Film Is Dead: An Evening With Robert Rodriguez

B

bensmerglia

This is a special feature on the Once Upon A Time In Mexico DVD and I gotta say, Rodriguez sold me on DV/HD. He points out all these reasons to not use film, and I'm convinced. Even if you're addicted to film, you might want to rent this and check it out if you haven't already. :D
 
I have seen this feature, and think he make s a lot of good points... but simultaneously - ask any professional at a Film Market and they will tell you Mini DV and even HD are not as marketable & will not sell for as much as the same product shot on film.

A lot of times the decision is not one of he creative side, but the business side of making a movie.
 
Ah, I see that we're going to start the New Year with the great format debate.

I agree with Sonny Boo in that film is still seen as the primary format in the sales arena, but professional HD is gaining ground rapidly, especially with it finding such good advocates amongst the major name directors. With both Collateral and Alexander being HD features, the tide is definitely turning in the favor of digital.

At the end of the day format is only one of the factors in making sales. However, it is a factor and one where there are no easy answers.

For instance, I'm planning a new feature. I'm going to shoot on HD again, because it's a format I've worked with professionally for three years now and I've got a feel for it. I also know what my finished product is going to look like and what I have to go through to get there. However, even with a HD feature under my belt, the technology is changing so fast that I'm already having to research potential post production problems. The issue is that I'd like to do a rough cut of the rushes on a daily basis, for which the obvious way to go is FCP HD. However, to tighten up and online I'll need to transfer the edl to an AVID based system, probably Nitris. This is still a fairly untested route and after my last online experience of having to recompile the entire film by eye, I'd rather go into the next film knowing that I'm not going to run into another expensive, soul destroying batch of technical problems.

This is where the real issues about digital film making arise. Film is a well tried and trusted technology with all the bugs worked out. It's slower on the front end, but it's incredibly stable.The digital technologies are all so new, that they present constant technical problems to get from the shoot to the print. The work is pioneering, which brings with it both risks and rewards.

I personally think the risks and the learning curve are worth it.
 
I didn't think this my point of view was debatignteh topic, just a persepctive, not even a contrary one.

FYI - Alexander was NOT shot on HD (see http://alexanderthemovie.warnerbros.com/downloads/book/chapter_one.pdf for pics of teh film cameras on the shoot...) and only 50% of Collateral was shot in HD while 35mm filled out the rest...

I think HD looks great, but as a viable option for "indies" it is still currently an hinderance on the sales front. In a few years it will change, but for the immediate future, it's something that will not be as saleable as a movie originating on film.

HD is just a choice, and aesthetic option - not a definitive "better" or "worse" to film.
 
FYI - Alexander was NOT shot on HD
Click to expand...

Yeap, my mistake. That will teach me to pass on something I was told, instead of checking for myself.

I think HD looks great, but as a viable option for "indies" it is still currently an hinderance on the sales front. In a few years it will change, but for the immediate future, it's something that will not be as saleable as a movie originating on film
Click to expand...

I'm just not convinced that this is true. I know from personal experience that all of the major distributors are prepared to look at a film shot on HD. Plus with HD TV being such a growth sector, HD product is being actively sought out by sales agents. I agree that time will tell on HD as a format, and it's far too early to say film is dead, but I see no evidence of HD being written of in the sales market. What I do see is a massive resistance to digital films on other formats Digi Beta, DV CAM and mini DV. HD isn't the same and the industry is aware of that.
 
HD editing

all i want to know is when HD editing will be as easy as DV editing without the hassle...you know, like editing at full resolution and the thing actually works when you plug the firewire in. luckily, cineform is coming out with HD software for Vegas, which i use. im planning on getting a camera next year or so, either the AG-DVX100A or the HDV Handycam...and if HD editing is like DV editing by then I'll buy the HDV.
 
Last edited:
The thing to remember about HD is that there is a massive amount of information at full res. Even Nitiris, which is designed for HD online, slows down it's processing (in comparison with SD). It's going to be years before computer processing is fast enough to handle HD at full res, the way computers currently handle SD.

One of the things I'm looking at at the moment is whether HD has too much information. If you look at standard formats like DVCPRO 50 there is a lot of information in the pictures. Once you get into the online you can step the image up to HD. Strangely enough, because there is less information you get a picture which doesn't have the same levels of sharpness, which visually is nicer. The problem with watching HD at full resolution on a HD monitor is everything is too sharp. The level of detail is almost disturbing. From a compositional POV, an image with less information is easier on the eye. What I'm waiting for, is to see my film projected via a HD projector onto a cinema screen. I used DVC PRO50 for the flashback sequences and want to see them in a cinema setting against the HD footage, then I'll know which format I prefer.

For ease of production, especially in post, I'd be very, very happy if the DVC PRO50 stands up. HD is a nightmare in post.
 
Rodriguez, who I admire greatly, has a buttload of resources when it comes to his HD filming. He has direct access to the manufacturers of the cameras, a full and experienced crew and millions of dollars in his budget. And even with all that, he admits in the other features on the Once Upon a Time in Mexico DVD that the process of shooting this film (which was the first one he shot fully in HD despite Spy Kids 2 and 3D being released sooner) was largely experimental - the reason it was released so long after it was shot - and some of the things they tried did not work.

The thing is, an indie filmmaker doesn't have all those resources or the option of using up time and money experimenting with the format. Right now, you could shoot a 16mm and possibly a Super 16mm film for about the same money as an HD feature. And, as clive has pointed out, the post production process of HD is ever changing thus making it more difficult than the tried and true post pro processes of shooting film.

Still in the years to come HD filmmaking has a chance to overtake Super 16mm and 35mm film in the indie market because of all of the industry leaps that are transpiring with the format.

I am planning on shooting a feature in the next year or two. I am looking with great interest at the HD format because I'd love to ride a new wave, but right now I am not so sure that it is in my best interest to shoot on HD.

Poke
 
I agree with Poke, in terms of not having major technical difficulties super 16 represents a solid, tried and trusted way of shooting a feature.

I'm in the lucky position of already having three years experience of working on pro-HD. I feel like my first feature was experimental, in terms of format. I would be less comfortable about shoot my next film on HD if I didn't have those three years behind me and probably would be shooting on super 16.

My gut feeling is that HD will become the format of the indie film maker over the next five years, but only if some of us are prepared to do the experimental work.

Although the post production issues are complex, they are far less complex now than they were three years ago, the industry is ironing out the kinks.

The real test of HD is how audiences react to it. If it produces interesting images and is used to make stunning films then other film makers will follow. What is almost certain, is that HD will become the TV industry production format of choice.
 
What is almost certain, is that HD will become the TV industry production format of choice.
Click to expand...
Surprising enough, the WB has jumped right on this boat and I think they'll see higher ratings as a result. Many of their network premiere movies are remastered in Hi Def (Lord of the Rings, for example) and some of their new shows are shot on HD (Jack & Bobby)
 
Something that I think should be mentioned here:

Rodriguez has unfairly been accused of being in the back pocket of Sony and Panasonic with the way he pushes the idea of HD filmmaking. Hey, even I have thought it a time or two. But I think, given the fact that Rodriguez himself came from the realm of no budget filmmaking and the idea that HD will soon be a viable film replacement for indie filmmakers, that he is merely trying to advance a cheaper and easier way for the great no name geniuses of the world to break into the industry.

I don't know if this is true or not, but I'd like to think that he is the kind of person (let alone filmmaker) who doesn't forget where he came from and is always looking for ways to help others that are in the place that he once was in. And given the fact that he made his famous "Ten Minute Film School" and is continuously updating it, I'm pretty confident in that surmisal.

Poke
 
I don't think film will every want to be completly replaced. not for decades anyways.


Digital will be there in the next 5-10 years from what i've read up on. technology as most of you know doubles every 18 months. the high end million dollar digital camera are at 2-3 million pix. it is said they have to hit 8 million before they come close to the quality of 35mm film.

but are people ready to replace film with what looks like a giant HD screen?

maybe the next generation of kids but most people today like the flicker effect of movies and the grain and slight distortions that gives it it's character.
 
The truth of the matter is that the problem with film is not shooting on it, but projecting from it. The film industry would do anything to not have to distribute film prints, which get scratched and loose picture quality at an alarming rate.

The industry has a lot to gain from digital delivery in cinemas and that is the reason that eventually film will become an artist's format, rather than an industry format.

Most audiences won't even notice the change over and having already lived through the slaughter of analogue sound recording I'm not placing any bets on film surviving the decade.

I've seen all these arguments before in the 1990's about digital sound recording. In the end the economic advantages and the ease of production will outweigh the quality factors.

The truth is that analogue sound recording is better from a quality POV than digital, but in the end that has never really mattered, because the number of individuals who are genuinely able to hear the qualitative differences are few and far between. The same will be true of film.
 
bensmerglia said:
Surprising enough, the WB has jumped right on this boat and I think they'll see higher ratings as a result. (Jack & Bobby)
Click to expand...

Huh? I don't think the average viewer notices or cares what format a show is shot on... it's the content that matters.

Remastering film in High Def doesn't make it the same as shooting on high def....there are very significant differences in how a movie looks when originating on film & HD. Even Star Wars II was "film looked".
 
Remastering film in High Def doesn't make it the same as shooting on high def....there are very significant differences in how a movie looks when originating on film & HD.
Click to expand...

That's certainly true, but what's your point?

If it's that film will survive because it has a distinctive visual quality, then that is becoming less and less true.

I think as an artist it's OK to prefer working on film. It's an artistic decision, but to believe that film has a long term future in production is to ignore both history and current trends.

My guess is that 98% (made up number) of the filmmakers on this site work digitally, editing digitally. The only reason that digital film makers would change to working on film would be if they thought it was their only route to commercial success (providing they believed they could achieve the look they wanted for the film). Given the choice between working in a way with which they are familiar (video) and film, with that commercial advantage taken away, I believe most would choose to work on some form of video. The only thing stopping HD from becoming the indie format of choice is cost. The Panasonic HD camera costs $68,000, before you buy your lens and matt box. The post production costs are extreme, with Nitris hire coming in at about £300 an hour and HD decks costing £500 a day to rent.

Ironically, these changes are making 16mm shooting very cost effective, because professional production companies are dumping their 16mm equipment at give away prices and replacing them with standard def. pro digital. Exactly the same happened in the sound recording industry. Ten years ago you could pull 24 track 2" tape machines out of skips at the back of recording studios for nothing, if you had a room large enough to store them in. This is despite the fact they still were capable of recording to a professional standard. The advantages of working digitally are just huge to ignore.

I know of no major recording artist in the world who only releases on analogue formats, who only records on analogue formats, even though there are very good quality/artisitic reasons for doing it. The recording industy is digital from start to finish, the film industry is going the same way. It is only a matter of time.

As a result this is a great time to be an indie filmmaker, Not only is there a lot of soon to be redundant, but still viable, equipment knocking about cheap, but also new formats historically have always opened the doors to new artisits to influence and move into the mainstream. Whether working in film or digitally, it's a very exciting time to be a filmmaker.
 
That's certainly true, but what's your point?

That features & TV shows that originate on High Def don't necessarily look the same. Some High Def originated material can look filmic, but it's not automatic and it's not a switch on the camera even with the Panasonic 24p mini DV - it may have a "cinegamma" switch, but it won't look like film without a lot of work with lighting, exposure, and talent.


I know of no major recording artist in the world who only releases on analogue ...

Yes, but the same is not true for filmmakers. By a large number AT THE CURRENT TIME, most professional filmmakers are shooting on film, not digital. I think digital is on it's way to replacing film, but it hasn't yet.
 
I've just realised that we've just spent the last few days agreeing with each other.

We both agree that film is currently the main option for filmmakers, that digital is the future, that HD may or may not become the main indie format of the future, but for the moment it's too expensive and too complicated in post for most.

As a conservative film maker you encourage use of the tried and trusted formats, which is a good thing and good advice.

I, as the rebellious mavrick that I am, want everyone to join me in exploring the cutting edge of the new technology, which may not be such good advice, but it's very, very exciting.
 
this is what I do with my HD that i have toyed with


Use the "Capture HD" tool that comes with the JVC, just rename the m2t file since I have nothing that will import it.

I dont own Premier.. maybe it does?

so I rename it to mpg and vegas brings it in and i can render over it.

but I have to render it in uncompressed or it loses way to much data.

then, Hopefully when I burn it to a DVD at best rendering.. it will look like the orriginal capture.


Any suggestions? any of you? I have to say I dont even know what m2t is. Im gonna read the help on the capture tool. I havnt had much time lately to do anything.

What is weird is it says "Tape device" which I thought was analog. you cant import DV from HD even though its on a DV tape. this is the one major problem people have with the JVC some people cant even figure out how to install the jVC driver.. its a pain in the butt and i've read some post where people say they have returned the camera and will just wait for the Sony.

will sony import in DV mode?
 
m2t is what's known as an MPEG transport stream. It's for all practical purposes an MPEG2 file as you can see by changing the name as you did. Really there isn't a need for any software which can handle m2t files.

I'm not sure what you're saying about the importing. Can you explain more? What is labeled tape device?

Basically, for a quick run down of how the system works:

1) Image is captured by the camera's CCD
2) This image is processed by on board components and changed from analogue -> digital (electric current -> 1s and 0s)
3) This newly processed footage is recorded to tape digitally (ie binary)

Since the signal recorded to tape is 1s and 0s there is no loss of quality when making a copy of the footage like you would get with an analogue tape. You can bring footage from the tape into your computer without loss as long as the tape itself holds up. In your case this is a full HDV signal. This is NOT DV. It is not recorded to the DV spec ; it's recorded as an m2t file. For this reason anything you bring in from firewire will be MPEG2 HD. If you want to downconvert this footage to SD you will need to do this in your NLE (that goes for the Sony as well). The camera _can_ downconvert this footage if you connect it straight to your TV though (because it has to be processed to an analogue signal it can be altered fairly easily on playback). This is only to keep the camera compatible with current SD TVs and is not recorded to any medium at this res. Now, the Sony CAN shoot standard def DV as well as HD but that is quite different from converting a HD signal to a SD form. The SD on the Sony is rather lame actually. I personally cannot see why anyone would use it but that's just me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top