how many of you feel HD will soon be far superior than film

S

sandhaamarai

New member
what i wanna know is will the next generation of filmmakers have patience to shoot in film , process it and grade it when they get things done quickly in HD.

Hi,
i always wonder if film will be a history few years from now...
is HD gonna be so good. what you feel

venkat

http://www.venkatrocks.com/

Thanks for everyone who answered me.Now i learnt something from u all thought my question was usual ,this forum has many hardworking filmmakers who helped me learn.
 
Last edited:
Oh no....NOT AGAIN!

This subject has been beaten to death over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Please search the archives.
 
Here is my question... most of use use Dvx for the movielike look....
we dont use de "f1" setting for clean video like look, so why are we going to use HD when its morevideo like and less movie like?
 
Ogrus said:
Here is my question... most of use use Dvx for the movielike look....
we dont use de "f1" setting for clean video like look, so why are we going to use HD when its morevideo like and less movie like?
Click to expand...


????!
 
Ogrus said:
Here is my question... most of use use Dvx for the movielike look....
we dont use de "f1" setting for clean video like look, so why are we going to use HD when its morevideo like and less movie like?
Click to expand...


???????????????????????

-Nate
 
Actually this is the first thing that popped in to my head when i read it, seriously and it took 13 minutes to find them for some reason!

1157531565.jpg
1157531541.jpg
 
Film will be around for a long time. Theatres presenting digital cinema however, i believe will be quite standard soon.

Shoot film, edit video, distribute video. Looks fantastic and cheap.

Regardless, the cost of film will be sure to decrease over the next few years.

The Digital HD camera from Arriflex is impressive. Additionally, Super35 will be the most used medium.

Have you seen Silent Hill? Cinematograpy process was very good. They used a combo of super35, HD, and for the AI video segments strangely HDTV.
 
The Genisis HD camera already looks pretty much on par with 35mm to me. I have no doubt that in the next ten years HD will be capible of better. A lot of people will still use film though.
 
This again... Why must this topic be brought up over and over again? Can't we get a sticky telling people not to bother?
 
everyone wants to know how long film will be around me i want to know how long will sd be around will it ever go away?
 
I think it's a good angle. Not will people shoot film but will people be too "lazy" (I say spoiled) to shoot it. After the DVX I don't think I could ever shoot on film again. I always new I wanted to shoot video, not film (this 10 years ago mind you). From here my next step is HD/HDV and a possible 35mm adapter, but not film. I mean the ability to watch dallies on the fly with a simple rewind then edit via computer (now everyone's on a laptop). I know right then and there if my shot is right and rarely do I find any suprizes that can't be taken care of with a little post. Film will be a delivery format for awhile and will probably never die, but digital acqu. will probably become very huge in the future and already is for television (because of so much reality TV) and Sci-Fi channel's films seem to all be shot in HD.

When DV first started being recognized by indie filmmakers there was a mass conspiracy (what I call it) between film companies and studios and such to keep DV out of the theaters and off television etc. But as people like Sundance started accepting DV and others opened up to it (people saw it would be broadcast quality on the cheap). How many stories have we heard? Is it an urban legend? A woman comes to a distributor with a film. The distributor loves the film, they're ready to sign the check but the question comes up "what was it shot on". She says "Digital Video" and all of the sudden they didn't want anything to do with her.

Suddenly after Blair Witch DV blew up. (Ironically Blair Witch was not shot digitally, it was shot analog). But at that point I heard so many people say digital wasn't good and couldn't sale and blah blah blah, (no digital won't sale if you don't buy it and put it out there for the public to see). We all know many people simply feel powerless against the media and just accept what's given or they simply don't put enough thought into what they watch. We set here and argue these things back and forward but in reality if you pop a DVD in "most people" (meaning not you, because you reading this it means you probably work in the field) really don't know your fake 16:9 DVX100 footage from film.

Hollywood knows all of this. If it's a good story or interesting enough concept people will watch regardless of the format. So why the anti-DV sentiment? Because of change. Film companies have walked hand in hand with studios for years. Now DV (and now HDV/HD) creates a situation where people like David Lehre can become famous overnight by accident. It does take a little power from Hollywood. Not much, but enough to piss them off and they knew it was coming, so they tried to hold it back as long as they could.

Think about having this same conversation ten years ago (when I was in film school). People would've laughed at video acqu. and DV had very bad pixelation problems when doing fades or extreme zooms. Honestly I would've loved to see the new "Dr. Who" show come back being shot in 1080i but the original show was shot on 60i video (pal video actually as it was shot in the UK) but when a guy like Michael Mann decides to shoot in 1080i for delivery on film that's saying something. Change is in the air.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
I think we will actually all use hyper-ionized plasma recording devices to record 4D memories that we can inject into our veins. Please, HD, film, sooo last century.
 
Nathyn said:
How many stories have we heard? Is it an urban legend? A woman comes to a distributor with a film. The distributor loves the film, they're ready to sign the check but the question comes up "what was it shot on". She says "Digital Video" and all of the sudden they didn't want anything to do with her.
Click to expand...
That would be, by and large, an urban legend. Video origination didn't stop Chuck & Buck, The Celebration, Open Water, Blair Witch, 28 Days Later, November, Pieces of April, Murderball, Supersize Me, Time Code, or any of the dozens of other video-originated films from making it into the theaters.

If the distributor loves the film, they will not care (much) what it was shot on. Although they will always prefer 35mm because the distribution format worldwide is 35mm, and it's infinitely less expensive to make a print than it is to do a video-to-film blowup.

So I'd call either "urban legend" on that one, or "lie" (as in, when the distributor actually saw the film they were appalled at how bad it actually was, so said filmmaker claims "oh, they just didn't want it 'cause I shot it on video, can you believe that?")



If it's a good story or interesting enough concept people will watch regardless of the format. So why the anti-DV sentiment?
Click to expand...
Because 99% of the DV movies they see are HORRIBLE. Absolutely, jaw-droppingly, mind-numbingly awful. Terrible. Bad. Unwatchable dreck. Not like "Pluto Nash" bad, I'm talking really really bad.

If you really want to understand this market, and understand where they're coming from, I recommend you attend the New York International Independent Film & Video Festival, which holds screenings in NY, LA, and Las Vegas. You will see hour after hour of the most absolutely unwatchable awful dreck that you wil lbe prying your eyes out of your head just to make it stop. This is a "festival" that has no standards, it has no selection committee, they will screen anything that gets submitted to them (as long as the filmmaker pays the $350 entry fee or whatever it is now). So if you attend this "festival" you'll see what's REALLY going on out there, what the vast majority of projects are that people are actually making and submitting to the distributors.

And then you'll understand. That's what distributors get submitted to them. That's what they have to sit through. For every one decent watchable film, there are hundreds (literally) of terrible, awful films. Films where somebody said "I don't need to go to film school, I'll just put that money towards making my own movie!" Well, the results show.

And after watching hundreds or thousands of those pictures, the distributors have finally said "ENOUGH! No more DV movies." That saves them from the 99%, and come on, when the odds are 99% against, you're pretty safe in saying "ditch all of 'em."

So why will they watch film-shot movies? Isn't it possible to make something just as bad on film?

Well, yes it's possible, but by and large it doesn't happen nearly as often. Why? Because FILM COSTS MONEY. And in order to get that money, you have to convince someone, somewhere, that your project is good enough that they'll put money into it. If you can't convince anyone, anywhere, that your project has merit, you'll never get the money to make it. Which probably stops an overwhelming percentage of truly bad pictures from getting made on film. Which leaves the ones that do have some merit as the ones raising the money. Hence the percentage of watchable movies shot on film is usually significantly higher than those shot on video.

What is it about video that the backyard cinema maker finds so attractive? It's that it doesn't cost any money to do. So while that entails a lot of creative freedom, it also removes a whole lot of responsibility from the producer/director's shoulders to make sure that they know what they're doing and that they're going to produce something worthwhile.

And the result is the overwhelming glut of unwatchable product out there.

Talk to film-festival screening committees. You'd be shocked. One festival acquisition exec I talked to said that they get about 500 feature submissions for every one (ONE) that they find "good enough" to program in their festival. By and large they get most of the films for their program from shopping around, attending other festivals, seeing what else is out there, and cherry-picking the good ones instead of sifting through the submissions they get sent, etc.

If you wonder why there's a bias against DV, that's why. It has nothing to do with any sort of "Hollywood wants to keep us out" mentality -- heck, Hollywood would love nothing more than for you to walk up to them with a great film that they can then steal from you and pay you pennies for, instead of shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to make their own. They're begging you to succeed. They really want you to succeed. They desperately want to rob you blind, but they won't bother unless you make a GREAT film.

Not "good". Not "less sucky than the others". Great. Something that people will pay good money to see.

When you have that, you'll find all sorts of doors open up for you. Regardless of whether you shot it on DV or HDV or HVX or Red or film.
 
Last edited:
Barry, I want a book of all of your posts. I thought I knew where this thread was going but you STILL managed to enlighten me. :)
 
I think video cameras in the right hands will beat a film camera in the wrong hands anyday, and viceversa. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter if the story and the sound suck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top