I knew the Blair Witch wasn't real.

I wasn't scared!

:-)

You can tell the COW is having problems. Otherwise this lame thread would've been initiated there. Like pi**ing in the wind...

Well...hmm..ok. I may as well dive into this too. I read all the posts so far and I see a lot valid points both ways but lets look at a few other ways.

Some of this was brought up on another thread about why Avid is considered the "Industry Standard" and believe it or not it works here too. An image shot with film at 24 fps has become the "industry standard" because it "works" and it "worked" when someone in time and space decided it did. Back in 1889 when the first film stock was made no one had a standard, let alone a way to put that film stock into a camera and make it 'move', and even when someone figured out how to do that it wasn't at a constant 24fps, or even 18 fps...it was just however fast or slow the cameraman could crank it. Video became its own little "industry standard" around the 40's because people in a time and space decided it was. Like film before it, keep a few things in mind here - when Ernst Alexanderson was working at GE and tinkered with a way to tranmit an image he wasn't tyring to compete with film. On January 14, 1928 news headlines reported that on January 13, 1928 "Moving Pictures" were shown in 4 homes - most called it Radio with pictures. No one really suggested that "film is dead" or that people should stop going to see "films". I wasn't alive in 1928 so I can't compare how the first TV broadcast in the world looked compared to seeing a "film" at that time. I have seen film footage from the 20's and I can probably say that the quality was better compared to TV...but again, no one was really trying to be better than "film" at that time.

Ok - so what, right? Well you have to keep things like that in mind because now people do try to make film look like "video" and "video" look like film. (Before someone says "No one trys to make film look like video!" think about any movie you have seen where something has been on a television and then it cuts to the TV - many times, if not the higher % of times, the stuff is shot on film and than put onto video and than re-shot off the screen. Film made to look like video.) Anyhow - most of us look at something and have an opinion it. Chances are that this opinion is based on something. What is it based on really? Could it be what we have been 'told' to think? Why do most people go out and shoot a film at 24 fps when 60 fps would be 'better'? Well - 24 fps is the 'industry standard' and when Douglas Trumbull did tests in the late 70's/early 80's he found that people found the higher shot *AND* projected frame rates looked "too real" even though the images were outstanding. What he worked on didn't become an indutry standard but it found its way into Showscan and parts of that found its way into IMAX.

Oh - but wait, we are still talking about film. Ok - well, back to video. Everyone is tossing around the term "DV" and most people think of it now as Mini-DV and yeah the valid points here are that "DV" is not just Mini-DV. 'DV' could, and does, mean any form of digital video. But face it - not too many people that used D1, D2, D4 and so on said "Hey I am using DV now!" But that is ok I think because everyone just says "shooting on film" or "shot on film", they don't stop to explain what camera they used or, more importantly, what type of film stock they used. "Hey man, I'm making a fuji!" "Cool, I just made an AGFA and that guy is making a Kodak!" (And if they did talk that way you could surely tell who the 'geeks' were because they would probably say something like "Hey I'm making a 5247 pushed 2 stops") So like the term "film" I think now the term "dv" will be tossed around a lot. You shoot on film or you shoot on DV. All of us old timers will adapt again. No biggie. :)

As for quality - gosh this is just going to be a never ending cycle. Thing is that now the concept of video vs. film is not a wide to grasp as it used to be. People who shoot film can now take a video camera and use it like they would a film camera. They don't even have to re-think their lighting too much if they don't want to. Used to be you could watch a film and think "Man this is lit for TV, not film. This DP sucks." And god forbid you had to work with one of these TV guys. (I am saying that very tounge in cheek) And I have personally been told to my face by TV people when I worked on a show that "This will be hard work, not like those films you work on." Really! Yes - there was, and still is, a real attitude problem between people who work in film and those who work in video. It was often looked at that those who worked in film were far more creative than those who worked in TV. Now because of the "digital video revolution" that isn't so. If anything it is probably a 100% turnaround because video is so affordable you can pass out those little lego cams to everyone at birth and let the creativity begin. I don't think too many of us want to hand over a Panavision "Platinum Panaflex" 35mm system to a 1 year old, or a 5 year old...or a 10 year old...well, you get the idea.

Now back to the future so to speak. I remember sitting in a theatre and watching the Frank Zappa film "2,000 Motels" and being blown away on how clear the video to film transfer was. Did it look like "film"? No. But at the time video to film transfers didn't look too good - they looked like some of those old Jackie Gleason kinoscopes you see. So I can't say that the quality of that film suffered because it was not shot on film. Someone mentioned 'Blair Witch' already - but they did not mention that is was also shot on 16 mm film. True that more video was shoot than film, but there was a mix and the video was film looked later. Before the film look it did look very much like video,because it was video for the most part...but again, did the final outcome bother people? Didn't seem too. Didn't even seem to bother people that it didn't really look like video. And that is somehting that I always have thought is a key point that people just plain overlook. Take a well shot piece shot with 35mm, 16mm and 8mm. Try to use the same film brand and stock if you can. Transfer to video and watch. Ask someone to tell you what part was shot with what and see if they can tell you. Now give someone the best 35mm equipment money can buy and tell them to shoot underexposed, use bad lighting (or tv lighting), out of focus, make sure there is some dirt in the gate and have a cheaply done tranfer to video. Now get the best super 8 camera money can buy and shoot in focus, correct exposure, clear gate, best transfer to video and so on. Now ask the same people to tell you which part was shot with what and maybe even ask which version they feel is "professional".

Same goes for video. All the talk about formats and so on really are relative to what you want to do and how you do it. It also has to do with perception. I mentioned Douglas Trumbull before and will again because he has been one of the early supporters of video, or the digital side of it anyway. Here is a direct quote from him that fits in this topic - " The higher resolution potential will be used for IMAX and special venues attractions. I could be wrong, people are saying that if you shoot at 4k and compress 20:1 you still come out with a better quality picture than 2k with no compression. I think those are subtleties now. Cost is a big factor; size and weight is a big factor; lenses are a big factor… The issue is: What’s the story. It’s been shown over and over that you can get away with a lot less." (And he is talking about digital vs film with that last comment.)

There is for sure a steady movement for features being shot on video these days, and by video I mean any form of it and I do *not* mean simply using digital effects. People who shoot documentaries are probably the first to benefit the most by using mini-dv because it suits the style. Much talk recently about the Castro documentary that Oliver Stone did, doing the interviews with 2 PD-150's. Indy film makers are for sure turning to video, a new film called "Journey of Redemption" was shot in 24P HD. Low budget king Roger Corman got together with students from the LA Film School and did "Demon Slayer" entirly in HD and supposedly it looks like film with no 'film look' added. Last year the huge rage was how Steven Soderbergh used the XL1S for "Full Frontal" and completed principal shooting in 18 days because of it.

So that is my rant on the subject, more or less...actually this is the less of the more. I have said it before and will say it again - the end result is a direct end to the means by which you got there. Shoot crap in any format and there is only so much you can do to try and make it better. Shoot something great in any format and you are well on your way. Shoot something of intrest in any format and people will watch it no matter what it looks like...the play by play live coverage of the recent Iraq invasion comes to mind. ("Gee I wish this webcam/video phone were only at film res/HD. This is so unprofessional of CNN/ABC/NBC/FOX/CBS etc etc" Oh yeah - that was all that was heard throughout the world. )

Video is here to stay. Film is not dead...yet. Throw out all your DVD's and what not that you have made yourself? Yeah you could do that but someday somebody might look at that and not care what it looks like because it will be the only memory of what their great great great relative looked like or did. And how much is that 'crappy' video you shot in NYC with those tall buildings towering over you worth now? Food for thought.

I am 55
I started with 8mm home movies
I went to vhs
I went to Sony 8mm
I went to hi-8
I went to Digital 8
I am happy what is the big problem. Are those of us without the latest and greatest supposed to be unhappy? Are we supposed to be ashamed of what we do?
I'll just be happy and when I can afford to move up I will be happier thank you.

filmv - thank you -
beautifully stated and clearly put -

I'm copying this to send to anyone who yaps at me again vis a vis "film vs tape".

v.

My first movie was shot on 8mm (silent). I don't have the footage anymore.

My second movie was shot on Video (VHS) camcorder. It was more like me walking around with a video camera acting like a jerk walking around with a video camera. I still have most of that footage.

My third, fouth and 100th movie was also shot on a combination of VHS (camcorder/VHS, camera hooked to VHS, camera hooked to PC, blah blah blah). Some of the footage I have - some I don't.

My last movie was shot on digital video and edited with Vegas (I better still have that footage...I just shot it!!)

I can write out my script...take my camera, go shoot what I want - when I want - and have something when I'm done with te shooting ticks, editing tricks, blah blah blah - that I can then turn around and play on a PC, VCD, DVD, VHS or project it on the wall so a room full of people can check it out.

That is a far cry from where I was when I shot my first movie on 8mm (back in High Skool). And, when I'm done - I will still have all the footage (raw0 saved off to tape or disc and as long as the CD I burn it to stays safe..then I'm fine.

I have video of my family, friends, special events, Forth of July fireworks on the shores of Lake Michigan in Chicago...hell - I even saw Kenny Rogers in the waiting room at a doctor appointment one and squished his head!!

All I'm saying is I enjoy the ability to film what I want. And it looks fantastic. Straight DV...MPEG, AVI, COmrpessed and burned on VCD...you name it - it looks good. A hell of a lot better than either nothing....or the 8mm.

So what is the argument again? Fillm versus DV? VHS vs Beta? Cassette vs CD? Blonde vs Redhead? Oh that's an easy one. A blonde AND a redhead!!

Frankly, I have never understood the obsession with image quality. Tell a good story, shoot and light it with care, pick a medium that suits the subject matter, edit it well and unobtrusively, make sure your sound quality is good and screen it under good conditions, and I GUARANTEE you no-one will bitch that the resolution wasn't up to par.

In contrast, I have walked out of 100 million dollar Hollywood productions because the script was awful, the characters unbelievable, there were giant holes in the plot and the action was either obnoxious and overblown or dreadfully boring.

What it comes down to is this:

As a filmmaker, you have two choices:

1. You can be an image purist, insist on 35mm film, go into hock up to your eyeballs, spend half your life working on getting just one film done, go into hock again to get the film printed, entered into the "right" festivals and then pray you'll get accepted and pray some Hollywood studio will buy it so you can pay off your creditors (and pray the studio won't mess with your magnum opus TOO much)...

OR

2. Accept a somewhat lower standard of image quality, do the best you can with the tools you can afford, pay cash for everything, find ways to screen your piece in coffeehouses and clubs, and make DOZENS of films exactly the way you want them.

Personally, I find number 2. far more rewarding.

"Blonde vs Redhead? Oh that's an easy one. A blonde AND a redhead!!"

Yeah but, wouldn’t you still need a brunette for rim light?

This reminds me of the analog vs digial audio wars of the 80's and 90's, to some extent it's still being waged - but it went something like this:

Mid 70's:

There was a rumor that Sony and Philips were developing some new method for making digital recordings available to consumer markets. Musicians for the most part must go to recording studios to make descent recordings, the time is expensive and so is the media. The idea of mastering and pressing (let alone distributing) an album yourself seems like madness (given the expense involved). The recording industry is fat and happy, because it is squarely in the control of “professionals”.

Early 80’s:

The Compact Disc arrives. It’s derided by “analog bigots” for its“lack of warmth and detail when compared to much more expensive analog recordings. At about the same time, Sony releases an analog to digital converter which allows end users to record directly from an analog source (tape machine, mixer etc.) to (of all things) a VCR. Big studios and “professionals” pooh-pooh the fledgling new technology saying that it would never replace the $50,000.00 two inch tape recorder.

Mid 80’s:

CD’s are widespread, more and more - artists are opting to release their music on audiocassettes and fewer on vinyl. “Analog bigots” have to concede that a) CDs are here to stay, and B) vinyl is quickly becoming a specialty item. In the recording industry, two track digital devices (Minidisk and DAT) are giving recording musicians a way to record and archive audio on a durable, inexpensive and high quality format. There’s also a buzz about recording digital audio on a computer, but the technology is prohibitively expensive, and notoriously unstable.

Early 90’s:

Walking into a local “chain retail” record store, one cannot help but notice the absence of vinyl records. The shelves seem to be about 70% CDs and 30% audiocassettes. Big studios are still the place to go for high quality recordings (at $100.00 per hour) – but digital multi-track recorders are quickly gaining in popularity. The most popular of these devices is the Alesis ADAT, at $1,999.00 MSRP it records eight tracks of “CD quality” audio onto an inexpensive SVHS tape AND multiple ADATs can be synchronized via a fiber optical cable. Digital audio workstations are more common, but being mostly on the Apple platform, they are expensive and still in the domain of “professionals”.



Late 90’s – early 21st century:

Clearly, CDs have won the format war, but somehow they are more expensive - even though the cost of producing them is a tenth of what it was a decade earlier. Because of developments on the WinTel platform (they have become powerful and inexpensive); computers have completely changed the face of the recording industry. Now, great sounding demos and albums are being recorded using off the shelf PCs and inexpensive but powerful software (Cool Edit Pro, Vegas, Logic, Nuendo, etc). Many larger studios have dropped their rates, moved into post production or gone out of business. Musicians are using digital tools to make the music they want to make, and distributing it via CD and the internet. For what one used to spend making a demo 20 years ago, you can now build a project studio. Now the argument isn’t “Does analog sound better than digital?” there’s evidence that suggests that it does – BUT, that’s irrelevant given the fact that 98% of your listeners cannot afford a $20,000.00 system that would allow them TO tell the difference. And STILL, the analog bigots are complaining that digital audio has ruined the recording industry, because (among other things) it took the recording process out of the hands of professionals, and put it in the hands of <gasp> “prosumers”, and amateurs (sound familiar?).

I think this in some way illustrates the point that many have already made. It’s not the media that matters as much as the quality of the art that it contains. Film is a fantastic medium that will probably always be around in some form. I love the rich film/theater experience, but digital technology affords me the opportunity to watch good movies (beautiful picture, surround sound, etc) when and where I want – AND I can get commentaries from the cast and/or crew along with deleted scenes, alternate endings and so forth. Can the projected film/theater experience do that?

Thanks,

Shawn

LOL! I walked out on Bruce Almighty only about thirty minutes into it. Couple funny gags at the start, (the dog doing its business reading a newspaper) after that it started going downhill fast... I thought. <wink>

I WISH I'd walked out of "Matrix Reloaded." Worst sequel to a masterpiece I've ever seen. Creators must have made too much money on the first one, started partying 24 hours a day, and handed the script to an 18 year old film student and said, "Hey, like write up a sequel and make it really cool, man! By the way, anyone seen my bong!"

I suffered all the way through on Matrix Reloaded, mainly because the people I was with wanted to see it, and I was driving. I agree with you Paul, a real bow wow. There was a script? I thought they ad-libbed all the way through. The scenes on the expressway were pretty good, but too long, the rest, a shadow of the original. Of course they set up for the next sequel.

I hope they didn't screw up Terminator III, I really liked the sequel better than the original on that one. One of the rare times a sequel is a lot better than the orignal.