the best image quality possible to the audience is a priority.
---------

But that's not the priority, and I don't know as it ever has been. The priority, as any filmmaker will tell you, is to get the film made by any means possible, get it into theaters, and get it seen. With that in mind, let me toss some movie titles out to you:

Woodstock, The Brothers McMullen, She's Gotta Have It, Return of the Secaucus Seven, Ulee's Gold, Don't Look Back, Lianna, El Mariachi, Go Fish, Metropolitan, Ruby in Paradise, Leaving Las Vegas, Slacker, Wild Man Blues and on and on.

All these films were 16mm to 35mm blowups, and they are all worthy and important films. And while some look pretty good, the lot of them don't come anywhere near full 35mm resoultion, and many are very dense and grainy (Woodstock was partialy shot on reversal film, fer chrisakes, and it's considered one of the most importaint cinematic documents ever made).

The point is that there is more to a film than what it was. . er. . filmed on. Video cameras present real advantages and economies to film-makers who are on marginal budgets. If the image quality is not up to 35mm resolution, then so be it, as long as the project gets made. (I spoke in another thread of Lovely and Amazing, which was only made because the director agreed to a video-shoot budget. It's an excellent movie with an important message about women and self-image, and it would be a shame if this film didn't exist at all because it's a little soft resolution-wise and lacking in shadow detail). It dosn't matter if the movie was made on 65mm Super Duper Beyond Ultra Extreme Panavision 3000, or in Fisher-Price PXLVision. The choice of orgination medium is not importaint, and film stock is not required to make a movie entertaining, or moving. And being entertaining or moving is all that is required.

Only film is film. But that's not to say that video shoudn't be a movie, if there is a story to be told.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-07-2002, 09:23 AM:

Here are some links on the Kodak website, comparing film and digital production:

There's More to the Story
Cinematographers Test
Augenfalle
Glenn Kennel interview
Tom Wallis interview
Eros

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-07-2002, 09:54 AM:

Mark said"The choice of orgination medium is not importaint"
There is a very famous book called"The Medium is the Message" and it tends to disagree

Posted by David Rigby (Member # 1301) on 08-07-2002, 10:18 AM:

"(I spoke in another thread of Lovely and Amazing, which was only made because the director agreed to a video-shoot budget"

Wow. Isn't this then a potentially very dangerous and damaging trend? Now that video cameras can produce a vaguely acceptable result (to many at least), it seems that their very existence may affect the production process in unwholesome ways with producers always wanting to minimize their costs. Is this the death knell for small independent film I wonder? How do you persuade Mr DVD to come to your cinema when the source materials for the movies you're running are no better than DVD quality? Doesn't cinema risk becoming a fringe activity in this scenario?

David

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 08-07-2002, 10:46 AM:

--------
There is a very famous book called"The Medium is the Message" and it tends to disagree
--------

That's not the name of the book, Gordon, although the title is often misquoted. It's actually called "The Medium Is The Massage, written by Marshall McLuhan and first released 30 years ago. It deals with the onslaught of various information mediums and their effect on personal life and on society as a whole. It does not address the pros and cons of creative mediums, and it there is nothing in it that condradicts what I have posted above.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-07-2002, 11:44 AM:

In the Understanding Media the theories of "Hot and Cold" media were introduced. The Media Centre that carries on his work did several comparrisons of how different sources and playbacks affect the interpretation of what is viewed
There is nothing wrong with the use of different media if it advances the intend of the film maker. (parts of Concert for Bangledesh were shot on super 8 and printed up to 70mm). But when it is stated that any media is okay to get it produced is wrong as the end result will not be as intended.