TV wasn't made for film.

We're not just talking apples and oranges, we're talking fruit salad. So many variables. In Europe, many other parts of the world the broadcast television standard is very different (superior) to what it is the United States. More lines of resolution, duh... better picture. The FCC has been dicking around for years trying to come up with a new standard for HD in the states.

Are you looking at a movie broadcast through some TV transmitter?

If so how did you receive it, with an antenna, over cable, from a satellite, how? Each method impacts on how good a quality signal you got. Then there is your television itself. How old is it? Did you ever calibrate it? PROPERLY? I very much doubt it. Even know how? How close to the screen are you viewing? What is the ambiant lighting in the room?

If you're looking at the movie feed through another device, which? Connected to a camera, played off tape? If so, have you ever had the camera serviced? Maybe you're looking at this movie off a video recorder or a DVD tape. How? You didn't say.

Your comments are far too broad for you to poo poo digital as inferior. Then we didin't even get to how did you connect whatever device this movie is playing from to your TV? You use cheap cables or good ones? RCA plugs, "S", composite? How long are the cable runs?

Flim is different than digital yes. Better? Depends how you define better. I would have used "different", not better. Done properly film can carry more icolor nformation and create the illusion of depth of field better than digial can presently.

Sharpness? A crisp life like image not possible with digital? No, sorry, if you can't get a sharp, crisp artifact free mage that can turn people's heads as they walk by using digital, played off a good quality TV than bluntly you simply don't have a clue what you're doing. Not a clue. And for sure when done correctly good digital don't look like crap as you claim.

Let me guess. You went to a high-tuition film school, i.e. your family's rich, and you want to rub our faces in it. Well, I make DV films because that's what I can afford. Lemme ask you something. I write my screenplays. Years of study as a professional writer and editor. People come to watch the story, not the grain. What kind of writer are you?

Yikes Tygrus - you denounce so strongly, but your assumptions are sadly off target, in many arenas.
1. Television was not made for film projection - film projectors were. The second you transfer your film to videotape, you are digitizing it whether to an analog system (videotape) or a digital storage system (601, HiDef, DV, and many others). You have to transfer your film to SOMETHING to get it transmitted whether by analog transmission (NTSC) or digital transmission (cable or satellite).
2. Interlace is an old but still standard method of transmitting video signals. I won't go into it's definition here, because it is easy to find someone really more versed than me to explain the separation of the video signals into two concurrent scans per frame of video. Anyway - you bet your bippy film producers have aggravation with interlace - it's the limitations you face in shooting film - for instance - you NEVER do a fast pan in film for TV transmission (fast, not a swish) unless you are willing to have chatter in your pan. And don't ever let the announcer appear in a houndstooth jacket. His image will moire like crazy. By the way, neither of these artifacts will happen in a DV production.
3. I have spent the majority of my life in front of hi rez video monitors (at $450 per hour to $750 per hour, and up). The bulk of my TV commercial reel was shot in 35mm film, with huge production and staff budgets, so I can truly say that I'm qualified to judge. It's WAY easier to get magnificent footage (when you don't know too much, and don't have extensive staff and lighting equipment) with digital cinematography. If your stuff looks like poo spend more time learning graphics and lighting, because my digital TV production is on air for advertisers like American Express -
Now I'll definitely grant you that there are many situations that I would not like to shoot in videotape (DV is not tape, remember, it is compressed digital) - shooting beauty, makeup or hair commercials - can't even do it well in 16mm film - must be 35mm or don't do it. Videotape for those subjects just can't hold up.
Shooting vast cinematic vistas? Even 35mm looks a little weak -70mm is preferred.
But George Lucas (Star Wars) shoots major holes in your "all digital sucks theory", with his last totally digital epic. It looked pretty damn good to me.
A great deal of what is blamed on DV production as inferior, really is about a totally different issue. It's what we call "production value". A typical 30 second TV commercial you see on the air today costs about $200,000 to produce. The crew will typically be about 25 to 40 highly paid experts. These will include an award winning cinematographer, a couple of lighting experts, sound technician, dollies and crew, a gazillion specialists to tend to make-up, truck loads of specialized lights, props, script continuity and of course, carefully selected talent - whether "just" strikingly beautiful or excellent in acting. We generally cast about 50 to 100 applicants for each part. We then will spend from one to five days or more to shoot the commercial (30 seconds, remember??). Once the footage is acquired, it then goes to another group of experts for completion. Editors (who ALL work digitally), sound mixers, color correctionists who analyse Every Single Cut, one at a time, and then the experts at the advertising agency who will reject Anything that's not PERFECT!
So how can you hope to compete with that very common (to the end viewer) standard of excellence, with your little DV camera and Vegas??? By learning your craft. By understanding the limitations of your medium, and making them work for you. By taking the time to carefully strive to excellence. By never saying, "Good enough", or copping out to "it's only DV".
Can you deliver high quality footage??? with DV and Vegas??????
Damn right you can! I'm doing it all the time.

People dont like to have their digital sources critiqed obviously, but the truth is that pure physics right now limits the quaility of DV versus film. Star Wars did not look good, every critic that saw the first digital produced film said it looked flat and cartoonish and I totally agree.

With digital devices you have a physical separation between each node in the CCD, that is what prevents you from getting that extra quality. In film, that barrier is not there, so those little spaces are filled right up with image information right down to infinity. Your CCD cant do that right now and might not ever be able to.

I agree that these sources have to get digitized to get them to TV broadcast but I would be that studios have much more sophisticated means to do so than Vegas. If it were so cheap and the quaility as good as you say, why isnt Hollywood or the studios using handycams? They are still using film based cameras cause people want quality and they will sacrifice a good story for it. Just look at the summer movie season. You think I would go see Matrix if it was DV. Not a chance. I am not saying that DV doesnt have its place, but professional level quality its not.

I think what tygrus is trying to say is until the pixels are the same size as the
grains in the film, and the limits on color intensity and black intensity and white
intensity and luminacity are eliminated, and the linearity distortion reduced on
the receiving end to 2% instead of 1000% (out of 300 million tv sets not one is the
same) and the CCD's can pick up flourescent colors, that film is superior from the
start to the finish. What he says is truth but I still like the digital OK even if it
gets mucked up with 24p. (hint).

JJK

Duh... trash talk the quality of film and see what kind of a response you get from the producer of same. You went beyond critiquing, you trashed with a very wide brush and obviously that resulted in some strong replies. You expected something else? Many people spend hours, days, even weeks working on a project and for someone to pop up out of the blue to say basically you guys are all nuts, you don't know what you're doing and by the way your work sucks, doesn't sit very well.

I'll give you credit for one thing. You seem pretty good at building a strawman. You remind me of a certain group of head up the ass "experts" over in a certain newsgroup that pretends (boy do they ever) to be expert on HTML. You gave your "real" name as Jazz. If you would have been more truthful you would have used TROLL.

Why doesn't Hollywood use a handycam? Same reason a fireman doens't use a garden hose.

Since you keep throwing around the word 'professional', what are you qualitificaions and how come you're so ashamed of your real name you use Jazz?

Are you talking about film quality, or HDTV quality? If you are talking about film, okay, for now I agree, but tomorrow I might have to disagree. This is because research and development is an on-going process. A valid statement today is often invalidated very quickly by tomorrow's improvement. Still, I'm not going to replace my 20 cubic feet or so worth of DVDs for 20,000 cubic feet worth of reel film. Nor am I going out to buy a 75mm projector to view them with. I'm more like any consumer. I buy quality within my means.

Concerning HDTV, I can wait for the price to drop below $10,000 for a 5 inch screen HDTV (give me a break). If I have trouble with ghosts it could mean that my fly-back xformer is starting to go. Or, check my cables. It's more likely that my cable company is screwing up again. (some unsolicited advice: Keep cables as short as possible, and avoid winding slack cables into neat coils. Avoid coax like it's the plague. Anything that can transmit noise will.)

Entertainment, and involvement is the key to film making. You can be the most experienced film maker there ever was, but if you don't entertain me, or involve me in some manner, I won't watch your film. If you do a good enough job, I'll want to watch it again!

Wow what a revelation!!!!!

I use Dv ,I use Digi Beta,, damn you mean they arent as good as 35 mm Film, and I was thinkin about sending one of my 10 thousand dollar masterpieces to Coppola ,oh ,I forgot he makes wine not movies

NYSC DV isn't as good as film (duh!). It shouldn't be. The cost is probely the main thing, but the resolution of a film frame is MUCH higher then a "frame" on DV tape. Makes sence. A photo is higher quality then a digital camera still, but 99 percent of people dont notice the difference. Most people can't even see production errors in movies (ie boom mic in view, shadows not in correct position, etc.)

Model/miniture work looks better then CG animation, but hollywood still uses CG. That brings up another point. If DV is not as good as film, why do movies like "Toy Story" and "Jimmy Neutron" look good? They are technically DV because DV is Digital Video, not 720x480 video (that's NTSC). HD is DV. DV is the way the video is transfered. CG animatied movies are rendered from a computer at a high resolution and transfered to film. But let me guess. You're going to say those were rendered on a computer, so the "problems" with CCD cameras isn't their, correct? But, if you use an HD camera, the quality would be the same.

You also state that if Vegas and DV was a good as film, why aren't people using it? That's an extreamily simple, and practicle, answer. Before the widespread use of NLE's, DV, HD, etc., every studio bought film cameras because they had no choice. Studios won't upgrade to the new technologys until their old stuff breaks down. Here's an example. Panasonic DVCPro is MUCH better then Betacam SP. A Betacam SP player (player only) costs as much as a DVCPro VCR (that plays and records). So, the logical thing should be that everyone ditch BetaSP and go for DVCPro. Not everyone does. Why? Everyone already spent thousands (millions?) on supporting the Beta format, so why replace them if they ain't broken?

I belive that if you said that NTSC DV isn't as good as film, you'd be right, but who would of guesed that my computer would be better then a commodore 64 from the 80's? (being sarcastic). You can't say the DV isn't as good as film until you take a shot with film (adjusting lighting, clothing, etc.) and then doing it with an HD camera (adjusting lighting, clothing, etc.). Then, if you can project them with a projector onto a film screen and see that there are errors in the HD video, then yes, you CAN say it isn't as good. But you haven't said that, and you haven't showed any proof.

On a side note, according to your theory 8mm reel2reel film is better then NTSC DV, and VHS and Hi8 is better then DV, becase neigther of these is digital (you REALLY need to be more specific).

In the end, it really doesn't matter what a movie is shot one -- the audience doesn't care about technology, the audience cares about story and characters. That's not to say that aethestics aren't important, of course they are; but it's only when aethetics become distracting that the general audience will notice or care. Hollywood uses film because it can afford to, but in the scheme of a film production, film stock is way down the list of costs, especially in big-budget studio films.

And even with all the technology in the world at their disposal, the Matrix Reloaded looked aweful -- if a *film* ever looked cartoonish it was that one (especially the Neo vs 100 Smiths sequence). This frequently happens when a film relies more heavily on effects than story and character: one begins to notice the horribly-false look of the effects. Going the other direction, "The Two Towers" effects were hardly noticed because the story and characters were so engrosing.

Thank God not everyone has your attitude toward DV. How many wonderful filmmakers would end up NOT being discovered if everyone in the industry turned their noses up at projects shot on DV?

Billyboy, you are way too sensisitve. I just made a simple observation that is true, I didnt trash your profession and I didnt post that item to get a flame war going CCD does not allow the image quality of film. period. You can take it however you want, but that fact remains. Film has limitations as well, every source does and I'll be the first to say it. I have been doing this for about 3 years, and have hundreds of hours and thiusands of dollars in as well, but I am a realist and my eyes let me see the difference.

I use the word professional to describe what a consumer would pay for or buy which is the benchmark. Do you think someone would pay for a DV movie made with current consumer level products. Even reality TV shows are shot with something much more high end. I guess someone sold the Girls Gone Wild footage, but that was a content issue more than quality. I dont think it really has an application yet other than home movies, that could change, but the trend is a major move up in quality, etc High Def TV signal, and High Def DVD. Thats the reality.

You offered your opinion. Your right. Factual or appropriate to this forum? Hardly.

You been doing what EXACTLY for three years?

I'm glad to see that people are thinking about all of this, but...

one of the major reasons that Hollywood is still using film is the issue of projection.
You cain't project digi or video without:
A. a digital projector
B. transferring the digital media to film - expensive and not very good

Film is still a beautiful medium, but art has always followed money. Michaelangelo painted and sculpted for the Medici's and the church. Rembrandt was a portrait painter. When the studios figure out a way to project "video", digital or otherwise, the art of film will be on it's way out. It's expensive and it's cumbersome.

Second, let us not forget that the whole technology of movies is less than a hundred years old. When Hitler had those rally films made (please no politics), they were shot with an Arri 35mm camera, and edited on a "moviola" like editing machine. That was in the late '30s. Today, in Hollywood they are still shooting 35mm film with Arri's, and until about five years ago, were editing film on various editing machines, similar to the moviola.
Nothing much changed until Ampex invented videotape - I believe in the mid 60's. Video quality sucked until Sony came out with "C" format and CCD cameras (ok this is a personal opinion). The last fifteen years has seen the birth and incredible growth of digital vs analog acquisition of video media.
It's all new, baby - brand new - and we are the pioneers of this media revolution.
Compare what any average person can do with a digi camera today (set on automatic) with the 8mm or 16mm of only a few years ago - incomparable.

Concept is and always has been the key to successful movies. The technology of film used by Orson Welles in Citizen Kane is easily achievable (hey it was contrasty, grainy and black and white) - but who among us can create something better? CONCEPT is king - but execution is the beautiful hand maiden.

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder - is an oil painting "better" than a watercolor? DaVinci definitely gave up fresco painting for the "new technolgy" of oil, and very successfully, too. But he was a revolutionary, too.

Anyhow, I guess I am one of the "true believers" in digital technology, starting right here with DV (as the video standard, not to mean all Digital Video).

I love the look of DV - it's soft and yielding - skin tones are beautiful and real - I think it's much nicer than Beta - not nearly as harsh. No amount of money would convince me to shoot in 16mm film vs DV. 35mm?? OK, but I need one hell of a support system, which translates to money.

In 1998 I bought my first VX1000 and produced a beautiful commercial for Travel and Leisure Magazine. It ran nationally for about 3 months and sold magazines. The clients (American Express Publishing) loved it, and with good reason - it was quite beautiful. I also, at the same time directed and shot some much higher budgeted spots for Food and Wine, in 35mm. No one ever asked why they were "more beautiful", because they weren't. I did not attempt to use the DV media in the same way as the 35mm. I adjusted the concept and the lighting to suit the technology available. We chose the DV medium because of budget. But both commercials sold magazines.

The media revolution has just started. We're only on the second or third generation of the MiniDV video camera.

But right this second there is a young genius with fire in his eyes, writing, shooting and cutting on a revolutionary project. One that will prove the worth of the new media. And one that NEVER could have been produced in film. Maybe he or she is editing it this very second on a Vegas editing machine.

Screw film and it's old fashioned photochemical-mechanical-emulision based technology.
Fight on digital pioneers. (and let me tell you - it's a hell of a lot easier).

v.

tygrus: Do you think someone would pay for a DV movie made with current consumer level products?

I believe Miramax paid $3 million for Tadpole ... a DV feature produced on a $200,000 budget (according to Sigourney Weaver). Again, story and character is what inspires audiences; not the technology used to capture or tell a story.

I really don't care what the movie is filmed on...as long as there are blondes...and lots of them!!!

Let's not mix up the terms though. Sure, all the Digital Video formats ar "DV" but doesn't DV as a format name refer to something more specific?

Gotta keep the terms straight for everyone to know they're talking about the same thing.

Rob Mack

Well, let's hope not because I love seeing a play.

I also love seeing a film-for a lot of reasons. And, yes, I enjoy the look you get.

To say that 720x480, 5:1 compressed DV can't produce a look just like film is patently obvious. To say you can't produce a good look at all is just kind of silly.

And claims that DV (the format) will someday rule the world is pretty crazy too. In the digital realm I think DV holds the same place as 16mm does in film. Overall DV is worlds easier to work with.

Film brings some good things to the table:
-Different optics-larger recording media-different depth of field that is very dependent on the size of the media. Smaller CCDs can't really reproduce it.
-Color response that is specific to the type of film, and sometimes the lot number
-Contrast range that is more than just an ability to see into darker shadows and brighter highlights. It has it's own response curve that can be quite nice.
-Great color saturation in 35. (at least it's possible)
-Random grain. This is why you don't see moire in film. (You CAN see it in film transfered to video sometimes)
-Film RENDERS color and shadow in a way that's nice even after it's digitized.

It also has a particular workflow:
-LOTS of pressure on a DP to get a certain look.
-More centralized responsibilities.
-More compartmentalized and well defined responsibilities.
-REQUIRES lots of preproduction planning to get things right.
-People working in film work in big teams together and tend to share knowledge. That's a BIG difference. Video in general allows people to work in smaller groups and they don't learn as much from each other as fast.

And digital video brings great things to the table too:
-Easier to work with
-Easier for clients, producers, directors, to see what's being shot. (Is that always good?)
-Cheaper to work with in smaller productions.
-Allows people to produce a video with fewer people and less management overhead-even though you're often left with only managers making the video as they tend to want to get rid of the annoying technicians. The managers don't have to spend so much time managing the skilled labor.

Video allows individuals to have more control over the process. The down side is that
video tends to relax the organization and collaboration that goes into the project.

And I think that the digital formats have a great future. Many of the technical advantages of film and film cameras can be approached or surpassed someday soon by digital cameras. I suspect that some things will stop at "good enough" and some will surpass film. Surely the demand for effects and color grading will push digital cameras along to produce greater resolutions and color depths.

But as far as on-set workflow goes, if I wanted to build the pyramids I'd choose the crew with film experience.

Personally, I'm not planning on building any pyramids soon. A few modest houses would suit me just fine.

Oh yeah. I hate dust and scratches. Bring on the high res digital projectors!

Rob Mack

A lot of true comments here but a few points have been missed.
Firstlt go to Pixelmonger's web site and have a look at a video camera called the Viper. Sure it costs, its mainly used as a replacement for 70mm film cameras.
He also has some very pertinent comments on exactly what we're all talking about.

Somebody mentioned the Two Towers, when I first saw it I though a lot of it looked pretty bad, not the CGI stuff just the straight film bits. I caught up with it again doing a stint in a projection room (showing a movie off DV through a DLP projector!) and it looked heaps better. Every time a print goes through a projector it degrades. They aren't cheap so the cinema tries to get as much mileage out of it as they can so you've just got to hope you get to see a recent print.

What you are seeing projected is six generations away from what came out of the camera and unlike DV, EVERY time it goes down a generation something is lost.

I'm in no way trying to argue that any digital format is going to replace film in the near future for a lot of reasons, many of them financial rather than technical. Nor am I trying to suggest that DV is perfect but an aweful lot of it goes to air and the public watch it without complaint. As a friend of mine who works in a station says, if its got colors and it moves, its television.

Your are so correct, I will throw away all my DV shit now and go purchase a 35mm film camera. thanks for clearing that up for me.

good job.

Hmmm...

Very interesting thread. I've been reading this since it started. It's a discussion that has been wanting to be "outed" for sometime now. We've all discussed this within in our own real world communities, have come to various conclusions and now it has come here - this is a good thing!

What is Good Art? - Hmmm...
What is Good Video? - DV/Film - Hmmmmm....

I tell you what though . .. with the option for me to purchase, film and now edit my stuff - this whole process has democranized the film biz - well, at least at this level, and of course for those that can afford it - This has to be a good thing. I'm thinking of many diffferent ways I can get my message across; what audiences I want to access; be able to share what I do with others and see what they do.

Now you add to this the "open" qualities of the Internet and I really do feel very fortunate to be here in the 21st century, experiencing all that is available to me - I know I'm very fortunate to do so.

Where am I going with this? Well it is some way from the original post- ie DV as quality v film. But, in another sense it isn't - If it has been said above - apologies - but if it hadn't been for this DV environment, none of this democatizing would have happened. That gets me through the night. Yes their are quality difference. Yes, I can now see when I view a BBC news cast the "limits" of a DV broadcast. Yes, when I remember the scene in Lawrence of Arabia the camel taking all that time coming towards the camera from the horizon, I get a thrill - and as I write this, the hairs are sticking up on my arms, remebering - But now I do have the option to create thrill and drama even with my Canon XM2 and Vegas. I'm not for one moment thinking this is on par with David Lean's work -But, an artist - and we are all artists - will always strive to produce clear and communicating work - here we are speakin of video - that's what it is all about. If the media aint good for doing what you want to work with, go get and experiement with that which you feel youo need. And really, I do mean this - God bless yer! - AND I will be the first to book a seat to view the work. - I still I've got major mileage in my kit to scratch and search for the message I want to communicate - if I take a life time - SO BE IT! That's my choice. In my experience knowing my limits has always been the issue in the medium I've chosen to work with. - It is very rearely the other way round.

I reeeeeally wasn't going to post anything - couldn't resist - And that's another enticing thing about this stuff - it makes me want to be part of the debate - yeah?

Peace & Love

Grazie

" tygrus: Do you think someone would pay for a DV movie made with current consumer level products?"

Excuse me... I believe the "Blair Witch Project" grossed over $150 MILLION Dollars at the boxoffice, and as we all know was made with a Circuit City Canon "shoot now and return later" miniDV camera.

AND... while we all thought it was really a documentary (for the first week or two), it was truly Great Cinema. It was scary! Once it was revealed that it was "acted", the true value of "Cinema Vertigo" came to the fore, and we all realized that basically production values still count for something.

There is a huge lesson here about the message and the medium. While Blair Witch was presented as a documentary, the crappy DV (and definitely not all DV is crappy) WORKED. If you had shot that same stupid movie in 35mm it would never have worked. And that's why, once the reality of it's staging came out, everyone said it's lousy.

Concept is King- the medium should be part of the presentation of the concept.

MiniDV is simply another brand new, easy to use, extremely cheap and accessible medium. In the hands of a master, it can be beautiful.