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

I think its interesting people think that HD is gonna "replace" Film. it never will. its two different tools. With two different looks.

Some projects demand grainy contrasty B&W Trix film. some need noiselss lowlight, the perfect tool - F900 1080P HD.

Its a different thing.
 
im a film person on a digital guys budget... film is amazing and i dont see it dying out. it just has that amazing feeling.. altho.. look how far we have gotten in just the last couple years.. with red around the corner its only a matter of time before we see some footage and can do a side by side comparison and see how close we can match it. i know if shot stuff on super 16 and the dvx with lens adapter.. and did some cc and other tricks to the dvx footage and people couldnt notice a difference... at least your average viewer.. maybe a seasoned cinematographer or colorist could pick out the fake
 
10 years from now most major films will be shot on HD. Currently a high percentage of independent films are shot on hd. The indies will get better jobs, and become producers and directors and stick to the highly effecient HD workflow.
Anything else is uncivilized.
 
film will ALWAYS be around. and I believe that 50% of Hollywood will
stay with film over the many years to come.

Video will have its place .....and film will have its place. Its a matter of
profit margin really, "can we make this movie with HD and still market
it as well, thus, making more money! But as price of film drops,
I think people will start realizing its going to end up as an even tossup
between the two:
film--looks a lot better which makes it easier to view and market, but
it's quite of bit more work involved to use it.
video--looks like video which makes it harder to view and market, but
its super easy to use, infinite room for shooting footage, fast turnaround,
etc...and cheaper!

If money is no object......DUH!!!! Shoot on film!
If money is real tight......get the best DOP with lighting you know, and do
the best you can with HD.
simple as that!!!
 
Barry_Green said:
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?")




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.
Click to expand...

Barry

That's great insight you're offering up. Thanks!
JohnG
 
i think pretty soon.... its just gonna be easier to shoot on film again... with all the complexities of HD workflow...... lol Jk
 
Barry ftw,
This thread just won't die,
digital may have an advantage for online and vod in the coming years. No one will assume that tv will be anything other than HD (or something akin) hotbed in years to come..

But film will remain in use into the foreseeable future.


Different tools as we've been saying, different asthetics and different applications. I've accepted that most of us will be working in HD in non DGA jobs but give me a large budget and the choice between Panavision and Panasonic and well there is no choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top