Sony 24p HD

Director_by_nature

Director_by_nature

I'v noticed somthing, a LOT of filmmakers are turning to HD 24p to film huge hollywood blockbusters. Once upon a time in mexico (30 million), Spy kids 2 and 3 (30 million each), and James Camaron says he will never use any other medium. Is HD really better than film these days? I would not know, I'v not seen HD projected onto the Big Screen.

If so, I may consider that for my medium in my upcoming film?!?

Landon

P.S) I know HD 24p is good, because I'v worked with it. But Iv never compared it to film.
 
It looks very similar to film, and in most cases it is impossible to tell the difference. Tha main difference is that HD seems to always have more vibrant colors...so...they look about the same, that's not what makes HD better (in some people's opinion). What makes it better is:

1. It is soooooooooo much cheaper to shoot with. The cameras are cheaper (they're still expensive though, hehe...can be about 1/10-1/20 the price of a 35mm camera), and the tape is like $60 for 2 hours of tape! 2 hours of film would cost hundreds or thousands! THAT'S THE MAIN DIFFERENCE!

2. It's easier to shoot with (or so I've heard...I've never worked with film). With film, you have to make sure the entire crew is ready, say "lights, camera...ACTION!" then, for a second take, you have to start all over again setting up the film, sound, lighting, etc....with HD, the tape is so cheap, you can keep rolling...or you can just push a button and the camera is instantly recording/stopping.

3. HD: Instant playback
Film: You must wait 'till the end of the day to see what you shot.
(HD also can be used with HUGE live monitors, whereas film can't)

4. HD cameras are getting smaller...good in some cases.

5. The tape is cheap and it looks as good if not better than 35mm film.

6. The tape is cheap and it looks as good if not better than 35mm film.

That's why people like it. It's letting filmmakers be more free with their craft without worrying about wasting expensive film. Google Robert Rodriguez and by a book of his or buy the Once Upon a Time In Mexico DVD. He's like the new spokesperson for HD, haha...he loves it and likes to share his thoughts on it a lot. The DVD has a decent amount of Rodriguez' input on the subject. That's all I got. Later.
 
Yes, HD is my Favorite too. I dont really see it Cheaper. Not by a long shot. Figure by the time you make HD look like film by running it through Filmlook and Advanced color correction. You come up with about the same cost of film in HD.

So its not cost that makes me like it, Its ease of use. HD is much easier to use than Film. Im sure you understansd my point.

Just to prove my point on HD being about the same as film:

HDW-F900 Camera: $1,200.00/day
Arri 435 Camera: $700.00/day

HD Tape Stock: $15,000.00
Filmlook™: $15,000.00
Devinci Color Correction: $20,000.00
----------------------------------------------
----------------$50,000.00-----------------
----------------------------------------------

Film Stock (40,000' @ .50 a foot): $20,000.00
Final Lab: $3,000.00
Dalies: $3,000.00
Telecine: $24,000.00
---------------------------------------------------------
----------------$50,000.00----------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------

So see,
In fact about the same price. I may have left somthing out of one of them, as Im in a hurry to type this. But you get the Idea. Its not price that makes HD better, Its Ease of use.

Im still not sure rather to use HD or not for a feature. Im sure that will be up to the Studio (Or the Funder), Not to me. But if I get the chance to work in HD, I think I'll try it.

Landon
 
It's not a lot cheaper than film, especially if you are planning on getting a 35mm print, and use the arri-laser process to get the print. From producers I've spoken to at festivals, some have said "We should have shot on film ... it would have cost the same".

:-)
 
Well, I was telling you what I was told, obviously. I've never worked on a 35mm shoot, and I've known people who use HD...are you sure HD tape costs that much? Anyway, I also was thinking of using HD and not getting a 35mm print (some filmmakers have done it, because the fests, screenings, and events they submitted to use digital projectors). I know that 35mm prints are VERY expensive...

...by the way, I was emphasising that the TAPE was cheaper than FILM. Not the overall production was cheaper. It doesn't matter, I obviously am talking about things I know little about, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt, hehe.
 
LOGAN L Productions said:
...by the way, I was emphasising that the TAPE was cheaper than FILM. Not the overall production was cheaper. .
Click to expand...
Yes, I understood that .. and agree. 8)
 
I didn't know that HD needed Filmlook.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me neither. If you are shooting at 24p and are capable of color correction why would you need any other software for this purpose?

What sort of HD camera are you reffering to Director_by_Nature? That seems awefully expensive.
 
Sony HDW-F900 Cinealta 24p Camera with Film style package... Runs $1,200/day

About Filmlook. HD may be HD, but it is still Video none the less. And video looks like video, film looks like film. If you want your video to look remotly like film, then Filmlook™ is the way to go. Trust me, I film look all my HD and DV matterial. there is onyl so much tweeking you can do In-Camera. And even with a $1,000/day HD tech, you still cant match what Filmlook can do for your Production.

Im not claiming to be a pro on this matter. Im just claiming what I know. And I know that I think Filmlook™ makes a world of difference in the look.

24p is only one thing thats in common with Film, and color correction too. However, what about Highlights, Noise, Blown-out Pictures, Contrast and all that. Filmlook™ Adjusts all of these values. More than what In-Camera can do.

Im just expressing my opinion.
 
HD is a great tool. It is cheaper than film if you're going to stay in video, but going to a film print is very pricey. Is HD as good as film, that's up to the user. If you quantify the resolution, 35mm still beats HD by nearly twice as much, but it ain't cheap. Super-16 matches or barely beats HD. Some love the look of HD. Others film. I'm a film guy, so I'll pick film. I like the richness of film and the higher contrast ratio. I like that it can be transfered to NTSC or PAL.

Is HD faster? I say yes and no. It needs less light than film so you might be able to move faster. If you shoot ENG style it's faster, but to get professional results, you should use a waveform monitor and that adds more cables and maybe an engineer to tweak the camera. The FX show "The Shield" considered HD, but the DP went with Super-16 because he felt he could move faster because he didn't want to be tied down to a waveform monitor.

HD tape stock is cheaper than film.

The thing that worries be about all of these electronic mediums is archival problems. It's something I've never given much thought until the last few years. Video has a short life span. My brother just found out that Hi-8 tapes of my nieces's first day of life are falling apart that are 7 years old. I have 3/4 inch video that is 15 years old that I can no longer play. Everybody touted DVD as the great archival medium, but we're finding out that DVD lifespan can be two years and they start losing data. I can take 16mm home movies of my dad shot in 1927 and slap them in a projector and they still look good. Try that with any video format half that age.

HD is a young format and it will just get better and better. There are things which I love about shooting HD. Cost is a big factor. It allows you to shoot a bigger ratio which actors will love. If you're shooting a documentary then HD is the way to go.

When should you choose film over HD? Rodriguez would say never. Michael Mann just shot "Collertal" on HD. I'll take film most of the time. Once your budget falls under $25,000, then I start looking at video.

I've seen a bias in distribitors against DV (not HD). Mainly because they've been deludged with so many bad DV movies. Two years ago, I was presented with a director who wanted to make his first movie and we tossed around film vs. video and in the end we went film. Now we had a tiny budget, but I think it was worth it to shoot film. He just got in his first film festival so we'll see it pays off.

I'll close by saying that I have a film bias, so don't take my word as the end all be all. Do your reserch and make the call. Sometimes it's smarter to go HD or DV. I started in Super-8, moved up to 16mm in college and then to 35mm. I've shot HD and liked it, but not as much as film.

Keep on shootin'.

Scott
 
>>24p is only one thing thats in common with Film, and color correction too. However, what about Highlights, Noise, Blown-out Pictures, Contrast and all that. Filmlook™ Adjusts all of these values. More than what In-Camera can do. <<

Oh, I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, just curious! Indeed there is more to "Filmlook" than 24p and Colorcorrection but to be entirely honest, I don't see that Filmlook does anything I cannot do in After Effects 6.5 Pro (or heck, even the older versions). That said, nothing will help a badly shot piece of video that is blown out; no matter how much processing you do.

>>Runs $1,200/day<<

Right but if you are going to shoot more than ten days why not just get your hands on an Ikegami HL-DV7W (or similar) camera and alter the frame rate in post (assuming you aren't going to film out as I didn't see that budgeted...)?
 
The Death of Film is coming?

This is an area that I am very interested in. The thing I like MOST about HD over film is that you see what you get. What you see on the screen, that's your image, that's your take! You can even play it back on set to make sure it's a good take. Film you don't know until your prints are developed, and it takes a little more guessing as far as what the image is going to look like. Plus HD is just cheaper than film. I guess it boils down to when HD takes it's next step, which it will (4k!!), then the public may not be able to tell the differenc between film and HD, only the people in the industry may be able to make that distinction in the future.. . why shoot on a more expensive medium if the public can't tell the difference? Another thing to notice is young filmmakers are not raised using home FILM cameras. No they have these miniDV cameras that they run around with creating stories, they're being trained on the digital medium, and by doing so will create very experienced and young filmmakers that will understand HD quite well. I personally like both formats, right now film has it's unique depth of color, depth of field, and clear photo quality images, and HD is still just pixels, but it's digital, so you can do a lot with that. I do think with companies like Sony, Panasonic, Apple etc pushing HD, that's where the industry may be forced to move. If you can do the same thing for cheaper. . . . it's all about the story anyway. Well that's my opionion, my 2 cents. . . . .
 
I must admit up front that I believe that HD is a superb tool for the indie lo/no budget film maker.

I shot my first feature on the Panasonic varible frame rate HD camera and will use the same kit on my next two pictures.

From my point of view it has many advantages, the most important being the shorter set up times and smaller crew requirements. This is where the real budget impacts are. The average amount of footage shot per day on a 35 mm film shoot is about 2 minutes, on a HD shoot we average between 6 to 9 minutes per day. The maths isn't that hard.

I think the idea that HD (or any video format) should be used as "fake film" is a short term view that will change. HD has it's own look that is neither truely like film or standard def video. It can be very saturated in it's colours (like any video) however, with careful white balancing it can achieve very individual and interesting looks. We tend to shoot slightly cold, but that's a style thing rather than a rule.

Redemption (a member here) has made a very good looking feature on HD (called Redemption), I would suggest you watch it, because in terms of look it represents what HD can do in the hands of a talented indie.

I agree with Scott that video tape is not a totally tested archival material. Howver, I was speaking to Panasonic this week and they are moving over to hardrive for their professional formats, which will mean everything is stored electronically and you can dump the footage across the same way you'd move a file, which means no sitting digitizing tapes in for week after week.

The other thing to consider is that the cinema industry itself is looking towards digital projection some time in the next five years. The issue of whether you have a print or not may well become obsolete very, very soon.
 
The average amount of footage shot per day on a 35 mm film shoot is about 2 minutes, on a HD shoot we average between 6 to 9 minutes per day.
Click to expand...
I shoot so far outside that average that I am suddenly paranoid I'm doing something wrong. That's less than 200ft per day!

On my two 35mm features we averaged 2,000ft per day - or about 22 minutes. Even then my DP was complaining that we were being too thrifty with the film. But my budget wouldn't allow more than that.

On HD we shoot an hour of tape a day. Easy.

I better keep you away from my producer!
 
LOGAN L Productions said:
P.S. I didn't know that HD needed Filmlook.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. Your typical audience doesn't know or care if your footage has been run through FilmLook or Magic Bullet. All they care about is if they find story & characters interesting (which is all they should care about).

If your script, lighting, acting & editing are good, 'film looks' are kind of superfluous. (At least they are in my opinion.)
 
I shoot so far outside that average that I am suddenly paranoid I'm doing something wrong. That's less than 200ft per day!

On my two 35mm features we averaged 2,000ft per day - or about 22 minutes. Even then my DP was complaining that we were being too thrifty with the film. But my budget wouldn't allow more than that.
Click to expand...

Your figures probably aren't out
2 minute per day
Click to expand...
refers to the actual amount of the final edited film you achieve in one day's production. With a 10 to 1 shooting ratio, 22 of your minutes is about the same.

Sorry if it was a bit confusing, it may be a UK thing. On a UK TV shoot the "per day" average is one of the most important measures of the production.
 
That makes more sense, clive.

I think it was your statement: "The average amount of footage shot per day is about 2 minutes" that threw me off.

I, too, get about 2 minutes of usable footage a day - on average.

We get more when shooting video (HD or not) so our shooting days are less. Fewer shooting days is another great savings over shooting film. For the DVT market there is no advantage to shooting film over video. And as several people have pointed out; it's becoming less advantageous to shoot film for theatrical release.

The times they are a'changin'.
 
HD has been good to Me

My first film was shoot on HD and I believe it was the right choice. Being a first time director it was a great tool. One, with the 16:9 I saw exactly what I was shooting, two I didn't worry about my shooting ratio so much because HD tape is cheap (in comparison to film).

Would I use HD again? Yes under the right circumstances. At this time I believe you use the format to suite the movie. 35mm, which I have used for a commercial, is wonderful and has a depth of field that cannot be matched by HD. But when you take cost into account HD is a good alternative especially if it is not being bumped up to 35mm.

The distributors I dealt with were excited that I shoot on HD and to tell the truth it was an advantage. As I think someone said that they have seen so many bad DV films they welcome the quality of HD.

Peace,
Redemption
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top