Why does video have to look like film?
 

Did anyone else notice the letter to the editor in the current issue of DV Magazine:

"....Why does video have to look like film? Early automobiles looked like buggies until they found their own unique value and form, so why does video have to look like film?"

It is signed by "Dennis Dunn, San Francisco"

It's because it's usually the "home video look" that people don't want. Rather than calling it the "film look" it should be called the "professional look".

Boyd,
Yes, indeed, I did note that letter and found it to be a good question.

Certainly, there is some degree of practical aesthetic precedent that gives the "film look" such a broad appeal, even to those who have no idea what medium they're seeing. Resolution, contrast latitude, etc. all enable true film to express emotion and tone with more subtlety than most, if not all, of today's video sub-species.

But that observation evades the real point of the question, doesn't it? Perhaps the real question is why is video viewed as a perennial wannabe to film? In centuries past, Europeans viewed watercolor as being a cheap and inferior medium to oil-based pigments. But as access to travel and communication broadened, and works from Asia came into public view, it became apparent that watercolor could be just as powerful a medium as oil. Its translucency could be used as an exploitable attribute to achieve effects that would be difficult or impossible to achieve with heavy oil paint. Similarly, in the 1970's acrylic-based pigments were viewed as cheap alternatives to oil. It dried so quickly and did not blend as well as oil, it was claimed, that it would never be a medium of a true artist. But, of course, that, too, was proven silly. I must, however, also note that throughout their respective evolutions both watercolors and acrylics have undergone varying degrees of technical developments to provide artists with broader capabilities within the medium.

So, I believe, it is with video. Film has a powerful, 100+ year legacy which is deeply rooted in its projectability. The sheer costs of shooting and developing film, and the further costs of screening that film, created a wide moat around film producers and enabled them to reap fortunes through controlling, and tolling, public viewing.

Video today represents, in a very real sense, a backlash to film's unapproachability. Its legacy, when viewed in future generations, will be that of its inexpensive and flexible production and distribution, rather than projection. Like watercolors and acrylics, many are already mastering video as a medium as technologists continue to improve the medium.

Unlike the late Marshall McLuhan's observation, the medium is not the message. In my experience, if I find myself thinking about the medium I realize that the message it's portraying is not holding my attention.

I'll stop rambling here by simply suggesting that we're observing a very interesting transitional period for motion media that may not be repeated in out lifetimes. I enjoy both participating in it and observing it.

What do you think?

Awhile back there was a push to get 48 fps in use in movies. It didn't fly, probably because it would have doubled film costs, but it did have a smoother look like video!

The whole point of looking like film is that the DPs who shoot film really know how to make an image stand out, to communicate what is being communicated, to serve the communication.

Video shooters can do the same, especially if they know how to light! That is the real fun of DPing to me! You are painting with light, and the tools are incredibly simple for what you get, a few C-Stands, flags, lights, nets, silks and you can make an image gorgeous!

Another thing, lighting is not always well-lit! One director wanted me to DEGRADE the image, blow out the background, throw the actor out of focus, etc. I tried this and the image was amazing! It totally served the story! (about a dying man's last few days of life)

Good food for thought certainly! As digital projection starts to gain a stronghold in the theatres we'll see how this influences peoples' notion of "film look". This is surely inevitable, and once the process starts it will probably overtake film stock with incredible speed, just as the calculator replaced the slide rule or the CD replaced the phonograph record.

It can be frustrating to bump up against all the limitations of DV imposed by its relatively coarse resolution and severe data compression. The detail that we admire in a film image just isn't going to be there. And we'll need to wait a few more years for mature, affordable HD to play with.

Video is a new medium for me to work in, so I'm just feeling my way along right now, trying things to see how they look. Then I evaluate the results, try something different and hopefully learn something along the way. That's pretty much how I've approached all the visual media I've worked in.

Hahahahaha....if you want your video to be jerky in pans, if you want to get that blurry, morning after look shooting fast motion scenes, if you want much graino, if you want the color balance to be skewed to look like it was lit with candles....go for the film look.

Why don't we go back to sepia toned, maxi-grained, talkies?

If you want to make a romantic, sappy movie, go for the film look.

If you want to strike out on your own, make documentary style movies, if you want to take the criticism of every two bit DP wannabe, shoot it on video and leave it with that cold video look.

No matter what you do, if you don't light it professionally, you'll get crap. It's really that simple.

As Sgt. Friday once said, "I don't invent the facts, ma'am, I just report them".

your "look" should depend on which form of videography you attempt.

IMO, i just cant take a "FILM" seriously if its shot on video. (interlaced or giving the feel of home video). no matter
how well its lit or directed.

when i say "seriously" I apply that I really appreciate the theatrical essence of movies, given that they are shot with film ...This ambience of filmic or theatrical signification just cannot be pulled of with the "look" of 11 o'clock news.

This however has rarely been achived with DV (e.g. Tape, Dancer in the Dark, ect.) and doen quite well in the indie industry.

I think this is why videographers strive for the filmic "look",
hoping to emulate the filmographer in their theatrical productions.

Face it. Video is margarine and film is real butter. You never hear of a dp going for the video look, do you?

Until video can approach the resolution, contrast, lighting dynamics and color values of film, it will be second best and a poor man's alternative.

Heh, if your so against video, and have such low hopes with it, then why are you on a Digital VIDEO forum? Just a thought. :D

Can video be transfered to film and be taken seriously? Of course, it has been done many times. To the untrained eye, meaning your average joe, they could care less if it's shot on video or film.

This kid I know had to do a video project deal for one of his classes, and I offered to shoot his video for him and all of that, and edit it -- all for free, and he turned me down, he knew I can pull off something good too. He ended up using the teachers Hi8 camera and doing something really crappy, in class. Normally I would watch it and support it and think it's cool, but since he turned down my offer, I kind of sighed at the crappiness. Was I jealous because he had like 2 classes in there with lots of hot cheeks watching his poorly made video? Yes, especially since when a week or so previously, I had made a video for similiar purpose, and only one class saw it with all people I don't like in it, they enjoyed it never the less. Oh yeah, just for sake of this relating to this topic, even though his video was really crappy compared to what I could do, he still enjoyed it, and apparently so did others. I guess that makes this relative. :D

My 2 cents: much of the technique to make better film also applies for making better video. But to make video look like film requires subjectivity, because film has many faces and wears many suits (and dresses). So before the film look is tossed about, one should first define what the film look is, for he or she.

There are realities that some people just don't have a clue about. Film, as beautiful as it is, is VERY expensive. There are SO many visions in the world, so many ideas waiting to be expressed, that can now be done because DV is available. Of course, there will always be film snobs. That's just the way it is. So, if you're a film snob, I wish you my best...don't spend any time thinking about all the beauty of creation you're missing because your reality is that video is only video. You are sadly deprived. Oh well, that's life, too.

If you're in a place where you can film because someone else is paying your tab, I'd be willing to bet you weren't always on the dole. Count your blessings, and have a heart for those who aspire to your resources. Pray that they don't become as jaundiced or arrogant as you have become.

Bill, who are you talking about? Me? What I said was this:

1) a lot of film shooting techniques can also be applied to video

2) the film look is allusive and difficult to define because it's subjective.


Re: "Count your blessings, and have a heart for those who aspire to your resources. Pray that they don't become as jaundiced or arrogant as you have become"

You, Frank?
LOL..no way, man. I didn't read anything more than what you said. Yes, I agree with you. I'm referring to those people who turn their noses up a DV. Why are they even on this forum, if that's how they feel? The concept that film is somehow better...it's only what has been around for a long time. Humans don't like change, and most see change as threatening. Oh well....they have my best wishes for enlightenment. I 've seen some very beautiful digital transfers to film. In fact, most film footage is digitized for editting. So how can these film snobs be so out of it?

Bill,

I believe the crux of the want for a film look comes down to acceptance. Most people are actually proud of what they shoot, whether it be a home movie or prize winning short, but become dissapointed when they weigh it up against a better resourced, read: done on film, production. Why is that?

Well a lot of it is the acceptance by the many that this look is how a movie should look, and the attributes make part of the quality of the production you have made.

Narrative for one thing when broken down in film school speak is, Story + Filmic elements (production, composition, FX ect ect) + audience expectation.

The last of those 2 elements relate directly to why a film look really is what people strive for, as well the makers of the movie are the most critical audience you will find.

When you make something you want it to conform and look a way you have established in your head, and it becomes unavoidable that you want it to look like the best stuff you have seen, which is almost always shot on film.

Anyways that was my 2 cents.

Zac

Well, let me suggest a metaphor anyone over the age of 40 can relate to. For years, Americans drove the manufactured products of Detroit, thinking that this was the ultimate in the driving experience. Two tons of Detroit steel were considered the best available. When the Japanese entered the market in the 70's, they turned both production and design on its ear. At the time, there were plenty of naysayers willing to drive their 2 tons at 8 miles per gallon. Times sure have changed. Today, each has its place in driving choices.

All I'm saying is that it's a no brainer to say that there are differences between film look and video look. To say that video can't look beautiful is like saying that film can't do documentary. They are two different media, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. To default for the film look because everyone says it's the ONLY way to go is shortsighted. Sure, everyone would like to have the budget of Speilberg, but, realities are that they don't. An example that comes to mind is ATANARJUAT, recorded on digital, transcoded to film. I actually saw a preview showing that was projected with a digital projector. The movie was photographically beautiful. If film snobbery had kept me away. I would have missed an awesome movie. But, then, that's just one man's opinion...mine. Nothing more, nothing less.

I will say that most paying movie-goers can't tell the difference between film and video. It's only the people that work with the medium every day, that see the difference. It's an illusion created by the industry that film is better. I recognize that my viewpoint is ...umm....well, avante guarde. Ha...so be it. It's not surprising to me that an industry based on illusion, engages in illusion.

Seems what this argument always boils down to is the evolution of an audiences' sense of aesthetics.

There is no question that aesthetics DO evolve. MTV has altered expectations for cutting pace... without REPLACING the old school.

As handheld, jerky video footage became "commonplace" in live news on television, (not to mention junior's birthday party and the office christmas orgy)... the "poor" camera work was introduced as an artistic choice in shows like NYPD Blue. (Forget the fact that I personally hate it... it is a valid choice to have the camera wander around, looking for the subject until it is framed off center...)

The French "New Wave" style was a direct result of the freedom of the euipment, and created it's own sensibility.

DV is introducing it's own sensibility into film, even as film is imposing its established parameters on expectations.

I think the oil-watercolor-acrylic metaphor is accurate. As long as we all agree that ultimately it is the SUBJECT and how you chose to present it. (IE:Story) that is the soul of the art... not its medium.


Its all good.

Richard...

Agreed. The ultimate goal is the message, the art of the creation. We have an expanding palette of tools available to deliver the message. Like choosing the right colors or the right fill music....it's all part of the creators' choices....what makes it "art".

"Why does video have to look like film?"

It doesn't.

Its whatever your aesthetic you want it to be. A film/video look is an artistic choice. The power is in your choice. If your particular piece would be better suited shooting on film, then invest your pennies. Likewise for DV.

Film is expensive, however, the backend of transferring DV to film is also very expensive (16mm, 35mm, or otherwise). Today, if you want to submit your work to a festivals, you send the a DVD or VHS cassette of your work, its accepted by the festival(s), but they screen in HD, DigiBeta, 16mm, 35mm. So you pay for the transfer. It has nothing to do with your look.

Don't delude yourself with cost: It cost you, 10 thousand beans to purchase/acquire your DV equipment/software (cracks, not included), not to mention the upgrades that are around the corner. You could have done a film with that price tag and not have to deal with transfers.

Work them both.

The palette for painting in film, at this time, is much wider than in DV.

Tell me a story...

Cheers!

Derrick

By the way, my "2 cents" and I'm just "giving my opinion" and qualifiers of these sorts tick me off. State you opinion loud and clear! No sense in under cutting it... You'd be lucky if "2 cents" bought you a swedish fish or piece of stale gum.

It seems some think I said don't use dv, only film. I didn't say that. I said film is better than dv as far as resolution, color, lighting dynamic range, contrast, etc. And that you cannot deny.

DV can produce very good pictures if the camera is operated properly and the scene is properly lit. The fact that film may cost more does not make dv's quality any better.

miniDV/DVCAM can look like film. That's actually shouldn't even be up for debate. The proof is there.

However there is a caveat. As long as it's presented as Video, such as on TV, or on a video projector. Taking miniDV/DVCAM back out to a 16mm print doesn't have spectacular results.

A lot of people here invested in these prosumer cameras to achieve a filmic look, and they can reach that goal, without breaking the bank. It takes hard work thought, and this community is a great way to have a resource that people can learn to achieve some measure of success in this endeavor.

You break down the elements into what they are, i.e. lighting, composition, action, etc. They are the same regardless of media being used. Choosing the media to be use creates specific characteristics.

Shoot thoughtfully to challenge yourself.

Don't be a "Jackass" or "The Real Cancun"


John T. - - Without a doubt. I love my XL1S and its frame mode. This is a great/knowledgeable community. Its helped me grow... Are you working in the city?

its irrelevant for people to assume your biased when you express your opinion on one subject and not the other...but thats the moral majority.

lets face it. most of us are involved with DV becuase a couple
notches down the hierarchy from film. Of course DV can produce
footage in the same ballpark, its been done many times, and not by just "experimental FILM makers". its been done by ourselves.

I think this discussion has been spawned numerous times on this board. We all know Its becuase of DV and the theatric implements that we now see HD in theaters. This would be un-heard of 10 years ago. This is why they call it a revolution.

One day HD will be provided to us in the "pro-sumer" market and all of us will be chatting on the HDinfo forum arguing amugst oursleves within general closed minded arguments.

What keeps this all consistant is the fact that most of us support
a new perspective on film making, and i couldnt imagine otherwise.

"The Real Cancun?" I saw that movie (free tickets). It had a nice film look and did it's part with telling a story. Mind you, there wasn't much of a story: these kids go on a drinking/partying spree on spring break: screw each other, thus discover themselves---and some even discover the meaning of life---er, spring break.

Just to provoke...

FREE! HAR HAR. It is free. I experienced it many times, especially living in a fraternity house. Those experiences are yet to be revealed...

My 10 bucks, no way. My time, no way.

Personally I think the big deal isn't so much about getting video to look like film, as it is getting video to look less like video. Some people will think this means getting it to look like film; for others this just means making it look less like video.

Well, after reading the volumes and volumes that have been written on this subject of "film look", I continue to struggle with the investment in time to re-render video footage to try to make it look different. I, personally, and perhaps it's just personal taste, prefer the clarity and smooth motion of video. I do not like the cold, blue color, but that's easily remedied with a sunsoft filter careful white balancing, or post color balancing. 60i lends itself to much smoother slo-mo's which can't be achieved with 24 fps. Again, this is very subjectively my opinion. I shoot an XL1s exclusively in the frame movie mode, outdoor subjects under natural sunlight with VERY slow pans. I continue to receive feedback on the beauty of my work. I don't think much of film critics, and put more stock (no pun intended) in the comments of the viewing public. Not once have I ever had a comment . "gee, that looks so much like video". I think video has one BIG drawback, and that's the lower latitude of CCD's as compared with film. This causes a lot of trouble when finding evenly lit footage, but it's not insurmountable.

I have not been professionally taught and raised with the film look perspective, and so far that has not been a hinderance to me. It may be significant to note that my training is with still image photography. In this field, many years have been spent in trying to achieve clarity(aka hi-rez) and low grain. In a photograph, grain and blur are things to avoid, except for specialty shots. I really believe that people who praise the exclusivity of the film look are creating their own realities. This flies in the face of at least 50% of all posters on this subject, but, it's my experience.

So, for all of you raised with film, I recognize that it's the contemporary preference. I'm just not convinced enough to invest me time and energy in my work to convert it to "the film look".

<<<-- Originally posted by Derrick Begin : its accepted by the festival(s), but they screen in HD, DigiBeta, 16mm, 35mm. So you pay for the transfer. -->>>

Are they not interested in lower budget productions? Since you say they screen HD and DigiBeta, does that mean they're using DLP projectors, or do they transfer these to film also? If they're projecting video anyway, how much trouble would it be for them to also provide a DVCAM deck? And the bigger question, if they aren't projecting video then why not? Seems there's a lot of unknown talent working in DV that needs an audience. With the price and availability of good, bright DLP projection there really isn't any excuse for not putting some of this work in front of the public.

Why try to make potatoes taste like carrots-----Take the medium, and use it to your advantage. Film people (and was once one) often talk about depth of field issues in video---Well some of the great filmmakers of all time--Renoir, Welles etc used an almost video-like depth of field to tell their stories---Action occured on different planes and added to the story. Remember the scene in Citizen Kane where the guy comes to tell Kanes caregivers that he has inherited the money------As he informs them, you can see Kane through a window, playing in the snow-----In my mind, through his imagery, Welles was saying something about the child's place in the world in relationship to those with power----

Here are my 2 cents. I posted it originally somewhere else, but it fits better here.

FILM LOOK vs. VIDEO LOOK

1. Film look is overall better than video look.
2. Video has elements that look better than on film.
3. You should always strive for the best look, not just for the classic film look.
4. One of the biggest misconceptions is that 24 fps gives you a better look than higher speeds. It will give you a lot of motion artifacts that are typical of the film look, but are not desirable, unless there is some special reason. That's why there were always attempts to raise the 24 fps speed up and on some expensive films in the past 30 fps was used but due to economic reasons this speed was abandoned -- not due to artistic reasons. IMAX HD is 48 fps. Why? Because the higher speed simulates better the look as if we pan with our eyes. This is the optimal motion look.
5. The classic 24 fps motion artifacts are naturally present 100% on 24 fps film. 24p/fps is the ideal format because it is the film speed; it can be shown on PAL without speed change and transferred to NTSC. But it is not the ideal speed for the best motion look.
6. Pulldown from 24 fps to 30p/fps crates lot worse motion artifacts than 24 fps has.
7. Native 30p/fps material has more of the classic film motion artifacts look than 30 fps (e.g. NTSC) created from 24 fps.
8. 24 fps created from 30p/fps by eliminating frames has a lot worse motion artifacts than 30p created from 24 fps.
9. Depth of field is extremely important and shallow depth of field is what video lacks most, compared to film. Larger depth of field is often desirable and can be accomplished better with video.
10. Camera movement, artistic lighting, film gamma, unclipped highlights -- all this is part of a film look
11. Special effects are a lot easier achievable on video and film is normally converted to video for good special effects work. So we add video (video look) to film to make it better.
12. Both film and video have their advantages and disadvantages. Video has definitely less motion artifacts, you can see what you're shooting on a good monitor, can replay it back instantly. That is the biggest advantage of electronic cinema. This is what will make movie production better and less expensive and why films days, or rather years, are numbered.
13. The film naturally has better resolution, highlights, latitude, wider speed choices, etc., but with time video will surpass that.
14. Again, forget film look, go for the best look, although from the two, film normally looks a lot better than video.

Joseph:

Many good points. Some questions/responses:

2) What elements of video do you feel look better than film? I can certainly agree about certain applications such as news or sports, the immediacy of 60i video informs the "live" look.

9) "Larger depth of field is often desirable and can be accomplished better with video."

Can we amend this to "accomplished easier with video"? And of course this is gauge dependent--Super 8 has greater depth of field than 2/3" video, eh?

11) "film is normally converted to video for good special effects work. So we add video (video look) to film to make it better."

For features, film is converted to data files which are arguably not video, and in a perfect world the re-transfer back to film is done as transparently as possible, so as not to affect the look of the image except for that which was purposefully manipulated. For broadast work, it certainly easier to do electronic/digital effects than optical since the material is already telecined. Either way, I don't feel that a "video look" is being nominally added.

12) "Video has definitely less motion artifacts, you can see what you're shooting on a good monitor, can replay it back instantly. That is the biggest advantage of electronic cinema. This is what will make movie production better and less expensive and why films days, or rather years, are numbered."

Without question, the ability to view composited effects live on the set will help speed up that aspect of filmmaking. However, video assist and playback on set has been around for many years (thanks to Jerry Lewis!) and it is often debated whether it helps or hurts--more time can be wasted discussing playback than actually doing another take in the meantime. Currently, video assist allows virtually everyone on set to see what they need to see: the director can judge performances, the DP can judge the operator's framing, the mixer can tell the boom operator if he is too close to the frameline. None of that changes on an HD set (except you can't see outside the framelines anymore, which is a loss). As far as the DP is concerned, those raised in the film world may or may not consider it valuable to see the results instantly on the monitor. One downside is having to deal with the unwanted input from the "mucky-mucks", the money folks who love to meddle in the process. Commercial agency people are the worst at this. More time wasted! As far as these being the reasons that film is numbered, I believe that it will have nothing to do with immediate viewing. It has everything to do with lower cost of acquisition and incorporating into what will ultimately be a purely electronic workflow.

Hey Charles,

Good points. I however believe that any time you transfer optical medium to electronic, it is no longer film, it is video. So once you do it with film, you are able to add video special effects to film. The video does not have to be on tape; it can sit on hard drive. So some of these new film effects are actually video effects. So video is more advanced in this area. The new Viper and CineAlta SR: people think of it more as film than video, but it is video. So video can help improve the film look. We need to give video credit.

Super 8 has similar DOF as 1/3" CCD, 16 mm similar as 2/3" CCD.

With electronic cinema you don't have to wait for the next day to see what exactly you have shot. Video assist is great but not enough. Good DP can envision how a scene will look like, but on a complex scene you can never bee sure. I think that the ability to see the image right there and replay it right there will allow quicker DP work, actors confidence, etc. So although the electronic media is cheaper, you may need less takes and at the same time may do more takes without any film waste. I think that the instant image preview through review is the biggest plus of electronic cinema -- or actually video that is outgrowing film.

These are my 2 cents.

Your clarification about electronic=video: understood.

One thing I am very curious about is how the "Director's Friend" type consoles as used with raw data cameras will affect things. As a DP, having to work with an engineer on set to "dial in" an approximate look for everyone else's benefit may be time consuming (not generally part of the film process, for instance) and still that won't be the final look of the project. Yet the afore-mentioned mucky-mucks (or at the very least, the director) will likely continue to ask "is it going to look like that?" When you've given the AD notice that the set will be lit and ready in 8 minutes, and you've still got plenty of notes to give to the gaffer, key grip, operator, dolly grip etc., it's a real drag to have to spend that precious time playing the politics game over the nuances of the image on the monitor. Been there...

I think we agree that digital is ultimately the medium that will replace film, although I suspect that my timeframe is a bit longer than yours. I have had the discussion with my colleagues that we are in the middle of a technological transition, the likes of which has not been seen in this business since the coming of sound. At that time, the relatively mobile and compact (and noisy) cameras were suddenly being enclosed in soundproof "iceboxes" that eliminated their mobility and slowed down the production process (see "Singing in the Rain"). Stringing cables and dealing with bulky HD video village setups that have to be sealed from external light is reminiscent of this, as well as the sheer size and weight of the Panavised CineAlta and Dalsa cameras (the Viper, as seen at NAB with its onboard digital recorder, is looking pretty good in this regard!). It's an awkward time, and it will be quite a while before the process is streamlined enough to really see a time savings, in my opinion. But as I said, I think we agree that it will happen.

Cheers,

Chas

I don't know if someone said this before me but I've heard a saying once that really made me realize why I love film more than video:

Video is what the eyes see,
Film is what the mind sees.

I thought it was both interesting and true :)

Charles,

This is what I think.

I see major technology changes roughly every 1/4 of the century. 1st was the talkies, then color film and B/W TV, then color TV. Now is the dawn of HD era.

VHS has been around couple of decades and I think that it was the worse thing that could happen. I wish it never happened. I wish we still had people using Super 8 for home movies. These two decades were the dark ages that took us 50 years back. I hate TV and everything about it; hardly ever watch it. It's low quality image, not mentioning the junk produced for TV. All this DV through Digibeta stuff is for me nothing more than the necessary evil. It keeps us in dark ages. At the time VHS ruled we saw the whole culture go down. A lot of changes happened in the society during that time period.

Now we are coming out slowly from the dark ages. Couple decades ago a student filmmaker shot on positive Super 8 stock, did basic cuts, added sound, and had a product that could be projected to a good size screen. Someone came out with an automatic editing system for Super 8 for some $3K couple decades ago. Then the Super 8 era and the whole culture ended. Drugs, rap, gangs, materialism, Jerry Springer and Howard Stern. The man regressed to being an ape again. Now he will have to learn again how to walk straight. Will he ever? Probably not, except the word I hate -- video -- will be replaced by HD, which too is video; I just don't want to think of it as such. The word video leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Anyway, it took about 3 years to come with new generation of CineAlta (SR). At he end of the 3 years CineAlta basically replaced film for the low-end indie production. In 3 years we will have matured products of the Dalsa-type technology with 8 M pixel progressive scan. Sony will have mature 8 M pixel projection technology products. It will be 2006. At that time CineAlta SR will basically replace high-end indie productions. In 2009 the 8 meg resolution formats will replace studio film production. At the end of the decade film will be history. That is my prediction.

HD will get smaller and better and the production will change. Now we are at the beginning when man is learning to walk straight again. The viewfinders on the HD cameras are so pathetic. You can't overcrank CineAlta, the latitude is poor; the CCD's can't handle typical highlights.

I'm sure glad that the SD technology is going to the end. The better HD monitors have a very nice picture. You can create art with HDTV. What can you create with SD? A truly pathetic compromise. It is as if you'd give Michelangelo a house painter's brush and told him to paint Mona Lisa.

I don't think the discussion is whether film is beautiful, or not...clearly it is. Video has slightly different visual qualities. In the scientific fields, for true reproduction, video beats film hands down. The ability to "adjust" the raw image is where the art comes from. Recording the raw image is art, but, it's also a step in the process. If the image is "pre-disposed" to a certain look, part of the creative process has been taken away from the artist. And therin lies the rub. If the "film look" can be added in post, what a great choice to have. But, I've seen film that was quite ugly(my subjective opnion) and would have been more suitable with the video look. One film, was a story of recovering drug addicts in a half way house. Beleive me, the grainy, romantic look was out of place in the harsh reality of this story.

So, the question becomes, is video a suitable replacement for film? Is something being lost in the trade? In a way, it's like asking, what's better, The Eagles or Steely Dan? Is there an answer? I'm sure someone will pick one of the two and try to say one is better than the other. Video can get better, it's not there yet, but, it's coming.

For someone to say "Video is what the eyes see, Film is what the mind sees", is really being somewhat arrogant. I think the more appropriate way to put it, is as follows:


"Video is what MY eyes see,
Film is what MY mind sees".

I don't beleive it's right to presume, nor to speak, for all of humanity. The beauty and mysticism to art is the old saw..."beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder".

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Ravens :
For someone to say "Video is what the eyes see, Film is what the mind sees", is really being somewhat arrogant. I think the more appropriate way to put it, is as follows:


"Video is what MY eyes see,
Film is what MY mind sees".

I don't beleive it's right to presume, nor to speak, for all of humanity. The beauty and mysticism to art is the old saw..."beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder". -->>>

I wasn't trying to be arrogant at all. What I mean is that I believe that they both are great formats... they just look different. Video is great for sports, documentary and news content as well as for films and especially to learn how to make films and such because it costs so much less. However, I truly believe that film has its charms and it is still the format I long for.

Video has a somewhat "voyeur" feel to it because of the frame rate and saturation of the colors... this is why I say it is what the eyes see... this can change however depending on the person who uses it of course.

*I* believe that film tends to intensify the beauty of what it captures. This is true for pictures aswell... it's because of the quality of the lens and the film itself.

Here is an example. Have you ever seen a making of featurette on a movie? If you have, you'll notice that most of these making of's are made with video cameras. When your behind the scenes, it is obvious that the props ( of let's say a medieval movie ) look like kind of cheesy... statues are made out of plastic, etc. Now when you watch the movie on film... you never have a doubt as the statue is made out of plastic because the grain of the film, lens etc makes all the difference in the world. I find that it creates an image of what you would have in your dreams. Anyways, this is just me.... I didn't want to be arrogant at all.... grrr

LOL....Kevin, I wasn't trying to critize your comments. You make some really valid points. I really love film for its beauty and romantic pathos. I envy those who can afford to use it. I also love video for its reality...its ability to reproduce in painful detail. I love it for its simplicity in getting the image in a distributable format...and for me, that's DVD. I can soften, warm and manipulate video in post so that none but the experienced eye can tell it from film. There's not much I can do about DOF issues...oh well, I pray for a prosumer CCD in a 35mm format that's affordable. HAhahaha, I'm not holding my breath, but, without hope, what have we got?

Thanx for your perspective.

Hehe, it's all good, Bill :) Geez, I'd be up for an affordable 35mm format dv camera too! hwee :)

A thought in the back of my mind has been everyone assuming film standing still. Kodak's new Vision2 motion picture film is a new standout. But has film reached it's physical limits? After all, it is a chemical process of molecules.

Electronics is also a chemical process of molecules. If Kodak came out with a new film with twice the quality (whatever that would be) of current negative film, how would that change things?

CCDs are playing catchup with film but would there be a wall to hit making it too expensive or impractical?

Special effects for film are frequently shot in a larger format, like VistaVision or 65mm. These are scanned at a much higher resolution, like 2K to 4K, in order to apply effects. The only video camera I'm aware of that can shoot like that costs as much as a film camera but storage of the data is a big problem.

"Electronics is also a chemical process of molecules."

In electronic systems it is physical movement of electrons, not chemical process of molecules, but it does not matter. Film is better than film now. Video will be better than film in the future.