Film or Video?

[Kadath]

I need some advice on what to do about which type of filming medium I should use: Standard film or digital video?

Obviously most independent, small film makers use digital video cameras or camcorders to make their films. Unfortunately, regardless of the quality of the material, to me the films don't look quite right because they have that "home movie" look that theatrical films have. I feel it automatically takes me out of the believability of the film's atmosphere.

I used to think that film had to go through a special process in the studio to make it look like a theatrical film does, but now I know that the nature of 8mm, 16mm and 35mm film grain makes it look like a movie (and also the speed it's played at helps too). Trouble is...movie cameras that use regular film are really hard to find, and most people resort to using cheaper and easier digital cameras for their no/low-budget productions.

Now, this brings me to my question - what would be better: Buy or rent a regular film camera and film my movie, then take it to a shop to get it processed into digital so I can then edit it on my computer...

OR

Get one of the newer expensive HD film cameras (like the Canon XLS series) and film on that and try to find ways in post to trick the eye into thinking it was filmed on regular film?

Does anybody have any experience with high-quality film production that could offer some advice as to which route I should take? Any help would be greatly appreciated! :)

[Danny]

in a week or two ill be using sony blu-ray film cameras as the "run of the mill" cameras in my moving image degree so i'll give my view on that, though i kinda like the picture off my canon mini dv camcorder, its not movie quality but its got a nice little grain thats not quite movie but not "americas funniest home videos" crappy that i like.

[Kadath]

They have Blu-Ray cameras? Good lord! Well, I'd definitely be interested in hearing what those are like, even if I don't explore Blu-Ray for my project. :)

[livingdeadboy]

Frankly, avoid HD cameras until technology has fully caught up to them. Over the last year I have used a variety of filming techniques and cameras, and I say digital video is the way to go. The DVX 100B is a great camera, and gives an awesome look with 24fps on. And if you really want to kick it up a notch, fit a 35mm lens onto the DVX and you get some pretty primo looking stuff.

Sure HD is fine and dandy, but the P2 cards for the HVX 100s are useless, only holding about 3 mins of footage. And even that aside, the amount of room required on a computer hard drive to edit an HD film is nuts. And you can only have HD footage play on HD dvd's...which only play on HD players. Unless of course you convert the footage to standard definition and then burn it to a regular DVD.

So in conclusion, Digital video is the way to go. Film is great to shoot on to say that you've done it, and granted it does look good. But it is far more cost effective to shoot on digital.

[Danny]

i agree the only downside to em is real time transfer, but aside form taht ill take em over hd anyday.

[MinionZombie]

I'm not convinced about indie level HD yet, and it's far from industry standard or consumer standard so...

Besides, the DVX100B is spunk worthy. I love my DVX. :)

[Danny]

when i get a job and some scratch thats the kind im after.

...and a better tripod, ive used mine so much the threads for the adjustments have gone so itwont actually...i dunno tripod anymore.:lol:

[MinionZombie]

lol "it won't tripod anymore" :lol:

I've got a Libec, it cost something like £175. Solid bit of kit, mate. Quick & easy to use, simple design - boshty-as-fook. :cool:

Viva la DVX100B! *spoodges* :p

[Danny]

well mine was a quid off eBay and lasted 2 years so i guess it was good 'fer't price.:lol:

[PJoseph]

Good lord, this topic could really go on and on - and I think that most people's feelings about the DVX100 are justified - it is a great, great camera. (However, people are down on HD and I have to disagree. Of course, I'm not working with HD at no budget - I've used it to direct shorts for VH1 and have the support to work with them - but they look far superior to the DVX - but this is was the Sony Cinealta - we're talkikng about a $40,000 camera - so, in the long rung, doesn't really help you I suppose)

If I was running a home operation, I would too get the DVX100B - if you wanted to outfit yourself with a great camera and you could post on your home computer, then having Mini DV is going to be a great option. Also think about upgrading the HVX - while yes, the p2 cards are problematic, you can swap live (seen it done) and that works great. Also, you can be HD ready and the cards are going to get better. Most Macintosh computers now handle HD video, so you'll be set go move forward.

Okay. Good luck. I think you'll base most of your choices on cost - and I bet you could Ebay some good prices for DVX100B.

pJ

[7734]

forget HD

if you are looking for that film quality look, HD just accentuates the fact that it's not film because of it's incredible crisp sterility. unless you have the money for a cinealta or a varicam, get a proven SD cam like the DVX or XL/GL2. All three are sturdy chunks of indie goodness. Not to mention you wont need 5 TB of hard drive space to edit your two minute opening scene:dead:

[MinionZombie]

forget HD

if you are looking for that film quality look, HD just accentuates the fact that it's not film because of it's incredible crisp sterility. unless you have the money for a cinealta or a varicam, get a proven SD cam like the DVX or XL/GL2. All three are sturdy chunks of indie goodness. Not to mention you wont need 5 TB of hard drive space to edit your two minute opening scene:dead:
I'll take this opportunity to once again drool over the DVX100B - it's simply the best. :cool:

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/100b/100b2sm.jpg

[7734]

I'll take this opportunity to once again drool over the DVX100B

your pad must be a wet, sticky place.
MOP UP THAT DROOL!

[MinionZombie]

your pad must be a wet, sticky place.
MOP UP THAT DROOL!
It's a veritable swimming hole, my friend...and the DVX has it's own inflatable chair to float around on. :D

[7734]

i've been hearing really good things about the HVX (a few locals have it), but the DVX is definitely on my Xmas list.

still though... I think canon's frame mode makes good action sequences.

[Danny]

turns out the teacher was jsut thick and blu ray ones dont exist, were using panasonic ones, probably the ones above.

[PJoseph]

I'm a big fan of the HVX - it would be my choice. Love the DVX100 (used to own one), so I could either way.

pJ

[C5NOTLD]

I need some advice on what to do about which type of filming medium I should use: Standard film or digital video?

Obviously most independent, small film makers use digital video cameras or camcorders to make their films. Unfortunately, regardless of the quality of the material, to me the films don't look quite right because they have that "home movie" look that theatrical films have. I feel it automatically takes me out of the believability of the film's atmosphere.

I used to think that film had to go through a special process in the studio to make it look like a theatrical film does, but now I know that the nature of 8mm, 16mm and 35mm film grain makes it look like a movie (and also the speed it's played at helps too). Trouble is...movie cameras that use regular film are really hard to find, and most people resort to using cheaper and easier digital cameras for their no/low-budget productions.

Now, this brings me to my question - what would be better: Buy or rent a regular film camera and film my movie, then take it to a shop to get it processed into digital so I can then edit it on my computer...

OR

Get one of the newer expensive HD film cameras (like the Canon XLS series) and film on that and try to find ways in post to trick the eye into thinking it was filmed on regular film?

Does anybody have any experience with high-quality film production that could offer some advice as to which route I should take? Any help would be greatly appreciated! :)


Depends on what you can afford. Budget and compare your project as film and as digital video and see what fits you better as film will be more expensive.

Most of the time the films won't look or feel quite right when shot on video because of poor lighting technique and poor sound. I've seen movies shot on film which look terrible because of poor lighting. Having a film camera isn't a guarantee that you will have a great looking or even professional looking movie.

You can create beautiful visuals in either format (film/digital video) just depends on the time and trouble you personally take to create the images.

My suggestion is to save the money from shooting on film and shoot digital but invest in a good lighting package. Then you can perfect the look on your movies shooting digital and can always move up to film later on if so desired. The canon cameras are good even going back to the non HD, XL1S (with the XL1S you really need the 16x manual zoom lense and the ma-200 attachment which brings XLR inputs for sound to the camera). It works great in low light and has the frame movie mode which is similar to film look. Nice aspect about the canon cameras are that the lenses are interchangeable with other professional lenses similar to a film camera. Throw a matte box on it and you would be all set.

http://syndicate.sellpoint.net/canon/2144/31-KKPI9D-16-player-T1_MP/MPPlayer/__MPPlayer.html?r=1195077616234&ParentUrl=http%3A//www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller%3Fact%3DModelInfoAct

[DjfunkmasterG]

I have a clip from my film TRAPPED going online today and I am using DVX100B's. During our shoot we have at times had four cameras rolling and the footage looks stellar as long as you know your settings. FInd a good DP who knows the DVX and you will be amazed at the images it can produce.

[Kadath]

Thank you everyone for your wonderfully detailed responses! It seems most people recommend the DVX series, so I will look into that. My concerns about using digital video are fairly alleviated after reading what everyone has to say about it. Thanks again! :)

[DjfunkmasterG]

Forget reading... just watch footage from our DVX100's, that should be enough to sell you on it.

http://www.artheldhostage.com/trapped.html

(FYI - the cameras visual settings have been tweaked to achieve the look)

[MinionZombie]

Forget reading... just watch footage from our DVX100's, that should be enough to sell you on it.

http://www.artheldhostage.com/trapped.html

(FYI - the cameras visual settings have been tweaked to achieve the look)
For the DVX nerds out there, what settings were used when you were filming?

[C5NOTLD]

Thank you everyone for your wonderfully detailed responses! It seems most people recommend the DVX series, so I will look into that. My concerns about using digital video are fairly alleviated after reading what everyone has to say about it. Thanks again! :)

Once you decide on a camera you should rent one over a weekend to try it out. Then you can see first hand what you like or dislike about a particular model.

[DjfunkmasterG]

For the DVX nerds out there, what settings were used when you were filming?

We modified the F3 setting on the camera. Normally, the factory default F3 ont he NTSC version is 30fps, but we changed it to 24FPS Advanced and the Master Ped is turned down to minus -12. The clips of the group of survivors talking about their situation was shot with those settings, we then used 2k lights to fill the scene.

[GingeUK]

Personally, I would go for whichever is cheaper and spend the rest of the money on set decoration and hiring decent actors.

As for what camera to use. You could have the best camera in the world, but if the person behind it doesn't know how to use it then it's worthless. I have used a wide range of camera's from DVC 30's, through to XL2's and Z1's but my favourite camera to date has to be the Canon XM2. It doesn't have a whole host of bells and whistles. It has what you need, manual exposure, focus, shutter speed and zoom. I honestly feel less constrained with this camera that any of the others that have been mentioned.

Besides, this is all relative. If the story is not up to snuff then it doesn't matter what you shoot on. It will come out bad.

[Derek]

Hi there,

I think the main thing is down to personal taste. Some people prefer film but it can be very expensive. "The Raindance Producers Lab" by Eliot Grove has a wicked chapter on where and how to get cheap/free film stock. Definately worth picking up (or at least flicking through if you're passing a bookshop).
I wouldn't rule out digital formats altogether though. Some segments of Once Upon A Time in Mexico were shot on HD and all of Wolf Creek was HD. Once you add the grading/filters/etc digital formats can look quite nice.


Here's a clip from my crappy zombie film. It was shot on a cheap=ass camcorder:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2027902820

Hopefully it won't look too cheap, but we decided to shoot on a camcorder because any money spent we wanted to go on the make-up effects and not buying/developing film.

[MinionZombie]

Erm, I think Rodriguez shot all of "...Mexico" in HD, didn't he?

[PJoseph]

Once Upon A Time In Mexico was completely HD - according to the behind the scenes on the DVD. I can't imagine he would have mixed any of it with 35mm.

pJ

[DjfunkmasterG]

Didn't Rodriguez start shooting HD with Spy Kids 2?

I remember reading or seeing in a documentary he won't use anything else.

[MinionZombie]

Didn't Rodriguez start shooting HD with Spy Kids 2?

I remember reading or seeing in a documentary he won't use anything else.
Nope, Once Upon A Time In Mexico was boshed out prior to Spy Kids 2, they wanted to test the tech out a bit before using it on SK2, that's what he said on the Mexico DVD.

[Mutineer]

Frankly, avoid HD cameras until technology has fully caught up to them. Over the last year I have used a variety of filming techniques and cameras, and I say digital video is the way to go. The DVX 100B is a great camera, and gives an awesome look with 24fps on. And if you really want to kick it up a notch, fit a 35mm lens onto the DVX and you get some pretty primo looking stuff.

Sure HD is fine and dandy, but the P2 cards for the HVX 100s are useless, only holding about 3 mins of footage. And even that aside, the amount of room required on a computer hard drive to edit an HD film is nuts. And you can only have HD footage play on HD dvd's...which only play on HD players. Unless of course you convert the footage to standard definition and then burn it to a regular DVD.

So in conclusion, Digital video is the way to go. Film is great to shoot on to say that you've done it, and granted it does look good. But it is far more cost effective to shoot on digital.

The only point I agree on is that digital is the way to go. The rest of what you are saying here is simply wrong and bad advice.

HD has already caught up and is the chosen medium at this point for many digital filmmakers (Format not-withstanding). Whether an HVX200, the newer HPX500 or the CineAlta, et al.

Let's start with a list of films shot in High Def (List is not complete)

Planet Terror
Apocalypto
Star Wars Episode II and III
Spy Kids 2 and Spy Kids 3
Once Upon a Time in Mexico
Sin City
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Russian Ark
Scary Movie 4
Collateral
Miami Vice
Superman Returns
Wolf Creek
Silent Hill (Darkness scenes)
Dogville
4: Rise of the Silversurfer
Flyboys
Rocky Balboa (Boxing match scenes)
Munich (Reshoot on love making scene for International Audiences using an HVX200)

Storage ?

I am currrently editing a feature horror film shot in High Def on a 465 GB External Lacie Drive so storage simply is not an issue whatsoever.

P2 Cards hold much longer than 3 Minutes of footy. A 4GB card holds just over 4 minutes recording time; shooting on 35mm cameras using rolls of film, and a 400 foot mag gives you only 4 minutes of footage.

But forget the 4 minute mark. They have now just released 32GB cards!

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/Drivers/PBTS/brochures/B_P2_16GBRecordTimeChart.pdf

With P2, there is ZERO capture time. Dump the card, it is automatic and ready to edit.

-

Whatever your budget, determine it and then you can start making decisions. The DVX100 is a bad ass camera to this day especially if still honing the craft. But if you ante up to shoot a feature, I'd strongly reccomend moving away from standard def.
Digital Cinema ? Check out the RED (http://www.red.com/).

[georgefox]

go for a sony HD pro camera

they look exactly like film if the camera can do 24P

my dad has one and it looks perfect but very expensive $5000-6000

also hd is a bitch to edit and store you need a dedicated NLE computer with an AVID NITRUS to down convert quickly

[lifelikecarcass]

Now, this brings me to my question - what would be better: Buy or rent a regular film camera and film my movie, then take it to a shop to get it processed into digital so I can then edit it on my computer...
No offense, but you need to seriously rethink that plan.
Research what it is you're contemplating.
Do you know how much a film camera costs to rent, let alone buy?
Film makers don't normally buy them, they rent.
Which is still very costly

Not to mention the film stock.
Having film converted with a telecine is also VERY costly.
It's not like having 35mm negatives put onto a CD.
The resulting image sequence would be a few hundred GB in size.
And that's just an image sequence, not video.

I read in Digital Cinematographer Magazine that it's not unusual for the transfer costs of a feature length film to be over a $million$.
That's just to transfer the actual film to digital via telecine.
They charge by the frame. So that's 24 frames per second, for say 120 minutes.

So you'd be doing all this, and then you'd bring it home and edit it on your Dell or iMac with what? iMovie or windows movie maker?

The film look you're after is a result of framerate, film grain, and color grade.
There are many new HD cams that do 24p framerate, in a widescreen aspect ratio.
Any non-linear edit system like final cut or adobe premiere have film grain filters to give it that look.
The problem is color grading.
Film has better color because it's captured on light sensitive material instead of coming from a charge coupled device and represented by 1s and 0s.

So there's the dilemma.
If you don't have a huge budget, renting a film camera and having it transferred is NOT an option.
So you fake it.
It shows ingenuity and creative prowess.

Personally, I don't see the "film look" as being something so all important that I'd go through all that just to get it.
In reality, it's about the story and how you tell it.
Film or digital, that's just the medium used to tell your story.
When you focus on things like film or digital, the story becomes secondary and it shows.
So you go through all the trouble of faking the film look and you kill your story.

I'll stick with HD, it's an acceptable in between.

Truth be told, I prefer 3D stills.

It keeps automerging!


Get one of the newer expensive HD film cameras (like the Canon XLS series) and film on that and try to find ways in post to trick the eye into thinking it was filmed on regular film?
The trick is actually to tell a compelling story in a creative way that makes the method or medium irrelevant.
People don't sit around thinking about whether a flick is shot with film or digital unless it's a point of discussion.
People want to see the movie, and would much rather see a good storyline than be tricked into thinking it was shot on film.
In this aspect the only eye you'll actually be fooling is your own.
The camera is just a tool you use to create the image.
The story ALWAYS comes first.


Does anybody have any experience with high-quality film production that could offer some advice as to which route I should take? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
I've never created an actual film, but I've been working in a creative field for 6 years.
I went to VFS for awhile(didn't finish) but I collected alot of knowledge regarding visual storytelling.
I work with a local studio as a freelance videographer sometimes.
I also handle some of the technical aspects and editing occasionally.
This is small scale, and in no way is as glamorous as doing films.
I have done some film work on a personal level, although I wouldn't exactly call it high quality as my resources are limited.

In my opinion, if you have the means to get your hands on a good HD camera, and have the resources to support production in HD then that's the route you should take.
Otherwise I would suggest pro-sumer DV.
Hell, I was doing backyard films on Hi-8 in high school and shooting school events.
My advice would be don't worry about the "film look" because nobody really cares what it's shot with.
Is the creative vision of your story dependent on the film look?
No.
Why or how could it be?

Case in point, Cloverfield.
That was a major film that was shot mainly on handhelds.
Shot in a creative way.
You don't have to like the film to appreciate the point I'm trying to make.

By obsessing about this film look you can't let go of, you're creating an obstacle that has the potential to ruin your entire vision.
I don't know what you mean when you say digital video hampers the believability of the film for you?
I mean, you know it's a film. And nothing is gonna make you believe that what you're seeing in the film is actually happening.
Film doesn't simulate reality and suspend your disbelief.

It's just a medium used to tell a story visually.
If your concepts and ideas are solid and well structured, and you can use the camera to bring that to life, what it was shot with makes no difference.
Film requires excessive resources to support properly.
Digital allows you to transcend that and brings that ability to people who don't have those resources.

So many people get caught up in all the technical and equipment aspects of film.
And they totally miss the point of it all.
To bring your vision to life.
A good artist finds ways to overcome his limitations.
He's always brushing up against technical limitations, which is where the real creativity shines through.
You have to think outside the camera and constantly push the envelope.
It's how you deal with your limitations that defines you.

One person might be able to make something with a little handheld DVcam that blows something someone else made with a high end film cam off the planet in terms of creativity and depth.

Seriously, you really need to let go of this film vs digital obsession and just make something.
It'll be an incredible learning experience where you get to know yourself as an artist, and then you'll look back on this discussion and wonder WTF you were obsessing over.