Film vs Video Article

[David M. Leugers]

For instance, the old black and white Andy Griffith show was shot on standard 16mm but because 16mm was not considered a "professional" format, it side stepped a number of union related requirements and that led to problems later on during distribution. Later they had to switch to 35mm

Wow, I didn't know that! I can't say I ever noticed a difference on the TV... Regular 16mm can look awfully good especially on SD video.


David M. Leugers

[Mitch Perkins]

the switch to HD brings with it other considerations that go beyond technical or asthetic issues; most of which we can't even imagine because we don't have to deal with inane things like holding up a shoot for half an hour while waiting for a union greensman to come move a tiny, potted plant to the other side of the set.

Roger

~:?)

Now I'm interested - what makes the switch to HD worth it, for some shows...how do they deal with the consequences of not taking into consideration these other...considerations.

Mitch

[mattias]

The issue Roger and I were discussing was achieving a retro 70's look.

that's exactly why i think you're being too postmodern. isn't it more important from a storytelling perspective that something looks like the time period rather than like something from it? ;-)

i can assure you though that a film neg straight off the scanner looks almost exactly the same.

Well, it's that "almost" of yours which introduces subjectivity right back into your assurance, and we're back at square one.~:?)

almost simply means that it's not exact. no subjectivity implied. one red camera example "almost" looks the same as another red camera example too, and no two film frames look exactly the same either. but they share a bunch or properties that constitute what i'm talking about.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

the switch to HD brings with it other considerations that go beyond technical or asthetic issues; most of which we can't even imagine because we don't have to deal with inane things like holding up a shoot for half an hour while waiting for a union greensman to come move a tiny, potted plant to the other side of the set.

Roger

~:?)

Now I'm interested - what makes the switch to HD worth it, for some shows...how do they deal with the consequences of not taking into consideration these other...considerations.

Mitch

Well, the consequences are going to be different from scenario to scenario. Anytime you introduce something new into the mix, everyone involved (read "threatened") will eventually pop up and start hammering away with their concerns and it can get down right silly. As another for instance, on a union show, you can't just have a non-union actor do a bit part without all kinds of waivers from SAG or you risk a shut down. Another example, if you are making a non-union picture in Los Angeles and you send your 35mm footage to the lab, don't be surprised if it takes second position to footage from a union project, even if you got your film there first. If you have 35mm footage from a union feature and you want to screen it in the city limits of LA, you have to hire a union projectionist, even if you own your own 35mm projector. When I was negotiating with the Academy of Motion Pictures Film Archives, one key factor in them purchasing Sniper units from us was that our units were made from pre-existing "amateur" equipment and, thus, they could transfer footage themselves without needing a union projectionist or telecine operator.

The effect of HD technology on union agreements can be pretty extensive, since everything related to the film making process in Hollywood is controlled by unions. The camera operators, the loaders, the grips, the gaffers, the labs, the telecine operators, everyone, even the guys that pick up the film at the airport and take it to the labs are union members and, historically, all the unions bind together when one faction's job security is threatened. Thus you might find the union greensman standing his ground and refusing to move a tiny, potted plant simply because of a producer's decision to use HD which, somehow, affected the job security of a union truck driver that traditionally hauled the film from the airport or studio to the lab and back.

The same thing happened when motion control was introduced after Star Wars in the 70's. There had been no such previous technology and the ASC didn't know what to do about its members operating a new piece of motion picture equipment, so there were all sorts of waivers and conflicts to work out to prevent pictures with effects being shut down. That's one of the reasons ILM was originally set up in Marin County, to bypass the problems of work being done under union control in LA. I know that unions can serve an important purpose in a lot of industries but, personally, I'm glad I live in a non-union, right-to-work state like Texas. But even with that kind of freedom, if I produced a non-union feature here, certain distributors might balk if they get pressured by the unions that control the studios, so there seems to be no end to it.

Anyway, a new format isn't just about what looks better or is cheaper. "More efficient" often equates to "less paid manhours" and while that is welcomed by the bean counters, it is seen as a threat by most labor organizations. Here on this forum, we do everything pretty much "hands on" so we don't see the business side of the industry and how it is affected by new formats or new technology.

Roger

[themagickite]

that sounds so horrible. is America the only country to operate like that? and does it apply to TV as well, or just film?

i had no idea there were so many hurdles trying to make films, isn't it hard enough to get your shots right?

[mattias]

that sounds so horrible

well, unions are good in many ways and the rigorous rules are meant to tame the studio system, which was all there was before. it's the same with other workers' unions and their view on capitalists as evil, which i guess they once were in a way. however no unions anywhere in the world (?) have kept up with the fact that a large percentage, especially in the movie industry, are independent freelancers or running small businesses now and thus are both capitalists and workers at the same time, which in my opinion is the core of the problem.

(i'm sure npcoombs has something to say on this. are you there?) ;-)

/matt

[Mitch Perkins]

The issue Roger and I were discussing was achieving a retro 70's look.

that's exactly why i think you're being too postmodern. isn't it more important from a storytelling perspective that something looks like the time period rather than like something from it? ;-)

I would love to see you thrash this out with Vincent Gallo. ~:?)

i can assure you though that a film neg straight off the scanner looks almost exactly the same.

Well, it's that "almost" of yours which introduces subjectivity right back into your assurance, and we're back at square one.~:?)

almost simply means that it's not exact. no subjectivity implied. one red camera example "almost" looks the same as another red camera example too, and no two film frames look exactly the same either. but they share a bunch or properties that constitute what i'm talking about.

/matt

To what degree they share them is an issue on which two people might disagree, no?

Mitch

[Mitch Perkins]

The effect of HD technology on union agreements can be pretty extensive, since everything related to the film making process in Hollywood is controlled by unions.

Roger

Yes. What I'm curious about, if you have any inside info, is how the shows that switched deal with the fallout, and what makes it worth it to those shows and not worth it to the ones that didn't switch.

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

The effect of HD technology on union agreements can be pretty extensive, since everything related to the film making process in Hollywood is controlled by unions.

Roger

Yes. What I'm curious about, if you have any inside info, is how the shows that switched deal with the fallout, and what makes it worth it to those shows and not worth it to the ones that didn't switch.

Mitch

My second hand info is sketchy, at best. I know a couple of camera operators that filed a complaint with their union over some low budget union projects because, about a month before the shoot, the productions switched to HD to save money and these guys weren't hip to the technology so they got bounced from the job. They knew film cameras but not HD cameras. Their union basically told the production to pay these guys or the entire project would be shut down so they got paid. But reportedly the money saved by shooting in HD was so great that the producers were still ahead, even after having to pay for an extra operator. As far as television goes, it's all about time, I guess. They tend to work very long hours and it isn't unusual to be editing to within hours of air time, so not having to process and telecine means a lot to television production; probably more so than to feature film production. Again, this is just my guess but it makes sense to me.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

....no unions anywhere in the world (?) have kept up with the fact that a large percentage, especially in the movie industry, are independent freelancers or running small businesses now and thus are both capitalists and workers at the same time, which in my opinion is the core of the problem.

I agree with that but I think the real core of the problem is that unions are now a business unto themselves, which is a conflict of interest, in my opinion. The money generated by union membership fees is staggering. We are talking about very, very powerful organizations with thousands of employees to be paid that aren't even union members, themselves. Think about it. Very sobering. Kind of like the DEA here in the states. If drugs were ever legalized, millions of DEA employees would be out of a job. Unions are very much in the same position where many have outlived their usefulness and just sustain themselves off the efforts of their members. I know many actors in Texas that quit SAG and AFTRA, just so they could get some work. How wonky is that?

Roger

[Will2]

ILM in San Francisco is a Union shop since it was set up in the 70's, they get lots of perks about how they are paid because of that while shops like Sony Imageworks in LA are not union and management has a pretty free hand on how they pay and hours they require (or should I say "expect") employees to work.

There are plenty of crazy stories about Union regulations... I've done some live event tours and always found it funny that you can't carry anything in to a "union" venue when setting up, it must be union cartage guy. You pay them an arm & a leg and they know you have to use them so they aren't exactly motivated. Non-union venues were always a pleasure because people seemed to want to work. Often they were paid close to the same too.

That being said, I'm sure there are some examples of how Unions continue to help workers... we're just becoming more & more white collar here and don't think of all the great things they did for working conditions throughout the years. I just hope China and other Asian countries get unions.

[Mitch Perkins]

I think the real core of the problem is that unions are now a business unto themselves,

Years ago in my yoot, I worked in a Roto pressroom. The union had been in there so long, the pressmen got an hour break...every hour!

Surprise - that room is no longer. The company switched to offset, and there's an interesting analogy there - the roto men saw offset as an inferior process. I could never tell the difference...~:?)

Mitch

[Mitch Perkins]

Non-union venues were always a pleasure because people seemed to want to work. Often they were paid close to the same too.

Here in Toronto, the television commercial production industry has worked hard to keep the unions out - by paying slightly higher than scale and observing things like meal penalties religiously. IMHO, it's worked well for everyone...except the unions. :?)

I just hope China and other Asian countries get unions.

Well in the case of China, of course communism is all about the workers. Hahahahahaha!

Mitch

[sk360]

I've worked on a number of productions over the years and have found that the hours are pretty much the same no matter if it's being shot on film or digital. In fact, of all the production units, it's the camera crew who are generally the most efficent and contribute the least amount of lag time compared to any of the other personnel on set. Honestly, the only time I've head anyone mention how "happy" they were of the monetary savings of shooting on digital was George Lucas :roll:

[marc]

i think super 8 is way inferior to modern video cameras in most ways but one, it looks cooler, that's why i use it.
/matt

As subjective as that may be, does'nt that qualify for complete superiority in it's own right?