View Full Version : Realism or pessimism? (wake me up!)


Dan Diaconu
July 16th, 2005, 10:26 PM
A few years ago, a really upsetting new kind of shows made "waves" on TV: REALITY shows. A few years before that other kinds of shows were shaken by the advent of Digital Cinema (HD cameras) and shows "traditionally" shoot of film (16mm) have switched to HD (X-files). A few years before that movies shoot on 35mm (and intended for TV distribution) started being shoot on macaroni (16mm). Ok, you got the picture.
Back to "our days". HD is getting grounds. Consumer HD cameras?
Hi8 (back in 1992?) would have been a dream format for the 80's television.
Now HD is pretty much in everyone's hands (who can afford it and can generate a return on investment, producing a material that would SELL!!!)
Most of the new generation of "film makers" (is just the term, no kind of pun intended) have not touched a film camera, they are flipping from one NLE system to another and trying all that used to be TABU and only avail to Grande post houses. The same new generation, does not seem to have the patience (nor the tools that would have required) to "set up" a shoot and do it the "old fashion way". Most of the shoots are "gun and run" style.
More and more are shooting and less and less are watching.
50 years ago, there were a few movies made every year and everyone watched them. Now a day, people seem to be more interested to PAY!!!!!
repeat: PAY!!!!! to have THEIR SPECIAL EVENT MEMMORIES shoot (Weddings, etc) than ANY other show. Theatre attendance decreased steadily (and the trend continues) with the explosion of digital cinema (big screens) OK; we have big screens, we have hundreds of channels (no need to go over the quality of the programs) and countless DVD released (own your copy today- or at least rent it!)

Who cares any more about quality shows? Are there any quality shows?
Are the shows/movies that have A LOT of production value GRAVED into the making going to see REVENUE?

Is it not a bigger RISK to go for a BIG SHOW, rather than smaller and AIMED to a SPECIFIC market (or even made for direct customers) productions?

And if that would be the case, who on earth would care to get the "film look" (with all the work/equipment and trouble implies)???????????????
For what kind of show???????

Who would be PAYING for a production shoot on DV to get the extra production value? Is this a REAL market? Is this market capable to PRODUCE QUALITY and shows that would PAY?

To somehow summarize the above:

Is it not the future belonging to "just video" and this last "desperate attempts" to preserve the "film look" will be long gone before we know it?

I am anxious to hear anyone's working and EARNING a LIVING shooting or editing this kind of material opinion on the matter.

Stephanie Wilson
July 17th, 2005, 12:00 AM
Dan,

So sorry to say this, but your post seemed like a running sentence rant and I really didn't get the point even after reading it carefully several times. I'm sure alot of the viewers of this site would be more than willing to contribute an opinion if they knew the exact point of your post.

Your post was obviously heartfelt and passionate but would you consider editing it and making your question more understandable? Maybe I'm just too "simple" to get your message.... I hate reality shows as much as you seem to and I would love to rant along with you.

Much happiness,

Stephanie

Dan Diaconu
July 17th, 2005, 07:24 AM
Thank you Stephanie,
my previous post wasn't too concise.
Here it is again in a few(er) words:

Chaplin's DVD's sell for over $20. The film cameras used (on his first movies) did not even have a tacho to regulate the speed of film passing trough the gate! There was neither FCP nor Avid. Yet his movies still make me laugh and cry EACH AND EVERY TIME. I do not have this kind of emotions provoked by contemporary works (regardless the length of the worms)

Give a thousand monkeys 1000 Macs (or PC's) Do you get 1000 Shakespeare?

It seems the better/more affordable the tools, the less skilled craftsmen. Again:
The less it costs to produce a show, the more "garbage" we all get.
Paradox? Reality? Does it make sense?

We can "all" shoot and edit to tell "nothing"! What is "worth while" watching these days? Hasn't TV become just "chewing gum for the brain"?

We are EVERY DAY discussing the "tech" aspects of production (and post) and not much of "substance"! Is there any of it left?

To top it up: I see quite a few enthusiasts (myself included) going the extra mile to get the "film look" on video.
To shoot what????????????
Felix? (...and friends)

Is there a REAL NEED for it or just a trend and "mass hysteria"? Does anyone know the answer?

What kind of shows now a day would USE and PAY to get the “film look”?
Is there a market anymore for this extra mile? Or is just TV and nothing matters anyway, the show must go on and the shows WILL go on, with or without a film look. I’d be curious to hear from Charles. You got recently the Mini35. What did you shoot with it? I would like to understand the substance of this “trend” (if there is anything to understand and make sense of)

Boyd Ostroff
July 17th, 2005, 07:59 AM
I have to agree with Stephanie, and even after reading your second post I'm not sure what the point is. Are you asking whether it's worth striving for a "film look?" Personally, I think that term has become such a cliche that it's meaningless.

But I see some very good work being done with video. I don't care whether something was shot on film or video as long as it is well crafted. Long before video came on the scene people were making lousy movies with film cameras too.

I read an interview with Spielberg as part of the WOTW PR blitz where he talked about how much he loved film as a medium, and not just the look of it but the feel of holding it in your hands and the physical action of cutting/splicing it. He said they edited the movie by actually cutting film which is almost unheard of today in Hollywood. This is part of his background and represents feelings which have formed over many years. For me personally, I can't identify with this since my film background was limited to the 8mm stuff I shot with my friends when I was 14 years old in the early 1960's :-) I don't feel any need to return to that...

But in the same interview Spielberg mentioned his upcoming collaboration with Lucas on the Indiana Jones sequel. He said "If anybody could convince me to shoot digital it would be George."

K. Forman
July 17th, 2005, 08:13 AM
I think he is saying, you give a monkey a camera and a Mac, and you have network TV.

Boyd Ostroff
July 17th, 2005, 08:16 AM
Same as it ever was, but the monkeys were using film cameras before...

K. Forman
July 17th, 2005, 08:21 AM
And, going from banging the rocks together to using a Mac? Not really an advance... ;)

Richard Alvarez
July 17th, 2005, 08:39 AM
I could be wrong, but I think English is a second language for Dan? If that's the case, I applaud his effort to open a dialogue on film aesthetics in a second language. I couldn't do it in French, and I lived a year in Paris.

I took his rant to be an exasperation of the focus on technichal minutiae over content, no? A deep reading of similar threads on this board will eventually uncover the mantra "Content is King"... which is what I think most of us will admit to. In which case, how come so much crap makes it to the screen?

I think the answer is that there is so much more screen to fill. In a macro sense, you see the same phenomena in the news world. When all the news you were going to 'see' was crammed into thirty minutes in the evening... it was pretty much the most important stuff. Now that news is "entertainment" and profit driven... (remember, it's only recently that news divisions were expected to MAKE money)... you have to fill the airtime 24/7 with SOMETHING... ANYTHING that will keep people from turning that dial. And we know from advertising that SEX sells, and DRAMA leads... (If it bleeds, it leads)

So, to sum up my rant/response. "Yeah, there's plenty of crap floating in the pool... but the cream rises to the top..."

Hmmm.... not sure I want to go wading in that pool anymore.

Dan Diaconu
July 17th, 2005, 12:36 PM
Thank you all for chipping in.
“Less is more” so here it is:

1. Does it PAY (in today's world; see above at large explanations and logistics if need be) to get the "film look" (with all technical, financial and aesthetical implications) for a show?

2. What kind of shows would PAY the extra production value?

3. With a decreasing "trend" from drama to reality shows and now a day towards web intended material (mostly info, less artistic content) is there a "market" willing to PAY for extra quality?

K. Forman
July 17th, 2005, 01:14 PM
I'm sure Sci Fi channel spends a pretty penny on their original series, like Stargate. History channel and Discovery channel both have a high quality to them.

Mike Teutsch
July 17th, 2005, 02:05 PM
Just a short response. Content "IS" still king, but I fear the king is dying. When you see a movie and find yourself engrossed in it, then you have to go see it several more times to catch how it was shot and look for technical features, it was shot with content. Does not happen that often anymore. Special effects have overtaken content as the dominating part, and that is sad.

I think the film look WOULD eventually die, except that it will eventually just be built straight into the cameras from the factory! After all, isn't that what most of the posts are here? Whose camera will have that great film look, without working at, just push the right button! Perhaps that is not really so bad, as the film maker can concentrate on content! That is if they do not have all those great special effects in it!

Mike

Dan Diaconu
July 17th, 2005, 04:32 PM
Although content should prevail over form, the real king (I think) is "budget". period. Have it, and you have it all, have it not, and all the meanings are lost in "whatever HIS majesty allows us to do”.
I must confess now: I have done something over the last three hours I haven't done for quite a few months now: watched TV!
I was curious to see first hand what "grabs" me. I found that "hard core info" (Discovery) was on top of everything else. We live in an explosion of information times. Net, TV, who's got time for "who-knows-who's" bed time story? Although there may be plenty of romantics out there with time on hands for that kind of shows, I think I got a glimpse at what the future lays ahead of us. On top of that, I found this link in my email box:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4681859.stm

But I do not think our times are more troublesome than the “sound picture” was a short while ago....(blimp-ing the big dinosaurs to be able to record sound... what a pain....)

Mike Teutsch
July 17th, 2005, 06:43 PM
Although content should prevail over form, the real king (I think) is "budget". period. Have it, and you have it all, have it not, and all the meanings are lost in "whatever HIS majesty allows us to do”.



That's it! That expains "Istar" and "Water World!" :) :)

Mike

K. Forman
July 17th, 2005, 08:43 PM
Water World had at least some redeeming value! What about when the girl messed up Costner's boat, so he hacks off her hair? Then, the woman ends up the same way? That was hilarious!

Ishtar, on the other hand...

Dominic Jones
July 17th, 2005, 08:54 PM
A quote from said link:

Paul Brett, a former head of exhibition and distribution at the British Film Institute (BFI), pointed out that a strip of celluloid has black bars dividing each frame.

Digital film does not have these and, as a result, "in layman's terms, it's 15 percent brighter."

- Now, I might be being stupid here, but does that sound like a total crock to anyone else??!

Sounds a lot like a guy who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about to me - it's not as if the black bars get somehow distributed across the frame!! Not to detract from the piece itself, which I'm sure in general is accurate - but that's what we've got to put up with over here.

No wonder the British film industry's in a shambles...

Patrick King
July 17th, 2005, 09:08 PM
Dominic,

Write Paul and tell him the whole dang MiniDV tape is black, so that must mean its 85% dumber (15% brighter + 85% dumber = 100% technobabble?).

Dominic, film may be darker than most video, but I'm with you in thinking its the purposefully cinematography creating darker lighting and not the little black places between frames. If that were true, we could remove the shutter from the film projector and just let the film be continuously projected as it passes the arc-lamp. That must be it, he uses a shutterless film projector and he gets to see the little black bars between the frames so he gets his money's worth out of watching films; 15% darker be damned, at least he's watching the whole film. LOL

Matt Brabender
July 19th, 2005, 12:58 AM
To the question of what is worth going the extra mile to get that 'film look'?

That really takes you to the core question of...
how should the story be told?

which brings you to the core core question of...
what story should be told?

and those questions have not, and will not change

circles are fun

Be dismayed all you like about the content displayed on your TV, but know there are still an endless amount of interesting stories to be told, by great story tellers - this is yet another thing that has not, and will not change.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to say pessimism - dig deeper or in other places to find the satisfaction of watching and creating movies again. It sounds to me Dan, that you've been eating too much of the garbage that television corporations have been feeding you.

Dan Diaconu
July 19th, 2005, 02:18 AM
It sounds to me Dan, that you've been eating too much of the garbage that television corporations have been feeding you.
Thanks for the replay, Matt. However, if you read my fourth post, you'll see how much I feast and how much I swallow TV these days. I do not know why, but I am not tempted in any way to turn it on. I guess I am out of the habit of (wasting?) time (that way!)

Now... please do not take me wrong. There are a few good programs running at any given time of the day, but (philosophically speaking) do I NEED that? Can I live without it? What is a MUST and what is OPTIONAL? (hehehe, not to me!!!!!! to average viewers this time!!)

This may just hold the key answer to my question. A MUST is a video camera, a story..., (hmm.... more or less), something there (walking, talking, jumping singing... whatever...) and you have a "show" that will fill some air time. The best? average? worst? I think is not at all relevant. There will be some to watch it anyway, so why bother spend mental energy and MONEY ? Is just "air time"...

Did you notice how much the big budgets have dropped lately? (Passion of.... and Blair Witch have something in common: the marvelous marketing plan; whoa... is so .... controversial, so brutal, so... and so... just to get you in there ...and.... hehehe......pay for it!!!!!!!!!!!! ) Legal disclaimer: I am a big fan of Gibson, I own and I have watched over 50 times Braveheart!

Why (if all of the above are wrong) on earth such shows as reality shows (TV this time) have proliferated the way they did? Cheap and fast to produce the "air time" that needed be filled. Even on Discovery... (no offence to any bike lovers) I do not understand making a show specific about bike building. The “ideal program” should captivate a larger audience with subjects of general interest (within the boundaries of the program).
Yeah... I know.... define “general”!

If this IS the trend (not to mention the SEA of info on the net to explore and learn) who's got time for "bed time stories"? IF!... the “bed time stories” would be told the way they used to... I’d be happy to watch them again and again (as I do with My Fair Lady for ex)

Another one: (hehehe...) which one was first the chicken or the egg? Translation:
Have the lesser quality shows created a dumb-er audience or the dumb-er audience has favored the proliferation of today’s shows?

Am I really “loosing it” or did I just get the “hang of it”?

Enough ranting! Back to the subject: Is there a market that PAYS for DV originated program to have the extra expense associated with the use of a contraption such as imge converters? What shows?????????????

Matt Brabender
July 19th, 2005, 02:37 AM
well if that's the question, then isn't it the case that those that are willing to pay for film looking dv, actually just take the extra step and pay for film?

I've seen plenty of pilots and shorts done that look like film, that get picked up and redone / go into production using film, but I cannot say I have seen something 'film looking' that isn't actually film (that has been bought by a network/company etc...)
so in that case, I say realism

Dan Diaconu
July 19th, 2005, 10:02 AM
well if that's the question, then isn't it the case that those that are willing to pay for film looking dv, actually just take the extra step and pay for film?
Nope. It is a steep price diff (imo) between using an image converter on mini DV cameras and shooting film (even 16mm). Hence the same question: if “his majesty-the budget” does not allow much... how much is too much? and what shows would have the budget for it?

Reality (thank heaven) is out of the question (too fast of a pace to set up shoots. Rehearse the action for framing and focus pull? A good joke at best!). Artistry in tech and info aired programs is not a must either. News? OOTQ! What else is left? Struggling independent festival-intended shorts. But they do not have any budget anyway. So... what’s left?

Well... if there is not much left, then the “mass hysteria” to get the “film look” must be an artificial fight against the current, wouldn’t it? I welcome ANY disagreement with the above. Is it actually easier than I think to shoot "that way"? What am I missing? Wake me up, please.

Matt Ockenfels
July 19th, 2005, 11:40 AM
[QUOTE=Dominic Jones]A quote from said "in layman's terms, it's 15 percent brighter."

Hey, that's not stupidity, that's salesmanship!

Cheers,
-Matt

Nick Hiltgen
July 20th, 2005, 12:36 AM
UMM, 15% brighter? The heck? So what happens when a film is shot in HD and then telecine'd. When it was shot it's got no lines but projected it has the same black bars on either side as "real" film, so is it brighter or darker? isn't it all about the shutter anyhow, I don't even know where to begin with something as silly as that.

As far as the running conversation, I think that Dan as long as you strive to watch interesting (non bubble gum for the brain stuff) there will always be a market for it, even if that market only consists of you.

Here's my take, if you strive to make everyone smarter you will fail, if you strive to make an audience think and change the way cinema is made you will fail. If you make the best product you can and it doesn't appeal to everyone, but you're proud of it, then you've succeded.

Dan Diaconu
July 20th, 2005, 07:16 AM
<<<QUOTE=Nick Hiltgen>>>as long as you strive to watch interesting (non bubble gum for the brain stuff) there will always be a market for it, even if that market only consists of you.>>>/QUOTE<<<<
Define "interesting". The reason I have had the TV turned on lately, was to check the image converter (lol) For the same reason, over 6000 people must have missed "interesting" TV programs checking out Felix and other silly pictures on my site. ...Talk about "interesting" huh?

>>>>>if you strive to make everyone smarter you will fail<<<<<<<
Correct! But I feel less miserable than knowing and doing nothing! I have a lot to learn (who doesn't?) and I am happy!!! to have stumbled across this forum.

>>>>if you strive to make an audience think and change the way cinema is made you will fail>>>>
Right again, but I am not alone. Again, I feel better standing up for my beliefs than watch everything going down the drain with a smile..

>>>If you make the best product you can and it doesn't appeal to everyone, but you're proud of it, then you've succeeded.<<<
I do not know about that. I have had this kind of "success" before. Not appealing anymore. I’d like to see people happy and using the “instrument” I have made NOW, not "immortal" after I'm gone. I watched with tears in my eyes a private clip from Daves when he succeeded making his contraption (shaking a Fresnel). I am happy I made a difference.

Charles Papert
July 20th, 2005, 09:43 AM
Thank you Dan for inviting me to comment on this back at the beginning, I didn't see this thread until now.

I think there are a few ideas going on in here--if I have it right, the main one is "is anything of quality being done in television?" along with "what is the correlation between the advent of digital video and the proliferation of reality/junk TV?" and a little bit of "is there call for the "film look" in this environment?"

I wish reality TV would crawl back in its hole also. On some level it's here to stay, but I also recognize that everything moves in trends and there will always be a desire to see scripted dramas stories as well.

The big issue is the shifting landscape of the structure of television. Not all that long ago, it was three networks, PBS and a handful of UHF stations competing for your attention. Now we have the "500 channel" reality, plus those shiny DVD's and videogames all fighting for the viewer's attention. Tivo was another nail in the coffin--now anyone can zap through commercials unseen, complicating the economics further.

I do believe that there are quality shows on television buried like shiny nuggets in the mud. In the past few years I've been focusing on pay-TV series more--HBO and Showtime have some really strong ones.

To attempt to bring some of the other issues presented here into focus, let's look at Fox's "Arrested Development". I believe this to be the best network half-hour comedy at current; it's shot on 24p HD in a psuedo-reality style (all handheld). As far as I'm concerned, it could be shot on DV, with or without ground glass devices, or film, or whatever. I'm all about the writing and performances with that show, and hardly notice the look (which is deliberately raw anyway). I had always thought that this was probably a relatively inexpensive show to make, but a friend at Fox told me recently that I was mistaken--between a large cast that is in nearly every episode and a hefty above-the-line (Ron Howard and Brian Grazer's participation insures this), it's actually a pretty expensive show. In light of that, the shooting format is almost irrelevant--the cost of HD vs film is a tiny fraction of the weekly budget (but in true modern economic terms, every below-the-line dime must be scrutinized and squeezed out).

So to try to understand what type of show would a) be originated on DV and b) also want to use a depth of field adaptor; hard to say. DV is considered too "lowbrow" a format for scripted entertainment, partially because of the longterm legacy issues (won't do well in the HDTV future), but it does thrive in the "basic cable" world of gardening/home remodeling/DIY type shows, none of which require a "filmlook". A while back I was contacted by a production person from MTV who told me that they were intending to shoot all of their "film" looking footage with a DVX100a/Mini35 combo from now on (and then I never heard from them again...)

Dan Diaconu
July 20th, 2005, 10:58 AM
Charles, thank you for participation.
A while back I was contacted by a production person from MTV who told me that they were intending to shoot all of their "film" looking footage with a DVX100a/Mini35 combo from now on (and then I never heard from them again...) Sad.
So... it THAT what triggered you to buy the mini35 or did you have it before that? (I know you got it not that long ago, two months???) Any paying shows done with it yet? Did you get yourself some lenses as well or you rent Zeiss when needed?

Charles Papert
July 20th, 2005, 12:58 PM
Dan:

I've had my Mini35 for a good year now. I bought it for various reasons: wanted to use it for my projects and thought I could subrent it to a few rental houses, which I have been doing. Not sure if I will be able to pay it off entirely, might even sell it before too long, who knows. I have built some great mods for it, though (of which I will post pix in the near future).

There are a couple of projects HERE (http://homepage.mac.com/chupap/Film/iMovieTheater28.html), several of which utilized the Mini35.

Dan Diaconu
July 20th, 2005, 02:36 PM
Thanks for sharing Charles, the Undecided looks very good (overall; camera work, directed, DP, edited) Nice piece. The subject is... "subject to...." but for 48 h looks good. (two lenses?) I couldn't help noticing: you do not have any white hair yet!!!! Good for you. As for the rig... the non-laying-eggs-hen goes to... soup!(lol) Post some pix when you can...

Charles Papert
July 20th, 2005, 02:50 PM
I can't remember which lenses we used on that piece--I had an assortment of 1st gen. Superspeeds that summer.

A few white hairs here and there--haven't started showing up in pictures yet, but it's just a matter of time!

Brian Wells
July 20th, 2005, 02:51 PM
Hi,

If I may sound my thoughts. . .

As much as I appreciate (and mostly agree) with popular opinion that a well written series shot on film with professional actors carries a higher production value than a reality show shot on DV, I do think it's questionable whether they provide a higher entertainment value or not. That said, I prefer the former.

I think DV in television and movies is a great thing because it opens doors for us youngins' looking for work. Case in point? I'm 21 years old. Last year (when I was 20 years old) I worked as a location sound mixer on a nationally broadcast reality series and have subsequently been added to the IMDB. Would this have been possible ten years ago? I don't think so!!

Objectively, we need to look at what opportunities this 'revolution' brings instead of bemoaning the lack the quality entertainment. I'd say my mood is OPTIMISM. : )

Brian Wells

Dan Diaconu
July 22nd, 2005, 02:11 AM
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/s1is/2005/05/agfa_bankrupt.html
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/s1is/
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050719/LIFE/507190315/1005