Get a designer.I posted in another thread re film design and what a designer can bring to the table.A designer in conjunction with the dp and director formulate the "look"involving lighting style,camera movement,framing and myriad of asthetics to bring a directors "unique"vision of the script to life.Costume and set design( or decoration) add texture,tone and depth to the vision.Get hold of Terence St.John Marners little book "Film Design" Screen Textbooks 1974,for a good insight into this seemingly forgotten role.Film designers,must be some out there just looking for experience on your movie.
The look of Independent Film
- Thread starter thesammyshow
- Start date
Chance White
Well-known member
In the world of independent film I think hiring a Film Designer is a bit unlikely. I do appreciate however the fact you have voiced this as I was a bit ignorant as to this role. The overall look and production design is something I feel the director and DP should conceptualize in preproduction... however I've never encountered anyone wishing to specialize in Film Design and I would love to explore this if it were feasible when funding is so limited. Also, most indie films are so strapped that the look of the film is often just 'as good as we can make it look'... Thoughts?
filmman
Veteran
I agree with you, Chance. There is no such thing as Film Designer. LOL
There is Production Designer, and this is a term that was applied to Art Directors when the movie had a great deal of visual effects, to the point where it was beyond the expertise of the cinematographer to handle as these effects where handled by a different team of camera operators and DPs.
A Production Designer is then an Art Director who works with the Cinematographer and the Director to interpret the color and texture of a movie. The lighting is still the work of the Gaffer and the Cinematographer, with the Director working with them to make sure it's what he/she wants.
One of the major drawbacks of digital production is that the look of a movie is more in the hands of the editor and the colorist than in the hands of the director. In fact the director might be gone by the time they get to final stages of post production. It's the producers and sometimes even the distributors that get into the act. This is nuts in my opinion.
Of course, as indie filmmakers working with a small team and controlling the movie to the last, we don't have to worry about that happening; but it happens sometimes in the case of digital production anyway.
When feature filmmaking was a 35mm industry, the Cinematographers used to make sure the lab couldn't control the look of the film, forget about the editor (the editor never had the control over the look before).
There were procedures (that would take too long to go into now) how the Cinematographer prevented the lab from correcting the hell out of the movies. Now the post production houses routinely ruin -- ahem, colorise the movie and give it its "film look."
As for John Ford, he used the dolly and did a lot of medium shots to prevent the editor from cutting the movie anyway he wanted. With circled takes, the editor had one shot to work with. John Ford didn't even look at his movies after he turned them over to the editor. He went on to shoot another movie. ... He didn't even look at his films when they were finished. LOL
There is Production Designer, and this is a term that was applied to Art Directors when the movie had a great deal of visual effects, to the point where it was beyond the expertise of the cinematographer to handle as these effects where handled by a different team of camera operators and DPs.
A Production Designer is then an Art Director who works with the Cinematographer and the Director to interpret the color and texture of a movie. The lighting is still the work of the Gaffer and the Cinematographer, with the Director working with them to make sure it's what he/she wants.
One of the major drawbacks of digital production is that the look of a movie is more in the hands of the editor and the colorist than in the hands of the director. In fact the director might be gone by the time they get to final stages of post production. It's the producers and sometimes even the distributors that get into the act. This is nuts in my opinion.
Of course, as indie filmmakers working with a small team and controlling the movie to the last, we don't have to worry about that happening; but it happens sometimes in the case of digital production anyway.
When feature filmmaking was a 35mm industry, the Cinematographers used to make sure the lab couldn't control the look of the film, forget about the editor (the editor never had the control over the look before).
There were procedures (that would take too long to go into now) how the Cinematographer prevented the lab from correcting the hell out of the movies. Now the post production houses routinely ruin -- ahem, colorise the movie and give it its "film look."
As for John Ford, he used the dolly and did a lot of medium shots to prevent the editor from cutting the movie anyway he wanted. With circled takes, the editor had one shot to work with. John Ford didn't even look at his movies after he turned them over to the editor. He went on to shoot another movie. ... He didn't even look at his films when they were finished. LOL
Mattykins
Cute Member
What 35mm industry were you apart of?
First - the "film look" isn't achieved in the lab. The look is achieved by the film stock offering a great deal of latitude (14 stops) and the actual design of the emulsion. The reason digital can never achieve a "film look" is due to the fact the silver halide crystals in the film are in radically different positions throughout the stock. Which mean the rendition is subtly different in each frame. The footage directly out of the camera after processing is rather bland.
It is akin to RAW footage. There isn't much there. The colorist would then go in making the film stock look "pretty". If the lab didn't make the adjustments it did - the footage would look terrible. Now, when the footage is telecined there is a colorist who times the footage to which ever color temperature you tell them to. This is when you are not present in the timing session. They will then make decisions to make the footage workable. They will try to save all the detail they can. Make lighting adjustments at each take (Best Light telecine) to compensate for exposure difference. And time the footage to the lighting scenario you tell them.
This is very different from a DI or Online Color Correction where the colorist, with the help of the DP or Director will finetune a look for the film. They will then make changes to the image itself, and thus correct and tune the color. When this is done with the final cut and the edit is locked - the colorist will match the colors between takes and overall make the footage more aesthetically pleasing. Wether that be adjusting head room or what-have-you.
So all-in-all. The lab controls the look of the film. Unless you try to telecine it at home. The processed film will look one way and that is it. Very similar to color photography. The negative comes back with only one set of information. It is up to you to dial in the correct CMY color pack to achieve the look you want. This is what the lab does when timing.
Basically the lab won't do anything you don't tell them to do. If you just send it without information. They will automatically time it to a grey card - if you shot one. Or just make it look decent if you don't provide them one.
sparkle_and_fade
Member
handheld, grainy shots are epitome of indie film
watch breaking the waves, gummo, pi or baghead >> bingo!
watch breaking the waves, gummo, pi or baghead >> bingo!
filmman
Veteran
Matty wrote:
Hollywood.
Exactly. When I'm not present. What do I tell them before they go into the timing session?
The beauty of shooting 35mm is that an experienced cinematographer knows how to expose the negative so the timer doesn't mess up the intended look of the movie, the look that the director and the cinematographer planned, tested and captured during the production.
When I was DPing feature films in the 70s and 80s, I asked the labe to give me a one light print. I usually told them to print it 25-25-25 (RGB). This way when I looked at the rushes I knew what was happening.
Then I sat with the timers and made sure I got the look I wanted, the look that the directors and I had agreed on before we shot the movie.
Today, with digital, it's the "colorist" who plays around with the look of the movie. This is why I will always shoot film if I have a budget.
Thanks for clarifying another sticky situation in the digital vs. film discussion.
I'm really happy that programs like FCP allow the filmmaker to control the color. I don't mind playing around with Magic Bullet and such color correcting and manipulating programs. but ultimately I'd like to come up with my own look.
I don't want to put anybody out of work, but the colorists can work for those people that have no vision or ability to decide what look they want.
Hollywood.
Exactly. When I'm not present. What do I tell them before they go into the timing session?
The beauty of shooting 35mm is that an experienced cinematographer knows how to expose the negative so the timer doesn't mess up the intended look of the movie, the look that the director and the cinematographer planned, tested and captured during the production.
When I was DPing feature films in the 70s and 80s, I asked the labe to give me a one light print. I usually told them to print it 25-25-25 (RGB). This way when I looked at the rushes I knew what was happening.
Then I sat with the timers and made sure I got the look I wanted, the look that the directors and I had agreed on before we shot the movie.
Today, with digital, it's the "colorist" who plays around with the look of the movie. This is why I will always shoot film if I have a budget.
Thanks for clarifying another sticky situation in the digital vs. film discussion.
I'm really happy that programs like FCP allow the filmmaker to control the color. I don't mind playing around with Magic Bullet and such color correcting and manipulating programs. but ultimately I'd like to come up with my own look.
I don't want to put anybody out of work, but the colorists can work for those people that have no vision or ability to decide what look they want.
Mattykins
Cute Member
I don't think you realize how many people you are going to offend saying something like that.
Every hollywood film goes through a DI. The DI operators out there are very talented people. And I don't think there is a single time where color manipulation doesn't occur on images even when working with film.
I shoot film as well. And unless you were doing something special so you can predetermine a color matrix in camera, and match color perfectly when changing setups during the day I don't know how you didn't have your colorist time the footage or a color correction done.
The colorists work with the footage when you don't send instructions to give you the most options in the post workflow. They bring back the skin colors and default to getting 18% grey - 18% grey. That is their job.
The colorist will work with the production to determine the look of the film. Unless of course you are proficient in a DaVinci system. And can do it yourself.
Digital work can also go through a color process. Same exact steps are used. The show comes up with their look, the colorist makes that happen. Most of the time the client won't know what they want to do or can't explain what they are going for. At that point the DI supervisor, or colorist will give you options. Usually when I am working on it - the first thing I do is give them a perfectly color corrected image. Where things are where they should be color wise. Skin tones are normal and the image is what it was coming out of the camera. I then go from there based on what the client wants. Right now I am working on trying to find which DI system I should get training on. That is going to be my summer venture to get trained and certified on one of the many DI systems. But I digress...
They are the tool used to implement your vision. Times haven't changed. DI is far more powerful than ever before. But it is always a collaborative effort - unless you are a student film maker sending your film out blindly. In which your color timer will do the best they can and make assumptions on the footage. Basically they are giving you the best image you can for further digital manipulation of the footage later.
Last edited:
filmman
Veteran
Matty, we had our signals crossed a bit. I'm not talking of DIs. When I shoot 35mm, I also edit in 35mm and print from 35mm. I do negative cutting and go through the Hazeltine process with a timer.
The DI process is very popular, I've heard. I didn't realize all major movies go through a DI, but I can believe it.
Anyway, as far as digital production is concerned, I only do that when I'm shooting no budget, non-union, experimental, felliniesque, or cinema verite movies. So with these movies, I only need the FCP and maybe a Magic Bullet program (which I haven't bought yet; it's too expensive LOL I will eventually buy it).
If a distributor gives me an advance on my digital movies, I will be extremely happy to give it to a post house (and I know a few) that can make it look like it was shot with a Sony 900 camera
Just kidding.
But thanks for informing me about a lot of the new technology with respect to all the post production procedures for manipulating movies.
I guess when there is a budget and if I get a distribution deal for my 35mm movies in the future, I'd be interested in going the DI route and asking for expert collaboration.
The DI process is very popular, I've heard. I didn't realize all major movies go through a DI, but I can believe it.
Anyway, as far as digital production is concerned, I only do that when I'm shooting no budget, non-union, experimental, felliniesque, or cinema verite movies. So with these movies, I only need the FCP and maybe a Magic Bullet program (which I haven't bought yet; it's too expensive LOL I will eventually buy it).
If a distributor gives me an advance on my digital movies, I will be extremely happy to give it to a post house (and I know a few) that can make it look like it was shot with a Sony 900 camera
Just kidding.But thanks for informing me about a lot of the new technology with respect to all the post production procedures for manipulating movies.
I guess when there is a budget and if I get a distribution deal for my 35mm movies in the future, I'd be interested in going the DI route and asking for expert collaboration.
DI's are more popular than ever, but it's quite a stretch to say that every hollywood film goes through a DI.
JonathanLB
Carbonite Member
I would be very disappointed if I shot a feature and it couldn't look like a Hollywood production. I wouldn't want to do it at all if I knew going in that I couldn't achieve that. Of course the range of stories I can tell is limited, but the quality of the picture and sound should not be. Yeah, I can't have a massive explosion rock the house I'm shooting in and show some CG bugs from outer space invade. But if I have a great DP and a talented crew, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to achieve great lighting and a fantastic picture shooting with something like the RED or one of the new Scarlets. And it's worth money to make sure the sound design is excellent.
I think you can make a great, professional film on a low budget, you just are very limited as far as what types of stories you can tell. Some people ignore these limitations and try to make a $25 million film for $50,000, which is why it turns out looking like crap. But if you make a film that can be shot for $150,000 let's say, you should be able to shoot it and have it look great for that. You just can't remake Transformers or something.
The music videos I've shot compete with anything on MTV, I think my best music video is way better than 90% of what's on MTV, and way more creative, but it wasn't as much money as most of that stuff ($10,000 compared to usually $100,000+ for the bigger videos). And we didn't shoot film, we shot HVX200, still looks great on a TV, at least. Actually I've seen it projected on a theater screen with an HD projector and I have to say it looked great, I was surprised. But I wouldn't shoot a feature with the HVX200, I'd shoot with a more pro camera, not prosumer, hehe.
I think you can make a great, professional film on a low budget, you just are very limited as far as what types of stories you can tell. Some people ignore these limitations and try to make a $25 million film for $50,000, which is why it turns out looking like crap. But if you make a film that can be shot for $150,000 let's say, you should be able to shoot it and have it look great for that. You just can't remake Transformers or something.
The music videos I've shot compete with anything on MTV, I think my best music video is way better than 90% of what's on MTV, and way more creative, but it wasn't as much money as most of that stuff ($10,000 compared to usually $100,000+ for the bigger videos). And we didn't shoot film, we shot HVX200, still looks great on a TV, at least. Actually I've seen it projected on a theater screen with an HD projector and I have to say it looked great, I was surprised. But I wouldn't shoot a feature with the HVX200, I'd shoot with a more pro camera, not prosumer, hehe.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
While I'm not 'in the business', I can't say what is the actual current work flow... but I will conjecture that making transfers to use in AVID editing bays is probably almost universal. The resulting EDL's may then be taken back to a guy with a green shaded visor in some back room who has a pair of scissors...
The point is the transfer does cost something...
Now, Filmman may have a moviola, or a 'real film'(tm) editing setup fancy razor blades included.. but I'm sure, current 'big production' work flow probably has some element of digital activity going on to get the work done.
filmman
Veteran
If a movie goes from digital to 35mm DI, it ends up as 35mm, the image is going to be positive but there will be negative mask (orangy) and the DI has to be printed to a what's knows as a dupe neg (duplicate negative or Internegative). The dupe neg is then used for printing the release prints. When the dupe neg gets used up (after about 50 to 100 prints), a new Internegative is made from the DI (which is an Inter-Positive -- same stock as Internegative EK 5242).
The terms Production Designer and Art Director are like Cinematographer and Director of Photography. The Production Designer is the head of the Art department and THE Art Director. If you notice the Academy Award goes for Art Direction to the Production Designer just as the Academy Award goes for Cinematography to the Director of Photography.
I don't think anyone should make a movie without a Production Designer but that's just me. I also would never consider doing a movie without a DP.
The look of professional cinema comes because the DP is shooting on film and has shot on film for years. It's not the film that makes movies look professional, it's the limitations that come about as a result of working with film and the kind of experience it forces the DPs to develop. Take a DP who has worked his whole life with film and one that has the same amount of experience but in video with no film background and the film DP will deliver faster, better, more aesthetically pleasing results every time.
filmman
Veteran
Excellent point. Hopefully there will continue to be cinematographers who shoot film and develop their skills with film.
I think there are some great cinematographers working with digital also. But because this is a new medium, it's hard to find them. They don't have a body of work; maybe in a few years a few of them will emerge above others. It will take ten, twenty years before the dust will settle on digital shooting. The formats are so many and the controversies are raging.
In the meantime, we have a bit more stability with 35mm production until then. I appreciate your clarification about Production Designer and Art Director.
I think there are some great cinematographers working with digital also. But because this is a new medium, it's hard to find them. They don't have a body of work; maybe in a few years a few of them will emerge above others. It will take ten, twenty years before the dust will settle on digital shooting. The formats are so many and the controversies are raging.
In the meantime, we have a bit more stability with 35mm production until then. I appreciate your clarification about Production Designer and Art Director.
The future is going to be interesting and I am definitely looking forward to it. The times in film history when technology has made the future of filmmaking difficult to predict have always yielded the greatest results. It's going to be a slow process however and we must always remember filmmaking isn't about the medium or format, it's about the story.
jls4
Veteran
Qzar you and Filmman should be good buddies - you both are in love with 35mm.
I however, while I agree with both of you, I believe in digital. To me it's just a medium. The biggest hurdle in digital is controling the whites and not letting them get out of control. But good lighting fixes most of those type of problems - takes a slight bit longer, but I've seen lighting people take 3 hours to light a scene! I can do it in 40 minutes, so a little extra time for me is no big deal.
For instance, if you shoot outdoors in bright sunlight I don't know what you're supposed to do with film - since I don't shoot with it, but I've learned that if you put a "butterfly" or large 6x6 full Scrim or just a big sheet that you have rigged up, you can lower the contrast on your main subject. You can do the same with the background with the 6x6/9x9 full scrim allowing the scrim to be out of focus and the background to deminish a stop or two.
With a little extra money and time you can eliminate the problems controlling the whites. You can also digitally re-add the sky if you need the iris open wider for shots on your subjects. Usually the sky is the first to go in bright sunlight, then small highlights on the actors faces or on reflective objects.
It's about how much time and effort and most importantly knowledge you have about what you are doing. I've said over and over that people must read, study, test and understand what they are doing in order to have a great product.
I should also say that from a photographer's perspective I LOATHE FILM. I used to shoot film, but then made the transition to Digital 5 years ago, and I love Digital over Film. however, I will say the avg Digital SLR is shooting 12-14 Bits while the avg Digital Camera is barely 10 Bits.
To put this in perspective
8 Bits (cheap consumer cams) - 256 Levels of Luminosity (whites)
10 Bits - 1024 levels
12 Bits - 4096 levels
14 Bits - 16384 levels
Once Digital Cinema reaches 12 Bits standard most of the problems can be fixed easily with a small curve compressing the whites into the scene. 10 bits is difficult because we are used to seeing more than that amount of luminosity at one time. But understanding how to shoot with 10 bits wil make it really easy to shoot with 12.
I however, while I agree with both of you, I believe in digital. To me it's just a medium. The biggest hurdle in digital is controling the whites and not letting them get out of control. But good lighting fixes most of those type of problems - takes a slight bit longer, but I've seen lighting people take 3 hours to light a scene! I can do it in 40 minutes, so a little extra time for me is no big deal.
For instance, if you shoot outdoors in bright sunlight I don't know what you're supposed to do with film - since I don't shoot with it, but I've learned that if you put a "butterfly" or large 6x6 full Scrim or just a big sheet that you have rigged up, you can lower the contrast on your main subject. You can do the same with the background with the 6x6/9x9 full scrim allowing the scrim to be out of focus and the background to deminish a stop or two.
With a little extra money and time you can eliminate the problems controlling the whites. You can also digitally re-add the sky if you need the iris open wider for shots on your subjects. Usually the sky is the first to go in bright sunlight, then small highlights on the actors faces or on reflective objects.
It's about how much time and effort and most importantly knowledge you have about what you are doing. I've said over and over that people must read, study, test and understand what they are doing in order to have a great product.
I should also say that from a photographer's perspective I LOATHE FILM. I used to shoot film, but then made the transition to Digital 5 years ago, and I love Digital over Film. however, I will say the avg Digital SLR is shooting 12-14 Bits while the avg Digital Camera is barely 10 Bits.
To put this in perspective
8 Bits (cheap consumer cams) - 256 Levels of Luminosity (whites)
10 Bits - 1024 levels
12 Bits - 4096 levels
14 Bits - 16384 levels
Once Digital Cinema reaches 12 Bits standard most of the problems can be fixed easily with a small curve compressing the whites into the scene. 10 bits is difficult because we are used to seeing more than that amount of luminosity at one time. But understanding how to shoot with 10 bits wil make it really easy to shoot with 12.
Robbie Comeau
Como's back. back again
The acting is right away what I see, and the ADR
Robbie
Robbie
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I began to be a digital advocate somewhere around 83-84. At the time, it cost some 250K to put together a 'simple' digitization system for video, and needless to say, if I wasn't working in image processing, for a company producing products that fit a need at the time, and could justify the costs... I wouldn't have come in contact with such equipment personally.
Back then if one wanted to 'blend' two clips... one wrote software, or drivers to control hardware... if one wanted to change hue, saturation, etc... more software.
The Wife benefited from this by me doing some interesting media manipulation for her 'art works'... but in the process two things occured... The Hunt Brothers tried to buy up the silver market, and sent film prices 'shooting' up... and they never fell back to pre-Hunt Brothers prices... and we did some output, and even at the 'low' resolution, and small 'output' size, it was clear to me that a digital process was capable of being improved to eliminate silver based process all togehter...
The Wife on the other hand remained 'true' to the Silver Goddess... until she got the Nikon D-1 to demo and create some ad copy for a Nikon campaign, I think it was around 2000 or so. There were still problems but, the price and quality had gotten to the point of 'almost ready'.
Around 2002 we switched over to all digital for what we use to use the 35mm film cameras for at weddings, which was the 'candids'. She shot Hasselblad for most of the formals and some of the candids as well. As of 2005 even the Hasselblad came out of the case less often... and I don't think she has used it in the last 2 years at all... and definitely for her 'destination' weddings in Australia and Israel, there was no thought of packing the Hasselblad along... big tripod maybe... well, we bought a light weight one anyway...
There is an unintended consequence... where as in the olden days of film, if an image just had too many flaws, it was passed up rather quickly (or possibly with much shouting if it happened to be an 'important' shot...), or if there was corrective work to be done, one would tell the customer, that will be $50, $100, or whatever extra to do the correction, or the image just printed 'as is'...
Not so with digital... there is the temptaion to 'adjust' every image... do rework that would have been put off like the $50 corrective work... till later...
Even on good shots there's a lot of time spent on 'is this color balance good, or is that'...
To the point where in the past the film was sent of to the lab... results viewed, set of proofs selected, and shipped off to customer...
In a word, the 'time' savings benefit of digital has been replaced with time consuming futzing around with the images...
-------------------------------------------------
But back to your post...
There is more than just bit depth involved in making the digital image better. It has to do with the actual physical size of the device converting the light to 'electrical energy'. With a desire to increase 'resolution' the devices are made smaller and smaller... the problem there is their ability to act as 'wells' that fill as more light impinges on them is reduced. This increases the 'noise' in the digitzed results, and so, even at 12, 16, who cares how deep... noise is noise...
So concommitant with increased resolution on intensity, the devices have to be bigger to allow for bigger ccd pixel area.
Of course making a big device is difficult and will probably remain expensive for some time...
The other aspect is speed of read out. Again allowing the devices to integrate the light for longer periods lowers the noise... snapping the data with less integration time... more noise...
jls4
Veteran
Agreed, I probably should have talked about Sensor Size, but there are only three aspects to Digital that I find troubling at this point. Sizes of over 1/2 inch tend to show little if any CA (but they do show it sometimes), second is the whole rolling shutter thing, and finally cropping room.
When I was working in 35mm film, the room to crop was a little greater because you were effectively using more "analog pixels". In today's world Digital Still Cameras of over 12 Mpix have plenty of cropping room. Shoot I sent a 6.2 Megapixel image in and blew it up to 20x24 and it looked great!
I think the EX1/EX3 Series represents the closest thing to Super 16mm film, while the RED represents more 35mm. Noise is important, but even when shooting with a 1/4 inch cam (which I shot my current feature on) the grain wasn't that noticable unless I didn't have enough light in the shot.
If someone is working on a small Digital Feature and they aren't packing a good amount of lighting and know how, it wouldn't matter if they were shooting on Panavision Cameras - the shots would look like crap.
We spend too much time debating cameras and not enough time talking about lighting. Lighting is what makes movies look good, it what removes excessive grain and it makes sure each digital/analog well is full to it's own personal capacity. When someone goes off and makes a movie like "Drawing With Chalk" on an HVX and it looks great, it doesn't surprise me, nor when a movie comes out good on the EX1 or RED. I think many are surprised because most indie's spend their last dime on a camera with no thought to lighting. They blast a 1K to the ceiling and are ready to shoot. Then they come back and wonder why their work doesn't look "professional".
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The minimum of what you need to make a good indie movie is the following: (this info is based on 3 features and lots of shorts I've helped people out with)
Lighting
2.5 Light kits (This needs to be various light intensities and softness) I used
3 - 1Ks, 3 - 650s, 3- 300s, 2 - 150s
Audio
$1K microphone. Numerous debates have surfaced about this, but everyone admits you can easily hear the difference in the $500 and $1000 mics. The more expensive mics just pick up audio cleaner, better and fuller.
$3K - Audio recoding system. For me this was the 702T by Sound Devices. Awesome 128Khz/24Bit system records to compact flash - easy on batteries. The best purchase I made.
Camera
1920 x 1080 24p HDV or higher codec camera. While you can make miniDV look good, why debate when you can sell your MiniDV cam and buy an HDV cam so cheap these days.
At the camera level, once you get past the pickup: how large the sensor is, who sensitive to light, color, etc. You get into compression. I've seen very filmic 25Mbps especially on people, 50Mbps is really needed for water and moving leaves, 100Mbps fixes everything pretty much. the 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0 codec stuff isn't that big of a deal to me. I've used my Sony V1U several times (4:2:0) to do green screen work. Heck I'm using it tonight on a gig. I've even done window replacement and put people in a non-moving car with green screen, then removed the green to make the car look like it was moving - and people who watched didn't know. (at least a few of them didn't). So I guess it's all about what you "believe" and your own personal perfectionism.
I taught my wife photography 5 years ago, since then she has taken over the business. She's a perfectionist. Every little detail she has to airbrush or recolor, etc. She spends 4 hours on 100 pictures. I spend about 4 hours on 200 pictures. My images don't have the tonality hers do, and they have slighty more grain - I admit. But when I give them to my clients, they tend to jump out of their skin they are so happy. We both get rave reviews and have won an award 3 times from "The Knot" magazine (the number one wedding mag in the US). But when it boils down to it, maybe her stuff is 5, 10% better; but my stuff is so good that most clients don't notice.
It's like that in movies, everyone wants to be perfect, but 9 out of 10 viewers won't notice small missing details like 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0; or 1080p vs . 1138p or 100% perfect color - no crushed blacks vs 90% color with slight crushed blacks. I've set myself now to get my production quality towards the 90% mark, not the 100% mark. I want the story at the 95+% mark. Most indies are sitting at the 50% mark and they don't even realize it.