DIGITAL X FILM

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skyjamvideos on July 1, 2009 at 10:13am

There are always these debates but I tend to look at the overall product in terms of "does it keep my attention" and not what format it was done on

The myth with Video - it's an easy format. It sure can be if an individual sets the camera on AUTO and does not give a damn. Easy does not always equate to a quality product

I'm seeing a lot, and I mean a lot of people purchase expensive camcorders and the final product is very poor. They believe the camera will save them in many aspects of filmmaking.

I'm seeing people use RED cameras and the final product is just okay.

I'm seeing people using expensive cameras but they ignore the importance of audio recording. Look at how many productions are using shotgun microphones in a 12 ft x 12ft room with low ceilings and you can hear the sound reflection and echo. Many people use the wrong audio set ups.

With any format, it's about paying attention to details.


So for me, it's not about format, it's about a good story, good audio, good acting and good lighting.

Remember this music video that was shot with cell phones, you can see the set up rig at the start and you can hear the frontman say "I can use liek 4 more cameras" as a joke

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Andrew Despres - TwinAnkhs Productions on September 9, 2009 at 7:44pm

They both have their place. I actually use them together for many projects. Sometimes I had a hard time deciding which to use, but recently it's always video, sometimes film. Then again I am not like most people - so here is generally what I do - depending on the type of material being recorded.
For example:
Let's take a difficult event like a woodstock for example- musical, and real-time. I would like to use film, but it's not a requirement, depending on crew size, etc I might be limited:

1.) Digital is basically low cost- high quality recording. Since shooting with digital I now always use the sound from the HD cameras, and separately recorded audio on an HDD recorder. Doing this also gives you an audio and video backup if the film camera fails and you just need the event recorded in real-time (concert of a music video). Since it's a real-time event and can't be re-shot 100 times to be edited like a feature film. As a rule of thumb for live events I use the film cameras if the footage is good. If not I use the Digital cameras's footage. Recording it this way gives you television video switcher style capability. You have a steady stream of video, and patch over the video with film when possible. With most film you are really time-limited so it's not possible/feasible/cost effective to have film going all of the time. Super 8mm has at least a 10 second changover time between rolls. 16mm means an even longer changerover time. Times how many camera angles?

2.) Aside ADD thought: Don't bother with a nagra machine on site, they will just malfunction on you. (I know from experience wanting to throw it out the window) Either DAT, DA-88 or ADAT, HDD recorder or a computer to record audio, or use on camera sound for digital video. Reel to reel's don't do well outside a studio envrionment, and they are not needed in the film world anymore, we have timecode DAT. Also recording to a Nnovia is a good option as well.

3.) Film has the ability to fail much more easily than video, so don't rely on it unless shooting a motion picture film, and you are shooting with multiple cameras. If you have lots of money to spend on film stock, a big consideration is that usually means huge budgeting. Super 8mm is the lowest form of MP film and it costs about $15-$25 per roll for 3 minutes. And you haven't developed it yet!! What if it gets scratched during developing? Uh-oh!! 16mm is $29 for about 5-8 minutes, and 35mm is probably $50-$60 plus for that length of 8 minutes. Remember for every 60 minutes of footage, there is about 4 minutes usable (per camera angle) so how much is going to waste??

4.) That being said, I do most of my own developing of motion picture film for B+W, and Color Ekatachrome. Kodachrome needs to be sent to Dwaynes photo+video because the processing chemicals contain cyanide. I don't even want to think about touching that, do you??

5.) You have to wait for the film to be processed, or in my case, to dry, hopefully dust and cat-hair free..... or for it to come back from the lab. Then what do you do?

6.) Next you have to film scan in a $ 500,000 rank cintel, $120,000 lasergraphics machine, or use a marconi or other telecine machine. The cheap way is to get a special 5 bladed projector ($250) and an HD camera ($1000) and DIY. This is what I do, but I am not dealing with 35/70mm large format motion picture film, and it is usually meant to look like a home movie, not a cinema-quality production. The 5 bladed may flicker a little here and there, but usually it works for the most part for 16mm and super-8mm.

7.) Then comes the editing which can support printing back to film or video with the finished product. Avid, Final Cut and Vegas... I think are the only ones which can do this right now....

8.) Pick your final destination format- Lasergraphics has these wonderful machines that cost TONS of money to buy, probably more than my house, and they can print back to film from almost any format with AVI or quicktime. I can burn to Blu-Ray or DVD and hand it to someone, fitting in my pocket. Ever lifted a 35mm print.... it's sooo HEAVY!! Not to mention I need a platter-based projector to play it back on, or a portable 35mm machine (usualy 3 of them) so it can play back without waiting for reel changes.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Plymouth Community Theatre on September 26, 2009 at 8:18pm

Andrew, well said.

▶ Reply to This