digital movie making

[Kim Welch]

Anyone have any real experience using digital cameras to shoot with? What are the up sides? What are the down sides? I was just thiking about how the electric guitar took off and made a revolution in the way music is made and the kind of music that is made. is it possible this is the same kind of thing or now?

 

[Digigenic]

Digital is fun...Film is fun...I'm boring

Digital is fun...Film is fun...I'm boring

The biggest benefit of using Digital instead of Film is its' immediacy and accessibility. You can shoot, transport, edit, finish, and transfer in one day, assuming you have all of the necessary tools.

The filmmaking process in understandably more tedious and drawn out, because with the wait comes beauty, assuming everything you've shot was done with the greatest of care and attention to detail. Film tends to offer a more satisfying quality in the finished product than digital.

But, if you've been just as precise with using digital, you can achieve equal, if not occasionally better looking images than film. It just depends on the circumstances.
For traditional filmmaking, there are so many more factors to take into consideration and worry about while shooting, where as with digital, everything can be realized within a matter of moments because of its immediacy.

I think the biggest downside with most digital cameras is their inability to shoot in low light. With the exception of Canon's XL1 and Sony's VX2100 and PD170, most other cameras give you noisy images (equivalent of film grain) when shot in circumstances with less than 3 to 4 lux available light. There's plenty more to discuss, so post some more, so we can get into specifics, like 1 chip, 3 chip cameras etc.

 

[MarkG]

Digital shooting generally has smaller and lighter equipment, you can often shoot with the natural light in your location if you're too cheap to bring your own lights, you can see exactly what you're getting on the monitor before you shoot, you can immediately review footage after you shoot it (though many people waste too much time checking old shots when it would be faster just to do another take), stock costs essentially nothing, the majority of post-production can be done in your bedroom on a decent modern PC or Mac with Premiere, Final Cut Pro or Avid, and for DVD or VHS release the quality is perfectly acceptable... for a theatrical release you'll have to pay a lot for a 35mm blowup and even then the quality won't be very good unless you shot HD video rather than SD video. On the downside, depth of field is generally large, so you can't easily force the background out of focus, and contrast is low so you can't get the same amount of detail in shadows and highlights that you would on film.

Film equipment, particularly 35mm, tends to be big and heavy, and if you're really pushing the limits with IMAX 3D AFAIR the camera weighs about 600 pounds and is fitted with a crane to move it around:while many 16mm cameras are no larger than, say, Digibeta video cameras, you'd be surprised how much time you waste when just moving that old 35mm camera you borrowed six feet from one shot to the next requires two people to lift the camera and a third to move the tripod. When you shoot something you can't see the image you're getting on the film in the viewfinder, only a rough approximation of it, and you can't see what you actually shot until you get the rushes back the next day. Film cost is expensive, processing is expensive, and even just adding the credits and titles for a film print is expensive since all that has to be shot on film and stuck on the end of the negative. You can edit on your PC, but then you still have to take the finished edit, get the negative cut, and get prints made if you want to show the movie in a cinema.

So, really, as far as I'm concerned there are three main reasons to shoot film over some kind of digital video format: if you shoot 24fps or 25fps it's easy to produce high-quality video masters for both PAL and NTSC, you can change the frame rate to whatever your camera supports for true fast or slow motion, and the final picture on the screen will usually look better. For Hollywood that matters, but if you want to shoot a feature for $10,000 then some kind of digital video format is probably the way to go... the new HDV cameras that are coming out (basically 720 line HDTV recorded on DV tapes) should make getting decent imagery at low cost much more affordable.

 

[Digigenic]

Mark is right,
With HDV, we're seeing cameras like JVC's GR-HD series and Canon's successor to the XL1, which is expected to high def capabilities (as it turns out, the XL2 is not HDV capable). Although, because of the HD standards agreement made by JVC, Canon, Sharp, and Sony, many of the consumer HDV camcorders are going to employ the same MPEG2 compression in order to get the HD images onto to mini DV tape, which has led many videographers to question the quality of the high def they'll get from these cameras. Not to mention that color definition always being an issue of poor quality with high def cameras at any level.

 

[cintellect]

Regarding Mark's point..I concur with Digigenic..and would like to add that advancements are on the horizon regarding color with high def cameras. From what I have heard..some sort of improvement over 3 chip/prism technolology is possibly on the way...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Just to play devil's advocate, even though I agree with most of the comments, I would say a few things:

"Immediacy" is a two-edged sword because while it allows greater sponteneity, it can diminsh one of the most important skills a filmmaker and cinematographer HAS to have: pre-visualization. So while I like the immediacy of lighting with a digital camera like the F900 (being in love with lighting, there is a great pleasure in seeing the results immediately - it's like opening your Christmas presents early!) it's important not to use it as a crutch to an active imagination -- i.e. the "I won't know until I see it" mentality that some directors suffer from.

It probably is healthiest to think of digital photography compared to film like an electric guitar compared to a regular guitar (acoustic?) or a sculture made in bronze from a mold compared to one carved from marble -- i.e. it's a textural difference, not a question of "good vs. bad". With films like "Collateral" coming out, using HD to capture a new look to night photography in movies, I think we'll see a new aesthetic where digital has its place.

Personally, I think most DP's want more than anything are choices -- the ability to choose between Kodak or Fuji (and Agfa if it were still here), or 1.85 or 2.35, or 35mm or HD, etc. As long as we live in an age where the horizon is opening up to new possibilities, not closing in with fewer options, we should be happy. Unfortunately we have seen a number of artistic tools disappear over the years (3-strip Technicolor, dye transfer prints, large format photography for features, 70mm release prints, black-and-white, etc.) which is sad. Hopefully in the rush to embrace digital technology, we won't forget when the older techniques work best. Too often these days I hear someone advise someone else to use a digital post trick to solve some problem that can easily be fixed in-camera, faster, cheaper, and better-looking.

Under the theme of pre-visualization, in particular I have a problem with the notion that it's always best to leave important artistic choices to post because "it's more flexible". The ability to easily change one's mind is not always a positive thing because there are no consequences for your artistic decisions. You end up taking a safe, middle-of-the-road approach with the idea that somewhere in post the image will be transformed into a work of art. Yes, maybe - but you might not be the one doing the transforming.

You watch some of the classic film noirs, often made on low budgets, and what makes them so powerful are the strong artistic choices being made by the DP and director because they had so little time and money to create a memorable moment in the movie. So they went for bold yet simple shots, graphic images, that stick in your mind after the movie is over. I think a lot of indie filmmakers could learn a lot from these old movies about being visually effective with very little money, and in fewer shots.

 

[Kim Welch]

Learning More About Shot Visualization

Learning More About Shot Visualization

I think a lot of indie filmmakers could learn a lot from these old movies about being visually effective with very little money, and in fewer shots.

What old movies do you suggest? I am very interested.

Truly
Kim

 

[tomthehun]

as a student of film history (and a cinematography student), I'm also interested in a short list of these films.
thanks,

 

[DerekEastham]

Well, I'm sure the points I'm about to make have already been made... but I like to add in my 2-cents now and then too

> I do have experience shooting with digital cameras... infact, I've never shot a single frame of film... saddly, it's only due to the costs involved... however, I've found that the digital camera's have a filmmaking style all their own, and if you use it to your advantage, it can work nicely.

> What are the up sides? Well... one HUGE upside for me was the imediate ability to see what we were shooting. Not only is an accurate live video feed simple to accomplish when shooting digital... it's also relatively simple to have immediate play-back from the camera to check a shot again.
Though I haven't shot on film yet, I am familiar with the costs of video play-back and having a live feed video tap... and they're just not quite as great, because you're usually stuck with a small 9" b&w monitor for the vid-tap... and playback is just rather pricy. So I find this to be a major up-side.
Another upside, in my world, is the ease of transfer from source to an NLE. The simple and fast process of getting the images & sound from the tape to the computer is wonderful, and cuts down on a lot of time... and money.

> What are the down sides?
Well, I'm sure many of the people out there who know me will find this comment odd... but I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Mullen...
The "Immediacy" is absolutely a double edged sword. You really have to learn to look through your footage the same way as film editors did...
I take a lot of my editing tips from Walter Murch's book, "In The Blink Of An Eye." Sometimes, that immediate access, especially in the editing room, can be a burden... you've just got too many things at your finger tips at once... you need to learn to ballance your editing... I tend to take some extra time logging and noting my footage... then when I'm editing, I look through my notes for something I want in the next shot... instead of just using the best take, which isn't always the best take in the context of the scene... sometimes a worse take just fits better with the other shots.

Also, I agree whole heartedly with his comments on the Electric Guitar v the Acoustic Guitar... it's texture and style... film will likely become like that acoustic guitar... it'll never really leave, but it's use will become a stylistic approach... instead of a step back in time.

Another down-side I'd like to address is the reaction of DV to harsh/bright light. In DV, the really bright brights and the really white whites tend to blow out or smooth out... DV is a look all it's own... if that look is going to fit your piece, perfect... if not, you'll have to take great care to capture the image that will fit your piece.



Anyhow... those are my thoughts on shooting digitally... my next step is moving upto HD... and one day I hope to shoot on Super 35mm... I just love the 2.40:1 (Panavision) aspect ratio... (2.35:1 on some platforms)

 

[MarkG]

many of the consumer HDV camcorders are going to employ the same MPEG2 compression in order to get the HD images onto to mini DV tape, which has led many videographers to question the quality of the high def they'll get from these cameras.

Sure, no-one in their right mind would shoot HDV rather than film or standard HD if they had the money to do so, unless they really wanted that look for some reason. But unless the HDV cameras are a real screwup, they've got to be significantly better than DV for those who don't have that much money... the big downside will be that you probably won't be able to re-edit footage much without adding too many compression artifacts, you'll have to edit, color correct and output all in one go so the final master is only second-generation.